Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Advertisements On Phoronix

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael View Post
    The overlay ads shouldn't be layering up like that, but aside from that, yes, that number of ads is necessary to compensate because of other people using AdBlock...
    Just block the content for those using adblock (you just need to check the content or the height of the divs containing the ads), or at least put some message so they are aware the site needs ads. Remember that sometimes adblock users don't know the website has ads.

    By the way, the ad placement is horrible, the only one that woks ok with the design is the one in the "Support Phoronix" box. Sometimes less ads and a high quality website gives better results than too many ads and a poor website layout.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael View Post
      It can't be easily tracked what individual user has the most ad views in a given month, even the IP information I don't have access to for ad impressions.
      Ad tracking is a standard feature in the industry (display ads usually let you specify a pingback URL so you know immediately when an ad was viewed). Anyway, that was just an idea, maybe not THE comprehensive way to do this.
      Another idea: enable a premium feature (e.g. 1-page view) for users who have ads tuned to maximum.


      Originally posted by Michael View Post
      In terms of the ad that appears hourly, that actually yields a bulk of the ad income for Phoronix. That once-per-hour ad is literally providing 20x the revenue of any other standard ad unit on the site. On days such an ad campaign is running, you see more, properly-written, thorough content on the site, etc than when those campaigns are not running. (edit: And it's also directly from those extra funds from that campaign where I make purchases for new graphics cards when needed and other Linux review hardware.)
      And a rectal probe could provide you with 10000x the revenue.. but most users probably won't agree to it no matter how much you beg them. What I'm saying is that by turning up ad aggressiveness, you lose some of ad-readership unnecessarily.

      So say you now get $0.20 per day per user with that once-an-hour ad. That means I used to happily browse the site without adblock before that -- and you were getting $0.01 per day for a few moments of my attention. But now you're not getting that $0.01...
      One (admittedly convoluted) way of thinking about it is asking for donations but only accepting $20 bills. Why not accept $1 bills, too?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael View Post
        The overlay ads shouldn't be layering up like that, but aside from that, yes, that number of ads is necessary to compensate because of other people using AdBlock...
        BTW, I found that there were 7 ads in total. I forgot the stupid touch flip up corner ads.

        People use adblock becaue ads take up so much bandwidth, CPU and screen real estate. Your solution is to inundate people who don't use adblock with extra ads to make up the difference in lost revenue?

        Soooo you're pushing even more people to use adblock? Next are you going to detect adblock and not serve up content? Thats just insanity! If you're driving people away from your website you're doing it wrong. Generate revenue elsewhere. Make companies pay to use PTS, as thats your primary product. I think you need to reevaluate a few things here.

        Comment


        • Beware the transit-style death spiral

          Originally posted by Tgui View Post
          BTW, I found that there were 7 ads in total. I forgot the stupid touch flip up corner ads.

          People use adblock becaue ads take up so much bandwidth, CPU and screen real estate. Your solution is to inundate people who don't use adblock with extra ads to make up the difference in lost revenue?

          Soooo you're pushing even more people to use adblock? Next are you going to detect adblock and not serve up content? Thats just insanity! If you're driving people away from your website you're doing it wrong. Generate revenue elsewhere. Make companies pay to use PTS, as thats your primary product. I think you need to reevaluate a few things here.
          I've seen this kind of thinking in DC's public transit systems: Reliablity issues, occasional bag searches, and never-ending talk of cutting service cause people to bail out and buy cars or bikes. Fares go up to counter revenue losses caused by declining ridership, so MORE people bail out. The higher the fares, the less the revenue, the bigger the deficit, the larger the next fare hike. This continues until the whole system augers into the economic ground. Many transit systems have suffered this fate. I'd hate to see it happen to Metro-or to Phoronix.

          Also, do not forget what happened when Arstechnica tried to block content to adblocking viewers: They had to back off under a storm of online criticism, any anyone really needed to read a story could get it from Google's cache. Any kind of adwall or paywall will simply force many viewers to treat the site as "server down" and take their own benchmarks, tests, and expertise elsewhere. People on mobile connections don't have the bandwidth for ads, some have Aspergers and can become agitated by some ads, those without jobs can't afford to subscribe to anyone's content anywhere.

