ADBLOCK...blocking use of No Words forum

[frigo]

When I created this thread,I specifically adressed it to Glen/admin or whoever runs this site in the hope that it would be addressed.In running through the numerous contributions it raised,I have not seen any reaction from Admin which,remains consistant by standing back and observing the members go at it....hoping(and I am just guessing) that the problem will auto-solve and that IT will not have to get in the ring.A few months back,my membership came up for renewal and I was in the first batch to be confronted in deciding if PN had resolved enough of its problems and I decided to stay even if those features of the site which suited my needs were not as they were but workable enough,that is until this latest hic-cup.Now and for my needs,the site has become paralysed and not-withstanding how my better technically-able colleagues can cope with this,I find myself unable to use it so I'll sign off for a while.

[Norman 202]

nice one glenn. how to alienate paying customers 101

 

btw, are pn in breach of copyright by using the adblock logo?

[Sanford]

Tried Uhooru's suggestion and it works!

[G-P]

Hello - Subscribers should not see the Adblock - there was a mistake in the way it was implemented - I am back now, so we'll get it resolved ASAP. This was intended for our free users. Truth is, no one wants to talk about AdBlocking (both publishers and users) but you will start seeing that more and more publishers will have to address it in their own way. Here is an article that (if interested) speaks to how big of an issue it is and allows you to see this through the lens of the publisher - Publishers Fight Back: How The Top 50 Websites Combat Adblock | PubNation Blog I am sorry it messed folks up for a couple of days - but we'll get it tuned in as intended. We're not nearly big enough to pay AdBlock what essentially amounts to ransom they require to get around it - so we decided to ask users to whitelist us given we are closed to outside demand sources and only run endemic ads. Edited November 24, 2017 by G-P

[Dieter Schaefer]

Because I haven’t installed an adblocker on my ipad, I have the pleasure of seeing the ads PN serves up. The same four ads for the last couple of days. Two are static (Tamron) and two have moving parts (Nikon) which makes them more intrusive and annoying. What exactly is the point of me being forced to see the same ads over and over again on every page I visit? If I didn’t act on them after seeing them the first dozen times, what are the chances I will do so when I see them for the hundreth’s time?

 

These ads don’t bother me (much, even if I was a subscriber) but I am also very unlikely to take action on any one of them. Glad PN can make money off showing them to me - I just don’t think it is money spent wisely.

 

Ads like the one PN serves are not the reason I use adblockers on my desktop; if everyone was doing as PN does, there would be no need for an adblocker at all.

[Mark Keefer]

We are either the customer or the product. Since I pay for the service I am the customer. I feel it is wrong to sell me as a product to advertisers. But as a compromise, I would be ok with one small banner ad and I mean thin at the top. Maybe the second small square box on the left side. But that is it. Seeing a third ad or more inserted between thread postings seriously effects my workflow and enjoyment of reading and posting. I think it is in poor taste IMO.

 

Many times I use Photo.net from a laptop or tablet, screen real-estate is limited and at a premium.

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Mark Keefer

[vfg]

at $25 a head, you should be encouraging more heads, not less...if you're here to make money, say so...your banner needs to go, this is an embarrassment, making us paying customers bow to your so-called advertisers...can we say BULL! Edited November 25, 2017 by G-P

[Norman 202]

These ads don’t bother me (much, even if I was a subscriber) but I am also very unlikely to take action on any one of them. Glad PN can make money off showing them to me - I just don’t think it is money spent wisely

i mainly visit the forums but the times i visit place where ads were displayed (my homepage with the creativelabs ad) wasn’t a problem. i, too, dont have a problem with carefully selected ads even though i’m a subscriber

[Norma Desmond]

IMO, when ads interfere with functionality, which they do on PN, both the consumer and the advertiser are losing due to poor design. That is serving no one’s purpose.

[Mark Keefer]

And there it is, an ad just below my post above, just a slap in the face as if mocking the very words I just wrote.

[Mark Keefer]

Just put the ads; one at the top; one at the side if you must. But not in between the thread postings.

 

I look at the specs on all the gear, I read the reviews and specs on new lenses and cameras. I probably know more about the gear after researching than most. But for me, this is a different mode in my mind when I get into reading threads and responding, It would be like having ads pop up while I am composing a sentence in Word or working on formulas in Excel or when I am designing a telecom network with Visio or CAD. I don't like or want the blinking colorful distracting ads getting in the way of my thought process. When I am composing my thoughts into written words I have little patience for seeing any ad, let alone the same one or two plastered over and over.

