Advertising

[SkeedR]

Thought you might like to know that an advert did something that I've never seen ads do on TT-Forums and which might be a little aggravating to some;

[Leanden]

Yep I had this yesterday too, incredibly annoying.

[Chrill]

I've not encountered that specific ad, nor any ad doing that thing. It would be extremely annoying though. Is Google Ads getting a bit too up close and personal?

[Supercheese]

Why aren't you using some sort of adblocker?

[Leanden]

Why aren't you using some sort of adblocker?

You mean those third-party programs that are themselves rife with malware. No thanks

[Supercheese]

You mean those third-party programs that are themselves rife with malware. No thanks

Well, if you want me to be specific: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... lock-plus/

[kamnet]

Plus, the ads DO help to pay to keep this place going.

[SquireJames]

Why aren't you using some sort of adblocker?

You mean those third-party programs that are themselves rife with malware. No thanks

As Supercheese says, Adblock is awesome.

[Leanden]

Why aren't you using some sort of adblocker?

You mean those third-party programs that are themselves rife with malware. No thanks

As Supercheese says, Adblock is awesome.

I use google chrome which has a pop-up blocker built in anyway As for on-screen ads i don't tend to go on any sites where that should be an issue.

[Dave]

I'd be surprised if Owen had implemented these pop ups without saying anything - he's usually very hot on keeping us up to date with the way the site is run and works in practice.

And although it is annoying (and I'd be very annoyed) - advertising DOES keep the site going!

[Chrill]

I'm not a fan of ads but I don't mind the ones we have here. They even have backgrounds to match the layout!! It's not much of an eyesore unless they pop up like this.

[JamieLei]

I take a dim view of those who use Ad Blockers, in the same way that I take a dim view of those who illegally download content without paying. (The copying/stealing analogy is ridiculous because it simply disregards the fact since paying for the medium was a convenient proxy to purchase content, it did not at all mean the content itself was free). Ultimately, the principle is the same; block ads, and you're stealing from TT-F. I do like how OKCupid deals with the problem (http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/23/okcupid-ad-blocker/).

As someone who donates every now and again, I'd rather my yearly contribution not go to subsidise those who think they entitled to this site without giving something back...

[kamnet]

I take a dim view of those who use Ad Blockers, in the same way that I take a dim view of those who illegally download content without paying. (The copying/stealing analogy is ridiculous because it simply disregards the fact since paying for the medium was a convenient proxy to purchase content, it did not at all mean the content itself was free). Ultimately, the principle is the same; block ads, and you're stealing from TT-F. I do like how OKCupid deals with the problem (http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/23/okcupid-ad-blocker/).

As someone who donates every now and again, I'd rather my yearly contribution not go to subsidise those who think they entitled to this site without giving something back...

As a person who produces audio and video content for purchase, and operates a website for content that is supported by ads, I completely disagree with you on the idea that blocking ads is analogous to illegally downloading content without paying.

If a website wishes to generate revenue by displaying ads, then it is completely at the mercy of its visitors as to whether or not those ads generate any revenue. Website visitors are not any more morally or legally compelled to view or click on an ad than they are to view any of the content that a website displays. As the content is displayed on a computing device that is not owned or subsidized by the operator, over a network that is not owned or subsidized by the operator, the operator has absolutely no say in how the visitor chooses to interact with the site.

If a website wishes to absolutely guarantee to be paid for every page that is viewed on their website, they have one option: demand that the visitor to pay for a subscription. If a viewer bypasses the subscription in order to view the content, then they are committing theft and illegally downloading content that they did not have any right to access.

While reasons my vary, the most common reason why a website will choose ads over subscriptions:
1) Its passive collection of money versus active. It doesn't require the visitor to take any extra actions to view the content.
2) It costs nothing to visitors to view ads, where as they may not have money for a subscription.
3) Advertisements displayed and clicked on can generate greater revenue than active subscriptions, even if only a small percentage of visitors interact with ads.

[JamieLei]

As a person who produces audio and video content for purchase, and operates a website for content that is supported by ads, I completely disagree with you on the idea that blocking ads is analogous to illegally downloading content without paying.

