Thank you for helping NikeTalk donate over $2,500 to UNICEF!

Do we receive money per each unique hit or can we just refresh all day long?
April 23 1848
Rebecca died of typhoid.

EVERYONE IN YOUR PARTY HAS DIED. MANY WAGONS FAIL TO MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO OREGON. DO YOU WANT TO WRITE YOUR EPITAPH?
 
UNICEF is not perfect. It spends a large amount of its money on "administrative costs" and recently it has been lobbied into diverting funds from health and welfare programs into poltical lobbying for the symbolic issue of poor countries issuing formal declarations of childrens' rights. Formal declarations against child labor and child impressment are noble but it is ignoble to sacrafice actual help for empty proclaimations.

Nonetheless, it is a sad fact that many charitable funds are grimey and UNICEF still does more than most charitable funds. Niketalk donated about $2,500 and about $1,500 will actually help children and protect against starvation, AIDS and other maladies. The full amount helping children would be ideal but many funds would have very little or none of the donations helping children so it's still a victory.

Hopefully people will click more often now that they see that it will indeed yield real results.




AIM Roy Anglais
 
Quote:
Do we receive money per each unique hit or can we just refresh all day long?

It's my understanding that one can "burn through" all of the high yield ads. You may have noticed that, after browsing for awhile, you just start seeing regular Google Ad Sense units - advertising sites that have absolutely NO relevance to our community whatsoever. I'm told that this happens once the supply of high yield ads has been exhausted. We're then left to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

The best way to help is to CLICK on the "real" ads when they appear. Just having them on screen helps, but we're talking about fractions of pennies. When you click - that's when we start to get whole coins. It adds up.

Right now, our click through rates are VERY low - around three tenths of one percent if I remember correctly. Just imagine what we could do if even two or three out of every hundred viewers clicked an ad.
 
so the ads with the games have no relevance to the making up of fractions of pennies? which ads should we be clicking? im always clicking the ones with games on it(by clicking i mean just trying to beat the game)
[/center]
 
Quote:
As for low earnings... ezboard is providing our advertising for the time being but if you have any contacts or suggestions for ad agents or providers (other than the usual suspects: ad sense, tribal fusion, ad brite, etc. etc.) then by all means please let us know. They're not the most relevant ads in the world, but you must first crawl before you can run.

yea, it's pretty hard to get good ads/earnings on a forum, let alone one that is targeting a specific niche. amount of money for one month isn't too bad. i was thinking it was for june, july and august. i'll try and ask a few people and hopefully they respond with some suggestions.
[/b]​
 
Quote:
so the ads with the games have no relevance to the making up of fractions of pennies?

No, those work. Just as long as you "win" the game and the ad redirects you to the sponsor's site I assume we're credited for the click.

My point was simply that the text ads offer the LOWEST possible yield. So, if you want to make your clicks count, go for the ads with full graphics - and that includes the games.


Regarding some of the other comments:

I have to admit, it's rather sad to see so many people going well out of their way to undermine NikeTalk's donation. I think you guys should be proud of what you've accomplished together. You each helped us raise $2,500 in just around a month - and there should be no question that it's going to a good cause. Of course, people do want attention - they want to try and play the black sheep, the iconoclast, or the whistle blower - so I suppose it's only natural that someone will act contrary. That's more a reflection of their insecurities than anything else. It goes to show that NOTHING we do will ever receive 100% approval. This was never about "shine" for NikeTalk anyway. As far as the staff is concerned, we're simply doing what we feel is right.
 
Quote:
Of course, people do want attention - they want to try and play the black sheep, the iconoclast, or the whistle blower - so I suppose it's only natural that someone will act contrary. That's more a reflection of their insecurities than anything else. It goes to show that NOTHING we do will ever receive 100% approval. This was never about "shine" for NikeTalk anyway. As far as the staff is concerned, we're simply doing what we feel is right.



Method Man, if you're indirectly responding to me, I'm disappointed since you usually are able to man up and name names.

I'm hardly trying to undermine the raising of money for charity, I just wanted to point out the harsh reality that charities often times will skim off money. People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, "start fellating each other" as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children.


As an idealist who endorses dissent, I find it hard to believe that you would simply dismiss all concerns over the distribution of the money as mere attempts to seek attention.

To praise any donation in a blind and unqualified manner cheats those who helped to raise the funds and the supposed recipients of the funds. If you truly cared about the people you claim you to want to help, you would dedicate your energy to denouncing the intermediaries who siphon off the money and not those who point this fact out to you.



If you weren't trying to respond to me, please disgregard what I posted.







AIM Roy Anglais
 
A number of individuals engaged in this behavior and I chose not to name them individually because that would merely satisfy their craving for attention. You werent the only one and you werent even the most notable example until you started spouting off about our members were fellating each other merely for expressing their approval of this donation. At this point, I think itll save us some time if we just give you your 15 minutes right now and get it out of the way. Everyone pay attention to Rex the iconoclast.


Funny, I didnt see you spitting on people who donated to the Red Cross after Katrina and there were CLEAR and numerous examples of malfeasance on their part. You wouldnt have had to reach for a relatively trifling example. In fact, you probably wouldnt even have needed Uncle Googles help to prepare the case for your calculated, unctuous concern! I guess this is just a recent pang of conscience/awareness for you how recent? Judging from your FIRST post in this thread, it mustve occurred in the last 24 hours.


You may try to disguise this as a benign attempt to inform people regarding the charity weve chosen, but is that REALLY how you think you come off? A few users are showing their approval of a voluntary charitable donation and suddenly they're "fellating each other?"


Step back.

Imagine for a moment that you participated in an organization maybe a student union, a church, in your case maybe a junior republican group and you were called upon to address the organization to thank everyone for participating in a charitable fundraising event that youd recently spearheaded.

So, here you are simply saying, Thanks, everyone, for coming out to the bake sale / car wash / box social. Together, we managed to raise $_____ for charity. As is natural, the crowd reacts with polite applause.

Suddenly, from the back of the room:

Oh, stop being such sheep. CLAP CLAP CLAP, indeed. Did you know that not all of that moneys REALLY going to charity? Thats RIGHT. These so called non profit charities actually incur something called ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. Its true. I read it in Google search I just so happened to initiate a few minutes ago to blow the lid right off this scam. Yes, you poor fools, its true: some of that money wont be going to orphans at all but to the FAT CAT ADMINISTRATORS who run the charity! Half that moneys probably going to greens fees at a country club, champagne, or business class airline tickets. And youre all lapping it up. Yeah, way to go. You just solved all of earths problems by having a BAKE SALE. You can go back to flattering yourselves now.

My, what a noble, well-adjusted individual and hes so well informed!
Truly, this is a prince among men.


All major charities have administrative expenses. Find me ONE major charity that actually sends ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of donations to its intended beneficiaries.

How can you even attempt to fault us for supporting a charity that cant meet this impossible standard? Thats like rejecting every basketball sneaker that doesnt actually make you fly.

I want everything in one bag. But I dont want the bag to be heavy.
Thats not possible maam.
***** you, the possible police? Just do it.



Quote:
As an idealist who endorses dissent, I find it hard to believe that you would simply dismiss all concerns over the distribution of the money as mere attempts to seek attention.

Dissent? The concept of context eludes you.


Lets pretend were at Bill Russells induction to the NBA hall of fame and you suddenly start booing.

Why?

Because everyone was clapping. I thought someone should be the voice of dissent here.

But YOU were clapping too!

I was when it started. But then everyone else did it, and I didnt want Bill Russell and all his groupies to get too cocky. Whatd he do to deserve all of this admiration anyway?

Hes being inducted into the hall of fame.

Exactly. Its not like he won the Nobel Peace prize. Enough already.


Thats not offering dissent. Thats making a fool of yourself.


You agreed wholeheartedly with this donation in your first reply. Now, suddenly you feel you need to qualify it. You suddenly discovered something unflattering about UNICEF between page 1 and page 3 that you just HAD to share. But what motivated you to start poking around Google for UNICEFs flaws anyway?


Quote:
People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, "start fellating each other" as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children.

It looks like your emotions just betrayed the pettiness of your motives.

We promised to donate ad revenue to charity and we did. Thats it. No one said it was earth shattering. No one claimed that wed eradicated child poverty. Here we have one announcement, a few questions, and a handful of mild one-line assertions of encouragement. Youre trying to distort this into preening? What the hell were we supposed to do, PROMISE to donate money and never speak of it again? Lock the post to prevent our members from congratulating each other?

Let the records show, you were ONE of the people congratulating NikeTalk for the donation.

Yet in under 24 hours, you changed your tune from warble to whine to war cry.

