Google Ads - let's clear the air
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Chris Maunder wrote: Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? That's my vote. Chris Maunder wrote: We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. Most of the advertising is somewhat relevant anyway. It's for developers and we're developers. But, if you want to take the Google extreme fine, just keep the ads out of the articles and rotate them with the regular ads or something. I don't know about the other article writers, but for me all these ads make me feel as if my efforts are being used for your financial benefit (whether it be by toys, trips, or money). And, I can't imagine many people being motivated by that to write more articles with that in mind. Like I said before, maybe I'm wrong about what goes under the hood in CP, but that's the impression I get. Jeremy Falcon
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I'm up for whatever you guys need to keep CP alive. I sort of agree with Marc about providing advertising space to any random person who pays google enough money, but on the other hand, I know it must cost a lot of money to keep CP going. On an aside, the ads on my article are sort of amusing. It's a tool to view the include file hierarchy of a set of C++ source files, and two of the ads are for VB programmers. :confused: Oh well, just keep CP running, and I'll be happy. If this means an optional subscription service, I'd be more than willing to pay for it. [Edited to remove article link. Don't want people to think I'm spamming my article here] Chris Richardson
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
No big deal to me as long as you don't charge *me* for access to the site. However, I would put the ads at the bottom unless Google has specifically contracted you for placement in another location. If I can hang with this (being the most vocally critical member of the board), all of you snivelling foreigners can damn well deal with it as well. How's that Chris? :) ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I just dislike ads in general. On my slow connection it takes a while to load them. Some times, I will lose my connection, and I will be unable to view posts that are already loaded because the browser wants to refresh an ad that it can't find. I know that you need them for revenue, and that we have to live with them for that reason. Being a hobby programmer, I can not justify buying the latest and greatest development tools from the CP store, so that is not a way that I can support the site. But I really would like to make a small monthly donation as I have learned so much from the articles here.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Personally I don't mind the google ads one bit! 1) They don't seem intrusive to me. (Tucked away where they are still visible) 2) Text loads fast! Much better then huge graphical ads, what is there to complain about. 3) I personally like context sensitive ads and am much more likely to click them. I think everyone is up in arms over nothing. It's a box right next to other links. Maybe I am looking for a commerical product after all or something. If it helps I say keep it. Google ads are one of the LEAST intusive web ad types I have ever seen. Dare I say I like them?
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I don't really like the ads, but they're not too annoying, and if it's necessary to keep CP running, I can live with them just fine. However, I really think that you should pursue the idea of donations/optional subscriptions. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more than willing to donate to keep this wonderful site up and running. :)
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I thought Dundas paid for codeproeject: Registrant: Maunder, Chris (CODEPROJECT-DOM) The Code Project 500-250 Ferrand Dr Toronto, Ontario M3C 3G8 CA Domain Name: CODEPROJECT.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Maunder, Chris (19890814I) webmaster@codeproject.com The Code Project 500-250 Ferrand Dr Toronto, Ontario M3C 3G8 CA +1 (416) 642-1998 fax: 999-999-9999 Record expires on 10-Nov-2008. Record created on 10-Nov-1999. Database last updated on 22-Jun-2004 15:58:35 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS.DUNDAS.COM 207.219.70.5 NS2.DUNDAS.COM 207.219.70.15
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
[SARCASM]:omg: Not ads to support a free website GASP!![/SARCASM] Seriously though I think we have some cry babies that need to grow up. Things cost money and its not like there weren't already ads on the site including the article pages. I use google ads on my own website. One suggestion I have though, is tweak the color scheme. It kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. Matt Newman
All rise for the honorable Judge Stone Cold Steve Austin - From Dilbert Episode 30
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Well, speaking for myself: Chris Maunder wrote: Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? No. CP is great. What makes it great is, IMO, a sense of doing things right. Chris Maunder wrote: The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? For me, absolutely. The banner ads are generic, and companies pay for them. The google ads are specific. Companies pay google, not me. I feel like my article content is providing free advertising to people that I don't know, products that I may not endorse, and competitors that I'd rather not see. (Now, the last part, about competition, yes, that's a double edged sword--it can be argued that I shouldn't be using CP to advertise my own projects, open source or not. But the other two points are still valid). Chris Maunder wrote: The fact that it's Google? Nope. Google is great. In fact I pay for my own ad on Google. Chris Maunder wrote: The fact that we make money off advertising? Nope. I'd hate for CP to go away because it can't afford to provide the great service it does. But there were some other really great ideas--a subscription fee for ad-free browsing. A donate button (I'd donate, monthly!) Chris Maunder wrote: We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. I looked at a couple of my articles on vector graphics, XAML, etc. The ads were totally irrelevant. I know for a fact that Xamlon and VG.net both key off of XAML, MyXaml, and VG.net. Yet none of them showed up. Type XAML in Google, and Xamlon is the top ad. But it's not in the ad box on the article. Going back to the competition thing--I write articles that are solutions to problems, and I'd like people to use those solutions. In fact, I'd like them to provide feedback to me regarding how they changed them, and so forth. Providing the google ads on the article, keyed to the content (regardless of accuracy), is like saying to me "thanks for providing a bunch of words for free that we can use to link to someone's product and generate revenue off of." I am not a happy camper about that. Linking to other relevant CP articles is cool! Sure, the google ads is a service. It's not a service I am going to endorse. Ironically, it's probably a good service, because as we all know, some people simply don't know how to use Google. Marc Microso
