Dumb, dumb, dumb, de dumb, dumb.

[The Atheist]

Why forum ads are a joke; a really, really bad joke:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/findapsy.jpg

Here's a case of a thoroughly reputable company, Finda - which runs a business directory - advertising its wares on the net.

This is exactly the type of company you'd want to have advertising on your site - a high volume, well-known internet publication. The bad news for JREF, of course, is that the preponderance of psychic stories means that psychic ads will always feature here.

Block finda.co.nz and miss lots of potential clicks from Kiwi viewers.

While the NZ market is infinitesmal, I'll take large bets that the same kind of thing happens wherever your ip# happens to suit.

Oh for the days when scepticism occupied the higher moral ground.

[lionking]

It does make the whole forum a bit of a laughing stock.

[Uncayimmy]

I don't think it's a problem except from the financial standpoint that much of the audience here would not be inclined to click on such a link. If you're worried about appearing to endorse each particular advertiser, put a short disclaimer in the box that reads:

The JREF does not choose what ads are displayed on the site. They are chosen automatically from a large and diverse pool of advertisers who have requested their ads be placed on pages containing words or phrases found on this page, regardless of context. No endorsement is implied.

[KoihimeNakamura]

So how would you have them raise revenue, TA? Magic?

[arthwollipot]

Another thread complaining about the ads? Haven't we got tired of this already?

[lionking]

So how would you have them raise revenue, TA? Magic?
Good question. I would happily pay a subscription, but can see that the vast majority would not. I have read previous threads on this topic, and just wish there was a way of preventing silly ads like the one in the OP from appearing.

[Wolfman]

Ya' know...I really don't understand the people who get all upset (and sometimes self-righteous) about some of the ads that appear in the forums now.

Yeah, ads for psychics and other miscellaneous woo are rather out of place.

Ya' know what? When I am in China, pretty much every site that I go to that has Google ads sees that my IP address is in China, and then gives me ads about how to get a Chinese bride, or getting acupuncture in China, or offering me a book to understand the "mysteries of the Chinese woman".

I have never once thought that any of those ads were endorsed by or in any way connected to the site that I was visiting. Its never even crossed my mind. Nor have I ever been offended or upset that a site I was visiting happened to display such an ad.

Seems like no matter what the JREF does, there are gonna' be people criticizing them (hey there, TA!). They are a non-profit organization, that provides a wide variety of valuable services (including this forum); and they need money to cover the costs for those things.

TA jumped all over James Randi for taking what he thought was a disproportionately huge salary for himself (and initially, I agreed...until I looked further into it), despite the fact that the salary James Randi received from the JREF was less than the amount of money he receives for his appearance fees and other income. In other words, if he simply kept the money that he receives related to his own actitivities, he'd be making more money than he does from his JREF salary. Its not a case of the JREF losing money to support James Randi; its a case of James Randi losing money to support the JREF.

And of course, we have all the hoopla from people who paid money specifically to support the forum, and then got upset because the powers that be don't run the forum the way that they want. Pretty much the same thing, in my opinion, as the guy who gets pulled over by the police, and then informs the officer that since he pays taxes, and the taxes pay the policeman's salary, that therefore the policeman works for him, and should do as he says. Supporting the forum financially does not in any manner, shape, or form give you 'voting rights', or control over how the forum is run. And if you're giving money in the expectation that it should give you a voice, then I say you're an idiot. By that logic, all Sylvia Browne would have to do would be to donate more money than you, and then she'd have more say in how to run the forums than you do.

Which is all somewhat tangential, yet nevertheless related.

The JREF has found another way to support the costs of running and maintaining these forums. Its a very commonplace and normal method -- ad revenues. Nothing terribly new, or controversial, or unethical, etc., about that. It decreases the burden on the JREF, who can then use their money for other things; and it decreases the burden on forum members to support the forums financially.

Yeah, its not perfect. We get these ads popping up that promote the very people/organizations/products that James Randi and the JREF seek to debunk.

So what?

Are more people going to head off and join Sylvia Browne because they saw a link to her site here? Very highly unlikely. More likely, if people click on the link at all, is that they'll also check out what people in the forums have to say about her. And that, I thought, is what we want.

Oh, but we're pushing them higher in the search rankings! We're helping them make more money!

The impact we're going to have on their search rankings will be minimal at best. And money? Anyone who goes and gives money to them was going to do so anyway. And meanwhile, rather ironically, this forum and JREF's activities are going to be funded, in part, by money that those people have had to pay to have their ads displayed.

Seems to me that the money's flowing in the right direction.

Now, if TA or anyone else can present evidence that people are seeing these ads and actually believing that it is endorsed by the JREF, please feel free to present that evidence, and I'll be willing to consider altering my position. But right now, the only response that it engenders in me is a momentary chuckle, at just how funny it is for an ad like that to be appearing in these forums.

A quote from TA's OP: "Oh for the days when scepticism occupied the higher moral ground"

Yeah, yeah, TA. I once found your posts on this stuff humorous...now I just find it boring. Instead of the constant attempts to reveal how much more finely tuned your moral senses are than everyone else's, why don't you simply go an set up your own non-profit skeptical organization, and run it the way that you think it should be run?

And the same to all the other critics.

I run a non-profit organization of my own, and I always have people second-guessing me, and telling me how I "should" be doing things. Ironically, pretty much every person that feels they have the 'right' to tell me how to run things are people who are not running such an organization themselves...in fact, it is almost inevitably those people with the least actual experience who claim the most expertise and moral superiority in telling me how I should run my organization.

For the record -- I do not agree with everything that the JREF does; and I've made my opinions very clear in those cases when I've disagreed. And I've incurred the wrath of others (not the JREF staff, or forum moderators) for daring not to simply bow in obeisance to the dictates of the powers that be. But the difference, to me, is that I don't even try to say that "This is how the JREF should be run". What I say is, "This is my opinion". I express that opinion, explain it, and then move on. I continue to support the JREF; but if I were to reach the point where I felt that the JREF was being run in an immoral or truly objectionable manner, I would leave the JREF, and this forum...and either find another one that better suited my personal preferences, or start one up myself.

There are issues that I feel are worthy of discussion and debate; there are policies and practices that, personally, I'd love to see improved or changed.

But ads?

Seriously people...there are a million issues of greater importance and significance -- to ourselves, to JREF, and to skepticism -- than these stupid ads.

And hopefully, if nothing else, the sheer length and monotony of this post will shut this particular topic down.

[The Atheist]

If you're worried about appearing to endorse each particular advertiser, put a short disclaimer in the box that reads:

The JREF does not choose what ads are displayed on the site. They are chosen automatically from a large and diverse pool of advertisers who have requested their ads be placed on pages containing words or phrases found on this page, regardless of context. No endorsement is implied.

Yeah, something like that would salve my annoyance, and doubtless some others.

Another thread complaining about the ads? Haven't we got tired of this already?

Clearly, no.

How much is too much?

How many threads on Sylvia Browne or bigfoot is too many? How many threads are there on religion? It has a whole forum dedicated to it, but nobody seems to tire of posting in it. There are over 493,000 posts on religion so far and I doubt there isn't a single comment which hasn't been made hundreds of times.

