SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 66
  1. #26
    ********* Callithumpian silver trophy freakysid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow Matt, you mean you are just going to post some usefull information without even hurling a single insult at another member? That is a novel approach to civil discourse

    I am particularly interested in the idea of the pop-under after the user has been at the site for 15 minutes. I assume that you monitor how long the user has been on your site on the server using sessions. I am at your site now, waiting for my pop-under Anyway, the delayed pop-under seems like a smart idea on two levels; the user may rationalise that receiving an ad view is fair enough as they have been enjoying your content, or, the user is now attending to your content and is therefor less likey to be annoyed by a pop-under appearing than they would if be if you served the pop-under when they first arrive at the site.

    I will be curious to know how you find this strategy will work for you over time. I might contact you about it sometime in the future.

    BTW, do you think something similar could be achieved but handled by javascript on the client? I'm not too knowledgeable about javascript so don't know if there are any built in timers that would trigger an event. Guess there must be.
    Last edited by freakysid; Jul 29, 2001 at 22:37.

  2. #27
    Database Jedi MattR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    buried in the database shell (Washington, DC)
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I posted a new thread about what I thought about the future of Ads here:
    http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...591#post209591

    But I don't like ad blockers since they take away revenue from the site (and put us further in the red) but occationally I point our users to them (when the pop-under crashes their browser, or Netscape 4.* refuses to render the ad code, etc.) so that they can enjoy the site. I'm no nazi for people who try and circumvent the ads because they don't like them but I certainly won't give them any help (want your password e-mailed to you and you can't find the form? Look harder anti-FanHome-Ad-boy! ).

    Originally posted by freakysid
    Wow Matt, you mean you are just going to post some usefull information without even hurling a single insult at another member? That is a novel approach to civil discourse
    LOL well I think 'out of the box' a lot.

    Originally posted by freakysid
    I am particularly interested in the idea of the pop-under after the user has been at the site for 15 minutes. I assume that you monitor how long the user has been on your site on the server using sessions. I am at your site now, waiting for my pop-under Anyway, the delayed pop-under seems like a smart idea on two levels; the user may rationalise that receiving an ad view is fair enough as they have been enjoying your content, or, the user is now attending to your content and is therefor less likey to be annoyed by a pop-under appearing than they would if be if you served the pop-under when they first arrive at the site.
    Right -- we keep track of that with the help of vBulletin and then insert some pop-under code in the header then reset the timer. It works well except that the pop-up code does not render on certain browsers (I know IE 6.0 never shows it) and we only have the pop-under code on certain pages (not on the main page for instance).

    Originally posted by freakysid
    I will be curious to know how you find this strategy will work for you over time. I might contact you about it sometime in the future.

    BTW, do you think something similar could be achieved but handled by javascript on the client? I'm not too knowledgeable about javascript so don't know if there are any built in timers that would trigger an event. Guess there must be.
    JavaScript certainly could be used in place of a server-implemented approach. JavaScript can write cookies (I've seen it done but don't know how) and can have a timer so theoretically it would work... but I think it might be limited to 'sit here for 5 minutes then throw a pop-under' which is still pretty usefull; you know the user is attentively looking at that page (assuming they didn't leave the computer or anything) so you can guess that they may get some sort of a benefit out of it. that way you can pull the 'you owe us' card and they may be less inclined to immediately destroy it.

    I'm not sure what the latest stats are for the pop-unders (I lost the password to the stats area for them and I've been too lazy to request it again ) but I think it is favorable. It certainly pays WAY more than regular banner ads. Again read the thread I just created about my ideas for turning around the ad market (or at least using ads to break even! )

  3. #28
    SitePoint Addict Seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Lyons, Colorado
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by aspen
    And who pays the bills of the person who puts that information up for you?

    If too many people use these programs there will be no more free information. Instead of the advertiser paying for it you will have to. Ads don't look so annoying now do they?
    The annoyance of certain ads doesn't change in the least. There are definately more than a fair share of informative sites that do not rely on advertising. I like those that exist for the content they are operating, not for the advertising on it. Obviously some sites are supported by ads, I accept this to a degree. It's the in your face advertising that I don't tolerate, eventually I simply stop visiting them. If the future of the internet is seeing these all over, that's just too much. It looks like they're getting closer and closer to internet commercials and that's a scary thought. Think i'll start using Lynx a bit more.
    Everything has been figured out, except how to live. - Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

  4. #29
    Database Jedi MattR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    buried in the database shell (Washington, DC)
    Posts
    1,107
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Others which offer HUGE increases in revenues are the ones 'stuck in' the middle of your content:
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/ne...kpt=zdhpnews01

    They of course have much higher rates of use but unless your site has content that users can't get somewhere else they won't put up with the annoyance.

