Ad link for some key words?

[nbrege]

So you would prefer the site were not here at all?

So are you saying that VBF cannot exist without these new ads? How did it manage to do so for years without them?

[anhn]

I found a way to get rid of it on FF but not on IE.
Now, when I refresh this page on FF it takes only 2 seconds,
but on IE it takes 2 seconds to reload then freeze for 15 seconds while the script running.
I think the script search the whole page to find the keywords it likes then do some more stuff on them.

[techgnome]

Great.... now I'm getting the "Unresponsive Script" error on THIS thread.... that makes at least two threads where I get that error.

-tg

[Spoo]

I have a prediction...

The longer this thread gets, the worse the responsiveness will become.
What a joke.
This really sucks

Spoo

[techgnome]

Spoo - I suspect you are correct... after thinking about it... the other thread where I see this happen consistently, it too is long... compounded by the fact it also contains a number of code blocks too.

dang shame... it really is. I suspect that this is going to severely limit my time here to off hours, which could mean fewer threads I participate it.

-tg

[Spoo]

TG

I too had an after-thought.. my earlier prediction may be incorrect.

I now suspect that the script only reads the current "page".
Thus, as this thread currently has 2 pages, it would only scan
page 2 and not page 1.

Regardless, the whole thing just flat out stinks.

Spoo

[JPnyc]

JP

I don't think visualAd would prefer that, and I certainly would not
prefer that, but really...

How much revenue is being generated by this new set of ads?

I would imagine that the number is close to zero.
Hopefully it is just an experiment that will be discontinued soon.
And by soon, I mean before we lose people like anhn.

Spoo

So are you saying that VBF cannot exist without these new ads? How did it manage to do so for years without them?

Well he didn't specify these ads, he only said "the adverts on this site", which to me could mean any or all of them. There are certain realities here that we all have to deal with, and they are:

It takes a lot of money to host and maintain a site/forum of this size. The database is several gigabytes, and it gets a ton of traffic. It's expensive to host and to maintain.

The company that publishes these sites employs quite a few people whose job it is to maintain these sites, including this one. I'm one of them. It's a business, like any other. The site isn't owned and operated by the public library, or the "International Association for free IT sites".

The widespread use of ad blocking by users has cut down on advertising in general. I tried to warn some people on the forums about this a few years ago. The long-term effect wasn't difficult to predict. Enough users felt that it wasn't worth viewing the ads, in order to have a free service, so enough of them started using ad blocking, and advertisers are not going to continue pouring their revenue into something that does not avail them. That's how all of these issues came to be.

So publishers of free sites like this are trying to find additional means to keep going. It's not just us, it's all the free sites on the Internet. In a manner of speaking, Internet users are cutting their own throats simply to avoid the "inconvenience" of adverts. I wasn't joking about it then and I am not now, free sites will eventually disappear if this trend continues.

[visualAd]

So you would prefer the site were not here at all?

I have seen this site go from a place for programmers to ask questions and get answers to a vehicle to produce more revenue for JM. Think about it logically; go to far and the good people will either stop posting or post less, that means less people visit for answers and less people look at and click on ads (that nugget of advice is for free too, because business consultant would probably charge you $1000 per hour for that). I have seen some of our main contributors move elsewhere (who knows why but I am sure the commercialisation didn't help). You have also lost at least one moderator because of it. Why would someone want to visit this site and help out when they have a spare 5 mins at work if it is littered with ad’s and pages load slowly?

I have no problems with advertisements as long as they do not degrade the content and availability of the website; this site seems to be an example of both. And yes, I know that there are other sites owned by JM that are even worse, but that doesn't change the fact that this is too much. If you add any more then the site may as well not be here at all, because pages will take longer to load than a call to technical support or an email to a fellow developer.

[JPnyc]

More? No. actually less. I explained why in my post above. We will try to look into the delay in the page load however.

[visualAd]

So publishers of free sites like this are trying to find additional means to keep going. It's not just us, it's all the free sites on the Internet. In a manner of speaking, Internet users are cutting their own throats simply to avoid the "inconvenience" of adverts. I wasn't joking about it then and I am not now, free sites will eventually disappear if this trend continues.