You went from this: UNICEF is a good very good choice. It's nice to wake up and see that the first news I see is something postive.

To this backhanded garbage: UNICEF is not perfect. It spends a large amount of its money on "administrative costs" and recently it has been lobbied into diverting funds from health and welfare programs into poltical lobbying for the symbolic issue of poor countries issuing formal declarations of childrens' rights. Formal declarations against child labor and child impressment are noble but it is ignoble to sacrafice actual help for empty proclaimations.

Nonetheless, it is a sad fact that many charitable funds are grimey and UNICEF still does more than most charitable funds. Niketalk donated about $2,500 and about $1,500 will actually help children and protect against starvation, AIDS and other maladies. The full amount helping children would be ideal but many funds would have very little or none of the donations helping children so it's still a victory.

And then THIS:

People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, "start fellating each other" as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children.


What was it, were people getting too happy even though their praise was no more ornate than your own? Did you just want to show off freshly google-fetched knowledge about UNICEFs purported warts to come off as well-informed? Level with me.

Quote:
To praise any donation in a blind and unqualified manner cheats those who helped to raise the funds and the supposed recipients of the funds.

Yuh huh. And until a few hours ago, you were one of them. You blindly praised the donation along with everyone else without regret or qualification.

Quote:
If you truly cared about the people you claim you to want to help, you would dedicate your energy to denouncing the intermediaries who siphon off the money and not those who point this fact out to you.

Youre right. THANKS, GOOGLE! Google, how is it that youre so wise? How do you always find the right thing to say? Is it because youve indexed 20 billion items?


The problem isnt that you discovered administrative costs or the occasional acts of a charitable organization.

The problem is that you went from saying wow, this is great news to I guess its a net gain, if you dont mind flushing half the donations straight down the toilet. But yeah, rock on NT. Your motives here are clearly suspect. Spare me the noble pretense. You werent concerned about where the money went so much as you were with the reaction this thread was getting.

I guess it was too much to ask to allow our community members to celebrate this accomplishment for ONE FREAKING DAY. We didnt issue a press release. I dont think ANYONE in this thread made the donation out to be more than it was. Why you thought you had to come in here 18 hours later and minimize this is simply beyond me. Whatever the reason, though, at this point I think we all know that the selection of UNICEF itself has little to nothing to do with it.
 
Its good to see us as a message board giving back to the world. I can remember back in 3rd grade my school giving us these little orange UNICEF boxes to take out and get donations in.

unicef_box.gif

Check My Auctions for Basketball games on DVD and Shoes
When your outgo exceeds your income, then your up keep becomes your downfall
 
Meth, quick question, would you or the niketalk staff be willing to donate to legitimate charities suggested by fellow Niketalkers ?
If so, I have a couple of suggestions ....

The Real Talk Of New York is on it Again
I Come Wit Da 9 & Be Gone Wit a 10
JayGunnA Status: Banned
BossTalk status: Unfairly Banned
 
Quote:
Meth, quick question, would you or the niketalk staff be willing to donate to legitimate charities suggested by fellow Niketalkers ?
I can't PROMISE that we'll be able to donate to such and such a charity, but we'd be more than happy to entertain any suggestions that you or any of our fellow members have to offer.

At some point, we may take a bunch of nominations for charities, from that we'll choose maybe 5 or so, and then open it up to a vote from there.
 
Great Job. I'm glad we're using this money for good uses than just making a profit. Who knows, NikeTalk may be able to change the world... :lol:
laugh.gif

-Nealraj006
 
Wow.. Im just now noticing this thread and I am glad that I did. I dont usually click the ads but I may have to start.

Great read btw Meth, and I like the idea of members suggesting charities etc and the staff using one voted on by us. Great chance for unity
[/center]
 
I think we should donate to the Boys and Girls Club. I woule predict atleast half of the membership has used servises provided by this chairity.
<<<<<<<<<<BAYAREA>>>>>>>>>
 
Archive this Fam-o
[/b]
I'm that N!!!
The Rest Of Y'all Just Extra Regular!!!​
 
The games are sometimes kinda hard though like one time dig for the crystal but there are two miners and the one on the right has a head start :wow:
eek.gif
then you have to catch up
of Zu, Purple Butterfly, Jasmine Women, The Road Home, The Banquet (Coming Soon FALL 06)and her small role in Rush Hour 2 :smile:.
 
Back
Top Bottom