SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question An attack on webmasters

    Does anyone else feel that some browser companies are just paving the way to undermine webmasters?

    I just use IE myself, but there's a few Mozilla users at work. Even some Opera users *shivers*.

    However, these browsers are employing functions that undermine the webmaster. Most notably, they can stop popup ads and they can block images from any server (so banner ads are in trouble). Some users just blocked my ad server quickly and easily with a pre-supplied option.

    Ad blockers are bad anyway, but when the brower comes with such features as standard, it's dangerous.

    I got in a storm, threatened to ban Mozilla from my site. In fact, I now hear it's even possible (as standard) to spoof your browser, so you can hide what it is.

    But anyway, browsers like Mozilla are trying tricks to grab market share. But is it wise? When browser wars went on, there were plenty of "Netscape Now" buttons, and the like. But are we webmasters going to encourage the user of a browser that helps kill our sites? If anything, we'll rally around to eliminate it (I'll certainly do anything I can to keep the browser out).

    Or do I worry too much?

  2. #2
    morphine for a wooden leg randem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    .chicago.il.us
    Posts
    957
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have you heard the old saying, "adapt or die" ?

    Nobody likes banner ads. Nobody likes pop-up ads. Nobody like the annoying things people do in attempt to make a buck. If you provide a good service and deserve to be compensated for it, the simple answer is: Charge for your site. Then we'll see if you're really worthwhile, or if you're just another crybaby who is pissed off that he can't bury his crappy site in popups and make a quick buck.

    Frankly, it's inevitable... The internet was free when it was invented, and the same brilliant minds who invented the technologies you take for granted will do what they can to keep it free. It's supposed to be about information, man.

    If you perform a service worth paying for, people will pay... it happens every day. But if it's useless crap, people will skip it.

    No, the browser developers are not trying to "undermine webmasters." They're just trying to keep us honest. And I, for one, thank them for it.
    ----Adopt-a-Sig----
    Your message here!

  3. #3
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's not about webmasters, dude. It's about the consumer and consumers don't want all the ads and popups....like randem said, adapt or die. I have no sympathies. It's good to diversify and use something other than IE anyway.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Seconded.

    <-- Relatively new die hard Mozilla user.

    Opera = #2 browser (love being able to switch images off so quickly and use custom/no style - great for testing).

    I am a user. I don't like, want or request pop-ups. You can turn them off in IE by disabling active scripting, however, I like being able to simply switch off unrequested pop-ups - that way other "relevant" scripting can still work.

    These browsers aren't attacking the "webmaster". They're attacking spam marketeers, and a good thing too.

    With aol adopting the Mozilla engine, and Nokia adopting Opera, IE
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  5. #5
    SitePoint Guru moonman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Sea of Tranquility
    Posts
    696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TheOriginalH
    With aol adopting the Mozilla engine, and Nokia adopting Opera, IE
    I don't think it'll ever be to IE.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Text ads are better anyway. People just want to get away from the pop-ups. People have gotten so carried away with them that it's more like an attack than advertising when you go to some sites. I don't think most people mind about the old style banner ads, although they also don't really "see" them anymore, but the ones that take up half a page are a hindrence. Text ads that are well targeted can be much more inviting to click on, anyway.

  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by moonman


    I don't think it'll ever be to IE.
    Is in my place of work and home .

    Aah well, I can dream. Actually, if they added the features that Mozilla & Opera had I'd prolly use it, but it really is an inferior browser now...
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  8. #8
    morphine for a wooden leg randem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    .chicago.il.us
    Posts
    957
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TheOriginalH
    ...Actually, if they added the features that Mozilla & Opera had I'd prolly use it, but it really is an inferior browser now...
    Agreed. Internet Explorer is the only browser that I absolutely will not use at home or at work. Not only due to it's feature-inferiority, but it is also the only browser with such a reputation for security holes.
    ----Adopt-a-Sig----
    Your message here!

  9. #9
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But I don't think it should be an issue about what is 'right' though.