Ya' know...

No, I don't. I gave up reading wall of text posts years ago.

[lionking]

To Wolfman,

And yet many people have justified the relentless assault on those deemed to be "trolls" on the basis that lurkers may read their posts and think there is something to them.

Yes members and regular posters know the ads are not endorsed by the JREF, but does everybody?

[Damien Evans]

Ya' know...I really don't understand the people who get all upset (and sometimes self-righteous) about some of the ads that appear in the forums now.

Yeah, ads for psychics and other miscellaneous woo are rather out of place.

Ya' know what? When I am in China, pretty much every site that I go to that has Google ads sees that my IP address is in China, and then gives me ads about how to get a Chinese bride, or getting acupuncture in China, or offering me a book to understand the "mysteries of the Chinese woman".

I have never once thought that any of those ads were endorsed by or in any way connected to the site that I was visiting. Its never even crossed my mind. Nor have I ever been offended or upset that a site I was visiting happened to display such an ad.

Seems like no matter what the JREF does, there are gonna' be people criticizing them (hey there, TA!). They are a non-profit organization, that provides a wide variety of valuable services (including this forum); and they need money to cover the costs for those things.

TA jumped all over James Randi for taking what he thought was a disproportionately huge salary for himself (and initially, I agreed...until I looked further into it), despite the fact that the salary James Randi received from the JREF was less than the amount of money he receives for his appearance fees and other income. In other words, if he simply kept the money that he receives related to his own actitivities, he'd be making more money than he does from his JREF salary. Its not a case of the JREF losing money to support James Randi; its a case of James Randi losing money to support the JREF.

And of course, we have all the hoopla from people who paid money specifically to support the forum, and then got upset because the powers that be don't run the forum the way that they want. Pretty much the same thing, in my opinion, as the guy who gets pulled over by the police, and then informs the officer that since he pays taxes, and the taxes pay the policeman's salary, that therefore the policeman works for him, and should do as he says. Supporting the forum financially does not in any manner, shape, or form give you 'voting rights', or control over how the forum is run. And if you're giving money in the expectation that it should give you a voice, then I say you're an idiot. By that logic, all Sylvia Browne would have to do would be to donate more money than you, and then she'd have more say in how to run the forums than you do.

Which is all somewhat tangential, yet nevertheless related.

The JREF has found another way to support the costs of running and maintaining these forums. Its a very commonplace and normal method -- ad revenues. Nothing terribly new, or controversial, or unethical, etc., about that. It decreases the burden on the JREF, who can then use their money for other things; and it decreases the burden on forum members to support the forums financially.

Yeah, its not perfect. We get these ads popping up that promote the very people/organizations/products that James Randi and the JREF seek to debunk.

So what?

Are more people going to head off and join Sylvia Browne because they saw a link to her site here? Very highly unlikely. More likely, if people click on the link at all, is that they'll also check out what people in the forums have to say about her. And that, I thought, is what we want.

Oh, but we're pushing them higher in the search rankings! We're helping them make more money!

The impact we're going to have on their search rankings will be minimal at best. And money? Anyone who goes and gives money to them was going to do so anyway. And meanwhile, rather ironically, this forum and JREF's activities are going to be funded, in part, by money that those people have had to pay to have their ads displayed.

Seems to me that the money's flowing in the right direction.

Now, if TA or anyone else can present evidence that people are seeing these ads and actually believing that it is endorsed by the JREF, please feel free to present that evidence, and I'll be willing to consider altering my position. But right now, the only response that it engenders in me is a momentary chuckle, at just how funny it is for an ad like that to be appearing in these forums.

A quote from TA's OP: "Oh for the days when scepticism occupied the higher moral ground"

Yeah, yeah, TA. I once found your posts on this stuff humorous...now I just find it boring. Instead of the constant attempts to reveal how much more finely tuned your moral senses are than everyone else's, why don't you simply go an set up your own non-profit skeptical organization, and run it the way that you think it should be run?

And the same to all the other critics.

I run a non-profit organization of my own, and I always have people second-guessing me, and telling me how I "should" be doing things. Ironically, pretty much every person that feels they have the 'right' to tell me how to run things are people who are not running such an organization themselves...in fact, it is almost inevitably those people with the least actual experience who claim the most expertise and moral superiority in telling me how I should run my organization.

For the record -- I do not agree with everything that the JREF does; and I've made my opinions very clear in those cases when I've disagreed. And I've incurred the wrath of others (not the JREF staff, or forum moderators) for daring not to simply bow in obeisance to the dictates of the powers that be. But the difference, to me, is that I don't even try to say that "This is how the JREF should be run". What I say is, "This is my opinion". I express that opinion, explain it, and then move on. I continue to support the JREF; but if I were to reach the point where I felt that the JREF was being run in an immoral or truly objectionable manner, I would leave the JREF, and this forum...and either find another one that better suited my personal preferences, or start one up myself.

There are issues that I feel are worthy of discussion and debate; there are policies and practices that, personally, I'd love to see improved or changed.

But ads?

Seriously people...there are a million issues of greater importance and significance -- to ourselves, to JREF, and to skepticism -- than these stupid ads.

And hopefully, if nothing else, the sheer length and monotony of this post will shut this particular topic down.

Tl;DR.

I'm having enough trouble reading atm without walls of text, no matter how well written.

[chillzero]

Moving thread to appropriate section - this is not a moderation issue, but a decision made by the JREF.

[arthwollipot]

I'm pretty much with Wolfman on this issue - and I'm patient (or bored) enough to give him the courtesy of actually reading it. No, I don't think it's appropriate that woo ads are on the site, but there's not a great deal that can be done about it. So I choose to get over it. It doesn't bother me, I don't ever see them, so I don't see what business it is of mine. As chill said, it's a decision that is made by the management of the JREF, and I'm a guest in their apartment.

So you know what? I'm going to check out the ads periodically, and every time I see a good, non-woo ad, I'm going to click on it. That'll give more benefit to the JREF than any number of rants about the bad ones.

[rjh01]

If anyone ever sees such an ad as per the opening post, then send an e-mail to Jeff Wagg giving him the URL and he can stop it. No point in starting a thread.

I wonder how much revenue is generated by these ads?

[Ysidro]

If anyone ever sees such an ad as per the opening post, then send an e-mail to Jeff Wagg giving him the URL and he can stop it. No point in starting a thread.

I wonder how much revenue is generated by these ads?

I wonder how many times we have to keep pointing out Jeff said to email him about these things so he can make sure they're removed before people will actually do that.

I guess it's more fun for some to find somethign to complain about than take part in the decided upon fix.

[arthwollipot]

Um, can anyone tell me how to find these ads? I went to the forum home page, logged off, like I was supposed to do, but I still didn't see any ads. :confused:

[TX50]

In the short time that I've been back lurking on the new-style forums I've
not seen one of those ads (sorry, the Google word for them is "creatives")
that hasn't been for some woo stuff. Today it was something about
testing if you have super powers and another for homeopathic books. It's
rather inevitable when your pages contain so many woo buzzwords and
when the small-ads market is dominated by woo-quackery.

