The ads are a nuisance but since I am hooked on FT, I just tune them out.

I too would be willing to subscribe to an ad free version.

was shocked to see an ad for treatment of hymen pain and vaginal cramps in one of my posts today..

It seems all the goooooogle and ads are back to FT today again. This time, instead of annoyingly showing up in the top 1st post, it's inside the 3rd/4th post (like mine)-------->.

Anybody seeing the same, or is it just me?

I find them moving up and down
There is a google ad in your post too.
Last night I woke up after seeing google ads in my sleep.Wild........

If the Inside Flyer Group needs more revenue my checkbook is open for a donation..............
They have certainly been overly generous for many years to all of us in the community.

They/Randy have created the most important and valuable site I have ever laid a click on...........
The google adds are warmly welcomed somewhere else on the site if they assist in the revenue picture but preferably out of my post
I'm starting to learn how to live with it for today..............
Perhaps in another week I'll just forget about it completely

The only way I can read your post is to quote it like this. The ad makes it unreadable by pushing the text out of the way.

Personally, I don't mind the ad here at FT. I am very appreciative to the huge bank of info offered by Randy and fellow FTers. I learn to deal with ads over the years visiting free websites.

What I am bothered with, like Westcoaster had pointed out, the interference of the ad with the post. The point of putting up any ad is to lure or attract "potential" customers, isn't it? If it ends up only to attract "resentment" from the customers, what's good about it? Can those great mind doing the FT goooogle ad come up a better way not to interfere the reading of any post/thread?

Or, DO they care?

If they cared they would be gone by now. The all-mighty dollar is what they care about.

lin821...good question and allow me throw my two cents worth into this.
I directed the advertising campaign for several large food brands over the years and the mind-set among ad agencies and some advertisers is that there is no such thing as an ad that is too intrusive. In fact, "non-intrusive ad" is an oxymoron.
The purpose of an ad is to be intrusive, i.e. to attract your attention away from whatever other task you are doing. Like watching TV, reading a newspaper, posting on FT, driving down the freeway, etc..
Advertisers want...in fact, DEMAND...that their ads be read and acted upon in a particular setting and if they don't get the desired response, they look for another ad vehicle.
Now a company like FlyerTalk, The NY Times, NBC-TV, etc., can decide that an ad is too obnoxious or over-the-top and refuse to carry it. But they'll many times be cutting into their revenue by taking a moral stand. It's ultimately up to each company to decide as to what type of advertising it wants to subject it's readers, listeners, or viewers.
I agree with your contention that an ad that creates resentment seems counter-productive but the folks on Madison Avenue have studied this premise to death and they don't agree with the rest of us "normal" people.....

I am unable to reproduce any technical problem like you describe with this post. (I am checking with recent versions of IE, FireFox and Safari) What browser/OS combo are you using where you are seeing this? Thanks,

I mean "they" as the advertisers. Let me rephrase my question: DO the advertisers care that the new layout attract "resentment"?

Cholula, thanks for sharing and I uderstand the ad nature of being intrusive. That's why I carefully chose the words as "resentment" and "interference." I don't think most FTers are reading into the content/words of the gooooogle ad inside the post. For me, I am just seeing it as a big "empty" box that's blocking post viewing pleasure. If I may, people "resent" the big goooooole box. What's the difference between good ads and "bad" ones?

I do know Randy and FT staff care. ^ That's why I want to know if there's a better way to do it and not cutting FT revenues. The old horizonal banners between posts didn't attract as much resentment. As Randy had indicated, nobody clicked on them. With the new inside-post layout, I doubt it would earn any click from any soul.

I noticed this google ad popping up today....I found it interesting as anything to do with type of activity is FT Taboo:

"New Low Prices

Free tickets and upgrades just got alot cheaper. Top off miles today

www.miles4sale."***

I deleted the last of the website name as I want no part of promoting such a sight. FT might want to investigate whether they can 'ban' that ad from its FT site

I believe that is a legitimate site, and operates as a middleman with several airlines. It is not a site that buys miles and sells award tickets. I've actually found it to be quite useful, under the right circumstances.

My problem with these ads is that when I see an ad in someone's posting I assume immediately that it is from the poster. Even thought I realize it isn't, it's hard to avoid that immediate thought.

Anyhow, what is the current scoop on the paid, ad-free version? I'd subscribe, if the fee was reasonable (e.g. $12/year including InsideFlyer).

You don't have any ad problems w/ FT Premium!!! ^

Thanks -- with the knowledge that such a product existed, I had no problem finding it and am now enrolled. I'm surprised that it wasn't more prominently advertised on the FT homepage. Or maybe I am just not so good at finding the obvious.