Survey posted 2006-11-27 20:51 by Magnus.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

A NEW SURVEY!!!!

However, ads really mess up the tone of ticalc, maybe it should be .com and not .org, thats what ads make it look like

TAKE THE ADS OFF!!!

It might be alright if ticalc is close to shutting down (financially). Otherwise, they look interesting... (negative conotation)

text ads are fine, although the ones on the comment pages should be place at the bottom, not directly under the article,

everyone just be quiet, nobody said anything about using flash ads, popups, etc.

I hate ads. I understand though if they are needed. But even being text ads they are very easily mistaken for other things on this site and can be clicked on by mistake.

I think thats the idea...

Ads? What ads? I have not seen a single ad in the past year. I use Firefox with Adblock Plus with Filterset G and I don't even see the ads.

Well, the point of these ads is not to make the staffers rich and famous (although....). The point here is just to cover operating costs.

Yah - If It could fund a better site and the ads weren't anooying as hell I'd be all for it.

I would say it is ok to have ads, but only when needed. Random thought... have ads only for unregistered viewers? It might be a good idea if the server is still financially stable.

I say it is a small price to pay for keeping this great site up and running.

I don't really mind the ads. They aren't really destracting from the content, at least to me, and are for a good cause. But everybody is different.

But ticalc.com is better than no ticalc at all...

I have no issue with text based ads like Google provides. I'd have issues with large banner ads.

Haha, I don't even see the ads because of adblock.

You, sir, along with everyone else who uses Adblock, should be required to pay a minimum of five United States cents per day per site you visit, to cover the financial loss of your not seeing the ads.

Ah poop to you. They don't know I'm not seeing their ads (unless its one that you must click, which I don't anyways.) If it makes you feel better, I would gladly turn it off for ticalc.

That is not the point. You are robbing the site (whatever site it may be) of some crucial funding by not seeing their ads. I do not like noisy flash ads either, but there is a simple way to fix that: F5. If that doesn't help after a few tries, there's another simple fix: Not returning to the site. If I still really need the information on the site, I turn plugins off temporarily and if the advertising agency is smart they'll feed me a non-flash ad in its place.

Turning off ads is never an acceptable practice, for any reason whatsoever. It is not nearly the same as skipping commercials on TV with a PVR; the station gets paid the same whether or not I personally look at the ad. It is different with web sites: The site gets paid per impression, which requires that my browser load the ad.

If there were some middle ground in Adblock, such as it downloads the ad but doesn't show it to you, it wouldn't be nearly as bad, but it'd be just as unethical.

You know what? You're right; since I want to help ticalc.org, I'll turn off Adblock for it.

I just said I'll whitelist ticalc, but other sites are still out of luck. I see it as a sort of punishment for them annoying me all these years. I don't reward bad behavior.

I have nothing against google ads (though I generally don't click them anyways) but banner ads and pop ups are insulting. As if I couldn't read it without it flashing, making noise, and covering up the content that is the reason I am visiting the page in the first place.

Such ads also produce un-need strain on networks that *don't* belong to the site owner, such as networks at public libraries or schools, which are payed for by taxpayers. Somehow I don't think little jonny wants a new home mortgage anyway. Blocking ads at such locations actually saves the company advertising money by eliminating mistargeted advertising.

I agree. I can understand *not* wanting people to block text-link ads. Annoying flash ads, banner ads, and popup ads, though, deserve to be blocked. Maybe if everyone did it, the hosts would get the message and switch to non-intrusive ads. In that case, it would work out best for everyone - people wouldn't be annoyed, and the sites would still get their money.

Good point! Imagine if everyone used ad-blockers...then this scheme wouldn't work at all. We'd have to go to more annoying things (such as interstitial ads) to keep the revenue flow up. We'd much rather do Google text ads that people don't mind at all.

For those who hate flash (myself included): there is a Firefox extension called flashblock that replaces all flash animations with a big "play" button that will then play that flash. Now this obviously applies to *all* flash, not just ads, but honestly that's what most of flash is today...

In my opinion, the whole reason people started developing and using ad blockers was because the ads were getting way too annoying in the first place.

um add block has the option to hide or remove adds. I am not sure if hiding still loads them or not but I think that is what you are talking about.

I don't have the Flash plugin installed at all. Sure, it makes some sites non-navigable, but they aren't worth it anyway.

I'm trying to wean myself off of the blocking images thing, because (A) viewing ads helps website owners, and (B) everything looks empty without advertising.

> everything looks empty without advertising.

Then you should visit sites that have content. :-)

In your dreams! Although I tend to ignore advertising anyway, with Adblock I don't even have to think about it. In fact, if it hadn't been for the news article about the new ads, I probably would never have known ticalc.org was serving ads at all. . .

I direct you to my reply to the poster above, as well.

Should everyone who uses a text-only web browser (eg, Links or Lynx) also have to pay for not seeing image ads? What about people who don't have Flash? Should they also have to pay for not seeing Flash ads?

Legally requiring people to subsidize a web site (as I take your comment to mean) is just a bad idea. That would turn ads into something almost sacred, which I don't want happening anymore in media. It's bad enough that the CEO of Turner Broadcasting said that skipping commercials is stealing (see Web Page).

Right, the one on the main page really blends in and isn't at all intrusive. My problem is with the one on the survey page, which gets in the way and screams "I'm an ad!"

Yeah, a few ads is okay.. Do NOT make pop ups... Grr.. Those are annoying (even with pop-up blocker -_-)...

I don't recall anyone saying anything about Pop-Up Ads, do you? Didn't think so.. Strictly text ads here, people.. The main topic of discussion in this article would be where on the site to place said text ads..

Popups are definitly not happening. First, we're not interested in that in any way. Second, we're using google adsense and they actually forbid popup ads for sites that particpiate.

Interesting. So that means if a site has a Googlesense ad on it, that automatically means it won't have popups (unless the site owner(s) break the rules)?