There's a banner in rotation here that nearly gave me an siezure with it's rapid flashing. It's for webtraffictalk.com and it's high speed flashing graphics is hard on the eyes.

Seizure-banners have been discussed here before.

The last time, when we all made it clear we would be firewalling WHT's ad server, iNet made a committment to implement and enforce an advertising standards policy.

Report it.

Yeah I saw that and tried to copy the link, but it was flash which I thought they weren't accepting anymore. If I can remember who the ad was for, I will notify iNet. I just need to look at a couple of pages in OO&R to find who it was :D

I haven't seen that one yet but aren't iNet checking the ads before they go live?
A flashing and flash banner in rotation...that's the two things that weren't meant to be shown ;)

AdMuncher is your friend :D

As soon as iNET convinces me they are monitoring the banners better, I'll look at them again.

nick, just wondering if you've registered your copy of Ad Muncher?

When people block the ads, does it still use an impression that the advertiser bought?

I didn't and still don't think that banner was beyond what should and is acceptable for WHT. With that being said, I am having Sheldon at p3rpl3xity.com do some tweaks of the banner.

John, it depends on how the blocker works I suppose. Ad Muncher removes the HTML code when it matches a filter. There will be an impression on the page, but not on the banner (since it was never loaded at the first place).

Thanks a lot Knogle, appreciate the answer :)

The banner was for webtraffictalk.com. I tried to copy the link to, but with Flash it's not easy to do. What's interesting it slipped through my ad blocker. I now put iNet's adserver on full block in the mean time.

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse 7
Yeah I saw that and tried to copy the link, but it was flash which I thought they weren't accepting anymore. If I can remember who the ad was for, I will notify iNet. I just need to look at a couple of pages in OO&R to find who it was :D

Originally posted by KimmiKat
...I now put iNet's adserver on full block in the mean time.

It's happening again, iNet.

WHT members are an esthetically-sensitive bunch!

Enforce your 'advertising standards policy' or suffer the consequences.

Hint: Google has started to accept banner ads and they allow absolutely NO animation. I wonder why that is?

I have to say I don't like banners that do anything more than once...but I would never use a banner blocker.

I know on our own site it is the only way we can draw income to support it. If everyone used one it would kill off the thing they were coming to visit.

I won't go off on a rant about people expecting everything for free :-)

But I think I do recall a banner on here the other day as I thought it was a bit like something that would give an epiletic an attack.

I normally only block banners from free email sites since their standards are a lot lower and have those rapid flashing "you won" banners. This is the 2nd time I had to block banners from iNet. The last time when the awful Yaxey one was in rotation. Most of the other banners here are fine and I even clicked on a few.

Originally posted by JKLIVIN
I didn't and still don't think that banner was beyond what should and is acceptable for WHT. With that being said, I am having Sheldon at p3rpl3xity.com do some tweaks of the banner.

Wasnt it Gabe who said no Flash/ Flashy banners? (Flashy as in moving arround, changing colours etc)

Yep..we've already gone through this at least 2 times now since that was said..It's easy to say stuff, apparently it's harder to actually do it....

Yup. He said, "...I have also instructed the team: no bouncy/flashy ads- regardless of how bounch/flashy...." here (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2013635&#post2013635).

But, with any automated system, mistakes can easily happen. I'm sure iNET appreciates members bringing these issues to their attention.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Yup. He said, "...I have also instructed the team: no bouncy/flashy ads- regardless of how bounch/flashy...." here (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2013635&#post2013635). <snip> Originally posted by JKLIVIN
I didn't and still don't think that banner was beyond what should and is acceptable for WHT. <snip> There would seem to be a gray area....

Originally posted by nickn
Yep..we've already gone through this at least 2 times now since that was said..It's easy to say stuff, apparently it's harder to actually do it....
When you imagine how many different banners have gone thru the system since then, having 2 occasions of an ad slipping thru an automated system is really not that bad. Just to keep things in perspective. :)

Originally posted by Gen-T
When you imagine how many different banners have gone thru the system since then, having 2 occasions of an ad slipping thru an automated system is really not that bad. Just to keep things in perspective

Agreed. I was really just stating a fact, not complaining. Just saying, it's a lot easier to say no more flash banners, than it is to actually enforce it with an automated procedure.

i hate the flash banners i dont have flash plugin installed on my linux box so it pops up a popup everytime one comes up. its a pain.

Here's another one for ya:

http://ads.inetinteractive.com/ads/2/psoft_468x60_2_top_wht.gif

I complained 12 hours ago... no response


I will give them 12 more hours before I once again start blocking all content from ads.inetinteractive.com.

Sheesh. You think they'd learn!

It is Sunday... :)

Also, that banner won't load for me, because it's flash..duh...

You know, maybe instead of blaming iNET, we should push the advertisers who are knowingly breaking the rules. Everyone email psoft (https://www.psoft.net/contactus.php) asking why they feel they are excluded from the iNET banner policies ;)

I am hoping iNet will come to the realization that we are a visually-sensitive community of web designers and long-time net users. We are also a technically saavy group for which it is trivial to block all content from an ad server.

