Jump to content

New feature: ADS UNDER THE FIRST 3 CACHE LISTINGS

genegene

By genegene
in Website

Followers 3

Recommended Posts

LQ

LQ

Posted
Posted

I added one more advertisement on the nearest cache page after the 5th returned result.

 

You said ONE, and yet there are 3 of them (just as stated in the topic of this thread) when you log in to a non premium account! When not logged in there seems to be one row of ads as after the 5th result as you said and that could be almost bearable, but 3 is way too much!

 

It is a block of ads, meaning it can change between 3 and 4 ads depending on whatever Google decides to show.

 

3 or 4? No it's 3 TIMES 4 = 12! And that is annoying.

Link to comment
McPhan

+McPhan

Posted
Posted

Just a random thought (like most of mine)

 

What if there had been a line drawn in the sand and only new members from that date were shown the ads?

 

New members would not know any different and would accept the site as is, as most of us do on just about every other site we visit.

 

Obviously the income stream initially would be much lower, however this thread would/may not exist

Link to comment
Aushiker

Aushiker

Posted
Posted
You said ONE, and yet there are 3 of them (just as stated in the topic of this thread) when you log in to a non premium account! When not logged in there seems to be one row of ads as after the 5th result as you said and that could be almost bearable, but 3 is way too much!

I think you may have misunderstood what was said. I believe the reference was to the number of "adverts" within the single bar which runs across the page. From what I can see when not logged in, there is a single bar of ads running left to right in the search results. This bar appears after the fifth cache. It does seem to appear on each search page.

 

3 or 4? No it's 3 TIMES 4 = 12! And that is annoying.

Where are you seeing this? Is this on a single page?

 

Regards

Andrew

Link to comment
Ville Saari

Ville Saari

Posted
Posted

One or two ads on a page is just business, but 12 on the same page is extortion. I think Groundspeak made a big mistake today, because this was the straw that broke the camel's back and now everyone is setting up ad-blockers. Or at least me and many people I know are.

 

I'm not a premium member and it don't think I ever will be. The nature of premium membership changed quite completely today: Before it was about paying for better service, but now it is about yielding to extortion.

Link to comment
Aushiker

Aushiker

Posted
Posted
On every search result page. Here's an example: 13 ads if you count the old one on the left too.

I am sorry but I couldn't work out the URL from this grab. Can you please provide the URL? I am interested in which section of the site where this happens. Just curosity.

 

It's extortion because Groundspeak is asking $3 a month for not showing those ads.

 

You have an interesting definition of extortion then. None of my dictionaries suggest what is occuring is extortion.

 

As I see it:

  1. No one is forcing anyone to do anything at geocaching.com.
  2. Anyone who does not like the way the pages are rendered can go play at geocaching elsewhere.
  3. No one is being forced to view geocaching.com pages.
  4. The game can be played without paying money to Groundspeak.
  5. Folks who choose to not purchase premium memberships can still play at geocaching via Geocaching.com.
  6. Folks who choose to pay can still benefit from most of the services at geocaching.com financed through premium memberships and other activities undertaken by Groundspeak.

None of that is extortion from my understanding of the word.

 

Regards

Andrew

Link to comment
Aushiker

Aushiker

Posted
Posted (edited)
On every search result page. Here's an example: 13 ads if you count the old one on the left too.

 

Okay, found it. Had to log in under my young fellows account to get the right search. I wonder if this is intentional or an error? This is not what they do elsewhere. I agree it wouldn't be nice, but hardly extortion. I have seen worse on a mountain bike forum. I took the option there to leave as I was not willing to pay ... came down to the value of of the product on offer. Simple really.

 

Have you contacted Groundspeak to seek clarification?

 

Regards

Andrew

Edited by Aushiker
Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

It is almost comical.

 

I have no problem supporting the site and have from the beginning (Charter Member). It seems funny to me that those who don't want to support the site feel free to dictate how it should be run. As one who has financially supported the site, I have no problem with GC.com adding to the bottom line if it makes things run better and helps them be successful. I most certainly appreciate the fact that my financial support is rewarded by being excluded from seeing the ads on cache pages, and the ads at the top of the forums do not bother me in the least. They have been inserted into an area that was "dead space", so they do not change the forum viewing experience at all.

