Mudcat ads - new workaround available

Subject: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 02:27 AM

The new setup is appalling. Almost all the screen area of a Mudcat thread is now taken up with adverts and intermixed image links to irrelevant threads. Gross waste of bandwidth and means I expend more effort on trying not to click on images than I do in reading the content.

This is FAR worse than Facebook.

And it can't even work for the advertisers. After seeing multiple copies of a shoe advert in an obit thread my reaction was that even though they're good shoes and I've bought them before, that's a damn good reason for avoiding them in future.

I mostly use an old phone to access Mudcat. It is probably possible to configure some browsers to filter this crap out, but I can't change or replace the one I've got.

Bye-bye Mudcat unless this changes fast.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 02:46 AM

No problem with Silk on my Kindle Fire or Firefox on my PC

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 02:50 AM

They do take up an annoying amount of space on my phone, but they're not annoying at all on my desktop computer.
The ads pay much of the cost of Mudcat, however.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 03:15 AM

No problem with Firefox or Safari on my iPad...at the moment!

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 03:35 AM

One word : adblocker.

I never see any of it.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 04:37 AM

There is no adblocker for the browser I have to use. My phone is so old I can't update the software in any way.

The ads can't be making Mudcat any money on my account, since I never click on any of those links.

This can't go on. It's much worse than just a mild annoyance. The content I want to read can't be more than 1% of the data transferred in loading a thread, and trying not to fatfinger a link to something like a PPI scam is horrendous.

Really, I'm out of here if this continues.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 04:49 AM

We'd hate to lose you, Jack, but Mudcat has to pay the bills. I've been traveling for 5 weeks and I was forced to use my phone, and I agree that it is truly aggravating.
But now that I'm home and using and actual computer, I'm just fine.

I was the "tech guy" for a nonprofit, and I had no end of troubles with a Development Director because I didn't design the nonprofit's Website to accommodate phones. And then I got a pile of crap from a subsequent Development Director who blamed me because she got a virus when she clicked a malware link. So, I quit, after 18 years. Putting up with crap when you're working for nothing and donating on top of it, just ain't worth it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 06:25 AM

Just in this thread: two copies of an ad for pension investments, one for an event of a kind I can't figure out, two copies of one for a home improvements firm, four images linked to random Mudcat threads.

Surely the advertisers are going to figure out how little value they're getting? I've had one ad for a guitar shop in the last 24 hours (the new ad setup started yesterday) and that's the only one that seemed remotely relevant.

The links to random threads are just annoying and can't be making money.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 07:21 AM

No problems with Firefox on a PC. Ads displayed are determined by a number of factors but relevance to the site topic no longer seems to be in the mix. As far as possible it will be down to your own browsing history.

The publisher may get paid for clicks (typically anything from 2 cents to 2 dollars depending on what is being advertised) or simply for views, which pays in pennies per thousand.

As a webmaster myself I would say that websites cost money to set up and run. You either pay direct or you pay through ads. The problem is that adblockers allow too many freeloaders to do neither.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 07:38 AM

Ah yes, freeloaders. A bit easy to go the name calling route isn't it? Without the contributions of the visitors to a site like this would be nothing but a basic designed empty page and a service that is hard to connect to a lot of the time. Its value is 100% generated by the contributors. Freeloaders my arse.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Ray
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 08:14 AM

Yes, if mudcat’s users are driven away, there’ll be nobody left to see the bloody adverts!

How about we change this thread to a “Best ad blocker for iPad” discussion?

I’ve always operated on the principle that I never buy anything that somebody is actively trying to sell me.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 03:21 PM

On a 10" tablet they're no trouble to me(a banner beneath random posts)
and I'm happy to click the odd advert if it earns mudcat a penny or two.

After the twelfth post I get about fifty lines of blank space before the next post.
Is that part of the new setup I wonder?
Ah, on my newish phone that is a block of three ads and three links to random(?) Mudcat threads.

Any chance of an adfree subscription for people with screens which can't cope??

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Anne Lister
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 05:23 PM

No ads visible on the screen I'm looking at (via Chrome).

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Richard Robinson
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 08:16 PM

I am vividly aware that websites require feeding with electricity and work, and that these cost.

