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.
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.
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.
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.
Chris Maunder wrote: 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. Well, as I'm not an author my points may be a little irrelevant. I don't mind the ads, you've got to pay for this site somehow. However Marc's point about it looking like the author of the article endorses the advertised products is a real one. Maybe displaying them in a different place would help to alleviate that problem. I'm not sure how much control you have over the ads but so far the ads I've seen haven't been very relevant to the section the articles are placed in. Also, the colouring sucks. It needs to look like it is part of the CP colour scheme rather than looking like the tacky ads that you see on lesser sites. It needs some Orange :-D Michael CP Blog [^]
-
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!
-
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.
Hi all. My main concern with the ads are whether or not they are impacting the load times for the articles themselves. I don't know if this is related to the ads or not, but load times for articles in the past day or so (for me anyway) have seemed to be very long... much longer than in the past. That being said, I appreciate both Chris M. & Marc C. 's comments, eloquently describing two sides to the issue. I've come to really benefit from CodeProject as a daily service; if additional revenue is necessary to keep it a free service, I would prefer the ads to a paid subscription. Chris Maunder wrote: Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. That's hardly fair... the lone amateur had great direction. ;-)
-
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 the Google ads. The bottomline is survival of CP. Had you change the background of Google ads to CP orange color then nobody would have noticed them.
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter". -
Hi all. My main concern with the ads are whether or not they are impacting the load times for the articles themselves. I don't know if this is related to the ads or not, but load times for articles in the past day or so (for me anyway) have seemed to be very long... much longer than in the past. That being said, I appreciate both Chris M. & Marc C. 's comments, eloquently describing two sides to the issue. I've come to really benefit from CodeProject as a daily service; if additional revenue is necessary to keep it a free service, I would prefer the ads to a paid subscription. Chris Maunder wrote: Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. That's hardly fair... the lone amateur had great direction. ;-)
Mike Ellison wrote: I don't know if this is related to the ads or not, but load times for articles in the past day or so (for me anyway) have seemed to be very long... much longer than in the past. I was wondering the same thing.
Jon Sagara If you've ever watched 6-year-olds playing soccer, that's what the mainstream media is like. -- Jon Stewart
My Articles -
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.
It's pretty freakin' sad that people can take this site and it's proprietor(s) for granted and think that just because they come here and browse around and maybe contribute that they can run the show. Marc, Anders, Jeremy, tell me, do you let your customers set prices for your products? If they don't want to pay that price what do you tell them? Probably to go jump in a lake! CodeProject is like any other business - Chris and his team have to pay for the bandwidth, the servers, the salaries, etc. If you want to pull your articles, then go ahead and be jerks about it, but it would be nice for once to see you be a little more appreciative and maybe give Chris a chance to improve things before splashing your whining, baby talk all over the Lounge. Maybe some reasonable suggestions would be good. BTW Marc, you can't tell me that the free publicity you have gotten from the site hasn't helped your career. Maybe not monetarily, but I've seen a few articles about you and your MyXAML and I doubt if you would get as many free eyes anywhere else. Your lucky Chris doesn't charge you for it. Chris, I can't say I like ads, but they don't bother me all that much either. CP is still the best programming site around. Don't let the critics get you down. There are thousands more that appreciate what you've done.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
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
>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 I am so shocked by this statement I have to make it clear I don't agree in anyway nor is it even with a parsec of what I feel. It is pretty much the opposite of what I think Chris' intentions are. There are a lot better ways for Chris to make money of us and he has not done any of them. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Ian Darling wrote: "and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python." Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
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 the border ads, but HATE animated ads. The google ads are fine where they are now, tucked in the bottom right of the article. Seeing as they are text i can't see them having much impact on page loading. I've always liked the links to related articles at the bottom, i see this a commercial extension of that. I actually consider it the most effective form of advertising. I've never followed an ad because of a flashy graphic, but a simple heading and a line or two description - that's what i follow. Were you to take the approach of CodeGuru and stick a bloody graphic ad in the article after the introduction, well then i might get a little tweaked. ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
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 2 ct: 1) Many of us have seen good sites go down. One symptom unvariably was drowning content between ads. 2) What makes CP outstanding among similar sites is it's look & feel. The virtually "handselected" advertisements play a big role here: where others have ads, CP has relevant product information. (And as good as google's matching algorithm is, it is not as good as Team CP.) 3) Ads start to "intrude" the user provided area. Until now, all advertisement was separated by a colored bar, or else clearly distinguished from the article. (It is still a few inches away from the actual article, but the "visual barrier" is broken) 4) It just happened I don't see much sense in discussing, or announcing, such a move beforehand. However, it adds to a feeling of being cheated. 5) With all the gmail hype, google's "good guy" image gets an obnoxious-to-intrusive taint. Personally, I don't really like them, and I don't expect them to be helpful. But it's your server, and we are your guests.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen -
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)