Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Dumpshock News, Bug Reports, Feature Requests, & Discussion _ Heads Up About Google Ads

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 03:37 AM

Just wanted to post a head's up that we're going to be adding Google Ads to the forums within the next week or so. I know that most people (myself included) really dislike the clutter of ads and I'm going to do my best to keep the disruption to a minimum. That said, the simple fact of the matter is that this site consumes a pretty significant amount of resources at our hosting facility, for which we have been paying nothing. In the past 5 years I think we've made a couple of token payments that may have totalled $150 -- we've definitely gotten our money's worth many times over. I'm going to experiment with these ads to try and help defray the costs that our provider is incurring in hosting our site, and I welcome feedback about this as long as it's constructive.

Thanks.

Posted by: Aku Dec 16 2005, 12:18 PM

ya know, i have to say that it's been only a day, but until i read this message, i didnt even notice the side bar with them on it. Good job.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 12:27 PM

Thanks.

In a side note, for those who really don't want to see the ads, you can very easily hide them if you're using Firefox by installing the Greasemonkey extension and installing this script:
http://docs.g-blog.net/code/greasemonkey/hide_google_adsense.user.js

I would encourage people to keep the ads though, and even to click through to the sponsors occasionally if you see something that interests you. It doesn't hurt, but it could definitely help us out.

Posted by: JongWK Dec 16 2005, 01:15 PM

How do they help DSF? Pay-per-click?

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 01:22 PM

Yeah, pay per click. Right now it's in the nature of an experiment since I have no idea how much money it's going to generate or if it's even going to turn out to be worthwhile. We'll see how it goes and revisit it in a couple of months. If it's not generating anything worthwhile, I'll drop it.

Posted by: Aku Dec 16 2005, 01:59 PM

this is a bit of a nitpick, but i just glanced over, and atleast on the current ad set i have, half of them are for D&D, which, well, probably isnt a good thing. Do you have any control over what's ad'd over there? or does the goggle ad just look at the METAtag info and say "yep, RPG.. must be a D&D thing"?

Posted by: Tanka Dec 16 2005, 02:10 PM

It's based on the text of the forums as they are when the ads load up. There isn't much of a way to control them outside of spamming a page with "SHADOWRUN SHADOWRUN SHADOWRUN SHADOWRUN SHADOWRUN" ad nauseum.

Posted by: Zen Shooter01 Dec 16 2005, 02:23 PM

And there is the fact that a lot of us do play D&D.

Posted by: Aku Dec 16 2005, 02:28 PM

yes, thats true Zen, but the fact remains that it IS a shadowrun board, and is, imo, silly to be supplying funds, indirectly as it may be, to the competition.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 02:38 PM

We have no control over the content of the ads. Google makes the best match that it can come up with based on the site and page contents and chooses ads accordingly. I have no problem with any of the ads that reference D&D. The fact is, the RPG industry as a whole can use all the help it can get and if people are interested in buying D&D merchandise I'd rather they click through our ads to get there -- that is directly helping Dumpshock.

Posted by: Aku Dec 16 2005, 03:21 PM

touche, i'll concede my point.

i was just so disappointed when i saw "wholesale dragons". i want a pet dragon so badly

Posted by: Elve Dec 16 2005, 03:55 PM

I liked the first color scheme with mathced the rest of the board more, than the currnet red one...

Posted by: Ryu Dec 16 2005, 04:01 PM

Yes, the colour. Is it possible to make googles background powder blue or whatever our colour is called? This one hurts my eyes.

Posted by: blakkie Dec 16 2005, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Elve)

I liked the first color scheme with mathced the rest of the board more, than the currnet red one...

I suspect that if it blends too much the fellow cutting the cheques won't be happy.

Any, with the adds in the board actually formats on my screen better. I really like my widescreen monitor, but it does make a few things like this board look bizzare when Maximized.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 16 2005, 04:30 PM

IMO, it ends up being extremely disruptive to the look and feel of the place—plays eight kinds of hob with the layout. The white-and-orange-on-black look is both eyegrabbing (in a bad way) and discontinuous with the rest of the board.

