Dumb, dumb, dumb, de dumb, dumb.

[rjh01]

Not sure, but see this thread Dumb, dumb, dumb, de dumb, dumb.

It is a good question. Some people assume the answer is yes. I cannot see any other answer. But I know so little.

 

[The Atheist]

2) Eventually, Creators realize that website is a money drain, as it costs money for hosting and Community is unwilling to donate money for what they perceive as a free service.

You must have missed the forum collections from members.

And, for the record, I am also a loud critic of the Forum ads. But, I am willing to compromise: I will complain less often about the ads, if they can somehow manage to make the Forum more reliable with the income they generate. Is that too much to ask?

That plus a disclaimer would probably silence all opposition.

rjh01 - nice list!

 

[The Atheist]

And today - another true classic:

This is JREf's own site, and here we have an ad masquerading as a product endorsed by JREF. There is no difference between the two product placements - one an ad for a JREF cruise, the other, an ad for an alt-med fraud.

Advertising psychics is one thing, but advertising a product which is encouraging people to try alt-med for something like high BP instead of advising to see a medical doctor immediately is ..........

I can't get the right word for it; I've been through farcical, hypocritical, appalling, ridiculous, disgraceful, outrageous and traitorous, but none of them is sufficient alone.

Horror admission for a Grammar Tyrant, I know.

 

[Morrigan]

So was I. Wall of text posts drive me nuts. Especially when it's one which you know from experience will be boring, irrelevant and trite.

Fair enough, but why can't you just plain ignore the post, instead of going the juvenile route of "too long, didn't read"? (At least you didn't go fully 4chan-esque with the "tl;dr" reply) It just strikes me as a lame response.

 

[chillzero]

This is JREf's own site, and here we have an ad masquerading as a product endorsed by JREF. There is no difference between the two product placements - one an ad for a JREF cruise, the other, an ad for an alt-med fraud.

Well, have you contacted the JREF about it, as they requested so they can act on it, or are you just complaining about it here where none of us can do anything?

 

[rjh01]

The good news is that I have sent Jeff an e-mail (at 1:06 am Thursday GMT) suggesting he keeps an eye on this thread. I have not had a reply back from him. It could be that he is on holidays. In which case the psychics have advertising until he gets back and acts on this thread and my e-mail.

I have no idea what The Atheist has done so I suggest he gives a reply to your post as well. But please do not be too hard on him. Most members do not even look for obvious reasons.

Edit. The Atheist already has answered Chillzero's question. See post 25, where he answered the same question from me.

 

[SimonD]

Well, have you contacted the JREF about it, as they requested so they can act on it, or are you just complaining about it here where none of us can do anything?

Has anyone sent an e-mail to Jeff about the advertising and got a reply? I never did and I still see the same ads that I complained about.

E.T.A - I think that there is a real problem. It is like James Randi is saying "I hate Woo, but I don't mind making money out of it."

 

[rjh01]

SimonD.
Please see post 37

2. I have sent an e-mail to Jeff about these ads and this thread.

 

[SimonD]

SimonD.
Please see post 37

I did see your post. My question still stands - is anyone getting a reply in relation to the e-mails that are being sent to Jeff? Sounds like you didn't get a reply either.

I yet to hear of anyone getting a response. I understand that Jeff is a busy man, but it only takes a moment to send an e-mail to say 'got your e-mail, will action 'x'.

I have the time to send Jeff e-mails about the ads on this forum, but I don't want to be wasting my time (and Jeff's) if he isn't (or doesn't have the time) to do anything about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a serious dilemma, and it is not confined to the JREF site. I just called in my local public TV fund raising marathon complaining about them for putting on an hour long infomercial in an effort to raise money. These can be iffy but this one was outright snake oil sales. A woman who sells snake oil cures for all the supposed toxins you are exposed to donates a few free books to encourage donations and gets a free infomercial on a 'credible' TV station.

But consider this regarding the JREF ads, no money is generated unless people click on the link. And clicking on the link results in JREF money, but if no business is generated, then it only serves to cost the vendors for unproductive advertising.