  5. #30
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Truelight you admit having no experience in advertising or with running an advertising based site and until you do you shouldn't preach what others should do.

    We'll have to talk affiliate programs here, aspen, since they are heavily used on the internet, and will be in the future. Sitepoints non-standard ads could very well work if they were affiliate programs, bt the way. Affiliate programs ARE actual advertisers, they just pay CPA and CPS instad of CPC/CPM. We can't simply leave them out of the argument.
    CPA and CPS programs perform much worse than any paid sponsorship. They are not in the same category. You cannot claim that they are. It really urks me that you, who have no experience running any site for advertising, think you know so much about it. You don't. Affiliate programs are not advertisers, an advertiser pays you to put an ad on your site, an affiliate program doesn't care what you put on your site, they pay you for referrals. Like I said, 99.99% of free content sites are supported with advertising. Sure some have an affiliate program that gives them a tiny bit each month, but they get most of their money from advertising. There are a few sites, such as http://www.datingreview.com/ or clickquick.com that make a load of money off affiliate programs. But for 99.99% of sites this isn't true.



    However, Branding ads are very rare (I have seen very few, at least), since they are generally extremely expensive, regardless of medium. And when they in fact appear, they only appear on very large sites, like sitepoint.
    False. Over half of my ads are for branding.

    You CAN'T know. On the other hand, you know for a fact that there is a less than 1-3% probability that the person will.
    Exactly. So don't tell me that people who use ad blockers don't click on or view ads anyways, because like you said, you can't know. And I've said before, that 1-3% is good. Not bad.

    Nope, no first-hand experience - I don't run a site yet, as I really don't know much about the online ad industry. I have heard a lot of good things from people on geektalk and sitepoint, though.
    When you do get some experience come back. You shouldn't be preaching about something you have no experience with.

    Wow Matt, you mean you are just going to post some usefull information without even hurling a single insult at another member? That is a novel approach to civil discourse
    Don't be a hypocrite sid, every post of yours contains an insult, sometimes its the only thing in the post.
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  6. #31
    SitePoint Addict Seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Lyons, Colorado
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've stopped using zdnet since they implemented those advertisements. I don't like how I have to read around them all the time. It might not have been so bad if the site layout wasn't a fixed width, at least then I could maximize the page to expand the text.
    Everything has been figured out, except how to live. - Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

  7. #32
    code addict Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use an ad blocker.

    I pay for my bandwidth and ads make things slower to download.

    I think I have clicked on maybe 5 ads in my entire time on the net.

    Ad blockers will not kill the internet. People that care more about money than the exchange of information will.

    Feel free to block me if I use an ad blocker, your website isn't the only one the offers the same information.

  8. #33
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Information isn't free.

    Every site costs money, someone somewhere has to pay for it. A person puts a site up with ads on it with the understanding that you will view these ads. If you don't view the ads you're basically taking advantage of the site owner and ethically you have no right to view the content.

    If people didn't support their sites with ads they would do it with paid subscriptions, perhaps you would like every site you visit to cost money. I don't.
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  9. #34
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by aspen
    You're stealing bandwidth and resources from a site without paying.
    I pay by buying something. If someone offers me something for free and I take it, then how am I stealing? There is no clause on a website that says "You MUST click on a banner or else you have to leave." If there were, then I simply would not visit that website.

    I don't use adblocker software. Mostly because I'm, too lazy to go find it and install it. But, as a designer, I enjoy ads sometimes. I have seen some banner ads that I thought were mini works of art. There is a lot of hard work going into banner designs. To communicate so much in so little a space takes skill and research, and practice.

    I click on banners occasionally, but it's only about 1 out of every 100-300 pages or so.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  10. #35
    code addict Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am allready paying to see your site, adds or not.

    Maybe I should charge website owners who waste my time by putting adds everywhere and making the page take longer to load.

