Out of the Blue

It's no secret that online advertising revenue has declined over the course of the past several months, several websites have gone out of business, and most of the rest of us continue to scramble to recoup lost income. It's also probably pretty obvious that we have always tried to be as unobtrusive with ads as possible to date, and those two situations ran into a headlong collision last night. This happened when we started running some ad script for a DVD offer that was one of those Flash dealies that I assumed would "just" be one of those noisy, animated embedded ads you see more of these days. As it turns out, it was a bit more: A semi-transparent overlay that sat atop the news page until dismissed, which, in a further twist, had a confusing enough label on the close button that some folks were having trouble getting rid of it at all. When I saw the ad, I thought that people would understand its intrusiveness--after all, as stated above, these are tough times for websites, and we've often had responses from readers about the state of the web saying if more ads were required, so be it. Well, we quickly were flooded with complaints about the situation, obviously fuelled by the multimedia-ness of the ad, but also probably partly my fault, since I was so quick to quash the couple of previous times pop-up ads occurred here (since they were without our knowledge).

I am concerned with the nature of some of the complaints about the ad. There were a couple of themes that came up repeatedly in the feedback: there were comments that expressed the hope that this isn't a new trend, and others saying how long the complainant had been a reader of the site, but if the intrusive ad went on much longer this would change. Now, the close button problem is a different issue, but aside from that, I just want to make the case for being more tolerant of occasions like this in the future... we are not looking at adding more conspicuous advertising out of greed, or we could have done so during the heyday of dot-commery and cleaned up... we are looking at making the site viable to continue to survive. If it really is just a die hard (no pun intended) fact that such ads are going to drive readers away, we are in a real bind, but I guess the reason I'm rambling on here is the hope that explaining all this will make any inconvenience from intrusive ads (whether we start running this one again, or others in the future, or if we just plaster the site with banners and buttons) more palatable by pointing out that they may well be necessary to keep bringing you all the carnage that's fit to post.

If we get a version of the ad with a fixed button, I'll put it online so people who missed it last night can see what I'm talking about, and see where this goes from there. However that turns out, in any event, the ad was not permanent, so if it comes back online, even if you hate it perhaps you can show it a little patience for the time it's here... it should be a great help to us, and any patience and understanding you can spare are greatly appreciated. By the way (sorry for going on so long here), not all the responses were negative, and so I want to also express appreciation to those who expressed understanding about the situation, as well as those who have always tried to support our advertisers by checking out their ads.

Link of the Day: 2fort5 Recreational Project Version 2.0.
Play of the Day: The Seinfeld LAST Episode Generator. Thanks SecretAgentMan.
Story of the Day: Faxed Ads Cost Hooters $12 Million (ABC). Thanks Jamie Fullerton.
Weird Science: Experimental U.S. Pigs Turned Into Sausages (Reuters). Thanks [MP] Wolverine [MP].

View : : :
24.
 
Re: Blocking Ads
Jul 26, 2001, 10:28
24.
Re: Blocking Ads Jul 26, 2001, 10:28
Jul 26, 2001, 10:28
 
Here Here!

I love Bluesnews.com.
I despise bloated ads that intrude onto the sites that I'm trying to view.

I'd very willingly pay a yearly subscription rate to avoid these ads. I agree with Mohss that two variants of the site would do the trick. I for one never click on these ads. In fact, the more "in your face" an ad is the more negative I feel about the product or service.


Perhaps Bluesnews.com should consider polling its visitors regarding their feelings about a premium, no-ad subscription site in addition to the standard ad-heavy "free" site?