I think the ads may have a silver lining. In the case of this forum we could start threads debunking the ads. People would click on the links to see what we were debunking, and, clicking the links generates money.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Another thread complaining about the ads? Haven't we got tired of this already?

I'm not commenting on the ads until I see one.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

2) the members here, those who post, are generating the content from which the keywords our taken. It's JREF's platform, but it's our content, and the 'our content' part is the bit that's being used to generate woo advertising. If most posters here write about things that they consider harmful to society, how is it not a betrayal of our hard work to promote those self same harmful things to the very people we seek to educate?

I don't want to debunk psychics if I know that my words will encourage ads for psychics. I don't want to write here about homeopathy if those posts will attracts ads for alt med.

Note to self: Make a lot more posts about porn.

 

[arthwollipot]

I pay NO attention to ads or popups. Anywhere!

Nor do I, but we are not representative of the vast majority of the world's population, quite a few of whom are demonstrably stupid.

 

[rjh01]

I did see your post. My question still stands - is anyone getting a reply in relation to the e-mails that are being sent to Jeff? Sounds like you didn't get a reply either.

I yet to hear of anyone getting a response. I understand that Jeff is a busy man, but it only takes a moment to send an e-mail to say 'got your e-mail, will action 'x'.

I have the time to send Jeff e-mails about the ads on this forum, but I don't want to be wasting my time (and Jeff's) if he isn't (or doesn't have the time) to do anything about it.

Give the man a chance. He probably is on holidays, playing the computer game 'real life.'

However I did receive a reply back in October when I sent him a similar e-mail. So, yes I am confident he will send a reply to me.

 

[Wowbagger]

That plus a disclaimer would probably silence all opposition.

Yes, a disclaimer would be very nice, too!

I seem to recall the Forum had one, the first time they tried the Google ads thing.

 

[The Atheist]

Fair enough, but why can't you just plain ignore the post, instead of going the juvenile route of "too long, didn't read"? (At least you didn't go fully 4chan-esque with the "tl;dr" reply) It just strikes me as a lame response.

Probably is!

Then again, I happen to be quote passionate about this subject - ask around, I've made several friends discussing skeptics who have uncensored advertising on their sites for several years.

Because of that, when a noted obfuscator starts doing his stuff in the thread, I can't resist a little prod.

Well, have you contacted the JREF about it, as they requested so they can act on it, or are you just complaining about it here where none of us can do anything?

No, and I've explained several times why I won't do that. The main reason is that it's a completely pointless, and possibly self-defeating, exercise.

But I have already said that in this thread.

This is a serious dilemma, and it is not confined to the JREF site.

Unless you're watching a tv station dedicated to promoting critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today, then I don't think the analogy fits.

Tv is a horrible medium, full of ****. I expect to see ads for all sorts of pseudoscience on tv, often in ads for women's beauty products, funnily enough. And diets.

But you're at not being confined to JREF.

Bad Astronomy has had them for ages. A coincidence that they recently re-started at JREF?

My pal Miss Whiplash has a blog with psychic ads on as well, but at least nobody ever goes there, so it doesn't matter.

Lots of others.

Most newspapers suffer from it but don't care, but then again, when did newspapers last care about truth over revenue? In a dying marker, to boot.

I seem to recall the Forum had one, the first time they tried the Google ads thing.

You might be right, too. I'll see if I can procrastinate going back through management threads longer than you to check it out.

 

[Wowbagger]

You might be right, too. I'll see if I can procrastinate going back through management threads longer than you to check it out.

I don't recall exactly what the wording was, but it was something from Jeff Wagg, saying something like "Take a look at these ads. There is a lot of woo out there. Think critically". or something to that extent.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't recall exactly what the wording was, but it was something from Jeff Wagg, saying something like "Take a look at these ads. There is a lot of woo out there. Think critically". or something to that extent.

You're succeeding in out-procrastinating me so far - I've just been trying to find the thread which discussed it all last time around. I thought Jeff Wagg had started the thread, but no dice.

I seem to recall that disclaimer going in after complaints as well?

Still not ideal to my mind, but a huge improvement on the BP @ JREF which was still up this afternoon. Maybe they're getting good business out of it?