    I hate popups, I don't run them on my site. However, if a site has them, that's their prerogative.

    Sometimes popups and banners are the *only* source of revenue for a website, so these browsers are heping to cement their feet together.

    If you don't like popups or whatever, then you shouldn't visit their site. If you want to use their facilities, services and content -- then you should put up with their choice of ads. Otherwise it's being selfish.

    Ultimately, you don't have to go to any particular website.

    I'm all for websites finding alternative methods. I run banners, but not popups. I also sell subscriptions. But ultimately, it should be the choice of the website owner if people are coming to walk around their pages IMHO.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They have the choice. I've gone to sites with Mozilla and not been allowed in unless I enabled the pop-ups. So I didn't go in. But how do you make someone watch a TV commercial? Read the ads in a print magazine? You have to make some effort to get a person's interest rather than turn them off.

  11. #11
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I got a knock on my door on Saturday. It was Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert me (which, as a sidenote I might add, is not going to happen because I'm a born again Christian and have no desire to even listen to the JW's try to corrupt my faith). I didn't have to answer the door, but I DID have to because if I didn't they would keep knocking. They knew I was home.

    It's the same thing, when I am browsing the web, I don't want this stuff popping up at me in the privacy of my home without my consent. You can use the argument that I don't have to go to those sites, but come on, how does one know that a site has popups prior to visiting for the first time. The only way I know is if it's an about.com page or an MSN sponsored page. Then there's ESPN which I live and die by. They have popups all over the place. I'd much prefer to have Mozilla suppress these ads then let somebody willingly advertise at me.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  12. #12
    morphine for a wooden leg randem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    .chicago.il.us
    Posts
    957
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But I don't think it should be an issue about what is 'right' though.
    Of course not, because what's right is in direct opposition to your stance.

    I hate popups, I don't run them on my site. However, if a site has them, that's their prerogative.
    And if a visitor disables them, that's his prerogative.

    Sometimes popups and banners are the *only* source of revenue for a website, so these browsers are heping to cement their feet together.
    Which is why people talk so much about diversity. When all of your eggs are in one basket, you have too much at risk when the basket breaks.

    If you don't like popups or whatever, then you shouldn't visit their site. If you want to use their facilities, services and content -- then you should put up with their choice of ads. Otherwise it's being selfish.
    Selfish... kinda like you're being right now, eh?

    Ultimately, you don't have to go to any particular website.
    And ultimately, they don't need to have those popups on there.

    I'm all for websites finding alternative methods. I run banners, but not popups. I also sell subscriptions. But ultimately, it should be the choice of the website owner if people are coming to walk around their pages IMHO.
    Kinda like running a department store, and choosing who is allowed to shop there, right? No handicapped access, and only your particular race is allowed through the doors, right? Besides, those other people's money isn't as good anyway, is it?
    ----Adopt-a-Sig----
    Your message here!

  13. #13
    SitePoint Guru tombempty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    688
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Talking Rock on Sketch

    (which, as a sidenote I might add, is not going to happen because I'm a born again Christian and have no desire to even listen to the JW's try to corrupt my faith).

    You go sketch


    PM
    ********
    Regards,

    P

  14. #14
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by randem


    Of course not, because what's right is in direct opposition to your stance.
    Please, don't be so arrogant.

    And if a visitor disables them, that's his prerogative.
    And if the site owner bars that person, that's their prerogative.


    Selfish... kinda like you're being right now, eh?
    Don't forget who's providing the service.


    Kinda like running a department store, and choosing who is allowed to shop there, right? No handicapped access, and only your particular race is allowed through the doors, right? Besides, those other people's money isn't as good anyway, is it?
    No, nothing at all like running a department store and choosing not to allow access to the disabled and certain races.

    It's a lot closer to barring people you know only want to window shop or people who want your service for free.

    randem, I feel that much of your post was a complete distortion of AntonyF's position.

    I actually agree with his points.

    As much as I hate pop-up ads and banners, as a consumer I have the choice to either go there and suffer the consequences of their revenue model or leave.

