Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE ads?

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by carlos_santos|2, Dec 16, 2005.

  1. Is this for real? With the traffic this site gets I imagine there is plenty of room for Google ads to bring in revenue.
    If the full-screen-shock-and-awe-Aperture-ad isn't some sort of prank, the site has reached a new low if this is the type of ad you're courting. Did you miss the whole Google revolution (e.g. why Altavista failed in the end was because of their site becoming almost unusable due to the ads). I have attached (I hope) a screenshot of The Most Obnoxious Ad yet.
    In fact, one of the key revolutionary observations Google made was that ads should be kept as unobtrusive, to the point and as few in number as possible! Photo.net seems to be stuck in 1999 if they hadn't gotten that message.
    Sorry for the rant, but this was just so over the top and clueless if indeed it wasn't a prank that you deserve to be notified ASAP by your readers while you still have any.
    00EXYV-27011484.jpg
     
  2. Carlos , as a subscriber I have not seen the AD, thanks for bringing it up.
     
  3. Since you're using Firefox, you may wish to look into the adblocker/G extension, and the javascript blocker.<BR><BR>I *never see ANY ads here at all, ever.<BR><BR>And it is only fair in return, that I subscribe. I buy stuff from B & H too....
     
  4. Thanks, sorry for being annoyed, it's just more than a bit (distressing?) if this is the new tack the site's taken. Stuff like this doesn't take much (read: one ad is usually enough) to drive readers away in droves. It's a lesson painfully learned four years ago by the big web portals and surely a huge business mistake to make.

    Why don't we run an Adsense or similar campaign instead of the graphic monsters? The point is to keep people interested not annoy them.
     
  5. Same here Carlos, I use Firefox and never see any pop ups. I don't know if that's due to my browser or my subscription status. Either way, that is an obnoxious ad.
     
  6. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    I saw it too. I guess I assumed it was illicit in some way.
     
  7. Carlos,

    What do you expect for free, Carlos? Maybe if more people (hint, hint) would subscribe, there could be fewer ads...
     
  8. Kevin, thanks for the tip but you're missing the point.
    It's not the ads I'm talking about, it's the manner in which they're delivered. I wouldn't mind a sidebar full of them, if they were useful and in good taste.
    As a reader (and there are much more non-subscribers than subscribers), it is visually grating to see an ad. Most viewers of the site are likely to have some design sensibility and be highly technologically proficient.
    We've *all been through this* on the web. Sites that don't "grok" the balance between ad revenue and user interface optimization are doomed to fail (too few ads = not enough revenue. too many or too many obtrusive ads = people leave in droves. just right amount=good exposure plus increase sales). A large lesson from Google was that ads need to be skillfully deployed, non-obtrusive.
    If you notice, my complaint isn't against the product (Aperture's a great product). It's against the 1999-esque visual-assault with which it announces itself.
    And no, installing Firefox popup blockers (which I'm using) isn't the answer. Those solutions are for egregious spammers. Do you really want to be lumped in that crowd?
    This (should be blinking) blink tagged text surely gets your attention but isn't it horrendous?
    Ads are a bit like power tools, used properly they're the bee's knees, but if you use too much force you'll wreak total havoc on your site before you even know what hit you.
     
  9. Jeremy, subscribers are seeing this pop-up ad. In error?
     
  10. PS. Why don't I subscribe? Many reasons, some personal others non-personal, but that isn't the point. We're talking usability so my subscription status is actually rather pointless.

    If the editors want to encourage subscriptions there's better ways than Totally Defeating the usability of the site.

    My subscription status is irrelevant. You folks subscribe probably because you have lots of pictures on here, etc. I choose not to because of my own personal reasons which are orthogonal to this discussion on usability.
     
  11. when you click the ad closed, what happens?
     
  12. Subscribers should not be seeing any ads in the header of the pages. If you are a subscriber, then log out and log back in, and make sure that cookies are not being blocked.
     
  13. Brian, logged in cookies not blocked the huge black ad jumped on 90% of my screen. I switched to firefox to eliminate this in the future. I just can't stand compainies that advertise that way. When will the ad people learn that most people will avoid bat over the head in your face ads, not flock to there product.

    I still love the site.

    ,Grinder
     
  14. Have to admit it's one of *the* most annoying adverts I've seen online in recent times. Why they think it's good marketing practice to annoy the bejesus out of folk is beyond me.
     