[H3LL]

I don't understand the fuss.

Quite the opposite - I click on woo-woo Google ads whenever possible. It costs them money with zero chance of them getting a farthing from me. That's a good thing IMHO.

As for Google ranking. If anyone here thinks that sceptics out-number the woo-woo minded they are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Religious ads and woo-woo ads (same really) - Click away.

:D

ETA: Last time I looked the cost to get most woo-words into a reasonable high position of priority with Google ads is anything from $4-$8 per click. If I have time I will go and look again.

ETA: Looked - Example - Psychic Healing has an estimate of £2.50 - My currency conversion was out of date - That's about $3.60. If I can waste $3 of a psychic healer's money - I'm quite happy. I'm still happy if it's only a few pennies.
.

[plumjam]

Wolfman, yeah yeah.. but where do we go to get those Chinese brides?

[tkingdoll]

I used to be OK-ish with the idea of the ads, until I happened to be logged out one day and saw a huge banner ad here for utter woo, disguised as science. It was 'how to improve your career and intelligence using subliminal mind control like they do in advertising' or some such.

I wrote a pretty long personal email to JREF which I haven't sent for various reasons, but the main gist was:

1) the ads are not aimed at nor being seen by the regular members, but those who come across the site by accident or lurk. These people are, in my opinion, probably more likely to be swayed by the ads than we are. This has the opposite effect to the educational benefits a forum like this has. A colourful, authoritative ad has more impact than a text argument from a stranger. If someone is Googling for a topic and finds 'James Randi Educational Foundation', how are they not going to assume the ads are endorsed? What kind of educational foundation would let ads for the things it opposes on its site? The idea is absurd, so I believe any lurker or fence-sitter who sees the ad is likely to assume it's OK.

2) the members here, those who post, are generating the content from which the keywords our taken. It's JREF's platform, but it's our content, and the 'our content' part is the bit that's being used to generate woo advertising. If most posters here write about things that they consider harmful to society, how is it not a betrayal of our hard work to promote those self same harmful things to the very people we seek to educate?

I don't want to debunk psychics if I know that my words will encourage ads for psychics. I don't want to write here about homeopathy if those posts will attracts ads for alt med.

I have written here about subliminal advertising. It's a topic that even many skeptics are unaware is bunk. I have debunked it here and there have been threads about it where regular posters and newbies alike have learned something. And yet the huge banner ad I saw as per my first paragraph extolled the virtues of subliminal advertising as though it was the truest thing in the world.

I immediately felt guilty for ever having written about it here. My desire to educate others about a pseudoscience actually resulted in a big brassy advert for that very thing.

I'm not posting so much lately, and hardly on 'serious' topics.

[plumjam]

I concur with TK. These ads can only give disinterested spectators the misleading impression that JREF is a reasonably open minded organisation.

[HarryKeogh]

Choosing to raise money this way was the second-worst decision (#1 being hiring Phil Plaitt over moi) the JREF made in 2008.

But because I'm always logged on it drops off my radar until I log on at a friends house and an ad for a psychic is at the top of the page. Then I roll my eyes and sigh. We don't let Montel Williams use the excuse "hey, it's business" when he has Sylvia on. The JREF knows full well what kind of ads this website will attract because of keywords. They should just say "at the moment this advertising model doesn't work for us" but they're taking the money instead. Jeff can do his best to screen out the bad ads but they're still going to get through. There's just too many.

How much does the JREF make each time someone clicks? Are we talking pennies here? fifty cents? Is it worth it? If the JREF gets a check for $500 at the end of the month how many people does that represent who visited the JREF and instead got lured to a site promoting nonsense. And if one of those people gets sucked into it and gives those hucksters money, buys their books, calls their psychic lines, gives up their medicine and starts popping homeopathic remedies...ugh. Shameful.

Sometimes you just want to yell: How could the website of one of the most famous skeptics in the world advertise woo on its homepage!

Remember that open letter Hal Bidlack wrote to Montel about honor? It's great reading.

[CriticalThanking]

I concur with TK. These ads can only give disinterested spectators the misleading impression that JREF is a reasonably open minded organisation.(bolding mine)

Are the two sentences in your post directly related? Do you think Teek believes JREF to be something other than "reasonably open minded?" Would it be fair to characterize you as "unreasonably" open minded?

What kind of ad would you consider so unsupported by evidence and rational thought that you would consider it inappropriate? Or were you simply attempting to throw out an insult at Randi/JREF (or troll - ymmv)?

CT

[Morrigan]

Tl;DR.

No, I don't. I gave up reading wall of text posts years ago.

Dear Cthulhu, I was hoping I'd avoid that kind of crap here. *sigh*

I used to be OK-ish with the idea of the ads, until I happened to be logged out one day and saw a huge banner ad here for utter woo, disguised as science. It was 'how to improve your career and intelligence using subliminal mind control like they do in advertising' or some such.

I wrote a pretty long personal email to JREF which I haven't sent for various reasons, but the main gist was:

1) the ads are not aimed at nor being seen by the regular members, but those who come across the site by accident or lurk. These people are, in my opinion, probably more likely to be swayed by the ads than we are. This has the opposite effect to the educational benefits a forum like this has. A colourful, authoritative ad has more impact than a text argument from a stranger. If someone is Googling for a topic and finds 'James Randi Educational Foundation', how are they not going to assume the ads are endorsed? What kind of educational foundation would let ads for the things it opposes on its site? The idea is absurd, so I believe any lurker or fence-sitter who sees the ad is likely to assume it's OK.

2) the members here, those who post, are generating the content from which the keywords our taken. It's JREF's platform, but it's our content, and the 'our content' part is the bit that's being used to generate woo advertising. If most posters here write about things that they consider harmful to society, how is it not a betrayal of our hard work to promote those self same harmful things to the very people we seek to educate?

I don't want to debunk psychics if I know that my words will encourage ads for psychics. I don't want to write here about homeopathy if those posts will attracts ads for alt med.

I have written here about subliminal advertising. It's a topic that even many skeptics are unaware is bunk. I have debunked it here and there have been threads about it where regular posters and newbies alike have learned something. And yet the huge banner ad I saw as per my first paragraph extolled the virtues of subliminal advertising as though it was the truest thing in the world.

I immediately felt guilty for ever having written about it here. My desire to educate others about a pseudoscience actually resulted in a big brassy advert for that very thing.

I'm not posting so much lately, and hardly on 'serious' topics.

I was about to agree with Wolfman, but you actually raise some very good points. Now I'm pretty ambivalent about the ads... not for me personally since I never see them (even if logged out, there's always adblock :P), but for the lurkers and chance-found visitors. Hmmm...

[gentlehorse]

The JREF website advertising woo-- Oh well, business is business. Anything for a buck--Wouldn't a thunk it--

As an aside: plumjam, you crack me up. :D

[The Atheist]

If anyone ever sees such an ad as per the opening post, then send an e-mail to Jeff Wagg giving him the URL and he can stop it. No point in starting a thread.

