The inet toolbar is bad enough but another one with ads? Is this a joke?

I don't usually care too much about ads here but I tend to agree there - pretty woeful.

It won't really matter though, as I doubt it's going anywhere.

Yes, and it's so very original too.

:rolleyes:

but it's super!

i mean.. it'd be one thing if it were just normalhosting.. that's totally useless. But This is SuperHosting.. that's a whole new type of awesome.

Originally posted by Lynks
Is this a joke?

I doubt it. It's more likely an attempt to create more awareness, and to prompt more discussion, about Site5. It has obviously worked, so mission achieved. :)

Gary

It is stealing the limelight from other banner.

Ain't Inet getting any complaints about this?

I believe the ads are paid by impressions.

Originally posted by hellind2
It is stealing the limelight from other banner.
I agree. iNET have never responded very well to criticism about the banners they allow though. Even if it does basically overshadow every other ad currently running.

Ain't Inet getting any complaints about this?
Presumably. However.. don't expect their policy to change.


I believe the ads are paid by impressions.
Yes they are. $25 per 1k.

The sad part about it is the advertisers who are in rotation right now probably have no idea that their banner is being overshadowed by a garish red stripe with another company's name all over it.

R'gds
Dean

The companies advertising on WHT should really raise the issue.
They are paying for the top spot, but they are not really the top stop with another banner . How much would it cost to have a banner on top of the current highest banner :)

Will this be a new option from inet as I do not see it in my.iNET?

I can't find it in my.INET also. I looked for it when I saw it. I can't even look at the top banner without my eyes automatically moving to the site5 one.

I HATE the banner... it doesn't fit on my monitor without horizontal scrolling.

I can't find it in my.INET also.

Not everything that is for sale is in my.inet. Otherwise why would they need sales people?


Originally posted by whatever
I HATE the banner... it doesn't fit on my monitor without horizontal scrolling.

:eek: Buy a monitor which goes higher than 800x600 then maybe? ;) :stickout:

The iBar should be retooled (like combining the drop-down menus into one and incorporate the banner in it so it would not look like it was jerry-rigged.

Originally posted by whatever
it doesn't fit on my monitor without horizontal scrolling.

that's the only problem I see with it.

hopefully Inet will fix that soon.

Originally posted by IvialisJonathan
I can't even look at the top banner without my eyes automatically moving to the site5 one.

I guess thats one of the reasons why Inet probably added in such an advertising option.

I'm sure we will hear more from a rep of Inet soon about new advertising options.

Well, Matt and the chaps from site5 want maximum exposure for their new promotion/brand/whatever, and that spot ontop of WHT gives them just that.

It's red, so it stands out like a sore thumb. I can't see INET offerring that as a part of their normal ad invesntory, as IMO it could dilute the top normal 468*60 banner, but this looks like a bit of experimenting on INET's side, with the site5 banner.

INET have opened up some new advertising inventory, and Site5 are getting oooodles of brand awarness. It's not hurting anyone, so it's a win - win. :)

Buy a monitor which goes higher than 800x600 then maybe?

My monitor is larger - it is 1024 by 768.

Buy a monitor which goes higher than 800x600 then maybe?

I'm on 1280*1024 and now have a horizontal scroll bar.

If iNET plan to run this long-term then I think they need to seriously consider dropping the price of the top banner rotation. The value of the top banner rotation has just dropped significantly. As Bob pointed out, this new ‘bar’ pretty much dilutes the top banner rotation.

I can’t say I am too impressed, since I have a significant amount of advertising already purchased, but not used yet. The value of that advertising has now dropped from when I originally purchased it and to be honest is pretty useless (in terms of CTR) while the new 'bar' is still in place.

I hope iNET gave existing advertisers, who have their banners in rotation at the current time, the option to put their campaigns on ‘hold’ while this new ‘bar’ is in place.

Advertising aside for a minute, the top section of WHT is also starting to become extremely cluttered with the various 'bars' etc.

Good luck to Matt and his team though… :)

- Chris

P. S. I have a horizontal scroll bar here too.

Originally posted by whatever
My monitor is larger - it is 1024 by 768.
Same as mine, but I don't need to scroll at all. :confused:

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
Same as mine, but I don't need to scroll at all. :confused:

I have the same setting and i don't need to scroll at all too. :look:

really impressed with site5's marketing lately! they know what they're doing that's for sure

You'll note that the scroll bar (due to the new banner) is an IE only bug/feature. ;)

As I use Mozilla there is no scroll bar (1024x768) and being curious, had a look at this page in IE -- sure enough, there is the scroll bar. The sad part is the scroll bar serves no useful function, as there is no need to scroll, and is the result of poor coding.

Rob, I am using IE and there is no scroll bar :) Maybe my ancient 5.5 is more user friendly ;)

Ugh! I can't beleive that ad was accepted -- even for $25/1k. It detracts from the entire site IMO.

Well, what a horrible feature.

Most disappointing of iNet.

Originally posted by Blair
. . . even for $25/1k. It detracts from the entire site IMO.
Where are you getting the $25/CPM?

Ive asked for our banners to be paused until they are genuine "top" banners again ;)

Now that's good going! :)

I would be steamed if I was advertising with iNet and they went ahead and pulled a stunt like this when I am paying for a top banner spot.

They need to do a little more thinking before doing something like this...you promise a top banner spot, you give a top banner spot. All the are doing now is false advertising.

Sorry, really dislike using adblock on sites like WHT, but that and the toolbar? The ad had to go.

Whoops Matt, I just used one viewing this thread, yours is ^^ up there as I type :P Sorta pales into insignificance :cartman:

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
Whoops Matt, I just used one viewing this thread, yours is ^^ up there as I type :P Sorta pales into insignificance :cartman:
Yeah, I see one of UH's banners too, but it's kinda hard to really see it with that red banner above it. :blush:

To be honest we bought so many WHT impressions that It doesnt bother me, im just "playing the game" by complaining to iNET :)

Havent even been following our campaign and dont know how many zillion impressions we have left ;)

1280x1024 using IE6 - Horizontal Scrolling
1280x1024 using Firefox - No Horizontal Scrolling
1280x1024 using Opera - No Horizontal Scrolling

Hm, since when was this available for purchase?

I also find the banner ad annoying and intrusive. It has also meant that WHT loads up slightly slower than usual.
I'm surprised that WHT allowed the banner to be placed in such a prominent area.

Good idea as far as "talk" and exposure goes.
They'll get plenty of that...

Jord

There's no such thing bad plublicity! :p

1280x1024 with IE has bottom scroll.

What I don't understand is this super what ever. I's only hosting with a ton of storage and bandwidth for a lower price than others...big deal or did I miss something.

I'd like to see a response from iNet.

Geez, if you're going to do it at least dont let it be red..

I found this ironic. :)

Maybe we should change our banner to say...

"sick of annoying webhosts who spend more time coming up with annoying marketing than running stable servers"

haha.

Oh wow! I just looked at eMax's screenshot. I had no idea there was another banner up there! Here I am wondering what all the fuss is about. My Proxomitron (http://www.proxomitron.info)-inspired world of blissful ignorance is becoming a more beautiful place to live every day :)

I did understand iNet looking for extra revenues and Site5 looking for maximum exposure for their new thing.

What I am interested to know is if the present ad buyers can ask for some refund for not getting the top banner.

So far, we had read comments from UH and Rochen.

Just curious.

Originally posted by UH-Matt
Maybe we should change our banner to say...

"sick of annoying webhosts who spend more time coming up with annoying marketing than running stable servers"
It's unfair to make a comment like that, as you have no proof that their marketing efforts negatively effect their management of their servers.

That's true.

Originally posted by akashik
I don't usually care too much about ads here but I tend to agree there - pretty woeful.

I totally agree. I've not had a major problem with the ads on WHT and I'm happy to leave them on in support for iNet (I occasionally see something interesting a click one) but this is just too much.

rotator.juggler.inetinteractive.com is now set to 127.0.0.1 in my hosts file to remove all ads on my WHT as I was starting to feel dizzy with all the junk up at the top.

FWIW I'd be miffed too if I have paid for ad's on that 'top' banner spot.

Jim_UK - I've done the same:

127.0.0.1 rotator.juggler.inetinteractive.com
127.0.0.1 www.inetinteractive.com (gets rid of the other side)

I'll remove that when the Site5 bar at the top goes. It's most annoying.

Chris

Originally posted by KI-ChrisE
Jim_UK - I've done the same:

127.0.0.1 rotator.juggler.inetinteractive.com
127.0.0.1 www.inetinteractive.com (gets rid of the other side)

I'll remove that when the Site5 bar at the top goes. It's most annoying.

Chris

That's a good idea actually ;). I agree that we do not need banners of any type plastered all the way across the street as if it is some useless toolbar.

did anyone notice the extra ad bar at the top

it has been displaying site5 ads

unbelievable.

is this place REALLY not making enough money?

Paused our campaign until the "elephant man" bar is removed.

No, I didn't notice it. My localhost proxy blocks it. But there's an interesting discussion taking place in the Announcements/Feedback forum about this that's worth a look!

Since I've never really looked in this forum before, are iNet likely to take any notice?

How could you Not notice it. In fact this is the first add I really have notice ..

Doc

heh nice banner, can't miss it ;)

Before I use to bother to look at the top adds...

Now knowing that site5 is always on the top, I dont even bother looking at the other add.. I just scroll down :p

Peace,

Horrible looking banner and another sad day in WHT history.

Originally posted by KI-ChrisE
Since I've never really looked in this forum before, are iNet likely to take any notice?

Basically No.

I was thinking they probably could get another 8 to ten adds across the top. That of course would leave no room for the actual forum but hey, business is business.

Doc

Lol. Ok then. Well - we should just keep letting people fill this thread... they may realise eventually - especially if we all change the host file to block it?

