This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Stylesheets > November 2004 > New wave of spam - Shame on these web sites
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New wave of spam - Shame on these web sites
|
|
|
|
|
| In article <opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net>,
Kerberos <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the own
> window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally anti-ethical.
We'll need floating box blockers, now...
--
To reply by email, replace the word "space" with "renault"
| |
|
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the own
> window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally anti-ethical.
This is not spam, this is just another way of advertisement,
a bit less annoying then popUps.
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
| Kerberos 2004-11-24, 7:18 pm |
| Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:47:25 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
escreveu:
> This is not spam, this is just another way of advertisement,
> a bit less annoying then popUps.
Some people send unsolicited e-mails that say at the bottom "This is not
considered spam because you subscribed to a (Read: "Non-existent") mailing
list". This is when ethics come into play.
There is advertising and advertising. I don't mind a "discreet" top
banner, or a side text-based Google Ads bar.
But flashing red and yellow ads, or floating DIVs that welcome you and
thank you very much for kindly clicking the ad, no thanks. I quit.
--
Kerberos.
http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org
| |
|
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzoy9xaqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:47:25 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Some people send unsolicited e-mails that say at the bottom "This is not
> considered spam because you subscribed to a (Read: "Non-existent") mailing
> list". This is when ethics come into play.
> There is advertising and advertising. I don't mind a "discreet" top
> banner, or a side text-based Google Ads bar.
> But flashing red and yellow ads, or floating DIVs that welcome you and
> thank you very much for kindly clicking the ad, no thanks. I quit.
No ads - no money.
No money - no site.
Simple as that, in many cases.
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
| Boke Yuzgen 2004-11-24, 7:18 pm |
| Wow, Opera is busted! You see Kerberos? There are always
reasons for new versions (in another thread, you asked what
else Opera Software can do for a better browser). :)
By the way, I am expecting more efficient newsgroup handling
in forhcoming version. I quit using Gravity, but I can't ignore
a thread etc with Opera. Filtering should also be stronger.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:55:13 -0200, Kerberos <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the
> own window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally
> anti-ethical.
>
--
Boke Yuzgen
| |
| Kerberos 2004-11-24, 7:18 pm |
| Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:06:43 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
escreveu:
> No ads - no money.
> No money - no site.
> Simple as that, in many cases.
Could be also:
Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
No visitors - No site
When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster should
be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest of the
site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see it, but
won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always pops up :)
I like Google Ads concept.
--
Kerberos.
http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org
| |
| Kerberos 2004-11-24, 7:18 pm |
| Em Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:15:23 +0200, Boke Yuzgen <yuzgen@ira.com.tr>
escreveu:
> Wow, Opera is busted! You see Kerberos? There are always
> reasons for new versions (in another thread, you asked what
> else Opera Software can do for a better browser). :)
I know, but to filter this kind of spam it's quite hard if not impossible.
How to tell if a floating frame is spam or just a DHTML menu? There could
be a filter that looks for keywords like "ads", and that would hide any
<div> that contains "ad" or "click here", still I think it'd be a mess in
real life.
> By the way, I am expecting more efficient newsgroup handling
> in forhcoming version. I quit using Gravity, but I can't ignore
> a thread etc with Opera. Filtering should also be stronger.
Mmmh... For me it's working great so far. I think the Opera filters are so
handy. Regarding newsgroups, I know what you mean. what I do is I always
right-click the newsgroup name and click "Mark all as read", then it helps.
--
Kerberos.
http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org
| |
|
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzp2prnqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:06:43 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Could be also:
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
Totally true.
> When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster should
> be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest of the
> site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see it, but
> won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always pops up :)
> I like Google Ads concept.
All has to be put on right place and designed with taste.
I also hate this flashing and jumping stuff buzzeling
around the site...
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
| Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc. 2004-11-24, 11:16 pm |
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzp2prnqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:06:43 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Could be also:
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
>
> When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster should
> be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest of the
> site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see it, but
> won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always pops up :)
> I like Google Ads concept.