 

[rjh01]

Expecting perfection at all times and instantaneous response at all time is, in my opinion, an unreasonable position.



I can think a myriad of things that could be worse but since, like your scenario, they haven't happened it's rather irrelevant to a discussion about what actually is happening.

Unfortunately, AdSense doesn't tell me which ads were clicked. The total take was $101.04, and I assure you that the JREF will be donating that money (and far beyond it) to another needy skeptical organization.

There will not be ads on the forum if you log in. Ever. The fund raising campaign guaranteed that.

But for non-members, we're going to do a trial run for ads. The JREF is a non-profit and has to look for revenue wherever it can. This might be a good source of revenue.. it might not.

But bottom line is, it won't affect any of our forum members, so long as they login. And even if they don't, they're pretty unobtrusive.

We're not even twenty four hours into this experiment, and we've learned some things.

1) This seems to pay. Based on what I've seen so far (and this is too preliminary to take seriously) these ads will generate $20,000 for the JREF annually. That's more than enough to fund the scholarship program, for example.

2) AdSense doesn't let me control the content much. I can block up to 20 sites, and that's it.

3) Clicking the ads does take money from them, and give it to us and Google. However, I am in no way encouraging anyone to click ads. That's called "click fraud." Please don't spend your weekend clicking ads thinking that you're making the JREF money.

4) Rebecca is exactly right with her concerns. If were we just interested in making money, we'd be giving our OWN psychic readings. Clearly this is not our mission.

Perhaps the concept of advertising works, but AdSense just isn't the way to do it. More experimenting...

You're succeeding in out-procrastinating me so far - I've just been trying to find the thread which discussed it all last time around. I thought Jeff Wagg had started the thread, but no dice.

I seem to recall that disclaimer going in after complaints as well?

Still not ideal to my mind, but a huge improvement on the BP @ JREF which was still up this afternoon. Maybe they're getting good business out of it?

Found a few old quotes that may be interesting. Did not find the one I was looking for.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I can't get the right word for it; I've been through farcical, hypocritical, appalling, ridiculous, disgraceful, outrageous and traitorous, but none of them is sufficient alone.

Horror admission for a Grammar Tyrant, I know.

Ironic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The PBS beggars can't be choosers problem isn't confined to snake oil sales.

I think the ads may have a silver lining. In the case of this forum we could start threads debunking the ads. People would click on the links to see what we were debunking, and, clicking the links generates money.

I like this, it sounds devious.

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

DR

 

[The Atheist]

The PBS beggars can't be choosers problem isn't confined to snake oil sales.
I like this, it sounds devious.

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

DR

I wouldn't rate myself as any kind of expert, but I could see the idea working in priciple.

Trouble is, it wouldn't happen. It'd be a full time job and would run out of fizz faster than beer on a hot day. (if it gets the chance to lose its fizz because it's being drunk by some shandy-sipping nonce, that is)

 

[Wowbagger]

You're succeeding in out-procrastinating me so far -

That's not out-procrastinating. That's just scrambling through the tatters remains of my memory.

Found a few old quotes that may be interesting. Did not find the one I was looking for.

The one about them not giving him much control, I think, is outdated. If I recall correctly, the reason we are having the ads, again, is because Google promised more control, this time. I don't know if that's all entirely accurate, though. Again, we are working off my weak memory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The PBS beggars can't be choosers problem isn't confined to snake oil sales.
I like this, it sounds devious.

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

DR

I believe there is a rule in the advert agreements that the web site admin cannot overtly request clicking on ads to generate income. So it would be up to us to do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wouldn't rate myself as any kind of expert, but I could see the idea working in priciple.

Trouble is, it wouldn't happen. It'd be a full time job and would run out of fizz faster than beer on a hot day. (if it gets the chance to lose its fizz because it's being drunk by some shandy-sipping nonce, that is)

That's why you have to link it to a discussion. Clicking on ads to help out JREF in indeed an unsustainable exercise.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

I believe I commented on this earlier. As someone who advertises this way himself and on behalf of clients, I find it unethical and childish engage in fraudulent clicks. It's clearly a commercial solicitation. To click on it to wage "guerrilla warfare" is not appropriate.