Originally posted by UH-Matt
Ive asked for our banners to be paused until they are genuine "top" banners again ;)

well GOOD for you! and you should have that right! i can not believe inet is doing this. i really honestly cant.

site5 will soon become the most hated hosting company on wht ;)

btw 1024x768 WITH a scroll bar.

i had seriously considered advertising here, but it seems to me that no matter what you do, something like this always happens. for the prices charged here i can do some serious offline marketing and do some serious mailings as well. im not interested in "branding opportunities" im interested in sales.

id really like to "confidentially" get some ctr and conversion numbers from some people here though, as i may be very very wrong...

Originally posted by KI-ChrisE
Lol. Ok then. Well - we should just keep letting people fill this thread... they may realise eventually - especially if we all change the host file to block it?

That won't work since past has proven they will just close a thread they are tiered of hearing about or start handing out warning points because you make a comment against them.

Ah, I see.

But surely Site5 won't pay for it if they're getting no impressions. ;)

Just a quick note for those with the scrolling problem. I am using the new OPera 8 and I can shrink the browser down so it is only half the width of the screen and I still don't have horizontal screen.

Doc

You have to admit. It's good marketing. I wonder who suggested it and what iNET charged for it.

I don't see the top banner anymore. My eyes are drawn to the site5 bar. Very smart.

Aaron

I'm pretty upset about paying for banners on the top spot and not receiving them. Had I known this was going to be there I would have never purchased them! I'm seriously considering creating a banner that says "What is Neuralgia?" Than "Who cares that's why we sell Hosting and not dictionaries!"

Well, I have never blocked WHT ads before, but am now, this is insane, whats next using dhtml to make it stay on the top while reading the forum, ala geocities?

It was so annoying that I had to use the block feature as well.

Like a "watermark?" I've seen that used on a car mboard where a logo stayed in the corner all the time. The ad at issue is actually 2 small images and blocking them gives this red line going across the type.

Originally posted by JodoHost(Stephen)
Well, I have never blocked WHT ads before, but am now, this is insane, whats next using dhtml to make it stay on the top while reading the forum, ala geocities?

Loaded up WHT today, thought someone used my pc (work) and somehow had gotten a damn toolbar on my browser (firefox). Then I realized its a damn AD!

It's an eyesore. It's overkill. It's just plain ugly. Never thought I'd be one to say it, but Bye Bye WHT ads.


--Edit -- Sorry to those of you that pay for "top banner" adverts.

Originally posted by KimmiKat
Like a "watermark?" I've seen that used on a car mboard where a logo stayed in the corner all the time. The ad at issue is actually 2 small images and blocking them gives this red line going across the type. No red lines for me. I attached a picture of what I see at all time (I've only ever seen the iNet logo a few times in my life, only when they're doing maintenance on the servers). I undocked and shrunk the window so the image wouldn't be too big - notice blocking the bar = no horizontal scroll ;)

Well, I have never blocked WHT ads before, but am now, this is insane, whats next using dhtml to make it stay on the top while reading the forum, ala geocities?Those ain't gonna work on my computer either. As far as I'm concerned, go for it! :D

Originally posted by the_pm
No red lines for me. I attached a picture of what I see at all time (I've only ever seen the iNet logo a few times in my life, only when they're doing maintenance on the servers). I undocked and shrunk the window so the image wouldn't be too big - notice blocking the bar = no horizontal scroll ;)

Those ain't gonna work on my computer either. As far as I'm concerned, go for it! :D

I see your using Opera, how did you set it to block the ads. I can't seem to figure it out.

Doc

I actually posted this earlier in the thread, but I imagine it got lost in the mix. No matter :)

www.proxomitron.info - let's you set up customer UA Strings too. I've been known to surf the Web as a toaster oven from time to time :D I use it to get past browser-sniffing scripts.

Originally posted by the_pm
I actually posted this earlier in the thread, but I imagine it got lost in the mix. No matter :)

www.proxomitron.info - let's you set up customer UA Strings too. I've been known to surf the Web as a toaster oven from time to time :D I use it to get past browser-sniffing scripts.
Thank you very much for that. I have it up and running, now all I need to do is work out how to replace the adds with photo of "The Doctor" and everthing will be fine. I do remeber you posting about that program before and I had gone to the site and read the intro and couldn't understand a word. However the download pages and help pages are great.

Now back to the subject at hand.

I personally don't advertise here, or for that matter anywhere else, so I haven't been taking notice of the adds, now consequently I have been more or less forced too, which has led me to permanetly banning adds, I assume there will be a number of other doing similar. What use are all the adds if people ban them anyway. I would be thinking seriously about spending my advertising dollar else where

Doc

I guess I don't understand what the noise is.

One click of my mouse wheel and it's no longer there.

Is it really that obtrusive?

Originally posted by the_pm
I actually posted this earlier in the thread, but I imagine it got lost in the mix. No matter :)

www.proxomitron.info - let's you set up customer UA Strings too. I've been known to surf the Web as a toaster oven from time to time :D I use it to get past browser-sniffing scripts.

