Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Dispatch.com Now Limiting Free Access to Some Online Articles

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Dispatch.com Now Limiting Free Access to Some Online Articles

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 282 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #504432

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    Walker said:
    We actually see an extremely tiny loss in ad display through blocking software when comparing our site analytics to our advertising analytics.

    You might actually be the only one going out of your way to block ads on CU. I hope it gives you warm fuzzies. Thanks for the support.

    Its not “going out of the way” it’s “click here to install this extension” and it runs for years without effort.

    CU is not as much of a problem (I’ve seen the ads on my Dad’s computer) but a lot of sites are just about IMPOSSIBLE to read with the ads in place. I can’t concentrate on reading something with moving crap all over the screen. Newspaper websites seem to be the most egregious. That’s why I chose, years ago, to block the damned things.

    #504433
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Rockmastermike said:
    Its not “going out of the way” it’s “click here to install this extension” and it runs for years without effort.

    CU is not as much of a problem.

    Again, we appreciate your support. Thanks.

    #504434

    groundrules
    Participant

    Rockmastermike said:
    Its not “going out of the way” it’s “click here to install this extension” and it runs for years without effort.

    if it weren’t for blog ads, i never would have seen Fay Reagan’s pre-porn career American Apparel ads.

    #504435

    joev
    Participant

    Rockmastermike said:
    Its not “going out of the way” it’s “click here to install this extension” and it runs for years without effort.

    CU is not as much of a problem (I’ve seen the ads on my Dad’s computer) but a lot of sites are just about IMPOSSIBLE to read with the ads in place. I can’t concentrate on reading something with moving crap all over the screen. Newspaper websites seem to be the most egregious. That’s why I chose, years ago, to block the damned things.

    Are ads so offensive? Ads often have pretty good, relevant information when the advertiser and medium work together to target and create units that add value for everyone. There’s a pretty big difference between the annoying rollover, music-playing ads on the Dispatch and those on Columbus Underground.

    #504436

    MRipley
    Participant

    cheap said:
    i just looked at the Dispatch this morning for free ,and not a damn thing has changed to me.

    But wait, there’s more. Don’t forget that they will be going to a new tabloid sized format in a few months.

    The Dispatch claims that there will be no price increase due to the upcoming format change. Maybe this is their way of covering costs of the upcoming format.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/insight/2012/07/15/1-new-format-wins-praise-from-testers.html

    #504437

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    groundrules said:
    if it weren’t for blog ads, i never would have seen Fay Reagan’s pre-porn career American Apparel ads.

    *freezes in med sentence with finger pointed at the ceiling and mouth open*

    *blinks*

    *googles*

    #504438
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    joev said:
    Are ads so offensive? Ads often have pretty good, relevant information when the advertiser and medium work together to target and create units that add value for everyone. There’s a pretty big difference between the annoying rollover, music-playing ads on the Dispatch and those on Columbus Underground.

    Thank you for this. We put a lot of effort into our advertiser relationships and I hope that many people see value in that.

    #504439

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    joev said: There’s a pretty big difference between the annoying rollover, music-playing ads on the Dispatch and those on Columbus Underground.

    Yes there is. But at the same time it’s actually easier to block them all then to only block the obnoxious ones. Its the “bad apples” problem. The good actors are injured because the bad actors are just that bad.

    I bring this up as something important that ought to be addressed by the people creating the adds and the people who sign up their sites for ad programs without considering what KIND of ads they’re going to get stuck with.

    I recall it wasn’t just second-tier sites like the Dispatch. The NY times was a big problem! Its impossible to enjoy and actually THINK about the hard-hitting investigative journalism on the screen with rapid movement flash animations playing in the middle of the text.

    #504440

    Twixlen
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Thank you for this. We put a lot of effort into our advertiser relationships and I hope that many people see value in that.

    CU is pretty much the only site from which I’ve deliberately clicked an ad… so you have that, too.

    #504441

    NerosNeptune
    Participant

    You can unblock certain websites from showing ads can’t you? Or selectively block annoying ones.

    #504442

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    NerosNeptune said:
    You can unblock certain websites from showing ads can’t you? Or selectively block annoying ones.

    The default is all, but yes you can (if you remember to) unblock someone.

    The problem is, that does not always unblock the adds from a site that uses an external source (like google adsense) to get their ads. In that example you have to unblock google addsense, and allow google analytics tracking, which enables it for EVERY site that uses google adsense. Not helpful at all.

    So yeah, I already had adblock set NOT to block CU ads, but it doesn’t make any difference.

    #504443

    joev
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Thank you for this. We put a lot of effort into our advertiser relationships and I hope that many people see value in that.

    It goes back to my original point – the Dispatch has invested very, very little in it online ad packages. Rather than fixing that, they’ve decided to shift the burden to consumers. Which I guess is their prerogative – but seems very unwise long-term. Their real product is attention, not news.

    #504444

    Rockmastermike
    Participant

    joev said:
    It goes back to my original point – the Dispatch has invested very, very little in it online ad packages. Rather than fixing that, they’ve decided to shift the burden to consumers. Which I guess is their prerogative – but seems very unwise long-term. Their real product is attention, not news.

    Its true. If every news site on the net fixed that problem it would REALLY help them, but they’re too lazy or don’t know better. Maybe they should all hire Jon Myers to help them, he seems to know what he’s talking about.

    But I do NOT think that the incoming ad revenue would ever increase enough to entirely solve the problem. The statistics for ad revenue previously posted in this thread do NOT point to that conclusion.

    #504445

    Bear
    Participant

    Walker said:
    You might actually be the only one going out of your way to block ads on CU. I hope it gives you warm fuzzies. Thanks for the support.

    Both paywalls and advertising force people to pay for content (one in money, the other in adviews). So how can you can dislike both paywalls and ad-blocking software? Being anti-paywall seems to imply that you think people shouldn’t always have to pay for content, but being anti-ad-blocking software implies that you think that they should.

    (I hope I don’t have to emphasize it, but I’m entirely sincerely curious, not trying to be snarky.)

    Rockmastermike said:
    Its interesting to me that the ones who seem to be most vocally against the D charging for access (after 10 articles) are the ones saying they don’t want to read it at all.

    +1

    #504446
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Bear said:
    Both paywalls and advertising force people to pay for content (one in money, the other in adviews).

    A paywall forces consumers of content to pay directly for access to content.

    Online advertising is not forcing consumers of content to pay directly for content.

    Pretty big difference there, but you’re talking about them like they’re the same.

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 282 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFORMATION