Known ANNOYING POP UPS/AD WHILE BROWSING NT

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,084
17,831
Joined Dec 8, 1999
Sorry for the frustration and confusion, everyone.


The ad you're referring to in this instance is not a bug - it's a placement test intended to minimize the number of ads that will load in on any given page.

We're in the process of preparing a new layout for NikeTalk to accompany a significant software upgrade to launch in a few weeks. Unfortunately, ad revenues across the industry have declined substantially in 2019 (hence all the stories about massive layoffs at digital publishers from Buzzfeed, Gannett, AOL, Yahoo, Vice, and Mic). Today, we're generating less than one third of what the site was producing in December.

That leaves us with unpleasant options to choose from if we want to do things like develop new features/upgrades or make significant donations. (We really want to bring back the thread image gallery feature, for example.) The most obvious way to make up for the diminishing value of online advertising is to simply add more of it. That's not an option for us precisely because of all the redirect ads we've had to deal with in recent months. The more ad units we run per page, the greater the chance that you might see a bad ad come through one of the networks. From a quality control standpoint, I believe it's also easier for the team to identify the source of a bad ad if we have fewer possibilities per page than more.

So how do we stop the bleeding without incorporating new ad units or attempting an ill-conceived subscription model? One idea is to try a persistent ad placement. Instead of scrolling by more ads, one of the ads would stay on screen either at the extreme top or bottom of the page. We're running a test right now to determine what the effect of that would be on both ad quality and earnings.

If it performs the way I've been told it will, we can invest some developer time into improving the way the unit works. If the benefits are minimal, we'll likely scrap the idea completely.


The good news is that you can opt out of this test.

Everyone who's expressed concern about the unit in this post will receive a PM with instructions for how to revert the changes.

If you have not yet posted in this thread, but would like to opt out, just reply here or send me a PM and we'll help you out.

If you have a suggestion for how we could implement a persistent ad placement that you would find less intrusive, we'd welcome that feedback as well. One idea was to have the ads appear midway through the page, as usual, but instead of scrolling completely off screen it would remain at the top unless the user starts scrolling back up again, at which point it could return to its original position.

Thanks for your patience and understanding!
 
54,340
29,115
Joined Dec 13, 2004
in addition to the ad on the bottom of the page that you have to "x" out of, i also get this giant ad at the bottom

this is the fourth or fifth time i've gotten an ad that big that almost takes over the whole screen

ad.png
 

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,084
17,831
Joined Dec 8, 1999
in addition to the ad on the bottom of the page that you have to "x" out of, i also get this giant ad at the bottom

this is the fourth or fifth time i've gotten an ad that big that almost takes over the whole screen

ad.png
That is definitely not intended and will be reported to the team. Thanks for making me aware of that issue.
 
14,210
16,478
Joined Mar 27, 2004
I would like to opt out as well. It covers over things like my alerts, which is too obtrusive and may as well be a pop-up ad.

That said, thanks for your work on this. I know this is a tough issue.

Btw, I'd be willing to donate a small amount yearly ($20, let's say) to get rid of ads completely. I'm not sure how it compares to the ad revenue per user or if it would work in practice, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
 

pmpdaddyrobford

Supporter
18,913
8,740
Joined Dec 24, 2013
I would like to opt out as well. It covers over things like my alerts, which is too obtrusive and may as well be a pop-up ad.

That said, thanks for your work on this. I know this is a tough issue.

Btw, I'd be willing to donate a small amount yearly ($20, let's say) to get rid of ads completely. I'm not sure how it compares to the ad revenue per user or if it would work in practice, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
Ya'll need to scroll to the bottom
If on mobile, right above "contact us" is what you're looking for to hit
6C6913E8-6C1C-46B0-A4C7-D5F2EFBBC113.png
 

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,084
17,831
Joined Dec 8, 1999
I would like to opt out as well. It covers over things like my alerts, which is too obtrusive and may as well be a pop-up ad.

That said, thanks for your work on this. I know this is a tough issue.

