…and this is a 
We are currently suffering from a surfeit of cheesiness in the ad blocks being served up — the example to the right is just one of many horrors, including ads for $cientology, various Christian and creationist groups, and even some medical quackery. Although the "build an ideal woman" does appeal to the mad scientist in me, it's really just a tease to get your name and various bits of information into one of those "win an ipad" scams. Don't click on it!
Actually, don't click on any of the despicable ads. You don't need to; the ad space is sold on a per impression, not a per click, basis, so all you have to do is load Scienceblogs and you've earned us a bit of money. So just ignore them altogether.
Also, take some comfort in the fact that the bad ads are hilariously misplaced — this is not the audience for creationist hucksters. So all they are doing is transferring money from kooks and quacks to the pockets of people presenting the science that opposes them.
Comments
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 30, 2010 12:59 PM
Weren't the ads one of your strike conditions? Do we need to start tossing our sabots into the gears and cogs of ScienceBlogs?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 30, 2010 1:03 PM
Then, too, the one breast looks far more fake than do the worst implants. Hardly my ideal woman (and I actually do care about brain as well).
To be sure, I'd be far more likely to notice that than something like Perry Marshall's woo, which I never noticed until someone mentioned it. Web ads must work, but I almost never notice them, and, even when a sexy form breaks through, I'm never inclined to try to find out what junk they're really selling.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 30, 2010 1:06 PM
Adblock Plus. I ain't even gotta take this shit from nobody.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2010 1:10 PM
I'm curious about something: as far as I can tell, I've never seen any of these 'cheesy' or woo-ish ads on the side of any of the scienceblog pages. It's always dull, standard stuff on fashion, or insurance, or dating services, or whatnot. The ads at the top are often science or atheism related -- links to evolvefish, for example.
Do different people -- or different areas -- get different ads? Or have I just missed noticing the evil ads?
Posted by: mistereveready
|
July 30, 2010 1:11 PM
Ad block plus makes my internet surfing a very strange one. I've sent links to friends that had horrible ads, of which I was completely unaware.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
July 30, 2010 1:12 PM
I don't know whose ideal woman that could possibly be - she hasn't shaved, and she appears to be radioactive.
Heh - just had an ad come up for 'Fig Leaves' - extremely attractive (real) young lady in a bikini. That's more like it!
Posted by: vbalbert
|
July 30, 2010 1:14 PM
I'll bet I couldn't click on that woman's brain in that ad.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 30, 2010 1:16 PM
AdSense uses your google searches to feed the ads, so yes, everyone sees different ads. Some ads are based on keywords that appear on the site too, so some will be seen by most people. I was shopping online for a new tent, so I get lots of camping gear ads.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 30, 2010 1:20 PM
Lemme guess: You can find that on the feminist blog posts.
I use Adblock, so I'm never really aware of these.
Posted by: Holytape
|
July 30, 2010 1:22 PM
Can we add lasers or chainsaws?
Posted by: SaraJ
|
July 30, 2010 1:22 PM
I have an ASPCA ad right now, which I'm cool with, but that build a woman thing is just gross.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 30, 2010 1:24 PM
Man, that woman must be in constant pain. Did you look at her body? It's all twisted.
Posted by: Ströh
|
July 30, 2010 1:25 PM
Sastra: Yeah, the ads are localized. I get my in Swedish - not that they are any better. Right now I get an teasing you to test your IQ based on a colour vision test!
Another infobot of course.
Posted by: csreid
|
July 30, 2010 1:27 PM
I will never understand how anyone can decide a woman is perfect for them without talking to her. Plus, I'm pretty sure I don't wanna hook up with a cartoon.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
July 30, 2010 1:31 PM
I've seen ads for super-cute shoes.
... what?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 30, 2010 1:31 PM
*glances around kind of sheepishly*
Posted by: Autumn
|
July 30, 2010 1:31 PM
@csreid,
Yeah, the paper-cuts are vicious.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 30, 2010 1:36 PM
Can't build an ideal woman. Already married one!
