Bob W said: > I pay for a website and it does not thrust ads in people's faces just because > they haven't also subscribed. I think it's rude of people to use websites > that do that, and photo.net et al should have the decency not to serve ads at > all through subscribers' pages.
Dan, you say: > ... I just > pointed out that "free" websites do not exist. If you are not paying > for the service, the website is selling you to advertisers in order to > pay the costs of running the "free" websitre... I think you misunderstand Bob's point, Dan. There is a very strange mixing of apples and oranges in what you say. The problem is that there are two different kinds of users for photo-viewing (or music-listening) sites. There are users who store stuff on a site for others to look at (listen to, whatever). And there are users who come and view/listen or otherwise enjoy the stored goodies. Some sites charge people to store stuff, some sites charge viewers/listeners to view/hear the stored stuff. photonet apparently does both. It charges you to use the site to store stuff, and then it charges me (by imposing ads on me) to look at the stuff you've stored. The site I use to store stuff charges me; I would drop them in a heartbeat if they started to charge people to look at my stuff (or if they started imposing ads on my viewers, which amounts to the same thing.) I bear the cost of storing/hosting my photos and I don't expect others to then have to "pay" to view the hosted images. So, photonet has its business model which involves getting you to pay them for the privilege of them using your photos to draw me to the site so they can push ads in my face and make money if I were to click-through to an advertiser. That is ok, I can ignore the ads. If the ads (or other photonet slowness) delays loading a requested photo for any appreciable time, (i.e., 1-2 sec) that is ok also - I just click Close and go on with my life. I have had enough fail-to-load-promptly experiences with the photonet site that I will usually avoid even clicking on a link that will take me there. If I needed to go to the site to see shots of the local Rotary Club picnic, I would probably do so and not give the ads and delays a second thought. But if I have no need to go to the site other than to view and maybe comment on someone's photo, then I'll usually instead view and comment on someone else's photo which is stored on a more accessible site. stan On Jun 23, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > Bob: > > I did not suggest that you should subscribe to Photo.net. I just > pointed out that "free" websites do not exist. If you are not paying > for the service, the website is selling you to advertisers in order to > pay the costs of running the "free" websitre. > > I store thousands of image on Photo.Net for the Rotary Groups I work > with, for a local attorneys group, and for church and civic > activities.. I have done this for several years now, giving out the > link to Photo.Net. The people who use those images and download them > are, for the most part, far less sophisticated than the member of PDML > in the use of computers. I have received many compliments and many > expressions of thanks, but none of those users have ever had any > problems accessing the images or complained about the ads. The local > newspaper have also selected and downloaded, with my permission, > images I posted on the site. The ads are a very minor inconvenience, > and easily handled by almost everyone, except for a few here. I guess > your standards are higher, but if you are unable to look at my images > because of your dislike of Photo.Net, I guess I will have to live with > that. > > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 23 Jun 2013, at 21:36, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm sorry if you find the ads on Photo.Net such a problem. >>> >>> Not all services are equal. The flexibility of Photo.Net makes it >>> worth the minor convenience of the ads, in my view. One click, and >>> they are gone. I prefer that to the strange interface used by most of >>> the alternatives. Photo.Net offers a lot of storage, a lot of >>> flexibility, and ease of use. Millions of visitors manage to visit >>> the site and look ate the images despite the minor inconvenience of >>> the ads. >>> >> >> One click and I'm gone. >> >> It's up to you if you want your convenience to be at the expense of your >> potential viewers, but I think that's a lousy attitude. >> >> You've suggested that we should subscribe to photo.net if we don't want to >> see ads. Do you seriously think people are going to subscribe to every >> website that shows annoying ads annoyingly? Do you subscribe to them all? >> No, people are just going to leave those sites. One of the basic rules of >> web design is don't piss off your customers. >> >> As for your millions of visitors, if you scale up the number of people on >> this list who've complained a great many times about photo.net you may get >> some sense of how much annoyance those ads cause to people. And if you scale >> up similarly the number of people on this list who use that 'one click' to >> leave your site rather than look at your pictures when an ad gets in the >> way, you'll get some idea of how many viewers photo.net is driving away. >> >> B >> >>> >>> >>> Dan Matyola >>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 23 Jun 2013, at 19:58, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't see the ads, probabley because I subscribe to Photo.Net. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, if you don't pay for a service, you are the product being sold. >>>> >>>> You are not obliged to subscribe to a service that uses ads. I pay for a >>>> website and it does not thrust ads in people's faces just because they >>>> haven't also subscribed. I think it's rude of people to use websites that >>>> do that, and photo.net et al should have the decency not to serve ads at >>>> all through subscribers' pages. >>>> >>>> If I were you I'd be very unhappy about that because you're paying >>>> photo.net to host your pictures, yet their stupid ads are driving viewers >>>> away from them, and nobody gains. >>>> >>>> B >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>> follow the directions. >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
