On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:45:37PM +, James Cridland wrote:
On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more -
lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user
has no opportunity to click.
[1]
Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.
Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.
Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet
users (which is understandable).
Adverts get clicks and people make money from it. LOTS of money - for
instance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even
more -
lowering the CTR [1] by registering an
them - but, from experience, I'd say that such people are in a minority.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:21 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD
On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL
PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to
white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't. Depends whether the ad is good enough for you to click on.
Not seen one yet - doubt I ever will.
Yet more proof that this list is not indicative of the general internet
users (which is understandable).
Adverts get clicks and
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: 28 February 2007 11:00
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 27/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL
Jason Cartwright wrote:
Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I
request, there is no obligation on me to request it all.
The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order
to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I
request, there is no obligation on me to request it all.
The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to
pay for your request taking up thier
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me
what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all.
The deal your
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 28 February 2007 13:02
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Ok Vijay. You win. Everybody block those evil
vijay chopra wrote:
As a final note, as a result of this conversation, I decided to check out
the subscription price at slashdot, at $5 (£2.62) I ended up buying one...
decide for yourself what that says about me.
It says I reply to every single e-mail on this list with an inane and
largely
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth,
however, you're Adblocked.
If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting
in the first place?
Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what
you're on about, etc etc.
Surely
On 27/02/07, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth,
however, you're Adblocked.
If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting
in the first place?
Making his evaluation? Don't criticise
vijay chopra wrote:
Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to
white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on
the black list,
Do you subscribe to slashdot? One of the perks of slashdot membership is
you don't get ads.
Scot
-
Sent
Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content?
Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what
the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and
therefore that's what you have been granted permission to use.
Consumer choice in
On 27/02/07, Sebastian Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really, why do I need to see a sites ads to evaluate it's content?
Because the ads are an intrinsic part of the site's content. That's what
the owner of the content has decided comprises the full work, and
therefore that's what you
To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I wish
with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to read it all,
why is it different for a website? I don't have to read the adverts in
magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their]
Richard Lockwood wrote:
I don't have to read the adverts in
magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of
[their]
content
No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't
annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to.
Saying that, ads
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be blunt if it's served to *my* PC I have every right to do as I
wish with the content; the same as if I buy a book, I don't have to
read it all, why is it different for a website? I don't
have to read
the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one
On 2/26/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more -
lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user
has no opportunity to click.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate
Depends if you ever click ads...
On 2/27/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to
white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the
black list
Ah. Other people might get irritated with the ads and therefore not go back
to
Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food
from people's tables.
Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads... (That being an
option of Adblock)
Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the
CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet
On 2/26/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads... (That being an
option of Adblock)
Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the
CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to
click.
For
James Cridland wrote:
Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which
blocks website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do,
depending on how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow,
you'll see a ton of these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth
then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner
or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back.
If you don't want me to
On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of
the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser).
Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks
website content if the ads don't load.
by visiting an advertiser
if only for a second or two.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 4:30 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated
vijay chopra wrote:
Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show
support by clicking on the ads;
I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's
Adsense policy.
https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182topic=8423
In
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and
bandwidth
then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask.
On 26/02/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
vijay chopra wrote:
Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show
support by clicking on the ads;
I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's
Adsense policy.
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and
bandwidth
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in
the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my
ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use.
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email:
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however,
you're Adblocked.
If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the
first place?
Cheers,
Rich.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in
the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my
ToU - which in this case could include
-Original Message-
From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 February 2007 07:22
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth,
however, you're Adblocked.
If a site's
36 matches
Mail list logo