    I have no god-given right to access their service/information.
    The only right we can expect to enjoy is the right not to be refused access on the basis of a disability, race and religion.

    Choosing not to view popup ads does not fall under such guidelines.
    It is purely a consumer decision.

    Pop-up ads and banners are not an accessibility issue and has nothing to do with denying access in the ways you mentioned.

    if a user turns of javascript, then *they* should not *neccessarily* be catered for by a site that is primarily javascript driven.
    If the site owner provides an alternative for those users then they do so of their own free will (or as a business decision), not through obligation to those who expect to have my site bend to their demands.

    A user who turns off popups and is barred from a site as a direct result then that 'limitation' is self-inflicted and the user should understand that the viewing of the ads may be a condition of the viewing of the site.

    It may be a case of the site owner losing out on attention/custom, but they are aware of that and they make their choice too.

    As long as no-one is being barred on the basis of disabled requirements then the department store analogy is completely redundant.


    I am totally in favour of author/owner having conditions as to how the site is presented.

    I either go there, or I don't.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  15. #15
    morphine for a wooden leg randem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    .chicago.il.us
    Posts
    957
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, nothing at all like running a department store and choosing not to allow access to the disabled and certain races.

    It's a lot closer to barring people you know only want to window shop or people who want your service for free.
    That's a fine, well-spoken argument... but a wrong one. You see, nowhere in the cry-baby rant about people disabling Javascript or popups did the original poster ever mention anything about having a "terms of use" clearly visible from every page of his site whereby any accidental visitor (or return visitor) is made aware that the site is not free, and asks you leave if you are not supporting the web site's revenue method.

    Using your window shopping analogy, the correct comparison would be an online store where people browse the products all day, but never buy them. In fairness, my department store analogy is not entirely correct either. Perhaps a much better example would be a public library, where the patrons are forced to listen to car salesmen and casinos yell in their ear while they are trying to do their research. Do you see the point yet?

    randem, I feel that much of your post was a complete distortion of AntonyF's position.
    Funny, I was thinking that it was you who had distorted my position.

    I actually agree with his points.
    Of course you do.

    As much as I hate pop-up ads and banners, as a consumer I have the choice to either go there and suffer the consequences of their revenue model or leave.
    ... or turn off the irritating popup ads and kill the banners, so you can read in peace ...

    I have no god-given right to access their service/information.
    Perhaps you're not familiar with HTTP. HTTP is the hypertext transfer protocol, which is the basis of all that we know on the "world wide web". HTTP works when someone connects a computer to the "internet" and leaves it always on, listening for other computers to request information from it. This is called a server.

    When those other computers request that information, the server computer then responds to the request by providing that information. This information is delivered in a text format, called HTML. An HTML document is nothing more than a text document, interlaced with code called tags, which help the client software to display the text.

    HTTP includes methods for denying access to documents available on a given server. Access can be granted or denied based on the IP address of the requester, a given username and/or password, the existence of a public security key, or a number of other methods.

    If the original poster wants to disable access to people who are "cementing his feet together", he could write the code in under 10 minutes which would prevent anyone who blocks javascript or popups from accessing his site. And there are ways to work with the banner images as well. If he wants to deny access to people like me, I will even write the code!! For free even.

    The truth of the matter is simple. At the end of the day, we still care more about the number of hits we get than we do about anything else. And what's true will always be true... Nobody buys a cow when the milk is free. Block the access and tell me if you're happy with the number of hits you're getting...

    Choosing not to view popup ads does not fall under such guidelines. It is purely a consumer decision.
    Consumer decision is the heart of capitalism. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

    Pop-up ads and banners are not an accessibility issue and has nothing to do with denying access in the ways you mentioned.
    This is a prime example of how you are distorting my words.

    if a user turns of javascript, then *they* should not *neccessarily* be catered for by a site that is primarily javascript driven.
    Anyone adept enough to turn off javascript already knows they are not going to be "catered to" and has accepted that in trade for a more peaceful browsing experience.