  11. #36
    Serial Publisher silver trophy aspen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    East Lansing, MI USA
    Posts
    12,937
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You're not paying to view my site. If you were I would be getting money wouldn't I.

    You're paying your ISP for Internet Access.

    You're trying to say that if you pay to get in a movie theatre you're free to go into any show you want. Sorry you have to pay for the show itself. Or it'd be the same as paying to get into an amusement park and then expecting to get all the food sold inside for free.

    And creole look above. When someone puts an ad on a site they're doing so with the understanding that you, the visitor, will be exposed to it. If you circumvent that exposure you have no right to view the content since you're violating the unspoken agreement between you and that website owner. Its plain unethical. Sure there may not be an actual written agreement, but it doesn't make it right.

    You may not have very high ethics, and you may think its okay to do this, but I dont.

    Do you remember all advantage? They would pay you to look at advertisements. People would run program on their computer that made it seem like they were awake viewing ads. These people then got paid.

    Would you have done that? Its the same as using an ad blocker only instead of being paid in cash you get paid in information, but the situation is the exact same.

    You're using a service without paying the service provider.

    But like I said, maybe your ethics allow you to do that.
    Chris Beasley - I publish content and ecommerce sites.
    Featured Article: Free Comprehensive SEO Guide
    My Guide to Building a Successful Website
    My Blog|My Webmaster Forums

  12. #37
    code addict Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are judging people based on wether or not they use an ad blocker? That in and of itself is not ethical.

    By using an add blocker I still get the information I want, without ads and I get that information quicker.

    If the point of your website is to provide people with information, ads are a distraction. I remove that distraction. If it's that big of a deal I will mail you the $00.001 that you would have made off me viewing your ads.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Chris...

    You need to chill out a bit. The internet is not here to provide you with money. That is not it's sole purpose.

    As for your comments regarding my ethics, I don't appreciate that. I think I have pretty good ethics actually. Plus, I don't see how they can be called into question here anyway. I already SAID that I don't use adblocker software, and I also said that I click on ads occasionally.

    How does that make me a bad person?

    If I go to your site, you provide me with information. I can choose to stay and view your information or I can leave. If I stay, then I understand that I will be subjected to whatever banners you choose to show me. BUT, there is nothing that states that I have to click on those banners.

    So, two things can happen when I see a banner. I can ignore it (in which case, I am "stealing" from you apparently), or I can click on it. If I click on the banner and leave your site then what? Do I automagically become a good person (one that has ethics)?

    I vote that we close this thread. I don't think it's going anywhere.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  14. #39
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thread closed.

    Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

    EDIT:

    I reopened the thread - I think the situation has calmed down.
    Last edited by mmj; Aug 3, 2001 at 17:59.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog Twitter Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework Jokes Android stuff

  15. #40
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think everyone is taking things out o proportion here.

    Sure the content providers want to make some money. They can't put this information online for free. The easiest way to do this is with advertising. Most media is paid for with a strong advertising model. The money you pay for a magazine or cable TV doesn't pay for the content you get. Nor does the money you pay to your ISP. That is a very wrong assumption.

    The Internet is not a free medium. 10 years ago is was a closed medium and the price of admission was either going to the college of your choice or enlisiting in the United States Military. This is because of the original nature of the Internet.

    Since then it has become a commercial media outlet. This means there are costs involved. Whether you like it or not, this is the case.

    However singling out ad-blockers as the worst thing in life is off kilter as well. About 10 million people use ad-blockers out of what? 250 million Internet users? (this number is hard to track).

    I suggest everyone read these two articles:
    http://www.clickz.com/article/cz.3731.html
    http://clickz.com/article/cz.3878.html

    Then come up with your decisions. It doesn't matter someone will always come up with ways to block advertising. Heck my television has a "Commercial Skip" feature where I press a single key on my remote and the screen goes blank for 30 seconds. I have used it before as well, not to block ads but to protect my children. This is because I determined that the ad or a scene in a movie is too graphic for my young children and as a parent chose to protect them. When my son surfs the Internet, his browser (a kid friendly version of IE) blocks links that lead to unapproved links or sites. This is for his protection not because I don't want the sites to make money, but it does prevent him from clicking on an ad because it is catchy.

    I personally don't block ads because I study them and like looking at the different models coming to light.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  16. #41
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you for reopening the thread, Wayne!

