Unbelievably OBTRUSIVE ads?

[bdpics]

Daniel,

 

Firefox also has script-blocker extensions available.

[kelly_flanigan1]

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.

[ilkka_nissila]

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.

[EricM]

remember when they started running ads at the begining of movies? i think we're going to have to get used to this.

[kelly_flanigan1]

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!

[wilsontsoi]

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?

[kram]

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.

[bdpics]

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."

[mmmee]

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?

[whinterberger]

Same here.

[dave_osborne]

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.

[ken_thalheimer]

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

[bill_thorlin]

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 !

[laurie_m]

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.

[billfoster]

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.

[ilkka_nissila]

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.

[kelly_flanigan1]

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.

[dave_osborne]

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.

[digitmstr]

>>(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.

[EricM]

"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.

[bdpics]

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."

[maurik]

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

[guyscrivner]

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.

[digitmstr]

>>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?

[bdpics]

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.