Comments on: Comments on 3137

Post number 3137

crunchland — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:47:43 -0800

Metafilter, brought to you by Pepsi Blue.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:03:54 -0800

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:07:33 -0800

I'd like to know, as a matter of interest, how many of you oh-so-shocked-by-evil-commerce bloggers would actually turn down advertising. Or money. And that's considering the overwhelming majority don't put up a community service that's actually used or put in the necessary time and effort to keep it up.

Also, among the media you read and watch, just how many are advertisement-free.

I love the Internet - but what freeloaders most of you are!

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:12:21 -0800

All right, Miguel, how much did Matt pay to place that ad with you???

No, seriously, though. Just keep the ads non-intrusive and I think everybody'll get used to them. It's just "right-pricing" the service.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:13:36 -0800

I hate ads in general, but the text ads are OK. The ones in the threads, however, are really intrusive and annoying.

Miguel, you made your point four times in the previous thread. Fine, you like ads. Now move away from the podium and let the other kids talk.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:15:18 -0800

I'm not shocked by ads - I'm shocked how long it's actually taken Matt to say 'the hell with it' and capitalize on his no-doubt monster pageviews - but I would in fact turn down advertising on my paltry little site, were I asked. And kick the ass of whoever offered it as they headed out the door. Fuck them.

My forlorn feeling is that Matt has just given up on this place, and these ads are a manifestation of that weariness. 'If I can't love it, I might as well make a few bucks for expenses from it,' I imagine him saying.

Not having heard anything from him about it yet, I feel free to daydream.

[/stalker]

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:16:24 -0800

I know they're disruptive on the blue pages, I've been talking to google and hopefully they'll be allowing custom colors soon, as I'd prefer to go with the sidebar colors from the front page on them throughout the site.

If you switch to the plain-text version of metafilter, the ads are perfectly fine and easier to ignore. Or use Netscape 4, which for some reason doesn't display them at all (I think due to it using an IFRAME).

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:22:16 -0800

Or use Netscape 4,

Matt, have you gone crazy? Is that your problem? ;-)

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:28:40 -0800

My forlorn feeling is that Matt has just given up on this place, and these ads are a manifestation of that weariness. 'If I can't love it, I might as well make a few bucks for expenses from it,' I imagine him saying.

On many days in the past I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but I realized a few weeks back the site really has brought a lot of great people together, gotten a lot of great content online, and has helped me out professionally immensely. I sort of stopped self-hating the site and work it requires to keep afloat after that realization.

When the site is down, there's nothing like it to replace it (at least for me), and I've been enjoying the contributions the past couple weeks, especially the great posts that have nothing to do with iraq, and even some of the major war-related posts (note I said major, as in not just a tiny new thing that popped up on CNN.com when you refreshed it).

As we head towards four years of this site, I realized I can't keep it up forever as is. I can keep a personal blog up for the rest of my life, but metafilter requires quite a bit more attention, and I knew getting some money to offset the costs of my time and hardware was one way of ensuring that it'll keep going. When google asked me if was game for it, I weighed all the drawbacks: the "selling out", the look of more textads, some members protesting, etc, against finally getting some sort of steady financial support to keep the site alfoat longer than I would have originally. I also considered who was asking me: it's Google fer chrissakes, and it's just textads (I signed contracts that ensure there will never be anything but text in the ads). I trust Google, and although the contrast on the ads is pretty high, they're not as instrusive as other forms of online advertising.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that community projects can't go on for free, forever (see also: Daypop, the mirror project, fark, slashdot, and just about every other big community site). You have a lot of users sharing a common resource that requires much in the way of processing, bandwidth, and adminstration, and sometimes the "evils" of advertising offer support.

So yeah, the site's definitely turned a corner tonight, though I see a lot of open road ahead, instead of the brick wall waiting at the dead end we were heading for.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:34:30 -0800

Matt, it's cool with me. Rock on, brother.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:36:32 -0800

Fuckin' A, that was very well said, Matt. Full steam ahead. (I'm gonna stop short of saying "let's roll", 'cuz then I'd just have to cause myself physical harm.) Seriously, change is inevitable, to struggle is an option. I'll deal with the ads, rather than deal with silence.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:39:34 -0800

Is MeFi Pro still in the works?

By: gluechunk

gluechunk — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:39:57 -0800

hey, metatalk is still ad-free so let's all camp out here!

By: gleuschk

gleuschk — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:51:34 -0800

Or use Netscape 4

HA! Vindication!

Seriously, Matt, good for you -- not only for turning the corner, but for being smart and straight-headed about it.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:09:01 -0800

Um, matt ... I'm still logged in on MeTa, but I can't log in on MeFi. Just to let you know if this is a problem others might be having or anything.

And I totally understand about the need to run ads!

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:15:49 -0800

That should be fixed now, yhbc.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:24:51 -0800

Fixed, matt; thanks.

By: waldo

waldo — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:34:13 -0800

On Safari, when I view a thread, I get the word "ADVERTISEMENT" centered, in ~12pt text, and then a long sidebar that's left aligned, and probably 800 pixels tall. There is nothing to the right of the ad -- just lots and lots of blue. At the end of the ad, again, I get "ADVERTISEMENT" centered again, and then, below that, the thread runs normally.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:34:42 -0800

in fact, in the Lite version of the site, it's the local ads that are actually more jarring, since they stay blue and green.

how many of you oh-so-shocked-by-evil-commerce bloggers would actually turn down advertising

um, I would, on my personal site. People try to get me to shill for stuff on librarian.net all the darned time. But this isn't a personal site, it's a community site and a community resource and as far as I'm concerned whatever keeps Matt from having to really sell out at some crappy desk job to afford more bandwidth, then I'm all for it. Nice going, Matt.

By: hama7

hama7 — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:37:36 -0800

Maybe it's just me, but can't the ads be at the bottom of the threads, like after the trackback things?

I'm getting this enormous gap of blue (with ads to the left) before the comments. Not that it's bad, I mean I could always think about Ghandi or the Pope or how my index finger carpal tunnel is functioning perfectly as I'm scrolling lazily down a wide blue field. With ads.

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:40:33 -0800

to really sell out at some crappy desk job

I hear that...

By: gwint

gwint — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:40:37 -0800

The white background is definitely a bummer-- the ads stick out much more than they would on google itself-- in fact, now that i've checked, text ads on google use a background color-- let's hope that feature shows up soon here.

That said, it's a far cry from an X10 popup.

Oh, also, the first time I saw one on the home page, the ad was for Operation Iraqi Freedom pins. I thought it was an early April Fools joke.

By: waldo

waldo — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:41:23 -0800

With the ads on the right-hand side of the screen, I no longer get the big blue gap in Safari.

By: UKnowForKids

UKnowForKids — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:43:35 -0800

Any user who bitches about ads deserves a booting, a la those wacky Aussies from the Simpsons' trip to Oz. I'm happy to see you make a few more dimes a month off of this site, Matt. (But I do hope that you're able to change the color of the ads...)

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:44:37 -0800

Matt,

I'd be willing to pay to have no ads appear on my view. I am sure there may be others. I know what I'd be willing to pay but its probably best not to say it out loud.

What does (revenue from google ads per month/# of active users)*10 come out to?

(If you do do something like this, I suggest there be no way for a user to tell whether another user is a 'paying' user so as not to incite the inevitable social divisions)

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:58:20 -0800

I'd like to know, as a matter of interest, how many of you oh-so-shocked-by-evil-commerce bloggers would actually turn down advertising. Or money.

i've been offered a great deal of money from various porn companies to outright buy katgyrl.com, and i've always been approached by other co's wanting to advertise on that same domain, and i've always said no thanks.

that being said i have no prob with the ads but don't think it's unreasonable to mention that the blinding white is, well, blinding me. it seems to be a really pale shade of grey now tho', or am i going crazy...? anyway, i'll get used to the ads since there's so much more to pay attn to around here than that alone.

By: mblandi

mblandi — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:01:27 -0800

I think the hover-over-link/URL-display (I don't know the term for it) functionality would be good for the link in the ads if that is possible. I guess the mystery lures you in, but I wouldn't want to waste time on something I already know about. I'm on Mozilla-OSX in case it is supposed to be there, but isn't.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:03:41 -0800

Two thumbs up. Make some money on this monster. Hell yes. And if you charged a small subscription for a "no ad" version I'll bet you could make more.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:05:31 -0800

(If you do do something like this, I suggest there be no way for a user to tell whether another user is a 'paying' user so as not to incite the inevitable social divisions)

Well, I see somebody is still sitting at the little kids table.... Oh? Yes, I'll have wee bit more, thank you.... *sound of ice cubes in glass, carbonation*

on the serious tip, it's fine with me and certainly no sign of decay.

By: samuelad

samuelad — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:08:28 -0800

Matt, may you get filthy rich and keep MeFi alive for a long, long time.

By: taz

taz — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:11:47 -0800

I'm reassured by the ads. It gives me the sense that the site won't be disappearing any time soon, and relieves a bit of the guilt trip.

By: scottymac

scottymac — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:19:21 -0800

It's all good, Matt. You have made a valuable contribution to the web, and deserve some recompense.

By: samuelad

samuelad — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:20:59 -0800

Taz, why feel guilty when you can donate?

By: mkn

mkn — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:46:45 -0800

Those ads are pretty damned smart. I go into hama7's thread about maps and mapping, and the ads, surely enough, were about mapping products.

By: skallas

skallas — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:56:06 -0800

No complaints from me (arguably one of the most militant web ad blockers out there) because text ads are simply easy on the eyes and don't ruin the site in terms of usability, readabilty, and "god-damn-popup-ability." I can't even read a NYTimes article without going into printer friendly mode anymore. Its like trying to read a book while surrounded by strobe-lights and strange disembodied voices yelling, "BUY THIS BOOK," "REFINANCE YOUR HOME," "TUNE IN TO CNN TONIGHT" over and over.

As long as we don't migrate to animated color ASCII art everyone should be more or less content.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:56:31 -0800

I dunno what I'd charge for no ads, if it'd be a monthly thing ($1-2 bucks?), or a one-time thing ($5-10) to never see one again.

If you're still seeing a weird layout, try reloading the updated stylesheet and viewing the site again.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:02:36 -0800

Whatever it takes to keep it all lumbering along, Matt. Thanks for all your time and trouble.

By: riffola

riffola — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:18:20 -0800

Matt, if I may be so bold as to suggest, how about $25 a year for no ads, and the ability to search comments on the search pages?

By: Bootcut

Bootcut — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:19:08 -0800

I agree with jokeefe. We're lucky to have Matt and His Creation, and who knows, maybe an ad will direct you to something useful? Let's try to be supportive, people.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:42:30 -0800

So yeah, the site's definitely turned a corner tonight, though I see a lot of open road ahead, instead of the brick wall waiting at the dead end we were heading for.

That's great news, Matt. I'm genuinely glad to hear it's not weary acceptance of defeat but a vision for the future that's the driver for change.

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:47:23 -0800

stavros you fool. I was this close to buying the site for fifty dollars and one year of free massages.

If I had my way it would be all porno all the time.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 01:02:10 -0800

*cries*

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:21:25 -0800

I've never agreed with everybody before.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:39:43 -0800

127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:40:29 -0800

c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts, here I come!

By: raaka

raaka — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:44:59 -0800

I don't mind the ads at all because I've already got them blocked. Who knew when I started sticking it to the man the man would be Google and Matt?

By: raaka

raaka — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:49:03 -0800

I guess I wasn't the first.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:23:48 -0800

On many days in the past I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but I realized a few weeks back the site really has brought a lot of great people together, gotten a lot of great content online, and has helped me out professionally immensely. I sort of stopped self-hating the site and work it requires to keep afloat after that realization.

that's really good to hear (in a completely non-snarky way). it's been kind-of weird at times using the site when it was clear that the owner felt somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing (especially when it was obvious that it was a big success). thanks for all the work.

incidentally, privoxy isn't blocking the ads (whatever version is in default debian, at any rate). yet ;-)

By: SuzySmith

SuzySmith — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:31:13 -0800

I think the ads are well worth dealing with to keep this place going. I was lost, lost, I say, this weekend without it. Metafilter is the first site I hit everyday.

The bright white, though? A wee bit glaring compared to the normal colors.

By: sebas

sebas — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 04:52:27 -0800

You can enjoy an ad-free frontpage at www.met4filter.org if you'd like to.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:28:57 -0800

"if it'd be a monthly thing ($1-2 bucks?)"

That sounds about right. I'd prefer to pay per year.

One worry is that if you are getting money for subscriptions and/or impressions it increases the motivation to open new memberships. Personally I feel we could accommodate new members right now. Just saying.......

Also, we've been hearing more people talking about creating customized, parsed versions of the site via screen scraping. If someone wants to parse out one thing (say to facilitate a kill file, or a word filter) it's just as easy to leave out the ads at the same time. Thoughts? Is this legal? Will people get in trouble for doing things like this?

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:32:45 -0800

Textads are perfectly harmless.

Matt. it's about time you made some money off this place. Enjoy!

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 05:50:00 -0800

After all this hype I'm not seeing any ads. :(

IE5, so that could be my problem. Whatever... I'll pull through somehow.

By: darainwa

darainwa — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:14:55 -0800

While I don't mind the textads, I hate the google ads. As for paying to get rid of the them, how soon can this happen? The new ads are quite the distraction (to me at least) and I'd gladly pay $1-2/month (or more) to have the old metafilter back.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:26:58 -0800

And if you charged a small subscription for a "no ad" version I'll bet you could make more.

Except that would reduce the "eyeballs" for the ads. Are google paying per view? You might need to do some juggling to get that to work out.

By: mkelley

mkelley — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:21:36 -0800

I wish there was some way to customize the Google ads like you can customize the CSS version of BlogAds. I looked at the JavaScript rendering the ads, but I see nothing to hook via CSS.

And to those who are against the ads or who are blocking them, donate.

By: mark13

mark13 — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:33:02 -0800

Seriously, how many of you would actually pay for an ad free Metafilter?

I doubt there's that many of you. Talk is very cheap.

I have no problem with text ads since they're so easy to ignore. I haven't clicked on an ad banner since 1997 or so. I just tune them out. As long as things don't progress to Flash ads and multiple pop up obnoxiousness, I'll be happy.

By: thunder

thunder — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:41:08 -0800

First, because I'm on a really slow dial-up, I usually browse sites like MeFi with images turned off. Text Ads show up fine - yesterday the GoogleAds showed up as a blank white box, but now it's just the word ADVERTISEMENT. FYI.

Second, Matt, thanks for keeping metafilter going!

Third, I hope I'm not going to get stoned here for suggesting a SLIGHT design adjustment? Something so that the text ads AND google ads (hopefully with their soon-to-be-available-please-GOD color customization option) seem more a part of the site than tacked on? They aren't TOO bad on the front page (whiteness aside), although it's strange to see them in such different formats - makes it seem more cluttered and incidental that way. And maybe there's a way of integrating both kinds of ads in the HEADING section of the subpages (why not do TextAds there too, now that GoogleAds are there) or SOMETHING so that the ads aren't just stuck out there on the right looking obvious but forlorn. Maybe we can hold a little 'integrate the ads' design competition that keeps MeFi looking MeFi still, but smoother?

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:43:46 -0800

Seriously, how many of you would actually pay for an ad free Metafilter?

I would. 10 bucks? I just spent that on lunch. Some things are still extremely inexpensive for what you get, and Metafilter will always be one of them.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:43:47 -0800

for what it's worth, I've worked up a mockup of how I'd ideally like to display them, and am sending this off to google: screenshot

By: gwint

gwint — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:50:18 -0800

Seriously, how many of you would actually pay for an ad free Metafilter?
I doubt there's that many of you. Talk is very cheap.

Well, if you go to the donate page, there are something like 50 names there, but it looks like the list hasn't been updated in about a year-- I know because I donated a long time ago and I ain't there. Anyway, point being that I imagine there are at least a few hundred people that have already proven they would pay for an ad free metafilter. I'm certainly one of them.

By: thunder

thunder — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:52:55 -0800

Thanks for the screenshot, Matt! That's something I could DEFINITELY live with, and maybe even appreciate. Amazing with a little background color can do! :-)

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:54:06 -0800

"Seriously, how many of you would actually pay for an ad free Metafilter?"

[raises hand]

I suspect you are right. But I also believe strongly in supporting things I actually use, even if I can get them for free. Public radio works this way. Shareware works this way.

And don't forget that there are tons of value add things Matt could do here to make a subscription worth more than just a "feel good" proposition.

"there are something like 50 names there"

If I remember correctly, you had to let Matt know you wanted to be added or you didn't get on the list.

By: thunder

thunder — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:55:02 -0800

WHAT a little background color.... forget spell check, I need a brain check today....

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:56:53 -0800

127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com

How can you defend your continued use of this site when you have intentionally crippled Matt's ability to pay for his expenses and his time?

As someone who runs his own community site, you know how much it takes, financially and physically, to keep it going. As shown by your donation whoring -- I don't think I've ever seen a poor-me-webmaster beg on a site that's larger than the 450-by-175 banner on your main page.

To see you bypass ads here and encourage others to do the same is amazing. I hope that you and the other ungrateful sponges will find some other site that passes your commercial purity test, rather than helping each other relegate Matt to indentured servitude.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:10:59 -0800

Seriously, how many of you would actually pay for an ad free Metafilter?

Me. I'm not on that list but I paid, thanks. I also bought text-ads a number of times, and I'll always support those things which have actual value for me, regardless of whether or not that support is mandatory. I totally reject the imputation that disliking advertisements is synonymous with wanting a free ride. It's not even a demonstrably logical conclusion, never mind being way off base from personal experience.

Matt: those ads display really badly in IE 5.5. About half a mile of screen real estate before I can even see the thread link, never mind comments. Someone else mentioned this problem for another browser, but I'm too lazy to track down their comment in the five minutes before my journey home. The screenshot version would be fine: it would be no more or less intrusive than the ads on a google search, which I'll even admit to clicking where relevant.

On preview, I'm considering blocking those ads, rcade, because they currently make the site irritating to look at. I won't stop supporting mefi though, whenever I can afford it and as long as it's still worth a read. I don't appreciate your blanket insults at all. You would probably resent people going to the toilet during an advertising break on television, no?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:11:11 -0800

Hey, I never said that matt shouldn't try any means to get money where he can. His amazon page off his own donation page shows he's collected over $5500 from us. That includes a donation from me, too. I've also given him about $100 in text ad revenue myself.

Give your fucking high horse a rest.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:13:22 -0800

ahem (courtesy mathowie)

By: TimeFactor

TimeFactor — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:16:54 -0800

I couldn't figure out why I wasn't seeing the ads - it wasn't anything in my hosts file. Matt hinted at it and the .js source confirmed it - I have IFRAMES disabled in Opera. My experience is that IFRAMES=things blinking and yelling at me so I turned them off. (But I'm not seeing them in IE6 either and I still haven't figured that one out - there doesn't seem to be an obvious IFRAME disable in IE). So now I'm torn - re-enable IFRAMES and let MetaFilter get the revenue it needs and deserves or keep them disabled and avoid the blinking and the yelling (on other sites)? Maybe I should just switch to Lynx.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:20:44 -0800

furthermore, my "instructions" were obscure enough so that only the most saavy would know how to use them.