I doubt it; given that this site has changed hands more than rusty old coin, if it were not profitable I am sure the share holders at Quin Street aka Web Media Brands aka Jupitermedia would sell it off to someone else.

[techgnome]

maybe if the ads were part of the HTML that's sent to the browser rather than tacked on at the end by seemingly buggy javascript, then it wouldn't be an issue. all of the rendering would be on the server and it wouldn't hijack (because that's how I feel since it locks ALL of my firefox instances) the client and it couldn't be blocked by disabling javascript. I've always been in full support of this site... I don't block the ads (my company firewall does, but that's out of my control, but at home, everything runs as expected) I tolerated the initial VS2010 adwords that showed up... but what has happened in the last week or so, since they became more pervasive.... I dunno... There's got to be a better way that is less intrusive.

-tg

[Spoo]

Well he didn't specify these ads, he only said "the adverts on this site", which to me could mean any or all of them. There are certain realities here that we all have to deal with, and they are....

JP

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
(and please ignore my posts #64 and #66, as I kind of temporarily "lost it").

Let me reiterate..
-- I love this site
-- I definitely understand that ads are part of the game to generate revenue.

But, why does the script take so long?
-- I can live with the double underline (although it does get confusing at times)
-- But why does it take 10-15 seconds to execute?
-- Could it be optimized?
-- And why does it need to hijack the CPU? (can't scroll, can't type, etc)

If the script had the equivalent of a VB6 DoEvents statement, then 99% of the
complaints would evaporate.

Surely some reasonable compromise can be achieved.

Spoo

[JPnyc]

I doubt it; given that this site has changed hands more than rusty old coin, if it were not profitable I am sure the share holders at Quin Street aka Web Media Brands aka Jupitermedia would sell it off to someone else.

JM/WebMediaBrands DID sell it, to Quinstreet. There is no relationship between the former and current ownership other than that transaction between them. That's what I'm trying to tell you, the advertising just is not there like it was, and it's largely the result of ad blocking in wide usage, and the economy in general. Advertisers are beginning to no longer view it as a viable means of reaching users. And I guarantee the effect goes way beyond any of our sites.

[techgnome]

OK... so ads are here to stay... that's fine... but the root of the problem I don't think has been addressed. Namely the points Spoo has brought up:

But, why does the script take so long?
-- I can live with the double underline (although it does get confusing at times)
-- But why does it take 10-15 seconds to execute?
-- Could it be optimized?
-- And why does it need to hijack the CPU? (can't scroll, can't type, etc)

If the script had the equivalent of a VB6 DoEvents statement, then 99% of the
complaints would evaporate.

Surely some reasonable compromise can be achieved.

I don't think any of us are actually questioning the ads themselves (except that the keyword/ad link seems baffling at times) ... but rather the execution of the script & ads.

-tg

[JPnyc]

Oh believe me, Brad and I are trying to get that looked at. We are trying to get it improved upon. Unfortunately we're not all powerful, but we are pushing for an improvement on that.

[TheBigB]

maybe if the ads were part of the HTML that's sent to the browser rather than tacked on at the end by seemingly buggy javascript, then it wouldn't be an issue. all of the rendering would be on the server and it wouldn't hijack

That would indeed be an incredible performance improvement, but that's just not how ads work generally.
Ad-distributors usually pay-per-click or pay-per-view.
Now if you are an ad-distributor yourself it's no problem to embed it with some php.
But if you're not a distributor, the distributors have no way of knowing how much an ad is displayed or clicked.

[visualAd]

I don't disagree with the reasons for the advertisements. I disagree with the way it has been done. I do not block the ads on this site; although I have no intention of clicking them they are mostly targeted at the US market.

But I am sure you know as well I that every single advertisement on this website can be blocked, mainly due to the way they have been implemented. Sure its possible to block inline, text based advertisements with a Greasemonkey script but not many people would go to the trouble of writing one.

There is also the small matter that when this site did change ownership, when advertising was more profitable and the economy was healthier it would have became more expensive to run. In larger corporations the number of stake holders and interested parties looking for their piece of the pie increase and there is also the cost of subsuming the acquired organisation into the core infrastructure. VBF will probably still survive as a free site but may change ownership a few more times into a smaller organisation before stabilising. The challenge will be to keep the good people loyal and contributing the excellent content and I really do not think that this is helping .

