I subscribed today - why am I still seeing Google ads?

I went ahead and dropped the 7 or 8 bucks for a couple months service, even though we’re going to free posting, thinking that at least I won’t be seeing any ads. But I’m still getting Google ads at the bottom of each thread. Shouldn’t they be removed for subscribers under the new plan?

And yes, I know there’s ways to block the ads at my browser/PC, I’m not asking about that. This is solely a question about what I’m supposed to be getting for my subscription.

And comments about how little the subscription costs are neither helpful nor pertinent, so lets not bother with those either, please.

No, you’ll continue to see the Google ads regardless of subscription status.

What you won’t see are all the extra ads the Reader now runs.

All you have to do is sign out of the board and call up a SDMB page and you’ll see exactly what we’re talking about. Ads a-plenty.

Can you please show us where this was mentioned? All I see is posts like this one:
where Ed Zotti repeatedly says things “You won’t see ads for another year” and calls the subscription a “no-ads option”.

I see nothing to indicate he only meant some ads; I thought “no ads” actually meant “no ads”. Where is it mentioned that Google ads aren’t counted as ads?

I’ll refer this to Ed – I can’t answer you any different and I don’t know anything else.

Even moderators see Google ads, that ain’t in the deal.

Subscribers don’t see display ads, the ones that explode over your screen and make sounds and so on - these were the cause of the uproar last fall. We’ve been showing Google text ads to subscribers for quite a while, have had few complaints (some people profess to like them), and figured there was no harm in continuing to show them. No doubt I should have been more precise about what ads you will and won’t see; my apologies. The plan at any rate was that, adwise, subscribers would continue on the same basis as before.

You should probably make it clear now. I’m sure I cannot be the only one who thought “no ads” actually meant there would be no ads. Although I’ll give you guys the benefit of the doubt that it was an oversight, I’m sure some would see this as false advertising.

I recall some statement made during the ads brouhaha last fall that subscribers would not see the more obtrusive ads that everyone was so unhappy about but that the Google ads at the bottom of the page would remain, so it came as no surprise to me. If someone were sufficiently interested to try to search for it, the information could probably be found near the resolution phase in one of the protest threads.

A user of pay service shouldn’t have to go through pages of threads to find out something as basic as whether “no ads” actually means the standard English meaning of the phrase. Not to mention new users, who cannot search for such info, even if it was reasonable to require people to search for it.

I signed on this morning, saw the interstitial ads (or whatever the proper term is), and immediately went to the User CP link and renewed my subscription. Immediately the more annoying ads went away!

I was mostly posting to answer your OP, not new users who can’t search for it. The additional comment about searching was intended to be for the benefit of users who were here then but didn’t remember the information about the Google ads remaining.

I think the “no ads” phrasing came about as verbal shorthand for no new ads when speaking to current members during the upset and it then just took hold. I agree that information explaining the benefits of subscribing should be such that prospective new members understand that there will still be unobtrusive Google ads at the bottom of the page.

This is detestable. The Reader continues to fail to adopt a business model that makes sense and doesn’t screw the people who are not only generating the content, but paying for the privilege to do so. I consider a business model that doesn’t screw me to be within the Reader’s grasp. A business model that makes sense, not so much.

Well, we’re all very happy for you, but nobody is saying the other ads aren’t going away. The question was about the Google ads at the end of the thread, and why “no ads” does not actually mean “no ads”.


Ed, I have a question about the ads. I understand that as of now people who don’t pay see graphical ads and text ads, and people who do pay see only the text-based ads at the bottom. My question is, once the new no-pay-to-post system is in effect, are people who pay still going to see the text-based ads? Because that could make a big difference about the perceived value of paying.

Right now, I pay for features such as the ability to search, plus the benefit of reducing the number of ads I see. If the only benefit I get from paying is to avoid ads, paying really should get rid of all the ads. I don’t think this is too much to ask.

Can you confirm that this is the plan?

He just confirmed that this is indeed not the plan:


“No ads” apparently does not mean no ads.

Well, that kind of blows. For a long time, I’ve said that the small price I pay makes these boards worth it despite the problems, but I’ll have a hard time justifying it if that’s the way it ends up. I’d be ashamed of myself if I paid to have the ads removed and was enough of a sucker to look at ads anyway. It boggles the mind.

With respect, we’ve been over this before. If the business model upsets you, don’t patronize it. The ONLY way businesses learn to change their behavior is to lose money.

You keep paying, you keep posting, you aren’t really that upset. Q.E.D.

You’ve had the Google text ads(at the end of the thread) on every call-up you’ve made in the last year. But, now, it’s a deal breaker.

My comment was directed towards Ed. Through repeated stimulation, his prefrontal cortex might one day actually learn. To my knowledge, he is not a business.

It was not clear to me that the business model described as “no ads” did not actually mean the standard English definition of “no ads” until after I paid. It appears I was not alone in this misunderstanding, and in fact this thread shows they cannot provide cites that this was made clear in any thread before.

This is at best an oversight on their part, at worst (almost certainly unintentional) false advertising. But it is in no way us agreeing to their business model, since their business model was inadequately described until after they got my money.