Posted by: persicariaodorata
|
July 30, 2010 1:38 PM
I'm mostly getting Brandi Carlile at the Mn State fair, lol.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 30, 2010 1:39 PM
a_ray_in_dilbert_space@18-
I see you've been to husband school, too. Very well trained.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
July 30, 2010 1:41 PM
Question: To a scienceblogs.com blogger, how do you say "KA-CHING" backwards?
Answer: Ad Block Plus
Posted by: ladyh42
|
July 30, 2010 1:46 PM
I just can't stand the art on her. I've thought many times of drawing up a replacement and sending it to them, if only so that I don't have to look at her anymore. Horrible, horrible stuff.
Oh yeah, and it's sexist.
Posted by: Etruscan
|
July 30, 2010 1:47 PM
I wonder what happens if I click on the armpit.
Posted by: steve
|
July 30, 2010 2:01 PM
Cool World (1992) Directed by Ralph Bakshi. With Kim Basinger, Gabriel Byrne, Brad Pitt.
Posted by: fittpix
|
July 30, 2010 2:03 PM
Me3. Friends will complain to me about ads on some site or another (e.g., Facebook), but I'm of little consolation to them:
"There's advertising on that site? I've never seen it."
It actually surprises me a bit that folks frequenting Pharyngula see the ads.
What's up, guys? No Firefox on the computer at work?
8~P
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 30, 2010 2:05 PM
@fittpix - What's the point? The ads just sit there, it's not like they're compelling me to click them, why would I bother with an ad blocker?
Posted by: abb3w
|
July 30, 2010 2:08 PM
I find NoScript suffices for most of my ad blocking needs. I don't mind the basic static images, and the most scamtastic advertisers seem to prefer using Flash/Shockwave for their attention getters.
Posted by: Tzi
|
July 30, 2010 2:09 PM
I run AdBlock, too (man, there are people out there that don't? You don't know what a refreshing place it is over here).
I'm not quite sure how the mechanics of it work. I'm curious if places like ScienceBlogs still get 'credit' for page views from people who are blocking the ads? As in, does it actually stop the transmission of the data, or does it simply hide it from me (assuming it's counting hits on the image and not general page loads)?
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
July 30, 2010 2:13 PM
@Tzi:
ABP does, indeed, block credit of page views to the owner of the site.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
July 30, 2010 2:19 PM
I don't need to use AdBlock, my blocking mechanism is built into my brain. I don't "see" the ads. So all is well.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 30, 2010 2:23 PM
Lynna (and others) - yeah - me too.
Funny thing about that happened just yesterday - someone said "I wonder who [some name] is that I keep seeing all over?" I had no idea what they meant - turns out, apparently there are lots of little signs, maybe campaign signs, all over that I don't even see. All credit to training myself to mentally block out the ads.
It DOES have benefits outside the web!
JC
Posted by: itsumademootaku
|
July 30, 2010 2:36 PM
I see these ads occasionally and I have to wonder (beyond "that person better not list 'artist' on their resume"), what the hell kind of use is a site for building cartoon women? Porn industry consumer research?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA no. Our IT department just recently upgraded to IE7.
Posted by: cairne.morane
|
July 30, 2010 2:46 PM
"Our IT department just recently upgraded to IE7."
Lucky bastard.
Posted by: TWood
|
July 30, 2010 2:53 PM
Since I own their products and have visited their website to shop, I get Adobe CS5 ads at a lot of websites, including here. Annoying because they are animated and slow down the site load time.
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 30, 2010 2:57 PM
Every time somebody complains about the ads here, my initial reaction is always, "What ads? What are these people talking about? What's going on?"
Then you need a new IT department. At my last job, the only reason anybody ever needed to touch IE was to test out websites to make sure they were cross-browser compatible.