 

I don't consider non-paying members as freeloaders, but in an age where ads for other shows scroll along the bottom of the TV as your favorite show is playing, I would ask if these same folks are going to throw their TV's out on the street because of that. This seems to go on now on most channels. If you do want to throw your TV out, let me know so I can come by and get it. Especially if it is one of those big screen ones. :laughing:

Link to comment
mini cacher

+mini cacher

Posted
Posted (edited)

It would appear to me that non-logged in "guests" get the one block of ads under the fifth cache on the search results page...while logged in non-PMs get one block of ads after each of the first three caches listed. To me that seems exessive.

Edited by mini cacher
Link to comment
Aushiker

Aushiker

Posted
Posted (edited)
It would appear to me that non-logged in "guests" get the one block of ads under the fifth cache on the search results page...while logged in non-PMs get one block of ads after each of the first three caches listed. To me that seems exessive.

That is what happens when I try and I agree which is why I think it is an aberration.

 

Regards

Andrew

Edited by Aushiker
Link to comment
Ville Saari

Ville Saari

Posted
Posted

It would appear to me that non-logged in "guests" get the one block of ads under the fifth cache on the search results page...while logged in non-PMs get one block of ads after each of the first three caches listed. To me that seems exessive.

That is excessive indeed. We members - premium or not - are to be thanked for Groundspeak to have any business at all. Groundspeak has just provided the framework, but we have created the content. A cache listing service would be nothing without the caches to list. However instead of thanking us, Groundspeak is currently punishing us by feeding us more ads than they do for non registered users, who have not provided any content.

 

And I don't buy the explanation of Groundspeak needing more money because of the growing usage. When the popularity of the web site increases, the revenue from the same amount of ads increases linearly with the usage, but the expenses grow less than linearly due to economy of scale. So a web site should need less ads when it grows to be profitable.

Link to comment
alexrudd

+alexrudd

Posted
Posted

I didn't even notice until this forum thread. (1) PM (2)Adblock+

 

From the screenshots, it looks like you completely overdid it for non-PM. Ads that are that annoying (half the page == annoying) will just turn people away. I think one line (without whitespace, dividers, or that by Google line) after the second or third listing would be best.

 

I realize the ads for people not logged in are not the most profitable, but they were done well. I dislike ads but those are not intrusive at all.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

It's fixed. The code zigged when it should have zagged.

 

The interesting thing was the ads were actually pretty effective. Annoying, but effective. I'll see how the dropoff looks when we switch to one ad on this page.

 

(I made the mistake of not testing that with a logged in non-PM account when I put it up yesterday)

Link to comment
TotemLake

+TotemLake

Posted
Posted
taz' date='Jun 29 2007, 01:50 AM' post='2937371']

I think you should remove them they will alienate the casual cacher and make them feel that they should get a membership just to remove these adverts that are being forced upon them.

 

With this suggestion, do you have one to replace the revenue lost?

 

I was always taought, don't just dump a problem in someone's lap and make it their job to come up with the solution. Add a couple of your own for consideration if you expect to see results.

Link to comment
TotemLake

+TotemLake

Posted
Posted

It would appear to me that non-logged in "guests" get the one block of ads under the fifth cache on the search results page...while logged in non-PMs get one block of ads after each of the first three caches listed. To me that seems exessive.

That is excessive indeed. We members - premium or not - are to be thanked for Groundspeak to have any business at all. Groundspeak has just provided the framework, but we have created the content. A cache listing service would be nothing without the caches to list. However instead of thanking us, Groundspeak is currently punishing us by feeding us more ads than they do for non registered users, who have not provided any content.

 

And I don't buy the explanation of Groundspeak needing more money because of the growing usage. When the popularity of the web site increases, the revenue from the same amount of ads increases linearly with the usage, but the expenses grow less than linearly due to economy of scale. So a web site should need less ads when it grows to be profitable.

Perhaps you were hybernating through all the downtimes last winter through spring? Your remarks show you truly don't understand the business model. This isn't just a static web site. It is dynamic and requires lots of resources in terms of additional hardware, software, and expert consultation to handle the exponential growth and demand.

 

Microsoft's website does not run on a single server or a single site of servers. Neither does Google. Both these entities always add more of the above when the growth demands. Why should you expect GS to run without growth in equipiment, staff and services to handle more demand?

 

Don't like seeing the ads? You have two choices and you know what they are.

Link to comment
[MF]taz

+[MF]taz

Posted
Posted (edited)
QUOTE

taz' date='Jun 29 2007, 01:50 AM' post='2937371']

I think you should remove them they will alienate the casual cacher and make them feel that they should get a membership just to remove these adverts that are being forced upon them.

 

 

With this suggestion, do you have one to replace the revenue lost?

