Banner Ads too Distracting on top on side

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Some of the banner ads do things like pulse and flash and really distract you when you're trying to look at the content. Is it possible to establish a set of guidelines for advertisers to limit this sort of thing? I don't mind seeing advertising -- it supports the site (though so do I), but often I have to move the window off the screen so the ad is no longer visible just to concentrate. Can't some of these things even trigger medical conditions?</p>

[joshroot]

Just saying "these ads are terrible" doesn't help me any. I need more info to figure out if they are legit ads that you just

don't like or if they are crap ads that somehow have snuck through.

 

-where specifically on the site did you see them?

 

-what were they advertising?

 

-what OS and browser are you using?

 

-please take a screenshot if possible

 

-if you are comfortable doing so, please right click on the ad and "copy link" then paste it Into a reply or an email to me

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I didn't say they were terrible. I was wondering if there was some standard about flashing and radical colors that could tone down the <em><strong>worst </strong></em>offenders. IE7. Right here on the right and in the forum listings on the right and bottom. I'll screenshot the worst offenders and post something. Of course they're not on my right side now. Most of them are ok, even if they have some motion. It's the ones that flash alternating black and red in such a way as to about give you an epileptic fit that are the problem. Most of them are fine. The one I remember said congratulations you are the 999,999th customer. click on this ad to claim your prize. Right ;) And that one was the most distracting.</p>

<p>When I see them do you want me to post the screenshot here or just email it to you along with the link?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I was just using "these ads are terrible" as sort of a catch-all phrase for advertising complaints. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth and perhaps shouldn't have made a quote out of it.</p>

<p>The flashing "winner" type ads shouldn't be there. Those are straight up junk.</p>

<p>You can either post here or email me. Either is helpful.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>The flashing "winner" type ads shouldn't be there. Those are straight up junk.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh, don't mean to gang-up, but the above mentioned style of ads <em>is</em> very prevalent. I don't see the importance having to report specific instances: just log-in with IE8, and with any luck you'll see them. Why don't we just acknowledge this and get on with cleaning them up?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I asked for the info that I need to help solve the problem. You can either argue with me about it and continue to look at junk ads, or perhaps you can help out.</p>

<p>Not every location and user sees the same ads. I can't always make things happen on my computer that are happening on yours.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I'll keep watch and try to snapshot them when they occur and get the link information. Most of the ads are well behaved. I'm looking at two pretty well behaved ones now for peer1 and classmates.com. Neither have crazy graphics. This morning is when that one was showing up on all the banners. But that doesn't do you any good so I'll keep watch and let you know. Thanks.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Also folks let's remember that PN doesn't select these ads. The ads are served up by advertising companies. While PN can certainly ask for a certain type/content/etc ads not to be served on PN, it's important to remember that things outside PN's control can get those undesirable ads in anyway. There is no way to prevent bad ads sneaking by. Reaction after the ad is starting to appear is generally pretty much the only way to deal with it.<br /><br />Just one example: Advertiser submits an ad to the ad serving company. The ad company signs off on it, but just before it is set to be served the advertiser changes the ad to be something completely different. Since the ad serving companies serves up gazillions of ads it's impossible for them to keep absolute check on every ad served to web sites.<br /><br />Also browsing with an up-to-date browser is never a bad idea. Personally I stay as far away as I can from IE. Also make sure anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-spyware is running. Update and scan your system often, at a minimum once a week.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>A few minutes ago, Unified View:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/unified/">http://www.photo.net/bboard/unified/</a></p>

<p>Using IE8 with all updates:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[ishi_p]

<p>I will take my time to voice some things that have been running though my head about this. Please don't take this like I enjoy having a dig or get a kick out of doing it. I'd rather not post it (at all) for me, But I am not posting it just for me.</p>

<p>The content of photo.net as a cummunity is very valuble to me and I have always appreciated the users content as well as the articles and such. Not a big fan of online critique of other members work, but that's just me. I don't need to go there so fine. <br /> However I have noticed the ads have become much more distracting than before, And the quality of them is often very poor. Not just the way they look but "Whiten your Teeth"?<br /> I have never contributed much to the site, just a few comments here and there, But I often recommend it to other shooters. However recently I was thinking about adding some more of my recent work. But it just feels this site is becoming more about directing people to the ads, I'm sure that's not how it is (totally) at all. But it feels more like that.</p>

<p>I don't really want my work juxtaposed along with these adds, Nor do I want to direct people here to see it. I may still do for the forums and content, but not to host work.<br /> Cartoon Youself? I mean come on. Does photo.net regard how this looks to many?, or the value that's being lost, How much does this undermine the value there is ?<br>

<br /> I don't know, I don't know what photo.net are set on being. I can say I have become conserned about using photo.net more. If i want to add some content to the web I (generaly) do it to help, as many do. But I wonder about what happens to all this info and content, are there any kind of safeguards. I mean if photonet is purely about money then surey if it becomes "unfeasible" all that content will just be lost.?<br /> I don't earn much, below minimum wage atm. I was happy to contribute to wikapidia, but I feel hard pressed to contribute to photo.net in it's present form with money.<br>

<br /> I know I am just one guy and I don't expect or need anything to change to suit me. I still think it's OK for what it is.</p>

<p>I have posted this with a view to contributing to the site, not to criticize un-constructively and I hope it's taken that way.</p>

<p>PS. I wonder if photo.net could use a complete overhaul to the look of the site? At least make these ads sit better. Having colourful flash ads on a minimalist look site like this just over-imposes them. <br /> Best regards.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I just feel like I repeat myself over and over and over and over.</p>