Thanks for the link... seems like a good piece of software.

Sirius

Yes, it's most annoying - it may seem like just moving the wheel - but it grabs your eyes attention straight away.

Anyway, seems most of us have either blocked it from our system in hosts file or used some app to remove it.

I like the ad.... I think it is doing what they wanted *shrugs*. Yes it sucks for the hosts who bought ad space for top, and I think inet should give money back or more impressions for them putting another ad on top of the top ad. I just hope it is not going to be there much longer (I suspect only a day?)

Personally, the only reason I block is for faster loading. I only ever installed a localhost proxy for the UA String spoofing ability, nothing more. I noticed a few sites into using it that I wasn't seeing any ads...and I never turned the ads back on after that. The ads never really bothered me; surfing the Web is just soooooo much faster now!

That's a nifty little proggy. :)

Originally posted by Blair
Ugh! I can't beleive that ad was accepted -- even for $25/1k. It detracts from the entire site IMO.

$25.00 for what? Top banner ads is $15.00 for 1k and bottom ads is $7.50 for 1k.

I would think it cost more than just a top banner impression.

But nobody actually pays $15/1k impressions anyway.... do they? ;)

I think this just goes to show that iNet cares more about ad revenue than it does actually improving the forum experience.

I paid for a premium leads membership ($200) and iNet discontinued it soon afterwards. They obviously aren't bothered by the fact that some of us paid for it. We were promised a replacement that never materialized. Meanwhile, they've raised prices on pretty much every other ad on here, and yet the forum experience hasn't improved at all. The "Premium Membership" was a complete farce, for instance.

I'm hugely disappointed. I liked this site a lot better when it wasn't all about "How much money can we screw out of our members/What ridiculous prices can we charge for ads now?"

Erica summarises a lot of peoples feelings towards WHT these days.

The only things that have changed about this place, is the money making aspects.

Nothing for the "good of the community". Before moving to iNET's control it was also a lot more stable... bring back hosting by EV1 :)

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
I guess I don't understand what the noise is.

One click of my mouse wheel and it's no longer there.

Is it really that obtrusive?

True its just that the fact that iNet allows this on WHT. I thought I would let WHT ads go on my notebook, as my PC blocks them. but I am seriously re-considering that.

Has anyone contacted Matt or any other Site5 staff yet?

I personally blocked only that image, now time to re-consider it for all banner ads...

"sick of annoying webhosts who spend more time coming up with annoying marketing than running stable servers"


UH-Matt easily the funniest post of the day.. hehe

I think site5 definitely gets their point across with this type of banner.. smart advertising.. not really a great move on iNETs side.. but who knows. Quite a lot of people are looking at this thread, maybe they will check out the iNET website and decide to advertise.

I don't really think its that bad, but i'd be a little angry if my banner was overshadowed, when its suppose to be a "top" banner..

Originally posted by RealtorHost
Quite a lot of people are looking at this thread, maybe they will check out the iNET website and decide to advertise.

Why would they want to advertise? If you get your "top banner" up there, attention is drawn to the site5 banner @ the top.

I wouldn't spend money on that. Would you?

Originally posted by KI-ChrisE
. . . but it grabs your eyes attention straight away. . . Score one for marketing.

Originally posted by RealtorHost
. . . i'd be a little angry if my banner was overshadowed, when its suppose to be a "top" banner.. I certainly can't disagree with that.

Originally posted by immortal9
. . . Has anyone contacted Matt or any other Site5 staff yet? . . . To tell them the effectiveness of their banner? :eek2:

I find that Site5's method was very effective. I also give them credit for getting it done. They have nothing but my respect.

As for iNet......well...

I knew it was a matter of time before iNet turned WHT into it's own personal prostitute, at the cost of asthetic, and community appeal.

I find that WHT has not only lost it's appeal, but also it's sense of voice (thanks iNet). It's no longer a place to share opinions. Oh, don't misunderstand...you can still share your opinion, just as long as iNet approves of, or agrees with your opinion.

Before long I predict that iNet will introduce intro ads, that you have to watch or skip before entering any of their properties.

They are taking communities that we all loved to visit, and making them undesirable little by little.

Not to worry though....while we watch some our favorite communities get bought out, and then pimped out, we can find satisifaction in listening to ODB's Got Your Money, in the background.

Back to Site5....
Very nice idea and campaign...much respect.

Originally posted by ANMMark
I find that Site5's method was very effective. I also give them credit for getting it done. They have nothing but my respect.

As for iNet......well...

Back to Site5....
Very nice idea and campaign...much respect. Let me get this right.

Site5 is great, because they had a "nice idea and campaign."

iNET is in the crapper, because they allowed the "nice idea and campaign" to be displayed on WebHostingTalk.

Is that what you're saying?


I guess I'm too old to understand.

There ad thing is grabbing attention even offsite. Someone mentioned it on my mboard before I binned part of the thread there.

I guess I'm too old to understand.


