[chasrus]

I really don't like the obnoxious ads that darken the screen and blossom out over the article I am trying to read on your site. Ads already proliferate everything and I can live with that as long as I can ignore the ones I want to. But these "in your face" bombs that force you to watch something whether you want to or not are just too much. Just so you know, whenever one of these ads tries to take over my viewing I immediately close the window and move on, and I hope others will do the same.

[coastie65]

Can't say as I have had an ad "blossoming" over what I am looking at, except for the sign in page at times. In short, no intrusive ads that I can recall.

[chasrus]

coastie65, on 16 January 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Can't say as I have had an ad "blossoming" over what I am looking at, except for the sign in page at times. In short, no intrusive ads that I can recall.

Gee, I guess I'm the only one being targeted. See the attached file to see what you're missing.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[coastie65]

Try bumping your cookie settings up a bit. I am not overly bothered by the stuff you describe as things run pretty good with no slow downs. I have my cookies set at Medium High.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 22 February 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Try bumping your cookie settings up a bit. I am not overly bothered by the stuff you describe as things run pretty good with no slow downs. I have my cookies set at Medium High.

API.VIGILINK.COM has random delays. I have already taken the time to monitor this specific problem. It is not the PC, it is their server. Apparently they are taking on loads way beyond their capacity and just stop responding from time to time.

[bcappel]

This information has been passed on to our advertising department. Those ads should only open if you hold your mouse over the ad itself.

Advertising is what pays for this site and what allows us to make these forums available for you. Discussions of how to circumvent them are not allowed and will be removed.

Thank you.

[coastie65]

waldojim, on 22 February 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

coastie65, on 22 February 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Try bumping your cookie settings up a bit. I am not overly bothered by the stuff you describe as things run pretty good with no slow downs. I have my cookies set at Medium High.

It is not the PC, it is their server. Apparently they are taking on loads way beyond their capacity and just stop responding from time to time.

Yeah, probably so. You can get big loads on a particular threat, which can slow things down I guess. Don't know if the load can be shunted in a way as to divide it up or not. The few things I have noticed, seem to be server related.

[coastie65]

bcappel, on 23 February 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

This information has been passed on to our advertising department. Those ads should only open if you hold your mouse over the ad itself.

Advertising is what pays for this site and what allows us to make these forums available for you. Discussions of how to circumvent them are not allowed and will be removed.

Thank you.

Yeah, that is about the only time I have an ad pop up, when I accidently mouse over it. Not particularly bothersome though as I know what happened. As for the static ads on the side or wherever, they rarely get my attention, although sometimes one might.

[waldojim]

The banner ads dont bother me. Pcworld has made it a point to advertise at every opportunity lately though, and they dont seem to be willing to consider the end user implications.

Now I have to ask, pcw allows articles telling readers to use programs like ad block plus and do not track, yet we cannot discuss them in relation to the pcw website. What is wrong with this picture? You guys do realize that do no track blocks EVERYTHING that pcw uses to advertise and track users, dont you?

Shoot, you guys are telling people to use software that automatically blocks what I already manually blocked.

[nonseq]

I don't think the issue is circumventing ads as much as having the ad dept respect the reader and not hijack the screen. The mouse-over pop-ups are really annoying and after having to deal with them I, for one, rarely will read the rest of an article. The ads that obscure the copy in a slide show are really annoying and are one of the reasons that I rarely will look at a slide show.

I just think that there are better ways to incorporate ads that are compelling and not repelling to the reader.

[bcappel]

waldojim, on 23 February 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

The banner ads dont bother me. Pcworld has made it a point to advertise at every opportunity lately though, and they dont seem to be willing to consider the end user implications.

Now I have to ask, pcw allows articles telling readers to use programs like ad block plus and do not track, yet we cannot discuss them in relation to the pcw website. What is wrong with this picture? You guys do realize that do no track blocks EVERYTHING that pcw uses to advertise and track users, dont you?

Shoot, you guys are telling people to use software that automatically blocks what I already manually blocked.

I didn't claim that it makes any sense.

But look at it this way. You could post a general discussion on how to rob a house. But that would not mean we would allow a different discussion giving specific detailed information on how to break into your house.

[waldojim]

bcappel, on 23 February 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I didn't claim that it makes any sense.

But look at it this way. You could post a general discussion on how to rob a house. But that would not mean we would allow a different discussion giving specific detailed information on how to break into your house.

Then I will certainly make a point of not discussing how to break windows to my house!

Is it safe to at least post up the sites that we have the most problems with?

[LiveBrianD]

I see both of my posts were deleted. What is this, communist-style censorship? In the first post, I included a bunch of links to prove my point THAT LINKED TO PAGES ON PCWORLD'S SITE. In the second one, I'm using some basic logic, and telling you WHY I block ads. What's the problem with that? Just another reason for me to keep using an adblocker and ghostery... (I may try noscript instead, come to think of it)

I am not saying I have a problem with advertising, I am saying I have a problem with OBTRUSIVE, SUPER ANNOYING advertising. THAT is why I block ads.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 23 February 2012 - 04:19 PM

[bcappel]

waldojim, on 23 February 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

bcappel, on 23 February 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I didn't claim that it makes any sense.

But look at it this way. You could post a general discussion on how to rob a house. But that would not mean we would allow a different discussion giving specific detailed information on how to break into your house.

Then I will certainly make a point of not discussing how to break windows to my house!

Is it safe to at least post up the sites that we have the most problems with?

Sure, there's no problem with that at all. And we certainly welcome criticism of ads on our site too...sometimes they bug me too, and sometimes they don't behave like they are supposed to. In both those cases we want to make sure our ad people know about it.

But ads are also what make this site possible, so discussions that encourage visitors to block PCW ads aren't allowed. I know the articles discuss how to use ad blocking tools, we just would prefer you not do it here.

[bcappel]

LiveBrianD, on 23 February 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

I see both of my posts were deleted. What is this, communist-style censorship? In the first post, I included a bunch of links to prove my point THAT LINKED TO PAGES ON PCWORLD'S SITE. In the second one, I'm using some basic logic, and telling you WHY I block ads. What's the problem with that? Just another reason for me to keep using an adblocker and ghostery... (I may try noscript instead, come to think of it)

I am not saying I have a problem with advertising, I am saying I have a problem with OBTRUSIVE, SUPER ANNOYING advertising. THAT is why I block ads.

Read my post above. This has nothing to do with articles posted on PCWorld.

To my knowledge there are none of the ads you are describing in the forums, nor have there ever been.

[coastie65]

bcappel, on 23 February 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

waldojim, on 23 February 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

bcappel, on 23 February 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I didn't claim that it makes any sense.

But look at it this way. You could post a general discussion on how to rob a house. But that would not mean we would allow a different discussion giving specific detailed information on how to break into your house.

Then I will certainly make a point of not discussing how to break windows to my house!

Is it safe to at least post up the sites that we have the most problems with?

I know the articles discuss how to use ad blocking tools, we just would prefer you not do it here.

In other words, while you're here, don't practice what we preach.