  15. If you are a subscriber, and you are seeing ads in the header, please click on this link, and tell me what you see: http://www.photo.net/status
     
  16. I'm a subscriber using Firefox, cookies enabled. I get the Aperture pop up. It is very obtrusive. Brian, I see a blank page when I click on your link.
     
  17. Oops, it says Subscriber Status: 1
     
  18. I saw the same ad in Firefox. To be honest there are so many ads these days that I seen no purpose in subscribing. I'm sure my use of Photo Net is covered by the advertising revenue generated by Photo Net.
     
  19. OK, as of the time of this post, is any subscriber who is logged in seeing ads in the page header? Any ads at all, not just the expandable Aperture ad? I don't mean previously today, I mean starting now. Before posting that you are seeing ads, please click the link I provided above and ensure that it says "Subscriber status: 1".
     
  20. 2 minutes ago when I was not logged in, clicking the link above shows subscriber, "0." I just logged in and clicking the link shows, "1."

    While I was viewing PN without loggin in, the ad does show up and while it's a bit obtrusive, I don't think that it's that, "unbelievably" obtrusive (simple click of "close" took care of it.) I equates it to skipping fancy intros when entering some other sites.
     
  21. Carlos,

    Frankly, I don't think that anyone who doesn't fork over the two dollars a month to support Pnet has ANY business in complaining about ads--period. I you don't like it, go mooch off some other photo site.

    In your caption for the above screen-shot that you posted, you say: "A new low for our beloved Photo.net" Apparently "beloved" in your mind doesn't include the 7 cents per day that a Pnet membership costs........

    That being said, I hope that the Pnet admin is cognizant of the fact that a "barrage of ads" (especially really annoying pop-ups and other instrusive tricks) are not conducive to fostering that warm and fuzzy feeling about the Pnet community that might inspire moochers to pay up.

    Indeed annoying ads is yet another way for people to justify NOT paying for a membership here.........
     
  22. B Diamond, even so your advice was for Carlos, but I will follow it.
    I don't need this BS just because I don't think your site is worth subscribing to. There are plenty of other sites with much less restrictions on picture postings and a lot less snobism. I gladly pay $35 to $70 a year to thouse sites.
    Sionara.....
     
  23. B Diamond, I agree with the second part of your post, but the first part is a bit stuck up indeed. Lots of us who don't fork money over (the main reason being I don't mind the ads...if they're tasteful enough...to pay for them to go away) arguably still provide substantial value to the site via forum discussions and postings (like this one as a matter of fact).

    How sad the day when all that's left is a small community of snobs who pay money to talk only amongst themselves.

    Whatever. I still love photo.net in spite of the snobbery, which is why I'm vehemently against it degrading into a geocities-like ad extravaganza.
     
  24. SUBSCRIPTIONS ASIDE...this is a new trend in advertising I've noticed at a few sites, not just photo.net. It's the "popup" ad all over again, only worse because there's no obvious close button to click.

    I hate to turn off JavaScript completely, but I'm about to over this. I'll try some of the FireFox ad blocker extensions first.

    To web site designers every where: POPUP ADS DO NOT WORK! THEY ONLY ANNOY! The first round of popups annoyed so much that the mechanism is now basically dead, even for legitimate uses. This new mechanism will be squashed to, again harming designers who have legitimate uses.

    If crap like this keeps up, it's going to get to the point where JavaScript is useless because so many people have it turned off.
     
  25. I don't see these as incredibly obtrusive. You just have to click them closed, or else refresh the page. Subscribers don't see them anyway. They are supposed to be limited to one exposure per day. If people are seeing them more often, then something is not working right.

    Incidentally, the benefit of being a subscriber is not "no ads", although subscribers generally do see fewer ads. Subscription isn't actually optional. If you visit the site frequently and can afford it, then you are expected to subscribe. If you visit the site frequently, obviously the ads aren't an impediment to your doing so, and, anyway, if you subscribe you will see fewer ads. If you don't visit the site frequently, whether it is because you don't like the ads, or for any other reason, then nobody expects you to subscribe. Simple.

    But visiting the site often and then justifying not subscribing by claiming that you don't like the ads, or that the ads are paying for your frequent use of the site -- well, that is rationalizing.
     
  26. Daniel,

    Firefox also has script-blocker extensions available.
     