Anyhow, that’s my 2 cents, I’ll say no more

[JPnyc]

I assume you're referring to personnel cutbacks. The number of people that actually maintain the site's infrastructure wasn't cut, because essentially there was no place to cut. You just need a certain number of people to keep sites like this running, it's just a bottom line fact. Most of the cutbacks were in editorial which don't really directly affect the forums. Indirectly perhaps. Other than that, I don't see where costs would be any different now, than then. Employees also expect rises in salary occasionally, so unless you keep turning over personnel, your costs generally increase each yr.

I don't know that small organizations would have such an easy time maintaining sites as busy as this one gets. Perhaps some could, but I think you would see some deterioration somewhere along the way. It takes monster servers to handle the huge database and traffic.

[techgnome]

Oh believe me, Brad and I are trying to get that looked at. We are trying to get it improved upon. Unfortunately we're not all powerful, but we are pushing for an improvement on that.

Thank you... that's the FIRST acknowledgment I've seen that there is a problem, and that it's being looked at. I think I'll go back to my corner now... keep chipping away at my rocks.

-tg

[JPnyc]

Sorry, lots of unrelated issues at the same time sort of kept me from addressing the initial issue. Mea culpa .

[Spoo]

Thank you... that's the FIRST acknowledgment I've seen that there is a problem, and that it's being looked at. I think I'll go back to my corner now... keep chipping away at my rocks.

-tg

Hear! Hear!

Spoo

[boops boops]

That's what I'm trying to tell you, the advertising just is not there like it was, and it's largely the result of ad blocking in wide usage, and the economy in general. Advertisers are beginning to no longer view it as a viable means of reaching users. And I guarantee the effect goes way beyond any of our sites.

I don't think it's fair to blame ad blocking for the decline. If advertisements are annoying, they are no good as adverts, so blocking them is the only sensible thing to do -- for the advertisers as well as for the readers.

That way there may be some pressure to think of reasonably non-annoying ways to advertise. Printed media have managed to do that well enough for the last century or so, and so have movies and television to varying degrees. Why can't we do it on the unternet [where u=i, just to avoid the double underline]?

BB

[techgnome]

That way there may be some pressure to think of reasonably non-annoying ways to advertise. Printed media have managed to do that well enough for the last century or so, and so have movies and television to varying degrees.

Ok genuis... how would you go about doing that? I open a magazine, read an article.... and on that same page, there's an ad in the corner.... now... looking at the top right corner of VBF, I see the same thing... an ad taking up the corner of the screen... and yet people complained about that too... and many people use ad blocker so they don't have to deal with it.

Also... LOOK through a magazine sometime... I mean REALLY LOOK through them... generally speaking, unless they are heavily subsidized, they are probably 60% or more ads vs content. I'm not sure that's what we want here.

-tg

[boops boops]

Ok genuis... how would you go about doing that? I open a magazine, read an article.... and on that same page, there's an ad in the corner.... now... looking at the top right corner of VBF, I see the same thing... an ad taking up the corner of the screen... and yet people complained about that too... and many people use ad blocker so they don't have to deal with it.

Also... LOOK through a magazine sometime... I mean REALLY LOOK through them... generally speaking, unless they are heavily subsidized, they are probably 60% or more ads vs content. I'm not sure that's what we want here.
-tg

If I knew a way to do it, I would be a lot wealthier than I am today. It's the people who earn fortunes working in the ad industry who ought to think up some new ideas.

The magazines make my point. On the whole they have found a reasonable balance where readers can enjoy the content and sometimes look at and even enjoy the advertisements. I'm sure it's not easy, but in the long run they reach a compromise where the readers, the publishers and the advertisers all get something out of it; or they perish.

AdWords is a perfect illustration of a wrong way to go about it. It's based on a crude misinterpretation of the idea of targeted advertising. Common keywords have no bearing on what the reader is interested in, and they usually have multiple meanings anyway. If I'm looking for information on concert programs or enrolment programs, I don't want to be blasted with ill-designed ads from software houses.