I'll continue to support Bluesnews in any event.
Thanks.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
6.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
8.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@213.84
26.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@213.1
34.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@216.39
45.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
56.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
52.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
2.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@192.62
3.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.69
14.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
15.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
17.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
21.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
 24.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
   Re: Blocking Ads
25.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@192.152
29.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@146.115
31.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
41.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
4.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@198.103
5.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
7.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@198.103
49.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
78.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
134.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
135.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
136.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
137.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@128.2
9.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
10.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
13.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
11.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
12.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.89
43.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
47.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
105.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
16.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
51.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@128.112
163.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
164.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
166.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
169.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
172.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
173.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
174.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
175.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@24.92
181.
Jul 28, 2001Jul 28 2001
177.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
18.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
19.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
23.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@66.66
20.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
22.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@12.26
27.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
28.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
32.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
30.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@66.66
33.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@208.58
35.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@64.124
36.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.4
37.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.85
38.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.18
39.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
40.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
42.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@198.26
44.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@139.142
54.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
46.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
50.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
48.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@209.219
53.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
55.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@192.152
57.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
58.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
59.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@166.90
62.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@12.13
60.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
61.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
63.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
65.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
64.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
66.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.160
79.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
67.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
68.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
69.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.95
80.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@131.107
221.
Aug 1, 2001Aug 1 2001
anon@142.59
222.
Aug 1, 2001Aug 1 2001
anon@24.203
70.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.33
95.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
71.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@212.186
72.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
73.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@192.11
74.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@208.35
76.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
75.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@209.157
77.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
119.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@38.36
120.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
123.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.203
124.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.203
81.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@62.30
82.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
83.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.190
84.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.33
85.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
87.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@192.104
155.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
86.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@12.26
88.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
89.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
90.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@64.164
91.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
92.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@64.164
93.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
94.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
96.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@206.231
97.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.33
98.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@62.64
104.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@66.32
99.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
100.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@213.122
101.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
102.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@4.34
103.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
106.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
114.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
107.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
108.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@64.164
118.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
109.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.0
110.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@216.179
111.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@192.25
112.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@206.159
113.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.4
115.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@172.165
116.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@62.7
117.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
121.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
145.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@24.5
122.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
125.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
126.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
129.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@65.29
141.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@66.32
127.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@208.236
128.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@12.25
131.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@24.164
133.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
151.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@213.200
153.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@24.77
157.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
130.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
132.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@151.201
138.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
139.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@63.22
140.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
anon@63.22
143.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
147.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@63.20
149.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@207.86
150.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
148.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
162.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
142.
Jul 26, 2001Jul 26 2001
144.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
146.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
152.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
154.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@63.52
156.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
158.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
159.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
160.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@212.111
161.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
170.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
    Re: to: blue
165.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
167.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
168.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
171.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@24.5
184.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
anon@208.191
182.
Jul 28, 2001Jul 28 2001
188.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
202.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@24.4
176.
Jul 27, 2001Jul 27 2001
anon@209.76
178.
Jul 28, 2001Jul 28 2001
179.
Jul 28, 2001Jul 28 2001
180.
Jul 28, 2001Jul 28 2001
anon@216.86
183.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
anon@65.15
190.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
185.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
anon@12.13
187.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
186.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
189.
Jul 29, 2001Jul 29 2001
anon@207.136
191.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@207.136
192.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@208.63
193.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
194.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
195.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
196.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
201.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
197.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@63.230
198.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@63.242
199.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
 Hmm
200.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
203.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@63.242
204.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
205.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
    What th-
206.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
     Re: What th-
207.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
208.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@12.13
209.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@66.24
210.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
211.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@159.91
213.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
anon@216.125
214.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
   wow
anon@128.2
220.
Aug 1, 2001Aug 1 2001
    Re: wow
anon@208.190
212.
Jul 30, 2001Jul 30 2001
219.
Aug 1, 2001Aug 1 2001
anon@195.188
215.
Jul 31, 2001Jul 31 2001
anon@134.226
216.
Jul 31, 2001Jul 31 2001
217.
Jul 31, 2001Jul 31 2001
218.
Aug 1, 2001Aug 1 2001
223.
Aug 2, 2001Aug 2 2001