          Barring porn ( a guaranteed and fast revenue producer from what I hear), here's what I would suggest instead. Michael, if people want benchmarks on hardware you do not already own, tell them to put up or shut up. They can run the benchmarks themselves with the test suite, send money for the parts, or ship the damned parts in for testing. Do not spend a penny on running the site beyond what people contribute or remaining advertisers/adviewers can fund. Treat it as a clearinghouse for information, but expend no funds beyond keeping the server running unless those funds come in FIRST. I've actually been in a similar position from the opposite angle, when certain viewers of my political videos had issues with the server I host them on, not having the bandwidth to stream them from the main website.

          I once caught a lot of heat over sexy ads running on Liveleak, where my videos are hosted. Although many from backgrounds like mine (I used to be a male stripper) may consider those ads to be "bonus content," some of the folks who have had bad experiences with sex or the sex industry were very offended. I simply replied that there were no ads from me at all, and if they had issues with the server to set a video streaming server up with their own resources, as I had none. I reminded them that Youtube scans for backing music and tracks users aggresively so they are out, and Vimeo refuses to make accounts for me as they do not like my secured machines. I also reminded them that with no job or income I could forget paid hosting or "ad-free" wordpress upgrades unless they wanted to put up the money themselves. Nobody ever did set up such a dedicated server, but the complaints ended fast.

          Somehow I doubt that Phoronix has a lot of readers who find erotica offensive, though it could force some with jobs not to use the site from work. That could be solved by making any porn ads deliberately easy to block, perhaps showing them only in articles with a "work safe" filter selectable from the front page. You will have plenty of viewers who are not going to be interested in blocking those.

          One more thing you could do: for those who block ads loading with the site (or all sites) but don't want to cut you off, each area you insert an ad could contain a traditional hyperlink to the web page directed to by that same ad, inserted directly into the page content on the same server so it is never blocked. It would normally be covered by the ad but exposed if the ad content is not loaded. People can then click directly on these links to support your site, but it will be up to you to ensure that none of these links goes to a malicious or hacked webpage. Few web sites could do something like this, but Phoronix probably could.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Luke View Post
            I've seen this kind of thinking in DC's public transit systems: Reliablity issues, occasional bag searches, and never-ending talk of cutting service cause people to bail out and buy cars or bikes. Fares go up to counter revenue losses caused by declining ridership, so MORE people bail out. The higher the fares, the less the revenue, the bigger the deficit, the larger the next fare hike. This continues until the whole system augers into the economic ground. Many transit systems have suffered this fate. I'd hate to see it happen to Metro-or to Phoronix.

            Also, do not forget what happened when Arstechnica tried to block content to adblocking viewers: They had to back off under a storm of online criticism, any anyone really needed to read a story could get it from Google's cache. Any kind of adwall or paywall will simply force many viewers to treat the site as "server down" and take their own benchmarks, tests, and expertise elsewhere. People on mobile connections don't have the bandwidth for ads, some have Aspergers and can become agitated by some ads, those without jobs can't afford to subscribe to anyone's content anywhere.

            Barring porn ( a guaranteed and fast revenue producer from what I hear), here's what I would suggest instead. Michael, if people want benchmarks on hardware you do not already own, tell them to put up or shut up. They can run the benchmarks themselves with the test suite, send money for the parts, or ship the damned parts in for testing. Do not spend a penny on running the site beyond what people contribute or remaining advertisers/adviewers can fund. Treat it as a clearinghouse for information, but expend no funds beyond keeping the server running unless those funds come in FIRST. I've actually been in a similar position from the opposite angle, when certain viewers of my political videos had issues with the server I host them on, not having the bandwidth to stream them from the main website.

            I once caught a lot of heat over sexy ads running on Liveleak, where my videos are hosted. Although many from backgrounds like mine (I used to be a male stripper) may consider those ads to be "bonus content," some of the folks who have had bad experiences with sex or the sex industry were very offended. I simply replied that there were no ads from me at all, and if they had issues with the server to set a video streaming server up with their own resources, as I had none. I reminded them that Youtube scans for backing music and tracks users aggresively so they are out, and Vimeo refuses to make accounts for me as they do not like my secured machines. I also reminded them that with no job or income I could forget paid hosting or "ad-free" wordpress upgrades unless they wanted to put up the money themselves. Nobody ever did set up such a dedicated server, but the complaints ended fast.