Does anyone have any REAL statistics of the effectiveness of the various
types of graphic banner-type ads? I know they've supposedly lost alot of
their audience, through pop-up blockers and visitors not even noticing them
much anymore.
I know I tune most of them out. The ones that catch my eye are the well
done Flash animated ones. They're almost hypnotic!
--Tina
--
http://www.AffordableHOST.com - Multi-Domain & Reseller Cpanel Hosting
http://www.AxisHost.com - High bandwidth Cpanel Hosting
++ 20% Discount Coupon Code ++: newsgroup
Serving the web since 1997
| |
|
| Kerberos wrote:
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the
> own window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally anti-ethical.
>
this technique has been used for awhile...ie those flash ads that appear
above newspaper stories with some guy walking across the text etc -
transparent flash inside an upper z-index DIV layer. Can be fun to
incorporate into things actually.
| |
|
| Kerberos wrote:
[...]
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
>
> When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster
> should be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest
> of the site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see
> it, but won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always
> pops up :)
> I like Google Ads concept.
Exactly, vote with your clicks.
The primary issue with popups was that you could be locked into a
never-ending series of windows that keep popping up (or under). The
sites that implemented "popup hell" *wanted* to annoy you for leaving
their site and maybe get you to accidentally click on one of the popups
to earn them money.
At least with floating divs there is no way for the site to make them
persist beyond the life of the current page, closing the window/tab
gets rid of them.
--
Rob
| |
| Nairb 2004-11-24, 11:16 pm |
| <snip>
> Could be also:
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
<snip>
Yeah, I think this is intrusive, I would disable javascript if I had
any reason to visit the site which seems to do the trick(for this one
anyway). As far as as no ads- no site, it seems this site is an
e-commerce site so the adage too many-or too intrusive of an ad = no
visitors should out weigh the desire to use this type of ad. But then
I never buy from telemarketers, but I do keep them on the line as long
as possible. You would be surprised on the virtues of oil based
printer cartridge inks vs. alcohol based and just how long it takes to
sort it all out => 53 minutes is my record. Try and beat that!
| |
|
| > I know I tune most of them out. The ones that catch my eye are the well
> done Flash animated ones. They're almost hypnotic!
You, are hypnotic Tina.
:)
| |
| Adrienne 2004-11-25, 4:17 am |
| Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kerberos <me@privacy.net> writing
in news:opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net:
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the
> own window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally
> anti-ethical.
>
Very annoying... there is another that is even worse, a tech site that has
one that, of course, pops right over the code you're looking for. At least
with a regular popup you can move the window if you want, with these you
_have_ to close it to see what is beneath it.
By the way, I don't think they're Floating, I think they are Z-Indexing.
--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share
| |
| Markus Ernst 2004-11-25, 7:15 am |
| Adrienne wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kerberos <me@privacy.net>
> writing in news:opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net:
>
[...][color=darkred]
> By the way, I don't think they're Floating, I think they are
> Z-Indexing.
Right, they work with position:absolute, not with float:something, so what
the OP talks about is IMO the contrary of floating divs.
Also, they are not spam, as spam is the crap that fills my mailbox.
If we use words too extensively we lose them: if we use the word spam for
just everything what could be annoying in the internet, we need a new word
for real spam. And how should we discuss about floating divs if there is no
consense about what they are? Remember how difficult it is to discuss about
a homepage with non-webbies.
Yes, I am proud to be a nitpicker :-)
--
Markus
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-11-25, 7:15 am |
| xxx wrote:
> Kerberos wrote:
>
>
> this technique has been used for awhile...ie those flash ads that appear
> above newspaper stories with some guy walking across the text etc -
> transparent flash inside an upper z-index DIV layer. Can be fun to
> incorporate into things actually.
It can... actually we're using this technique on one of our new sites
for animated content - it looks really cool. Not adverts though, actual
content. Fun stuff :)
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
| |
| Christoph Paeper 2004-11-25, 12:47 pm |
| *Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc.* <tina@affordablehost.com>:
Now, that's a xxx sounding From.
