# OK, the ad crap is REALLY getting out of hand.



## DixieSax

I understand that the site needs to be monetized, but this is ridiculous. Harri, have you ever heard of ad rotation? It is not necessary to see every ad from every sponsor on EVERY page. Let's chill this out just a little. I have to scroll down forever just to even see what the titles of the threads are.

Don't mean to complain, but this is really, REALLY getting out of hand.


----------



## J-Moen

DixieSax said:


> I understand that the site needs to be monetized, but this is ridiculous. Harri, have you ever heard of ad rotation? It is not necessary to see every ad from every sponsor on EVERY page. Let's chill this out just a little. I have to scroll down forever just to even see what the titles of the threads are.
> 
> Don't mean to complain, but this is really, REALLY getting out of hand.


At first I was a little confused, as I have never experienced the problem, but monitor size and resolution do play a factor in this matter. I can see how it could cause some difficulties, especially as they used to trail along the side. If anything like this is still a feasible option I would suggest it .


----------



## Jazz House

I think that seeing as you are a contributor and I am not, I can't really scold you, :twisted: but I have an interesting suggestion. 
I think that the ads are important to maintain a growing SOTW both with respects to population and finance. 


If this really bothers people so much then how about moving them so that they are beside each other instead of on top of each other?? I think they could fit.


----------



## marton

Solution; turn off "play animations in webpages" in your internet options. It's what I did and now the only animations that play in my browser are the ones I actually want to see.

Assuming you're using IE that is. I'm sure there's a similar feature in Firefox.


----------



## Carl H.

I, for one, am VERY glad to have seen the last of the side ad. That was an annoyance and a nuisance. Go to click on reply only to have the button move as the ad loads. Good riddance to it I say and I am unanimous in that.


----------



## Twombles62

Yeah, I hated the side ad. On the top you can scroll a little bit then it's gone for the rest of the thread.


----------



## magical pig

Firefox + adblock = no ad


----------



## SuperAction80

Carl H. said:


> I, for one, am VERY glad to have seen the last of the side ad. That was an annoyance and a nuisance. Go to click on reply only to have the button move as the ad loads. Good riddance to it I say and I am unanimous in that.


Agreed. I much prefer this new setup.


----------



## DixieSax

I don't block ads, although I could, because I believe that it is appropriate to accept a certain amount of ad content to support a website I am interested in. BUT.

There are no page bottom ads, and 4 banner ads, plus a google ad block to scroll past on EVERY SINGLE PAGE before I can see any content is overkill. And every web study done says that rotating in ads so that the page doesn't look the same every time you look at it generates more hits.

I'd recommend a "leaderboard" and a standard banner at the top of each page (that's 2, not 4 ads) and putting the google ad at the bottom of the page. Rotate Kessler and Music Medic, and rotate ProWinds and PMauriat, and you reduce the need to scroll so far.

Personally, I'd never buy a Mauriat because they advertise so much. I can get a Barone or a MacSax for a lot less money, and the product is essentially the same.


----------



## Jazz Is All

Personally, I don't know what the fuss is all about. On every website that exists there is some kind of advertising, and some have so many popups jumping at you it looks like Tokyo's Shinjuku area at night. If you go to watch a news clip on Yahoo or MSN you have to first see the commercial, and if you watch sports events they have ads plastered everywhere, including all over the players. The world is filled with visual junk. Back when I first started using internet in the 90's that kind of stuff was very distracting but after 15 years I've learned to tune most of it out. the only time it bothers me is when the pop up covers what I am trying to read until you click the kill box, or when I open one by mistake. So given that this site needs a lot more money to pay its way than it undoubtedly gets in contributions, I think the ads are a minor annoyance (at most) that we need to learn to live with. Just my 2 cents, if that's worth anything.


----------



## SactoPete

I don't mind the ads too much (if more people donated we might find there's no ads... hint hint), but I would prefer if there was a bit more efficient use of space. There's two stacked ads right-justified in the header, then another two large ads centered at the top of the content section. Lots of empty space surrounds, but doesn't really help the advertisers. I think there would be top value to advertisers and readers if there were a single, large ad at the top of every page, and it rotated through the ads. Less noise for each ad. It's a bit of a different pitch to the advertisers, but a valid one. Their impressions would go down, but their overall click-through might not change at all - could even go up... I'm not an expert in ad theory (in case you couldn't tell )

Pete


----------



## gary

Doesn't bother me. One tap on the keyboard down arrow and the ads are hidden. Takes a fraction of a second.