Script blocking is another matter anyway. If all the popular browsers and email clients had opt-in script blocking by default, there would be rather fewer zombie botnets in operation. Discovering that it also kills AdWords was just a piece of luck.

BB

[dilettante]

I've never used an ad-blocker as such myself. All I'm using right now is the regular IE popup blocker.

This site is effectively broken now. It is painful and claustrophobic to use. Other sites have these nasty pop-links embedded in a similar manner without the performance hit, so clearly either the script is of crappy quality or something is poorly tuned.

I won't go into the issue of sustaining profit-taking in a down economy or the morality of ad-blocking an ad-supported service. Those have been covered already. Half a goose is better than none though, and this goose may have been killed.

My use of the site has dropped dramatically. This new script is the problem.

[JPnyc]

I don't think it's fair to blame ad blocking for the decline. If advertisements are annoying, they are no good as adverts, so blocking them is the only sensible thing to do -- for the advertisers as well as for the readers.

That way there may be some pressure to think of reasonably non-annoying ways to advertise. Printed media have managed to do that well enough for the last century or so, and so have movies and television to varying degrees. Why can't we do it on the unternet [where u=i, just to avoid the double underline]?

BB

Wait, for the advertisers? It's sensible for them that users block their ads? That gave me whiplash. Can you clarify that for me?

It hasn't pressured anybody into changing their methods, it's only pressured them into looking for other avenues to advertise their products.

Look folks it's not a complex equation. Free sites like this are usually ad supported. When enough of you block the ads, the advertiser doesn't see any return on his investment, and he looks elsewhere. Next occurrence, free site closes. It's really that simple.

Now, as regarding the performance of this particular script, we are looking into that. We know it's an issue and we are trying to fix it.

[RhinoBull]

When enough of you block the ads, the advertiser doesn't see any return on his investment, and he looks elsewhere...

But vast majority don't bother with those anyway so how is it different from blocking? Even TV ads if you are familiar how they work can be blocked or ignored. Advertisers cannot control the outcome - content is what makes a huge difference but I am afraid that you may loose the "golden nugget".
Advertisement is basically a waste of tons of money with hopes that there will be some return on investment - no one can guarantee anything, though.
I work in the industry long enough so I can afford to say that.
Now I am as well as all the others are curios about how in the world VBF managed to survive for so long without those ads?

[JPnyc]

But vast majority don't bother with those anyway so how is it different from blocking? Even TV ads if you are familiar how they work can be blocked or ignored. Advertisers cannot control the outcome - content is what makes a huge difference but I am afraid that you may loose the "golden nugget".
Advertisement is basically a waste of tons of money with hopes that there will be some return on investment - no one can guarantee anything, though.
I work in the industry long enough so I can afford to say that.
Now I am as well as all the others are curios about how in the world VBF managed to survive for so long without those ads?

Absolutely, and advertisers know that. Advertising is, by its very nature, a high output, low return, proposition. That's just the nature of the beast. However there is still acceptable and unacceptable margins to be dealt with. They still do get a return on the advertising they do, and when they stop getting that, they stop spending money on advertising for whatever particular avenue is not giving them any return.

It's no different than nature building in certain characteristics in wildlife, such as fish laying 10,000 eggs, of which maybe 10 will survive to adulthood. But when that number drops to zero; extinction.

[RhinoBull]

It's not that dramatic, JP and you know it. Common... But you still didn't answer the question.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's no different than nature building in certain characteristics in wildlife, such as fish laying 10,000 eggs, of which maybe 10 will survive to adulthood. But when that number drops to zero; extinction.

Actually, any pair of parents need only two offspring to survive to adulthood, on average, but we are struggling to get back 2 our of 5,000 for our Chinook.

but that's off topic. You just hit a subject that's close to home.

Were changes made since this thread began? The delay seems to bounce around, though it appears slightly less overall. I'm not seeing as much of a delay as some people report. Annoying, but not a deal breaker. I do think that it reduces the number of visits I make in a day, though.


On the other hand, and on an only vaguely related note, the thought that ad revenues are the only thing floating this boat, though I realize it is true, makes me queasy. I think back over all the ads I have seen, and none on this site have ever motivated me in any direction, but that is likely due to being immersed in the industry to an extent that makes it unlikely for me to be reading ads.

