Linked by David Adams on Fri 19th Mar 2010 21:07 UTC
Permalink for comment 414360
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-24
Then you do use an ad-blocking mechanism. Yours is programmed in meat, and mine is programmed in silicon; is there really much difference in the end?
Even if i were to disable Ad-Block, i'm never going to click through to an ad -- and apparently that's what advertisers care about. I'm just profoundly uninterested in dealing with the horrible signal-to-noise ratio in online ads. They're dead to me; that's the industries fault, not mine.
However, i'm constantly intrigued by new products I read about in articles. There, they can be placed in a larger context and compared to competitors by a competent (even if biased) author. After learning of products this and other ways, I often call up the web site of the company in question to learn more. At that point they're free to try to gee-whiz me to death if they like -- i signed up for it.
Kroc has it right, ads shouldn't be tacked on as some horrible kludge to the "content". They should _be_ content. Otherwise, people will continue to ignore those pixels, and read the others.
Cheers.
Edited 2010-03-19 23:27 UTC