My two cents:

I'm not a fan. I understand what you're trying to do, but the current implementation is, in my opinion, a bad way to go about it. If the site needs funds, I'd be glad to help by donating what I can, but as it stands the ads just make this a place I don't necessarily want to spend much time. It isn't so bad on thread views, where the vast majority of my time is spent well below the level of the ads, but it is impossible to functionally use the reply screen without having the ads in field-of-vision.

I'm off to see about installing adblocking in hopes that that will restore the proper formatting of this page, because I really do enjoy spending time here and I'd hate to lose interest over something like this.

~J

Posted by: PlainWhiteSocks Dec 16 2005, 04:35 PM

I clicked on one of the adds just to check it out. They had WizKids D&D Miniatures listed there.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 04:48 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

I'm not a fan. I understand what you're trying to do, but the current implementation is, in my opinion, a bad way to go about it. If the site needs funds, I'd be glad to help by donating what I can, but as it stands the ads just make this a place I don't necessarily want to spend much time. It isn't so bad on thread views, where the vast majority of my time is spent well below the level of the ads, but it is impossible to functionally use the reply screen without having the ads in field-of-vision.

Let me take your issues in order:

1. I detest doing fund raisers and will shut down Dumpshock altogether before I do another one.
2. Ads are a fact of life on sites, and I chose to use text ads because they were the least disruptive that I could come up with. I suppose I could do banner ads at the top of the page, but I find those even more annoying than the simple text ads from Google. I did take y our point about the color scheme though and changed it to more closely match the rest of the site.

QUOTE

I'm off to see about installing adblocking in hopes that that will restore the proper formatting of this page, because I really do enjoy spending time here and I'd hate to lose interest over something like this.

That's the reason I linked to the Greasemonkey script in the first place. It took me less than 3 minutes to get Firefox configured to remove Google ads. Anyone who is really offended by them like you seem to be can quite easily make them vanish.

Thanks for the feedback.

Posted by: Fix-it Dec 16 2005, 05:09 PM

I clicked. all of them. twice.

well. that's my work for the day. call me if something explodes.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 16 2005, 05:55 PM

QUOTE (Fix-it)

I clicked. all of them. twice.

well. that's my work for the day. call me if something explodes.

Great way to get rid of the ads—get his AdSense account cancelled for invalid clicks

QUOTE (Neuron Basher)

I suppose I could do banner ads at the top of the page, but I find those even more annoying than the simple text ads from Google.

Any thoughts on sticking the ads flat on the top or the bottom of the page? Now that the colourscheme is fixed, my only real complaint (aside from general principle, but I can understand your dislike of fundraisers) is the way it pushes the entire right side of the page in and off-balance.

~J

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 06:01 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

I tried it at the top the first time and didn't like the way it looked. It was additional scrolling that you had to do in order to get to the actual content and that offended my sensibilities. The bottom of the page is a no-go simple because of the damage that it would do to the click-through rate -- it'd be better not to do it at all in that case.

I'll put it back up on the top of the page and leave it there for a while so I can get some comments, but I don't think anyone is going to like it any more than I did. At the resolutions I run at, the ad on the right hand side has not negatively impacted the site layout for me, but I guess at very low resolutions it could.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 06:11 PM

Ok, I managed to finagle it into the header at the very top of the page so that it doesn't impact the layout of the page at all. I'm reasonably happy with the result, though it only shows 2 ads at a time now so I suspect the clickthrough rate will be negatively impacted. We'll give it a shot this way for a few days anyway and see how it goes.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Dec 16 2005, 06:28 PM

Well it's been playing merry hell with *my* screen layout, but that's mostly because I have my screen set to 800x600 resolution ('cause my vision sucks). Tossing the ads on the top looks at least a little better; as it was the actual forum posts were getting squeezed down to a newsprint column in width.

I'm a supporter of ads as a necessary evil, but it was getting really annoying to actually see the content of the page after the ads were done screwing it up.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 06:33 PM

It seems to just fit at 1024x768, and honestly that's the lowest resolution I'm prepared to design for. I know the page header flows really poorly at 800x600, but there's not a whole lot I can do to fix it. I recommend using Firefox and the method for hiding the ads that I linked to above.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 16 2005, 06:42 PM

Much less intrusive, IMO, though the width issue is as you say.