    [edit]I wish to apologize for the sarcasm and personal attacks that I made, it was immature of me, and I will not repeat it. I'm glad this thread is re-opned, since I think this is a very important matter. [/ddit]

    I'll try to summarize the current problems and different standpoints of the online ad industry. This is my observation as person who surfs several hours a day, and observes the movements in the online ad industry with great interest.

    Problem 1:
    CPM is dropping
    No doubt about this one. This is because of different factors, such as decreasing investment money, but one of the main factors are definetly increased hostility against ads.

    Problem 2:
    Ads are becoming more aggressive.
    As click-thrus are diminishing, partly due to hostility, the industry seems keen on solving this by making bigger ads. Pop-unders are also becoming an accepted standard. This stalls surfers in their search for information, making them even more hostile against ads.

    See? This is an evil circle. The surfer becomes more hostile against ads - this makes the agencies make ads more annoying, making the user even more hostile, and then in effect making the ads bigger.

    I think ad-blockers are just an extension of the surfers hostility against ads. A way for the surfers to say - "That's enough!". It's a rage, an outcry, from the very people that keeps the Internet alive - surfers.

    Naturally, we must end this somewhere, and find a decent solution, other than simply blocking ad-blockers out. Otherwise, we will eventually end up with huge, animated ads on one ringside, and smart ad-blocker-blocker-blockers (tricking the web-sites with ad-blocker-blockers) on the other side of the ring, making this a war between annoyed surfers, and agencies struggling to stay alive. In this war, webmasters will be caught in the crossfire, since advertising agencies has to drop their payout even further to stay alive. This is what situation I think Chris suggested method (blocking ad-blockers) will degenerate into.

    The counterargument is that users will, in time, accept the fact that they have to cope with large, blinking gamling ads, that they are not the least bit interested in, since they can't view their favourite sites otherwise.

    Let's assume the counterargument is right, and the majority of surfers do turn off their ad-blockers. If they do, it will NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT BUY THE PRODUCT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sure, the surfer turns off his ad-blocker, and surfs the webmasters site without it, and the webmaster gets paid for the surfers pageviews, and/or this clicks (by ads that are misleading, like the 115$ shopping spree and the "you have one message waiting for you"-banners. However, the surfer generates very little revenue for your advertiser in the end, even if you advertiser still pays you for "branding". This is simply because banners suck, of course. Banners may be a well-defined standard, but that doesn't make them good. They are bad, for several reasons, which I'm not going to reiterate here, since there are numerous forum posts and articles written about why banners sucks in every way imaginable.

    Eventually, this will backfire, of course, making CPM drop, and... you guessed it - make advertising even more aggressive, and thus throwing this whole thing back into the evil circle.

    Nevertheless, I have a hard time beliving that the surfers en-masse will back down in the first place. More likely, they will go to another site, which doesn't block them out. Remember, the surfer wants primarily information, and if your information can be found anywhere else on the net fairly easy, the user will go there.

    Also, remember that ad-blockers are coming pre-installed nowadays! What if the user doesn't know how to turn the thing off? Then he will regard your site as "broken" and go elsewhere, just like 800 people go away from sites that only works in 1024, and NS4 users move away from IE5-only sites.

    Bottom line:
    I still think that we shuld focus on making our ads more targeted, informative, and useful. We can and we must accept the fact that surfers doesn't any animated 400x400 ads.

    If you got this far, thank you for reading this extremely long post.
    Last edited by M. Johansson; Jul 30, 2001 at 19:11.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  17. #42
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I didn't re-open this thread... MMJ did so you can thank him. I am sure he had his reasons.

    Also I would like to point out that Banners don't suck... The current implementation of them does.

    I personally like the larger rich-media ads if they are integrated into the site more because they allow me to get more information without leaving the site... Some sites are starting to use other innovative ads including pointer ads, advergames, 0 real-estate ads and other interesting technologies.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  18. #43
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks MMJ!

    I fully agree with you that banner ads only suck in it's current form - animated, low on information, and 468x60 pixels (since most people filter them out mentally)

    I also like rich-media ads, assuming they are well integrated into the content, as you say, and NOT using looped animations. As you say, rich media allows one to check out something without leaving the current site, and I think that is a very good idea.


    I'm not sure I like the idea of pointer ads, though. Advergames might be fun.
    But what is 0 real-estate ads?
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard big_al's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    1,661
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think advertising is the end all be all of making a site profitable.

