>> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >>>>> >>>>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident >>>> >>>> That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility >>>> between Google's policies and the site. If we fell victim to the same >>>> policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with >>>> (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their >>>> adverts on our sites and would relax their policies). >>> >>> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in >>> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules). >>> I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though. >> >> I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very >> few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people >> that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on >> the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money. > > No, no, no. We sell ads on a page marked "advertisements" at the top of > each article. The ads are tailored to the article and the advertiser bids > for the space and pays weekly, monthly, or annually and pays up front. No > clicking through to it. > > Fred
We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating products, you will. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