  27. After resubscribing again last week, I see no real change in ads; BUT then I have really not ever seen any ads that are "Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE". In logging in and out I do see Brian's tag toggle from 1 to 0 when logged out. Here with this obsolete scan station's PC I am using Firefox and dialup, and two 333 Pii's dancing at 2 to 4 %. This PC is purposely not on the LAN. I think I last subscribed when Sandy was in "telethon mode" :) a few years back. I guess the ads I see as "obtrusive" are the ones folks place here in their text, hawking products, services, and not paying Photo.net a dime.
     
  28. Brian, I'm a subscriber and I've run into several ads that take over the photo.net home page and forums display in recent days ... running across the screen with no obvious way to avoid clicking on them. And I even tried the "close" button which opened a pop-up in another window. And normally I don't see pop-ups at all unless I let them specifically by releasing restrictions on the browser.

    Ads which take over the content display area IMO are unacceptable, irrespective of whether you're a subscriber or not. Get rid of them, all they do is piss people off. If you need money, ask for donations or increase the subscription cost.
     
  29. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    remember when they started running ads at the begining of movies? i think we're going to have to get used to this.
     
  30. Somebody was harping about adverts a week ago. I tried to find the GIANT adverts using Mozilla, IE, and Opera, and an even an older Netscape version, logging in as a subscriber and not as one. It is abit baffling to do a search, without any clue as to what browser, what thread, what advert folks have their briefs in a knot over them. MAYBE SOME OF US LIKE ADVERTS? "You can have worry free home delivery, CALL TWIN PINES" "In Chicago more people are cooking with gas" "More doctors smoke Camels" "someday you will need a Nikon" Tessar- "The eagle eye lens"......Maybe we need a dash of CHIASMUS Inversion!
     
  31. Carlos Santos said, "How sad the day when all that's left is a small community of snobs who pay money to talk only amongst themselves. Whatever. I still love photo.net in spite of the snobbery, which is why I'm vehemently against it degrading into a geocities-like ad extravaganza."

    I'm a subscriber and wonder what exactly I did to be conveniently categorized as a snob?
     
  32. It is very irritating and certainly repells me from buying ANYTHING advertised this way.
    That said, if it helps this great site stay afloat, I'll tolerate it.

    I think Aperture shouldn't insult us like this. We are'nt Carl's Jr. customers.
     
  33. Eric,

    No, we DON'T have to get used to it!

    Movie theatre ticket sales are down over 20% from last year, due in large part to disgruntled movie goers who now must sit through 20-40 mins of ads and previews before the movie actually starts. Many are choosing to stay home and watch DVD's without ads, $4 bottles of water and $6 bags of popcorn. Theater owners are scrambling to make up for lost revenue.

    Interestingly enough, just a few years ago movie theater owners were feeling quite smug and powerful in the wake of 10+ years of market consolidation that left the US with what amounted only three main movie theater corporations (thus limited competition), few if any independant theaters, and $30 DVD titles or $4 DVD rentals not including late fees.

    So smug were they with their perceived market dominance that they decided to cross the threshold that they had always dreamed about--having us pay them to sit and watch ads in their theaters! ! They gleefully marketed to advertisers bragging about their "captive audiences." In the midst of this greedfest they even seriously considered bringing back the movie intermission as yet another opportunity to sell ads and hawk their overpriced concession goods.

    But then a strange thing happened--consumers said: "No way!" And they looked to other entertainment venues. Rather than just caving in like sheep, people got a backbone and fought back.

    So, if you're sick of annoying, in-your-face ads that MAKE you interact with them by clicking, or closing, or whatever, vote with your feet, your email, and your credit card. Tell the webmasters that your not going to put up with these instrusive ads, and tell the advertisers that you won't do business with companies that resort to these types of ads that really are nothing more that "adverterrorism."
     
  34. Subscriber Status: 1

    ᄅ 2000-2005 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Contributed content used with permission.
    About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA Agent | Privacy
    Tickets | Photo Sharing | Homestar Runner
    Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Kodak digital cameras

    That is what I see using my IE and my Firefox. I have never seen these ads that subscribers and non-subscribers are complaining about. Wonder if I've gone blind?
     
  35. Same here.
     
  36. Trust me you would have noticed this one - roughtly equivalent to a TV ad that doesn't stop until you pick up the remote and physically skip it. *No-one* wants to see ads so the concept of one that demands your attention is always going to spawn bad feeling. It completely breaks your train of thought.

    And on the advertising tack - I never ever knew there was such a thing as a paying subscriber on photo.net until reading this - I think it's PN is invaluable and will pay willingly... but perhaps if you're going to have demanding ads then they'd be better placed publicising the subscription option more.
     