<p>I give up for today.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>Hang on a second. So it's the users job to help clean this up.<br /> IMO this is a far bigger issue than that if you have to keep repeating yourself. Maybe it's between you an adsence or whatever. Not for us to sort out. <br /> For your information most ads on this site are unrelated to the content and look cheap. Is posting them going to change that? I think not, this could go on forever with new ads. <br /> I give up for now also. I see no real movement. That's cool, but why don't you just ignore these posts then? It took me an hour to write so i'd rather that than the reply I got.<br>

I don't think you got what I said at all.</p>

 

[joshroot]

<p>Ishmael,</p>

<p>As I have said many times before, and has been very clearly explained by Mikael above, there are ads that should be here and ads that shouldn't be here. The ads that you spent an hour writing about above? They shouldn't be here. I asked for specific information to speed up removal of those ads, and I explained why.</p>

<p>This site has to pull it's own weight somehow. We are a business, we have to pay our bills. Some people support the site with subscription money, some look at more ads. If you are willing to do neither, I have no idea what to tell you other than to ask how you expect us to exist with no revenue. And yes, at the end of the day, if a site cannot pay it's bills, it will go away along with all it's content. This is just as true for wikipedia as it is for photo.net.</p>

<p>I'm sorry that you do not like ads. But I'm more sorry that your interest in improving the site only extends to spending an hour on the post above and not to spending 30 seconds helping to provide the information that would actually make a difference in regards to junk ads on the site. But photo.net can't be everything to everyone and I do my best with what I've got.</p>

[joshroot]

And just as a note to everyone,

 

I really am trying to keep ads on photo.net above a specific line of acceptability. I promise you all that I am. There is

nothing I gain by both running bad ads, and then spending time talking with the users, explaining the situation, and asking

for more info. If my goal was just to run junk ads, I wouldn't spend the time to do so. I would just ignore or delete any

threads that questioned the issue.

 

I don't expect everyone to find every ad acceptable 100% of the time. But I think we can all agree that "lose weight fast" or

"white teeth secret" or "you won a free iPod" ads are below what we should expect to see here.

[ishi_p]

<p>Thanks Josh. It's just I read similar things few weeks ago and assume it has been going on for some time, and that makes me think if your on the job and there are still losts of them that it's not working. Though that's totally an assumption. I am sorry but I assumed you would have a team of people working on it from the get go. <br>

I did not mean to be unrealistic, It was just a suggestions/ideas I wanted to say. Pehaps this was not the thread to say them in, but I will try and make it clearer now I started.<br>

I donate to wikipedia specificity because they work to keep any ads off. Not that I mind ads that much, but at least they practice (and tell us about) this kind of thing that they do. It could be anything, not just keeping ads off. So I am inclined to think there content will be safer. People don't mind paying because of this, or things like it. I know nothing of any photo.net ideas (or actions) in this regard, and I have looked. <br>

I don't presume to know about photo.net's future success. There are many things which keep sites going. But I tend to go with things I feel are safer for the content we all add. <br>

I don't mind ads. especially for Ektar. Though they do stand out a lot no matter what ads. Just saying that's all. I notice them a lot less on flicker but they are still there. <br>

I was just suggesting that maybe if the look of the site was punchier they may sit better, and it may get more people paying for what it is. People don't pay for what they want it to be. I don't assume you suggest just me paying is going to change anything. And that was not my point. I was just giving you my point of view. Feel free to disregard it. Honestly. <br>

I'm not saying how valid I think my view is. Just putting it out there. </p>

<p> This was on Goggle chrome. Top right on the front page. <br>

</p>

<tr>

<td id="taw0" align="center" valign="middle">

http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=228121&mid=424947&sid=53273&m=6&c=0

<img src="http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/cid228121/media424947.gif" alt="Click Here" />

This was on the bottom.

http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=211286&mid=395369&sid=53273&m=1&c=0

<img src="http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/cid211286/media395369.jpg" alt="Click Here" /><br />

</td>

</tr>

[constance_cook]

<p>Ishmael:<br>

I don't like flashing ads either. They give me migraines. But I do understand business. You get rid of those that clearly don't belong and let the others pay the freight.</p>

<p>And if the site became 'punchier' as you would have it, I'd quit paying. So it goes. Josh can't please everyone. But you may notice that given the active membership, you don't hear that many complaints about having to have ads to pay the bills.<br>

Conni</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>OOps amend that. They where on the forums main page, top right and bottom. </p>

[ishi_p]

<p><em>Josh can't please everyone.</em> Totally agree. I just am giving my view. <br /> Hopefuly you can understand, When I don't own or even close to paying for my own home, worrying if I can afford the next dentist treatment, and living back at my folks, How I wonder about businesses real needs.<br /> Many I have worked for have had bosses living very nice of the profits (relatively speaking) and many are just not prepared to make the sacrifices, or can't be bothered to keep it going because they simple don't need to or want to. I'm not saying that is this case here, I have no idea. Just that there are ads and there is content. And for me the balance is not good.</p>

<p><img src="http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/1200146.gif" alt="" /></p>

<p>You have to consider that ads like this appear on white, mainly next to just text, When I said punchier I did not mean something jarring like this....If things fit in they become easier on the eye because there is less contrast from one thing to the other, Just look how much that stands out on a full white page with just text. <br /> Flicker gets over this with avatars and some nice colours which balances things, with less (better looking) and well placed ads. I'm not saying that's best for photo.net, it has to gear around the forum. But not much has changed aside from many more ads on every page, and aesthetics are really important. to me. <br /> <br /><br /> Anyway I have said what I have said and it's useful or not. I don't want argue about it.</p>