> [Ads]
> I know I tune most of them out. The ones that catch my eye are the well
> done Flash animated ones. They're almost hypnotic!
There are people surfing the Web with having not explicitedly requested
Flashs displayed? Really? That's like not zapping away (e.g. to the loo)
on TV commercials.
F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
--
Useless Fact #15:
America was named after the Ostrogoth royal house. Indirectly.
| |
|
|
| Fred Doyle 2004-11-25, 12:47 pm |
| "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch> wrote
> If we use words too extensively we lose them: if we use the word spam for
> just everything what could be annoying in the internet, we need a new word
> for real spam.
Hmmm...I think Hormel agrees with you :)
"Spiced-ham maker Hormel Foods has announced a massive U.K. advertising
campaign, in what may be seen as an attempt to separate its flagship "spam"
product name from negative associations with unsolicited e-mail.....
"Last year, antispam company SpamArrest was sued by Hormel for trademark
infringement over its use of the word "spam" in its company name."
--
Fred Doyle
www.leafpublishing.com
| |
| Willondon 2004-11-25, 12:47 pm |
| [all groups but comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design and
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets snipped]
Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc. wrote:
> [...]
> Does anyone have any REAL statistics of the effectiveness of the various
> types of graphic banner-type ads? I know they've supposedly lost alot of
> their audience, through pop-up blockers and visitors not even noticing them
> much anymore. [...]
Much of the "in your face" positioning of ads seems counterproductive to
me. Don't people remember having to ask parents for everything, and the
supreme importance of timing?
Take banner ads, where the most coveted position seems to be right at the
top of the page, before anything else. Most people loading a page are on
a mission to find something, and will "skip over" ads as much as their
conscious mind will allow.
Wouldn't an ad be more effective near the middle or bottom of the page?
Even though the ad might get fewer eyeballs, readers at that point are
more likely to be satisfied in their quest, or to have determined that the
page isn't what they were looking for. At that point, it might be
opportune to try an attract them to something else.
My two cents,
--
Willondon
| |
| Not Me 2004-11-25, 12:47 pm |
|
"Pm."
| > > This is not spam, this is just another way of advertisement,
| > > a bit less annoying then popUps.
| >
| > Some people send unsolicited e-mails that say at the bottom "This is not
| > considered spam because you subscribed to a (Read: "Non-existent")
mailing
| > list". This is when ethics come into play.
| > There is advertising and advertising. I don't mind a "discreet" top
| > banner, or a side text-based Google Ads bar.
| > But flashing red and yellow ads, or floating DIVs that welcome you and
| > thank you very much for kindly clicking the ad, no thanks. I quit.
|
|
| No ads - no money.
| No money - no site.
| Simple as that, in many cases.
Basic principle of Marketing 101: Don't p*ss off your customer base.
| |
| Kerberos 2004-11-25, 9:37 pm |
| Em Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:24:28 GMT, Fred Doyle <fdoyle1@nycap.rr.com>
escreveu:
> "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch> wrote
>
>
> Hmmm...I think Hormel agrees with you :)
>
> "Spiced-ham maker Hormel Foods has announced a massive U.K. advertising
> campaign, in what may be seen as an attempt to separate its flagship
> "spam"
> product name from negative associations with unsolicited e-mail.....
>
> "Last year, antispam company SpamArrest was sued by Hormel for trademark
> infringement over its use of the word "spam" in its company name."
>
Whatever spam we're talking about, I won't have it!!!!!!
--
Kerberos.
http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org
| |
| Matt Probert 2004-11-25, 9:37 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away, the king summoned Kerberos
<me@privacy.net> who replied:
>Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
>Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the own
>window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
>Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
>We should write to these people and protest. This is totally anti-ethical.
>
It's not spam, it's advertising. You have a choice. Free sites, paid
for by advertising, or pay-to-view sites.
If you don't like advertising on a site, don't use that site.
Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Matt Probert 2004-11-25, 9:37 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away, the king summoned "Pm."
<mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com> who replied:
>
>No ads - no money.
>No money - no site.
>Simple as that, in many cases.
>
Quite so.
