Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Please whitelist ZAM ads?Follow

#1 Dec 09 2010 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Seriously? Please make basic features like polling accessible without premium and I'll consider tolerating your eyesores and exposing myself to potential spyware. Meanwhile, you have time for a feature that replaces the Adblock/NS display with what is essentially an ad of your own, so maybe you should instead have developed a feature that justifies paid premium.

I'm not upset or anything. I just lol'd really hard at the audacity.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#2 Dec 09 2010 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,185 posts
Kachi wrote:
Meanwhile, you have time for a feature that replaces the Adblock/NS display with what is essentially an ad of your own, so maybe you should instead have developed a feature that justifies paid premium.
Why not? It seems like a great idea to me. The only reason to use adblock is because of the risk of viruses. Using the internet without adblock is one of the dumbest things that you could do, other than using limewire to look for CP. Zam hosting ads on their server not only prevents adblock from working, therefore increasing revenue, it also removes the need for it, as there's no risk of viruses. It seems like a perfect solution with no real downside for anyone.

As for polls, you can always always post the code, and there will always be someone who will quote it for you.

Also, from a pm i got from micajah:
Micajah wrote:
We've been looking at a lot of the premium features that we use for the forums and are considering making some of them free to everyone


He mentioned custom titles, so i know they're at least considering those, but other than that, he didn't say what specifically they were thinking of giving to free users. Either way, they are considering some premium features being given to everyone.

Edited, Dec 9th 2010 9:51pm by ThePsychoticOne
____________________________
BANNED

Creator and Leader of the Anti-Rog faction
#3 Dec 09 2010 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,638 posts
You're being awful helpful Rog. It's suspicious!

In any event, eh, what's the problem? It's their site, they do apparently generate most of their income off ads, and if they want to remind you of this fact when you're using adblock than I say they're well within their rights.
____________________________
http://ereblog.livejournal.com/
Erecia and Ereblog are BACK, baby!
#4 Dec 09 2010 at 10:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,185 posts
Erecia wrote:
You're being awful helpful Rog. It's suspicious!
This is exactly what i'm talking about in the post i'm about to make. Even when there isn't something wrong with my posts, someone still just has to take a jab at me. Smiley: glare
____________________________
BANNED

Creator and Leader of the Anti-Rog faction
#5 Dec 09 2010 at 10:42 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,638 posts
Maybe you're just getting sensitive about it.
____________________________
http://ereblog.livejournal.com/
Erecia and Ereblog are BACK, baby!
#6 Dec 09 2010 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:
Why not? It seems like a great idea to me. The only reason to use adblock is because of the risk of viruses.

That and a simple desire not to look at the ads.

Quote:
Zam hosting ads on their server not only prevents adblock from working, therefore increasing revenue, it also removes the need for it, as there's no risk of viruses.

I don't think they're hosting ads, just a placeholder begging you to stop AdBlocking them that you see when the ads don't go through.

I AdBlocked it :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Dec 09 2010 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,185 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Zam hosting ads on their server not only prevents adblock from working, therefore increasing revenue, it also removes the need for it, as there's no risk of viruses.
I don't think they're hosting ads, just a placeholder begging you to stop AdBlocking them that you see when the ads don't go through.

I AdBlocked it :D
Ahhh, didn't know about that. I thought he was talking about the ads on the home pages.

Still, i can't imagine why anyone would complain about that. Either unblock zam, or block the image, and it's not a problem.
____________________________
BANNED

Creator and Leader of the Anti-Rog faction
#8 Dec 10 2010 at 1:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It's not really a complaint, I just thought it was a little ridiculous.

"ZAM is supported primarily by advertisements. Please whitelist us so we can continue to build new features. :)
Sincerely,
The ZAM Team"

Ok, so you have time to develop features that beg for cash, but can't justify providing basic features for free, or build features that would make me want to pay for premium?

I chuckle in the face of it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#9 Dec 10 2010 at 1:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,185 posts
Kachi wrote:
Ok, so you have time to develop features that beg for cash
I doubt that took very long to do. And considering some of the bugs i've reported in my severel bugs thread, that have been fixed that no one would ever notice unless they were specifically looking for it, i'm not so sure they're really that short on time.
Quote:
but can't justify providing basic features for free, or build features that would make me want to pay for premium?
Post suggestions? They will read them, and if they like the idea, they just might add it. Alla has some really great devs here, but if they don't know what people want, they're going to spend their time going through the mountain of tiny unimportant bugs instead. And like i said, they are looking at the premium features and will (probably?) be giving some to free users. Maybe an admin can give more details about that.
____________________________
BANNED

Creator and Leader of the Anti-Rog faction
#10 Dec 10 2010 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I doubt that took very long to do.


I bet it took more time to do than something like adding new smilies for premium members.

Look, stuff like making polls, posting images, avatars, smilies... these are things that 99% of other major forums give you for free, and maybe if ZAM did, they would attract enough non-premium members to bring in the ad revenue they need. I don't know. But I do know that in all my years posting here, there has never been any question or confusion about how the users feel-- that at least some of those features should be standard. ****, they only JUST RECENTLY allowed you to use the search function without a subscription. It's not a case of ignorance, or not enough people asking. And it takes virtually no effort to make a feature that's available for premium members available to nonpremium members. Give me the admin login, and I can probably do it within five minutes.

Personally, I don't mind in the least little bit. It's 1/500 posts that I miss any of those things. To some extent I even appreciate it. I just think it was a comical move, at best.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#11 Dec 10 2010 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
3,638 posts
Maybe a comical move, but at least a comical move consistent with Alla's business plan. I don't understand why they do what they do, but they're committed to doing it. The level of administration we deal with don't have the authority to change things like that. I feel it's sort of like going to the police station and complaining that the capital raised taxes.
____________________________
http://ereblog.livejournal.com/
Erecia and Ereblog are BACK, baby!
#12 Dec 10 2010 at 8:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I'm well aware, and as I've already noted, probably four times by now, I'm not complaining.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#13 Dec 10 2010 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Bad j00 j00
Avatar
***
2,159 posts
Grand Master Leatherworker ThePsychoticO wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Ok, so you have time to develop features that beg for cash
I doubt that took very long to do. And considering some of the bugs i've reported in my severel bugs thread, that have been fixed that no one would ever notice unless they were specifically looking for it, i'm not so sure they're really that short on time.


It's more that the bugs are usually simple to fix and you explain clearly and concisely how to duplicate the problem. Knowing exactly how to duplicate them makes it tons easier to fix.

I put a high priority on fixing what we already have in place.
#14 Dec 10 2010 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Kachi wrote:
But I do know that in all my years posting here


So you've been using the site for years, but haven't supported it by disabling AdBlock or buying $3 premium yet? How about **** off?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#15 Dec 10 2010 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
So you've been using the site for years, but haven't supported it by disabling AdBlock or buying $3 premium yet? How about @#%^ off?


u mad

Not that I've always blocked ads anyway, but how about maybe I'll support it when it actually offers the basic features of a phpBB? It's open source for crying out loud.

When I used the XI boards, there was actually a useful database for a while, before it fell into negligence and disrepair, but it was eventually made obsolete by a wiki.

____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#16 Dec 10 2010 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
**
633 posts
tl;dr - Replace the black banners with non-intrusive, non-animating, locally served advertisements. Most of those who block ads will likely respect them.

For what it's worth I understand advertising is a legitimate source of income and a natural trade off. I understand why and have no problem with zam reaching out to those like me who are blocking the ads. I'm glad this is being discussed. I would like to support zam with viewable ads.

So then, you might ask, why I block them? They're (1) often distracting eyesores (2) potentially contain malware (3) slow down site load times.

Ads are everywhere. They're ubiquitous. However... they're typically as intrusive as possible and that's where I get rubbed the wrong way. While the universal view in business is to sqeeze its consumers as hard as possible, I flat out refuse to accept it. Apparently I'm not alone. Teams of people write and maintain addons or web browsers to block ads. Individuals who are fed up seek these tools and take the time to learn them. That says a lot. Ads are too intrusive. Adblock plus is a natural result of long term abuse.

Some organizations understand this. They build non-intrusive advertising into their model. Google, a goliath of a business, is the obvious example. I have never once felt like I wanted to block an ad served through google. They make ridiculous money without squeezing their consumers. It seems to work well on smaller scales as well.

