Banner Advertising on the FORT

[J.D.]

The ads have always been on the page, they were just under the quickreply box before, and now they're above it.

Google scans each page and serves up relevant ads based on the content of the page, in most cases. It's really neat technology, really.

I just noticed the ads today also. They are so small and unobtrusive that one (meaning me) can choose to ignore them, or if something catches my eye - I'll check it out. Good ad placement, if you ask me, which you didn't.

[Clipse]

To put in my honest input, I don't like where the ads are placed now, it seems like its seperating the page. I can live with it, just going to take some getting used to.

[eldee]

With the Google posts, maybe they can be eliminated by chosing the ignore button. That way they won't be seen with the other posts. It's worth a try.

[John]

You can't "ignore" the Google ads that are in-line with other posts, but only non-members should see those anyway. Logged in members only see the Google ad above the quickreply.

[rdpch]

Reading through this thread prompts me to add my three cents:

-I see the ads as relatively unobtrusive, but I can still understand CEO's emotional response to something he finds disagreeable (sorry, "he" is just a guess). If there were ads for George Bush I'd feel the same way, and might even experience a hint of fleeting annoyance. (To his credit, CEO even made the point about leaving with humor.) These emotional reactions are perfectly valid and perhaps worth some discussion.

-I've noticed on a few threads that FORT regulars have a tendency for backlash against someone who questions FORT policy. Invariably, one or two regulars (and typically John) patiently explain the reasons for the policy, and education happens. But others seem to pile on, as if just waiting for a sanctioned opportunity ("defend the FORT!") to violate the no bashing rule. IMO the "with us or against us" attitude could encourage less interest and participation by newbies, and ultimately less growth of the FORT.

-Does actually clicking on the ads bring greater revenue to FORT? If so, why not "vote" for ads that you find not-as-disagreeable by occasionally clicking on them, and feeling even less disagreeable by bringing some revenue to the site.

[senrik]

Whoa!!!

I just got back from Costco with a trunk full of Bounty Paper Towels! You are saying this is not required?!?!?




On a serious note. Stick around CEO, as John noted, it was just an Ad, and I certainly don't subscribe to the floppy world of John Kerry, but I fully supporthis right to advertise where he can.

I agree with Bill here. Becides (sorry John) If you really wanted, Individual users could filter out the banners regardless.

Not that I plan to reveal exactly *how* that is done, but it can be done.

[unexplained]

To put in my honest input, I don't like where the ads are placed now, it seems like its seperating the page. I can live with it, just going to take some getting used to.

I've accidentally clicked on it. But I'll live with it.

[veejer]

If you're talking about the banner at the top of the page, right under "Fans of Reality TV", we have Norton Internet Security and POOF, no more banners.

[queenb]

If you're talking about the banner at the top of the page, right under "Fans of Reality TV", we have Norton Internet Security and POOF, no more banners.

Ahh, that explains why I've never seen it!

[Stargazer]

-I see the ads as relatively unobtrusive, but I can still understand CEO's emotional response to something he finds disagreeable...

-I've noticed on a few threads that FORT regulars have a tendency for backlash against someone who questions FORT policy. Invariably, one or two regulars (and typically John) patiently explain the reasons for the policy, and education happens. But others seem to pile on, as if just waiting for a sanctioned opportunity ("defend the FORT!") to violate the no bashing rule. IMO the "with us or against us" attitude could encourage less interest and participation by newbies, and ultimately less growth of the FORT.
.

I have to say that I enjoyed the candor of your post. I think you brought forth some valid points.

First of all, I have no authority here at FORT. I'm just a regular who has been given the tremendous opportunity to write things that (hopefully) entertain people I enjoying being around. So, my two cents is just my own opinion.

I think that you are correct that the original poster reacted in an emotional way because he didn't have all of the information about how ads are used here. However, I also think that the emotional response you see from the other posters is also valid. I don't think anyone (for the most part) is intentionally trying to bash anyone else. I think they just instinctively rush to protect John and FORT because they feel that it is "home" for them and that he was kind enough to allow them to reside there.

I've tried to watch my own response at times to perceived "threats". I would guess that it would be intimidating for a newbie to see cliquish and aggressive behavior when it appears that someone is merely questioning why a policy is in effect. Hopefully, everyone will take heed to your insight (including myself) and try to answer questions in a more supportive way.