            Somehow I doubt that Phoronix has a lot of readers who find erotica offensive, though it could force some with jobs not to use the site from work. That could be solved by making any porn ads deliberately easy to block, perhaps showing them only in articles with a "work safe" filter selectable from the front page. You will have plenty of viewers who are not going to be interested in blocking those.

            One more thing you could do: for those who block ads loading with the site (or all sites) but don't want to cut you off, each area you insert an ad could contain a traditional hyperlink to the web page directed to by that same ad, inserted directly into the page content on the same server so it is never blocked. It would normally be covered by the ad but exposed if the ad content is not loaded. People can then click directly on these links to support your site, but it will be up to you to ensure that none of these links goes to a malicious or hacked webpage. Few web sites could do something like this, but Phoronix probably could.

            DC? I live in Northern VA and commute to DC on occasion to work with various clients. I hate the metro.

            Stripper, I like the cut of your jib! In DC?

            Back on topic.

            One more thing you could do: for those who block ads loading with the site (or all sites) but don't want to cut you off, each area you insert an ad could contain a traditional hyperlink to the web page directed to by that same ad, inserted directly into the page content on the same server so it is never blocked. It would normally be covered by the ad but exposed if the ad content is not loaded. People can then click directly on these links to support your site, but it will be up to you to ensure that none of these links goes to a malicious or hacked webpage. Few web sites could do something like this, but Phoronix probably could.
            I'd love this. If adblock detected then insert a simple link that goes directly to the product or even to the damned ad. I ultimately want to decide when I use my bandwidth to view an ad. I sure as shit won't be clicking on any ad if I'm already pissed off at the load time or other user experience maring event.

            I appreciate the fact Michael needs $$ to continue on. I think we're coming to a head with the whole monetary model that drives most websites today. I haven't the answer, but throwing more of what pisses people off into their faces isn't the way to go.

            I think Slashdot is a good example of ad balance FWIW.

            Comment


            • http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/ has just one or two ads on the page, you can't say if there's an ad as it mimics the design of the website.
              http://www.webupd8.org/ on the other hand has 3-5 ads and doesn't follow the design of the website, but are nicely placed and doesn't break the design at all.

              On Phoronix it looks like you throw a bunch of ads and hope it goes well. Even in the forum, sometimes two ads overlaps and there's a large ad incrementing the height of a post. The ads are "in your way", they're placed to obstruct the view. If you find something on your way you avoid it, it's in our nature. If you find something interesing at a side, you consider to give it a view.

              As a suggestion: move the top ad to the right, it's not more important than the title of your website. While viewing an article there's an ad to the right of the header, why don't you keep it on top of the right column? Also for the bottom ad on just before the comments links, it would be better if it's actually below the link.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tgui View Post
                I think Slashdot is a good example of ad balance FWIW.
                Where every third story is a paid infomercial?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  Where every third story is a paid infomercial?
                  We're talking about ad placement, not the quality of posts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tgui View Post
                    I'd love this. If adblock detected then insert a simple link that goes directly to the product or even to the damned ad. I ultimately want to decide when I use my bandwidth to view an ad. I sure as shit won't be clicking on any ad if I'm already pissed off at the load time or other user experience maring event.
                    I'm not asking people to go out of their way to click ads... It's paid on an impression basis, not click basis.

                    Originally posted by Tgui View Post
                    I appreciate the fact Michael needs $$ to continue on. I think we're coming to a head with the whole monetary model that drives most websites today. I haven't the answer, but throwing more of what pisses people off into their faces isn't the way to go.
                    Fewer ads will just result in more fastly-created articles, less interesting articles, less Linux hardware reviews, and/or the site shutting down. Having just link ads or other basic ads don't pay the bills and generate next to no revenue.
                    Michael Larabel
                    http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael View Post
                      Fewer ads will just result in more fastly-created articles, less interesting articles, less Linux hardware reviews, and/or the site shutting down. Having just link ads or other basic ads don't pay the bills and generate next to no revenue.
                      It's not so much the number of ads, but that you frequently allow ads that popup, resize themselves, play sound, are NSFW or otherwise make reading the site a nuisance.

                      Even when the ads are sensible, they're (deliberately?) placed to interrupt the flow of the article and force looking at them - do the ad operators care about this and pay more, or would positioning them less intrusively be possible?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X