Utterly pointless exercise, and possibly self-defeating.

Pointless, because the real purveyors of "woo" have a million ip#s and urls each. At the top of the fuel price increases last year, I gave up counting the different links for run-your-car-with-water when I got to 50.

The way it's possibly self-defeating is that they will know from web stats that JREF keeps disappearing off their reports. If the numbers have been worthwhile, it wouldn't be hard to write ads which won't get deleted, but which will bring in punters from a busy discussion board.

I wonder how much revenue is generated by these ads?

Obviously enough.

I recall that when the first psychic ad campaign was run, the income over a period of a couple/few weeks was in the low hundreds.

See, with the ads having tacit approval under a "Notice" banner rather than "These ads are by Google Adsense , over which we obviously have no control. Be aware that many of the ads will be for blatant rip-offs and feel free to discuss them right here!" or words to the effect which I would have been able to use if Chill had left it in Management. I'm sure that had no bearing on its move.

:bgrin:

I used to be OK-ish with the idea of the ads, until I happened to be logged out one day and saw a huge banner ad here for utter woo, disguised as science. It was 'how to improve your career and intelligence using subliminal mind control like they do in advertising' or some such.

Was the bloke whose name is actually "Wu"?

He's one I've chuckled at several times along the lines of what you describe.

I wrote a pretty long personal email to JREF which I haven't sent for various reasons, but the main gist was:...

Nominated, copied onto hard drive, CD and the code for it etched in titanium, packaged and put into a time capsule so your wisdom will last forever.

I've read a few posts in my time; nowhere near as many as I've written, of course, and I can't ever recall seeing one which is a such a vision of clarity and from someone whose opinion is absolutely valuable on the very subject. Not to mention the degree of sadness at the way you feel.

I'd hardly expect you to call me a pal, but whatever we feel about each other on a human level, I respect your honesty, integrity and intelligence.

Remember that open letter Hal Bidlack wrote to Montel about honor? It's great reading.

Jesus, yes.

What a perfect analogy.

________________________________________________


Nothing sluts me worse than people making better points than me, by the way.

Did anyone else have points worth noting?

No?

Excellent.


(H3LL - the numbers you're quoting are exponentially higher than reality. Lots of different ways of paying for ads on Google Adsense, but cents per click is a max.)

[The Atheist]

Dear Cthulhu, I was hoping I'd avoid that kind of crap here. *sigh*

So was I. Wall of text posts drive me nuts. Especially when it's one which you know from experience will be boring, irrelevant and trite. Still, you take the good with the bad.

The JREF website advertising woo-- Oh well, business is business. Anything for a buck--Wouldn't a thunk it--

Yep, that's the exact equation, I think, a nice dichotomy of whether JREF is a business or a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996, whose aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

If it's a business, then hell yes, all's fair. I certainly have higher ethical standards myself, but is it fair?

Definitely.

If, on the other hand, it's the description as above that comes direct from the JREF (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html) then I would say it's a fail.

[plumjam]

Are the two sentences in your post directly related? Do you think Teek believes JREF to be something other than "reasonably open minded?" Would it be fair to characterize you as "unreasonably" open minded?
I don´t know what she believes on that matter. I´d hazard a guess she believes JREF to be reasonably open minded. Myself, I believe JREF to be reasonably open minded provided that what you´re saying can fit into the prevailing JREF worldview (philosophical naturalism, give or take).
So, for example, for the most part one´s political position will not be so narrowly defined by adherence or otherwise to philosophical naturalism. Thus in the politics forum here we typically have a wider range of non-automatically-leapt-upon viewpoints than we do in, say, Philosophy and Religion, and General Skepticism. In its favour I´d say that JREF values freedom of speech highly, and I commend it for that.

Now, are the ¨woo¨ ads examples of free speech? As a non-orthodox JREFer I´d say they are, and am therefore in favour of them being allowed to be hosted here.
But if I were an orthodox JREFer I´d be quite justifiedly crying hypocrisy. This due to the fact that quite a significant part of JREF output, including the forum, consists of attacking perceived fraudulent ¨woo¨ activities such as mediumship and homeopathy. A main line of criticism of these latter activities is that they are conning gullible people out of their hard-earned money.
But then for JREF to happily accept funding, via these ads, from such enterprises, amounts to JREF effectively profiting from that which it believes, and seeks to ´educate´ the public into believing, to be fraudulent.
Such a situation can only damage JREF´s integrity.

What kind of ad would you consider so unsupported by evidence and rational thought that you would consider it inappropriate? Or were you simply attempting to throw out an insult at Randi/JREF (or troll - ymmv)?
Well, I missed the memo telling us from now on that advertisements needed to be supported by evidence and rational thought.
I was mainly making a joke.
From Teek´s point of view JREF will probably be reasonably open minded. From my point of view it clearly is not.

[The Atheist]

...justifiedly...

Good post; I thought the joke was tres funny - I'll just take issue with this one word, with my Grammar Tyrant hat on.

"Justified in" or "justifiably".

Don't you go making up more words for me to be irregardless of.

[plumjam]

Good post; I thought the joke was tres funny - I'll just take issue with this one word, with my Grammar Tyrant hat on.

"Justified in" or "justifiably".

Don't you go making up more words for me to be irregardless of.

Thanks TA, and may I be the first to wish you a Happy New Year, even if that year has to be spent in NZ ;)
Perhaps I can improve your grammar tyrant rating and move you up to 3rd place in the Russian people's affections by promoting you to Grammar Stalin. Justifiedly is indeed a word.. and different from 'justifiably' in that it's a bit more definite, less contingent.. already notionally established, rather than having merely the future possibility of establishment.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justifiedly
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/JUSTIFIEDLY
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justifiedly

[The Atheist]

Thanks TA, and may I be the first to wish you a Happy New Year, even if that year has to be spent in NZ ;)

Yeah, hell, I can hardly take much more of this weather, sea conditions and fishing, cleanliness and lack of people - I think I'll move to some over-crowded, polluted hole instead.

Perhaps I can improve your grammar tyrant rating and move you up to 3rd place in the Russian people's affections by promoting you to Grammar Stalin.

That's how I started, but Darth Rotor came up with some good reasons to change, so I did.

Justifiedly is indeed a word...

Don't be silly.

[sthomson]

This thread reminds me of a blog post I read recently, which of course I can't find right now. Anyway, the main point was to observe this curious but common set of events:

1) Website/forum/blog is created that services a Community.
2) Eventually, Creators realize that website is a money drain, as it costs money for hosting and Community is unwilling to donate money for what they perceive as a free service.
3) Website is also a time drain, as it requires (unpaid) moderators and (underpaid) coders and (unpaid or underpaid) email-answerers and so on and so on.
4) Creators institute some method by which their website can earn money without becoming more of a time drain.
5) Malcontents complain because they want perfect service with unlimited attention and oh yeah, it should be free! And don't forget the perfect part! Spend more time to make it perfect with little to no compensation!