The only defense would be, "Well, they're ripping off people, too!" If we ignore the fact that some of these people genuinely believe in what they are doing, it's still operating on the same level for which we condemn them: ripping people off.

As a practical matter advertisers know not only who clicks through to the site, but they know the conversion rates (who buys). If you see a site sending lots of visitors with no conversions, you check it out. If it seems iffy, you complain and refuse to pay. Google, if it sees fit, will simply terminate the agreement at its sole discretion.

If you want to wage guerrilla warfare, then maybe the JREF can use some of the money to compete with the psychic advertisers. Create an ad that reads, "How to Tell if Your Psychic is a Fraud" and send them to a page with useful information. Sign up with referral programs and provide links to books and videos on the subject so if people buy them, you make money. Or sell your own pamphlet. Ask for donations.

In other words, take the high road.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Some things..

Putting the ads back wasn't my decision.

To Wowbagger: we made major improvements to the forum over Christmas. A lot of people have noticed that. Haven't you?

It is indeed very difficult to get the ads blocked through Google. They have given us more control, but as TA correctly points out, I can enter 500 URLs (I'm over 100 as it is) and there's an endless supply to take their place. Also, some of the ads are masked, and some are merely searches of yellow pages sites.

There are two possible solutions:

1) Encourage members to donate more so we don't need ads.

2) Use a different advertising system. I'm working on this now with some of the big name advertisers. I'm hoping this will provide us with a solution.

The fact of the matter is that the ads make us thousands of dollars are year as configured now, and we can't ignore that.

Believe me.. I'd much rather see ads for Toyota and Coca-Cola on there.

Off I go to add another dozen URLs to the blocked list...

 

[HarryKeogh]

thanks for actively looking for new solutions, Jeff.

 

[Wowbagger]

To Wowbagger: we made major improvements to the forum over Christmas. A lot of people have noticed that. Haven't you?

Well, now that you mentioned it, yes the site does seem to have improved.

Was all or most of its slowness really due to the "Who's On-Line" list?

Also, if we are going to have "woo" ads on here, can we at least put back that disclaimer you once had, on top of them?

 

[Cuddles]

Was all or most of its slowness really due to the "Who's On-Line" list?

No. The forum was shut down for a couple of days over Christmas and had several technical-sounding things done to it. The "Who's online list" was one of the more minor changes, I think.

As for adverts, my question is simply - does the JREF really need them? We have been told that the end of the challenge has nothing to do with money problems and that the JREF is in a perfectly healthy state as finance goes, and the threads discussing the JREF's tax statements of the last couple of years certainly seem to back that up. Sure, the JREF is a relatively small organisation and the prospect of any additional money is not something to be sniffed at, but it does seem a little silly for a financially healthy organisation that is about to have over a million dollars released for its use to be scrabbling for money by promoting the very things it exists to counter.

Is the amount of money received judged to be enough to counter any negative effects of such ironic advertising, is it just that the JREF doesn't consider there to be any significant negative effects regardless of the money, or is there some other reason for having them?

 

[rjh01]

1) Encourage members to donate more so we don't need ads.

Where does the money go that is raised by the ads?
1. To JREF. The forum gets nothing extra.
2. To JREF. The forum will get a little extra, because the budget is bigger.
3. It is extra money for the forum on top of the money given to it by JREF
4. Planet X option. Please specify what this is.

Ditto for any money that is donated. I am thinking about giving a donation but I want it to be used as per option 2 only. However I note all the options state 'donate to JREF' not 'donate to the forum'.

Also how much money do you need to raise to cut out the ads?
Will advertising be coming to members who are logged on?

I clicked on donate to JREF button above, however that gives me an error (old site). I did find one button that I could click to donate that worked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe I commented on this earlier. As someone who advertises this way himself and on behalf of clients, I find it unethical and childish engage in fraudulent clicks. It's clearly a commercial solicitation. To click on it to wage "guerrilla warfare" is not appropriate.....

Black pots should not be complaining about black kettles.

