On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:45, fritzophrenic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For all the trouble this has caused, has everyone actually looked at > the site with the ads?
Yes. > In my opinion (formed from about 20 minutes of hitting "random page" > while logged out) Wikia has done a fabulous job keeping the ads > inobtrusive and yet still potentially capable of generating revenue. > Many sites with much higher traffic do much worse, for example (pulled > randomly off the cnn.com US front page): That there are worse things does not mean a thing is good. > Wikia has none of this "interrupt the article right in the middle" > crap, and additionally they seem to have done a good job keeping their > site accessible to a wide range of browsers. True. Though most of the credit for this goes to Mediawiki. > Personally, I think a couple of ads off in a corner are a small price > to pay for the great hosting, reasonable bandwidth, and excellent > support that we get from Wikia. Agreed. From how I read the thread, the consensus seems to be that we are aware that ads are not ideal and that if a completely equivalent hosting site without ads sees the day of light, it will be poked. Richard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