Will iNet bite the bullet and ban all animated ads as Google has done, thus annoying a few advertisers? Or will they continue with a "see no evil" policy and have 90% of their website users firewalling their ads?

Given the choice, I would make the ads tolerable simply to avoid them being blocked. Can't get much money from an advertiser if their ads never reach the eyeballs they are paying for!

The excuse that it "is an automated system" is ridiculous. Are they letting people publish whatever they want until someone complains? If huge companies (Google, Overture) can screen every single ad they serve, there is no excuse for others not to do the same.

I don't believe Psoft was made aware of that policy prior so don't blame them. I am puttiing together a 'do's and dont's for all our banners/policies that should help alleviate some of these problems in the future. Sightz, I really don't know why you are so worked up about this, frankly. If you will read the post again, noone from iNET made any 'excuses' about an 'automated system.' When we get dozens of campaigns a day with sometimes up to 40 or 60 banners a day, unfortunately a few sneak through. I/we do everything we can, but mistakes have happened, and probably will in the future.

Isn't there a way to simply ban flash banners based on extension? I'm not very savvy with that stuff, but wouldn't flash banners have *.swf?

Like I said, I don't blame iNET, I blame the advertisers who can't follow rules. Now, if the rules aren't clearly stated before hand, that's another story.....

We still have a few advertiser's under contracts before I can permanently get rid of them. Few more months...

Originally posted by sightz
I am hoping iNet will come to the realization that we are a visually-sensitive community
No offense but when I read that (taking into account the subject matter and the rest of your post) it translates into... "we are an overly-sensitive group".
Originally posted by sightz
Will iNet bite the bullet and ban all animated ads as Google has done, thus annoying a few advertisers?
ALL animated banners? That is unreasonable. I can understand the "shaking" banners, and the "flash" banners, but to ban ALL animated banners is asking way too much. The majority of banners on the web are animated, and most are not annoying. Without animation, the ad is limited to a single frame, and therefore limited in the information it can provide. There is no reason to ban ALL animation.

By the way, will you be removing this animated graphic from the top of your own site's home page?

http://www.sightz.com/images/blurbs.gif
Originally posted by sightz
Or will they continue with a "see no evil" policy and have 90% of their website users firewalling their ads?
90% is a huge exaggeration. Look around and see how many people are actually complaining. Maybe you forgot the decimal point and put the zero in the wrong space. It should be .009%

As I said, no disrespect intended, but you need to be reasonable. :)

One of my interests in life is advertising, so I don't mind watching all types of ads. When you see a great variety of them, you learn from them, as they teach you to create better advertising.

::snip::

Some have said that the system is "automated", but it doesn't take but a minor tweak to turn an "automated" system into a "semi-automated" system where banners are required to be checked BEFORE the system goes live.
Yes, I realize that is more work, but let's get real. You don't make money for nothing. If you want to keep everyone happy, then check the banners before they go live. Make them "approved" or disapproved before they go live. Not that much of a task to do :)

Wolfstream,

How about reading Lenny's post.

Originally posted by JKLIVIN
If you will read the post again, noone from iNET made any 'excuses' about an 'automated system.' When we get dozens of campaigns a day with sometimes up to 40 or 60 banners a day, unfortunately a few sneak through. I/we do everything we can, but mistakes have happened, and probably will in the future.

No where has iNET said it is a 100% automated system (because in fact it is not).

Originally posted by Gen-T

By the way, will you be removing this animated graphic from the top of your own site's home page?

http://www.sightz.com/images/blurbs.gif

:) [/B]

Ahh, touché. Good find! I see I am not dealing with chimps here :D
I will be removing that graphic, thank you. The new site is in the works.

BUT I think the difference here is if someone is visually offended by the website of a small web host, they can vote with their dollars and buy somewhere else. WHT on the other hand is a valuable community full of crucial information and resources. To stop visiting WHT would be to emperil a web host's business.

Besides, I don't think too many people wake up hung-over on a Sunday monring, set their web browser to 150% enlargement and start surfing my site. (That may have been why I was so sensitive to the latest seizure-inducer ad. Who knows) :rolleyes:

Anyway, I have said my piece. I would like to continue to support WHT by allowing their advertisers to appear on my screen, but their track record and committment to enforcing standards makes that difficult.

Maybe I should have simply blocked the ads without comment, as I suspect many have done. I believe in second chances however, so I expressed my displeasure in hopes of improving our community.

Originally posted by nickn
AdMuncher is your friend :D I use Mozilla Firefox and since I started seeing annoying ads, blocked ads.inetinteractive.com (a built-in feature) :)

Note that I do support WHT on occassion. I support their advertisers as well.

Remember those yaxay adds? I actually enjoyed them. They knocked my sox off.

Have to love anything StarWars themed, eh?

I thought the Yaxay ads were horrid.