Ads, ads and more ads

Ads??

Never seen any on this site.

My Adblocker Ultimate has chalked up six items though so it seems to be doing something.

I really do detest ads. RTE is unwatchable for that.

Fortunately you can find the program that someone downloaded and edited out the breaks on though.

I have no guilt as I don't buy the rubbish advertised anyway. As Orwell wrote "it's the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket".

I don't understand why they can't offer an ad-free subscription option to people who want to help. All this is going to go is drive more people to seek out ad blocking browsers and reduce revenue even further. How much does boards get per ad view?

How do I do this on mobile chrome please?

Was this site not free of ads a few years back?

The plethora of advertising seems to be a recent thing and I wonder what has changed on sites where the content is supplied free of charge by the sites users?

Maybe the system should work the other way and the people that provide the material get paid for their output and not the advertisers who think nothing of assaulting people with their unwanted and often infantile drivel.

For a mere euro or two I would be happy to furnish you with more gems of profound logic :-)

Please treat the offer as information and not an "advert" :-)

Is it a problem if the site is screwed?

I turned my blocker off and the inane rubbish means nothing to me a load of coloured pictures that is just disruptive garbage. The same as most sites on the web now. It's just background "noise" and I really tend to wonder if its of much value to the producers of the goods or services pushed?

This site like many others would be unusable without an adblocker.

I do pay for advert free good material and am happy to do so. Wikipedea I donate to and the Guardian in the UK is the one paper I subscribe to.

Oddly enough neither use ads anyway. If I stopped paying I would still get the same ad free material.

Oh for the good old days of the 300 baud modem.

I use Adblock ultimate and Malwarebytes. They both integrate into Firefox and stop most things on most sites.

Personally I detest adverts they waste bandwidth and employ none productive individuals to push garbage onto the easily led.

Stupidity is fine, they are not looking for the intelligentsia that's for sure.

I do recall the odd advertising campaign on the TV and billboard that was witty artistic and a credit to the skills of the person designing the ad. Those days and the quality of the material are long gone.

Strangely enough one of the funniest that featured Sylvester and Tweety Pie was so appealing that I recall the advert perfectly but somehow not the product.

Whatever it was, it "tastes even better than Tweety Pie"

I wouldn't be so confident. Mike has confirmed over on the "official" Ads thread (in Announcements) that ad revenue is pretty much the only thing keeping the site afloat.

Of course quality sites can be run without ads. You either need a wealthy backer or else the people who use the site pay a subscription.

There's your three options, which one is your choice?

But how have things changed?

Are you suggesting that the site was of poor quality prior to the ads coming in?

I really don't see any difference. The site is not too intuitive, but that seems to be the case with sites that use text primarily. Maybe the assumption is that those needing pictures need more simplicity?

Why a wealthy backer?

Wealthy, just how much?

Usenet is still on the go and the interface via a newsreader like Agent is brilliant, surely a mass migration would cost virtually nothing?

I never had reason to start a new newsgroup, but I assume it's a simple process as they were in the tens of thousands if not more when I last downloaded the list.

As someone living and working in the UK prior to Maggie, I am left with the firm belief that assigning a monetary value to everything is often not a good move.

I refuse to accept cash for things produced by my "hobbies", although that might change for the benefit of my "production team" shortly.

So I am intrigued, just what has changed? How much is the outlay?

You also don't list the system used by Wikipedia, one that I use myself, which is voluntary contributions.

Thanks yes I did start to think that it was a mistake contributing to Wiki. Once on their database you are being fed requests constantly, although having said that, they have been quiet for a couple of years, so I will do a monthly, as I did forget.

Why the change for this site though? What does it cost and how have the costs altered since doing it for "free"?

I know I carp on about Usenet, but it was a wonderful medium and rejected commercialism totally.

I do use an adblocker by the way, I did mention turning it off to see what was so abhorrent about the site.

Frankly it seems to provide far less space than some of the UK national papers, but I am doing any company a favour by using the adblocker. I will not buy a mainstream advertised product if I can help it simply because I want to pay for a product and not adverts, thus the company trying to assault my intellect might actually succeed in selling me something if I don't see the promotion.

Now if Proctor & Gamble or Mc Donalds were to promote and sell adblockers, maybe they would see a boost in sales of their core products :-)

Those I do see on the internet never fail to dissapoint, the number of adverts selling soap or even water with a fancy title to the hard of thinking are unbelievable so unless Aldi or Lidl start to promote their shampoo or washing up liquid, there isn't a hope that I would fork out for the more expensive dross.

I just clicked on an ad, something I have never done before except accidentally. It was for the Van Gogh Exhibit in Dublin, which looks really interesting, I'll do a bit more research on it. That kind of ad is something I would consider worthwhile, unlike the stupid fake ads for clothing.

Awful crap

STAHP