This is all my personal point of view.
you're possibly saving them money by not downloading their assets,
saving them a (fractional) amount of transit costs.
Ad serving costs are usually bore by the advertiser or an agency. Anyhow
- this cost is cost of revenue so the higher it is the better it
At 08:27 + 26/2/07, James Cridland wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Morris
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Ian has been bugging me to delurk, so I thought I'd post something I
put together the other day that should be interesting and/or useful
for the Londoners on this
It's coming, by next year apparently...
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-con
tent.asp?prID=58
J
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly
Sent: 26 February 2007 09:56
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
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
Andrew Bowden wrote:
A less cynical way can be explained on the subject of web usability.
Usability experts will tell you that many users get rather daunted by
very long pages full of text, so the way round it is to split the
article over several pages.
Which is something I've always found
Aha!
Back in the day (about 4 years ago) BBC Web producers were measured on
Page Impressions, rather than the now current Unique Users.
On older sites you'll find a lot of areas like galleries, articles, and
quizzes that split content in to lots of subpages, and encouraged
repeated clicking.
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
And doesn't work underground on the Tube?
Despite its name, about 55% of the network is above ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground
It would of course work in cities which allow mobile phone
use on their underground railways (e.g. Stockholm).
Coming in 2008
On 2/23/07, Sebastian Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Michael said] you're not a for-profit entity and you're
screwing it up for everyone else.
He then referenced the recently-announced CBBCWorld: you just launched
some stupid kids social network, well you didn't actually launch
anything, you
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
At 10:12 + 26/2/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
It's coming, by next year apparently...
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=58
Or more succinctly
http://tinyurl.com/2yx3oa
Thanks. Very interesting.
Gordo
--
Think Feynman/
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.
Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show
support by clicking on the ads
Most ad programs prohibit publishers from asking readers to click on ads as
a way of showing support.
Advertising pays for a lot of work on the net and it doesnt hurt to show a
bit of support by
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
Please remember to leave subject headers as they are, so users can
organize properly.
Thanks.
On 26 Feb 2007, at 17:12, Anthony Green 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
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
At 11:04 + 26/2/07, Kim Plowright wrote:
And doesn't work underground on the Tube?
Despite its name, about 55% of the network is above ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground
It would of course work in cities which allow mobile phone
use on their underground railways
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:
HI James!
On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Cranky Geeks
this week, one of the studio guests said how splendid oscartorrents.com was,
The fact you deliberately linked to a torrent site - thus removing the
chance of the oscar winners to earn money from their films,
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 a
26 matches
Mail list logo