Now if only the size of the type in the Reply box was larger I could see what I'm writing.


----------



## Jazz Is All

And as someone or two already mentioned, it is really much better now that the side ads are gone, because once you scroll down there're no ads.

+1 on the type size in the reply box, plus the header is filled with useless stuff like those two boxes that say "Link Name" but don't link to anything but an error message. WTH is that all about?

The real problem is still that the change-over gave us terrible formatting, killed some really useful functions--like the recent threads button whereas now there is just new threads---and disappeared all the embedded Youtube videos and some jpegs on prior threads. That bothers me a lot more than the banner ads.


----------



## Sigmund451

I can live with it. My only suggestion would be that the top ad stop moving so quickly. Its a little on the speedy and thus jerky side. It doesnt make me want to look at it but it is a bit visually distractiing (yes, I realize thats part of the point.

I still want new skins more. This light blue still hurts my eyes in places. Old men need contrast!


----------



## differencetone

I hardly notice the ads. As long as there are no pop-ups it's fine. It also doesn't seem too cluttered.


----------



## Enviroguy

At home on 19 inch monitors it is no bother at all. On the 17 inch monitors at work, the adds are more noticeable. But I like seeing them there because that means SOTW is getting sponsorship and will be here for a long time to come. And that's a very good thing. The healthier SOTW is, the better it is for its members.

Plus, they are sax-related adds. And that's cool with me.


----------



## ratracer

Eh, the ads don't bother me. I have clinical ADD... 

Squirrel!!! 

Where??

(See how many of y'all get that one or have to look it "up".)


----------



## Isle of Jazz

Enviroguy said:


> Plus, they are sax-related adds.


Right. They just don't bother me. Now that one with the well-endowed woman that was running a while back about that online game, _that_ was annoying.


----------



## Pete Thomas

ratracer said:


> (See how many of y'all get that one or have to look it "up".)


Yes, I've seen the movie. Not sure what it has to do with anything here though!

I do find the animated ads annoying, not because they are animated, but because I don't think they are very well done.

The advertisers should be taking note of this thread. I hope they have worked out who is their target audience. If it's SOTW members, then I don't think they are doing a good job.

However if they are hoping for sales to non-members it's a whole different issue, it then doesn't matter if you make the users of a site annoyed.

I agree that it would be much more effective advertising (ie more click throughs and sales) if there were fewer ads on the page at once, but they rotated. But that is the advertisers' business, not mine.


----------



## ratracer

Pete Thomas said:


> Yes, I've seen the movie. Not sure what it has to do with anything here though!
> 
> I do find the animated ads annoying, not because they are animated, but because I don't think they are very well done.
> 
> The advertisers should be taking note of this thread. I hope they have worked out who is their target audience. If it's SOTW members, then I don't think they are doing a good job.
> 
> However if they are hoping for sales to non-members it's a whole different issue, it then doesn't matter if you make the users of a site annoyed.
> 
> I agree that it would be much more effective advertising (ie more click throughs and sales) if there were fewer ads on the page at once, but they rotated. But that is the advertisers' business, not mine.


Sorry Pete, just a little play on not noticing the ads after a while. They stop capturing my attention and I get on to something else pretty quickly. Doesn't take much to distract me. My attention span is shorter than advertisers target. That's all.


----------



## Pete Thomas

ratracer said:


> Sorry Pete, just a little play on not noticing the ads after a while. They stop capturing my attention and I get on to something else pretty quickly. Doesn't take much to distract me. My attention span is shorter than advertisers target. That's all.


Oh, I thought you meant that movie with the house that flies tied to some balloons.


----------



## ratracer

Pete Thomas said:


> Oh, I thought you meant that movie with the house that flies tied to some balloons.


Well, yes I did try to tie it in to the movie. There was a preview, at least shown in the States, (perhaps not over in Great Britain? Bad move on my part if not, especially in a multi-national forum such as this) where Dug got immediately distracted by the mention of the word squirrel. In the movie I don't remember seeing that clip but in the movie it was several dogs in a "chase" scene that crashed and burned at the mention of the word squirrel. For some reason I relate to that deficit of attention and tried to relate it to my lack of attention to the adds that the topic of the discussion. Hope that ties my comments to the thread topic a bit better.


