Dumb, dumb, dumb, de dumb, dumb.

[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The one about them not giving him much control, I think, is outdated.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.