If Matt can get some revenue from those google ads, good for him. I can say that I would never have clicked on one of them, so my not seeing them isn't going to deprive him of anything. I daresay that anyone who would follow my "instructions" would also not be likely to click on the ads.

In another metatalk thread, there's talk of people thinking about selling their user id's. On the same day that Matt introduces Google ads. Why do you suppose that is? Because they're fed up with the server downtime? Or maybe it's because they feel that Matt has finally sold us all out.

If my exhaustive guide to hax0ring means that one or two long-time users stick around metafilter a while longer, to post the fascinating messages that bring all the lurkers out of the woodwork, that drive those high refresh rates that expose them to the invasive google ads, then I have no troubles with my actions.

By: riffola

riffola — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:25:40 -0800

I'll gladly pay $5 per month for MeFi, I've donated accordingly last year, and if he can change the colour of the ads, I'll pay and opt to let the ads display.

By: Su

Su — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:38:16 -0800

#textad2 > div {display : none;}

You don't see anything. Google still sees an ad impression. Personally, I don't think it's worth the effort.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:41:05 -0800

"Why do you suppose that is?"

Pure silliness? People are talking about selling their id for no good reason other than they feel chatty. Try not to be so defensive. Who gives a rats ass? People are free to block TV ads by switching the channel, free to block radio ads by turning the volume down, free to block text ads by editing their hosts file. Big deal.

People block ads across all media. It's expected behavior.

People who want to give Matt money will, and have always, found a way to do that. People who want to block ads will, and have always, found a way to do that. The only difference now is that Matt might get more money from the "use but not pay" crowd.

It's a freakin' win win people. What the hell? Why are we arguing and calling people names over this?

By: jonson

jonson — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:52:43 -0800

I am once again in complete agreement with y6y6y6... a sure sign of the apocalypse.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:54:17 -0800

With your record, it really makes me smile to see you take the mitigative route y6³. No insult intended.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:05:49 -0800

I actually liked the text ads, which I would read when I had read pretty much everything else, just to see if there was anything of interest.

But I am not so crazy about the new advertisements. The white block really looks like the most important element on the page. The imbedded, moving flash ads the Times uses are less obtrusive.

What was wrong with the old text ad format?

Or, here's an experiment, I really liked that Matt presents a link to all textads. I figure that the people that advertise there have something they want to promote to the MeFi audience, so sometimes I'll look.

What if the ads were just linked to? You might still get great click-throughs, and that's all that really matters.

Or - couldn't they just be treated like the text ads? Or could they be tagged somehow (I'm not sure how trackback works) to appear at the end of related threads?

Btw, I personally am glad that you are making some money, or at least not losing any!

Max

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:08:44 -0800

I've worked up a mockup of how I'd ideally like to display them

Nice! I assume there will be a version of these for the Lite stylesheet as well?

and FWIW, I donated and I'll donate again, and I may exercise my prerogative to block the Google ads as well. It's the slow loading that gets me, plus all the identical Amazon links, and cloying ad-text. Or maybe I'll block them on one computer and not the other. It seems like a pretty reasonable personal choice for people to make - to see or not to see - if you ask me, if they're already contributing in other ways.

By: Su

Su — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:09:59 -0800

Matt, what about using the CSS selector above, or an ID on your container DIV, to try and force styling on the ads?
Assuming it wouldn't be some sort of breach of contract, of course. Unfortunately, I'm figuring it is.

In the end, though, Y6 is right. The attitude of everything on the net being free is really tired. You deal with commercials of some form in every single other media outlet you encounter. Those exceptions that don't take commercials generally take donations. When the donations don't add up to enough funding, they either die, or decide to take advertising.
Ergo: You brought this on yourselves, really.

The ads are small, don't flash, move, hijack your browser, etc. You couldn't ask for much more. The color situation is being worked on, but it isn't going to kill anyone. If your browser has problems displaying them, upgrade it; the ads don't make the site unreadable, your browser does. If you can't upgrade, then bitch at your lazy/hidebound admin. If it has a "b" on the end of the version number, you shouldn't be complaining here, but most likely there. And if you simply must block, you've been given two mechanisms so far, one of which should do absolutely no damage to Matt's revenue from the advertising, assuming it's based on views, not clicks. Win win...win.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:18:01 -0800

rcade:I hope that you and the other ungrateful sponges will find some other site that passes your commercial purity test, rather than helping each other relegate Matt to indentured servitude.

crunchland:Give your fucking high horse a rest.

y2karl - Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:28:35 -0800

You would probably resent people going to the toilet during an advertising break on television, no?

Missing an occasional commercial is not the same thing as automatically skipping all of them.

Hey, I never said that matt shouldn't try any means to get money where he can.

I considered your "Pepsi Blue" crack to be a criticism of his new ads.

However, if you have no problem with his effort to commercialize the site, why are you making it more difficult for him to do that? Your response about making a donation and buying text ads shows that you know this site costs money to run. Yet you're actively working to deprive him of a significant source of revenue.