----------



## 10RMAN

So, Pete, how much is 155 Euros ( or Pounds) in $US. this week?


----------



## Pete Thomas

10RMAN said:


> So, Pete, how much is 155 Euros ( or Pounds) in $US. this week?


Not sure I understand this ??? What has this got to do with the topic?


----------



## Chris D

As long as the ads are relevant and help keep membership in SOTW Free I don't have a problem with them at all. While not a bother on a 17" and up monitor, they do take over the entire screen on my 10" mini I use while sitting at the coffee shop though


----------



## retread

Ads make the world go around. No ads? No TV networks, no music on the radio, you'd pay $10 for a newspaper, SOTW as a subscription site. Give me ads any day!


----------



## 10RMAN

From your Post I clicked on your mpc web-site; I'm interested in 7* Oxinite (sp?) tenor mpc, but would like to know the cost in $US.


----------



## Pete Thomas

10RMAN said:


> From your Post I clicked on your mpc web-site; I'm interested in 7* Oxinite (sp?) tenor mpc, but would like to know the cost in $US.


Oh, I see.

I use xe.com to convert currency.

Currently £155 is $242.236 (but it changes constantly)

Sorry, I was just a bit confused because this is probably not the best forum to discuss mouthpiece sales. You can contact me directly via the website.


----------



## jazzbluescat

I see only three ads across the top of the page. Not an issue with me.

Check that, four ads.


----------



## Carl H.

I don't have a real problem with them either, once they are loaded, which takes a bit of time with my DSL. I pity folks on a dialup having to wait for them to load. But that side banner WAS a real pain.


----------



## F4UCorsair

Perhaps the solution to the advertising problem is Harri levy a fee on 'members'. That would sort the men out from the boys and he could probably dispense with the advertising, or certainly much of it. I know he wouldn't because he is in this to make money, and good luck to him for that. This is a great site and resource.

I suppose we could say that about television, but clicking to get rid of ads there doesn't work. Even on pay TV we're lumbered with ads.

I think access here is worth paying for, but there are a number of pros, both players and techs who give their services at no cost to those asking, so nobody would expect them to make any monetary contribution, certainly not me. In fact they could probably charge for the info they offer.

Just imagine if everybody who comes here contributed a nominal $20 a year, and at $20, they'd be getting many times that in value. 

Think of how easy it is to find a fix to a technical problem, resolve a niggling issue, pick up a tip that will have you playing better, or just the enjoyment (or aggravation) you get from coming here, etc., and your contribution, be it $10 or $100, is money well spent. 

By having a technical question answered by Stephen Howard or Gordon (NZ), or others, could easily save a trip to the tech and you pocket 50 bucks instead. Equally, a tip from any of the pro players could hone your skills, have you playing much better and make you more marketable, or simply improve your level of satisfaction with your own playing.

So instead of clicking to get rid of the advertising, why not click on PayPal or other method of contributing and feel good/better about being here.


----------



## Pete Thomas

F4UCorsair said:


> Just imagine if everybody who comes here contributed a nominal $20 a year


They'd be getting a great deal.


----------



## DaddyRabbit

gary said:


> Doesn't bother me. One tap on the keyboard down arrow and the ads are hidden. Takes a fraction of a second.
> 
> Now if only the size of the type in the Reply box was larger I could see what I'm writing.


I agree!! One click and they're gone. But my eyesight's getting worse by the week.


----------



## Harri Rautiainen

*Some answers*



DixieSax said:


> I understand that the site needs to be monetized, but this is ridiculous. Harri, have you ever heard of ad rotation? It is not necessary to see every ad from every sponsor on EVERY page. Let's chill this out just a little. I have to scroll down forever just to even see what the titles of the threads are.
> 
> Don't mean to complain, but this is really, REALLY getting out of hand.


As starters, I assume we all agree that advertising and *donations* are the means for financing a free-to-all website. Banner ads from qualifying vendors could be considered also interesting contents (, if they were not annoying).