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Well, I don't have anything against those ads, if they are really needed to keep CP alive. If this avoids a monthly subscription fee, I happily accept those ads. CP is one of the best programming sites I know and will definitively not remove my articles from here just because there are ads by google at the end of my articles... As long as you don't come up with popup ads, those annoying flash overlay ads, ads in the middle of the article, it's ok imho. Can't you make the background color a bit more CP-like? Like the light yellow? Currently it looks somehow crap and destroys the CP feeling somehow :) Dominik
_outp(0x64, 0xAD);and__asm mov al, 0xAD __asm out 0x64, aldo the same... but what do they do?? ;) (doesn't work on NT) -
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I don't mind ads in my articles if it is going to help CP (which is getting slow again, BTW :(( )
-
I don't really like the ads, but they're not too annoying, and if it's necessary to keep CP running, I can live with them just fine. However, I really think that you should pursue the idea of donations/optional subscriptions. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more than willing to donate to keep this wonderful site up and running. :)
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Just so you know. I don't really care, as long as the articles are good, and there are lots of them. Admittedly though looking at CP's pages there does seem to be a lot of advertising. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
[SARCASM]:omg: Not ads to support a free website GASP!![/SARCASM] Seriously though I think we have some cry babies that need to grow up. Things cost money and its not like there weren't already ads on the site including the article pages. I use google ads on my own website. One suggestion I have though, is tweak the color scheme. It kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. Matt Newman
All rise for the honorable Judge Stone Cold Steve Austin - From Dilbert Episode 30
Matt Newman wrote: I use google ads on my own website. Yes, but that is YOUR choice. I have some 50 articles now with someone else's products being advertised that I don't even endorse, sitting there in the MY article content. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog
-
Well, speaking for myself: Chris Maunder wrote: Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? No. CP is great. What makes it great is, IMO, a sense of doing things right. Chris Maunder wrote: The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? For me, absolutely. The banner ads are generic, and companies pay for them. The google ads are specific. Companies pay google, not me. I feel like my article content is providing free advertising to people that I don't know, products that I may not endorse, and competitors that I'd rather not see. (Now, the last part, about competition, yes, that's a double edged sword--it can be argued that I shouldn't be using CP to advertise my own projects, open source or not. But the other two points are still valid). Chris Maunder wrote: The fact that it's Google? Nope. Google is great. In fact I pay for my own ad on Google. Chris Maunder wrote: The fact that we make money off advertising? Nope. I'd hate for CP to go away because it can't afford to provide the great service it does. But there were some other really great ideas--a subscription fee for ad-free browsing. A donate button (I'd donate, monthly!) Chris Maunder wrote: We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. I looked at a couple of my articles on vector graphics, XAML, etc. The ads were totally irrelevant. I know for a fact that Xamlon and VG.net both key off of XAML, MyXaml, and VG.net. Yet none of them showed up. Type XAML in Google, and Xamlon is the top ad. But it's not in the ad box on the article. Going back to the competition thing--I write articles that are solutions to problems, and I'd like people to use those solutions. In fact, I'd like them to provide feedback to me regarding how they changed them, and so forth. Providing the google ads on the article, keyed to the content (regardless of accuracy), is like saying to me "thanks for providing a bunch of words for free that we can use to link to someone's product and generate revenue off of." I am not a happy camper about that. Linking to other relevant CP articles is cool! Sure, the google ads is a service. It's not a service I am going to endorse. Ironically, it's probably a good service, because as we all know, some people simply don't know how to use Google. Marc Microso
Marc Clifton wrote: For me, absolutely. The banner ads are generic, and companies pay for them. The google ads are specific. Companies pay google, not me. I feel like my article content is providing free advertising to people that I don't know, products that I may not endorse, and competitors that I'd rather not see. (Now, the last part, about competition, yes, that's a double edged sword--it can be argued that I shouldn't be using CP to advertise my own projects, open source or not. But the other two points are still valid). Marc Clifton wrote: Providing the google ads on the article, keyed to the content (regardless of accuracy), is like saying to me "thanks for providing a bunch of words for free that we can use to link to someone's product and generate revenue off of." You make some good points, whether I agree with all of them fully or not.