Matt
--
Over 16,000 searchable slang definitions from around
the 'English' speaking world.
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/slang.htm
| |
|
|
|
| > | No ads - no money.
> | No money - no site.
> | Simple as that, in many cases.
>
> Basic principle of Marketing 101: Don't p*ss off your customer base.
>
Rule No. 10: Make them buy things they would never buy normaly.
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
| Not Me 2004-11-26, 7:20 pm |
|
"Pm." <mescalineREMOVETHIS@seductive.com> wrote in message
news:co7mq1$vec$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
| > | No ads - no money.
| > | No money - no site.
| > | Simple as that, in many cases.
| >
| > Basic principle of Marketing 101: Don't p*ss off your customer base.
| >
|
|
| Rule No. 10: Make them buy things they would never buy normally.
|
Short of the recent US elections I've not seem any place where you can
'make' people buy anything.
| |
| Christoph Paeper 2004-11-27, 7:15 am |
| *Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc.* <tina@affordablehost.com>:
Now, that's a xxx sounding From.
> [Ads]
> I know I tune most of them out. The ones that catch my eye are the well
> done Flash animated ones. They're almost hypnotic!
There are people surfing the Web with having not explicitedly requested
Flashs displayed? Really? That's like not zapping away (e.g. to the loo)
on TV commercials.
F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
--
Useless Fact #15:
America was named after the Ostrogoth royal house. Indirectly.
| |
|
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the own
> window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally anti-ethical.
This is not spam, this is just another way of advertisement,
a bit less annoying then popUps.
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
| Boke Yuzgen 2004-11-27, 11:15 pm |
| Wow, Opera is busted! You see Kerberos? There are always
reasons for new versions (in another thread, you asked what
else Opera Software can do for a better browser). :)
By the way, I am expecting more efficient newsgroup handling
in forhcoming version. I quit using Gravity, but I can't ignore
a thread etc with Opera. Filtering should also be stronger.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:55:13 -0200, Kerberos <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the
> own window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally
> anti-ethical.
>
--
Boke Yuzgen
| |
| Kerberos 2004-11-27, 11:15 pm |
| Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:06:43 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
escreveu:
> No ads - no money.
> No money - no site.
> Simple as that, in many cases.
Could be also:
Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
No visitors - No site
When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster should
be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest of the
site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see it, but
won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always pops up :)
I like Google Ads concept.
--
Kerberos.
http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org
| |
|
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzp2prnqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:06:43 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Could be also:
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
Totally true.
> When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster should
> be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest of the
> site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see it, but
> won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always pops up :)
> I like Google Ads concept.
All has to be put on right place and designed with taste.
I also hate this flashing and jumping stuff buzzeling
around the site...
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
|
| Kerberos wrote:
[...]
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
>
> When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster
> should be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest
> of the site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see
> it, but won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always
> pops up :)
> I like Google Ads concept.
Exactly, vote with your clicks.
The primary issue with popups was that you could be locked into a
never-ending series of windows that keep popping up (or under). The
sites that implemented "popup hell" *wanted* to annoy you for leaving
their site and maybe get you to accidentally click on one of the popups
to earn them money.
At least with floating divs there is no way for the site to make them
persist beyond the life of the current page, closing the window/tab
gets rid of them.
--
Rob
| |
|
| > I know I tune most of them out. The ones that catch my eye are the well
> done Flash animated ones. They're almost hypnotic!
You, are hypnotic Tina.
:)
| |
| Adrienne 2004-11-27, 11:15 pm |
| Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kerberos <me@privacy.net> writing
in news:opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net:
> Floating DIVs are the new wave of spam.
> Pop-Up blockers are unefficient because these spam ads are inside the
> own window (Nothing pops up in a new window).
> Here's an example of new kind of spam: http://www.woodmagazine.com
> We should write to these people and protest. This is totally
> anti-ethical.
>
Very annoying... there is another that is even worse, a tech site that has
one that, of course, pops right over the code you're looking for. At least
with a regular popup you can move the window if you want, with these you
_have_ to close it to see what is beneath it.