Posted by: blf
|
July 30, 2010 2:58 PM
As others have said, Yes. A fair number of mine are en Français (I'm in France). The current banner ad appears to be for women's clothing and seems perfectly reasonable. Of course the targeting has gone badly amiss…
There's a cheesy dating agency ad(s?) which shows up every now and then, and a whole series of incredibility annoying on-line games ads. I haven't seen any Russian/Thai/et al
wifeslave ads recently, but those used to show up (not all in English, as I recall); they were the ones I objected to the most.Posted by: Ströh
|
July 30, 2010 3:12 PM
I'm clinically blind to all forms of advertisement. Especially web-ads.
I remember, some months ago, how a newspaper site I visit quite frequently had a poll that simply stated: "have you seen an ad for this product?". I clicked no because, I seriously hadn't.
Then I blinked and let my eyes scan the borders of the page for the first time. And I realized that right there it sat, a huge frame-ad occupying over a quarter of the screen, and I realized when I looked at it's colours that it had been there for over a week. I hadn't noticed it even once. But I did recognize the subconscious effect it's skye blue colour scheme had affected the style of the site.
So no, I don't need AdBlocker.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 3:13 PM
::fidgets::Posted by: Kagehi
|
July 30, 2010 3:17 PM
Should probably be noted, for all the blockers out there, which includes me. They don't get money from an ad firm if the script that loads the ad never runs. In other words, we are all "blocking" the script, so the ad never loads, so Scienceblogs never get credit for having shown it. If I understand at all how it determines if someone saw it.
That said, the main reason I keep them blocked is that these half wits that run them often end up accidentally allowing ads into the stream that host script intended to inject viruses, and other noxious things. So long as they accept ads from anyone, and/or the ad companies themselves don't take proper care to check what they actually are, its potentially hazardous to have them on. (Especially if you are stupid enough to be using IE, but think most of you know that quite well.. lol)
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 30, 2010 3:22 PM
Yeah, the way I've sized my window, I'd have to scroll over to see the ads. So I haven't noticed them. Ads seem to be terrible everywhere though. I've just tried to get used to ignoring them and occasionally laughing at how they often end up demonstrating points. Yeah, things like that ad at the end of a feminist post on something like objectification of women and its universality really drives the point home.
And correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't she have glowing things around each breast individually?
It reminds me of back in my porn writing days when a bunch of us got together to write a series of bad porn story parodies mocking the bad writing, impossible physiques, and insulting storylines (i kicked down the door and came in her face!). My contribution included a story which among other things had a woman's breasts that continuously varied ending at ZZZ for one breast and -A for the other.
I won't even touch into the obvious "perfect woman is breasts plus ass" problem.
Shakespeare's Sister has already well covered that better than I ever could.
Posted by: prichert
|
July 30, 2010 3:24 PM
I'm with JackC and Lynna. I seldom actually notice any adds. The only adds that get my attention are the ones that scroll over the content I am trying to see, disrupting me and causing me to figure out how to close it. It makes me angry and certainly doesn't give me any appreciation for whatever brand they are representing (which I also seldom bother to notice). I've heard though that any name recognition (even if it starts with a negative association) is good for a product. I have no idea what sort of research has been done on that.
Posted by: Die Anyway
|
July 30, 2010 3:25 PM
My 'ad blocker' is simply the right margin of the window. I drag it over to the edge of the text and all of the ads down the right side are hidden. No muss, no fuss. It's all PZ and his minions all the time.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 30, 2010 3:27 PM
@People who are saying they don't need adblock
A lot of places have vastly more obnoxious ads than Pharyngula, many of which are animated/have some annoying music or sound/pop up with some flash bullshit in the middle of the screen. You can also use it to block annoying images, which can be very useful on forums that don't limit image size for signatures or where people regularly post shock images and the like.
I doubt it's all that bad on Pharyngula and other such sites, but in some places adblock is all that makes the internet bearable.
#14
What've you got against man/cartoon lovin'? I just see the world filled with HATE all the goddamn time. ETNA IS MAI WAIFU AND I AM PROUD
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 30, 2010 3:27 PM
I've always thought that most ad blockers merely hide the ads, but still let them load. Can anybody confirm whether this is correct or not? If it does indeed prevent them from loading at all, I'll disable it for ScienceBlogs.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
July 30, 2010 3:32 PM
I block ads because otherwise the ads block parts of the actual page content, and because I really really don't like fast-cut and a significant amount of animation. Where "don't like" isn't an aesthetic judgment: the stuff makes my head hurt. Yes, I could run NoScript and use about:config to turn off animation, but this is simpler, and once in a while someplace like Astronomy Picture of the Day has an animation I want to look at. (It's also a matter of habit: I got AdBlockPlus before I heard about NoScript.)
I have to use IE once in a while. There are sites I want or need to use (including the ones for my health insurance and 401K plan) that don't run properly under Firefox.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
July 30, 2010 3:35 PM
Tried to turn them back on. All I got was, "Now there are more I have disabled, because when the page reloaded it came from other sites, which are still blocked." lol
Posted by: Kagehi
|
July 30, 2010 3:39 PM
Most of those sites **lie** about not working in Firefox. Some idiot literally scripted to page to check browser version, then won't let them work if it doesn't see IE, even if it never uses anything IE specific. Most people get around it by having Firefox fake-report which browser it is to that page. lol
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
July 30, 2010 3:47 PM
On occasion, I do click on ads because I'm looking for something and it's a direct way for me to get to point B from point A. So, there you go -- one person's meat is another's poison.
Google's Adsense program only pays you for click-throughs, not impressions. (Sometimes, though, the Adsense software that decides which ads to serve is hilarious.)
So, those of you with ad blocking software are double-whammying the poorer, solo bloggers out there. (And I'm so not directing you to mine because I'm not a blogwhore.)
Posted by: eveedream
|
July 30, 2010 3:52 PM
I'm in the early stages of putting together a business plan (going into the "Ironic Baked Goods" business lol) and I've been thinking about where I might advertise. ScienceBlogs was one of my ideas (since I'm on here every day) and just yesterday I was checking out the "advertise with us" link. So it's super interesting to see people's responses to this topic...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2010 3:58 PM
Not even Jessica Rabbit or Betty Boop?
Posted by: rippingrich
|
July 30, 2010 3:59 PM
Have you seen Roger Rabbit?? You wouldn't hook up with his girlfriend?? Man you have no imagination...
Posted by: cairne.morane
|
July 30, 2010 4:12 PM
"Have you seen Roger Rabbit?? You wouldn't hook up with his girlfriend??"
Wife!!! That's why she's Jessica *Rabbit*.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 30, 2010 4:13 PM
I never click on those ads, anyway!
Posted by: nesoo
|
July 30, 2010 4:17 PM
YetAnotherAtheist@44:
I'm fairly certain that AdBlockPlus actually stops the items from loading at all. There was an issue on another blog where some javascript was (most likely unintentionally) redirecting the page to another site; one which happened to be blocked by ABP. Since I had ABP running, I never even knew this was happening as the page loaded normally for me.
Since I'm signed in, PZ, I'll mention that I'll be willing to disable ABP for scienceblogs if they get everything worked out for you guys. I have a built-in mental ad blocker, like some previous commentators have mentioned, so I don't really need it here. I use ABP more for the nastier stuff you can find out there in the wild intertubes.
Posted by: davej
|
July 30, 2010 4:22 PM
I want the Pluto Nash software.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC6w7Q9fTLM&NR=1
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 30, 2010 4:32 PM
Maybe we could stop the sleazy talk about cartoon women? Don't you guys think, just maybe, it's as bad as the cartoon boobs themselves? Isn't it just a wee bit objectifying?
Come on, not that hard. If cartoon boobs (in feminist posts, sometimes) = objectifying, then drooling over cartoon boobs in public, around feminists = ...what?