Even though you're pitching in, and I compliment you for that, encouraging other people to sponge is a shitty thing to do.

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:37:33 -0800

"it really makes me smile to see you take the mitigative route y63"

Well, this really pissed me off. Like, lay in bed fuming all night pissed off. So now I feel the need to prove the fucking asshole wrong. I'll be nothing but a polite little toad from now on. That will show the bastard.

Ummm..... Starting now I guess. Right.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:43:00 -0800

One last comment: People keep comparing this to skipping commercials in a mass medium, but it's a ludicrous comparison when you consider that Metafilter is a site run by one guy.

There's a one-to-one relationship here that's a lot closer in nature to party host-and-partygoer than corporation-and-consumer. To me, intentionally blocking these ads is like showing up for party after party at someone's house and never, ever pitching in to pay for the beer.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:46:15 -0800

This was a good decision, Matt. I support you fully in any endeavor that keeps MetaFilter up and available.
Thanks.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:53:40 -0800

Good for you, Matt, and good for us!

Your point about "nothing to replace it" is true - warts and all, good days and bad, it's a damn fine site. And it's only right that some of the time you've contributed should be compensated. I am delighted to learn this gives MeFi a renewed lease on life.

By: mattpfeff

mattpfeff — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:55:29 -0800

You would probably resent people going to the toilet during an advertising break on television, no?

Blocking ads on a website is entirely different. Each view or use of a website costs the publisher money or time (for maintenance, in this case), whereas watching TV ads no incremental cost; and not watching or not watching a commercial has no effect on a TV station's actual revenue, whereas blocking an ad prevents a website's publisher from earning any revenue, because he/she only get paid per advertisement view.

(I once wrote up my thoughts on this, here. I think I even still agree with me.)

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:06:11 -0800

you are assuming matt is getting paid per view, which, based on the advertising rates listed over on google, is highly unlikely.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:06:37 -0800

Missing an occasional commercial is not the same thing as automatically skipping all of them.

You're right. But I do automatically switch off, or do something else during adverts. If I am rarely distracted by one, I find afterwards that I can describe perfectly what happened in the advert, but can almost never tell someone sitting next to me just what product was advertised. It's as if my mind, having been told often enough that it's all bullshit, will just scrub it out of my memory. It's rather useful, except when I want one of those thingummyjigs.

I never, but never, read adverts in the newspaper. I would stop reading at all if they made them more intrusive, and in fact I rarely read paper media these days simply from the strain of carrying them all around with me. Web adverts suffer similarly, except if they are too intrusive I'm liable to just close the page in a fit of pique, often accompanied by swearwords. It's the distraction I resent. Google ads (like these ones) are less likely to give me a brain hemorrhage, because they may actually have some relevance to why I'm reading the flaming thing in the first place.

Mattpfeff: don't forget that it costs me money to download them too. I can be choosy how I spend my money, and if advertisers are still stupid enough to believe in broadcasting via a narrowcast medium, that's their lookout.
Make it discrete and relevant and I won't be interested in blocking it: I'll even "click through" sometimes.

By: machaus

machaus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:19:42 -0800

Question for Matt:

If we wanted to buy adwords through google, could we specify that our ads only appear on MeFi, or are you lumped in with other web properties?

If not, will Google work with you on this?

I much prefer their "pay per clickthrough" to the impressions model of the textads.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:07:15 -0800

If we wanted to buy adwords through google, could we specify that our ads only appear on MeFi, or are you lumped in with other web properties?

I have no idea. I think you just allow your normal ad to run through their content partner network, then if your keywords come up on them (whether that's metafilter or howstuffworks.com or blogspot), it'll be displayed. I don't think they do site-by-site basis advertising.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:11:48 -0800

Is the keyword search on a thread by thread basis? I've noticed some threads appear to get more than others.

By: dg

dg — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:05:10 -0800

*breaths sigh of relief that MeFi has been given a reprieve*

Late to the part as usual, but I want to chime in and support those who are supporting the (barely) commercial route that mathowie has taken. When MeFi went down recently, I was too busy to search around and find out what had happened, but had this niggling fear in the back of my head that mathowie had finally had enough and pulled the plug. Everything evolves and grows during its life and a web community is no different - the ads are hardly obtrusive compared to the majority of portal-type sites and, unless a subscription or something similar was introduced to ensure that the users pay for the cost of the site, this is a perfect solution. How much better can it get than having MetaFilter for free and have someone else paying the bills?

For some reason, I only ever get one ad at the top of a white space on the right hand side, rather than the list of ads on mathowie's screen shot. Is that because of my high user number?

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:24:35 -0800

dg: I only see one ad in the white space as well (on both the front page and thread views), and my user number is 482.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:28:39 -0800

dg: dunno if it was clear, but I'm broadly supportive too. I have seen one, two or summat like five ads segregating that white space so far, and am expecting that it's all down to those keyword shenanigans. The machine-like logic of searching being what it is, I have my suspicions that sometimes those keywords will sometimes provide ads 180 degrees opposed to the content, but am personally looking forward to the occasional juxtaposition.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:29:04 -0800

The number of ads appear to have to do with the words on teh screen, and the number of advertisers paying for words.