 

I was always taought, don't just dump a problem in someone's lap and make it their job to come up with the solution. Add a couple of your own for consideration if you expect to see results.

 

All I was saying is this really in the spirit of what is intended, if the answer isthe advertisment is more important than offering a service that is specified as being "Free".

 

But as I see from recent posts that it was not intended to flood our search results with adds [3 blocks mixed in with results] and that the intention was to add 1 block in the middle of the page.

 

Not nearly as annoying.

Edited by [MF]taz
Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
taz' date='Jun 29 2007, 09:19 AM' post='2937860']

 

But as I see from recent posts that it was not intended to flood our search results with adds [3 blocks mixed in with results] and that the intention was to add 1 block in the middle of the page.

 

 

The caveat is that we're experimenting with various approaches with advertising so things may change over time. However I agree that an ad after each result was extremely annoying. If Google didn't automagically stop returning ads after the 3rd block you would have seen them after every result (which was definitely not my intent!).

Link to comment
stepshep

+stepshep

Posted
Posted

I think it is utterly ridiculous that there are so many people who are complaining about the ads. Honestly show me a website where one of the pages doesn't contain an ad of some type. I could see some unrest is every geocaching page gave you pop-ups to fight, but are there any pop-ups? Nope, just a few text ads, and a picture ad or two. Is it really all that horrible? No. Television has ads, do you whine to ABC and NBC and TLC and every other channel listing out there that you watch? Do you throw popcorn at the movie screen when they show a trailer at the theater? There are much better ways to spend your time, then on a forum (which will be upgraded soon?) complaining about a few simple ads on a website, that the majority of the complaining don't even help support! Try going out and going geocaching. Just pay 3 dollars one time, and you don't get any ads. My current membership has lapsed a bit but I still don't see ads. Give and you will receive, take and give none and this is what you get. :(

Link to comment
LQ

LQ

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's fixed. The code zigged when it should have zagged.

 

The interesting thing was the ads were actually pretty effective. Annoying, but effective. I'll see how the dropoff looks when we switch to one ad on this page.

 

(I made the mistake of not testing that with a logged in non-PM account when I put it up yesterday)

 

I see that one of the ad sets has been left where it was, ...I guess as originally intended. One set has been removed, BUT the third set has NOT been REmoved it has been MOVED. Was this intentional?

 

edit: OK, yes I found the announcement post, that was posted a bit earlier than this one...

Edited by lq
Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

 

I see that one of the ad sets has been left where it was, ...I guess as originally intended. One set has been removed, BUT the third set has NOT been REmoved it has been MOVED. Was this intentional?

 

 

Yep. Except for the third set. Before there was an ad after each of the first 3 results. Now there is an ad after the first 3 results and before the last 3.

 

Of course this was mentioned in the announcements forum and linked from the top of the nearest cache page.

Link to comment
3wise

+3wise

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ads ? I hate them.

 

Appreciate that funding must be a problem but please, please, please find some other way than polluting your otherwise excellent webpage with them in amongst the text.

Edited by 3wise
Link to comment
klossner

+klossner

Posted
Posted
Ads ? I hate them.

Appreciate that funding must be a problem but please, please, please find some other way than polluting your otherwise excellent webpage with them in amongst the text.

Here you go: when you pay your license fee to get U.K. television without ads (how I wish I had that option in the U.S.), at the same time buy a Geocaching premium membership.
Link to comment
nittany dave

+nittany dave

Posted
Posted

Ads ? I hate them.

 

Appreciate that funding must be a problem but please, please, please find some other way than polluting your otherwise excellent webpage with them in amongst the text.

I believe it's called premium membership.

<the following is not directed at 3wise but to all who so vehemently oppose ads>

I understand the annoyance with the ads when they were showing up after each cache in the list - an unintended result, but that's changed now.

As others have said, what commercial website doesn't have at least some ads. They are annoying to most of us, but unfortunately, a part of life and today's online business models.

I suppose instead of ads, Groundspeak could limit or make many of the things non-premium members have enjoyed for free for so long PM-only features to encourage more people to support the site. I wonder how loud the screams would be from those who are not premium members then.

Link to comment
mikemtn

+mikemtn

Posted
Posted

I noticed some websites have a small 'Support Us' box on the main page. It then links to a PayPal account where a user can donate any amount of money. Has Groundspeak thought about implementing a similiar feature?