But, sorry Joe ... Jack, you might be interested in http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Aug 19 - 09:58 PM

No apology required, Richard. I just spent over five weeks on the road, accessing Mudcat with a phone. And yes, I was annoyed.
I promised Max that I'd send him a thousand bucks whenever he needed it. I sent him a number of checks over the early years, but it's been a long time since he asked. I know he contributes quite a bit himself, but he says that the Google ads pay most of the cost of Mudcat nowadays.
So, that's the deal.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: DaveRo
Date: 11 Aug 19 - 02:37 AM

Jack recently posted here so I assume he's using an iPhone. You can't use a hostfile on an iPhone - unless you jailbreak it. It may be possible to erase the ads after displaying them with a bookmarklet; I've done it, but it's hard to set up.

I just looked at the adverts on an iPhone, an iPad - both with Safari - and my usual 9" Android tablet with Firefox tracking protection disabled. There were far more adverts on the iPhone and they occupied relatively more space which, combined with the tiny font of the site text, is very inconvenient.

FreddyHeadey wrote: After the twelfth post I get about fifty lines of blank space before the next post.

I see that gap on both tablets but on iPhone it's full of references other Mudcat threads interspersed with big adverts. I don't think that's being done correctly by Google.

I suspect the google scripts adapt to the fact that it is a phone and generate ads which would be proportionate to a mobile site - which Mudcat isn't. But I'm guessing. In a way the problem isn't the adverts it's the website, which doesn't adapt to small screens. I don't often read Mudcat on my phone but when I do I increase the font size of the posts to make it readable without zooming. But you can't do that on an iPhone with Safari.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Aug 19 - 10:16 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Max
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 01:09 AM

I thought it was a tasteful effort, but I didn't consider the mobile side of things. Google made me make the changes or they were going to turn the whole thing off.

I'll see if I can disable ads for members and disable ads for mobile devices. Just be a little patient, I may not have time this week.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: BruceL
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 07:49 AM

Hi everyone. I've just joined Mudcat - I'm getting no more than one ad per page - usually a small box at top right. Using Chrome on a laptop and on my mobile.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Aug 19 - 08:05 AM

Last time I used Mudcat on a desktop I didn't notice a problem. I can get back to one next week, but I always use the phone more.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 02:11 PM

"My phone is so old I can't update the software in any way."

Jack - if this is so, you seriously need to consider getting a new phone,
because by now your old one is probably very open to hacking and ID theft.

I wouldn't risk any personal ID info, email accounts, phone umbers, contact lists, etc,
on a phone or tablet that no longer provides software updates...

For instance, my old Android devices still work well enough for some basic apps,
but I use an expendable spare Google ID that doesn't link to any of my real ones...

My old Windows 8 phone [anyone remember them ..]
is now just used as an alarm clock,
and to check emails on an old false ID account,
that aquaintances from up to 20 years ago might still very rarely try to contact me on...

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 02:32 PM

I don't recall ever getting a security update for this phone, so I doubt it's ever needed one. I don't regard computers and phones as worth spending money on, and I'll only consider getting a newer model (which will not be the same brand) when I can get it free.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 02:38 PM

Jack - fair do's.. as long as you are aware you're taking a calculated risk...

But it's a point I thought ought be raised in this thread,
in case any other mudcatter might be unsure about it...

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 05:21 PM

What Joe_F said. If I go to a site that tells me to turn my ad-blocker off or accept their cookies, I leave. Almost everything on the 'net is in more than one place.
I get ads on Mudcat with my phone, but since the screen's so small, and I'm old enough to need reading glasses, I don't know what they say. One perk of geezer-hood. My laptop is the one with the ad-blocker. I know Max needs the ads to pay for Mudcat, but I hate ads more than I feel guilty for thwarting their evil plans (mwahahaaa).

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 05:39 PM

I turned off the ad blockers for Mudcat a couple of weeks ago just to see how it looks. Some pages are covered with ads in odd places, others have only one or two or none.

I prefer using it with an ad blocker, but if it makes a difference (I'm here off and on all day long) then I'll leave them showing for the time being. The graphic side-by-side uteruses (how do you spell more than one uterus?) ad is the most bizarre thing I've seen so far.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: keberoxu
Date: 13 Aug 19 - 06:59 PM

This is why I love the Mudcat:
when this touchy topic is introduced in a thread,
both
Joe Offer
AND
Max
respond.


...
... and this is one good reason
that the only telephone I have
has a cord, plugs in, and uses touch-tone buttons and
an old-fashioned handheld receiver.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: DaveRo
Date: 14 Aug 19 - 10:10 AM

Joe_F wrote: 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?