This site provides a service to MS that they are trying to duplicate with their own forums...with somewhat less success in my opinion. It does seem like there might be other revenue sources....but the very thought of fund raising gives me hives, so I think I'll just get back to my code....or my cod...wait, wrong fish.

[dee-u]

I just noticed that the automated ad links are in double lines already. That is a good thing so I could differentiate it with the link posted by a user.

[si_the_geek]

It's not that dramatic, JP and you know it. Common... But you still didn't answer the question.

Unless something is being hidden from all of us, the only income that this site gets is from advertisers... and we all know that there are costs that need to be covered.

I don't know the details for this site, but in general advertisers pay for two things: ad's being shown, and ad's being clicked. In terms of that, there is clearly a huge difference between ignoring the ad's and blocking the ad's.


What I do (and I presume you and others in this thread do too) is allow the ad's to be shown, and occasionally click on them if they are interesting to me in some way. The amount of pages that I view means that presumably the advertisers are paying this site a reasonable amount - hopefully enough to cover the costs I incur.

Unfortunately there are people who block the ad's (and the amount increases over time), which means this site does not get paid anything for the costs that are incurred by those users. The costs are small each time, but it obviously builds up.


As the proportion of blocking goes up, the amount of adverts needs to go up in order for the same income to be generated... and the advertisers are also less willing to be involved (because there are fewer potential customers, and more adverts on the page to compete with when they are shown), which decreases the amount that the advertisers are willing to pay.

If they were fewer people blocking ad's, there would be far less reason for an increase in the amount of advertising... which is why I personally don't want people to block ad's, or tell others how to do it.

[boops boops]

Wait, for the advertisers? It's sensible for them that users block their ads? That gave me whiplash. Can you clarify that for me?

When I say advertisers, I mean the people who have some ostensibly useful product (other than advertising) which they wish to sell. Using a boneheaded marketed technique like Adwords just damages their reputation. Would anyone do serious business with a company that willingly pesters everyone with intrusive ads?

It hasn't pressured anybody into changing their methods, it's only pressured them into looking for other avenues to advertise their products.

It's not advertising clients (as above) who need pressurizing, its the ad agencies/click merchants. They need to rethink their methods, and find a way of advertising that doesn't repel the users or swindle the advertising clients with false claims of targeted advertising.

Look folks it's not a complex equation. Free sites like this are usually ad supported. When enough of you block the ads, the advertiser doesn't see any return on his investment, and he looks elsewhere. Next occurrence, free site closes. It's really that simple.

I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a quick fix. It may take years of development, with intelligent design (and I'm not talking about a bearded man in the sky) and maybe some technological changes.

But we could find an interim solution. How about a kind of SETI project, where everyone has screen saver that spends all night autoclicking Adwords? Forums like this would soon become stinking rich and they wouldn't have to change a thing.

Now, as regarding the performance of this particular script, we are looking into that. We know it's an issue and we are trying to fix it.

Well that's what script blockers are for. As far as I know they are not the same as ad blockers, which I believe blacklist and whitelist selected HTML frames. (Excuse me: I am talking here as though I knew something about internet technology. Actually I am one of the few fish species that still writes email with a fountain pen).

BB

[si_the_geek]

Unless you actually have a better solution, comments along the lines of "there should be something better" are a waste of time.

Advertising agencies and their clients obviously want things that work without annoying the users (because that drives them away), and they will clearly be spending time trying to come up with solutions.

But we could find an interim solution. How about a kind of SETI project, where everyone has screen saver that spends all night autoclicking Adwords? Forums like this would soon become stinking rich and they wouldn't have to change a thing.

That has been done on other sites, who generally completely disappear soon afterwards - the advertising agencies etc are not idiots.

Well that's what script blockers are for. As far as I know they are not the same as ad blockers,

In this case they are the same... but while the delay is there (and only while it is there), I can understand using them.

[boops boops]

Unless you actually have a better solution, comments along the lines of "there should be something better" are a waste of time.

I don't agree. I think we should be free to speak out when we don't like something. Criticism can perform a useful function even when it's negative.