    If the site owner provides an alternative for those users then they do so of their own free will (or as a business decision), not through obligation to those who expect to have my site bend to their demands.
    I don't know where this remark comes from, but it strays too far from the topic at hand, so no response...

    A user who turns off popups and is barred from a site as a direct result then that 'limitation' is self-inflicted and the user should understand that the viewing of the ads may be a condition of the viewing of the site.
    Here you make my point for me!

    It may be a case of the site owner losing out on attention/custom, but they are aware of that and they make their choice too.
    And here again!

    As long as no-one is being barred on the basis of disabled requirements then the department store analogy is completely redundant.
    The department store analogy was used in context in response to the remark that " it should be the choice of the website owner if people are coming to walk around their pages". When viewed in context, you have no rebuttal to my remarks.

    I am totally in favour of author/owner having conditions as to how the site is presented.
    Neither am I, as long as those conditions are posted clearly for all visitors to see. And also assuming that the webmaster is prepared to do the access restriction 'policing' that will need to be done to enfore those conditions.

    I either go there, or I don't.
    Yeah. Like the rest of us. Don't get me started.
    ----Adopt-a-Sig----
    Your message here!

  16. #16
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by randem
    That's a fine, well-spoken argument... but a wrong one. You see, nowhere in the cry-baby rant about people disabling Javascript or popups did the original poster ever mention anything about having a "terms of use" clearly visible from every page of his site whereby any accidental visitor (or return visitor) is made aware that the site is not free, and asks you leave if you are not supporting the web site's revenue method.
    To my knowledge, a vendor is not obliged to give advanced warning to visitors that a service isn't for free.
    Surely they will find out soon enough when they attempt to enter 'for free'.

    It is only the attitude that people have come to expect everything for free that even makes such a thing into a bone of contention.


    Perhaps a much better example would be a public library, where the patrons are forced to listen to car salesmen and casinos yell in their ear while they are trying to do their research. Do you see the point yet?
    Another unfortunate analogy.
    A library is typically a public building open to the public without the requirement of an entrance fee,
    Another analogy may be expecting to enter a night-club or similar entrance fee charging establishment.

    I'm sure we could fire analogies at each other all day that suit our own perspective, but it's probably best we don't bother.


    ... or turn off the irritating popup ads and kill the banners, so you can read in peace ...
    I'm not someone who continually expects everything for free.
    If a person/company/website provides a good service/product then I'm more than happy to put a little money in their pockets in return by letting my eyeballs roll across an ad or two.

    It's just a way of saying 'thank you'.


    Perhaps you're not familiar with HTTP. HTTP is the hypertext transfer protocol, which is the basis of all that we know on the "world wide web". HTTP works when someone connects a computer to the "internet" and leaves it always on, listening for other computers to request information from it. This is called a server.

    When those other computers request that information, the server computer then responds to the request by providing that information. This information is delivered in a text format, called HTML. An HTML document is nothing more than a text document, interlaced with code called tags, which help the client software to display the text.

    HTTP includes methods for denying access to documents available on a given server. Access can be granted or denied based on the IP address of the requester, a given username and/or password, the existence of a public security key, or a number of other methods.

    If the original poster wants to disable access to people who are "cementing his feet together", he could write the code in under 10 minutes which would prevent anyone who blocks javascript or popups from accessing his site. And there are ways to work with the banner images as well. If he wants to deny access to people like me, I will even write the code!! For free even.
    And so on and so on...

    And once we get past the pointless, misdirected attempt at condescension we finally get to an option that can be offered and discussed.


    The truth of the matter is simple. At the end of the day, we still care more about the number of hits we get than we do about anything else.
    Just so you know. You do not speak for everyone with a website.

    Some people care more for the purity of the message.
    I've had this particular debate before and I've found that it's largely futile trying to convince some people that some site owners value quality over quantity when it comes to viewers.


    And what's true will always be true...
    Alternatively, change is the only constant.
    This is especially true of a medium as volatile as the web.


    Block the access and tell me if you're happy with the number of hits you're getting...
    Block access to those not willing to take a greater interest in the material and then ask them how much their turnover per visitor ratio has improved.

    Again, quality, not quantity.


    Consumer decision is the heart of capitalism. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.
    No-one's denying that. Charging an entrance fee is equally part of the game.
    Entrance fees don't seem to have damaged those private industries that require them.

    People will be happy to pay if the service/product is good enough.


    This is a prime example of how you are distorting my words.
    Not at all.
    I just pointed out that denying access to those who have made a consumer decision is not the same as denying access on the grounds of disability.


    I don't know where this remark comes from, but it strays too far from the topic at hand, so no response...
    It was a response to the attitude that sites should somehow not object when conditions of their site (declared or otherwise) are side-stepped.


    Here you make my point for me!

    And here again!
    Then I suggest that either your point is beginning to shift or that, once again, you need to reread those comments.


    The department store analogy was used in context in response to the remark that " it should be the choice of the website owner if people are coming to walk around their pages". When viewed in context, you have no rebuttal to my remarks.
    Then I suggest you read my comment again as it still stands.
    Your own post expanded on one phrase - 'walk around' and extrapolated it beyond recognition from a simple commercial decision into one that opposed entry in ways that are both immoral and illegal.


    Neither am I...
    ??


    ...as long as those conditions are posted clearly for all visitors to see.
    Not officially or commercially required.


    And also assuming that the webmaster is prepared to do the access restriction 'policing' that will need to be done to enfore those conditions.
    Obviously.


    The bottom line is that I believe in the right of businesses to operate whatever business model they choose.
    The relationship that said business develops with its clients and potential clients should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits, free from the undermining, universal intervention methods of third parties.


    I see not ethical distinction between removing a site's ads against the wishes of the site owner and telephone phreaking techniques (I think that;s the right term. Subverting the phone system in order to make free phonecalls.)

    Neither do I see an ethical distinction when compared to those items of software that subvert a site's ads and text in the way that certain sales hijacking software does.

    It's simply hijacking the intended content of a site.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  17. #17
    SitePoint Zealot GregShasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    atlanta ga
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The battle against 'spam'(pop-ups, banners and soforce) is really self defeating. The instant pop-ups are 'banned' there will be another form or version of 'pop-ups' more insidious in its place. Satan didn't create marketers to be easily foiled.

    Greg
    'I guess that my ambition was to be a bum'--robert mitchum

  18. #18
    morphine for a wooden leg randem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    .chicago.il.us
    Posts
    957
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To my knowledge, a vendor is not obliged to give advanced warning to visitors that a service isn't for free.
    Surely they will find out soon enough when they attempt to enter 'for free'.
    Sadly, I again find myself referring back to the original poster. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this was never a discussion of pay sites. This is a discussion of free sites which earn their revenue solely from advertising. Damn, you sure are dense.

    Another unfortunate analogy.
    A library is typically a public building open to the public without the requirement of an entrance fee,
    Another analogy may be expecting to enter a night-club or similar entrance fee charging establishment.
    Did you pay a single bit of attention to the rant about HTTP? Since I'm still not getting through to you, let me make this very clear: if your computer is connected to the internet as a web server and does not restrict access, then yes... your site is free.

    I can't wait to see how you twist that into an argument. I would really respect you more if you would argue on the merit of a point instead of arguing just to not lose.

    I'm not someone who continually expects everything for free.If a person/company/website provides a good service/product then I'm more than happy to put a little money in their pockets in return by letting my eyeballs roll across an ad or two. It's just a way of saying 'thank you'.
    So put that in the site's terms of use. That's not so much to ask.

    [quote[Just so you know. You do not speak for everyone with a website.[/quote]

    I have never claimed to represent anyone more than myself.

    Some people care more for the purity of the message.
    I've had this particular debate before and I've found that it's largely futile trying to convince some people that some site owners value quality over quantity when it comes to viewers.
    The very flaw in your statement is "trying to convince." This is not a sale, and you will never "convince" me that you're right and I'm wrong. It's about discussion, and if you have a valid point or a perspective that I have never considered, this is where you convey that, and if it has merit, I say "ahh, I never considered that!" Sadly, I'm still waiting for that... you apparently just like to argue. That's okay too... I like it.