Apparently. I mean, I'll be 29 in June, and I understand it just fine. Of course I also understood the context, which you didn't seem to understand either.


Let me get this right.

Site5 is great, because they had a "nice idea and campaign."

iNET is in the crapper, because they allowed the "nice idea and campaign" to be displayed on WebHostingTalk.

Is that what you're saying?


Something like that yes.

Site5 had a great idea. They wanted attention....they got attention, so as far as their marketing idea, it is indeed good for them, and a great idea.

iNet on the other hand completely disregarded their top placement advertisers just to make a quick buck. Furthermore, have let this thread go on without even a comment, telling me that they don't care either.

No doubt, what will occur is that they will either never reply, and the thread will get closed, or they will reply with some open ended comment, and then close the thread.

EDIT:
You might want to reread my post, as it covers much more than this thread's topic.

Originally posted by ANMMark
They are taking communities that we all loved to visit, and making them undesirable little by little.

Or in the case of HostingTech and Hotscripts, making them undesirable by leaps and bounds. The content on both those sites is horrible nowdays.

iNet's inattention to the core of these places is slowly destroying them in my opinion.

Originally posted by ANMMark
. . .
You might want to reread my post, as it covers much more than this thread's topic. And you expect me to respond to an off-topic commentary?

Please disregard the question.

This is about the banner that some call obtrusive. And I call a banner.

I notice it. I move on.

Since when can you just make up an advertisement space, and not allow fair competition to other companies?

You may - many of us find it to be an annoyance or more though.

I think at the very least, iNet should comment in this thread.

Well as I said, my post covers much more. That's not to say it doesn't cover this topic as well.

Why is it those who work for iNet never have an issue with things around here.

Did they really cut them off?:eek:

You may - many of us find it to be an annoyance or more though.


I have nothing but respect for the mods at WHT, but did you expect a mod to come here and disagree with the owner? :D

Nope - lol. :p

We could at a minimum, but anything more then that would be limited to the moderator sub-forums.

Originally posted by ANMMark
I have nothing but respect for the mods at WHT, but did you expect a mod to come here and disagree with the owner? :D

that whole 6kb takes so long to load :-D

Well i got our banners halted until the dodgy one is removed.

Going to email inet tomorrow to ask if our remaining impressions can be used with the following attached banner placement, just a little idea we've been toying with and it wont annoy anybody ;) :)

Go for it Matt! Perhaps we should all do one of those and send it to them... ;)

Originally posted by UH-Matt
Well i got our banners halted until the dodgy one is removed.

Going to email inet tomorrow to ask if our remaining impressions can be used with the following attached banner placement, just a little idea we've been toying with and it wont annoy anybody ;) :)

Good idea.

It would have looked so much better and less cluttered if they just redid it to include it into the iNet network bar (I'm sure iNet wouldn't feel to sorry about ditching that little iNet logo in turn for some good site5 checks ;) ) - Right now with the double bar it looks hideous.

I also feel sorry for those of you who have paid for "top banner" advertising, because the site5 bar does steal most of its thunder.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Score one for marketing.
Ding!

I think folks should calm down. It's just an ad bar. INET are most probably experimenting with this extra ad bar, and I can't see this lasting for anything more than a week.

Advertisers using the top banner are mainly doing so for branding, and not clicks, so it still is an effective branding device, although slightly diluted by the ad bar.

It may be 'just an ad bar' but its the most irritating advert on the site. I was quite happy having adverts show until now.

Going to email inet tomorrow to ask if our remaining impressions can be used with the following attached banner placement, just a little idea we've been toying with and it wont annoy anybody


I'm sure if you gave them enough money, they would probably redirect WHT to your site for a week Matt...it's worth a shot.

A week? iNET may wish to consider cutting a nice refund check to site5 and calling it even before the weekend. Failure to do so could definately damage the relationship they have with current top spot advertisers.

Indeed... I have been considering gettings some ads here. But with that up there I won't be doing it now. ;)

LMAO - Has anyone taken a chance to go view some of the opinions from other inet owned forums?

I found these two which gave me quite the laugh:

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=3650756&postcount=3

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=3650925&postcount=9

Seems everyone is quite unimpressed.

Correct - and we're all still waiting for a response.

Or is this place run by web servers only? :p

LMAO - Has anyone taken a chance to go view some of the opinions from other inet owned forums?

I found these two which gave me quite the laugh:


Oh now that's it! I think some of the mods should head over there and defend iNet before this gets out of hand. :D

Originally posted by Mekhu

http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=3650756&postcount=3


ROFL. That is the funniest thing I have seen all day. :stickout:

Well, the mods can't really say anything. Too me the thing looks out of place. It could've been incorporated better with the iBar.

A few years ago when a former free hosting company, XOOM.com started their "XOOMbar" a few of the mods there spoke against it. What happened....the mods were discharged immediately and blocked from their site. What happened a few years later? Xoom merged with NBCi and then went down with the dot bombs.

Unlike XOOM, I don't see iNet going down, instead I see the opposite. They will be around for a long time.

