I’ve never gotten any malware from here. Running Firefox 3.6.8 with Adblock Plus, if it matters to anyone.
You are a paying member. You don’t get ads.
Oh, come on. No one’s intentionally firing around malware to entice people to join.
It’s more like, “If you don’t want to pay, that’s fine. We then have to make the money to support you by selling advertising. That’s difficult to do, and puts us at the mercy of the ad providers, over which we have little control. That sucks, but it’s the best we can do. We don’t have the kind of resources to constantly manage this thing to the level of detail that would be required to avoid all such problems.”
You can sit on your high horse if you want, but a membership in this place is what, a dollar a month? Hell, I’d pay for it even if I got zero extra benefit, because I like supporting the things I use.
Accusing the SDMB of running a protection racket as justification for not paying a few measly bucks a year is pretty sad ( and yes, I know you’re a member, but you threw the argument out there. Maybe this applies more to the non-members saying the same thing).
Yes, I’m aware that the Straight Dope Management could stop working with these ad providers and accept some cut in revenue. Perhaps they could spend hundreds of hours troubleshooting the problem. Or maybe that would just cost them too goddamn much and if people keep whining at them rather than pony up a few bucks a year to keep the lights on, they’ll just shut the whole thing down.
If more people had purchased subscriptions at the insanely cheap price they are offered, perhaps the SDMB wouldn’t have had to resort to running ads in the first place.
Yes, I’m really motivated to give money to a business that makes its clients open to computer viruses. :rolleyes:
That’s one of the WORST ways to encourage people to buy memberships I’ve heard yet, Sam.
They’re not doing it to encourage members. That’s me doing that. They’re just trying to fix the problem.
And I’m saying that YOUR idea of “encouragement” sucks. Why should I give my money to a business that has shone to be untrustworthy when it comes to computer security?
And no, they haven’t tried to fix the problem, as this has been on going for a while now.
Given the number of malware reports we’re seeing (and who knows how many unreported cases from lurkers), I think it’s ridiculously irresponsible of the SDMB management not to have put the Rubicon ad services on hold already. Keep the Google text and graphics ads – those have been in place for a long time without a problem. But to continue blithely serving up malware-laden ads when you have ample evidence of the source is beyond ridiculous. It’s unethical, and it’s stupid.
This site depends on a steady influx of new members to replace those who inevitably wander off. The more you pile on the garbage people coming to the site the first time see, the less likely they’re going to stick around long enough to get sucked in. Or the more motivated they’ll be to install ad blockers, thus blocking everything, including the innocuous Google text ads.
And God help us if we get on one of the big workplace filters’ blacklists. Enough people browse and post from work that it would be a disaster, both for traffic and for many user’s enjoyment of the site.
I understand that this site is owned by a business who wants to maximize profit, but past a certain point you’re killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I really hope the powers that be will reconsider.
How about this line of reasoning: we must be protected! What if someone got a virus called CUNTLAPPER.EXE?
Did you even read the post that you quoted in your reply? Here, I’ll pull the relevant bit out for you again, with emphasis on the parts you apparently missed:
I can and do give money to things I like. But *not *when their actions indicate that they care more about making a potentially larger immediate profit *to the direct and demonstrable detriment of some percentage of their users *than they do about their *long-term viability *and providing a safe browsing environment for their users.
:applause:
I just now had a conference call with the CL honchos. We’re going to try to determine what happens to revenue if we don’t show ads to logged-in users - those not logged in would still see ads. (If we don’t show ads at all, or don’t show any ads from Rubicon, the major provider, we take a huge revenue hit and we’re basically out of business.) This will take a while to set up, and then we need to run the experiment a few days to determine the revenue impact. In the meantime, if you’re having problems and aren’t a subscriber (members don’t see ads), we suggest you use an ad blocker - I’ll post an announcement to this effect soon. If we don’t shows ads to anyone who’s logged in, we’ll have to come up with a replacement revenue stream.
Quoted for truth.
Ed, thank you for keeping us updated. I’m personally fairly concerned about the lurker situation if we keep the Rubicon ads, as well as potential filter blacklisting, but I understand that you are constrained in what you can do.
Would you be willing to share with us what fraction of ad revenue comes from the Rubicon ads? You don’t have to give numbers, and it might help us to better appreciate the financial issues you’re facing. I had thought that we were using Google to serve both text and image ads before this, and the Rubicon ads were a recent addition – have they really boosted ad revenues that substantially?
Also, any reason not to try turning off just the Rubicon ads for logged-in users, as opposed to all ads? It might mitigate the revenue hit a bit.
So only guests and newcomers will get served up malware? Am I understanding this right?
I’m picturing a restaurant thats main income is from potatoes that make diners sick. I’m imagining the owner defending this practice saying, 'but without the income from potato sales, the restaurant won’t survive! I know, let’s just serve these potatoes to new customers and guests, but not regulars! That’s sure to work!"
Just when I think this is the most baffling business model ever created it gets weirder. I don’t know what’s more amazing that Ed believes this is practical, or that there are other business people who agree with him!
Well, at least it’s never dull.
Personally I don’t have the savy to deal with this if it hits me, I’ll have to hire someone to fix it. I won’t risk it happening twice. I’d wager, I’m not alone.
We’ve been using Rubicon for a couple years. They account for 60-80% of our ad revenue. Ad revenue as a fraction of total site revenue varies, but last month it was over 90%.
