Green double-underlined words

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Nov 17 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]540927[/snapback]</div>

I also have not seen the evil double underlined green words. I will keep on looking. Advertizing does not affect me very much, as I don't really need anything right now.....

 

This must be something Danny has authorized on this site. STOP IT DANNY!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ 2007 11 17 17:14) [snapback]541062[/snapback]</div>

You surprise me, Sir. I had not expected such strength and subversion. I like it.

 

I know I'm going to get a little off topic here but has any one ran into those ads the pop up after you highlight text on a page or just click on a page somewhere where there is no link? This mostly happens on blog sites. This type of advertising really annoys me because I'm always highlighting text to use as a bookmark for my reading position.

I to don't mind ads just as long as they don't annoy the hell out of you. Like any of the popup or popunder, those flash overlays that block your reading, warning boxes that are ads, the jiggley ones that cant sit still, and the ones that have sound. God I hate the ones with sound. They scare the sh!t out of me. I have learned to keep my speakers turned off unless I'm actually listening to something. The ones I like the best are the google text ads and simple banner ads.

 

just for you Danny... i am disabling adblock on your site. i will enable scripts coming PC because i trust you, but flash is still out. hope that helps.

 

I too was ignorant about any double green underlines . . .

That's because I too am using Firefox :wub: . . .

and I have also installed the NoScript add-on . . .
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722



Winner of the "2006 PC World World Class Award", this tool makes Firefox the safest browser around.

Winner of the "2006 PC World World Class Award", this tool provides extra protection to your Firefox.
It allows JavaScript, Java and other executable content to run only from trusted domains of your choice, e.g. your home-banking web site, and guards the "trust boundaries" against cross-site scripting attacks (XSS).
Such a preemptive approach prevents exploitation of security vulnerabilities (known and even unknown!) with no loss of functionality...
Experts do agree: Firefox is really safer with NoScript ;-)

I too feel free websites should be supported with advertisements . . . just not ones with dangerous executables. <_<
To keep up with the ever changing world of internet security, the good folks at NoScript release updates quite often . . . but with Firefox's automatic updates, they truly are painless.

 

I have to admit to being more of a lurker than a poster, I spend most of my time reading and enjoy being able to read without logging in. It would be nice to have the option of turning on or off the intellitext without having to log in first. BUT, at least the option is there to turn it off if you do log in...

 

I finally came accross the double-underlined words, and I must say it does not bother me at all. Even if my cursor does touch the word, the ad is small, it goes away on its own, or if I tell it to - so to me, no big deal.

I have no complaint with this form of advertising.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hobbit @ Nov 17 2007, 08:29 AM) [snapback]540890[/snapback]</div>

Yes, you're missing the obvious: Lynx is neither an accessible option for most people, considering the fear that the average user has of text-only interaction with a computer, nor is it a viable option for most, who find much of the non-text content of the internet either compelling enough, or necessary enough to mandate a "modern" browser.

A simple example would be someone whose livelihood depends on online media, from Danny, who makes money via advertising, to myself making money by doing work for clients who display or broadcast that work online.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say you're a drain on PC's revenue: You clearly contribute enough substantial material to the community to more than make up for your lack of having viewed or clicked some ads!

Which brings up the point that it's not a clear distinction between someone who views ads and someone who doesn't. Contributing members are what sites like this are all about, and without them, there'd be no ad revenue. Given that, who decides how much someone "owes" the site? Or how much the site owes them?

In the end I'm on Evan's side though, in that I think these ads cross a line in terms of usability. Not only the intrusive pop-up that covers what you're looking at, but the hierarchical space they invade in our perception of a site: We're used to seeing links and expecting them to mean that the author of a post meant for us to click to see something relevant. These ads masquerade as links, and make page scanning more difficult.

 

I've been around these things a long time guys (internet forums), and they are expensive. A lot more expensive than most people realize and I will bet you that Danny doesn't even break even on his costs running this place with the advertising he has in place. Its not fair to expect him to foot the bill so that we can have an ad free experience.

We've worked on pay option memberships too where people donate to become a gold or platinum member to help the site and get an ad free experience, its a nightmare to implement...

 

For those of you with adblock plus I found the way to make this site exempt from the ad blocking. All you have to do is add the following to the filter.

Code:

@@http://priuschat.com

This way you can still support priuschat.com by allowing the banners to be viewed but still not be annoyed by the green double underlined word advertisements.