    People use ad blockers because they do not like ad's, if they don't want to see an ad they aren't going to click on it if they do see it. I think value adding yur service would provide you with alot better revenue than advertising and I'm sure no one will complain if there are certain things that they have to pay for, if it's going to be worth it. But the biggest bonus is that no one is FORCED to do somthing i.e. Viewing ads.

    Also alot of people use ad blockers because SOME ads do invade your privacy and I think thats UNETHICAL.

    I use a pop-up stopper, but I only turn it on when I'm browsing a site that has 101 pop-ups on every page.
    .NET Code Monkey

  20. #45
    SitePoint Addict Seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Lyons, Colorado
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well targeted text link ads are very under rated and I think they have a lot of potential. I consider them to be user friendly and the very fact that the webmaster has applied them might result in me checking them out more. If they are directed to related products or services that are remotely useful, obviously the chances of clickthroughs are improved. I think Explore.com is an excellent model for a clean type of advertising. Trails.com also has a really nice way of implementing their advertising. I don't really think the size, animation speed, interactivity of an ad is going to make an difference if it's the same thing I see all the time or if it's not related. Take outdoors.com as a really good example of a really bad idea.
    Last edited by Seer; Jul 30, 2001 at 20:44.
    Everything has been figured out, except how to live. - Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

  21. #46
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since this is turning into a discussion about what will work and what isn't working in online advertising...

    The ad shown in the link below will be going live in the next couple of days here in the forums. It will only show for Guests and they have a 1 in 30 chance of seeing it every time they view a thread. It is completely text based and has no images. Plus it "dismisses" itself after 10 seconds.

    http://sitepointforums.com/adpopuptest.html

    That is what I mean by "0 real-estate ads". Other companies can make these more elaborate with Flash. They are more like television commercials and often quite humorous. The Flash ones are selling for around $300 CPM right now. I know Ford (you'll hear their name a lot in advertising on the net) paid Yahoo something like $50,000 to run one of these ads on their Homepage for 1 day.

    Advergames are interesting as well. They are viral.. People can play them online or download them. Companies like Ford, Mazda and Honda are paying big bucks for them... The average game costs about $50,000 to make and $5,000 to put online. I read in the L.A. Times last week that Ford (told you their name is around a lot) has committed to spending $500,000 dollars on this type of advertising over the next year.

    Pointer based ads are similar to the "0 real-estate ads" in that they take up space. They only show up when the mouse cursor is idle and in the browser window. These are not annoying ads.

    The cost of the Flash based "0 real-estate ads" is about the same cost as a 30 second television commercial and it has many of the same benefits... It is colorful, the company has complete control and there is sound with it.

    Think about it.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  22. #47
    ********* Callithumpian silver trophy freakysid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    3,798
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am assuming here that to view what Wayne is talking about you would first need to clear your cookies so that you appear to be a guest.

    Over in general chat, honging has posted a link to an article that raises even an even more disturbing ethical question, that IMHO could be likened to industrial espionage http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...threadid=29799 and, in my way of thinking has got to break some kind of intellectual property law, "passing off", "derivitive work", or somthing. I've heard about this sort of thing happening before (ppl framing another person's site then replacing the links in the page of content) - but not being much into the advertising side of things, I don't know much about how much this sort of practice goes on.

  23. #48
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by freakysid
    I am assuming here that to view what Wayne is talking about you would first need to clear your cookies so that you appear to be a guest.
    Actually the Mockup that I provided should be able to be seen by anyone whether they are a member or not. The ad is hardcoded. However it does require a Javascript and CSS enabled browser.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  24. #49
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yuk i hate those popups we cannot close 10 seconds is too long when you want to read something behind the ad...
    ScriptsCenter.com - Professional Scripts for your Website

  25. #50
    Bimbo With A Brain! silver trophy Saz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Kent, United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, I quite like the idea behind that pop-up. Usually I can't stand the things and close them straight away or leave the site completely, but this one is directly linked to SitePoint - aiming to get guests to sign up. It's not like you're looking at a site about child care, for example, and end up having to view a pop-up about a gambling site.
    Saz: Naturally Blonde, Naturally Dizzy!
    No longer Editor of the Community Crier.

    Don't mind me, I'm having a BLONDE moment!


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •