i get its all or nothing right now....& im sure most of the members also get that & are 1000% ok with that BUT the wrinkle we are asking for isnt that hard to get but it also wont come instantly because "5-6"(its actually much more than that but regardless) said they want it
i honestly do get it but you cant expect all feedback to be positive or in the light you agree with....after all thats what the forum is about
How do you know it "isnt that hard to get?" That's an assumption. It's not like "spoiler" is an attribute fixed to the image, so it's easy for the system to distinguish between hidden images and standard images. So, what you actually have is a fairly complex problem and I think it's worth asking whether that problem is SO important that it supersedes the development of everything else that we - or any other Huddler community - might need. That's a tough case to make. We need mobile, first and foremost, but we'd also like to make progress in a number of other areas as well.
I could sit here and say, "oh yeah, we'll add that to the list", and we can, but I don't want to create any unrealistic expectations. It's not a major priority and I wouldn't expect it to be addressed anytime soon. There are simply too many things that take precedence and development time is limited. If this feature is currently 90% of what we'd all love for it to be, but mobile is at 0%, what's more important? It'll have to wait.
I have no problem with feedback in and of itself. It's not like I'm DELETING it or preventing you from presenting it. Just don't expect it to go unchallenged, particularly if the opinion/attitude is an unfair one.
Case in point...
Please show us all these unfair and unrealistic criticism of ads. The only problem all NT members have had with the ads is the placement. Not the "mere existence" no matter how much you try to spin it. I used NT from my join date to the date we moved to this format without ever using adblock. I never cared about the ads and I understood why we had them.
Again, I get why you want what you want, but you could make the same case for just about every other site on the Internet. These days, it's hard to find a content based site of any significance that
doesn't have some kind of a frame/module system.
We're serving more content per page than we used to. That means we need to compensate by serving one or two additional ads per page. You can just stack them all at the top of the screen so it's easier to ignore them. Sponsors don't pay money to have their ads blocked and ignored. We're working very hard to improve the ads, so it isn't just auto-generated garbage but incorporates products and services that are relevant to our users' interests. Unless you're willing to pay a subscription to remove the ads, the site has to be ad supported. For the site to be ad supported, the ads have to
perform.
I liked Pandora more when there were no audio ads, but I understand the economics of it and I realize that I can choose to pay the premium subscription or use a different service. Asking them to take down all the ads and give me unlimited skips is silly. I also know that conventional ads won't work well on that site - even intrusive "takeover" ads that dominate the entire page - because it's too each to just leave it in an open tab and avoid looking at it.
We have a similar challenge. We have forum regulars who are trained to ignore ads in certain areas. Ads on the old site were poorly implemented. They appeared in dead space.
The average post is not a full article. In many cases, it's not even a full
sentence. So, what you have is dead space vertically because each post is guaranteed to take up a set amount of vertical pixels due to the avatar and user information contained in the postbit. It's inefficient.
The old ads had ONE square unit centered in the middle of the screen horizontally near the top of the page vertically. That's a TON of dead space. Terrible implementation.
You move that unit to the right side, the margins change to create more efficient use of space for the average post while at the same time:
1) Positioning ads to a place where they're more likely to be viewed and clicked.
2) Allowing us to serve an extra ad per page to offset the additional content per page and the additional costs associated with a premium platform/hosting service.
What you want is not cost feasible, so you've resorted to stealing.
Again, that's like me deciding that I don't like Pandora's audio ads and, instead of paying the subscription fee, just resorting to some hack to try and steal the service for free. That's unfair.
I understand what you want, but it's not much different than a NikeTalk user in 2006 asking why we can't go back to an ad free service.
We have a very strong track record when it comes to putting our fellow users FIRST. I'm not exposing you to anything that I'm not exposing myself to as a NikeTalk user. I load the ads on every page even though I have the option to do otherwise.
But what this whole thread is about, before you went off topio was the option to have the image box removed. How is that unrealistic or unfair? With or without ads, there are people that don't use adblock who don't like it and want it disabled. But of course you're not going to give us the option to choose so I'll answer that for you too. "You're in the minority so we're not going to cater to you. You WILL like it, because I said so. Deal with it."
I don't think it's unfair to ask users to give it a TRY before they decide they don't like it. Again, it occupies dead space for almost all users. If they don't like it, they don't have to click it. Your experience is different because you're stealing the site and you expect me to care that your
stolen views are less pleasurable than they once were?
Yeah, I'll get right on it.
though
