3 ms·

From your article: >What is the point of a site saying they don’t want to show ads, then covering up 50% of the screen with a request for money? This is an ar

by ahelwer 12y ago

From your article: >What is the point of a site saying they don’t want to show ads, then covering up 50% of the screen with a request for money? This is an article you seriously recommend reading?

sparkzilla 12y ago
Is there a factual problem? See the enclosed screenshot where the begging banner covered 50% of my 23" screen.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  There is a substantial difference between a "Please give us money" served from the same servers that you are accessing, and a third-party advertisement loaded with tracking beacons, malicious cookies (and often evercookies) from the evil advertising industry. The former is annoying. The latter is annoying and invasive.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Seeing the content of the page shifted down by 50% so you can beg for money leads to me not donating, but tweaking my filter rules. ABP users can kill that banner by toggling on the "Fanboy's Annoyances" list.
- sp332 12y ago
  Yes, I've seen the banners myself. Asking users directly for money means you're not worried about what advertisers, or other investors, will think about the content on your site. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5L1CR0CEAEN78C.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5L1CR0CEAEN78C.jpg <- Sorry for the text-in-a-picture but the original thread is dead.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The behavior of the WP adminship surrounding that particular controversy has revealed a serious problem with their policies that they do not seem to want to fix: consensus is regarded as gospel. It is physically impossible for Wikipedia to factually report on something that is being misrepresented by the mass media, because mass media consensus is taken as the only thing that matters in establishing verifiability per their policies. This means that if the media is misrepresenting something, so will Wikipedia, and any attempts to correct the record will be seen as "original research" and deleted. Say what you want about that particular controversy, but the problem is real either way.
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      gg GG no re
IvyMike 12y ago
Continuing the quote... "No serious for-profit site would consider giving up 50% of the page to an ad. It’s insane." No, the content-to-ad ratio on the screen of a commercial site would never be 50%. https://imgur.com/i74b7He https://imgur.com/i74b7He
- zachlatta 12y ago
  Yeah, that would be absurd. http://i.imgur.com/wkXl52I.png http://i.imgur.com/wkXl52I.png

by ahelwer 12y ago

From your article: >What is the point of a site saying they don’t want to show ads, then covering up 50% of the screen with a request for money? This is an article you seriously recommend reading?

sparkzilla 12y ago

Is there a factual problem? See the enclosed screenshot where the begging banner covered 50% of my 23" screen.

sarciszewski 12y ago
There is a substantial difference between a "Please give us money" served from the same servers that you are accessing, and a third-party advertisement loaded with tracking beacons, malicious cookies (and often evercookies) from the evil advertising industry. The former is annoying. The latter is annoying and invasive.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Seeing the content of the page shifted down by 50% so you can beg for money leads to me not donating, but tweaking my filter rules. ABP users can kill that banner by toggling on the "Fanboy's Annoyances" list.
sp332 12y ago
Yes, I've seen the banners myself. Asking users directly for money means you're not worried about what advertisers, or other investors, will think about the content on your site. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5L1CR0CEAEN78C.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5L1CR0CEAEN78C.jpg <- Sorry for the text-in-a-picture but the original thread is dead.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  The behavior of the WP adminship surrounding that particular controversy has revealed a serious problem with their policies that they do not seem to want to fix: consensus is regarded as gospel. It is physically impossible for Wikipedia to factually report on something that is being misrepresented by the mass media, because mass media consensus is taken as the only thing that matters in establishing verifiability per their policies. This means that if the media is misrepresenting something, so will Wikipedia, and any attempts to correct the record will be seen as "original research" and deleted. Say what you want about that particular controversy, but the problem is real either way.
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    gg GG no re

IvyMike 12y ago

Continuing the quote... "No serious for-profit site would consider giving up 50% of the page to an ad. It’s insane." No, the content-to-ad ratio on the screen of a commercial site would never be 50%. https://imgur.com/i74b7He https://imgur.com/i74b7He

zachlatta 12y ago
Yeah, that would be absurd. http://i.imgur.com/wkXl52I.png http://i.imgur.com/wkXl52I.png