Maybe... tacky?
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
July 30, 2010 4:39 PM
Kagehi--
Thanks. I just went to google and thence via lifehacker to User Agent Switcher, which with any luck will mean no more need for IE.
Posted by: lilith
|
July 30, 2010 4:42 PM
Down here we have different ads - not better ones, though. Right now we have one offering astrological maps.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2010 4:44 PM
Kieranfoy #56
Indulging in a little projection, Kieranfoy?
Maybe...not?
Perhaps you should get the stick out of your ass. Or perhaps not, it's up to you.
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 30, 2010 4:47 PM
Adblock plus has evolved to a pretty complex and complete solution. You can disable specific blocks only for specific websites, for instance. You can block a domain or even a single file or script only for some sites too (e.g. I block facebook.net, fbcdn.net and such from all non-facebook sites in order not to fall for that FB Connect BS accidentally).
So, you can disable adblock for SB.com and other trusted domains. You can let the ads load, but you can hide them with the element hiding helper (adblock plus separate add-on).
Combined with No Script which lets you make a whitelist instead of a blacklist of domains to allow to run scripts so you won't be surprised while surfing, it's a pretty perfect ad solution.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 30, 2010 4:48 PM
Okay, 'tis Himself, I withdraw the complaint. My bad.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/alienheart_is_mine#7613d
|
July 30, 2010 4:51 PM
What do you mean? Your site has ads?
As with many here, I never see them. Using Opera, blocking them is easy. Although I use FF daily at work, I don't actually have adblock on it, as I never use it for much except web development. However, if you want to know, as Tzi (#28) wanted, whether or not the ads actually load, I suggest trying the FF extension Firebug. It will let you see all the requests being performed by FF.
Yet sometimes, when the built-in blocker in opera doesn't do the trick, I'd add a "display:none;" style to a custom css file in Opera. It works better than blocking servers in many cases, as the server domains keep changing, but the HTML code rarely does.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
July 30, 2010 4:52 PM
Are we still talking about hooking up with cartoon girls? I was a big Starblazer fan and Starsha was super hot.
I'm not even going to get into the hot girl comic book characters.
Maybe I have a problem - I'm probably right.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/07/star-spangled-banner-god-goderrific.html
Posted by: tfoss1983
|
July 30, 2010 5:07 PM
The thing that shocks me is that no one seems to have noticed the Ben Stein ads that were popping up fairly recently. I only ever saw them on my iPhone, but then, I have Adblock on the laptop. I thought them to be particularly facepalm-worthy, but I guess anything that lets ScienceBlogs win Ben Stein's money should be okay.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 30, 2010 5:11 PM
Think I saw the Stein add... right above a post where P.Z. cuts the bugger down to size. Irony for yah, right there!
Posted by: CharlesHi
|
July 30, 2010 5:12 PM
There's a easier way to avoid sidebar ads than adblock...and one which still rewards the site you are visiting.
Narrow the width of the screen.
(That said, I don't have flash installed, so I probably just avoid the most annoying ads that way. And I think I've also set gifs to only repeat themselves 3 times.)
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 30, 2010 5:20 PM
@Charleshigh: Frankly, an even better idea would be to simply ignore them. They're not that obvious.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
July 30, 2010 5:21 PM
Not necessarily. One of my last jobs had a web app (purchased, not written in house) from a major company that only worked in IE 6.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 30, 2010 5:27 PM
If we're gonna talk about attractive cartoon/animated women, Jade from Beyond Good & Evil is way more attractive than Ms. Build-Your-Fetish up there. Of course, that's probably because she has a personality one gets to know throughout playing the game.
YMMV though.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
July 30, 2010 5:35 PM
Has everything from Kieranfoy been tone troll?