For reference, I'm running at 1440x960 with the browser at full-width and ~85% height. Maybe I'm just sensitive to that kind of thing.

(Also, for those using Safari you can use http://culater.net/software/PithHelmet/PithHelmet.php with a rule matching googlesyndication.com and blocking everything from it under the Filter tab.)

~J

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 06:47 PM

I have to force myself to think about resolutions when things like this come up. I don't usually consider them since I'm running 1920x1200 on my primary display and 1600x1200 on my econdary.

Thanks for the info for Safari users.

Posted by: Whizbang Dec 16 2005, 07:00 PM

My 2 is that I like those ads better at the top than when they were on the side.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Dec 16 2005, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (Neuron Basher)

Most do the same these days. Heh, and here it took me this long to get used to 800x600 (I used to have the screen set at 640x480 until a couple of years back); it's kinda depressing to think I'm gonna have to start really strainning my eyes again to deal with an even tighter res.

That and I need to buy a bigger monitor.

Posted by: Elve Dec 16 2005, 08:02 PM

I like the top solution... But what about changing the background color to black?

Posted by: Grinder Dec 16 2005, 09:09 PM

I prefer the ads at the front of the page much more than having them at the sidebar.

Posted by: bclements Dec 16 2005, 09:16 PM

The ads at the top are good, and I'll echo that I like that better than the sidebar (running at 1024x768). The background color of the ads makes them standout a bit without being obtrusive, IMO

To have a few more in that spot, is it possible to move the Control Panel information somewhere else?

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 16 2005, 09:52 PM

Yes, it's possible to move the control panel stuff, and I might consider doing that if I can find the time over the weekend. I'm satisfied with the way things are right now, so my motivation level is a little low -- I totally agree with everyone that likes it better at the top.

Posted by: Ryu Dec 17 2005, 09:39 AM

The top layout fits, the colours are acceptable too. I like!

It may be smaller than the sidebar, but beeing placed next to the private messages-link can´t hurt.

Posted by: Mr.Platinum Dec 17 2005, 11:45 AM

Well now that i look at the top, i see the adsand they don't disrupt me.

Posted by: JongWK Dec 17 2005, 01:54 PM

QUOTE (Neuron Basher)

I have to force myself to think about resolutions when things like this come up. I don't usually consider them since I'm running 1920x1200 on my primary display and 1600x1200 on my econdary.

1920x1200? You lucky dog...

Looks fine in 1024x768, not so in 800x600. Thumbs up.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 17 2005, 09:48 PM

Yeah, the 24" Dell LCD that is my primary display is definitely easy on the eyes. It relegated my old 20" non-widescreen to secondary display duty.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 17 2005, 10:30 PM

Bastard.

Don't mind me, I'll be over here, cursing my shitty 15" monitor from that's been in existance for ten years.

Posted by: bclements Dec 17 2005, 10:53 PM

QUOTE (Neuron Basher)

...24" Dell LCD...

Oh yeah, we're grabbing that thing on the way out

Posted by: BishopMcQ Dec 18 2005, 04:51 AM

I've been clicking on each new ad that I see, and occasionally going back to the old ones to go back and look at things that caught my eye...

Is there a benefit for DSF, if I revisit the same linked site through the ads? IE, if I made a point of going to each site once a day to do my part, does that help the follow througjh count or does google track IPs?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 18 2005, 08:03 AM

Google does track IPs, it being a vital part of preventing click fraud and all that jazz. What this translates to for multiple clicks from the same IP that aren't considered fraudulent, I don't know.

Just, as I alluded to before, don't get overeager in "supporting the site". While I'm sure we're way below the threshold, I wasn't kidding about the possibility of getting someone's AdSense account cancelled by too much "clicking for the sake of clicking". TANSTAAFL and all that jazz, no one wants to pay for someone they don't know supporting some site that they don't know by clicking ads they pay Google per click for.