Originally posted by ANMMark
Oh now that's it! I think some of the mods should head over there and defend iNet before this gets out of hand. :D

Since when can you just make up an advertisement space, and not allow fair competition to other companies?

since iNet owns the largest web hosting talk forum in the galaxy, that's since when.
They can do what the bloody hell ever they please, and, sadly have done quite a bit to disrupt the user's experience here, with absolutely no consideration given to those users, or their feelings at all.

Sadly, the WHT experience hasn't really "benefitted" from iNet's ownership. If nothing, it's tremendously lost benefit.

Anyone remember This?

Tomorrow when you come to WHT you will not see anything different. The layout is not going to change … the colors are not going to change … the forums are not going to change. The same can be said for next week, next month, and well into the future.


Well, 2 years down the road, we've seen just how true that statement really is/was. iNet has turned WHT into their own personal marketing tool to do whatever they want with.

For better, or for worse, iNet now owns WHT and can do what the hell ever they want with it, even shut it down for a month if they chose to do so.


Going to email inet tomorrow to ask if our remaining impressions can be used with the following attached banner placement, just a little idea we've been toying with and it wont annoy anybody

Go for it Matt! It won't annoy anyone there at all :)


Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that WHT has finally reached some decent funding, but, iNet has gone just a little far, and continually shown a full lack of care for those that actually BRING them this money. This is just a prime example of that.

BTW:
Who said anything about competition was "fair"?
If this was affecting a banner post made by myself, I'd be cancelling it immediately and demanding a refund. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to waste THAT much money on this place.

A message from iNET...

The advertising bar you see for Site5 has definitely caused quite a stir. I am here right now to let you all know a couple of things about it:

1) The bar is there only for Thursday. This is a one day only advertising promotion by Site5. Their goal was to try something different to promote their launch and they contacted us within the last week to see what could be done. Several ideas were thrown around and ultimately, we agreed to try this idea for one day and one day only. It expires at midnight tonight and won't be there after that.

2) Perhaps based on the limted time we had to review options but nonetheless, iNET made an error in judgement in allowing this bar to be placed there. I am here to admit that error, and let you know once again, the bar is there until midnight after which it is gone and won't return. We will not sell that position again.

3) Aside from community members being upset, we realize this has possibly negatively impacted other advertisers on WHT. We will be comping this day of advertisers to all advertisers that had ads running in the top banner zone, so they can consider this Free Thursday since we frankly errored in judgement allowing advertising above thers. Further, to them, we appologize for our mistake.

We do, however, applaud Site5 for their wanting to do something outside the box. No doubt, they are in the midst of the most successful one day campaign in iNET's history. They wanted to try something different and it definitely created a buzz across iNET's network. Good for them! Gave us a black eye, but kudos to them.

Moving forward, I would like to state at this time that particularly with respect to WebHostingTalk.com, iNET has been a dinosaur when it comes to modifying our advertising policies as technology changes. Currently, iNET offers the same 468x60 banner options that were first prevalent when new media became the thing. We have stayed away from allowing new types of advertising from hitting WHT, largely because of the negative reaction from many visitors anytme there is a change.

On May 2nd, we will be remodeling the top portion of WebHostingTalk.com. It will merely reflect a change in location and size options for the top banner zone. This move is being implemented to help our advertisers... the people who allow you to participate in this free community for web hosting discussions. While at first the change may seem drastic to the community members here, you should note that we are merely remodeling the top of the skin to more resemble what WHT was during 2003. The banner location will be moved to right below the header bar of the site, and will allow the "old school" advertisements where there is an image and text beside it. In case you're wondering what I'm talking about, please feel free to check out http://web.archive.org/web/20020720181843/http://webhostingtalk.com/ as the top banner zone will be in similar location. Of course, we aren't requiring advertisers to use the old school advertising style from WHT, just presenting them with that option. They can always continue to run a 468x60 banner or a 728x90 banner instead in the top zone. The advertising area at the top will shrink/grow based on which type of ad is being displayed.

Additionally, we will begin, on May 2, allowing some rich media advertisements on WHT (i.e. flash) but the banner will have to be approved by our staff and will have to be deemed not to be "too flashy" or annoying, in our sole discretion.

This was definitely not the manner in which iNET intended to announce the coming modification, but given the current discussion, it only seems right to forewarn you about the pending modifications.

Again, the modifications to the skin are designed to enhance WHT from an advertisers perspective. I cannot reitterate how important that is, as the advertisers are the ones who ultimately pay for this community.

Aside from the top of the skin modifications, iNET is currently investigating the suggestions of your moderation staff to add an option for Premium Members to toggle advertising on/off. Though this may not be implemented by May 2, it is being considered for all of you anti-advertisers out there. We have details to work out on this plan and have to do some more due dilligence before that decision is ultimately passed.


Again, iNET recognizes that we were in error in allowing the extended toolbar advertisement.

It can do for one day! :D
Matt, you can turn your ads back on, they are free today :stickout:

I'm not trying to be mean or anything...