    Alternatively, change is the only constant.
    This is especially true of a medium as volatile as the web.
    That's my favorite. When the opponent doesn't have a relevant remark, they resort to notable quotes in opposition to your own.

    No-one's denying that. Charging an entrance fee is equally part of the game. Entrance fees don't seem to have damaged those private industries that require them. People will be happy to pay if the service/product is good enough.
    And sadly, I have to again point out that this was never a discussion of pay sites. Plain English: WE ARE DISCUSSING FREE SITES WHICH EARN PROFIT FROM ADVERTISEMENTS, AND THE IMPACT ON THEM BY BROWSERS WHICH ALLOW DISABLING SCRIPTING, POPUPS, AND/OR BANNERS. Capiche?

    Then I suggest you read my comment again as it still stands. Your own post expanded on one phrase - 'walk around' and extrapolated it beyond recognition from a simple commercial decision into one that opposed entry in ways that are both immoral and illegal.
    Actually, I never mentioned nor expanded on that phrase. I could not care less about that phrase. Either you have a learning disorder, in which case you should point it out right now so I can apologize and we'll end this discussion, or else you have a really thick head, in which case I will not apologize, but we still end this discussion which is obviously going nowhere.

    The bottom line is that I believe in the right of businesses to operate whatever business model they choose.
    The relationship that said business develops with its clients and potential clients should be permitted to succeed or fail on its own merits, free from the undermining, universal intervention methods of third parties.
    Wow. Such a good point, and one I agree with. It's a shame that this has so little relevance to the discussion at hand.

    I'm really not interested in this discussion anymore. I know (without a doubt) that you'll reply here, because you're the type that argues for the sake of arguing, and you have to have the last word. So write whatever makes you feel good, you'll win. Unless you make a valid and intelligent argument, you can rest assured that you'll get no further response from me.
    ----Adopt-a-Sig----
    Your message here!

  19. #19
    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 Sketch
    I got a knock on my door on Saturday. It was Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert me (which, as a sidenote I might add, is not going to happen because I'm a born again Christian and have no desire to even listen to the JW's try to corrupt my faith). I didn't have to answer the door, but I DID have to because if I didn't they would keep knocking. They knew I was home.
    You could get a dog... Really big dogs work great. I have two and they don't knock on my door anymore.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  20. #20
    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)
    Is it an attack on Webmasters? Nope, I don't think so. It is a fight for market share. They are giving the user the features they want. As a webmaster, you should as well. This might cut into your advertising and it will make it more difficult to make a living however, if you give the customer (your users) what they want, in the end you will prosper. It isn't a get-rich-quick scheme, any business takes time. If you truly want to make money on the Internet, you need to run your website according to the laws of business. I personally have three sites, none of them use Popups though one uses 125 X 125 banner ads at the rate of one per page. One of the sites is a fun site run by my wife and I using vBulletin Discussion Forums. It costs us $8.95 a month for webhosting. Another is a retail site sell items for earth-based religions again it costs me $8.95 a month for webhosting and very little for inventory since it is teamed up with a local shop catering to the same market. Finally my third site is my "brochure". It costs a little more to maintain, not because it is anything special but because it is my anchor site. Currently outside of SitePoint and the work for vBulletin, I maintain 4 other websites, with 2 in development. Of these sites, none have advertising and probably never will. Three of the sites are for Non-Profit Organizations, One is for a local church, another is for the local Interfaith Council and the last is a personal site of a friend of mine. Each of these sites only cost $4.95 a month for hosting.

    Personally, I don't see why there is a large need for everyone to have advertising. Granted if you are running a content based business you need advertising on your site. But if you go through an agency like double-click, you are shooting yourself in the foot anyway. If you sold your own advertising you would make better money without reverting to popups, excessive banners and other things the public doesn't want.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  21. #21
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by randem
    Sadly, I again find myself referring back to the original poster. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but this was never a discussion of pay sites. This is a discussion of free sites which earn their revenue solely from advertising. Damn, you sure are dense.
    Firstly, watch your mouth.