  37. Don't know what you did with this Subscriber Status 1, but so far there have been no obtrusive adds. Thanks for giving it your attention
     
  38. Did get the advert explode on my screen and it was startling in a not too acceptable way so I can appreciate poeple's points. Now it is gone so thanks for that.

    The arguments put forward for not paying a subscription are specious at best, especially if the poster is having a rant about the site.

    Brian - there have quite a few differences of opinion recently about the need to subscribe and I fear the time is coming when you will have to specify what is meant by "frequent use". Reasonableness is becoming a rare commodity !
     
  39. Wilson, apparently it has become snobbish to expect people to pay their subscription fee when using a subscription site. Of course, there's a flip side to that. I can think of many labels for people who use or take things without paying.
     
  40. B Diamond:

    I actually agree with every word you wrote in the last post. For me, advertising before movies was a sacred boundary and crossing it has pissed me off so badly that I don't go to theaters that do it (there are still a few here that don't). I agree that pop-ups that take over the site are incredibly annoying and I prefer to avoid sites tht use them too much. I think Brian might want to re-think the aperture ad. That said, here we are all discussing Aperature and to a advertising execs way of thinking, there is no bad publicity.

    That said and as much as I agree with you and like the way you express yourself, there is no excuse, none, for not subscribing. Photonet is not a free site. It's free to try but you are expected to subscribe. I understand that you feel that time invested in forum postings, advice to to others or whatever is a form of payment, but it doesn't work like that. You can't go to your local store and just start sweeping the floor and then say "Give me some merchandise." The user agreement here is that if you can pay, then you should pay. You don't pay to get benefits like more storage space or less advertising; that's just a bonus. You pay because it's not free. You pay because it's a good site - beloved in fact - and you are using it and you have to support it. In PN, we have a rare resource that's not run by some huge media corporation. It's a small group of dedicated people who have found a way to make a living by providing us with a service we enjoy. They deserve your support and any excuse not to provide it is just .. as noted previously ... rationalization.
     
  41. I've never been to a movie without ads in the beginning. However, nowadays I just rent or buy the DVDs and watch at home. Movies are just a hassle, not worth doing just to see a movie but only as a social event. That said the ads are not that much of a problem in movies.

    I don't think it's necessary to have unbelievably obtrusive ads on otherwise good internet sites. In quality magazines, ads are relatively easy to just skip but on the internet they can be highly interruptive.

    I don't buy anything by clicking on a photo.net ad. I go to the site directly. I don't like the idea that companies can track my purchases and link them to certain people in discussion forums etc. Like I said, if you need more money, we as the users of the site should pay it.
     
  42. It is really bizzare that some folks whine about "obtrusuve ads", but give NO mention of which ad, what thread it was on, what browser was used, etc. It seems like some of this childish whining is made up, since NO references are made to who, what, when, where, why. If you worked as a newspaper reporter or photographer you would be fired for lack of follow thru, ie no real facts, just BS. <BR><BR>If you see stuff/adverts that are too loud why no get off your rears and post some info, like a reporter. That way maybe some of us could see what you are whining about. Giving some clues is helpfull to solve problems, to see if there is a site problem, or a user mental problem. (or more correctly a lower tolerance to advertising). Here I have never seen a full page advert, whether logged in as a subscriber or not. I also have never seen any obtrusive adverts either. Some folks here have mentioned specific ads. I my book this is good, it gives clues and hints to some of us that have searched for them, and never seen them yet. <BR><BR> What if this was auto repair and you said there was a noise, and never could tell the repair chaps when it occured, where it appeared to come from, what it sounded like?. Maybe the advertisers here to would want to know what adverts are seen as too obtrusive, ie thus a negative advert to some. <BR><BR>I repairing optical items, the items we fix at our shop with no clues as to what is wrong get the least "lets fix it today/week" work. Often there is no real problems at all, just a user with a setting or knob wrong, ie cockpit error. Giving clues and details helps find bizzare problems, some which might be real complex or time sink-holes to fix. When dealing with repairs in which the customer has dead batteries, lens cap(s) still on, wrong settings used, one cannot use the harse phrase "user mental problem". One might tell their boss it is a "educational/training issue". Once we had a the same work crew return an optical device many times for repair, with no problems being found ever. The gambit with the workers sometimes is to get out of work since the instrument is down, or scrap it out to buy a better one. <BR><BR>Here in Katrina land folks are buying roofing guns and compressors at the box stores, using them for one roof, then returning them as "not working well" . These take backs drive up the cost of products for honest folks.
     