That’s what we’re trying to do. Different page templates get called depending on user status.
Wow, that is far more substantial than I had expected. I also hadn’t realized that Rubicon wasn’t a recent addition – I suspect I was mixing them up with the sponsored linking service that was recently added.
That does put you in a tough position – I don’t envy you.
Ah, I’d misunderstood – I thought you were turning off all ads, not just the Rubicon ones. Makes sense.
Are you using the Firefox web browser with ADBLOCK PLUS? If not, it’s easy & free.
How do ad blockers affect your revenue? Would you have the same drop in revenue if everyone were using ad blockers as if you stopped showing the ads altogether?
Thanks for the hard numbers on this (well, as hard as you can get without revealing actual revenue data that you have no reason to reveal). It really hammers home the point about how important this ad content is. It also reveals what a Hobson’s choice you’re facing; you can’t eliminate the ads without finding an alternative source of revenue, but if you don’t eliminate the ads, you run the risk of driving away new posters and/or forcing everyone to use ad blockers that may have the same effect. :\
If every single visitor used an ad blocker, yes, that’s the same as not showing ads at all. What we’re trying to establish now is what happens to revenue if we exclude logged-in users. We have a large number of lurkers, few of whom likely use ad blockers, but what fraction of ad revenue derives from them vs. logged-in users we don’t know. So we’re going to do an experiment to find out as soon as Jerry can get the tech end of things finagled.
I’m not happy about consigning lurkers to their fate but at the moment we don’t have much choice. FWIW, Rubicon recently acquired an anti-malware security company; see:
One hopes the new company (SiteScout) can help them get a handle on the problem.
Exactly. No one will be happier than me when we get a stable revenue model established.
I’m not a paying member, so I feel, based on the tone of this thread, I have no right to complain. That’s just nonsense.
I don’t believe that this would be tolerated by users at most sites. The Dope is a somewhat different community, as many people have been around for over a decade and have some emotional attachment to the place.
Although the last few posts have shown a kinder, gentler Ed, the fact remains that the idea of customer service is lost on TPTB. That we will put up with anything. And why? We always have in the past.
I am running Chrome as my browser, and I haven’t noticed anyone else running Chrome as their browser, so I thought I’d throw that in. But my computer has not been acting exactly as would expect in the past two weeks, so I will do the unthinkable. I will shut down my participation on the Dope for 2 weeks to see if I notice any change in the performance of my computer.
The attitude of TPTB is very troubling. This should be the single biggest priority you are working on, with constant updates, and a sticky in the ATMB forum so people can easily find how the search is going. But there is no sticky. It’s almost if TPTB hope the problem goes away on its own, because, after all, who is really going to leave? Empty threats to leave the board have happened at least once a year since I’ve been around, and most people stick around no matter what the issue, how crappy the customer service, or whatever else TPTB get away with. We keep coming back.
I find it fascinating that a technical product, such as the SDMB, has some guy named “Jerry” who will help with running an experiment as soon as he can get the tech end “finangled.”
There should be a full-time system administrator responsible for the technical well-being of the board, and if there is a technical problem, it should be noted (preferably in a sticky) for people to find it easily. The SDMB is a technical product, using 3rd party software to provide the forum for us to post our thoughts. Those of us that choose to be out here for free are being told that we are more or less playing russian roulette with our computers if we choose to visit the site. That’s too big of a price for me to pay, so I will, like I said, bow out for at least two weeks to see what happens with my system performance. The only way I’d come back is if someone wanted to pay for my subscription, but I’m not asking for that. I just don’t think the risk of exposing my computer to ads that TPTB want to make money from are not thoroughly vetted by TPTB. That smells wrong.
Finally, since so many of you enjoy the analogies, I’ll try my hand at one. This site reminds me of a backyard mechanic (we’ll call him Ed) that ten years or so ago started a business to do basic car maintenance, like oil changes. People liked Ed, and the service he was providing. Then Ed got a great idea… he’d become a full-service auto shop, charge people money for his services, but not really understand how to do things that the shop was now expected to do, like brake jobs, the occasional tune-up, or anything beyond the original oil changes.
When a customer enters a business (or in the case of the SDMB, clicks on the link to enter the site), there is an implicit understanding - or contract - that the customer will have a (hopefully) decent experience, and will be able to leave with his car (or in the case of the SDMB, his computer) in the same working order that it was in before entering the site. Just like I wouldn’t want Mechanic Ed to screw up my brakes on my car, I wouldn’t want the SDMB to screw up my computer because I visited the site and didn’t pay for a membership. That’s like mechanic Ed saying "That mechanic in the corner can fix brakes, but you have to pay a yearly membership fee to have access to him. If you choose not to pay, that’s up to you. But I’m (Ed) not going to take classes to learn how to fix brakes, so your repair will be whatever you get.
And don’t complain about it! You knew the rules going in, so shut your yap and enjoy the brake job.
Ok, maybe that analogy sucks. But it’s late and I’m tired. See you all in a couple of weeks. Perhaps the rest of you can join me to have a real impact on the bottom line.
You’re right, that is nonsense. Paying members don’t have a malware problem because paying members don’t get ads. The people who are getting hit by this problem are guests such as you and they are also the ones complaining. Any members who are complaining are complaining on principle, not because they’re having problems personally. So get off that cross, there is nothing in this thread suggesting that guests have no right to complain.