I don't need to accept them at all; it's called FlashBlock. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Expandable banners
I agree - but we dont live in a perfect world and not all websites can be google. And if they were it would be a pretty grey/vnial/boring world. I do understand you might feel that flash based ads are intrusive - but you need to accpet them as just an important part of the online landscape as google keywords. Wether you coose to belive me or not they do work. on 10/11/05 12:05 AM, Flashcoders mailing list <[email protected]> wrote: > Jakob Nielsen said it best; "Google's done well because they made ads that > aren't annoying." Google ads can remain on a webpage and allow me to read > without giving me a seizure, nor to do they appear over the top of my > webpage that I'm reading with no discernable close button. > > Google has not become the billion dollar company they are because of ads; > they became that because of good search capabilities, ads that are > relevant > & not distracting, and allowing others to share in the revenue they > generate. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 6:41 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Expandable banners > > something to consider is that google works off adds. If it weren't for > thier adds you would have to pay for it. Same with Yahoo. I could keep > going but I won't. I agree with pete here. I don't like adds being > everywhere, but I do see the purpose and so I accept it. Its easy > enough to ignor. Sometimes you'll get lucky and find something > interesting. But if you don't, just ignor it. Flash banners, java > script banners, basic jpeg/gif banners really arn't that much > different. The flash ones are just more fun to play with. ;) Personaly > I'd hate it if they got rid of banner advertising. They would probably > go back to pop ups everywhere wich is even more anoying. Oh, and some > of us arn't rich and can't afford to pay for every site we go to. > > Daniel > > ryanm wrote: > >>> But when the quality of programming on TVnose dives, >>> >> You mean it gets worse than America's Next Top Model and The >> Biggest Loser? 8-O >> >> Right now I pay $12.99 a month for high quality programming without >> commercials, it's called HBO. >> >>> it costs you $60 to go to the movies, >>> >> At $9 a ticket we're not far from that now. >> >>> a daily news papaer is $10 a day, >>> >> Like I'd pay to read that crap... >> >>> and finaly you have to pay $99 per month just to use your favour >>> websites >>> (that used to be free) >>> >> The good ones don't need ads. If you content is worth consuming, >> people will pay to consume it. >> >> ryanm >> _______________________________________________ >> Flashcoders mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > [email protected] > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > [email protected] > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list [email protected] http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list [email protected] http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
