And that’s a bad attitude how? I mean, they’re being truthful - hosting costs for one of the most visited websites in the world must be astronomical! They have to get funding for it somehow.
I personally don’t mind pop-ups generally, though the way they steal focus pisses me off sometimes. But if you go to any IGN site, they have ads just being rudely intrusive, and that really is a bad way to do it. At least Aint It Cool has ads that are kept in the background.
What in God’s name are you talking about? An iframe is just an inline frame. Anything that can be shown in an iframe can be shown in your regular browser window. As long as you’re using a modern browser, you have some common sense, and your security settings aren’t set to the “Please Hack Me” level, no one is going to be deleting files from your hard drive. Sometimes I wonder where you people get your information.
Neidhart, I also use Proximitron and thought the post reply button disappeared. It turns out the link is still there (it’s just the same colour as the divider bar), just move your cursor to where it used to be and it will be highlighted. Otherwise, I find Proximitron to be very effective.
The evolution of popups was driven by the fallacious argument that since people weren’t clicking on banner ads, they weren’t effective.
Which is hideously stupid, of course. What’s the clickthrough rate on billboards? On magazine ads? On restroom-stall ads? Zero, zero, and zero, respectively. Yet no one’s saying those advertising vehicles are failures.
The assumption that the Internet is a whole new world, based in no way on old-media precursors, is screwing us all up. Someday 'Net advertisers will have a sense of history, and that’s when websites will be paid for by little, unobtrusive but visible “Drink Coca-Cola” ads down on a corner of the page. Or somesuch.
That, plus the realization of companies that making money on the internet is really really hard to do, especially if all you are selling is content. So more losses can be recouped by charging advertisers more for pop-up ads than they did with banner ads.
My prediction: The next annoyance on the web will be commercial advertisements (video clips) that play before access to a web page is allowed and can’t be disabled.
Here’s what I do: leave cookies turned on, but set the cookies file to read-only. That way, your browser will tell sites you have cookies on, but they won’t actually be saved on your computer and the site will still work. My cookies file is blank and I never have a problem with sites demanding cookies.
Since they only get about a jillion hits a day, I’m sure you’ll be missed.
Have you tried running a website lately? It aint cheap. Mine is to the point where I need to move it to a better server (my server now is complete shit, but it’s cheap). A better server will cost upwards of 50 to 100 bucks a month. If I can recoup some of that with advertising, f’n aye I’m going to.
We can not, and do not, individually sell our ads. We belong to several services. These ads are the only thing keeping us alive and now that those services have begun using pop-ups and pop-unders we either spend a lot of trouble getting set up with news services (and the contracts involved don’t make this a pleasant thought) or we live with it.
Of all the bills we pay, the only one that isn’t optional to a certain degree is the server bill. I’m sure it is the same way for Harry Knowles. We either allow the pop-ups or we turn over more of our pages to cheaper advertising. It is a sucky choice. I hate pop-somewheres, but we don’t have much choice.
Thanks for your email to IMDb regarding our use of pop-up adverts on the site. We are sorry that the ads caused offense. We have now disabled them, although it may take a few hours for the changes to make it through to the ad servers and for the site to return to normal.
This was part of a limited experiment with this type of banner, however, we did not expect the ad system to serve them at such a high frequency. Due to the overwhelming feedback from IMDb users, such as yourself, we have
discontinued the experiment and will look for alternate ways of supporting the site with less intrusive advertising.
Thanks for taking the time to mail us with your thoughts and once again sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Let me know the next time you’re going to a movie or watch a TV show and I’ll jump in front of you with a big billboard and shove it your face until you read the whole damned thing. When you change the channel on the TV, I’ll be sure to do it again. When the scene in the movie changes, I’ll do it again. Even when you read the ad and come back to the theater or turn on the TV again, I’ll be there to annoy the fuck out of you again and again.
I’ll give you a hint: Banner ads can set (and read) cookies.
I’ll give you another hint: The exact same few companies do banner ads on nearly all major sites.
My friend used to work at a company called MatchLogic, which specializes in this kind of thing. They started out as a e-junkmail company, but mutated to tracking people through banner ad cookies since it turns out people get annoyed as all hell and go out of their way not to buy things from you if you spam them. (Duh!) Last I heard, they still hadn’t figured out that people don’t enjoy being tracked, either.
You’re right, banner ads are sometimes accompanied with cookies, but it’s not like anyone can track you from site-to-site… unless, of course, you only visit sites that have DoubleClick ads, for example. And that’s just not likely. Also, it’s unlikely that these companies know anymore about you than your IP address (which they can sometimes use to get your general location) and a few other tidbits of information. You’re essentially anonymous to these companies.