The solution to Generic-Targeted-Google-Ads is, of course, to pay a salesman to go out, solicit ads for the forum, and screen out the inappropriate ads after they are submitted. After all, that's what newspapers do, right?

Except people pay for newspapers. Perhaps if the Generic-Targeted-Google-Ad Haters collectively donated enough additional money to cover the salary of a part-time advertising representative, JREF could consider hiring one.

[I Ratant]

I pay NO attention to ads or popups. Anywhere!

[Dunstan]

This thread reminds me of a blog post I read recently, which of course I can't find right now. Anyway, the main point was to observe this curious but common set of events:

1) Website/forum/blog is created that services a Community.

I'd say this step alone makes your analogy inapplicable. The JREF's web site should not be viewed as serving a community; it should be viewed as a major method of carrying out the JREF's mission.

An educational foundation that doesn't have a significant web presence in 2009 is probably failing at its mission. How do you expect to reach people?

An organization devoted to skepticism should be doing things to address the concerns of skeptics, and it seems to me that a frequently voiced concern is the need to build a community, so that skeptics don't feel so much like lone voices in a sea of woo.

I really hope the JREF doesn't view forumites as a bunch of ingrates who don't pay their way. I have detected a whiff of this attitude in the past, but I would think Phil Plait of all people would appreciate the importance of building an internet community.

[Uncayimmy]

Quite the opposite - I click on woo-woo Google ads whenever possible. It costs them money with zero chance of them getting a farthing from me. That's a good thing IMHO.

As someone who pays for Google ads, runs campaigns on behalf of others, and makes money from Google Adsense, I find that unethical and childish. In the long run it *could* create headaches for the JREF.

The way it's possibly self-defeating is that they will know from web stats that JREF keeps disappearing off their reports. If the numbers have been worthwhile, it wouldn't be hard to write ads which won't get deleted, but which will bring in punters from a busy discussion board.

If that's the case, then it seems pretty clear that the JREF *should* be running these ads. After all, if enough visitors coming to the site go spend their money with these businesses, then who is the JREF to interfere?

Thing is Google lets you block advertisers, but it's a lot of work.

You can do it up front by blocking a domain (StopScooby.com), which would effectively prevent any ads from that domain. Or you could get more specific like StopScooby.com/Psychics.

You can also choose to "pre-approve" all ads that appear on your site, but they are automatically approved if you don't mark them good or bad within 24 hours. Of course, you can go back later and block specific ads, but this a manual process.

So, really, the best solution for the JREF is to find volunteers they trust to periodically review the ads and mark them accordingly. Or just acknowledge that the world's an imperfect place.

[athon]

I don't understand the fuss.

Quite the opposite - I click on woo-woo Google ads whenever possible. It costs them money with zero chance of them getting a farthing from me. That's a good thing IMHO.

I see it from a different angle.

These people make that money through pseudoscience, or plain lies and dishonesty. They range from the ignorant to flat-out con artists. In any case, they make their money through less than honest means, taking them from people either through exploiting emotional states, naivity or through feeding out lies and misinformation.

The entire point of groups like the JREF makes a stand against this. Obviously they have a different moralistic view of the situation than I do, because I'd feel damn uncomfortable taking what I see as being little different to blood money.

As for 'where is the JREF going to get the cash from?', I think it's a nonsense question. It does what it can with the money it gets from honest means. If it can't run the forum without compromising its values, it doesn't run it. If the forum is that important to its message (which, IMO, it is), then it compromises on something else that may not be as efficient at reaching its goals, such as dropping the scholarships. Hell, if it were me, I'd personally probably take a pay cut if I felt it was all that important to the goal - JREF is about values, after all. It's not about making Randi's wallet fat.

Athon

[Silentknight]

Just my 2 cents (per click).

The ads don't show up for me, since I'm automatically logged in whenever I visit, hence they don't bother me.

I personally find those ads hilarious. They're a lot like those ads that showed up on a fanfiction site I used to visit, advertising things that nobody had actually been talking about, like sites hosting Sesame Street slash fics. Try not to think about that too hard, or something inside you might die. Of laughter.

Anybody that those ads are going to fool if they see them while visiting this site is probably going to miss the point regardless. They've already got an inclination to let that stuff fool them, after all.

Almost all advertisements, regardless of what they're selling, are a form of sophistry intended to persuade viewers to suspend their critical thinking and make subjective judgments. i.e. "Oh my god, I REALLY need to run out and buy that stupid product! I don't know how I could have lived without it before!"

An argument could be made that those ads serve to demonstrate exactly what it is JREF is setting out to debunk and why it's considered important.


So I don't really let them bother me.

[rjh01]

From this thread

· Wellspring Ministries
A Prophetic Worship Center in DC Prophetic Webcast & Music all week
link - wellspringministry.net
· Life after Death
Proof your child still lives. Endorsed by psychic John Edward.
link - quitkissingmyashes.com
· Dr. John Hagee Store
Authorized source all JHM Hagee 200+ Ministry books DVD CD Series.
link - faithcenteredresources.com



From the main menu..
· Dieting This Xmas?
Stay Motivated W/ Tony Ferguson. Online & Offline Weightloss Support
link - TonyFerguson.com
· "Arbitrage Conspiracy?"
Don't Buy Arbitrage Conspiracy Yet. $1139 Arbitrage Conspiracy Bonus!
link - InternetMarketingSpeed.com
· Wall Street Pro Exposed
Secrets ETF Forums Won't Teach You Learn More, Free E-Mail Series
link - ETF-Master-Trader.com



Notes.
1. www. removed at the start of links. If they want ads they can pay for them.
2. I have sent an e-mail to Jeff about these ads and this thread.

[Wowbagger]

I just got a cute, little booklet from the Skeptic Society, describing 10 steps to "become a psychic", based on material gleamed from cold reading books; attached to a donation card.

Last year, they mailed out sheet of paper to build a glider and an optical illusion, in commemoration of Paul MacCready and Jerry Andrus.

Why can't JREF come up with something cute, like that, for donation cards? Maybe they could raise a bit more money that way.

And, for the record, I am also a loud critic of the Forum ads. But, I am willing to compromise: I will complain less often about the ads, if they can somehow manage to make the Forum more reliable with the income they generate. Is that too much to ask?

[sthomson]

I'd say this step alone makes your analogy inapplicable. The JREF's web site should not be viewed as serving a community; it should be viewed as a major method of carrying out the JREF's mission.

A forum that is created to "carry out a mission" rarely thrives the way this forum does. It is undeniable that the JREF forum attracts skeptics and promotes a sense of community.

The www.randi.org website is a different matter, of course. However, the only ad I see there is for "The God that Never Existed".

[jj]

IF we click on them and then close the page, does the forum get money?

[rjh01]

Not sure, but see this thread Dumb, dumb, dumb, de dumb, dumb. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131835)

It is a good question. Some people assume the answer is yes. I cannot see any other answer. But I know so little.

[The Atheist]

2) Eventually, Creators realize that website is a money drain, as it costs money for hosting and Community is unwilling to donate money for what they perceive as a free service.

You must have missed the forum collections from members.