-
I thought Dundas paid for codeproeject: Registrant: Maunder, Chris (CODEPROJECT-DOM) The Code Project 500-250 Ferrand Dr Toronto, Ontario M3C 3G8 CA Domain Name: CODEPROJECT.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Maunder, Chris (19890814I) webmaster@codeproject.com The Code Project 500-250 Ferrand Dr Toronto, Ontario M3C 3G8 CA +1 (416) 642-1998 fax: 999-999-9999 Record expires on 10-Nov-2008. Record created on 10-Nov-1999. Database last updated on 22-Jun-2004 15:58:35 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS.DUNDAS.COM 207.219.70.5 NS2.DUNDAS.COM 207.219.70.15
Nope - We're a separate company. We just piggy-backed on Dundas's infrastructure for a time to save cash. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
My position: The minute Chris, et al hired employees, Code Project became a business. As such, they have to make enough money to pay those who do the dirty work. As you all know, a business that is not growing is a business that is dying. I applaud the CP team for trying to raise enough money to purchase capital that will make this site a better resource for all of us. Likewise, I applaud the move to hire extra staff so that Chris can focus on the overall development and direction of CP. I don't think that CP will become unjustly enriched by placing Google ads at the bottom of every article. How often do you actually click on them? I don't recall doing it anywhere on the Web - ever. And besides, what with new equipment purchases and personnel acquisitions and retention, a lot of the money that comes in is probably going straight back into the business. Furthermore, even if CP is getting more money this way, what is wrong with that? As long as this continues to be an improving, valuable service to the development community, why would anyone care whether Chris or Nish or Smitha has a nicer automobile or an upgraded apartment? Who among us doesn't like nicer things? (If you're one of the few who enjoys subsisting on nuts and berries, please go here[^].) As an aside, I don't think it's fair to criticize CP for having an Xbox game room, or for making trips to conferences around the world. As I understand it, CP is headquartered in Dundas's offices, so it's a shared resource, one that I would venture to guess was paid for by Dundas. And besides, it's not like Nish and Smitha can just plug in and play. Secondly, part of Chris's job is to develop a feel for industry trends and stay abreast of developing technologies. How can he do that if he's not at the conferences where the bleeding-edge technologies of the future are unveiled? Bottom line: businesses need money to run. CP is a business, and we all take advantage of the services it provides. Our contributions are our articles, and let's face it - CP attracts so many visitors because of the content of these articles. Therefore it is not completely unnatural for CP to try to grow their business by making a little bit of money from said articles. Also, if I had wanted to make money from my articles, I wouldn’t have posted them here, for free, for the entire world to consume; I would have tried to develop them into commer
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I personally don't mind google ads or any ads for that matter. I do object if the ad is inside the content. I just took a peek at my articles though and the google ads seem to be underneath my article. So honestly, I don't mind. Put the ads inside the content and I might start to really object.
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
The reasons I hate ads in general are: 1. They're intrusive (popups) 2. They're offensive (get that crap out of my face so I can read the damn page, and stop asking me to install Gator) 3. They're bothersome (lots of animation is distracting) 4. They use ActiveX controls (Flash) 5. They waste my bandwidth (which is a scarce resource on dialup, just ask Nish) CP does not use popups, nor does it use ads that are mid-page or covering the page. CP does use animated GIFs and Flash, which means I have to the scroll the page quickly to get them off the screen (making the ad useless, as I won't read it) or hit NO to the "do you want to run ActiveX controls?" prompt, again making the ad useless. As for 5, I run an ad blocker at home to save bandwidth. All that said, I have no objection to Google ads on CP (right now, at work on a T3) because they do not fall into any of the first 4 categories. I'll have to see about bandwidth usage when I get home tonight. PS: I would really like it if you removed Flash ads, I think those are the worst offenders second only to popups. X| --Mike-- Personal stuff:: Ericahist | Homepage Shareware stuff:: 1ClickPicGrabber | RightClick-Encrypt CP stuff:: CP SearchBar v2.0.2 | C++ Forum FAQ ---- You cannot stop me with paramecium alone!