We've been there and done that .....a long time ago.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

Just clicked on an ad to see who it was and the only thing that drives me nuts is that the ad does not open in a new window. Hate ads that take me away from the site I am using.

 

I have no control over that. In fact Google strictly forbids me to make it so those links open in a new window. I assume right clicking on an ad and choosing "open in new window" will do it for you but I can't do that automagically.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted (edited)

I noticed some websites have a small 'Support Us' box on the main page. It then links to a PayPal account where a user can donate any amount of money. Has Groundspeak thought about implementing a similiar feature?

We've been there and done that .....a long time ago.

 

Yes. The response was terrible. And frankly I don't really think it would be nice to have to do a funding drive every time we needed money (like PBS).

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
KMT

KMT

Posted
Posted

Normally I do not even read forums and it takes a lot to make me post something.

But a "search page" like Post #57 on this morning brought me to the Forum.

(I know that this is fixed and the list is now much more readable than before the fix)

 

The main issue for me (and I think the most other writers) is the placement of the ad, not the ad itself.

To have ads for a free service is ok.

I really liked the continuous list of caches which more or less fitted on one screen.

 

Isn't it posible to put the ads around a continuous list of caches ?

For example: more ads on the left bar and one bar at the top of the Listing

Link to comment
nittany dave

+nittany dave

Posted
Posted

Normally I do not even read forums and it takes a lot to make me post something.

But a "search page" like Post #57 on this morning brought me to the Forum.

(I know that this is fixed and the list is now much more readable than before the fix)

 

The main issue for me (and I think the most other writers) is the placement of the ad, not the ad itself.

To have ads for a free service is ok.

I really liked the continuous list of caches which more or less fitted on one screen.

 

Isn't it posible to put the ads around a continuous list of caches ?

For example: more ads on the left bar and one bar at the top of the Listing

I think the point of having it in the list instead of (or in addition to) beside, above or below it is to get attention, and clicks. Hiding it where it isn't as obvious won't generate the revenue that is evidently needed. I think most reading know what would but some choose not to.

Obviously it is getting noticed. :(

Link to comment
TotemLake

+TotemLake

Posted
Posted

Just clicked on an ad to see who it was and the only thing that drives me nuts is that the ad does not open in a new window. Hate ads that take me away from the site I am using.

 

I have no control over that. In fact Google strictly forbids me to make it so those links open in a new window. I assume right clicking on an ad and choosing "open in new window" will do it for you but I can't do that automagically.

That setup gets around the pop up blockers.

Link to comment
PapaDean

+PapaDean

Posted
Posted

I'll be darned but the ads on the nearest cache page are the most effective ads on the site. Not that they're going to replace premium memberships by a long shot but anything helps when I'm looking at the consulting bill for v2 of the site.

 

Now if we had more Premium Memberships we wouldn't have to resort to ads, but as I indicated in previous posts - we give so much away there isn't a lot of motivation for the casual geocacher to pony up for a PM.

 

I hear the folks who don't like ads. I don't like them either and spent 7 years running the site without a bunch of them. But there comes a time when you look at the bank balance and realize to improve the site you'll have to make some sacrifices. Relevant advertising seems like a pretty small price to pay to keep the site running smoothly.

 

I joined with a basic membership to find out how persistent my enthusiasm for geocaching would be (so far, very) and how interested the rest of the family would be (disappointing). As you point out, the added value to be a Premium Member is not great, as you give away the real substance of what is needed.

 

I never thought of myself as a 'freeloader' :( and the PMs as footing the bill. The thought never crossed my mind, nor did the thought of who was working so hard to provide the needed resource for my fun, or how they paid the bills. Then with the latest site changes, I learned about a really nice and responsive person named Raine who was making things better for me. And now a person named Jeremy who has been under the yoke for a long, long pull.

 

I'm going to sign up for a premium membership in just a couple minutes. Not because someone called me a freeloader, but because I appreciate what you've done for all of us and I want you to keep it going. Maybe more folks would pay to play, if they understood that doing so was essential to the viability of the sport; that it's not just about member only caches or .gpx downloads, but necessary for you to continue providing the service.

 

Right now, I'm recalling the quarterly fund drives on NPR, which annoy me, but I accept as necessary. Perhaps you could set up a periodic message to each of us Basic Freeloaders when we sign on, not criticizing but reminding us of what we're getting for free and appealing for us to pony us the pittance that Premium Membership costs.

 

If nothing else, publicize that premium members don't get annoying ads. That should be worth $30 to lots of folks.

 

Thanks, Jeremy. Thanks, rest of the Groundspeak crew.