Yes, I am familiar with the ad rotation concepts. However, before the current contracts run out, I do not believe that the advertisers would be happy with less visibility what they paid for?



Carl H. said:


> I, for one, am VERY glad to have seen the last of the side ad. That was an annoyance and a nuisance. Go to click on reply only to have the button move as the ad loads. Good riddance to it I say and I am unanimous in that.





Twombles62 said:


> Yeah, I hated the side ad. On the top you can scroll a little bit then it's gone for the rest of the thread.


Carl and Twombles62:
one motivation for the new Forum lay-out was to have a clean start and get rid of all hacks accumulated over years.



SactoPete said:


> I don't mind the ads too much (if more people donated we might find there's no ads... hint hint), but I would prefer if there was a bit more efficient use of space. There's two stacked ads right-justified in the header, then another two large ads centered at the top of the content section. Lots of empty space surrounds, but doesn't really help the advertisers. I think there would be top value to advertisers and readers if there were a single, large ad at the top of every page, and it rotated through the ads. Less noise for each ad. It's a bit of a different pitch to the advertisers, but a valid one. Their impressions would go down, but their overall click-through might not change at all - could even go up... I'm not an expert in ad theory (in case you couldn't tell )
> 
> Pete


Pete, I appreciate your suggestions. As I pointed out above I am currently committed to certain sizes and forms, but certainly consider more effective use of space for the future. The minimum screen size for the Sax on the Web is targeted to be 800 pixels wide. Cannot put two large banners parallel or one of them could be outside of the screen and not happy.

And to rest of you,
I have currently more advertisers asking for an opportunity to place an ad here. That tells me that the current rates are too low! Some of them are genuinely interest in supporting SOTW and might settle for a smaller banner or a text link, great!

I answered now only a few topmost posts, and am certainly willing to address them all. BTW, I have visited some other music related sites with a clear focus of making money with banner ads. Visit them, and you would complaint less.


----------



## pneumasax

DixieSax said:


> I understand that the site needs to be monetized, but this is ridiculous. Harri, have you ever heard of ad rotation? It is not necessary to see every ad from every sponsor on EVERY page. Let's chill this out just a little. I have to scroll down forever just to even see what the titles of the threads are.
> 
> Don't mean to complain, but this is really, REALLY getting out of hand.


Wow, I must be missing something in the advertisements because all I see is a P. Mauriat on top of a Pro Winds banner. On occasion I would see the Theo Wanne banner at the bottom.


----------



## pneumasax

*Re: Some answers*

Harry, At the risk of being "yelled" by other posters, I see no problem with the ads. As I stated in an earlier post, I see two banners at the top of my page, one on top of the other and then the rest is SOTW content. Again, I ask am I missing something here?:Rant::badgrin: I want a reason to complain like everyone else. :argue:

I must add the my screen resolution is set rather high so that my make a difference...but come on "guys" it's a free and nformative social newsgroup. Deal With It.

PEACE....................


----------



## gary

*Re: Some answers*



pneumasax said:


> Harry, At the risk of being "yelled" by other posters, I see no problem with the ads....
> am I missing something here? I want a reason to complain like everyone else. ...come on "guys" it's a free and informative social newsgroup.
> 
> Deal With It..


"Deal with it?" Before you continue feeling the martyr here, pneuma, I suggest you go back and read this thread again.
Hardly _anyone_, save the OP is complaining about the ads at the top of the page.


----------



## pneumasax

*Re: Some answers*



gary said:


> "Deal with it?" Before you continue feeling the martyr here, pneuma, I suggest you go back and read this thread again.
> Hardly _anyone_, save the OP is complaining about the ads at the top of the page.


Gary, NO feeling the martyr and if YOU would go back and read the thread there are more people than the OP who complained about the ads.

Don't with this.....

PEACE........:salute: :cya:


----------



## Pete Thomas

ratracer said:


> Well, yes I did try to tie it in to the movie. There was a preview, at least shown in the States, (perhaps not over in Great Britain? Bad move on my part if not, especially in a multi-national forum such as this) where Dug got immediately distracted by the mention of the word squirrel. In the movie I don't remember seeing that clip but in the movie it was several dogs in a "chase" scene that crashed and burned at the mention of the word squirrel. For some reason I relate to that deficit of attention and tried to relate it to my lack of attention to the adds that the topic of the discussion. Hope that ties my comments to the thread topic a bit better.