Posted by: daveau
|
July 30, 2010 5:43 PM
I'll second sqlrob@68. Speaking as the IT department, it is not necessarily your IT department's fault. For example, we have web applications that are still requiring IE6 and others that insist that we go to 7 or 8 by the end of the year. The stuff requiring IE8 seems to test fine on Firefox, although certain vendors won't support it if we have issues. Otherwise, nobody has Firefox here, because it's not my job to facilitate non-business browsing. Of course, I use Firefox and can bypass the web filters.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 30, 2010 5:46 PM
@Sqlrob: No, it hasn't. And what has, I've been called on, withdrawn, and apologized for.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
July 30, 2010 5:55 PM
Those comments from today have jumped out at me @Kieranfoy. It's good that you withdrew them, but two in close posts, enough so that they jumped out to someone, that's not good.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 30, 2010 6:01 PM
Well, la dee dah. Dearie me, I've jumped out at you. Tell me, did I bite you? Maybe slobber all over you?
Don't worry; I don't have rabies.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
July 30, 2010 6:03 PM
Ströh, hi,
That one really pisses me off. It's one of the standard tests to determine if you're colour-blind (there are different variants of colour-blindness, so there are a few of those pattern tests). WTF? As it happens, I am colour-blind so can't read those numbers. And... tell me again what that has to do with *intelligence*? Oh wait, I think I have it. About 10% of males are colour-blind in one form or other, so it's a trick to get you to click on the link.
It's a sucker magnet for the combination of colour-blind AND stupid.
Posted by: Asclepias
|
July 30, 2010 6:05 PM
I really don't see why anyone cares. I just ignore the ads and go for the juicy stuff! Ads do not diminish my enjoyment of the wit and wisdom around here.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
July 30, 2010 6:07 PM
Brownian, oh yes! BG&E is one of my favourite games and Jade an extremely endearing character.
Posted by: joshc
|
July 30, 2010 6:16 PM
I like to think that that ad is Chris Muir slumming. But then I think, "How do you slum when Day by Day is your day job?"
Posted by: Adamvs Maximvs
|
July 30, 2010 6:19 PM
Build your perfect woman;
WHAT THE!!!!
How did they know I like women whose body has parts of it that have a healthy, phosphorescent glow?
Posted by: duanerobertson
|
July 30, 2010 6:20 PM
All I get are movie ads... with no girls at all in evidence. I feel left out.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 30, 2010 6:35 PM
They probably do some sort of analysis of your facebook 'likes'.
The one I see shows a cartoony female from my home system—albeit a female with glorbods that are completely out-of-proportion with her gzoorhna (generally the type you'd expect a larva who hasn't made his first mix'na to think is an ideal of feminine beauty)—but one tailored to me, nonetheless.
That's targeted advertising for ya.
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 30, 2010 6:44 PM
Posted by:
Kieranfoy | July 30, 2010 5:20 PM
@Charleshigh: Frankly, an even better idea would be to simply ignore them. They're not that obvious.
The problem is that you still wanna block ads (especially most scripts) from other sites. You can still use Adblock and whitelist Scienceblogs.com. And then you can just let the ads load, but hide them with the hiding helper add-on. It's a perfect solution for this situation.
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 30, 2010 6:47 PM
Me too.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 30, 2010 7:00 PM
That's... pretty stupid.
Well, I'm also getting one teasing me to test my IQ. It has a picture of Paris Hilton and says: "Her IQ is 110. Can you do better? Do the quiz!"
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 30, 2010 8:02 PM
No, not at all.
In fairness to him, when your etract your argument after it is shown to be fallacious, you're probably not a tone troll at all.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
July 30, 2010 8:05 PM
I've been sharing a computer with my husband since mine died...that explains the ads
I ran an adblocker for a while but it was a pain in the ass remembering to turn it off before watching videos and such. I can honestly say though, that I've never even had an inkling of a desire to click on an ad.
Posted by: MJP
|
July 30, 2010 8:23 PM
I use the Opera browser, which comes with ad-blocking as a standard feature. Animated ads are especially annoying, as are ads with garish anime art.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 30, 2010 8:43 PM
Then what moron at Google wrote the adsense software ?