(My personal take is that they knew the risks when they decided to advertise, particularly on a per-click model, but this is why Google would care)

~J

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 18 2005, 03:05 PM

Kagetenshi is exactly right, but if you do have interest in one of the sites that advertises through the adsense ads on the DSF pages, clicking through to them from the ad link will benefit us. Typically advertising networks like Google's AdSense will "count" a click from the same IP, but only after a certain amount of time has passed. Could be 12 hours, could be 24 hours, I don't know how the details work with Google.

What it boils down to is this: If the advertisers interest you, please feel free to click through to them, but don't feel obligated at all to do it just for the sake of supporting the site.

Posted by: Shadow Dec 18 2005, 05:51 PM

Well we like the sight so of course we want to support it. I like the new place and color of the adds, minimal if any disruption.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 21 2005, 06:59 PM

Did Google change the way their ads display? I'm mostly getting graphical ads for vehicles now.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 21 2005, 07:11 PM

Due in part to talks with AOL, Google now does graphical adverts.

(My understanding is that they did before, but on a much more limited basis)

~J

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 21 2005, 07:11 PM

Google has indeed recently started doing some graphical ads as well. There is a preference that you can select in the adsense admin system that toggles text only, graphical only, or both. I currently have it set for both. We'll see how it goes, if they're too annoying I'll switch it to text only, but right now it's not bugging me too much.

Posted by: Jrayjoker Dec 21 2005, 07:58 PM

Wow, I haven't even noticed the ads. How clueless am I?

Do they only show on certain pages?

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 21 2005, 08:00 PM

All the forum pages, at the top next to the DS logo.

Posted by: Jrayjoker Dec 21 2005, 08:03 PM

Hmmm, I see nothing at all in IE or Firefox. Could a firewall be blocking it?

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 22 2005, 01:53 AM

If you have Javascript disabled you won't see it. Google ads use Javascript.

Posted by: FrostyNSO Dec 22 2005, 01:56 AM

Wouldn't those ads that pay for just showing up be a better option? Money-wise?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 22 2005, 03:22 AM

If the click-through rate is truly abysmal, possibly.

~J

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 22 2005, 03:31 AM

Yes Frosty, you're absolutely right, which is why I'm pleased that Google is serving that kind of ad today. We've earned more today than any other day, and it's not even the most pageviews that we've had. Abysmal doesn't do justice to exactly how low the click through rate is.

As an example, in 14,000 pageviews yesterday, there were 10 clickthroughs -- and that's not an anomaly, that's fairly indicative of what the clickthrough rate has been for the past few days.

The biggest reason for this is that the ad selection has been pretty static over the past few days -- we had a decent number of clickthroughs in the first 36 hours or so, but after that it really died down to almost nothing. Not terribly surprising if the content of the ads doesn't change.

Posted by: Weredigo Dec 24 2005, 08:28 AM

I've no problem with adds from search engines... I don't think I've ever gotten pop ups from this site and that's one of the reasons I love it...

Keep up the good work all...

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 24 2005, 01:43 PM

You will never (ever ever ever) get popups from this site. I'd take a sledgehammer to the server myself before I'd stoop to that level.

Posted by: Tanka Dec 24 2005, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (Neuron Basher)

You will never (ever ever ever) get popups from this site. I'd take a sledgehammer to the server myself before I'd stoop to that level.

Posted by: Shadow Dec 27 2005, 10:58 PM

Well thats not entirely accurate Neuron, the PM's pop up

I've been clicking through every day that I am here, and can. I'm sorry to see that it isn't getting a lot of clicks though.

Posted by: Aku Jan 5 2006, 04:34 PM

Hey, would it be possible to force the clicks to open up in a new window?

Posted by: Tanka Jan 5 2006, 05:03 PM

If you're on Firefox, either hold CTRL and click, or click with the middle mouse button (the scroll wheel). That'll open it in a new tab.

Edit: Or not? Apparently Google ads doesn't like Firefox's new tabs...

Posted by: Aku Jan 5 2006, 05:29 PM

unfortunately,theres alot of things like that. I blame microsoft. Hell, even though i have firefox as my default browser, there are STILL programs that insist on opening crap up in IE, which i still keep around for those rare websites that insist on it being used. AIM and Norton Internet Security being two off of the top of my head that i know, if i click a link will open up IE.

