I think Randy makes an interesting point here which has all sorts of merit.

I'm one of the voices who would gladly pay for a premium FT experience (eg, sans the ads)--it actually takes longer for me to view it now because my machine spends time trying to contact ad servers that are hostnamed out. I also understand the need to subsidize the free service that FT represents somehow.

I guess I don't have a feeling one way or another about the "ads in posts" because I've never seen them.

Internal ads........make it stop

I didn't realize they had showed up until I used a different computer today. I use Firefox 1.0 and use the ....... extension. I don't see any ads on FT.

The ads are really intrusive and ugly. I guess if that what is required to run the site so be it, but I'm glad there are ways to get rid of them.

God it's horrible. Between the ads on the top, the side and in the posts, close to 1/3 of my 12" monitor is ads. It is incredibly distracting. I would gladly pay for an ad-free FT.

The other thing to think about... as FT keeps getting more good press and more subscribers, why it is looking more and more like every other cluttered website?

My eternal thanks to guttorm, ryan182, and ClueByFour for their guidance in finding a way to continue to enjoy FlyerTalk while minimizing the abomination that is these increasingly intrusive ads. ^

I'm lazy. I'd installed the Mozilla script to block the in-thread ads when they first came out, but when I upgraded Mozilla I never got round to re-installing the script. And when the "ad-free" version of FT comes out I'd have taken a subscription to the magazine and that would have been it. But these in-post ads are too much. So much, in fact, that I overcame my laziness to install the ....... script and tinker with it to block all the ad-content. (Admittedly, it only took 3 minutes or so, but as I said, I'm lazy.) Now that I have 100% ad-free FT, where's the incentive to overcome my laziness and buy the subscription when official ad-free FT comes out? Don't get me wrong, I still think I ought to buy the mag, as a thank you to Randy for all the benefit I've derived from the site, and I'm sure it's a mag that's worth the sub on its own merits. But is that enough to overcome my natural consumer inertia?

Shouldn't we restrict these intrusive ads to OMNI?

He he he he... so tempting!

(oh come on! a bit of loosening up never hurt anybody!!!)

!!!!!!

Agree 100%.

It used to be a static banner at top. Then a static banner top and base.

Then a "staircase" at side as well.

Then another banner under the top one.

Then hopping, jumping, moving and shaking - intrusive and system slowing banners on one or all the above.

Then the very intrusive google banners BETWEEN posts - plus the above.

Now this.

The banners used to "subsidise" FT. Fine

The present situation I feel sure is a huge profit centre for Randy way over and above whatever any actual costs are.

This obscene amount of advertising is another reason FT is less enjoyable to many than it used to be.

Randy's standard reply is: "we have filters and munchers and blockers on our Macs and never see any of this, so I really don't know what the problem is. Sorry if it bothers anyone. We'll talk to our vendors about it".

I just have posted 10 times on this, but give me a fee system any-day, and Randy then probably doubles his existing profits, but I and others do not need to load things to block this dross. Like ad-muncher which froze my system when I tried that.

Glen

Given the uproar about these imbedded ads, I can only imagine the outright uncivil war that would ensue were Randy to opt to move to a user pay but ad-free FT.

Add me to the list of folks that finally decided to edit my hosts file to be done with ads for good. The ads inside the posts were just too much. Enough already!

Folks, Randy already announced that a fee based FT is on its way, can't we just be a little more patient and wait for that? Making baseless claims about Randy's income off the board seems very respectless for someone that has invested so much into the community with little in return.

I'm not thrilled about the Google ads in particular. I think that in the past, there have been relevant ads (United advertising on the MP forum) from legitimate companies. The problem is that the "context sensitive" ads promoted by Google seem to be, at best, questionable sorts of businesses. And that's the real problem.

I just spent a big chunk of my morning trying to track down some outfit that added a charge to my phone bill because someone in my household clicked an ad somewhere on the Internet and gave up a bunch of personal information while unknowingly subscribing to a "service" in order to get some freebies. These outfits that are in the Google ads, in particular, look to be similar in nature. While trying not to paint with a broad brush, i'm not seeing brand names that I'm familiar with and frankly, "Legally emailing millions" feels a whole lot like a spammer's paradise.

Is this what we want FT to become?

I respect RP's right to make a living. FT is an incredible resource, and, at some point, it moved from being a hobby to being a business for RP. But I really hope that FT doesn't die because it is overwhelmed by 1) idiots looking to score a quick buck or promote a point of view; or 2) intrusive ads (that no one wants to click on anyway) that force the quality contributors away.

While I'm certain that the "HOSTS" fix will eliminate the problem for now, I also expect that the ad providers will start to function like spammers and continually change tactics (and domains) in order to get those ads posted. And frankly, that's when you know the ads aren't legit. If people tolerated the ads, they wouldn't block them (it's like getting email advertising from CompUSA or Buy.com -- you tolerate the mass emails because they are legitimate companies providing a legitimate service).

I can't believe that the revenue stream from these ads is worth the hassle (or is sustainable with little or no click throughs). If it is, I'll need to re-think what I do for a living...

Not according to our host:

While I understand the need for revenue generation to support FT and sure would not have gone this far, I take Randy at his word that the marketing folks may have gone a bit nuts without his personal oversight every step of the way.