 

It is like watching TV and being bombarded by 6 commercials every 9 minutes to the point I just say F this and turn the TV off. There comes a point where the pleasure of the activity is diminished so, that it is not worth pursuing participation in the activity.

[kendunton]

Is this country specific?

I have no ads at all and my adblocker doesn't appear to be blocking any.

[Norma Desmond]

Ken, as has already been explained, there is often no discernible rhyme or reason why these many, many technical flaws of PN affect one person and not another. Many times, it’s platform specific or operating system version specific or a combination of things even when all software is up to date. It’s been happening since the introduction of PN2 and such inconsistent problems seem beyond the capability of PN to deal with adequately. At least, that’s my sense of things and I’ve come to just accept it as part of the PN experience. I don’t see it changing as I think resources are limited and probably other things are at play as well. I will tell you, though, that when I was experiencing server error messages that few others were, it was very disheartening to have people constantly coming along telling me they weren’t having the same problem.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I have no ads at all and my adblocker doesn't appear to be blocking any.

Maybe your Avira software is blocking them before they even reach your browser?

It seems a bit odd that your adblock doesn’t report any blockable items on sites (other than photo.net) where others do see ads or blockable items (when site isn’t whitelisted).

 

when ads interfere with functionality

Just being annoying is IMHO already sufficient for the advertiser to lose; there doesn't have to be any interference with functionality. Besides, the choice where they are placed seems to be on photo.net's side, not the advertiser's.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[JDMvW]

I feel like I'm watching a tennis match with the ball going back and forth.

 

Sometimes recently I see ads on some of my computers with P.net white listed. Other times on other machines, sometimes with different ad blockers (some of my computers are very old), I see no ads at all.

 

This is being done on my most advanced computer with a new ad blocker, but white-listed. I'm hoping the missing Nikon creeping ads is the new normal for paid subscribers.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I feel like I'm watching a tennis match with the ball going back and forth.

As Glenn pointed out, unless photo.net pays adblock to whitelist the site, there will likely always be an option to avoid seeing any of the ads served up as and avoiding the adblock warning banner too. Others in this thread already found that out.

 

Nikon creeping ads

The fact that there is motion in them makes them indeed hard(er) to ignore. As I already said, ads that annoy me I hold against the advertiser; in the extreme that can lead to me actually avoiding buying that company's product.

 

It is like watching TV and being bombarded by 6 commercials every 9 minutes to the point I just say F this and turn the TV off. There comes a point where the pleasure of the activity is diminished so, that it is not worth pursuing participation in the activity.

I came to that conclusion some 20 years ago; since then, I own a TV solely to watch DVDs.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[kendunton]

Maybe your Avira software is blocking them before they even reach your browser?

It seems a bit odd that your adblock doesn’t report any blockable items on sites (other than photo.net) where others do see ads or blockable items (when site isn’t whitelisted).

 

 

Just being annoying is IMHO already sufficient for the advertiser to lose; there doesn't have to be any interference with functionality. Besides, the choice where they are placed seems to be on photo.net's side, not the advertiser's.

I've just checked: Avira is not blocking any ads.

[vfg]

I'm in my eleventh year here, now I want to know how I get a refund when I quit half way through this year? This place has become way too commercial, and too profit orientated to suit me. It used to be all about photography, not any longer, now it's all about someone making a buck along the way. If there wasn't any money in this bogus claim, it wouldn't be happening. I'm sure its the same as with other sites I'm involved with, somebody somewhere has a deal, rules need to be changed to accommodate this deal, for better or worse, "just geter done". Amateur hour, we used to take this place seriously, not now, my grandchildren can outperform you guys. Just tell me if I can get a $12.50 refund for bailing early before I go?

[gordonjb]

Name media, the owners of PN, want to get the maximum money out of PN while they still can. Not unlike raising the price of drinks at the bar on the Titanic, after hitting the iceberg.

 

BTW I too am showing no ads and no ads blocked with PN whitelisted. This is true of two diferent adblockers in two seperate browsers.

[Norman 202]

I'm in my eleventh year here, now I want to know how I get a refund when I quit half way through this year? This place has become way too commercial, and too profit orientated to suit me. It used to be all about photography, not any longer, now it's all about someone making a buck along the way. If there wasn't any money in this bogus claim, it wouldn't be happening. I'm sure its the same as with other sites I'm involved with, somebody somewhere has a deal, rules need to be changed to accommodate this deal, for better or worse, "just geter done". Amateur hour, we used to take this place seriously, not now, my grandchildren can outperform you guys. Just tell me if I can get a $12.50 refund for bailing early before I go?

hahahahaha. ain’t it marvellous those who bitch about commercialism always want their money back O_o

[chazfenn]

Apparently one of the features not engaged if I don't white-list is the "upload file" option when posting.