The product-oriented threads have 5-6 ads for me, while some of the general ones only have a single ad for non-profits.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:37:43 -0800

Gee, (he said, knowing full well that competition would surely ensue) I wonder what product or combination of products mentioned in a thread would result in the most ads?

By: willnot

willnot — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:40:48 -0800

Is it keywords in any comment or just the thread itself? I would assume it's searching keywords based on a parse of the XML feed which would be just the thread's main post right?

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:46:26 -0800

I'm trying to figure out how my Blode post got an ad for Star Wars toys.
Possibly the word "Attack" triggered something related to "Attack of the Clones"?
The mind wobbles.

By: Su

Su — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:50:54 -0800

A new form of meta-bitch?
Can we kill this now, please? There are some very few times where this might actually add something to a thread, but in general, it's just going to be derailing.

By: Mack Twain

Mack Twain — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:27:52 -0800

"To me, intentionally blocking these ads is like showing up for party after party at someone's house and never, ever pitching in to pay for the beer"...To me, we got these ads because thousands upon thousands showed up at Metafilter and never paid their way. Predicts imminent demise of the free lunch.

By: metrocake

metrocake — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:51:53 -0800

I think the ads are a good thing, and the best thing that Matt could have done. Donations, while good, are generally sporadic and not steady. GoogleAds sound like they're a steady source of revenue, and, while the color isn't great, they're not popups or pop-unders, they don't blink or make sounds, they're not some Flash ad landing in the middle of the screen with a 2-point "x" you need a magnifying glass to see just to close the damned thing, and we know, because Matt has it in his contract, that they won't become any of the aforementioned any time soon.

So -- :: mad applause ::

Go you, Matt.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:52:50 -0800

I'm trying to figure out how my Blode post got an ad for Star Wars toys.

I think was the phrase "episode 1...episode 2..." that set it off.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:21:25 -0800

why are we talking about this ?
its not as if we were going be consulted or anything.
If your'e short of cash matt, may i suggest starting pornfilter ?

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:26:12 -0800

*anticipates a perverse little game which consists in wording your post in a way that befuddles Google completely. Theoretically, the grand prize could be no adverts at all. Incremental negative points would be awarded for every advert over one; but positive points for non-profit ones.

Those of us who don't donate should at least lend our eyeballs and ocasionally click. We should also remember, imo, how much we already owe Google. Google is our friend. Now doubly so.

P.S. I never thought Americans were so adept at ruining what should have been a party.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:27:13 -0800

If your'e short of cash matt, may i suggest starting pornfilter ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:21 PM PST on March 26

I have my first 100 FPPs lined up ...

By: KiloHeavy

KiloHeavy — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:27:41 -0800

I'd be fine with metafilter even if it looked like MSNBC. Just please no pop ups, pop unders, pop overs, whatever.

The only problem I'm having with mefi lately is the rabid leftism. It's just seriously unbalanced and annoyingly self-congratulatory.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:53:11 -0800

If your'e short of cash matt, may i suggest starting pornfilter ?

It already exists, kinda, run by one of our very own here at MeFi. I can't say more, or I'd have to kill you.

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:53:42 -0800

"Seriously, how many of you would actually pay for an ad free Metafilter?"

Why not, I already pay for an ad-free Slashdot.

By: jonson

jonson — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:54:43 -0800

KiloHeavy - well said - and I'm generally left leaning. The overwhelmingly self righteous tone of the relatively anonymous leftist posters on Mefi is pushing me further right every day. Of course, the same could be said for the far right on Mefi, but there are so far and away fewer, they are easier to ignore. The left really set the tone here.

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:58:49 -0800

why are we talking about this ?

...because we can?

I mean seriously, where are we, and what are we doing?

By: benjh

benjh — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:01:35 -0800

It takes a lot of money and resources to run a service like MetaFilter. I've been wanting to launch a project of my own, but the cost of gettig things going is just rediculous, between servers and bandwidth and worrying about h@x0rs l33t DOSing your server. I say more power to Matt.

(Some mentioned pop-ups. Do those things even still work? Every browser I use includes a pop-up blocker built in.)

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:09:47 -0800

A new form of meta-bitch?

like the baby-stroller ad appearing next to the "killed your wife" thread...? Matt may just need to add another MeTa category "those durn google ad juxtapositions!"

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:12:17 -0800

The overwhelmingly self righteous tone of the relatively anonymous leftist posters on Mefi is pushing me further right every day

Dammit, jonson - how I envy you. It's had the opposite effect on me. I must be too influenciável - vulnerable/gullible/porous. I started off as a resolute conservative but MetaFilter has slowly been turning me into a raging liberal. Seriously. I once blamed fold_and_mutilate, stav the wonder, quonsar and the other irresponsible agents provocateurs, but now I blame precisely those brave anonymous leftists who chime in at the worst times, disconnecting my principles from my thoughts...