Yes, I understand now. I really liked Dug (what a great name for a dog). My favourite character in that movie.

I've seen the movie twice now and still can't remember what it's called.

I suppose that's a bit like ads you keep seeing, in the end you just don't even know what they are advertising.


----------



## Smooth Sop Berator

The ads don't bother me, especially the Music Medic one with Paquito D'Rivera, 'cause chances are good that I'm playing one of his CD's on the stereo right now. Just slightly obsessed. :notworth::notworth::notworth:


----------



## Buck Laughlin

Pete Thomas said:


> I've seen the movie twice now and still can't remember what it's called.


It's called "Up."

http://adisney.go.com/disneyvideos/animatedfilms/up/

A classic for viewers of all ages (including me).


----------



## gary

*Re: Some answers*



pneumasax said:


> Gary, NO feeling the martyr and if YOU would go back and read the thread there are more people than the OP who complained about the ads.


The topic of this thread is, "It is not necessary to see every ad from every sponsor on EVERY page. Let's chill this out just a little. I have to scroll down forever just to even see what the titles of the threads are." He is referring to the present, new format.

Most of the other comments are either referring to ads on the _former_ format, not this one, about how to manage this format technically, or that it's not an issue altogether. None of these are complaints about the present format.


----------



## hyperdash

It only takes me 2 scrolls of the mouse to move to the forum. Its ok. More important is that the ads keep the forum running. 

Which ad get's ur attention? 

I think the topics discussed in the forums, good reviews etc are more important to the company than just ads.


----------



## Jazz Is All

It's settled then! The horse is quite dead already, so we can all move on to beating a different one now. Thank you veddy much, indeed.


----------



## F4UCorsair

Just imagine if everybody who comes here contributed a nominal $20 a year



Pete Thomas said:


> They'd be getting a great deal.


And indeed they would Pete!!


----------



## Carl H.

I timed it. It took 65 seconds for the ads to load, and I am on a DSL. Too much junk.


----------



## TMadness1013

Maybe it's just because I'm so anxious to get to what's going on in the threads, but before reading this post I never even noticed ads. Definitely not the most observant SOTWer...


----------



## jazzbluescat

Carl H. said:


> I timed it. It took 65 seconds for the ads to load, and I am on a DSL. Too much junk.


I'm using RoadRunner Lite, it only takes a couple of seconds for SOTW to load.

I was on dialup for several years, I know what you mean. I feel for you.


----------



## Jazz Is All

Carl H. said:


> I timed it. It took 65 seconds for the ads to load, and I am on a DSL. Too much junk.


Wow. That is really slow....sounds like you either have a very poor service provider or there is some other problem. Have you done a speed test to see what your download and upload rate is to compare it to what they promise to provide with your contract? Of course promised speed and actual speed are often not the same due to using old phone lines, but that sounds way too slow for any DSL service. Or could it be your computer itself? My pages load slowly if I keep a lot of windows open (right now there are 12) because my computer is bogged down with too many programs on it and not enough RAM. I also was hit by a trojan attack a couple of years ago that did some damage to its speed before I could get the virus quarantined. Since then I do regular maintenance and I also pared down the start up list to the bare minimum so not a lot is running, but it still is sluggish. But not anywhere as slow as you describe.


----------



## F4UCorsair

Carl H. said:


> I timed it. It took 65 seconds for the ads to load, and I am on a DSL. Too much junk.


Carl, I found that when I contributed, the speed seemed a lot faster!!! Maybe I just felt that I'd done something that I should have done last year, but I did feel good about it. When SOTW was down for a couple of days, I found I missed coming here and browsing. I don't post much, but I really do enjoy just 'window shopping'. There's a heap of info here that's worth a donation.

People don't appreciate something they get free as much as something they pay for.


----------



## Jazz Is All

So right after posting that, the next SOTW window froze up and firefox crashed. When I restarted it I got rid of some PDF windows I had open and now everything is running faster with 9 windows/11 tabs open. It takes 5 to 6 seconds for a SOTW page to open fully, which I consider slow, but then my promised service is only up to 3 mb and the actual speed as just tested is 2.08 down and a dismal 0.27 up. My computer is several years old and does not have a dual processor or a lot of RAM either, so if it takes your computer 65 seconds to open a page, I doubt it is the banner ads that are causing the problem.