That reduces functionality quite a lot, but if I simply host online elsewhere & use "IMG" HTML tags it works fine with the "DIRECT" option.

Are they really just trying to be unpleasant here or is it just a mess?

[Gary Naka]

FOOEY

I turned OFF the pop up blocker in my browser and bypassed my proxy, and I still get the AdBlock banner ... grrrr

I don't have time to spend hours looking for some obscure switch/software someplace in the system.

Ticks me off when web sites do things like this.

[10926488]

FOOEY

I turned OFF the pop up blocker in my browser and bypassed my proxy, and I still get the AdBlock banner ... grrrr

I don't have time to spend hours looking for some obscure switch/software someplace in the system.

Ticks me off when web sites do things like this.

I'd be happy to share with you what the AdBlockers business model is. They extort money from websites so their adblocker doesn't work and the websites that pay the extortion CAN serve ads. In short, they want us to pay them so their ad blocker doesn't work on our site....they aren't interested in your experience, they are interested in extortion period.

[ben_hutcherson]

I'll say that I'm happily trucking along with Adblock installed and no issues or ads on the page. I'm running macOS 10.12.4 with Firefox 57.0, although was running FF 55 until yesterday. I'm currently showing 9 ads blocked on this page.

 

Here's the issue-PN trucked along fine for 20 years without the myriad of technical problems we're seeing now. Although until earlier this year I'd taken a hiatus of a couple of years, I did spend a couple of years as a paying subscriber. I never had a problem doing it back then.

 

Now, aside from the fact that the site becomes spastic if I don't close it and re-login every 24 hours, a new bug seems to pop up every time I turn around. Aside from random server errors or "you are not allowed to perform this action" I've also found that I seem to be blocked from making a post more often than once every 5 minutes or so. I can understand perhaps putting that for new members who may be speed posting, but is it really necessary for a 12 year member with a few thousand posts?

 

All the little things add up to make me not want to support this site at this time. I am a member of several fora which I support financially, but frankly I'm not seeing any benefit to supporting this site and their "top-tier programmers" at this time.

 

BTW, I'll also ask that the value of a forum doesn't always come down to dollars and cents-in virtually all cases it comes from attracting knowledgeable people to post there and be able to help others. PNet is a great resource(that is declining as more and more folks drop off) and to me it's short sighted and demeaning for the administrators to view folks who contribute a lot but don't pay as "free loaders."

 

I'll wrap this up with an anecdote. I collect antique American watches, and both have a pretty extensive collection and have researched my areas of interest deeply. There's a lot I don't know, but I try to share what I do know. I was a(paying) member of one site to which I also contributed a lot. Aside from answering questions, I wrote a lot of articles where I put both my knowledge and photography skills to work writing what were both informative and interesting articles. They were liked well enough that the administrators posted several on the front page, and they got a lot of positive feedback and click-throughs for them. That was all good and well, except that the site owner made some pretty open and disparaging remarks about the the subject matter of my(and several other) articles because he didn't want stuff about "old watches" that "no one cares about"(never mind that those of us writing vintage/antique articles had some of the highest views of any articles posted) and started systematically deleting them. Needless to say, that was the signal for me-and a whole lot of other folks-to leave the place. The last I bothered to check, the entire message board had about a dozen new posts a week. I'm not saying Pnet would make a move like that, but at the same time don't undervalue your contributors, whether paying or not.

[Gary Naka]

I'd be happy to share with you what the AdBlockers business model is. They extort money from websites so their adblocker doesn't work and the websites that pay the extortion CAN serve ads. In short, they want us to pay them so their ad blocker doesn't work on our site....they aren't interested in your experience, they are interested in extortion period.

 

I am talking about the "AdBlock" banner that is fixed at the top of the window, as shown in post #2.

 

I cannot figure out how to "whitelist" the photo.net site so that I do not see that blasted banner at the top of the page, despite adding Photo.net to the Firefox allow list, and bypassing my ad blocker. There is obviously some other blocker that is running, somewhere in the system that is triggering it. So adding Photo.Net to the "whitelist" is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. As the OS gets more complicated and more and more programs are installed and running, tracking down things like this becomes a royal PIA. And at a certain point, people will reach the point of "to h*ll with it, I quit."

Edited November 28, 2017 by Gary Naka