Links in posts are text only, so the unwary may click without realizing what they’ll be shown. The ads show a thumbnail plus a description; you have a pretty good idea of what you’ll be seeing when you click. This is in keeping with the spirit of our rule.
Would a description alongside a one-click link to pornography be in keeping with the spirit of the rule, since it would give that same pretty good idea?
Thank you for alleviating my confusion, btw.
As a Charter Member, I don’t see ads, and I’ve been told adblock software works for those who wish to use it. I wouldn’t be offended by porn (-ish) ads anyway; bring 'em on.
But what I am deeply offended by, and embarrassed for SDMB, is ads for horoscopes, quack medical advice, and questionable or fraudulent products that this board should never, ever be a party to.
I don’t have a recent example, but I have notified ATMB about such in the past, and was told, in effect, “C’est la vie. Live with it.”
If this problem has been fixed, I apologize and as Emily Litella says, “Never mind.”
I’m not sure that whatever I accidentally clicked on was like that - in fact, I think it may have looked like a bit of whitespace (when tapping and dragging to scroll on a tablet, I usually aim for empty space, specifically to avoid inadvertent clicking)
I find it amusing rather than offensive. How many eager responses are such ads going to get from Dopers? Talk about stony ground!
Not many, but not everyone who reads this message board is even a member.
The worst part is several of them look like a swamp donkey’s ass.
I’m glad you went and looked, because my response was “I don’t remember seeing threads about pornographic ads. Self-loading audio and video ads, sure, but not porno pic ads.”
FYI, these same ads pop up all over pretty much any “news” site that shows entertainment topics. I’ve seen them pretty much on any site linked off threads on this board. The article in question may be about the latest Obama topic, but the bottom of that page will have these same kind of ads about Kardashian butts, tiniest bikinis, etc.
I’m not sure what you saw, but if it happens again (that is, if you see something clearly pornographic, as opposed to Kardashianesque), save a screenshot if possible and we’ll try to track it down.
Just for the record, I have real issues living in a world where this is a word.
“…please send a Windows’s screen capture…”
So…if we’re using a Mac? Tough darts? Wha?
Colour me unimpressed by the PTB’s attitude to content that most of it’s users (women) find objectionable.
I’ll have to think very hard about giving another penny to this board, to be honest. Well, actually not that hard, to be honest.
IIRC, Macs could do screen capture before Windows PCs could. I’m sure the voodoo required to make it work is just a google away.
AdBlade really is disgusting and any site that doesn’t use it goes up in my estimation just a little bit.
Even the ones that aren’t pornographic are ads of the worst sort: a lot of them are the kinds that prey on the stupid, naive, and gullible to separate them from their money. They really do make this site look bad.
I’m not signed in to SDMB on my mobile phone, so I just checked.
I didn’t see any porno-type or sexually-related ads. Just:
How to be a millionaire using these simple tricks
8 hot restaurants owned by celebrities
amazing instagram photos
most generous celebrities
And others in that vein. I agree, they don’t make the Dope look good. (But then, what type of ads would, I guess?)
Yes, I’m aware Macs do screen shots. I even know how to do it, it’s that easy. I was commenting on the specification that it be a Windows screen shot. Seems a little odd, yes?
Me, I was thinking maybe I should drop my membership,
I guess. But 90% of all desktops are Windows machines. It’s not an unreasonable assumption to make.
No more so than keeping posts in English since that’s what the majority here speak. If MAC was a majority of systems out there I’m betting some Windows user would have been making the same comment - in other words, the Universe would be reversed.
Come now. This is the kind of complaint that could be made about any sort of advertising. The ads in question are designed to run up impressive click totals, and in that respect I’m sure they’re successful. Are they more effective than other advertising in separating the gullible from their money? Only in the sense that someone who clicks through a dozen pictures of celebrities is shown a lot more ads. I concede the site would look classier if we could run nothing but ads for BMWs and such, like you see at nytimes.com, but (a) they’re not on offer, and (b) surely you understand that these ads too prey to varying degrees on stupidity, naivete, and gullibility - the difference is that the target naïfs have more money.
No need to get into a debate about the excesses of marketing. Our attitude toward advertising is similar to our attitude toward posts on this board: in general we enforce bright line rules, go after violators, and try to prevent a recurrence; otherwise we don’t get judgmental. The major problem we’ve had with advertising over the years is malware; we made some adjustments in our ad-serving procedures after the last outbreak and the problem seems to have subsided. If the worst that happens now is the occasional beef about a horoscope ad … what can I tell you? We don’t encourage belief in horoscopes. But they’re not against our rules.
We would be happy to accept Mac screenshots. Linux screenshots, if Linux lets you take screenshots. Whatever kind of screenshots you got.