By the way, I don't think they're Floating, I think they are Z-Indexing.
--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share
| |
| Markus Ernst 2004-11-27, 11:15 pm |
| Adrienne wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kerberos <me@privacy.net>
> writing in news:opshzlqbtdqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net:
>
[...][color=darkred]
> By the way, I don't think they're Floating, I think they are
> Z-Indexing.
Right, they work with position:absolute, not with float:something, so what
the OP talks about is IMO the contrary of floating divs.
Also, they are not spam, as spam is the crap that fills my mailbox.
If we use words too extensively we lose them: if we use the word spam for
just everything what could be annoying in the internet, we need a new word
for real spam. And how should we discuss about floating divs if there is no
consense about what they are? Remember how difficult it is to discuss about
a homepage with non-webbies.
Yes, I am proud to be a nitpicker :-)
--
Markus
| |
| Fred Doyle 2004-11-28, 4:15 am |
| "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch> wrote
> If we use words too extensively we lose them: if we use the word spam for
> just everything what could be annoying in the internet, we need a new word
> for real spam.
Hmmm...I think Hormel agrees with you :)
"Spiced-ham maker Hormel Foods has announced a massive U.K. advertising
campaign, in what may be seen as an attempt to separate its flagship "spam"
product name from negative associations with unsolicited e-mail.....
"Last year, antispam company SpamArrest was sued by Hormel for trademark
infringement over its use of the word "spam" in its company name."
--
Fred Doyle
www.leafpublishing.com
| |
| Willondon 2004-11-28, 4:15 am |
| [all groups but comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design and
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets snipped]
Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc. wrote:
> [...]
> Does anyone have any REAL statistics of the effectiveness of the various
> types of graphic banner-type ads? I know they've supposedly lost alot of
> their audience, through pop-up blockers and visitors not even noticing them
> much anymore. [...]
Much of the "in your face" positioning of ads seems counterproductive to
me. Don't people remember having to ask parents for everything, and the
supreme importance of timing?
Take banner ads, where the most coveted position seems to be right at the
top of the page, before anything else. Most people loading a page are on
a mission to find something, and will "skip over" ads as much as their
conscious mind will allow.
Wouldn't an ad be more effective near the middle or bottom of the page?
Even though the ad might get fewer eyeballs, readers at that point are
more likely to be satisfied in their quest, or to have determined that the
page isn't what they were looking for. At that point, it might be
opportune to try an attract them to something else.
My two cents,
--
Willondon
| |
| Kerberos 2004-11-28, 4:15 am |
| Em Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:24:28 GMT, Fred Doyle <fdoyle1@nycap.rr.com>
escreveu:
> "Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch> wrote
>
>
> Hmmm...I think Hormel agrees with you :)
>
> "Spiced-ham maker Hormel Foods has announced a massive U.K. advertising
> campaign, in what may be seen as an attempt to separate its flagship
> "spam"
> product name from negative associations with unsolicited e-mail.....
>
> "Last year, antispam company SpamArrest was sued by Hormel for trademark
> infringement over its use of the word "spam" in its company name."
>
Whatever spam we're talking about, I won't have it!!!!!!
--
Kerberos.
http://www.opera.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.osresources.com
http://exodus.jabberstudio.org
| |
|
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzoy9xaqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:47:25 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Some people send unsolicited e-mails that say at the bottom "This is not
> considered spam because you subscribed to a (Read: "Non-existent") mailing
> list". This is when ethics come into play.
> There is advertising and advertising. I don't mind a "discreet" top
> banner, or a side text-based Google Ads bar.
> But flashing red and yellow ads, or floating DIVs that welcome you and
> thank you very much for kindly clicking the ad, no thanks. I quit.
No ads - no money.
No money - no site.
Simple as that, in many cases.
--
.............................................
http://www.pojemario.com/
| |
| Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc. 2004-11-28, 7:17 am |
| "Kerberos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:opshzp2prnqi7syn@cinza.mshome.net...