----------



## Carl H.

It is the initial loading of the animated ads which takes so long. Once they have loaded it isn't so bad, but clicking on SOTW and walking away to let it load often leads to not coming back.

Just ran 3 different tests:










wugnet.com
212 Kbps download
213 Kbps upload

speakeasy.net
261 Kbps download
217 Kbps upload


----------



## jrvinson45

I had to upgrade my home computer a couple of months ago and went from 512K of RAM to 9 Gb... SOTW loads almost instantaneously when I click on it in my "favorites" bookmark. EVEN with Vista. SHAAAAZAM!


----------



## lovesthesax

shotgun said:


> Now that one with the well-endowed woman that was running a while back about that online game, _that_ was annoying.


I liked those.


----------



## gary

lovesthesax said:


> I liked those.


+1 :albino:


----------



## Jazz Is All

Carl, I just tested my DSL connection again and got these results:

Download Speed: 1851 kbps
Upload Speed: 247 kbps 

I consider my DSL service to be pretty slow compared to some offered here (the reality of what one may get is another thing I know) but the download speed looks absolutely sonic compared to what you are getting with Qwest. Isn't there another provider in your area who can give you better service?


----------



## SethVaughn

The ads have never really been an issue for me. It might have something to do with the speed of my internet connection or the size of my monitor, but they neither slow down my load times or take up too much screen. I usually log in from my laptop with a 17" screen and my speedtest results are:


----------



## bluesaxgirl

The ads are not much of an issue, even though they load last for me. 
I surf with a cable connection on a 13 inch (yikes) screen. Although the ads are quite large (and I have to scroll down sometimes to see any other content), they are not too much of an impediment for me. I've learned how to block them out of my mind and automatically scroll down. I'm fast to adapt to a habit.


----------



## Jazz Is All

bluesaxgirl said:


> The ads are not much of an issue, even though they load last for me.
> I surf with a cable connection on a 13 inch (yikes) screen. Although the ads are quite large (and I have to scroll down sometimes to see any other content), they are not too much of an impediment for me. I've learned how to block them out of my mind and automatically scroll down. I'm fast to adapt to a habit.


Wow, that is a fast connection! And now I really feel like I'm getting shorted on DSL speed seeing that and Seth's 10.73 compared to this:








So just out of curiosity, how much do you pay a month for that service so I can compare it with what I pay.....I realize it is cable and not phone DSL, but generally what is the going rate for that kind of speed?


----------



## bluesaxgirl

I think its $53 a month, but that's with the cable TV bundle. Without cable TV, I believe it's more like $63 a month. 
It's quite pricy, but I say it's worth it. I can download an entire feature length video off of iTunes in no time. 

Unfortunately, I think we're getting a wireless card very soon instead of cable internet because we are about to move and we will be all over the place. Not only are wireless cards unreliable, but you have a 5 GB download/upload limit which I could totally see myself going over. I'll have to curb my internet time (which might not be such a terrible thing.)


----------



## SethVaughn

Jazz Is All said:


> Wow, that is a fast connection! And now I really feel like I'm getting shorted on DSL speed seeing that and Seth's 10.73 compared to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just out of curiosity, how much do you pay a month for that service so I can compare it with what I pay.....I realize it is cable and not phone DSL, but generally what is the going rate for that kind of speed?


Depending on where you are you can check out the Verizon Fios. I'd love to have this hook up. http://www22.verizon.com/residential/fiosinternet/?CMP=KNC-CONSFIOSINTB


----------



## Matt Otto

I don't have a problem with the ads myself. It is a free site, and the best sax forum on the WWW. I have a few ads on my blog and the few clicks I get have helped to offset the monthly overhead cost of running it. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Jazz Is All

SethVaughn said:


> Depending on where you are you can check out the Verizon Fios. I'd love to have this hook up. http://www22.verizon.com/residential/fiosinternet/?CMP=KNC-CONSFIOSINTB


I know this is OT but since we've gotten on this track, my cousin has Verizon phone service and DSL in rural Putnam County, N.Y. and it is dreadful. Slow and crashes all the time. When her land line rings, the DSL connection cuts out which is just great when we're having a Skype conversation. She has tried to get them to fix it but they have never been able to, and their customer service (which is a phonebank halfway around the world) is useless. I had Verizon pay-as-you-go cell service during the summer, but when they wanted to jack me up for a reconnection fee for my cell, I chose Virgin Mobile, which charges no setup fees, instead. I have never regretted it. Based on all that I would never willingly choose any kind of service from Verizon.