However, it's also possible that it is hard coded (either by Neuron, or the goggle ad's themselves) to load in the same page as you see the ad, which i find absolutely annoying.)

EDIT: Actually,f or me, middle clicking the mouse wheel does work, but it's a PITA

Posted by: Tanka Jan 5 2006, 05:44 PM

I think it's hardcoded by Google. It's an image that uses link embedding to link to certain pages based on the images it loads into the ad.

I might send a request their way to open in a new window, as Firefox can easily be setup to open new windows into new tabs instead.

Posted by: mattness pl Jan 6 2006, 03:53 PM

I'm with you, Neuron Basher.
If it helps DS, I'll not say a word against it.
Other SR fans shouldn't complain (If you like Dumpshock help the admins! ).

Posted by: knasser Oct 22 2006, 01:22 PM

This thread is very old, but this is the first time that I've looked at it. I was just curious as to why, for as long as I've been on Dumpshock (about five months?), the same Google ad has been at the top of the page: BikerMatch.co.uk. I don't know if Shadowrun players are predominently lonely Hell's Angels, but it just seems odd to me.

-K.

Posted by: Tanka Oct 22 2006, 02:16 PM

Google ads is keyword- and match-based. When I'm at work (no adblock there), I get lots of ads about D&D or other RPGs. If I'm looking at a thread about, say, guns, the ads are more gun-oriented.

It all depends on the keywords that Google finds for the ads.

Posted by: Bull Oct 22 2006, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

Might be that there's just a limited number of UK ads? I've never seen that one myself, though I do tend to see quite a vareity. I even click em now and again

Bull

Posted by: knasser Oct 24 2006, 09:33 PM

Yeah. I've clicked it though I'm not a biker and I'm not looking for a biker-date. Just morbid curiousity really.

I've been paying more attention to them since I posted this and I have seen a couple of others, but it's usually those lonely bikers. I can see it up there right now!

I'll click on any new ones that look interesting.

-K.

Posted by: Tanka Oct 25 2006, 03:25 AM

Maybe it's telling you something...

Posted by: Moto42 Again Nov 2 2006, 10:58 AM

I've gotten to the point where I don't even see the adds. I'll try to make a point of clicking a random add each time I visit though.

Posted by: BishopMcQ Nov 25 2006, 07:48 PM

Out of curiousity, how are the ads doing for DS? I know I've clicked on them whenever they happen to interest me, and hope that other DSers have done the same.

Posted by: bishop186 Nov 25 2006, 11:07 PM

I actually didn't even notice the ads until just now. They're very unobtrusive.

Posted by: Neuron Basher Dec 22 2006, 04:58 PM

The great ad experiment is over, at least for now. Some interesting stats since September 1st:

Impressions: 1,319,481
Clicks: 451

There are a couple of reasons why I think the numbers are so bad:

1. The ads were (intentionally) very unobtrusive, tucked in the header like they were.
2. The context was terrible. They were very seldom relevant to Shadowrun or RPGs at all.

It's possible that we might try again in the future with Google ads or with a third party sponsor, but we'll just have to see what happens. Thanks to everyone for your support.

Posted by: eidolon Dec 22 2006, 06:15 PM

No sweat man.

I know that the company I work for was shelling out around 20K/month on Google ads at one point, and to not much avail. I wonder if they really work for anyone.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 22 2006, 06:35 PM

They appear to work pretty well for Google.

~J

Posted by: eidolon Dec 23 2006, 01:10 AM

Heh. Yeah, what with the whole "business model" thing.

Posted by: Adam Dec 27 2006, 09:41 PM

Man, the header looks so ... empty, now.

Posted by: Konsaki Dec 27 2006, 09:45 PM

Make a banner for NERPS or something then?

Posted by: ThatPaolo Jan 4 2007, 04:43 AM

QUOTE (Neuron Basher)

As soon as our ad platform is out, we'll try it here

Posted by: bishop186 Jan 4 2007, 05:36 AM

Y'know, it's weird not seeing the Google ad anymore.