FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Suggestions (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/suggestions-387/)
-   -   Suggestion: Remove "Sponsered Links" From the Threads (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/suggestions/414503-suggestion-remove-sponsered-links-threads.html)

Mary2e Mar 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Actually, it wasn't the flirting thread. It was the "advise for a gay man" thread in the Women's forum and the word flirting appearing in one or two of the posts.

The last I looked in that thread there were no sponosored links coming up at all any longer.

Edit to add: I just went into the thread again, and the same 2 ads are there.

ScottC Mar 28, 2005 5:36 pm


Originally Posted by Mary2e
Actually, it wasn't the flirting thread. It was the "advise for a gay man" thread in the Women's forum and the word flirting appearing in one or two of the posts.

The last I looked in that thread there were no sponosored links coming up at all any longer.

Edit to add: I just went into the thread again, and the same 2 ads are there.

That would work too... The ads are delivered based on keywords the ad owner determines.

jfe Mar 28, 2005 6:09 pm

So, if you are in the "Travel Technology Forum" what kind of ads do you get, "PC's for Dummies" :confused:

Now, I am not going to ask what appears in OMNI

:p

magiciansampras Mar 28, 2005 6:10 pm


Originally Posted by ScottC
That would work too... The ads are delivered based on keywords the ad owner determines.

Cars, Elephants, Calendars, Basketball, Jesus, Satanism, Dave Matthews Band, DeVry, EARN YOUR MBA ONLINE, Deer Park Water, Dasani, iron, ore, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Big Lebowski, Logitech, Monticello, wine, Fox, Faux, Faux News, Foreign Direct Investment, outsourcing, The Economist, Yahoo, CNN, Jerry Seinfeld, photographs, mice, The Color Purple, The Red Sox, Oprah, Las Vegas, The O.C., 90210, Lance Burton, The Strip, hospital, Red Cross, volunteer, urination, fecal matter, marathon, Greece, cotton, the South, Mason-Dixon line, Vonage, forums, IP telephony, market research, surveys, kitchenette.

I have my ads blocked, but please tell me what Google came up with for ads based on the sentence above.

Cholula Mar 28, 2005 9:28 pm


Originally Posted by magiciansampras
Cars, Elephants, Calendars, Basketball, Jesus, Satanism, Dave Matthews Band, DeVry, EARN YOUR MBA ONLINE, Deer Park Water, Dasani, iron, ore, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Big Lebowski, Logitech, Monticello, wine, Fox, Faux, Faux News, Foreign Direct Investment, outsourcing, The Economist, Yahoo, CNN, Jerry Seinfeld, photographs, mice, The Color Purple, The Red Sox, Oprah, Las Vegas, The O.C., 90210, Lance Burton, The Strip, hospital, Red Cross, volunteer, urination, fecal matter, marathon, Greece, cotton, the South, Mason-Dixon line, Vonage, forums, IP telephony, market research, surveys, kitchenette.

I have my ads blocked, but please tell me what Google came up with for ads based on the sentence above.


Here's the Google Ad that just appeared:


Starwood Credit Card
Earn Starpoints for every eligible dollar you spent. 2.9% Intro APR.

Fair Trade for Africa
Read facts & stories. Get involved. Sign up for E-mail Action Alerts.

I was wondering where Africa was coming from until I read all your keywords...:).

ozstamps Mar 29, 2005 11:39 pm


Originally Posted by RichardInSF

I think it's just new threads getting censored in ORP, not posts to an existing thread.

There is a thread about charging a fee to stop ads which has become a kind of unheralded thread about these "sponsored links" between posts, and my posts (and others) about getting rid of ads in Firefox got through.

This is a private board so censorship by the owner is both allowed and completely valid, but doing it secretly seems a bit off target. Also, with this approach, the whole ORP forum will stagnate. Maybe that's the intent.

Yes there has not been a new thread of any kind "approved" for about a month I'd guess, so you make an interesting point.

It is my thread about ads there, that as you point out, pre-dates the new unpublished filter rules:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=196682&page=5

Folks posting about these horrid and intrusive new intra ads there will at least get Randy to be aware they exist. They look cheap and tacky, and I'd be glad to pay a fee to not see them. Clearly so would many others if you read that thread's last pages.

Randy has posted before he sees no ads of any kind, as Admin use Macs with blockers, so he may well be unaware just how intrusive these new things are for those of us who want to read threads on travel and not tips on "How to Flirt With Men".

I can empathise that many looking at FT at work for purely business travel related research would not find management approving such material being on workplace screens.


CameraGuy Mar 30, 2005 6:39 pm

Intrusive?????????????????????

The ads are tiny and very EASY to ignore. In fact, the post above mine is at least THREE times the size of the ads and much more intrusize.

Comicwoman Mar 30, 2005 7:58 pm

[QUOTE=ozstamps]I can empathise that many looking at FT at work for purely business travel related research would not find management approving such material being on workplace screens. [QUOTE]

I would hope that those surfing the web at work for travel related tips will not be opening threads titled "How to Pick up Men (Women)" or any of the threads in OMNI, ORP, Community, GLBT, Women's Travel, or Mileage Runs. I venture to say that most of the FT surfing/posting done from work is not work related.

cactuspete Mar 31, 2005 9:40 am


Originally Posted by magiciansampras
There are other places to advertise. In the threads themselves is very disruptive. Usability used to be one of the better attributes of FT. Let's try and get back there.

^ ^

Doppy Apr 7, 2005 9:04 am

Suggestion: Give me more, more, more! for free, free, free!

cactuspete Apr 7, 2005 9:42 am


Originally Posted by Doppy
Suggestion: Give me more, more, more! for free, free, free!

Perhaps that should be the topic of a separate thread?

CameraGuy Apr 7, 2005 10:01 am


Originally Posted by cactuspete
Perhaps that should be the topic of a separate thread?

No, that's the topic of THIS thread.

Too many people think Randy is made of money and feel he is obligated to provide FT free of ad content.

Ridiculous.

magiciansampras Apr 7, 2005 10:04 am


Originally Posted by CameraGuy
No, that's the topic of THIS thread.

Too many people think Randy is made of money and feel he is obligated to provide FT free of ad content.

Ridiculous.

Who said that?

I don't think Randy is made of money, nor should he make FT free of ad content.

What he should do however is use rational ad placement. Putting ads in the middle of the thread is not rational, in my opinion.

There are tons of bulletin board sites that run off of advertisements. There are also tons that have figured out how to accomplish this without saking usability by putting their ads in the middle of threads. My suggestion is that Randy et al follow this model.

Analise Apr 7, 2005 10:45 am

In the long thread about baby showers in which the clear majority of posters dislike them immensely, there is a sponsored link for baby shower party favors. Now that was amusing! :D

cactuspete Apr 7, 2005 12:43 pm

"Suggestion: Remove "Sponsered Links" From the Threads"
 

Originally Posted by magiciansampras
Who said that?

I don't think Randy is made of money, nor should he make FT free of ad content.

What he should do however is use rational ad placement. Putting ads in the middle of the thread is not rational, in my opinion.

There are tons of bulletin board sites that run off of advertisements. There are also tons that have figured out how to accomplish this without saking usability by putting their ads in the middle of threads. My suggestion is that Randy et al follow this model.

Precisely.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:51 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.