----------



## Carl H.

The Verizon prices looked good, but service is not available here. Good to know I'm not really missing anything by not going through them.


----------



## Enviroguy

Got ATT Uverse. 200 channel TV, voice-over-IP digital phone and broadband that includes a wifi router. Way cheaper than just cable and phone before. 

Back on topic, that little Google Ad at the bottom of the page has some disturbing stuff sometimes. Last week it kept coming up with gothic t-shirts covered in blood and skulls.


----------



## Carl H.

There's the problem, I don't want cable/satellite or any other sort of subscription TV services. I just don't want it in my house. There are better things to do than scan 200+ channels with nothing worth watching.


----------



## SethVaughn

Verizon's DSL is pretty abysmal, but the Fios is a different beast all together. That being said, I totally understand boycotting certain companies. I spend a bunch of time over at the Consumerist site, everyone should check it out sometime.


----------



## Jazz Is All

Google Ad? All I ever see at the bottom, and I never really go down that far very often anyway, is an ad for Theo Wannne. Paquito and Roo Pads at the top and Theo's mpcs at the bottom, it all looks like sax stuff to me. No porn pop ups ASFAIK.


----------



## Pete Thomas

Jazz Is All said:


> Google Ad? All I ever see at the bottom, and I never really go down that far very often anyway, is an ad for Theo Wannne. (


Yes, that is a Google ad, see what it says at the lower right: "Ads By Google"


----------



## Jazz Is All

You're right, but I don't see any blood covered gothic T-shirts....just blood covered mpcs.


----------



## Enviroguy

Jazz Is All said:


> You're right, but I don't see any blood covered gothic T-shirts....just blood covered mpcs.


What's interesting is that I've been helping my daughter find some women's size 12 black boots online. Several of the sites we went to sell I lot of teenage-goth style clothing. I wonder if I got some kind of cookie that the Google Ad picked up on and that's the reason I got blood and skull t-shirts. It makes you wonder.


----------



## Harri Rautiainen

Enviroguy said:


> What's interesting is that I've been helping my daughter find some women's size 12 black boots online. Several of the sites we went to sell I lot of teenage-goth style clothing. I wonder if I got some kind of cookie that the Google Ad picked up on and that's the reason I got blood and skull t-shirts. It makes you wonder.


I do not believe in that cookie possibility. If the site's topic is music, and you mention Rock and Roll, you'll get T-shirts. See here.

If you mention "blood and skull" often enough, you'll get blood and skull t-shirt ads.

I have some control over the Google ads, mostly after the fact. If you have any problems with their subject matters, please use the "Contact Us" link below.


----------



## Jazz Is All

Harri Rautiainen said:


> If you mention "blood and skull" often enough, you'll get blood and skull t-shirt ads.


So if I mention _Boobs_ enough times, will they start to pop up on the top and bottom of my screen? I sure hope so, because Boobs beat bloody skulls any day, AFAIC. Actually, Boobs beat Roo Pads, Paquito, and Theo's mpcs too.

So I think I'll give it a try and see if you're right.

:director:Boobs, boobs, big boobs, lots of boobs, here boobs, come to papa's page boobs, yoo hoo boobs, calling all boobs......:cheers::cyclopsa::thumbrig::hello2::love2::laughing::toothy7::wave::lol:

:blob:


----------



## DesertCreature

As I read this thread I see only 3 ads at the top of the page in wide, but shallow blocks. I suppose if the ad-space grew, I would start to agree with the criticisms, but compared to most sites I frequent, it's seems relatively tame wrt obtrusiveness.


----------



## jazzbluescat

Did somebody mention boobs? (excitement)


----------



## Carl H.

Here ya go:









If you guys keep talking like this, ALON will come back! Do we reeeaally want that?


----------