So, are the ads everyone sees tailored to each surfer's google searches, or Pharyngula-specific ?
I'm mainly blocking the ads and scripts to load the page faster, for example from work reading Pharyngula is next to impossible, because IE loads all the embedded shit, and it takes ages.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
July 30, 2010 8:48 PM
Heh heh. Such a delightful process. When I look upon it I cannot do other than see that it is good.
*snicker*
Posted by: Miki Z
|
July 30, 2010 9:00 PM
I am currently getting a lot of ads offering me an Australian visa. Prior to that, online education. I'm currently in the process of switching from a work visa to an education one, so I guess there is some relevance (though Australia is only relevant by geographical proximity). A few of the ads are in Japanese, most are in English.
I sometimes click on the more cryptic ads to see -- a recent one with a picture of a planet (the earth?) and an asteroid head for it was a blog debunking the 2012 apocalypse myths.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
July 30, 2010 9:01 PM
OK. I just disabled AdBlock and there are three ads:
The banner is for classmates.com and the other two are pushing grants for returning to school.
Seeing as I graduated from HS in 1969 and have a grand total of one (count 'em, one!) semester of college to my credit am I being unreasonable in feeling just a little freaked out at all this educational advertising? It seems to be suggesting that since I haven't sat in a classroom for umpty-ump years that maybe now would be a good time to look into free money to further my smarts. Creepy, my friends. Creepy. Like they're in my head, man.
For grins I'm going to allow ads from SB for a while. Just to see if I've been missing anything.
Posted by: tonysidaway
|
July 30, 2010 9:14 PM
Advertisements are for people who don't know how to operate a web browser. I find myself unable to use web pages cluttered with garish nonsense and for most purposes I find text-only browsing optimal.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 30, 2010 11:25 PM
The ads I get when disabling adblock/flashblock :
"Be naughty not nice", probably for some friendfinder thingie, Iphone ads, and "you have been selected to win a Plasma TV" type flashy things.Lots of them.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 31, 2010 12:42 AM
Rorschach, I get no ads at all, and I don't run AdBlock.
What I do run is NoScript, and I just block any domain that serves adverts.
(Back when I used IE, I had to rely on the hosts file; this is easier.)
If that makes me a mooch, so be it.
Posted by: Autumn
|
July 31, 2010 1:52 AM
The one thing that I hope my kids learn from me is that all advertising is simply lying by liars who lie.
I'm of the Bill Hicks school of marketing criticism.
Posted by: Thunderbird 5
|
July 31, 2010 2:37 AM
Doner fesh (or however it transliterates in Yiddish, I dunno) - in our house we never have clicked on that intrusive class of shit, and we never will.
Me and Mr TB5 here fortunately do agree upon our Ideal Woman though - and seeing as I've got a good 30 mins before I actually need to be up, I think I'll just put this thing on standby, and then turn over and wake the great lummox up for a reminder...
TMI maybe but soz - i've a newly-gouged-out-and-discharged pilonidal sinus bod to clean and pack at 10 and given that particular ailment reminds me of Chickenhawk Rush Lamebaugh, I reckon I need all the morning boost I can get.
Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD
|
July 31, 2010 6:09 AM
Vomiting a dozen javascripts in the proces, slowing down my browser.. Every added ad making me less willing to visit at all.
Posted by: blf
|
July 31, 2010 6:35 AM
For some reason, despite being in France, I'm now getting a UK ad for an ISP. Not an objectionable ad, and like others have said, it just so happens to be located where I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't gone looking for it, but also, yet again, badly mis-targeted.
Posted by: CobaltSky
|
July 31, 2010 6:38 AM
The only ads I seem to be getting are for either GE or Adobe. I can't remember ever having seen a particularly inappropriate ad. I'm not sure why this would be unless the ads are targeted to individuals rather than the site.