The website owner is worse off financially. With Google Adsense, which Mudcat uses, the site owner is paid per click, or per thousand times the ad is displayed - I don't know which. If everybody blocked the ads the site would get no income. Google would get no income from the site either. Google auctions spaces on each site, so if a site has few users, or less affluent or desirable users, or a low rate of 'click-through', then the ads will be cheaper and the site-owner (and Google) will get less income.

The main advantage of Google Adsense for website owners (as I understand it, not running an advertising website myself) is that it's easy to set up. You include the scripts on your webpages and leave the rest to Google. Great if running a website is not your main job or interest.

The main disadvantage is that you have little (and apparantly now less) control over what ads people see and where they appear. Users' experience of your site will vary according to what device they use and - because Google sells ads based on tracking - according to web history, gender, political affiliation... The result is often horrible to look at. And very slow.

So more and more people block ads. Firefox now blocks tracking scripts by default on desktop and mobile (including iOS) - which kills most ads on Mudcat. Apple, which for years didn't allow apps that interfered with web access, now allow limited ad-blockers. So, apart from on old machines and inadequate browsers, viewing ads is voluntary. And there's a war going in between ad-publishers and ad-blockers - one result of which is the 'We see you're blocking adverts!' warnings but also ever more complicated tricks to get the ads past the blockers, which slow sites even more.

A few years ago AdBlock Plus, which was the original and then still the main ad-blocker, introduced Acceptable Ads. They were (and still are) much criticised for it - accused of betraying users and selling out. But I thought it was a good idea. I suspect that if Mudcat's ads were 'acceptable' according to that policy nobody would complain and I for one would not block them. I don't know what happened to acceptable ads, but it didn't catch on.

So what will non-commercial sites like Mudcat, and the many small 'hobby' websites which use ads to pay for their servers, do when everybody blocks their ads? There are alternatives to Google Adsense, and some might be less-intrusive, but AFAIK there are none which don't track users. You can sell and host your own adverts but I expect that's a lot of work. (Maybe someone could offer a feed of 'acceptable' folk/blues/whatever-related adverts.) So most sites will probably stick with Adsense, irritate their users, drive some of them away, and see their income dwindle.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Joe_F
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 06:40 PM

Hurray! An answer: "With Google Adsense, which Mudcat uses, the site owner is paid per click, or per thousand times the ad is displayed - I don't know which."

It seems to me the latter must be "which". I presume that people who do not like to see ads will not click on them if forced to see them. Thus, if the Mudcat were paid by the click, it would lose nothing if such people blocked ads. But then, why not set it up that way? If what the advertiser wants is clicks, why shouldn't that be what the advertiser pays for? I will not repeat my guess.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,.gargoylre
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 09:01 PM

I receive virtually zero ads.
PERHAPS ONLY ? ?
1. Members get adds?
2. Paid subcriptions get adds?
3. Visting Guests do not get adds?
4. The adds the default gremlin intends to send tp me are below the moral values of mudcat general public.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Thanx. MAX

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Aug 19 - 10:36 PM

Garg, you probably use an ad blocker. When I have mine in place I don't receive ads either, and I put them back in place because the odd ad mix that were displayed on my pages are pretty bizarre.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 01:58 PM

Anybody got any songs about bomb attacks on Trump or immigration-related shootings?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/advertisers-blacklist-hard-news-including-trump-fearing-backlash-11565879086

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: JHW
Date: 20 Aug 19 - 03:42 PM

Have seen occasional ads but none today. Using Firefox and good old XP on laptop.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: JHW
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 06:01 AM

None again today. Generally ads follow you on the net. Looked for G9 LED bulbs (as I did) and ads for them haunted me for a week elsewhere.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 08:44 AM

I don't know why they think you want to buy something you already bought, but they do, and they follow me around, too. Elsewhere.
I use an ad-blocker with my main browser, so I don't normally see ads.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 12:24 PM

Lots of viagra ads on thread I looked at. Appalling:!worried it’s spam and Mudcat’ s been hacked. Bye - not risking this any further...

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 12:47 PM

Not hacked, but they might be reading into what your personal search history looks like. ;-)

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 21 Aug 19 - 10:42 PM

Some of the ads are great.
I'm just having a rotfl moment contemplating why I might spend £59 on 'younger firmer skin'.*
Last week I was nearly persuaded to spend £2k on an electronic parts weighing machine
and I think the week before I might have ordered a £13k car.