    You may be right, you may be wrong. If the debate continues we may settle on some form of agreement. Either way there is no need to become personally insulting.

    You surely have no claim to the intellectual high-ground, so inferring so is pointless.
    Furthermore, doing it in that manner is childish and I had hoped it was beneath us.


    [b]Did you pay a single bit of attention to the rant about HTTP? Since I'm still not getting through to you, let me make this very clear: if your computer is connected to the internet as a web server and does not restrict access, then yes... your site is free.
    Yes, I did read it all.

    It was something I was already aware of, so didn't contend it.

    The point is that site owners do have the means to restrict access to only those willing to meet certain conditions. That much we agree on.
    If they decide that those conditions include viewing ads, then they can reasonably deny access to those using techniques that avoid doing so.
    They are perfectly within their right to do so.

    The point behind that (the point I originally made) was that I have no 'right' to view their content.
    I further have no right to expect to be able to view it free from any restrictions they impliment (i.e. by preventing popups.)

    I take the view that it is fair to either take what they offer in the form that they offer it or I shop elsewhere.

    I choose to 'play the game' their way or not play on their site.
    Paramount is the knowledge of who owns the site and the offer.

    I'm totally in favour of seeing such technologies that disable features of a site being removed from the playing field so that the model chosen by the site owner can sink or swim purely on its own merits.


    I can't wait to see how you twist that into an argument. I would really respect you more if you would argue on the merit of a point instead of arguing just to not lose.
    Rest assured, I will not be be losing any sleep over how much you do or do not respect me.
    Given your manner so far, I'm not at all convinced that you are capable of treating differing views with any respect at all.

    Fwiw, I argue my view from a point of principle based on how I feel the web should accept the authority of the author and either choose that service 'as is' or not or not at all.


    I have never claimed to represent anyone more than myself.
    Then perhaps you should steer clear of using phrases that clearly do allude to represent the views of others.
    "At the end of the day, we still care more about the number of hits we get than we do about anything else."


    The very flaw in your statement is "trying to convince." This is not a sale, and you will never "convince" me that you're right and I'm wrong. It's about discussion, and if you have a valid point or a perspective that I have never considered, this is where you convey that, and if it has merit, I say "ahh, I never considered that!" Sadly, I'm still waiting for that... you apparently just like to argue. That's okay too... I like it.
    Again, steer clear of the abusive assumptions.
    It doesn't strengthen your point to attempt to undermine the person you are debating with rather than the points they are making.


    That's my favorite. When the opponent doesn't have a relevant remark, they resort to notable quotes in opposition to your own.
    I was simply pointing out that basing your own comment on a 'truism' ('what's true will always be true') was pointless and too easily countered to provide worthwhile back-up to any comments based on it.
    As with analogies, there is an adage to suit all occassions and positions so pulling them out of the bag to substantiate your position was always going to be a fruitless task.

    I thought using a counter-truism would highlight that more clearly.

    Whether I chose to quickly use an adage that opposed the position of your own or whether I chose to point out the failings of that belief in some other way, the point remains that both are equally valid and equally invalid.
    Basing a position on such 'catch-all' statements will not provide a solid foundation for any position.

    It hasn't gone unnoticed that your only response to my comment was against that manner in which I chose to convey the point and not how well the point provided a legitimate counter to that used by yourself.

    Why was this?? Didn't you have "a relevant remark"?


    And sadly, I have to again point out that this was never a discussion of pay sites. Plain English: WE ARE DISCUSSING FREE SITES WHICH EARN PROFIT FROM ADVERTISEMENTS, AND THE IMPACT ON THEM BY BROWSERS WHICH ALLOW DISABLING SCRIPTING, POPUPS, AND/OR BANNERS. Capiche?
    Sorry, my bad. I assumed you could make the leap.
    If a visitor is conditionally required to view popup ads in order to gain entry, then it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see that as an entrance 'fee'.
    The model of popups is often that the visitor 'pays' with their eyeballs.

