No, I was referring to the lack of misleading scare messages; the current one is a little wishy-washy for my taste but at least it's not implying that the Foundation is in grave financial danger. Obviously the use of what might be paid stock art where there is plenty of free alternatives available on our own projects is not ideal. The ads themselves are also as ugly as hell, although I'm sure there's some A/B testing that shows that such monstrosities extract slightly more cash from the readers that will be used to justify that.
Cheers, Craig On 3 December 2015 at 10:01, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> > wrote: > > > > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > > > > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial > > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia > Foundation > > > has not yet sunk to that yet. > > > > > > > [[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too loudly and give anyone > ideas! > > > > Although I have been pleasantly surprised at the content (if not the > size) > > of the ads so far this year. > > You approve of WMF using stock photos? > > -- > John > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