And, for the record, I am also a loud critic of the Forum ads. But, I am willing to compromise: I will complain less often about the ads, if they can somehow manage to make the Forum more reliable with the income they generate. Is that too much to ask?

That plus a disclaimer would probably silence all opposition.

rjh01 - nice list!

[The Atheist]

And today - another true classic:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/bpjref.jpg

This is JREf's own site, and here we have an ad masquerading as a product endorsed by JREF. There is no difference between the two product placements - one an ad for a JREF cruise, the other, an ad for an alt-med fraud.

Advertising psychics is one thing, but advertising a product which is encouraging people to try alt-med for something like high BP instead of advising to see a medical doctor immediately is ..........

I can't get the right word for it; I've been through farcical, hypocritical, appalling, ridiculous, disgraceful, outrageous and traitorous, but none of them is sufficient alone.

Horror admission for a Grammar Tyrant, I know.

[Morrigan]

So was I. Wall of text posts drive me nuts. Especially when it's one which you know from experience will be boring, irrelevant and trite.
Fair enough, but why can't you just plain ignore the post, instead of going the juvenile route of "too long, didn't read"? (At least you didn't go fully 4chan-esque with the "tl;dr" reply) It just strikes me as a lame response.

[chillzero]

This is JREf's own site, and here we have an ad masquerading as a product endorsed by JREF. There is no difference between the two product placements - one an ad for a JREF cruise, the other, an ad for an alt-med fraud.

Well, have you contacted the JREF about it, as they requested so they can act on it, or are you just complaining about it here where none of us can do anything?

[rjh01]

The good news is that I have sent Jeff an e-mail (at 1:06 am Thursday GMT) suggesting he keeps an eye on this thread. I have not had a reply back from him. It could be that he is on holidays. In which case the psychics have advertising until he gets back and acts on this thread and my e-mail.

I have no idea what The Atheist has done so I suggest he gives a reply to your post as well. But please do not be too hard on him. Most members do not even look for obvious reasons.

Edit. The Atheist already has answered Chillzero's question. See post 25, where he answered the same question from me.

[SimonD]

Well, have you contacted the JREF about it, as they requested so they can act on it, or are you just complaining about it here where none of us can do anything?

Has anyone sent an e-mail to Jeff about the advertising and got a reply? I never did and I still see the same ads that I complained about.

E.T.A - I think that there is a real problem. It is like James Randi is saying "I hate Woo, but I don't mind making money out of it."

[rjh01]

SimonD.
Please see post 37
2. I have sent an e-mail to Jeff about these ads and this thread.

[SimonD]

SimonD.
Please see post 37

I did see your post. My question still stands - is anyone getting a reply in relation to the e-mails that are being sent to Jeff? Sounds like you didn't get a reply either.

I yet to hear of anyone getting a response. I understand that Jeff is a busy man, but it only takes a moment to send an e-mail to say 'got your e-mail, will action 'x'.

I have the time to send Jeff e-mails about the ads on this forum, but I don't want to be wasting my time (and Jeff's) if he isn't (or doesn't have the time) to do anything about it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a serious dilemma, and it is not confined to the JREF site. I just called in my local public TV fund raising marathon complaining about them for putting on an hour long infomercial in an effort to raise money. These can be iffy but this one was outright snake oil sales. A woman who sells snake oil cures for all the supposed toxins you are exposed to donates a few free books to encourage donations and gets a free infomercial on a 'credible' TV station.

But consider this regarding the JREF ads, no money is generated unless people click on the link. And clicking on the link results in JREF money, but if no business is generated, then it only serves to cost the vendors for unproductive advertising.

I think the ads may have a silver lining. In the case of this forum we could start threads debunking the ads. People would click on the links to see what we were debunking, and, clicking the links generates money.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Another thread complaining about the ads? Haven't we got tired of this already?

I'm not commenting on the ads until I see one.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

2) the members here, those who post, are generating the content from which the keywords our taken. It's JREF's platform, but it's our content, and the 'our content' part is the bit that's being used to generate woo advertising. If most posters here write about things that they consider harmful to society, how is it not a betrayal of our hard work to promote those self same harmful things to the very people we seek to educate?

I don't want to debunk psychics if I know that my words will encourage ads for psychics. I don't want to write here about homeopathy if those posts will attracts ads for alt med.

Note to self: Make a lot more posts about porn.

[arthwollipot]

I pay NO attention to ads or popups. Anywhere!Nor do I, but we are not representative of the vast majority of the world's population, quite a few of whom are demonstrably stupid.

[rjh01]

I did see your post. My question still stands - is anyone getting a reply in relation to the e-mails that are being sent to Jeff? Sounds like you didn't get a reply either.

I yet to hear of anyone getting a response. I understand that Jeff is a busy man, but it only takes a moment to send an e-mail to say 'got your e-mail, will action 'x'.

I have the time to send Jeff e-mails about the ads on this forum, but I don't want to be wasting my time (and Jeff's) if he isn't (or doesn't have the time) to do anything about it.

Give the man a chance. He probably is on holidays, playing the computer game 'real life.'

However I did receive a reply back in October when I sent him a similar e-mail. So, yes I am confident he will send a reply to me.

[Wowbagger]

That plus a disclaimer would probably silence all opposition.
Yes, a disclaimer would be very nice, too!

I seem to recall the Forum had one, the first time they tried the Google ads thing.

[The Atheist]

Fair enough, but why can't you just plain ignore the post, instead of going the juvenile route of "too long, didn't read"? (At least you didn't go fully 4chan-esque with the "tl;dr" reply) It just strikes me as a lame response.

Probably is!

Then again, I happen to be quote passionate about this subject - ask around, I've made several friends discussing skeptics who have uncensored advertising on their sites for several years.

Because of that, when a noted obfuscator starts doing his stuff in the thread, I can't resist a little prod.

Well, have you contacted the JREF about it, as they requested so they can act on it, or are you just complaining about it here where none of us can do anything?

No, and I've explained several times why I won't do that. The main reason is that it's a completely pointless, and possibly self-defeating, exercise.

But I have already said that in this thread.

This is a serious dilemma, and it is not confined to the JREF site.

Unless you're watching a tv station dedicated to promoting critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today, then I don't think the analogy fits.

Tv is a horrible medium, full of ****. I expect to see ads for all sorts of pseudoscience on tv, often in ads for women's beauty products, funnily enough. And diets.

But you're at not being confined to JREF.

Bad Astronomy has had them for ages. A coincidence that they recently re-started at JREF?

My pal Miss Whiplash has a blog with psychic ads on as well, but at least nobody ever goes there, so it doesn't matter.

Lots of others.

Most newspapers suffer from it but don't care, but then again, when did newspapers last care about truth over revenue? In a dying marker, to boot.

I seem to recall the Forum had one, the first time they tried the Google ads thing.

You might be right, too. I'll see if I can procrastinate going back through management threads longer than you to check it out.

[Wowbagger]

You might be right, too. I'll see if I can procrastinate going back through management threads longer than you to check it out.
I don't recall exactly what the wording was, but it was something from Jeff Wagg, saying something like "Take a look at these ads. There is a lot of woo out there. Think critically". or something to that extent.