But didn't iNet once say that all ads must be approved before they go in rotation?

Taking this as an example:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=399435

Will this happen with the "new" types? Such as flash? Maybe starting out with approval, but then go to automation? :roll:

Originally posted by immortal9
I'm not trying to be mean or anything...


But didn't iNet once say that all ads must be approved before they go in rotation?

Taking this as an example:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=399435

Will this happen with the "new" types? Such as flash? Maybe starting out with approval, but then go to automation? :roll:

Ads are not automated... all ads do get viewed by our creative staff before being put into the system. While the upload is automated, it merely stores it on our servers and sends our creative staff the url to view and place in the ad management console.

Additionally, we will begin, on May 2, allowing some rich media advertisements on WHT (i.e. flash) but the banner will have to be approved by our staff and will have to be deemed not to be "too flashy" or annoying, in our sole discretion.
:)

Right click:

Block images from server.

Camp2Win, you will be able to exclude all banner advertisements from display as a future option of premium membership (soon to be renamed "WHT Sponsor") in your control panel soon.

Originally posted by Gabriel Murphy
Camp2Win, you will be able to exclude all banner advertisements from display as a future option of premium membership (soon to be renamed "WHT Sponsor") in yoru control panel soon.

:D You may want to check the entire thread also, some kind users gave tips on how to block ads. Although, some already do :)

I personally don't find the site5 banner annoying.

HL

This post does only express my opinion, please don't take it wrong.

When I hit reload yesterday (I do always keep WHT open in a Firefox browser tab) I was amazed to see that there was a red bar at the top, in a very agressive red color that just doesn't match WHT's theme. I was even more amazed when I found that it wasn't an important announce or something like that, but a plain advertising "banner".

I do understand that banners bring the income to keep WHT online, however I've always thought that 2 banners on every page (top and bottom) and the "Sponsors" block in the homepage was more than enough ads to keep the site visitor-friendly, however know I had to block images from www.inetinteractive.com/networkbar/, something that I had thought that would never be needed when browsing WHT.

So what's next? Popups?

Just my 2c

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=399556

Might want to take a look at this thread: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=399556&perpage=15&pagenumber=8

Edit: Looks like immortal9 was first.

I should say for the record....

I think Site5's concept here was genius. They certainly reached their goal, and I'm happy for them. My comments were hopefully not taken out of context, as I was not trying to say anything bad about Site5 in any way. I think they are a bunch of great guys in fact.

I think iNet made a bad decision here however.

I'm certainly not against ads. Marketing basically makes the business world go round.

However, I think it can be over done, and that term, as well as the concept ("Over done") is something iNet is no stranger to.

A few of the communities I visited and participated in all the time, I no longer visit, because it lost the community feel, in place of the dollar.

I certainly realize that iNet needs to earn revenue to stay in business, but there is always a line of taste and value that needs to be recognized before bombarding communities with high powered ads.

These precise actions killed the once lively Swish-Tutorials forum, when it was transformed into iNet's SwishTalk, and almost a desert.

It's like locusts picking a location, milking the location for every bit of food until nothing is left, then moving on.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Didn't iNET just say?Originally posted by Ryan Elledge
. . . iNET recognizes that we were in error in allowing the extended toolbar advertisement.

Did anyone just notice the new site5.com ad under the inet bar? I wonder how much they paid for that and how much hits their servers are getting just because of this ad alone! Must be one heck of an expensive advertisement campagn...

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=399556


Apparently you were not the first to notice.

..Sorry Blue beat me to it!

I'm not sure what resolution everyone is using but on my screen the red bar is the equivalent of maybe two lines of text? It doesn't take up much space at all. However, I do side with current advertisers that were assumed top banner positions. I also applaud iNets realization of the situation afterwards by comping todays advertisors.

If it helps keep the lights on I can live with it.

I think we have more of a failure to understand.

They did indeed admit to the mistake they made with this decision.

However, they have made decisions like this, as others have stated as well, that make many of their properties, that were once desirable, very undesirable.

Most of the time those complaints are either ignored, deleted, or just closed.

This was just one of the many "errors in judgement", unfortunately one of the few I've seen iNet admit to.

While I doubt that WHT will suffer anything from these errors in judgement, I don't think that some of the others could handle a downfall like SwishTalk did.

Ryan made a nice point about how the advertisers pay for the community. Again, while I have no issues with ads, I think he ultimately missed the fact that while the advertisers pay for the community, there would be no community, nor a need for advertisers, without the people who contribute. WHT would be nothing without either, but the focus seemed to be shifted back to the advertisers. It was kind of like "Aside from the members being upset, let's get back to the people who pay us money."

I certainly don't mean to beat this to death, but I think both contributions, time from the member & money from the advertisers, are equally important to a thriving community such as WHT.

When you put the money over the community, irritating and losing the community, who will the advertisers advertise to?

I hate it and its getting on nerves. :(

Well - can't blame the company for making money. I've already taken care of my one click to block it out. I think the people who had the right to complain are the ones who payed for the banners. Mark also brought up some good points in his post.