I find it unethical and disgusting every time I see junk mail with a fake come on to trick me into opening the letter as if I were that stupid. It's unethical to use my phone to advertise to me when I have explicitly asked not to be approached this way ("not selling, just taking a survey" my ass). It's unethical to constantly switch email addresses to get past the email blockers I try to implement and so on and so on.

Come back when your colleagues get a conscience.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Black pots should not be complaining about black kettles.

So, are you calling me and my clients unethical and childish? You know this how?

I find it unethical and disgusting every time I see junk mail with a fake come on to trick me into opening the letter as if I were that stupid.

Google Ads <> E-Mail Spam

It's unethical to use my phone to advertise to me when I have explicitly asked not to be approached this way ("not selling, just taking a survey" my ass).

Google Ads <> Telephone Surveys

It's unethical to constantly switch email addresses to get past the email blockers I try to implement and so on and so on.

Google Ads <> E-Mail Spam

Come back when your colleagues get a conscience.

Does that mean I'm supposed to leave? You mean this thread? This board? I'm confused.

Before I condemn myself to purgatory, let me give you one more mathematical statement.

Unethical Google Advertisers < All Google Advertisers

 

[tkingdoll]

No. The forum was shut down for a couple of days over Christmas and had several technical-sounding things done to it. The "Who's online list" was one of the more minor changes, I think.

As for adverts, my question is simply - does the JREF really need them? We have been told that the end of the challenge has nothing to do with money problems and that the JREF is in a perfectly healthy state as finance goes, and the threads discussing the JREF's tax statements of the last couple of years certainly seem to back that up. Sure, the JREF is a relatively small organisation and the prospect of any additional money is not something to be sniffed at, but it does seem a little silly for a financially healthy organisation that is about to have over a million dollars released for its use to be scrabbling for money by promoting the very things it exists to counter.

Is the amount of money received judged to be enough to counter any negative effects of such ironic advertising, is it just that the JREF doesn't consider there to be any significant negative effects regardless of the money, or is there some other reason for having them?

That is a very good point.

 

[SimonD]

Give the man a chance. He probably is on holidays, playing the computer game 'real life.'

However I did receive a reply back in October when I sent him a similar e-mail. So, yes I am confident he will send a reply to me.

I did give him a chance...and I still never got a reply.

But I see he has and it looks like the ads are here to stay, which is a shame.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Simon, I apologize for not replying to you. I get several of these e-mails a day, and I have to do a rather complicated dance of cutting and pasting and editing html to get the URLs I need to add to Google's list. I must have overlooked replying to you.

 

[athon]

As for adverts, my question is simply - does the JREF really need them? We have been told that the end of the challenge has nothing to do with money problems and that the JREF is in a perfectly healthy state as finance goes, and the threads discussing the JREF's tax statements of the last couple of years certainly seem to back that up. Sure, the JREF is a relatively small organisation and the prospect of any additional money is not something to be sniffed at, but it does seem a little silly for a financially healthy organisation that is about to have over a million dollars released for its use to be scrabbling for money by promoting the very things it exists to counter

Yup. I totally agree, and alluded to this in my previous post. To me, this is a case of selling values which are significant in order to achieve its goals. I'd only see such an endeavour as a serious last resort, and even then, I'd investigate other avenues. I'm having trouble seeing it any different to a middle-class house wife prostituting herself to pay for a manicure.

Athon

 

[SimonD]

Simon, I apologize for not replying to you. I get several of these e-mails a day, and I have to do a rather complicated dance of cutting and pasting and editing html to get the URLs I need to add to Google's list. I must have overlooked replying to you.

Jeff,

Thanks for that and don't worry about it.

 

[Andre H]

I have never seen any ads here and found it strange first but thought maybe because its a foundation? Well it seems like they have ads I cant see, No I dont use addblocker? Nevermind

 

[The Atheist]

I have never seen any ads here and found it strange first but thought maybe because its a foundation? Well it seems like they have ads I cant see, No I dont use addblocker? Nevermind

They don't show once you're signed in, so if you signed in with the "remember me" function on, you don't see ads. Sign out if you really need to see what kind of rubbish is advertised.