On the subject of the ads - they don’t bother me in form, they seem unobstrusive enough that I actually stopped noticing them already. However, I can understand why people are opposed to the principle even if they are unobstrusive. I reckon people will vote with their fingers and money, so to speak, and TPTB will have to make a call on whether or not there is a net benefit.
That was me, friend. This is a warning. One more violation of our rules and you’re out the door.
And you know, after that quite a few people never returned. I think the number who won’t return this time will be even greater. I paid here primarily because I felt that paying was a much better alternative than to have ads. I left TWoP because of the ads they implemented.
I certainly wouldn’t mind a two-tier system in which you could either pay a subscription fee, or have ads. But to be required to pay and then have ads? No. If HBO suddenly started showing ads, I’d cancel my subscription to them too. If Consumer Reports started having ads, I’d cancel.
It makes no difference to me really. I won’t pay a subscription fee and be required to view ads. If they shut down, I won’t read here. If they show ads, I won’t read here. Unless they make the aforementioned two-tier system, then I will happily continue to pay my subscription so that I don’t have to view ads.
I think you’re wrong, on the second count; and that on the first count, it was expected and inevitable, and not entirely a bad thing.
Daniel
Sorry about that. I looked at the sites in both Opera and Mozilla to confirm. Still screwed up, though.
One thing I’ve noticed in my tenure at the SDMB is that both staff and users here are very conservative; not politically, but with regards to the look, feel and organization of the board. There are very few subforums at the SDMB compared to other message boards, and new subforums are added at what seems like the rate of Halley’s Comet visits. (I think that when Cafe Society was added, users complained that the new subforum would significantly hurt the performance of the IBM PC XT server. :D) Dopers are just far more sensitive to changes on the board than those populating other message boards, where nobody would bat an eye at a logo color change or the sight of a new subforum.
I’m not sure what’s going on, but I’m still cracking up :D.
Daniel
I imagine someone was trying to mask their IP address to post without it being traced to a specific IP. Amusingly, though, Web Warper has this to say:
Using WebWarper for anonymous posting text messages in forums, guest books, e-mail systems and any others web forms is not allowed. While sending any text data through web forms the anonymous mode is automatically turned off, and your message is supplied with the signature directly containing your IP address
So, that pretty much backfired.
That’s sorta what I thought. I’d report the post, but
- I’m somehow guessing the Admins are already watching the thread; and
- The username is an anagram of “Ban Reports,” which seems like it’s gotta mean something.
Daniel
You’ve got an extra “r” in there. Methinks “ban poster” is more likely. :smack:
FWIW, I think Sol Grundy’s post says it all. It’s just the latest of several debatable judgment calls that have pissed many people off.
Somewhere in Saudi Arabia, a camel lies waiting for an orthopedic surgeon.
Nah. It’s clearly “beast porn”.
Anyhoo
I’ve just had an epiphany. What if every time Ed Zotti does one of those ‘We care about you. We’re doing the best we can.’ it’s genuine. We can be sure that somebody has made a really stupid decision. What if the staff really are on our side? Could it be that they’re under the power of some clueless middlemanagement exec at the Reader? This makes a certain amount of sense under the circumstances. Could it be that **Ed[\b]'s announcements really mean “The Dilbert boss has screwed us all again. I’ll stand hear and listen to your valid complaints. But, I’m powerless to do anything and legally forbidden from putting the blame where it actually belongs, or disparaging the Reader for letting this moron crap all over the SDMB.” ?
Left Hand of Dorkness
Actually, the name doesn’t have that second ‘r’ for ban reports.
Maybe it is ban poster?
Personally, I think that message was yet another instance of Google intruding into the very fabric of the SDMB.
Bellevue, Washington actually.
Eventually, though, the camel will realize that its histrionic act isn’t getting it the attention it deserves, so it’ll stand up, spit a few times, and continue on its way, no worse for wear.
Thanks about the anagram thing–I never was very good at them.
Daniel
Gah I hate those ads! I DO NOT WANT A MAILING LIST!!!
Why do they have to be in the threads? Why couldn’t the fuckers be on the forum index pages instead?
Why can’t you use one of the methods that people have offered for blocking the ads?
Doing that is likely to achieve results. Complaining about them is not.
Daniel
The reverse is true.
Blocking the adsonly results in users not seeing ads that they wouldn’t click on anyway.
A significant number of customers complaining to management about a business practice results in change.
Right, but her problem is that she doesn’t like seeing the ads. Not seeing them would solve her problem.
We shall see.
Daniel
In general, I agree with your principle. In practice, however:
The best-run message board I have ever been a part of and that I have ever seen is run by a private individual who does not make a profit. The worst-run message board I have ever seen or been a part of was (it’s closed down now…) run by a newspaper, but also not for a profit, though they stated before they closed that the forum pages were more profitable for them from an advertising standpoint than their news webpages.
While we are waiting for the people in ahem customer service to respond to the complaints, you can prevent seeing the ads by using the links in my sig.
Now, that makes a whole lot of sense, doesn’t it? And if it’s true, the admins wouldn’t be able to confirm it.