Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: djellison Dec 31 2006, 11:02 AM

We've been approached by an online advertising firm who offered what I think is a good fixed monthly sum to put some text ads at the bottom of every page. They will generate, at the current rate, slightly more than the 'measurable' UMSF running costs (hosting, forum lic), and with the need to upgrade the hosting package never far away, this is about the right sort of level I was hoping to generate.

As many of you will know, I have always been reluctant to do the 'cap-in-hand' routine and would rather UMSF paid for itself than surviving on a combination of my wallet and member generosity.

These new ads are now to be found at the bottom of UMSF - and I would like members to cast their opinion. They'll be here for one month - and depending on the outcome of this vote, they will remain or be removed at the end of that period. Give yourself a day or two to see them (they're dynamic) before making a call.

If you want to pass a more detailed response, drop me a private message or an email or chuck a message into this thread.

Cheers

Doug

Posted by: Bob Shaw Dec 31 2006, 01:24 PM

Doug:

They're invisible and thus utterly harmless.

Go for it!


Bob Shaw

Posted by: Tesheiner Dec 31 2006, 02:09 PM

They are so subtle/"invisible" that I was only aware about their existance because of this new thread/pool.

Keep them.

Posted by: MarkL Dec 31 2006, 04:00 PM

I voted yes as I think they are fine. And the concept of making this useful site self-supporting is great.

People likely wouldn't come to the site as often though if the ads became a lot more prominent. Its a delicate balance when running a non-commercial site.

Posted by: brianc Dec 31 2006, 04:50 PM

Sounds like a good revenue stream to me Doug, can't see any negatives

Posted by: dvandorn Dec 31 2006, 05:30 PM

As long as they remain these tiny little links that you can barely notice, I'm all for it, Doug. Check the fine print of any agreeement you sign, though -- this is one site that doesn't flood me with pop-ups (that my browser has to spend time & resources to suppress), or throw flashing multi-color ads at me, or load tracking cookies. As long as your agreement doesn't give them the right to do any of these things in the future, I'm just fine with it.

-the other Doug

Posted by: nprev Dec 31 2006, 09:03 PM

I think it's fine, Doug, and congratulations; this should be a big help for you and a very good thing for the forum. Just don't go all 'Hollywood' on us, now!

Two suggestions/observations:

1. I'm running IE 7.0 now (& I think Java 1.5.2), and the links on first rollover displayed the JavaScript error icon (exclamation point within a yellow triangle) in front of the URL display in the lower-left corner of the IE window. The links still worked just fine, though, and the icons disappeared after the first click on the ad link...weird.

2. Again this might be solely an IE 7 issue, but the links did not open a new window or add a new tab; instead, they wiped out UMSF, and I had to use the back button to navigate back. Suggest configuring them to open independent windows and/or new tabs.

Posted by: djellison Dec 31 2006, 09:12 PM

I'll fwd those comments onto the ad company ( it's their PHP code that does the ads )

Cheers

Doug

Posted by: nprev Dec 31 2006, 09:27 PM

Sure, man. BTW, like the new spacecraft logo in the banner...looks a lot like NH circa 2016 or so...

Also, quick correction: I'm running Java 1.5.0_09 (took me awhile to find it in IE 7).

Posted by: djellison Dec 31 2006, 09:31 PM

Needs a slight tweak, but it's almost there.

Doug

Posted by: ddeerrff Dec 31 2006, 10:12 PM

Completely unobtrusive. Keep them.

Posted by: helvick Jan 1 2007, 12:36 AM

Doug - they are completely unobtrusive as far as I can make out. I was unable to replicate nprev's error with IE7 and I can't see any reason why they would trigger a Java error but for completeness I'm also running with Java 1.5.0_09. The ads are literally a simple list of href's right before the closing body tag on the page so they really should not cause any compatibility issues for any browsers - they are exactly like any other link.

Posted by: nprev Jan 1 2007, 02:21 AM

Yeah, for some reason I'm not getting the Java error anymore either...strange. I did dump my cache; perhaps that made the difference?

Posted by: tasp Jan 1 2007, 02:08 PM

If not for this thread, I would never have noticed the ads.

So having them doesn't seem to be a problem.


however . . .

I don't mind the current dog kennel, cell phone and MPAA ads, but in the future, if I should note ads for International Star Registry, or the Enterprise Mission, or the Institute for Creation Research, or various and sundry male 'enhancement' products, I might just have a wee bit of a hissy fit.

Posted by: tasp Jan 1 2007, 02:10 PM

In any regard,

keep the Borat one!

Posted by: centsworth_II Jan 1 2007, 05:01 PM

Right. Doug you did a great service for the advertisers by pointing out that their links were there. When I get bored or curious some day, I'll click on them. In the meantime they are no distraction.

Posted by: CosmicRocker Jan 9 2007, 06:38 AM

No problem on this end.

Posted by: climber Jan 9 2007, 07:04 AM

If all adds would be as discrete as those ones "sigh".
I vote yes.

Posted by: ustrax Jan 9 2007, 08:59 AM

Fine with me...