* I presume it is my own skin they're talking about or could it have been one of 'those' adverts!?
;)

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 07:44 AM

Not logged in at present, on a Windows machine in a public library. No ads at all. The number and placement of the ads I see varies at random each time I connect to Mudcat. I assume Max is experimenting with different configurations.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: CupOfTea
Date: 22 Aug 19 - 08:33 AM

Have only occasional bouts of grouped ads that are text only, going across the whole screen (on ipad). Quite annoying. The picture-off-to-the-side ads I could take in at a glance, and move on. Big obnoxious text in the flow of a thread, I won't look at long enough for any words to sink in, let alone read it.

What has come with this are incredibly long white spaces, where I was uncertain if information was loading slowly, or Mudcat was having technical problems. I gave up several times in frustration, because it was hard to find one's place at the end of these big gaps, losing continuity of the thread conversation. Any remedy or work-around for this is outside my online skills.

Joanne in Cleveland

Subject: BS: Intrusive ads
From: Gurney
Date: 28 Feb 20 - 05:43 PM

Here in NZ we are now getting local advertisements inserted into the threads. They are sometimes even mixed into the lyrics.

They are not in the same font as the threads, and have no content that makes any sense regarding the thread.

Her indoors tells me that we are even getting them in Emails.

It's only happened since I went onto Windows10, and I still use AVG, so has anyone any idea how to block them? AVG does tell me someone is watching me.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,Starship
Date: 28 Feb 20 - 06:15 PM

AdBlock.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Gurney
Date: 28 Feb 20 - 08:07 PM

There are even 3 ads in this thread! That's really showing us two fingers.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Feb 20 - 08:29 PM

Each person gets their own ads, based on their history. I'm getting none on this thread. (I had AdBlock on my Windows machine which got wrecked by a forced Windows 10 upgrade. This Mac doesn't have it.)

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: r.padgett
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 02:33 AM

Yes I thought it was a virus, I have stopped accepting "cookies" and move on elsewhere ~ do not give any powers to other sites

Ray

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Senoufou
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 05:36 AM

I don't mind ads, except right in the middle of someone's post. And some ads (not here particularly, but other forums) flash and flicker while one is trying to read/post. Very distracting.
But I suppose all sites have to make money and ads are needed for them to do this.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 05:57 AM

I delete most cookies every so often, but it is a pain on some sites so I leave then on my favourites. Like Mudcat, to stay logged in.

And I delete all Fakebook ads and click on "remove for ever" - their algorithm responded eventually by not sending ads. Until I answered a NHS thread that was clearly selling a concept that most responders (rightly) denegrated.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 08:48 AM

AdBlockPlus and AdBlocker do a good job here. They do cut into Mudcat revenues (though there isn't much control a site owner has over the ads at this point).

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Elmore
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 10:15 AM

For the life of me, I can't understand what this thread is meant for the music section. It cries out for the bs section. Have the rules changed?

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Elmore
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 10:21 AM

Oops. Maybe it belongs here because the ads are disturbing those who are trying to look in the music section. Sorry. Getting older and stupider every day.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Feb 20 - 12:45 PM

What are the image links to Mudcat threads for?

They're even more annoying than the ads because they're bigger, and you get the same ones inserted for months on end. No I don't care what happened to Lynn Gold, and I know all I need to know about "Farewell to Tarwathie".

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: GUEST,JHW but the robots have forgotten
Date: 02 Mar 20 - 02:45 PM

I'm not a member any more but I still get ads. WTH, there are ads all over the net. I never click any, just in case its a rogue. None here today but that's just chance.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Mar 20 - 06:33 PM

JHW,
1) The ads don't have anything to do with Mudcat membership, other than Google having bot thingie on Mudcat's pages, and
2) You're still a member. Your computer trashed your cookie, and you just need to log back in. Joe Offer can help if you forgot your password.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 May 20 - 11:30 PM

Google changed their ads a while back, and they became much more annoying. And apparently, they no longer gave Max the option of putting the ads where he wanted to put them. Max puts the script for the ads at the top of the page, and the ads go wherever they want to go. They do pay for the operation of Mudcat, so we have to have them.