If a website wishes to generate revenue by displaying ads, then it is completely at the mercy of its visitors as to whether or not those ads generate any revenue. Website visitors are not any more morally or legally compelled to view or click on an ad than they are to view any of the content that a website displays. As the content is displayed on a computing device that is not owned or subsidized by the operator, over a network that is not owned or subsidized by the operator, the operator has absolutely no say in how the visitor chooses to interact with the site.

I suppose one could make comparisons to a shop. In my opinion, TT-F and your website are fundamentally different. Your website is like a shop; access to the shop might as well be free, as it is the end products that the shop sells that is the revenue stream (ads may supplement, similar to how malls have ads too). It's part of the business model that people who buy will subsidise those who don't. With a forum however, there is nothing to buy apart from a donation. The whole thing partly relies upon tiny contributions from each visitor, which through advertising does ensure that every page viewed offsets some of the cost, as you've explained well in the post above.

In the end, it comes down to this entitlement thing that as a moderate conservative I really hate. Regardless of what laws, and what rights, and what loopholes you might dig up, most of the internet relies upon advertising to pay its way. People complain about the big giants rolling in cash, but in the end, its the beloved small websites that rely upon advertising to offset some of the costs. There is no entitlement to free access, any more than there is to music or films. And in the end, if advertising becomes too much, you could simply use another site (I'm thinking of the monstrosity that answers.com has become in recent months).

[orudge]

I'd be surprised if Owen had implemented these pop ups without saying anything - he's usually very hot on keeping us up to date with the way the site is run and works in practice.

And although it is annoying (and I'd be very annoyed) - advertising DOES keep the site going!

I've not changed anything with regards to the advertising on here. Google also haven't told me that they've changed the advertising in any way - but I'm not sure if they would have to. I'll look into it.

I remember when Google AdSense started, it was text-only (in contrast to the increasingly annoying adverts that popped up elsewhere on the Internet, often literally). Quite refreshing. They gradually introduced image adverts, and Flash adverts, and whatnot, over time...

[kamnet]

I suppose one could make comparisons to a shop. In my opinion, TT-F and your website are fundamentally different. Your website is like a shop; access to the shop might as well be free, as it is the end products that the shop sells that is the revenue stream (ads may supplement, similar to how malls have ads too).

Sorry, to be clear. Those two things wern't together, but separate. I create content that I ask people directly to pay for. I also operate a website where the content is supported exclusively by advertisement.

With a forum however, there is nothing to buy apart from a donation.

There are tons of forums where you have to pay a subscription in order to gain access to content. Owen's decided to fund TT-F through advertisements, but there's nothing which says he can't ask for a subscription. Or, for that matter, for you to ship him smoked salmon every other year.

In the end, it comes down to this entitlement thing that as a moderate conservative I really hate. Regardless of what laws, and what rights, and what loopholes you might dig up, most of the internet relies upon advertising to pay its way. People complain about the big giants rolling in cash, but in the end, its the beloved small websites that rely upon advertising to offset some of the costs. There is no entitlement to free access, any more than there is to music or films.

You're right, there is no entitlement at all. Visitors to web sites are not entitled to free content any more than web site operators are entitled to earn free money. It's all a very give-and-take proposition. But nobody who comes here is demanding free access. Owen has decided to place no restrictions on access. There is nothing that says he can't do so, but he's chosen not to. And as both a website operator and a content producer, I can firmly say that if you expect for people to pay for your content or product, then you must demand that people do so. To my knowledge, Owen has never demanded anybody pay him to access TT-F. He's kindly asked us for our donations, and he's placed advertisements for our consideration.

[orudge]

Or, for that matter, for you to ship him smoked salmon every other year.

Now that's an idea.

[Dave]

But you live in Aberdeen! Surely the salmon you get is way fresher than what you'd get all the way from Kentucky!

[Ameecher]

I have an adblocker that I use for Youtube just so that I can watch the video I want without having to watch a load of guff beforehand. I figure Google have enough money as it is. I used to use it for 4OD until they wised up to it and still can use it for ITV/STV player except they don't produce any interesting output for me to bother going there.

[orudge]

But you live in Aberdeen! Surely the salmon you get is way fresher than what you'd get all the way from Kentucky!

There are local suppliers that offer online orders that I'm sure all you fine folk could get sent here.