    Try to make the leap. It would save us both from having to sit through your repetitive exclamations.


    Actually, I never mentioned nor expanded on that phrase. I could not care less about that phrase. Either you have a learning disorder, in which case you should point it out right now so I can apologize and we'll end this discussion, or else you have a really thick head, in which case I will not apologize, but we still end this discussion which is obviously going nowhere.
    I'll shall treat that comment with the contempt that it deserves.
    You clearly are incapable of reasonable debate and I have no desire to debate with an abusive child, so indeed as you say, let's just end it here.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  22. #22
    <?php echo(witty title)?> Sal Petrarca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't mind ads, so much as they don't try to take my attention away from the topic at hand. If I'm browsing a computer-related site, I don't want car ads flashing at the top of tha page - I want to see an ad for AlienWare computers. Ads wouldn't be so bad if they were STATIC and stayed ON TOPIC.

    Popup ads should be banned.
    Geeks...Rock...Your...Box
    Sites:Dark Moon Rising:::My Site

  23. #23
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please keep this objective peeps - personal attacks are really not neccesary.

    I have a major problem with pop-ups for many reasons - but let me throw one in that hasn't been discussed....

    My current PC cost me over 1000 (self built over time). That's a reasonable investment and represents expenditure on a resource. That resource will depreciate and thus using it costs me money in real terms.

    As I am paying for the resource, I decide how it is used. My processing power costs money - it's up to me how to allocate it.

    If I want information, I will seek a site that is happy to provide that information. If they do a good job, I will at their request endevour to compensate in some manner (be it clicking an ad, whatever).

    However, they are GIVING me the info by posting it on open internet protocols, they are NOT trading info for processing power which pop-ups will use (and, remember, I pay for).

    If they would like to serve only people with pop-ups on, setting it up is a breeze. If they are not "giving" the content away, then some sort of alternative access should be set up - using open protocols aint the answer.
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  24. #24
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Does anyone *actually* wait for pop ups to load anyway?

    I know that as soon as I see the dreaded new window pop up I aim for the close button without even waiting for it to resize, center on the screen and then pop to the back of my open window stack.

    POP! CLOSE!

    Pop up ads are the single most annoying thing ever on the internet. There are a few sites that I visit that have them, before I go to that site, I disable active scripting so I can go about my business without trying to aim my mouse at another new window.

    The worst kind of pop-up's are the ones that open when you close the site's window - is there any need for that?

    As WLuke said, sell your own advertising, offer to put up ads on your site in return for discounted hosting costs - put together a brief, professional proposal.

    If, however, your site isn't that popular and you only get a few visitors a day, then no one will be interested in sponsorship / advertising and you're just annoying your last few visitors with the pop ups

    Why not offer your visitors a choice; for a small one off fee they can browse your site without adverts. I'd pay $5 - $10 for a site that I really like if it meant I didn't have to deal with pop ups and adverts.

  25. #25
    Drupaler bronze trophy greg.harvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Talking Contentious!

    Webmaster? What's that? In my experience, the webmaster is someone who doesn't know as much about the technology as I do, for some bizarre reason has the final say on what goes on the web servers at whatever client I'm working with at the time, really doesn't know what he/she it doing and really should just leave it to the IT manager. That way I only have one close-minded lazy techy to dodge past!

    By way of an example, one such webmaster stopped a site going live while I was on holiday after writing all the code. The reason? He didn't think it would work. Why didn't he think it would work? Because the muppet barely knows HTML, never mind VBS, looked at my code, didn't understand it and gave it the red light!!! I came back from holiday and had to give him a two hour ASP tutorial before he'd let it go live (and that's AFTER he'd seen it all working on our development servers!)

    *ducks and covers*

    G

    Ps -- sorry -- a few bad experiences with 'webmasters'. Jobsworths in my opinion.


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
  •