A Mudcatter sent me a personal message last week to complain about the ads. I told her that I was usually (maybe always) able to eliminate the ads from a message by clicking the printer-friendly link at the bottom of each message.

But this trick didn't work at all for the printer-friendly link at the top of threads that allows you to display an entire thread for printing. And the ads even showed up on the data that I sent to my printer, so Mudcatters would have to put up with printing a bunch of ads.

I finally figured this all out last week Monday, and I emailed Max about it. Max got to work, and took the ad scripts out of all the printer-friendly pages. So, if you want to read a thread or a message without ads, use the printer-friendly feature.

Thanks, Max.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: DaveRo
Date: 05 May 20 - 03:10 AM

This thread started with a complaint about the adverts on a phone, for which Mudcat was never designed. So I just took a look at the printer-friendly pages on an iPhone with a 4" screen. I use Firefox on all my computers and mobile devices, so I started with that.

A big problem with the printer-friendly pages on a phone, like the whole site, is that the font is very small. You can turn it sideways, which might be big enough, but if you expand it with reverse pinch it goes off the edge. However, this is easily overcome in Firefox by using Reader View - the icon to the right on the address bar. There you can adjust the font size easily.

I tried to get reader-view on Safari, which is the phone's default browser, and couldn't find it. It did briefly display 'Reader View Available' so it's obviously capable of it. Googling suggests there should be an icon for it but I couldn't find it - maybe on a bigger phone? I suggest you poke about and google - it's there somewhere.

Reader view should work on Android phones too, it does in Firefox. (But so do ad-blockers.)

BTW - be aware that the printer-friendly page is always in date order, even if you started with a thread in reverse order.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: Felipa
Date: 05 May 20 - 07:59 AM

I do find the adverts intensely annoying. Why do they have to fill the middle of the screen (desktop computer, windows), breaking up portions of the discussion, rather than popping up in a corner as adverts on other websites do? [or at the top of the page as Joe says Max tries to do] In fact in the format they appear I don't read the ads at all ... I don't think they are having a subliminal effect. They only serve to make the threads difficult to read. Whereas I do notice the adverts to the side of the main forum listing; I have been intrigued and amused to see a notice about folkies being Conservative, but I haven't yet bothered to click on the picture alligned to that tag.

I've found firefox blocking popups on email, so that I couldn't follow links given within an email message. I don't have problems following clickable links on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: Felipa
Date: 05 May 20 - 08:02 AM

yes, printer-friendly worked for me
I had to return to normal mode to post a reply.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: Felipa
Date: 05 May 20 - 08:05 AM

maybe that advert about conservative folksingers was on youtube
... it must have been

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 05 May 20 - 08:21 AM

Internet advertising is in danger of eating itself. I think most of us understand that sites need advertising in order to provide a free service, and I am prepared to tolerate it up to a point, provided it is not too intrusive (although I've very seldom seen anything that interests me). However the advertising has become so intrusive in some cases that the site itself becomes unreadable. Mudcat is by no means the worst, I've seen online newspaper reports where the text is squeezed around the ads and almost impossible to follow. If this drives users away (and it does me) then the publisher isn't getting its content seen, the advertisers aren't getting their ads seen, and the viewer isn't finding the information they were seeking. How can this work for anyone?

I also wonder whether advertisers have thought about the negative impact of excessive and repetitive advertising? The first time I have to sit through an ad which is preventing me from getting on with what I want, it is simply an irritant. By the fourth or fifth time I am seriously pissed off with them and I am likely to actively avoid purchasing something from them.

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: Mo the caller
Date: 05 May 20 - 10:25 AM

Very true Howard.
And ironic that there is a large coloured ad in the middle of Jack's post of Aug 10th on my screen

Subject: RE: Mudcat ads - new workaround available
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 May 20 - 03:14 PM

When Mudcat started having ads, Max was able to place them where he wanted them. Not so anymore. He puts the ad script at the top of the page, but I'm not sure it matters where in the page the script is located - Google puts ads where Google puts ads. I found the ads much more appealing when they behaved better. Google ought to know that. But hey, they pay the bills. Try the "printer friendly" workaround. It works pretty well.
Oh, and DaveRo pointed out that if you add &desc to the URL of a printer-friendly thread, it will appear in descending order. There are a few other such URL tags at Mudcat that you can play with if you find you have nothing to do during this confinement. The ones I like to play with are at Google Books - you can tweak the displays at Google Books in many interesting ways.

-Joe-