  43. Maybe I'm missing something but I think no-one mentioned specifics of the ad it because it's obvious from the jpg that Carlos posted which ad he was talking about.
     
  44. >>(like this one as a matter of fact).<<

    If you think this post of yours is a valuable "contribution" to the site you are sadly lost in your own world!

    I assume you have also cancelled your Cable/Satellite subscription because of the ADS? Or do you find TV/RADIO ads acceptable? At least here you can click on the <X CLOSE> button and be done with it.
     
  45. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "I assume you have also cancelled your Cable/Satellite subscription because of the ADS? Or do you find TV/RADIO ads acceptable?"

    i don't subscribe to ABC/NBC/CBC while watching their programs and adverts. I don't subscribe to any radio stations either. Running ads here while a subscriber equates to paying for a movie, sitting in the theatre, and being subject to ten minutes of coca-cola ads. What's bugging me is when the adverts started a couple of years ago, Brian out right stated that it was a non-subscriber infliction only.

    PN started as a grass-roots, non-profit DOT NET chat room that's grown into a commercial enterprise. You can't have both feet in both puddles.

    I say do away with all the adverts and severely restrict the activities of non-subscribers so they feel left out of the fun and have to sign up.
     
  46. Kelley,

    One of the advantages of cookies (at least from a web marketers perspective....) is that they can be used to "geo-locate" where you live i.e. what city, region, etc.

    By using these cookies in conjunction with the google-analytics scripts (that are very quietly running in the background on your computer via your browser everytime you view a web site signed up with google--unless you block these scripts) and web beacons (which are little 1x1 pixel gifs that are embedded into web pages and HTML-based email that are used in conjunction with so-called harmless cookies to send and receive information about your online activities back to the web marketers that plant the cookies on your computer), marketers can find out all kinds of wonderful things about you, including tracking you as you move from one web site to another, what items you look at, how long you look at them, what web sites you visit, etc.

    By using all or some of this info web marketers can target particular cities, browsing habits, etc. in their marketing programs. So, it's not too suprising that not everyone on Pnet is seeing the Aperture ad--it has almost certainly been targeted to specific viewers using technologies like web beacons and the cookies on your computer.

    It is for this reason that I block all cookies from a website except for the login and/or session id cookies. All the other cookies are set to the benefit of web marketers--not me.

    Same thing goes for scripts that are running in the background--I block them unless they are absolutely necessary. The first time you run a script-blocker extension, it is quite suprising to see exactly what scripts are being run on your computer by the web sites you visit without your knowledge and/or consent.

    The problem that web marketers are having is that in recent years even the average internet user has gotten wise to adware, spyware, pop-ups, malicious scripts, and cookies, and they are liberally utilizing tools that eliminate these annoyances. This hasn't gone over too well in the web marketing world, and so they continue to step up their efforts to plant cookies and web bugs on our computers to track what we do. Accordingly, I step up my activities to stymie their intrusion into my life.

    For example, now almost everyone sets up their browser to block 3rd party cookies (which are cookies that are set by parties outside the original web site's domain) that have been used to set adware, spyware, etc. on our computers. But we've become so good at blocking these cookies that the web marketers aren't happy, and so now they set their cookies from the originating site, and the data is then transmitted from the original domain back to the 3rd party web marketers--a neat little slight-of-hand...

    For some interesting reading, do a google search for "web beacons" or "web bugs."
     
  47. Subscriber Status:1
    OS:Linux: Browser:Firefox 1.07

    Hi Brian,

    The problem with this ad for me was that it would not go away. It covers the window almost entirely so that there was no "login" visible, and clicking on it does not make it disappear. I did a click-through, and still no go. I had to go for a work around, which was clicking on "Classifieds" which just poked around the corner.

    Look, I don't mind the ad. As you instructed me before, I don't want to keep your site from getting revenue by installing ad blockers. But at least make sure the ad goes away when you click it! If not, the user will go away, not the desired effect I am sure.

    Cheers,
    Maurik
     
  48. I think PN is more like Public Radio or Public Television. Financially it is member supported and there are frequent membership drives to bring in new revenue. Right there on your TV, mixed in with the big three and all the other cable channels is a channel that puts forth the same rationale as many have in this forum - if you aren't financially supporting the channel you should feel guilty for watching.