Link to comment
Kiwi Nomad

+Kiwi Nomad

Posted
Posted

This entire thread is ridiculous!! The ads are required to keep geocaching.com operational, that's the bottom line. I choose to support GC.com by purchasing a premium membership. If you don't choose that option, then you support it by viewing, and hopefully clicking on, the ads.

 

Not at all if the amount and placement of ads on a site is such that it is going to turn people away or get adblockers then the people running the site need to know this. :(

 

It's fixed. The code zigged when it should have zagged.

 

The interesting thing was the ads were actually pretty effective. Annoying, but effective. I'll see how the dropoff looks when we switch to one ad on this page.

 

(I made the mistake of not testing that with a logged in non-PM account when I put it up yesterday)

 

Thanks Jeremy for admiting that it was annoying I realy do appreciate that it has changed. I can live with how it is now. :(

Once I have sorted out my connection between gps (serial) and pc (usb) I will readdress my decision about becoming a pm. Having said that it will also depend on how much cold water my husband throws on the discussion I think/hope he is warming up to this activity.

 

Oh and by the way you mentioned that you were concerned about making sure the ads were local.

As much as I disliked them the first time I saw them they were at least New Zealand companies that were being advertised and looked kind of interesting. So many times when I use overseas sites there is no point on clicking on the ads because the shipping costs too much or the offer isn't open to me.

 

Thumbs up it is a great site. :P

Link to comment
genegene

+genegene

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The new look is better and a lot more easy on the eyes.

 

Thank you jeremy, for taking the time to listen to all the rants and raves in this post and trying to work on a happy medium that we all can live with.

 

Hopefully my P.M. will begin tonight.

Deffinitaly the term "FREELOADER" was the wrong one to have used. Have you ever seen any of the news stories on TV or read any in the news paper? That is the best kind of publicity you can get, FREE!!! Do you honestly think any of those reporters or editors would shell out 30 bucks for something they might not even air, go to print or use. News stories no mater how big or small bring attention to this game. witch means in the long term should bring more premium memberships. Were you saying that reporters were freeloaders also, when you made that comment?

 

The thing that bothers me now is what Jeremy said in one of his posts "I have no control over that. In fact Google strictly forbids me to make it so those links open in a new window." Who runs this web sight, Groundspeak or Google? Is Google now telling people how to run there sights or else they will not put them in there search engine? Groundspeak tells them where there ads go or else they don't need google's money. If the word is out that Ground speak is looking for advertisers or goes to them with #'s and facts, they will pay. If I had a product that would apply here I would want it here. but that is just me.

 

Anyways, Thank you Jeremy for you time. genegene

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

 

The thing that bothers me now is what Jeremy said in one of his posts "I have no control over that. In fact Google strictly forbids me to make it so those links open in a new window." Who runs this web sight, Groundspeak or Google?

 

Groundspeak does. And Groundspeak decides whether to accept the terms to display Google ads or not. Since Yahoo is still not responding to my application to be part of their ad program its the only game in town. And Yahoo has their own (similar rules) .

 

I believe they have this policy to keep folks from gaming the system, like having script that makes the user autoclick on an ad. But I'm just speculating.

Link to comment
Aushiker

Aushiker

Posted
Posted
Just clicked on an ad to see who it was and the only thing that drives me nuts is that the ad does not open in a new window. Hate ads that take me away from the site I am using.

Firefox and IE both allow you to click and open in a new tab.

 

Regards

Andrew

Link to comment
Aushiker

Aushiker

Posted
Posted
I don't like them either, in the search pages or on the cache listings. I am a college student and can't really afford to have a premium membership. I wonder if expanding the products offered by the Groundspeak store would be a better option.

Do you have lots of caches nearby that you can walk too or ride a bicycle too?

 

Regards

Andrew

Link to comment
nittany dave

+nittany dave

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't like them either, in the search pages or on the cache listings. I am a college student and can't really afford to have a premium membership. I wonder if expanding the products offered by the Groundspeak store would be a better option.

I think it's an additional option, not a better one. I remember being a poor college student where $30 was better spent on beer - hey wait, it still is! :( But if you can't afford $30 for a PM, will you instead by 3 $15 t-shirts and pay the shipping (probably a total of almost $55) because after costs that's about what you'd need to do for Groundspeak to net $30. Some people will do both, some just one and other neither.

There are many ways to support the site and they all need to be explored and supported, each to our own preferences and abilities.

Edited by nittany dave
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...