Besides, I don't claim to know much about the ad industry or about web technology. I was joking about SETI but I ran out of smilies. For what it's worth though here's a couple of suggestions:

1. People who work for related technology companies could post relevant and interesting responses to the forum. They should have beautifully designed banner adverts in their signatures with clickable links to their corporate websites. They could try to impress users of the forums concerned with their helpfulness, knowledge, intelligence and wit. Now that would be targeted advertising. (By the way, I'm not using my signature at the moment, so the space is to rent for a reasonable fee.)

2. Now that most people have wide screens, there could be a column of clickable advertising panels down one side of the forum page. Maximum width of say about one eighth of the window, and ideally users can drag it to left or right according to preference. Users should be able to dim the column to some extent and maybe stop animations so that it's not too intrusive. The full state would be restored by moving the mouse pointer back into the area. It could be up to the advertisers to ensure the appropriateness and good design of the ads, and forum site could itself stipulate standards such as limited animation. Complete disabling of the ad column e.g. with an ad blocker could be discouraged by a partial degradation of the forum view (how about enabling Adwords?)

Making this things work well might require some technical or consensus changes for all I know. But would they be impossible?

BB

[JPnyc]

It's not that dramatic, JP and you know it. Common... But you still didn't answer the question.

I think the analogy works. The issue is that it's high output/low return by its very nature. That's what I was trying to demonstrate. As to how the forum survived this long without them (I assume that's the question you refer to), things didn't reach critical mass until the past year. Combinations of various factors such as forum posting having diminished all over the web, been cut into by the emergence of social network sites, the economic crunch, and things like widespread ad blocking. All these combined to bring the situation to a head. There were massive cutbacks, mostly in editorial (because we already were functioning on minimal technical staff), and that's how it survived this long.

[anhn]

This is my idea for admin on ads:

1. Suspend the new st*p*d keyword pop-up ads.

2. Totally ban rubbish graphic in people's signatures (up to 5 lines of small size text only is OK). Those graphics are very annoyed too for a professional site and it also takes up resources for downloading repeatedly.

3. Insert a small ads after every third post. That will be reasonable, understandable and acceptable by everyone.

[JPnyc]

When I say advertisers, I mean the people who have some ostensibly useful product (other than advertising) which they wish to sell. Using a boneheaded marketed technique like Adwords just damages their reputation. Would anyone do serious business with a company that willingly pesters everyone with intrusive ads?

It's not advertising clients (as above) who need pressurizing, its the ad agencies/click merchants. They need to rethink their methods, and find a way of advertising that doesn't repel the users or swindle the advertising clients with false claims of targeted advertising.
I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a quick fix. It may take years of development, with intelligent design (and I'm not talking about a bearded man in the sky) and maybe some technological changes.

But we could find an interim solution. How about a kind of SETI project, where everyone has screen saver that spends all night autoclicking Adwords? Forums like this would soon become stinking rich and they wouldn't have to change a thing.

Well that's what script blockers are for. As far as I know they are not the same as ad blockers, which I believe blacklist and whitelist selected HTML frames. (Excuse me: I am talking here as though I knew something about internet technology. Actually I am one of the few fish species that still writes email with a fountain pen).

BB

You guys are ignoring the reality here. If there were no return on it, they wouldn't do it. What we need to remember is, it's not how we would react that matters, or even how the majority reacts. If there is a fair percentage, and that's probably well below 10%, that do respond favorably, that's the return they're expecting. Like I said it's very high output very low return by its nature. Most of these businesses are not ineptly run. It's not the government we're talking about here. If you are a business and you are run ineptly, you disappear.

[FunkyDexter]

Just something I've noticed happening alot in the forum lately. I open a thread and it appears to load up fine but as I scroll down it freezes for a couple of seconds then I get a pop up reading someing like "A java script is causing this page to run slowly. Do Not Use This Script?" with a Yes No Optopn. I've tried clicking both yes and no but can't spot anything different about the page either way. This is happening on both my home and work machines, both of which are running IE8.

Not a big problem for me (though a minor nuisance) but I thought I ought to highlight it.

[brad jones]

we are working to get this fixed.

Brad!