    I wonder if all those that are so quick to jump on non-subscribers here also carefully avoid watching or listening to public channels if they do not financially support them. I would bet they do not.
     
  49. >>don't subscribe to ABC/NBC/CBC while watching their programs and adverts. I don't subscribe to any radio stations either.<<

    Do you have cable? Do you have satellite? Do you watch HBO or any of the PREMIUM channels? Millions of paying subscribers do and still get ads. XM RADIO has ads as well. SO, when is the last time you complained to CABLE/TV/RADIO operators about ads? When is the last time you wrote your congressman about ADS on the PUBLIC AIR WAVES (that'll be RADIO and TV). Even public radio/tv are running ads between shows. Operating costs go up, not down and they must be met somehow. Ads are a good way of generating revenue.

    Just because this site requires money to run it doesn't mean it turned into an advertisment cash cow, as you suggest.

    If you restrict the access of non-paying memebers they will never be able to see what the site is all about. In fact, whatever restriction you'd put on it (other than the ones already in place) would be clearly conuterproductive because it would have an immediate, negative reaction from user who couldn't really *use* the site.

    The NET is the way it is, everywhere. Just go to any other site like YAHOO, CNN, MSNBC, SALON, etc... Advertisement is a good form or revenue for many sites however, to say that this one has sold out is a gross misrepresentation. The ones that do (like Salon for example) actually FORCE you to watch an ad BEFORE you can read any content.

    Here, all you have to do is click on the CLOSE tab of the ad in question. HOw difficult is that?
     
  50. Guy,

    I happily support both my public radio and public television stations each and every year with a nice financial contribution. And I will continue to happily support them as long as they do not become little more than ad delivery systems like all the other channels.

    True, public radio and TV are non-profits, but they still pay their employees a nice salary with health benefits for their families--all without barraging their viewers with ads. The key is that they are willingly supported by donors, and that they don't have investors demanding a financial return on their investment--instead donors are happy with the "socio-cultural return" that they receive.

    The same thing applies to Pnet. With all the recent changes and even open acknowledgement from the admin that Pnet advertisers will pay more money for more intrusive ads, I would not want to subscribe for a few years in advance until I know where the ad/subscriber revenue issue will settle. Simply put, I'm not going to pay for the privilige of being inundated with intrusive ads.
     
  51. Kelly wrote:
    "It is really bizzare that some folks whine about "obtrusuve ads", but give NO mention of which ad, what thread it was on, what browser was used, etc. It seems like some of this childish whining is made up, since NO references are made to who, what, when, where, why. If you worked as a newspaper reporter or photographer you would be fired for lack of follow thru, ie no real facts, just BS."

    That's because I didn't look at the ads long enough to remember what they were about. I also use several computers so I don't remember which browser it was. It could have been IE or Firefox 1.0.6, probably the latter. My point is really that these ads should not be allowed in the first place, irrespective of subscriber status. One of the greatest things Phil ever did was a site without obtrusive ads and with an user interace which was concentrated around getting the information. A higher cost of subscription and greater limits on what non-subscribers can do would be infinitely preferable to having ads flowing through the area where e.g. the forum list is, or on the main page on top of actual content.

    I'm not trying to be "a reporter", and thus I haven't written down the details (I have other things to do thank you very much). I only wrote my post because I wanted to note to Brian that subscribers sometimes do se these ads (I know I was logged in because "My Workspace" text was there). Right now I can't see an ad at the top of the screen but that wasn't the case a couple of days ago, and they were getting worse.

    I'm not saying that photo.net shouldn't have any ads. A box here and there, outside of the main text area is acceptable, but as soon as the ad starts "snatching" mouse clicks which were meant to forum topics, things are not the way they should be. This is IMO true even if you do not subscribe. Who would be tempted to subscribe to a site which allows third party advertisers to grab mouse clicks not meant to them?
     
  52. Subscriber or not, an ad that takes up nearly the entire screen and won't go away with a click, is a problem. I doubt Brian would approve such an ad. I'm grateful I never see any ads as a subscriber.

    I don't see how anyone can use the presence of ads on this site to justify not paying a subscription (especially when subscribers see much fewer ads). For profit or Not for profit, it really doesn't matter. The question that should be asked is simple. Is it worth $25 a year to access all this site has to offer? I really don't care who does what with the money. All I care about is the value of the site to me. Unless you're a student, I can't imagine forking over the small sum would cause hardship for anyone with the resources to pursue a photo hobby. Anyone visiting this site likely has a computer, ISP, camera etc. Come on folks. We're talking about $25 not $100 or more.