[The Atheist]

I don't recall exactly what the wording was, but it was something from Jeff Wagg, saying something like "Take a look at these ads. There is a lot of woo out there. Think critically". or something to that extent.

You're succeeding in out-procrastinating me so far - I've just been trying to find the thread which discussed it all last time around. I thought Jeff Wagg had started the thread, but no dice.

I seem to recall that disclaimer going in after complaints as well?

Still not ideal to my mind, but a huge improvement on the BP @ JREF which was still up this afternoon. Maybe they're getting good business out of it?

[rjh01]

Expecting perfection at all times and instantaneous response at all time is, in my opinion, an unreasonable position.



I can think a myriad of things that could be worse but since, like your scenario, they haven't happened it's rather irrelevant to a discussion about what actually is happening.

Unfortunately, AdSense doesn't tell me which ads were clicked. The total take was $101.04, and I assure you that the JREF will be donating that money (and far beyond it) to another needy skeptical organization.

There will not be ads on the forum if you log in. Ever. The fund raising campaign guaranteed that.

But for non-members, we're going to do a trial run for ads. The JREF is a non-profit and has to look for revenue wherever it can. This might be a good source of revenue.. it might not.

But bottom line is, it won't affect any of our forum members, so long as they login. And even if they don't, they're pretty unobtrusive.

We're not even twenty four hours into this experiment, and we've learned some things.

1) This seems to pay. Based on what I've seen so far (and this is too preliminary to take seriously) these ads will generate $20,000 for the JREF annually. That's more than enough to fund the scholarship program, for example.

2) AdSense doesn't let me control the content much. I can block up to 20 sites, and that's it.

3) Clicking the ads does take money from them, and give it to us and Google. However, I am in no way encouraging anyone to click ads. That's called "click fraud." Please don't spend your weekend clicking ads thinking that you're making the JREF money.

4) Rebecca is exactly right with her concerns. If were we just interested in making money, we'd be giving our OWN psychic readings. Clearly this is not our mission.

Perhaps the concept of advertising works, but AdSense just isn't the way to do it. More experimenting...

You're succeeding in out-procrastinating me so far - I've just been trying to find the thread which discussed it all last time around. I thought Jeff Wagg had started the thread, but no dice.

I seem to recall that disclaimer going in after complaints as well?

Still not ideal to my mind, but a huge improvement on the BP @ JREF which was still up this afternoon. Maybe they're getting good business out of it?

Found a few old quotes that may be interesting. Did not find the one I was looking for.

[Darth Rotor]

I can't get the right word for it; I've been through farcical, hypocritical, appalling, ridiculous, disgraceful, outrageous and traitorous, but none of them is sufficient alone.

Horror admission for a Grammar Tyrant, I know.
Ironic.

[Darth Rotor]

The PBS beggars can't be choosers problem isn't confined to snake oil sales. :( I think the ads may have a silver lining. In the case of this forum we could start threads debunking the ads. People would click on the links to see what we were debunking, and, clicking the links generates money.
I like this, it sounds devious.

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

DR

[The Atheist]

The PBS beggars can't be choosers problem isn't confined to snake oil sales. :(
I like this, it sounds devious.

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

DR

I wouldn't rate myself as any kind of expert, but I could see the idea working in priciple.

Trouble is, it wouldn't happen. It'd be a full time job and would run out of fizz faster than beer on a hot day. (if it gets the chance to lose its fizz because it's being drunk by some shandy-sipping nonce, that is)

[Wowbagger]

You're succeeding in out-procrastinating me so far - That's not out-procrastinating. That's just scrambling through the tatters remains of my memory.

Found a few old quotes that may be interesting. Did not find the one I was looking for. The one about them not giving him much control, I think, is outdated. If I recall correctly, the reason we are having the ads, again, is because Google promised more control, this time. I don't know if that's all entirely accurate, though. Again, we are working off my weak memory.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The PBS beggars can't be choosers problem isn't confined to snake oil sales. :(
I like this, it sounds devious.

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?

DRI believe there is a rule in the advert agreements that the web site admin cannot overtly request clicking on ads to generate income. So it would be up to us to do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wouldn't rate myself as any kind of expert, but I could see the idea working in priciple.

Trouble is, it wouldn't happen. It'd be a full time job and would run out of fizz faster than beer on a hot day. (if it gets the chance to lose its fizz because it's being drunk by some shandy-sipping nonce, that is)That's why you have to link it to a discussion. Clicking on ads to help out JREF in indeed an unsustainable exercise.

[Uncayimmy]

I am not smart enough on web advert internal processes to know if your suggestion would be an effective viral guerilla effort, but some folks here are.

TA, or anyone else smart on web adverts: is this a possible venue for waging guerilla war?

Money talks and BS walks. If JREF is in the bind and thus has to get ads, is it not possible for a little judo to be applied?



I believe I commented on this earlier. As someone who advertises this way himself and on behalf of clients, I find it unethical and childish engage in fraudulent clicks. It's clearly a commercial solicitation. To click on it to wage "guerrilla warfare" is not appropriate.

The only defense would be, "Well, they're ripping off people, too!" If we ignore the fact that some of these people genuinely believe in what they are doing, it's still operating on the same level for which we condemn them: ripping people off.

As a practical matter advertisers know not only who clicks through to the site, but they know the conversion rates (who buys). If you see a site sending lots of visitors with no conversions, you check it out. If it seems iffy, you complain and refuse to pay. Google, if it sees fit, will simply terminate the agreement at its sole discretion.

If you want to wage guerrilla warfare, then maybe the JREF can use some of the money to compete with the psychic advertisers. Create an ad that reads, "How to Tell if Your Psychic is a Fraud" and send them to a page with useful information. Sign up with referral programs and provide links to books and videos on the subject so if people buy them, you make money. Or sell your own pamphlet. Ask for donations.

In other words, take the high road.

[Jeff Wagg]

Some things..

Putting the ads back wasn't my decision.

To Wowbagger: we made major improvements to the forum over Christmas. A lot of people have noticed that. Haven't you?

It is indeed very difficult to get the ads blocked through Google. They have given us more control, but as TA correctly points out, I can enter 500 URLs (I'm over 100 as it is) and there's an endless supply to take their place. Also, some of the ads are masked, and some are merely searches of yellow pages sites.

There are two possible solutions:

1) Encourage members to donate more so we don't need ads.

2) Use a different advertising system. I'm working on this now with some of the big name advertisers. I'm hoping this will provide us with a solution.

The fact of the matter is that the ads make us thousands of dollars are year as configured now, and we can't ignore that.

Believe me.. I'd much rather see ads for Toyota and Coca-Cola on there.

Off I go to add another dozen URLs to the blocked list...

[HarryKeogh]

thanks for actively looking for new solutions, Jeff.

[Wowbagger]

To Wowbagger: we made major improvements to the forum over Christmas. A lot of people have noticed that. Haven't you?
Well, now that you mentioned it, yes the site does seem to have improved.

Was all or most of its slowness really due to the "Who's On-Line" list?

