I have not seen an ad yet. Perhaps Adblock+ deserves credit for that. I don't have a smartphone; I use Firefox on my desk computer.

I donate to the Mudcat whenever I see a reminder of the need. Last time, $100, December 2017. Perhaps it's time for another one.

I gather that if every regular user donated, the share would only be a few dollars a year. The prevalence of freeloading, on a volunteer service of such small price & great value, is disgraceful.

That brings up another and greater disgrace, which I have not yet encountered on the Mudcat, and hope I never do: harassment with popups that attempt to shame me for using an adblock. It brings up a question that I have never seen a place to ask, let alone an answer to: Who, precisely, is worse off if the people who do not want to see ads do not see them -- and in what way, and why? Not I, evidently, and not the Mudcat. It must be the advertisers, or their agencies, who write contracts requiring the harassment. What good does it do them? How much money could they make by selling to people who have taken the trouble not to solicited? My own guess is that the promotion industry consists of depraved people who grind their teeth at being deprived of the opportunity to make nuisances of themselves. But if anyone here has a more charitable theory, I'll be delighted to consider it.