Here's hoping we cancel eachother out, my friend!

By: benjh

benjh — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:26:32 -0800

Off-Topic: Since I mentioned it, if anyone knows where I can host a metafilter-like web site, which will have no where near the bandwidth this does, please e-mail me. Thnx. :-)

By: yhbc

yhbc — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:57:47 -0800

* slips the wonderchicken a shiny new quarter *

* also buys him a drink *

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:26:38 -0800

Neat! A shiny thing and a drink! I'm in my happy place!

By: jonson

jonson — Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:37:51 -0800

Here's hoping we cancel each other out, my friend!

Migs, as we are clearly the same person (pointed out here and here), I imagine we do.

By: walrus

walrus — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:50:25 -0800

By the way, the ads are blocked if one accesses mefi through SSL.

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:08:45 -0800

By the way, the ads are blocked if one accesses mefi through SSL.

There's a solution: skip the ads and add to the server load.

By: walrus

walrus — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:07:02 -0800

I wasn't aware SSL added to the server load, but I suppose that makes sense. When Matt recently added this feature, I was unaware it wasn't meant to be used. You should also be aware that I added my comment purely for information, rather than to make some kind of sarcastic point.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:59:12 -0800

they're only blocked if you choose (or your browser chooses automatically, perhaps based on some long-forgotten checkbox...) not to display insecure elements embedded in a secure page. that's because they're pulled in separately, via a non-ssl link.

anyone have info on the extra cost for ssl on a site like this? there are two costs - negotiating the link and encrypting the data. if you stay within ssl and jump from page to page you shouldn't need to renegotiate, so the only cost is encryption. i suspect that's a lot less than either then initial handshake or sql queries, but i have no numbers.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:43:20 -0800

The ads are Mefi blue now. Looks much better.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:48:22 -0800

yay! Those Google folks kick ass for turning my feature request around in less than 24 hours.

By: riffola

riffola — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:06:48 -0800

The ads look much better now, thanks Matt.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:12:53 -0800

ack, now the ads look bad with the MeFiLite style, any chance for a reprieve, or should I just suck it up?

By: iconomy

iconomy — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:32:08 -0800

Much, MUCH better. Thanks, Google.

I wonder if they can fix my user page, too ;)

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:36:13 -0800

jessamyn, unfortunately, they're doing the customization on their side, so I can't tweak things. Sorry about that.

By: Su

Su — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:36:40 -0800

God, Jessamyn. Bitch, bitch bitch.
*ducks*

By: theplayethic

theplayethic — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:43:36 -0800

I never post at this level, and I apologise if this breaks the flow of a technical discussion, but I just wanted to send a message of support to you, Matt, for doing what you have to do to keep Metafilter going. I know this is such a cliche, but MeFi really does feel like an extension of my brain - as a working writer, activist, father, pop-cult junkie, WHATEVER, I find myself stretched, amused, diverted, informed, transformed (and occasionally just plain baffled/grossed out) by what I find here. Many of the posts on topics either I've started, or I'm interested in, provide the kind of collective intelligence and research that the dot-com bullshit merchants of the late nineties could only dream of. When Blink.com went Pro, I had to go with it - because it had become the same kind of brain extension. If ads keep you going, then at least you're facing out to the world, rather than into a group of private consumers. All networks have their decay rate - but MeFi is still bifurcating, metastazing, whaddeva the goddam trendy jargon is for "still rockin'" is.

We're all in this together, indeed. Power to you, sir. (Cue orchestral swell from D. Elfman)

By: dg

dg — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:02:22 -0800

Blue ads = much better look to the site. I will also try to remember to click on a couple each day, to do my bit to keep the click-through rate up.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:02:01 -0800

It's a job for clickmonkeys!

By: rhyax

rhyax — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:57:57 -0800

i'm getting a white floating box the shape of the ads further down the page in the comment pages using chimera on mac, resizing the window moves it further down and/or eliminates it. this box does cover whatever text may be under it.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:13:49 -0800

I think Matt has every right to place ads...and I hope it covers the cost of the servers, and the bandwidth and the dev and maint time...and still adds profit to his pockets.

By: bdk3clash

bdk3clash — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:59:02 -0800

Matt--I'm just curious: Is Google paying you a straight CPM for the listings, or are you doing a revenue share?

By: _sirmissalot_

_sirmissalot_ — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:56:44 -0800

just in case you are still checking this, matt -- congrats on getting google $$$. yummy.

*gross slurp-belching jabba the hutt sounds*

By: halcyon

halcyon — Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:11:43 -0800

As someone who's community site (citizenx.com) was just shut down due to lack of funds and an excessive debt to our web host, I applaud Matt's efforts (and success) in keeping the site alive.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:03:24 -0800

What browser is being used in Matt's Screenshot?