Somebody started a thread asking the staff about it. Why wouldn’t she (or the rest of us) want to see it before responding? Meanwhile most of us did see the ad through either a screenshot or just clicking around until the ad showed up- and in the end, nothing happened.
Oh Marley, if you weren’t so darn adorable, I’d give you more guff for this kind of rubbish.
Response in this thread: Nothing we can do about it. Brokers, get over it. [Note conspicuous absence of request for more information about the ad]
Response in other thread: Send me a screen shot so that we can, uhh, look at it, even though there’s nothing we can do it about it.
Apples and oranges.
I asked to see a screen shot because it’s a PITA to log out and shuffle through Google ads to see one. Wanted to see it, didn’t want to go searching for it. Ultimately ended up doing just that, thank you very much.
This complaint is about an ad that was clearly identified and it’s not malware and it’s not a problem with seeing it, it’s a problem for the OP that it’s putting out sound. It’s one of the ads from the packages the Straight Dope gets from ad brokers – the ads are from all over the place and have all kinds of stuff in them and the only thing stated up front is that it’s not porn. We get these ads in bunches and have no control over what’s in the bunch. If there is malware we can complain to the broker – it’s in their best interest to keep that from happening, they’d lose their business otherwise – but the Straight Dope can’t pick and choose.
Ed and those below aren’t able to do anything about the ads but they are able to run reports of unwanted ads up the chain, to someone who is able to do something. What’s so hard to understand?
In the several or more threads complaining about specific ads before the ones for the giraffeboards and the snackpit, there was not a request to see screen shots. We were just told that nothing can be done. The response was different for just those two. Not a big deal but it is curious.
The other curious thing is her eventual response:
The pragmatic view? That means to me that she eventually decided not to do anything about them because it was better off to have them.
ETA: I didn’t see Tuba’s response before I submitted this but the point still stands.
There is no “unwanted.”
There is “ads that have malware in them and shouldn’t be running” and “ads that we don’t like.” There will be a response to the first one and none to the second.
The other options is “run the ad package or don’t run the ad package.” Get paid or don’t. Would you prefer we go out of business?
Unless the second happens to be NSFW that slipped through. 
Perhaps I should have said “problem ads” instead?
Well, to be fair, it’s not my problem any longer as I’ve chosen to block all ads. So, now it’s either your problem or the broker’s problem. In the other thread you indicated that the ads = revenue for SDMB. Would that be revenue on serving the ads or click-throughs? If it’s the former, you’ve just lost revenue because I don’t want to be served audible ads. I was perfectly fine skimming over your silent ads though and I hope it helped. If it’s the latter, I can’t say I’ve ever clicked through anyway, so I guess it’d be a wash, but now I’ll never see an ad that I *might *click through.
So, if this is a problem for you, maybe you’ll consider “kicking it upstairs” and seeing if someone who can make decisions with respect to ads is interested in continuing to serve audible ads that are being blocked and don’t generate revenue. That’s really all I ask.
I am curious about one thing. Does SDMB not have any standards for ads that are acceptable for the broker to include in their package? You seriously have to accept whatever the broker is willing to send? What about ads for porn sites? Would that be acceptable or no? If no, then why? Maybe because your viewers might not like it?
I realize I could subscribe and ads would not be an issue and SDMB would get their revenue, but that’s not possible for now and I accepted the fact that revenue would necessarily need to be generated via ads in lieu of my subscription fee. This was an acceptable arrangement for me until you woke up my husband. Sorry.
Ignore the question about porn sites. I missed the answer above. Just relieved to know my husband won’t catch me looking at titties.
On my board - any board - if members tell the Administrator “OMG there’s strange ads about AIDS and stuff” and I don’t see the ads right at that time, it’s only due diligence to ask the members “Hey, send me a screenshot.” I’m positive that most Administrators would ask the same, if board members complained or asked about a strange advert and the Administrator couldn’t see it themselves at the time. Even if you can’t do anything about it, good grief any good Administrator surely wants to be informed, yes?
As far as there being no requests for screenshots of other ads, that’s not true. I have complained about bad ads (NSFW) in the past via e-mail or PM, and TubaDiva has always said “send me a screenshot so I can see it and I’ll pass it on to Ed” if she could not see it herself at the time. In fact, because I am so used to taking screenshots of strange or problematic ads, I sent her one of the AIDS advert about 10 seconds after I saw it, and she can verify that. I don’t expect anyone to be privy to that, but I’m testifying now that her asking for screenshots is by no means unusual nor suspicious. I’ll wager that it’s even possible she doesn’t ask for them very often due to the fact that eager beavers like me are sending her screenshots as soon as we see something wrong (but that’s just me guessing, I don’t know).
Are there other ad brokers out there that offer the option of not receiving malware, porn, and noise?
Your word is good enough for me, Una, as far as what you have done in the past. It struck me at the time that her reaction to those ads was very different to her reaction to other ones. She was asked multiple times in those threads why she wanted screen shots and didn’t answer.
I understand how that might look, Hajaro, honestly. I do know at the time that there was a lot of discussion behind the scenes which needed Ed’s input, and based on what know I think that she felt like she shouldn’t say anything else on some subjects until Ed weighed in. I’m purely speculating; I’m not in the know, I only know a little. In fact, I held off saying anything at the time about the screenshot issue, because I’m not supposed to get involved in Message Board matters.
But I felt like I should say something now because I just think that it’s a bit unfair to TubaDiva on this point. I used to complain a lot about some NSFW adverts and she always asked me for a screenshot at the time (finally I was forced to use adblockers…and you might wonder why I see ads when I’m SDSAB, it’s because I almost always browse while logged out from work).
First, nobody is telling TPTB to display flash ads, or animated ads, or anything of the sort. Second, I don’t know who you’re using that doesn’t give you control over what shows up on the site, but this 2010 so if the site’s broker doesn’t offer this service then it may behoove TPTB to seek alternatives with more powerful administration tools. Third, and foremost, the lackadaisical attitude that management holds on this issue will end up costing the company more revenue in the long run than may be achieved in the short term by continuing to allow them to run.
I’ve had that happen a couple of times, but the members always send me a picture of Goatse instead of a screen capture so I’ve learned to stop asking.
Jerkbags. 
I’m not entirely convinced that no one has any control over this. I know, that’s not, strictly speaking, what was said. What was said, was a couple of moderators said, “We have no control.”, which I can believe. But someone, higher up the chain, does have control, I believe. That’s what’s being danced around here, in my opinion. And it is disingenuous.
If sites subscribing to google ads had no control over the ads, (here’s a block, take it or leave it), there would be many, many more sites with ads with sound. That’s not what I experience, so I find that rather hard to believe.
It’s huge misstep, in my opinion. Were I a new visitor to this site, I doubt I’d stick around long enough to know about the subscription fee = ads invisible, connection. That they think ads with sound will do anything other than decrease traffic is astounding to me.
A business model that is always truly baffling in it’s oddness, is just one of the quirky charms of the Dope.
I’m inquiring. We haven’t had much luck with beefs about individual ads, but maybe there’s a way to filter out all ads with sound. Not sure, no promises. Will let you know.
Certainly it’s possible to be configure Google ads to filter out various undesirable categories and types, etc, however, not all the ads on this site are Google ads.
(Actually, that could be interesting, because in order to comply with Google’s Adsense policy, certain other things have to absent from the site - not as broadly as competitor’s ads as a whole, but if those competitor ads are promoting certain things, I think that could represent a violation of the Google Adsense agreement…
Really?