Anime MOM MAKES BOTOX DOCTORS FURIOUS

[Kane]

Remarkably enough, beggars can't be choosers.

That's not a question about beggars, it's about a bit of goddamn authenticity.

As for your idea of limiting advertising to static ads, about half of them shown are static and they get practically no clicks. If it doesn't move, it's just that much easier to ignore.

Conversely, blinking old hags will incentivise people to use adblock, resulting in fewer clicks. lose/lose.

I think everyone here agrees that advertising is evil, but a neccessary one. Personally, I think advertising works best if you can persuade the user to click or at least tolerate the ad instead of aggressively shoving it up his face. (That's ironically also what every advertiser wants.) The latter will just result in total refusal (i.e. adblock). Having unobtrusive, clickable ads together with regularly drumming up support seems to work best from my experience. People are simply much more likely to accept something if you can sell it to them - you can't sell them blinking old hacks.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Huh. I don't have those ads. I'm not even using adblock - must be blocked by noscript even though I whitelisted the codex. Man, looking at those would really be annoying.

 

[Taluntain]

Remarkably enough, beggars can't be choosers.

That's not a question about beggars, it's about a bit of goddamn authenticity.

As for your idea of limiting advertising to static ads, about half of them shown are static and they get practically no clicks. If it doesn't move, it's just that much easier to ignore.

Conversely, blinking old hags will incentivise people to use adblock, resulting in fewer clicks. lose/lose.

I think everyone here agrees that advertising is evil, but a neccessary one. Personally, I think advertising works best if you can persuade the user to click or at least tolerate the ad instead of aggressively shoving it up his face. (That's ironically also what every advertiser wants.) The latter will just result in total refusal (i.e. adblock). Having unobtrusive, clickable ads together with regularly drumming up support seems to work best from my experience. People are simply much more likely to accept something if you can sell it to them - you can't sell them blinking old hacks.

No kidding. That's why I posted a list of the kind of ads that we don't tolerate. Did you read the sticky I linked?

As for blocking ads, most people intent on doing so will find any single ad that offends them for whatever reason more than justification enough to block all of them. That's pretty much always been the case and I honestly don't believe that there's an advertising provider in existence that would provide every single ad "good" enough for them not to block. Except for maybe purely textual links ala AdSense that nobody ever clicks. I do my best to remove all the most annoying ones that people complain about, but I can't wave my magic wand and make all of them better than they are.

As for your theory about what kind of advertising works best, it's actually wrong. The more annoying the ad is, the more clicks it gets. That's why you see so many such ads all over the Internet. There are several potential reasons for their relative effectiveness, but it's a fact. You didn't think that advertisers are making annoying ads because they want to get less clicks or because they're stupid and don't know what pays best for them, did you? The only thing that advertising that doesn't stand out (either in a good OR bad way) is good for is being easily ignored, overlooked and never clicked. And that kind of ads get by far the least clicks of all, especially with an audience that easily ignores everything that doesn't stand out in some way (i.e. gamers + see my remark about AdSense above).

Sad but true. But it's also how real life works if you think about it.

 

[Kane]

As for your theory about what kind of advertising works best, it's actually wrong. The more annoying the ad is, the more clicks it gets.

That's the same argument that stands behind idiots clicking on random links in emails. Advertising for idiots works because most people are idiots. Point is, somewhat internet savvy people will turn on their adblock if they get handed botox moms, but might be convinced to tolerate less annoying ads. You can assume that people who visit the dex know about adblock, and if not they'll pick it up pretty fast. In the end this is about how much trust you put into your users. Do you trust them enough that they'll turn adblock of for the common good? Or are they just smelly hordes that between drooling and illiterate posting only manage to click on flashy things?

 

[Taluntain]

So, hypothetically speaking, if one or two of us just sat there all day clicking on all the ads, could the Codex be fully funded and get some nice extra dosh for upgrades?