Btw, I'd be willing to donate a small amount yearly ($20, let's say) to get rid of ads completely. I'm not sure how it compares to the ad revenue per user or if it would work in practice, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
That's not the desired behavior. Ads should never interfere with the function of the site itself. I expect that to be addressed within 24 hours. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

We've been testing this out in house for a couple of weeks now and that was not an issue as of yesterday. Ironically, I think the mobile unit is partially overlapping notifications now because just prior to roll out I requested that we ensure that the ad could be dismissed by the user - which required a change to the implementation. So I'll take the blame for that one. I've already passed it along to the team for review.


Btw, I'd be willing to donate a small amount yearly ($20, let's say) to get rid of ads completely. I'm not sure how it compares to the ad revenue per user or if it would work in practice, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
That anyone would be willing to spend money to use the site is a strong testament to the community we've built here together, and I'm truly grateful that such dedication exists.

The possibility of an optional premium subscription service as an "escape valve" for users who are frustrated by the ads, but still want to support the community rather than install an ad blocker, is something that we've considered for years now. It's not an option that was previously possible for us, because it involved subscription management and payment processing capabilities that were not part of the previous software platform. Building those out would've require us to spend more than the service would ever take in.

With the current software, I think some of the necessary framework already exists - but servicing the subscriptions would still be a variable even if the primary technical components are accounted for. How much labor would each subscription require from the support team? What happens if somebody gets banned 2 months into a one year subscription? What happens if we change platforms?

If demand exists, we'll of course consider developing that option, but our primary goal will always be to deliver the best free experience that we possibly can.
If we can get that right, then interest in a premium subscription service would remain minimal.
 

pmpdaddyrobford

Supporter
18,913
8,740
Joined Dec 24, 2013
That's not the desired behavior. Ads should never interfere with the function of the site itself. I expect that to be addressed within 24 hours. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

We've been testing this out in house for a couple of weeks now and that was not an issue as of yesterday. Ironically, I think the mobile unit is partially overlapping notifications now because just prior to roll out I requested that we ensure that the ad could be dismissed by the user - which required a change to the implementation. So I'll take the blame for that one. I've already passed it along to the team for review.



That anyone would be willing to spend money to use the site is a strong testament to the community we've built here together, and I'm truly grateful that such dedication exists.

The possibility of an optional premium subscription service as an "escape valve" for users who are frustrated by the ads, but still want to support the community rather than install an ad blocker, is something that we've considered for years now. It's not an option that was previously possible for us, because it involved subscription management and payment processing capabilities that were not part of the previous software platform. Building those out would've require us to spend more than the service would ever take in.

With the current software, I think some of the necessary framework already exists - but servicing the subscriptions would still be a variable even if the primary technical components are accounted for. How much labor would each subscription require from the support team? What happens if somebody gets banned 2 months into a one year subscription? What happens if we change platforms?

If demand exists, we'll of course consider developing that option, but our primary goal will always be to deliver the best free experience that we possibly can.
If we can get that right, then interest in a premium subscription service would remain minimal.
I think you'd have to offer something more than just no ad's if that was to be an option.
Don't see the community taking it to well just for ad's.
 

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,084
17,831
Joined Dec 8, 1999
I think you'd have to offer something more than just no ad's if that was to be an option.
Don't see the community taking it to well just for ad's.
Yeah, I don't think the take up rate would be terribly high, either, but the point was never to attempt to convert a high number of users into subscribers as that's not a viable business model to begin with. How many successful subscription based social media sites do you know?

The idea was just to offer frustrated users an option besides ad blocking to support the site while avoiding ads.

There has been some internal discussion about how to add value to a potential subscription package - the ability to bypass the buy/sell approval queue, for example, and a supporter badge of some sort, as we used to have on ezboard being the obvious examples - but a premium service is unlikely to be anything other than a loss leader for us.
 

pmpdaddyrobford

Supporter
18,913
8,740
Joined Dec 24, 2013
Yeah, I don't think the take up rate would be terribly high, either, but the point was never to attempt to convert a high number of users into subscribers as that's not a viable business model to begin with. How many successful subscription based social media sites do you know?

The idea was just to offer frustrated users an option besides ad blocking to support the site while avoiding ads.

There has been some internal discussion about how to add value to a potential subscription package - the ability to bypass the buy/sell approval queue, for example, and a supporter badge of some sort, as we used to have on ezboard being the obvious examples - but a premium service is unlikely to be anything other than a loss leader for us.
Premium could be a shirt and hat
 
Top Bottom