You might say it's tough to find an ad service with non-intrusive advertising which can be served locally and still provide a sufficient revenue stream. I wouldn't know. I do know I wouldn't block ads that had no animation and were served by zam.com. That solves my 3 complaints listed above.

You can try it both ways. Keep your current advertising for those who don't block ads, which is probably the majority of members. For the other still large group of members who do block ads, try an ad-service who will work with you and replace those black banners with locally served, non-intrusive advertising. If done right you might be surprised that members are ok with it.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]475686[/ffxivsig]
#17 Dec 11 2010 at 1:02 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
251 posts
landael wrote:
You can try it both ways. Keep your current advertising for those who don't block ads, which is probably the majority of members. For the other still large group of members who do block ads, try an ad-service who will work with you and replace those black banners with locally served, non-intrusive advertising. If done right you might be surprised that members are ok with it.


This
____________________________
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Sandinmygum wrote:
if this is true, sweets. I like gaining rep with Fractions. I find it to be fun for some odd reason.

Noob. Decimals are where the real loot is.

Keith?
#18 Dec 11 2010 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Bad j00 j00
Avatar
***
2,159 posts
landael wrote:

So then, you might ask, why I block them? They're (1) often distracting eyesores (2) potentially contain malware (3) slow down site load times.


2) An up to date antivirus software program combined with a responsible site negates this risk to almost zero.

3) This point is wrong, as far as ZAM is concerned. This is the #1 reason we force our ads to load inside of iframes. The ad servers can be completely down and our pages will happily load without pause. If a site chooses not to load ads in iframes, you are right. They can slow down the page loads. Some choose not to be cause ads in iframes are a pain in the **** to implement properly.

We do try our very best to keep the intrusion at a minimum. If we really wanted to crank it up we would have interstials, dashboards every page load (the ads that come up from the bottom), popunders constantly and more ads than content on every page.

It's a very difficult balancing act for us. Gone are the days when someone can make a popular fan website for a game that is popular. They get crushed by their own success. It isn't a matter of it being a full time job for them or anything else. It's a simple matter of the cost of hosting the site. Just the bill we receive every month for the bandwidth alone is approaching 5 figures, for our entire network. Server costs are in addition to that.

We really do try our best to keep the ads to a minimum. Not a week goes by when we aren't working with our advertisers and sales staff to keep the user experience positive. We frequently pull ads that do not meet our standards, if they are remnant (come from a giant pool of ads) or direct sales. Flash ads that use far too much cpu, play sound without the user clicking on them, flashing ads, etc. all get pulled as soon as we find out about them.

Ironically, we can't run google's ads. We would need to hire someone full time just to keep blocking all the gold/gil/isk selling ads that would appear in them.

The purpose of the graphic which people who adblock ads see is not a different method for us to advertise. It is simply to educate and explain why we run ads and hopefully encourage people to whitelist our site(s).
#19 Dec 11 2010 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,274 posts
landael wrote:
You can try it both ways. Keep your current advertising for those who don't block ads, which is probably the majority of members. For the other still large group of members who do block ads, try an ad-service who will work with you and replace those black banners with locally served, non-intrusive advertising. If done right you might be surprised that members are ok with it.


They would almost instantly end up in the common filter lists used by almost everyone who uses adblock. In fact, there are already rules in the most commonly used list that are specific to this site.
#20 Dec 11 2010 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Quote:
2) An up to date antivirus software program combined with a responsible site negates this risk to almost zero.

Just to play Devils Advocate, if that risk is even 1%, that's too much.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#21 Dec 11 2010 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I block ads because I find them visually annoying just as people tear the inserts out of their magazines before reading or skip past commercials on their DVRs. Even worse since the Powers That Be chose to reformat the layout of the site to facilitate pushing more ads and ignored the feedback saying that many people hated the new layout. So I canceled premium because user feedback wasn't listened to anyway and I was largely paying as a voluntary donation to the site and I block ads because the new layout shoves so much crap at me that I'd really rather not look at it all. I guess I get to spend an extra three bucks a month on dollar burgers as well.

Win/win for me and lose/lose for the site. But that's what the Powers That Be wanted and so that's what they got. I don't know that cutsie nag ads are a great substitution for a model that encourages, rather than discourages, premium subscriptions or one that doesn't actively encourage using AdBlock due to the crapton of ads shoved in your face.

