Jump to content

Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE ads?


carlos_santos2

Recommended Posts

<p>Is this for real? With the traffic this site gets I imagine there

is plenty of room for Google ads to bring in revenue.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>In fact, one of the key revolutionary observations Google made was

that ads should be kept as <b><i>unobtrusive, to the point and as few

in number as possible!</i></b> Photo.net seems to be stuck in 1999 if

they hadn't gotten that message.</p>

 

<p>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.</p><div>00EXYV-27011484.jpg.2c0f6324e8ffb70b23affaa3d9e91955.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kevin, thanks for the tip but you're missing the point.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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. </p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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 <i>that</i> crowd?</p>

 

<blink><b>This (should be blinking) blink tagged text surely gets your attention but isn't it horrendous?</b></blink>

 

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...