MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
How did I miss that yesterday? I know there are occasional accidents with graphics, but I also think there are a lot of designers that just laugh their asses off as they try to sneak things into their design.
Sorry, dabitch, I think your post is getting derailed by the erotic solar system.
An honorable derail. Ther are a lot of designers who are trying to sneak things into their designs. I'm sure. Examples: #1 barebacking , #2 BJ:ing , #3 kamasutra.
But dodgygeezer - the ads on my website aren't flashing banners et al. Unlike the likes of gawker and any-other-blog-worth mentioning advertising is not and never will be the revenue we rely on to support the site. We used to pressrelease the hell out of that fact but nobody saw the funny in it. :/
.....so finally we caved and show google text ads to the people who don't log in. This is more to be an incentive to members to log in, they get rewarded with an adfree view.
Nope, it's other people.
I thought BB lite was fairly well known? I read alterslash, it distills slashdot just the way I like it, and I fancied BB lite for a while but then I went off BB completly. I admit it. I hate ad-banners and I get a rash seeing google text ads. I adblock everything.. Anyone know any good trick for getting rid of Google text ads? I unsub from RSS feeds that have ads in them. But then I both subscribe to and host mailinglists that only talk about ads. Sad aren't I? It's like Dr. Jerk and Mrs Hide!
But dodgygeezer - the ads on my website aren't flashing banners et al.
I know, I was just joking.
Actually since you're here maybe you can help - I'd kill to find an online copy of the Virgin Megastores ad, it's a kind of flip flop flyin type thing featuring some pixelised stereotypical musicians - seen it anywhere?
What do the BB and the Gawker people have to say about the lite sites? Sorry if this is old hat to everyone else - I don't read either of those sites and so don't know about all this stuff.
Dunno what Gawker thinks about their twin, but BoingBoing ha this to say: Ad-stripped versions of Page Six and Gawker -- this'll last, oh, five minutes. Which I think is funny because BoingBoing Lite has been around for what.. a year or so now? But I dunno if they have a deali-o. The CC licence makes the BoingBoing Lite version OK as far as I can tell.
I wonder if Gawker can protest, their disclaimer is sparsly worded and links off to a PDF file for "more information on the legality of thumbnail usage of photographs, please download the 9th Circuit Court's ruling." which is the Leslie Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. ruling and about search engines thumbnails, where by the way, Kelly won - not Arriba. Get your full feed of that here (or here). So, in summary one can't use thumbnails of other peoples photographs even if one is Gawker, without permission. So.. people using Gawkers text and logotypes and images over at another site sems...Wel it does seem iffy but it mighyt not be. Since Gawker uses a creative commons licence (with a dead link) I can't tell which one they are using and if this would be ok.
ah! The licence link works now (must have been a gremlin' earlier). So, according to Gawkers CC licence, it's A-OK to do this.
Right? That is what the Non Commercial "you are free to" means, right? As long as AD-free gawker doesn't make their project commercial this'll work.
But the thing they can't shut down is greasemonkey scripts. There's an adstripper for BoingBoing which means it doesn't matter if BBLite gets axed.
I wonder how the cartels like newspaper sites and gawker etc etc factor in the increasing enduser modification of content. It's going to be a very strange area of law and modification of advertizing revenue streams as it becomes more prevalent.
I think it's an excellent idea. Is it just me or are web ads getting more and more obnoxious? Yeah, there are popup blockers (although some ads do get around those) but those ads that take over your screen and you can't do anything without clicking them are the worst. (the richmedia ads that move over the content and scroll down if you scroll down...) HATE THEM.
I reckon the next step is getting ads into the content itself - it'll be like how you have product placement in movies. Websites paid to drop in favourable mentions for products in passing, that sort of thing - it works well for Apple and they don't even have to pay for it.
i wish there was a way to strip tv active advertising
novelty is a delicate scent
but they do that on tv, dodge, if you see how they work commercials into the context of the show.
web advertisers should simply resign themselves to working by the dictates of the medium instead of trying the tactics of other media.
flashy and pushy only works on the new and the few.
/. question: it is being ugly on purpose?
like obstinately ugly
some kind of safe nostalgia trip
because it's afraid to pick something else?
or do they really not know/care?
i almost never go there unless someone points it out
photo by splunge
photo by TheophileEscargot
photo by Kronos_to_Earth
photo by ethylene
