Contributor still getting ads

[Angus Hines]

In the last couple days I have found multiple posts where Members have been discussing software designed to turn off our banner ads. This is really tacky, to promote such a thing in our public forums when advertising pays for Members access. I know software exists to remove advertising, the stuff has been around for a very long time. To openly promote software here in our forums to prevent us from paying for your access is terribly disrespectful.

Where I come from they call it out right stealing.

Now for some good news. The Contributors side of SawMill Creek is financially healthy. In fact I am trying to put together a monster FreeStuff Drawing, working with manufacturers and vendors to put together something we feel will be......well we can talk about this later when I have more concrete information to share but the project is moving forward.

You will definatly want to be a contributor when this happens

[Dan Hintz]

Where I come from they call it out right stealing.

Do you hang around your TV each and every time the commercials start to play? No? You're stealing!

I threw a bit of money at the Creek, and I'm looking for ways to help Keith out (haven't come up with one yet as my programming skills are mostly in the embedded domain, not database)... but to say someone is stealing because they decided to disable ads directly through their browser is an odd point of view. And it would still be an odd point of view (from my viewpoint, anyway) had I not paid anything to the Creek. Commercial breaks are a time for me to go to the restroom, get a drink, etc.

Advertisers pay the broadcasters big money to show commercials in the hopes someone will see it and buy a product... but the broadcasters don't (and can't) guarantee anyone will be sitting in front of the TV when their ad is played, not do they guarantee an increase in sales. I threw money at the Creek not to have the option of turning ads off (never knew that option even existed), I threw money there because I was happy with what I was getting in return (none of which was due to the ads). this may not be the perfect analogy as the web is a different medium than television and therefore has different rules of operation, but I think you get the gist.

I would agree that non-contributors disabling ads is unfortunate, but if they never clicked on an ad anyway, has there really been any change in the status quo? I empathize with Keith's frustration, but until people are forced to do something by making the penalty of non-conformance too great, free will is going to reign and ads will get disabled.

[Angus Hines]

Not the same since I don't own a device or software specifically intended to remove the ads from my TV through subterfuge . If I did then yes that to would be stealing. IMHO.

Do you hang around your TV each and every time the commercials start to play? No? You're stealing!

[Dan Hintz]

Not the same since I don't own a device or software specifically intended to remove the ads from my TV through subterfuge . If I did then yes that to would be stealing. IMHO.

Maybe you should choose words other than "stealing" and "subterfuge", because the dictionary doesn't give descriptions anywhere close to your definition of them. Stealing means to take without permission or appropriate without permission. How is removing an ad stealing? The broadcaster makes their money whether I watch the commercial or not, so how am I stealing from them? The advertiser pays the money for a 30 second spot within a defined time period, and they do so whether they make an extra sale or not, so I'm not stealing from them, either.

Several devices exist to remove commercials from broadcasts (they turn the screen black, turn off the sound, and the better ones pause the VCR from recording). But how is that subterfuge? I haven't tricked the broadcaster into not sending me the signal, I just choose not to view it. I haven't tricked the advertiser into sending me something for free, I just choose not to purchase their products.

Keith is dealing with a real problem... how to financially support this board without resorting to what he considers draconian methods of force. I respect both his difficult position and his desire to keep this board as free to the end-user as possible. I fear the frustration and aggravation may well send him to the looney bin before all is said and done. If he decides to charge $50/yr to join, I'd gladly pull out the credit card. If he decides to charge $5k/yr to join, I'd have to make a more difficult risk versus reward decision.

But let's not kid ourselves... no one here, contributor or not, is doing anything illegal. They're simply not doing what's desired (and possibly necessary) to make the forum financially stable. To try and make it into anything more than that is chest-pounding soapbox preaching. Take a step back and think about this a bit more before accusing anyone of such lack of morals. It would be an ideal world if we all contributed enough to let Keith purchase that 50 TeraHertz, 800 TeraByte server with 200kVA backup power unit... but as long as we offer people the choice, they reserve the right to exercise that choice without being shamed and/or accused of wrongdoing. My choice is to charge (with a handful of exceptions), but that's Keith's choice, not mine.

[Matt Meiser]

Not the same since I don't own a device or software specifically intended to remove the ads from my TV through subterfuge . If I did then yes that to would be stealing. IMHO.

I do. Three actually -- VCR, DVD recorder, and DVR. In the case of the latter, I do pay for the right to use it.

[Angus Hines]

Ok your right Dan maybe I did use the wrong words.

What do you call it when a Member, (not a Contributor) use's a method other than contributing, and the features and privledges that come with that to stop ads from showing.

And just to clarify those are the ones Im speaking of. Contributors have paid for there right not to see ads and have a way provided with in the rules to turn them off or on.

As for the ads before you login I have no idea I always stay logged in with the remember me feature. I even had to log out, to find out, after Keith told me, that my banner ad was now in the rotation system.

And I'm with you with the exception of a few instances. This should be a pay to play site.

[Kim Vellore]

Looking at a different angle I dont mind adds and I would even click on a few that interest me, but the ones that flash and tries to catch your attention by means that does not please you or just annoy you, well I think the user will take the extra effort to avoid that or just brand that advertiser as a bad one. Remember long time back before google if you went to yahoo home page there used to be many popup adds no one liked it, and when google came up with a simple page look what happened to yahoo... it is a matter of how smart the advertisers really are.
Kim

[Doug Griffith]

I can't say I agree with this being a pay-to-play site because without a large visitor base, SMC won't have enough to offer to get people to pony up cash. Sure, SMC has large base now but it will fade away if it goes to strictly pay. Contributors will get bored without fresh blood with new information, stories, problems, etc...

I have not yet contributed in the traditional sense. I instead put about a full day's worth of work into programming the Gold Method script. Others on this site contribute a great deal. Frank Corker is a good example. His clip-art contributions alone provide other Creekers with motive to contribute cash to keep the site up and running. Without a steady influx of fresh blood, people like Frank will not join the forum. They won't even know about it because the doors will be closed. It will become elitist and inbred.

There are many ways for this site to make money. The visitor base is already here. I wish I had this problem.

Cheers,
Doug

[Glenn Clabo]

I will never understand why people think it's okay to blantly disrespect someone like Keith...who took on the responsibility to run a forum after another one folded, AND went into debt to keep it running. AND who has tried everything he can to make most of it free to those who don't think $6.00 is worth the information...and friendships...that the Creek provides.
Boogles my mind...

[Mike Null]

I leave my ads turned on because I find them interesting and not offensive. Every now and then I'll click on one just to see what it's about or maybe to get a marketing idea.

As for those members who would use software to block ads I would bounce them from the forum as soon as it became apparent what they were doing. For those who don't want to accept the rules of the forum owner, you know your options.

This forum, for member and contributor alike, is not about taking, it's about sharing.