Text ads within forum content

Grrrrr - I just don't get the logic of the objections - especially at such a level of emotion.

This sucks.

Hmm, I never did see them, and while I am sure I would have a first wave of mild irritation, I'd get over it just as fast as others posting here have... and besides, I don't care, I'd still have said go for it.

I would think the irritation, incensed as you've seen, would fade among existing posters, and be taken for granted by new newbies. There could be some mention of it in the welcome package that new members see, so they are not surprised and the irritation is short circuited.

My favorite advertising in the past has been when the ads above correlated with the forum posts below... (I think that was back in the google related days.) That was actually fun/sometimes hilarious.
I can almost envision this new diverging to ad could be fun too, in a similar way.

Sorry I think test(text) ads are better than the current ads. Change is sometimes difficult.

Yeah. Sigh.....

I sorta want to urge Craven to see if it can be ridden out - but only he knows how bad it was.

Anyway, 'tis clearly a divisive enough issue without me keeping it alive, so I will shut up.

Yes, I was thinking much the same...

At least it looks like this works and is available if the decision is made that it's needed down the line. That's good.

Okay, count me in as confused. I never got to see them, but would not be bothered by them. Come to think of it, I only rarely see a tall ad on the right hand side of the page. I haven't seen anything at the top... Does that mean I'm blocking them somehow?

What is meant by there being a different A2K template? (Is this a secret hide out? Maybe an A2K cave similar to Batman's? That would be cool!!)

Where do I subscribe?

Never mind on the subscription thing. I found it. Geesh, I woulda done that earlier if I'd known!

(Now, to find the secret hideout....)

squinney, you can change your template in your profile.

ossobuco, please don't click on ads unless you're interested in whatever's being advertised. False (inflated) clicks are a MAJOR problem for advertisers, and it is a way for us to lose advertisers, so don't make it a point of clicking, unless you truly want more information on something being advertised. Thank you.

I have to say, re the folks who objected so strenuously to the text ads, I am somewhat dismayed. Really, do people think this site runs on sunshine and pixie dust? It takes cash to run able2know, and the way that a site like this makes money is through advertising. The text ads are the most effective ads, with the best return on the effort expended in creating and maintaining them. Not supporting these ads, without offering any sort of viable alternative funding mechanism, to me is, well, decorum prevents me from saying, but suffice it to say I'm not at all happy.

Jespah, you and Craven keep telling me this. I would never do a false click, and certainly not after several comments not to do it. I understand that that is extremely important. My question is whether an interested click helps the site.

I'm really not sure what you mean, as the software cannot tell what your motivation is behind clicking. I take it you mean, if you click now and then, does it help the site? Or if you don't click, do we get the same results?

If that's what you're asking, CdK can answer that, I believe.

PS Sorry to be repetitious; the audience isn't so much you as it is other people who might have the same question.

Drats! I really wanted an A2K Cave.

Thanks, Jespah. I found and tried the templates and the standard one seems easiest to read for me.

I do see what you are saying, that the mechanism cannot detect motivation.

I have never clicked on an ad, and might sometime in the future. I remember almost clicking on a Dick Blick ad some time ago, I am interested in art supplies. On the other hand, I do get art supply catalogs already, just not that company's. So, let's say I clicked on that, would that click have been useful to the site in any way? It really is a matter of time for me - if I was actually interested, and did go so far as to take the time to click and see the ad, would that have been useful. (I can figure it would only be minimally, and that the use for a2k if there is one shouldn't enter into my decision on whether to click....)

It was just a question I have wondered about. Realistically, I'll be looking at the Portal and the Shop categories re any buying I want to do.

How is one to determine his degree of interest in a site unless said site is visited? Regarding "False Clicks": How does the site in question (The clickee) determine the true intent of the entity visiting (The clickor)? To click or not to click is objective and not subjective. Clicks are the result of a question demanding a yes or no answer and do not involve nuance.

Seems the real question is how and in what way we can help A2K financially, sans actual direct payments. Personally I have absolutely no problem with somebody making money off of A2K. This is a valuable forum and has received many compliments from visitors and participants alike. If A2K makes a profit and allows free participation it is no skin off my nose! After all, is this a great country or what?

JM

That's why things like saying "clicking the ads helps the site" is not allowed. This is what advertisers call "incentivizing" clicks.

So to answer your question all I can say is basically what I've been saying all along, helping the site should not be a factor at all when looking at an ad.

But to answer your question more precisely (and more generally) there are three main types of advertising models: CPM, CPC and CPA.

CPM means cost per mill (impressions). This is a model that pays for page displays, but it's a declining format because the CTR (click through ratio) makes a big difference in the advertiser's results.

CPC is cost per click. This means that if the visitors do not click on the ad the advertiser does not pay. This is good for advertisers because they pay for the results, and is the most common type of advertising here.

CPA is cost per aquisition. This usually means the advertiser pays based on the ultimate result: a sale. Amazon affiliates are an example of this model. In this case impressions and clicks mean nothing and payment is made based on sale or specific lead.

Here on A2K we use all three formats. But it's important to remember that advertisers do not pay to support A2K and A2K is not helped in any way by incentivized clicks because that hurts the advertiser's ROI and subsequently hurts A2K.

What really works is contextual ads, as this generates real interest through contextual relevance.

The text ads we tested were very successful because over 80% of the users here have complete and total "banner blindness". This means that even if the ads interested them they'd not notice because they subsconciously ignore them.

The flip side is that it seems that ignorance is bliss when it comes to ads and people want to be able to ignore them more easily.

Anywho, I'm workin' on alternatives and have approached a big contextual advertiser.

Why can't you just have everyone either start paying a monthly fee to use A2k or find another site this good.

Really - free is great but if there are objections re ads and stuff then we can pay to play IMHO.

Thank you, Craven, now I get it; I had not understood the mechanics of internet advertising systems, among them, the business of ratios. The contextual methods seem to make more sense for everybody.

I still haven't seen one....

They're gone now...

eee. I didn't keep up.

I sometimes click on the right side ads by mistake - trying to scroll down, and on my home system I occasionally misfire.