Edited, Dec 11th 2010 10:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Dec 11 2010 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,638 posts
landael wrote:
They're (1) often distracting eyesores (2) potentially contain malware (3) slow down site load times.


I feel the need to add point (4): many of them these days feel the need to talk at me. If I have to listen to one more woman yammer on about her dirty windows, I'm gunna scream.

I've never heard a talky add at Alla, but it's the places that go too far that ruin it for everyone with these kinds of things. Sort of like with pop-up windows. Man what a crappy concept THAT was.

I wonder if there's an advertisement theory that is based on an anti-reaction to current advertisement methods. Sort of like wikipedia's exceptionally tasteful personal appeal donation requests (which actually did entice me to toss $35 to a good cause.) I think by gaining people's trust and then NOT LATER ABSUING IT fundraising and other advertisement methods would be a lot more effective.

Edited, Dec 11th 2010 11:53am by Erecia
____________________________
http://ereblog.livejournal.com/
Erecia and Ereblog are BACK, baby!
#23 Dec 11 2010 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
**
633 posts
Nizdaar wrote:
3) This point is wrong, as far as ZAM is concerned. This is the #1 reason we force our ads to load inside of iframes. The ad servers can be completely down and our pages will happily load without pause. If a site chooses not to load ads in iframes, you are right. They can slow down the page loads. Some choose not to be cause ads in iframes are a pain in the **** to implement properly.

It's good to hear the speed changed. Zam loading time was one the main reason I started using ad blocking ~5 years ago. I was constantly getting "waiting for some domain..." for 15 seconds each time I clicked a link. It drove me bonkers.

iframe's are notorious as a source for malware. The ad industry has a bad reputation for allowing malware and it's deserved for half-assing prevention. If all that was served was .jpg I could live with that. If site load times weren't an issue, the ads weren't animated, and my antivirus caught the rare jpg exploit I'd follow instructions for reconfiguring adblock.

Antivirus can only catch suspicious behavior or previously known malware. I'm not interested in opening myself up to any ad service using flash because flash is exploited regularly and it could be a couple days before even the most premium antivirus has patched for it.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]475686[/ffxivsig]
#24 Dec 11 2010 at 10:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Bad j00 j00
Avatar
***
2,159 posts
Erecia wrote:
I feel the need to add point (4): many of them these days feel the need to talk at me. If I have to listen to one more woman yammer on about her dirty windows, I'm gunna scream.

I've never heard a talky add at Alla, but it's the places that go too far that ruin it for everyone with these kinds of things. Sort of like with pop-up windows. Man what a crappy concept THAT was.

Edited, Dec 11th 2010 11:53am by Erecia


If you ever find an ad on any of our sites which loads and plays sound without any user interaction, report it and we will remove it immediately.
#25 Dec 13 2010 at 3:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,590 posts
landael wrote:
tl;dr - Replace the black banners with non-intrusive, non-animating, locally served advertisements. Most of those who block ads will likely respect them.

Why does local serving help?

Given this situation, no ad server is to be trusted because their business model relies on untrustworthy sources:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/major-ad-networks-found-serving-malicious-ads-121210
#26 Dec 13 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
landael wrote:

tl;dr - Replace the black banners with non-intrusive, non-animating, locally served advertisements. Most of those who block ads will likely respect them.


The reason that I block the ads is because despite what I have read from some of the admins in this thread - they DO slow the site to a crawl. If I accidentally come here after using IE for something work-related, I immediately know it because the scrolling is slow and typing a post is like nails on a chalkboard. I just can't do it - and here at work I have a decently fast pipe.

I find it funny that after ad-blocking the little quip that Zam created, the rating buttons also disappeared. I'm going to leave it that way because I always felt the karma system was mostly a joke anyway so it doesn't matter one way or the other - but this did not in any way encourage me to buy premium nor turn adblock back off. It was cute and silly, but it's just getting exasperating with this site and I am in agreement that you can do much more on other sites without this "in-your-face" approach to get money.

I can't sit here for ten minutes per post because ads are slowing everything down, no matter how much I enjoy the community and admins on this forum.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)