Posted by: blf
|
July 31, 2010 7:04 AM
Someone who doesn't like cretinistas and figures people likely to be attached to reality are perfectly capable of ignoring the crap and/or realise the misplaced propaganda is costing the christaliban money?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 31, 2010 11:00 AM
"If everyone stopped buying anything that they saw advertised, there would be no more ads in 3 months" - Richard Feynman
That's targeted advertising for ya.
Yeah - presenting you with ads for something you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell you'll buy, instead of something you absolutely certainly won't ever buy. And there is this gigantic amount of money moved for the "privilege" of having me ignore their important messages. I cannot imagine anything more stupid. Except religion, I mean.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
July 31, 2010 12:50 PM
Does it make Scienceblogs more money if people merely refresh the page? If so, then why not encourage every blogger to put up a random quote feature like PZ has? I know I've sat for quite some time refreshing the page over and over to read random quotes (especially when it doesn't let me load the entire quote page for some reason). And then there was the time people freaked because the whole thing disappeared for a couple days. It seems that if every Scienceblogs blogger had something like that - especially tailor made ones - then Scienceblogs would make a whole lot more money (presuming refreshing the page does make more money).
Posted by: Haley
|
July 31, 2010 7:40 PM
I have serious ADD, (you should see me in the mornings trying to make breakfast so I can take my medicine. Showering is also funny, but you don't get to watch me fail at that.) so I use an adblocker to keep the page clean. I'm smart enough to not click on the links but I just can't concentrate on anything that requires thinking while there are flashing ads on the sides.
I use noise canceling headphones with white noise while I study.
Posted by: AJS
|
August 1, 2010 8:58 AM
I run my own nameserver and use this to block known advertisement servers. My bandwidth, my screen, my decision what they get used for.
It amazes me that no ISP is offering DNS-based advert blocking as an extra-cost service. It would work completely transparently; no software to download, therefore not tied to a specific platform.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
August 1, 2010 9:16 AM
Well, it's been a day and a half and SB has been sponsored by classmates.com, Toyota, AT&T in approximately 75% of the Flash ads that appear in the banner and right column. Since I also run FlashBlock I must click an icon to see the ad which is not the same as clicking the ad, though that probably goes without saying round these parts.
The lack of interesting or fringe commercials is notable. I think that the reason might be that I almost never, Never! click on an ad.
Succinctly, I do not shop. I make purchases. If there is a product or service that interests me I research it on my own. If I think I might buy I find out which retailers exist in my area then poll them for pricing. Using this information I decide whether to purchase or not. If so, I go down to my local business and, after appropriate small talk and a humorous exchange or two, I swap coin of the realm for my purchase. Then I take it directly home and open the box.
This puts the entire process in my hands and removes from the vendor or ad agency the power to bull shit me into an unwise investment.
This practice has served me well since I first began spending money. I see no reason to make normal transactions require high tech communication equipment and/or the use of virtual money.
Call me backwards, call me a stick in the mud, call me thrifty. Or call me smart; my home is not cluttered with items that are broken, ignored, nonfunctional or too brute ugly to endure.
Still, I think I'll allow ads on SB for a while . . . maybe ad mongers will find some way to target me by analyzing my no click rate or my ad dismissal rate or my scorn ratio of ads that use grade school playground inuendo.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2fPiwCsPg8NnMjn1R.vn.tKCDgRHWt5IYc4tOMBMsQpU18LZ#0be72
|
August 1, 2010 1:26 PM
The only out-of-place ads I've been seeing around Scienceblogs are related to Astrology. That's close enough to Astronomy,right? You know,sort of how The X-Men movies had something vaguely to do with evolutionary sciences.
As for that 'Build a Perfect Woman' ad that sounds as if it's trying to sell a party game played by teenaged girls to grown men,the image scarcely turned out better than this image of The Perfect Man and it had a so-called artist's touch applied to it.
http://blstb.msn.com/i/9A/79D03EB395ED8495381952F5CC11DF.jpg