    For anyone that really can't afford the $25, I wish you well and hope things get better for you financially. For the rest that can afford it but choose not to, don't insult us by rationalizing your choice. It's your decision but don't expect those of us who complied with the site's policy to agree.

    For the record, I'm also one of those suckers who supports public television.
     
  53. I must admit I am not too happy with this particular ad, and on Monday I will be talking to the advertising agency about it. The ad is coming from a third party server, and I cannot turn off just one ad without underfulfilling on other campaigns and other advertisers to whom we have commitments.

    The ad is supposed to be an expandable ad which collapses back into its banner area after a few seconds. It doesn't seem to do that. When I clicked on the "close" icon in my Firefox browser, it did collapse, but the area underneath was not repainted and was just a big white area. I had to refresh the page to read it.
    Finally, the ad is supposed to be exposure-limited to one exposure per visitor per 24 hours, and if the reports in this thread are to be relied upon, that is not true.
     
  54. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Do you have cable? Do you have satellite? Do you watch HBO or any of the PREMIUM channels?"

    no. nothing, hardly watch the thing, when i do it's a rental dvd. but funny how you negate my point about paying ABC/NBC/CBC to "subscribe" though.

    "Just because this site requires money to run it doesn't mean it turned into an advertisment cash cow, as you suggest."

    i didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth. i don't appreciate it.
     
  55. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Brian, are there alternatives to an ad site and returning it to how it once was, ad free? Bigger sub fees? Less activity for non-sub's to encourage subscription?
     
  56. "when you click the ad closed, what happens?"

    You can't click the ad closed... not in Firefox on Linux. When it's done playing, it leaves behind a white box that covers most of the screen. (I posted a screenshot in another thread that was either deleted or rolled off.)

    Flash ads that cover other content on the page are unacceptable, period. If I see another one I will not be renewing my subscription.
     
  57. "I must admit I am not too happy with this particular ad, and on Monday I will be talking to the advertising agency about it. The ad is coming from a third party server, and I cannot turn off just one ad without underfulfilling on other campaigns and other advertisers to whom we have commitments."

    I'm glad to hear that. But what I would really like to hear is that you are punishing this agency by immediately severing your business relationship with them, and publicly encouraging others to do likewise. Make an example of them so that other third-party ad services put stricter criteria on the media they serve. Advertisers seem to think they have a right to intrude in anyone's visual space, and they turn a deaf ear to complaints. They need to be put in their place with a swift kick to the pocketbook.
     
  58. If I had my druthers, unsubscribers could read Pnet all they want but couldn't post until they subscribed.

    that simple.
     
  59. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    well, Kevin, i think you have to let them get addicted. i'm sure you became involved with conversations and asked a question or two prior to joining? but maybe restirct the amount like flickr does to free accounts? besides, i spend a heck of alot of time helping out others (the true value of this place) and answer questions as accurately as possible. there's no black and white solution.
     
  60. The aperture ad is just plain annoying. No one should have to see it cover the entire page whether they are a subscriber or not. Sometimes, in fact most times, I don't want to log in.
    <p>
    Really, this site is becoming more annoying by the week. Management really needs to rethink the direction it is taking...because it surely isn't getting any better.
     
  61. Using Firefox 1.0 today and and old 566 Celeron, win98SE on dialup this site appears clean; I still have not see any of these giant adverts yet. I am glad that some folks are starting to post images or mention what the ad name was, and what browser they used. There has to be more than a subscriber versus a non subscriber issue. Maybe more experimentaion is need to find this "Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE ad", like bigfoot or ufo's some have seen them, others search in vain with no contact! Here I run Dos 3.2, 6.22, Win3.11, NT3.51, Win98SE, Win2000 and XP pro. Several boxes have Foxfire, IE, Netscape and Opera. One old NT box has IE version 2.0 ; the win3.11 boxes have old Netscape. <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/PNdesktop/desktopcrop14.gif">
     
  62. It seems about 1/3 of the real estate of every webpage is now showing google ads of some form or another. In fact "Google" has become synonymous with "Banner Ads" and not search engine. What's really upsetting is how most these ads are made to look like regular links so people click on them thinking its menu link or something - basically cheating the advertiser.
     

Share This Page