Actually, no. What would happen is that your IP would get noticed by the advertising provider and all the clicks you ever made would simply be discarded. Obviously they have various means to prevent fraudulent clicks so going on a clicking spree wouldn't be helping anyone, you'd just be wasting your time.

 

[Taluntain]

As for your theory about what kind of advertising works best, it's actually wrong. The more annoying the ad is, the more clicks it gets.

That's the same argument that stands behind idiots clicking on random links in emails. Point is, somewhat internet savvy people will turn on their adblock if they get handed botox moms, but might be convinced to tolerate less annoying ads. You can assume that people who visit the dex know about adblock, and if not they'll pick it up pretty fast.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that no kind of advertising would ever be good enough for people intent on blocking ads. These kind of adjustments and manual removal of bad ads that I'm doing work for people who give a damn about the fact that their blocking of ads would have consequences so they don't do it on principle. Those who don't give a damn have had AdBlock or another means of stripping all ads turned on for years anyway and make sure to smugly point it out in every such thread as if they expected some kind of moron award for making sure that they're a continual expense to the Codex without giving the Codex any means of getting a cent back from their usage of it.

Never mind that you can donate a few bucks and legitimately get an ad-free Codex experience. Supporting the site you spend hours on every day for years is just for suckers, right?

 

[Random]

So, hypothetically speaking, if one or two of us just sat there all day clicking on all the ads, could the Codex be fully funded and get some nice extra dosh for upgrades?

Actually, no. What would happen is that your IP would get noticed by the advertising provider and all the clicks you ever made would simply be discarded. Obviously they have various means to prevent fraudulent clicks so going on a clicking spree wouldn't be helping anyone, you'd just be wasting your time.

Tch. How dare those scumbags care about getting their money's worth from websites! Down with big business! Down with the corporations!

: x

 

[Menckenstein]

That furious botoxing mom looks familiar...

Spoiler

 

[Ulminati]

ITT: raw tries to claim moral high ground for blocking ads because he personally doesn't like them.

 

[Kane]

ITT: raw tries to claim moral high ground for blocking ads because he personally doesn't like them.

yes, that was my whole point einstein. if they weren't shitty botox moms in <\ blink> tags I could not blog them.

 

[Micmu]

I always say - how I render my HTML is my own business.

 

[Trojan_generic]

The only way to get rid of the bot0x biatch is to get rid of her IRL. That might at least limit a bit the use of the face, which is quite worn already if I may say so.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And since I've removed the entire block of these ads that bothered you, I'm not sure what exactly you're complaining about.

Old people staring at the screen are unnerving.

Spoiler

 

[Kane]

And since I've removed the entire block of these ads that bothered you, I'm not sure what exactly you're complaining about.

Old people staring at the screen are unnerving.

Spoiler

you should be thankful that it ain't animated, young man.

 

[Taluntain]

I always say - how I render my HTML is my own business.

Ooooh, it's your HTML. You should inform DU that it's your HTML and that you're entitled to render it as you please.

 

[Angthoron]

TALUNTAIN MAKES CODEXIANS MAD WITH A $5 BOTOX MOM TRICK.

 

[Syl]

RAW MAKES CODEX DOCTOR FURIOUS

Fixed.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

 

[Taluntain]

I bet raw would pay $5 for that rejuvenation trick. At least.

 

[Kane]

I bet raw would pay $5 for that rejuvenation trick. At least.

$4,99

 

[Ranselknulf]

I use Firefox and No Script.

The only ad's I see are amazon ad's at the bottom of the page.



I'd donate for general access, but buying your way into a forum is stupid imo. I'll just wait for regular access.

 

[Angthoron]

Make Botox Mom a smiley.

 

[Jaesun]

Make Botox Mom Raw's Avatar.

 

[cvv]

Make Botox Mom a smiley.

A replacement for ?

 

[Kane]

Make Botox Mom Raw's Avatar.