> Em Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:06:43 +0100, Pm. <mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com>
> escreveu:
>
>
> Could be also:
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
>
> When the site's business model relies on advertising, the webmaster should
> be smart enough to put ads so that it melts down inside the rest of the
> site in such a way that the visitor will be interested, will see it, but
> won't feel frustrated because it flashes everywhere or always pops up :)
> I like Google Ads concept.
Does anyone have any REAL statistics of the effectiveness of the various
types of graphic banner-type ads? I know they've supposedly lost alot of
their audience, through pop-up blockers and visitors not even noticing them
much anymore.
I know I tune most of them out. The ones that catch my eye are the well
done Flash animated ones. They're almost hypnotic!
--Tina
--
http://www.AffordableHOST.com - Multi-Domain & Reseller Cpanel Hosting
http://www.AxisHost.com - High bandwidth Cpanel Hosting
++ 20% Discount Coupon Code ++: newsgroup
Serving the web since 1997
| |
| Matt Probert 2004-11-28, 7:17 am |
| Once upon a time, far far away, the king summoned "Pm."
<mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com> who replied:
>
>No ads - no money.
>No money - no site.
>Simple as that, in many cases.
>
Quite so.
Matt
--
Over 16,000 searchable slang definitions from around
the 'English' speaking world.
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/slang.htm
| |
|
| <snip>
> Could be also:
>
> Intrisive ads and animated GIFs - No visitors anymore
> No visitors - No site
<snip>
Yeah, I think this is intrusive, I would disable javascript if I had
any reason to visit the site which seems to do the trick(for this one
anyway). As far as as no ads- no site, it seems this site is an
e-commerce site so the adage too many-or too intrusive of an ad = no
visitors should out weigh the desire to use this type of ad. But then
I never buy from telemarketers, but I do keep them on the line as long
as possible. You would be surprised on the virtues of oil based
printer cartridge inks vs. alcohol based and just how long it takes to
sort it all out => 53 minutes is my record. Try and beat that!
| |
| Willondon 2004-11-30, 7:18 pm |
| [all groups but comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design and
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets snipped]
Tina - AffordableHOST, Inc. wrote:
> [...]
> Does anyone have any REAL statistics of the effectiveness of the various
> types of graphic banner-type ads? I know they've supposedly lost alot of
> their audience, through pop-up blockers and visitors not even noticing them
> much anymore. [...]
Much of the "in your face" positioning of ads seems counterproductive to
me. Don't people remember having to ask parents for everything, and the
supreme importance of timing?
Take banner ads, where the most coveted position seems to be right at the
top of the page, before anything else. Most people loading a page are on
a mission to find something, and will "skip over" ads as much as their
conscious mind will allow.
Wouldn't an ad be more effective near the middle or bottom of the page?
Even though the ad might get fewer eyeballs, readers at that point are
more likely to be satisfied in their quest, or to have determined that the
page isn't what they were looking for. At that point, it might be
opportune to try an attract them to something else.
My two cents,
--
Willondon
| |
| Not Me 2004-11-30, 7:18 pm |
|
"Pm."
| > > This is not spam, this is just another way of advertisement,
| > > a bit less annoying then popUps.
| >
| > Some people send unsolicited e-mails that say at the bottom "This is not
| > considered spam because you subscribed to a (Read: "Non-existent")
mailing
| > list". This is when ethics come into play.
| > There is advertising and advertising. I don't mind a "discreet" top
| > banner, or a side text-based Google Ads bar.
| > But flashing red and yellow ads, or floating DIVs that welcome you and
| > thank you very much for kindly clicking the ad, no thanks. I quit.
|
|
| No ads - no money.
| No money - no site.
| Simple as that, in many cases.
Basic principle of Marketing 101: Don't p*ss off your customer base.
| |
| Matt Probert 2004-11-30, 7:18 pm |
| Once upon a time, far far away, the king summoned "Pm."
<mescalineKILL_SPAM@seductive.com> who replied:
>
>No ads - no money.
>No money - no site.
>Simple as that, in many cases.
>
Quite so.
Matt
--
Over 16,000 searchable slang definitions from around
the 'English' speaking world.
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/slang.htm
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|