Also, if we are going to have "woo" ads on here, can we at least put back that disclaimer you once had, on top of them?

[Cuddles]

Was all or most of its slowness really due to the "Who's On-Line" list?

No. The forum was shut down for a couple of days over Christmas and had several technical-sounding things done to it. The "Who's online list" was one of the more minor changes, I think.

As for adverts, my question is simply - does the JREF really need them? We have been told that the end of the challenge has nothing to do with money problems and that the JREF is in a perfectly healthy state as finance goes, and the threads discussing the JREF's tax statements of the last couple of years certainly seem to back that up. Sure, the JREF is a relatively small organisation and the prospect of any additional money is not something to be sniffed at, but it does seem a little silly for a financially healthy organisation that is about to have over a million dollars released for its use to be scrabbling for money by promoting the very things it exists to counter.

Is the amount of money received judged to be enough to counter any negative effects of such ironic advertising, is it just that the JREF doesn't consider there to be any significant negative effects regardless of the money, or is there some other reason for having them?

[rjh01]

1) Encourage members to donate more so we don't need ads.


Where does the money go that is raised by the ads?
1. To JREF. The forum gets nothing extra.
2. To JREF. The forum will get a little extra, because the budget is bigger.
3. It is extra money for the forum on top of the money given to it by JREF
4. Planet X option. Please specify what this is.

Ditto for any money that is donated. I am thinking about giving a donation but I want it to be used as per option 2 only. However I note all the options state 'donate to JREF' not 'donate to the forum'.

Also how much money do you need to raise to cut out the ads?
Will advertising be coming to members who are logged on?

I clicked on donate to JREF button above, however that gives me an error (old site). I did find one button that I could click to donate that worked.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe I commented on this earlier. As someone who advertises this way himself and on behalf of clients, I find it unethical and childish engage in fraudulent clicks. It's clearly a commercial solicitation. To click on it to wage "guerrilla warfare" is not appropriate.....Black pots should not be complaining about black kettles.

I find it unethical and disgusting every time I see junk mail with a fake come on to trick me into opening the letter as if I were that stupid. It's unethical to use my phone to advertise to me when I have explicitly asked not to be approached this way ("not selling, just taking a survey" my ass). It's unethical to constantly switch email addresses to get past the email blockers I try to implement and so on and so on.

Come back when your colleagues get a conscience.

[Uncayimmy]

Black pots should not be complaining about black kettles.

So, are you calling me and my clients unethical and childish? You know this how?

I find it unethical and disgusting every time I see junk mail with a fake come on to trick me into opening the letter as if I were that stupid.
Google Ads <> E-Mail Spam

It's unethical to use my phone to advertise to me when I have explicitly asked not to be approached this way ("not selling, just taking a survey" my ass).
Google Ads <> Telephone Surveys

It's unethical to constantly switch email addresses to get past the email blockers I try to implement and so on and so on.
Google Ads <> E-Mail Spam

Come back when your colleagues get a conscience.
Does that mean I'm supposed to leave? You mean this thread? This board? I'm confused.

Before I condemn myself to purgatory, let me give you one more mathematical statement.

Unethical Google Advertisers < All Google Advertisers

[tkingdoll]

No. The forum was shut down for a couple of days over Christmas and had several technical-sounding things done to it. The "Who's online list" was one of the more minor changes, I think.

As for adverts, my question is simply - does the JREF really need them? We have been told that the end of the challenge has nothing to do with money problems and that the JREF is in a perfectly healthy state as finance goes, and the threads discussing the JREF's tax statements of the last couple of years certainly seem to back that up. Sure, the JREF is a relatively small organisation and the prospect of any additional money is not something to be sniffed at, but it does seem a little silly for a financially healthy organisation that is about to have over a million dollars released for its use to be scrabbling for money by promoting the very things it exists to counter.

Is the amount of money received judged to be enough to counter any negative effects of such ironic advertising, is it just that the JREF doesn't consider there to be any significant negative effects regardless of the money, or is there some other reason for having them?

That is a very good point.

[SimonD]

Give the man a chance. He probably is on holidays, playing the computer game 'real life.'

However I did receive a reply back in October when I sent him a similar e-mail. So, yes I am confident he will send a reply to me.

I did give him a chance...and I still never got a reply.

But I see he has and it looks like the ads are here to stay, which is a shame.

[Jeff Wagg]

Simon, I apologize for not replying to you. I get several of these e-mails a day, and I have to do a rather complicated dance of cutting and pasting and editing html to get the URLs I need to add to Google's list. I must have overlooked replying to you.

[athon]

As for adverts, my question is simply - does the JREF really need them? We have been told that the end of the challenge has nothing to do with money problems and that the JREF is in a perfectly healthy state as finance goes, and the threads discussing the JREF's tax statements of the last couple of years certainly seem to back that up. Sure, the JREF is a relatively small organisation and the prospect of any additional money is not something to be sniffed at, but it does seem a little silly for a financially healthy organisation that is about to have over a million dollars released for its use to be scrabbling for money by promoting the very things it exists to counter

Yup. I totally agree, and alluded to this in my previous post. To me, this is a case of selling values which are significant in order to achieve its goals. I'd only see such an endeavour as a serious last resort, and even then, I'd investigate other avenues. I'm having trouble seeing it any different to a middle-class house wife prostituting herself to pay for a manicure.

Athon

[SimonD]

Simon, I apologize for not replying to you. I get several of these e-mails a day, and I have to do a rather complicated dance of cutting and pasting and editing html to get the URLs I need to add to Google's list. I must have overlooked replying to you.

Jeff,

Thanks for that and don't worry about it.

[Andre H]

I have never seen any ads here and found it strange first but thought maybe because its a foundation? Well it seems like they have ads I cant see, No I dont use addblocker? Nevermind

[The Atheist]

I have never seen any ads here and found it strange first but thought maybe because its a foundation? Well it seems like they have ads I cant see, No I dont use addblocker? Nevermind

They don't show once you're signed in, so if you signed in with the "remember me" function on, you don't see ads. Sign out if you really need to see what kind of rubbish is advertised.

[temporalillusion]

2) Use a different advertising system. I'm working on this now with some of the big name advertisers. I'm hoping this will provide us with a solution

Kind of a 2-a type solution would be to sell ads directly rather than going through a provider.

One of my favorite webcomics went this route and they claim they make a lot more money off of it, and they view it almost like an endorsement; if an ad appears on their site they are saying they endorse whatever product.

The downside of course is added effort.. finding those deals and working them out might be time consuming. But then again this is a pretty big and well known forum, so there might be a lot of interest in places wanting to buy very directed advertising.

Just a thought.

[BenBurch]

Noticed a really woo product on the front page ad... Is there an address I can send those to when I see them and get them blocked?

[chillzero]

Ben, I moved your comment to the approriate thread, and your question is answered here:

If anyone ever sees such an ad as per the opening post, then send an e-mail to Jeff Wagg giving him the URL and he can stop it.

[BenBurch]

Ben, I moved your comment to the approriate thread, and your question is answered here:

Thank You!