Though this is an entirely different subject, since Alfarin is wondering how much this cost and how much traffic it is generating (on top of wondering if anyone noticed - I think it's safe to say "yes" :) ). I wonder if someone will be willing to disclose either one of these figures...

Originally posted by ANMMark
However, they have made decisions like this, as others have stated as well, that make many of their properties, that were once desirable, very undesirable.]

I cannot recall another occassion where iNET introduced a new creative placement? Not sure what you mean by suggestion we have made "decisions like this, that make many of our properties, that were once desirable, very undesirable". This is borderline comical- you cited Swishtalk: swishtalk.com continues to grow in terms of page views and new members every month.


Most of the time those complaints are either ignored, deleted, or just closed.

I think even the moderators will disagree with you here- in terms of iNET deleting or closing threads. Everyone is well aware that we do not close or delete threads. As far as us ignoring complaints, I must disagree with you here as well. Did we not just post our position on this? Have we not posted in the past on issues subject to debate?

This was just one of the many "errors in judgement", unfortunately one of the few I've seen iNet admit to.

Many: name them. Sure, we are human, we make mistakes, and admit to our errors. You choose to jump on this and claim we make "many".

While I doubt that WHT will suffer anything from these errors in judgement, I don't think that some of the others could handle a downfall like SwishTalk did.

Yep, swishtalk.com is a desert- no one there. Here is swishtalk.com in December of 2003: http://web.archive.org/web/20031203023052/www.swish-tutorials.com/forum/index.php. Notice the site then had
58K members and 163K posts. Today, 67.5K members on 237.6K posts. Membership is up almost 10K members and posts have grown, an increase of 45% in post volume since we acquired it. Please enlighten me on your basis that swishtalk.com had incurred a "downfall"? I have provided you with the emperical data that supports my position.

Ryan made a nice point about how the advertisers pay for the community. Again, while I have no issues with ads, I think he ultimately missed the fact that while the advertisers pay for the community, there would be no community, nor a need for advertisers, without the people who contribute. WHT would be nothing without either, but the focus seemed to be shifted back to the advertisers. It was kind of like "Aside from the members being upset, let's get back to the people who pay us money."

I certainly don't mean to beat this to death, but I think both contributions, time from the member & money from the advertisers, are equally important to a thriving community such as WHT.

When you put the money over the community, irritating and losing the community, who will the advertisers advertise to?

At lease we agree on most of these points.

Originally posted by HXM-Jacob
I also applaud iNets realization of the situation afterwards by comping todays advertisors.
I guess they didn't have much choice...

HL

Originally posted by Hostlead
I guess they didn't have much choice...

HL

No, we did have a choice.

Watching gabe argue with members is great entertainment :)


/me makes popcorn

I hate arguing :)

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Is it really that obtrusive?
Yes, it is.

Originally posted by linux-tech
Sadly, the WHT experience hasn't really "benefitted" from iNet's ownership. If nothing, it's tremendously lost benefit.
Interesting point.

For a long time, I had the AD's blocked when iNet started doing Flash Ads - Annoying Flash Ads. Few weeks ago someone mentioned (blue or one of the mods) that they no longer do it. I have disabled my ad blocker.

Unfortunately, I had to enable it again and even add inetinteractive.com to be blocked to stop the bar from showing up.

Originally posted by Ryan Elledge
Additionally, we will begin, on May 2, allowing some rich media advertisements on WHT (i.e. flash)
Unfortunately, it looks like that the AD blocker I have enabled yesterday will remain enabled.

I understand the advertisement concept, do not get me wrong. In fact, we have even considered, at one point, advertising here. However, going over the top with Ads and more "bars" (even if it is now temporary) is too much for current/possible advertisers and the visitors to this wonderful forum.

Originally posted by Gabriel Murphy
No, we did have a choice.

When I read the first half of your post I thought to myself "what a decent thing to do, it is great when somebody is willing to admit a mistake" then I read on. Now I am wondering if you just seized the oppurtunity to inform us of changes. I mean what better way to get people on side. Run an ad that is way over the top, let people vent in a thread for as long as possible then come on and appologise and while appologizing slip in the fact that changes are on the way. Next you assure people that the changes won't be as dramatic as what has just occured. This way everybody is that relieved that they don't have to endure that ghastly add that they will readily agree to the changes. Of course had nobody kicked up about the ad then no doubt you would have just introduced more changes knowing no body would complain. Actually this is even better salesmanship than stie5's. A sort of reverse "sell the sizzle not the steak" approach.

Cynical?? I'' let WHT members and visitors judge that. One thing I do know I am many other won't be turning adds back on now we have turned them off and I certainly don't need to buy Premium when I can turn the adds of for free.

Kind Regards
Laurie Hll aka The Doctor

Sadly, the WHT experience hasn't really "benefitted" from iNet's ownership. If nothing, it's tremendously lost benefit.
I don't really think so. If i remember correctly, WHT was down alot more often when it was on rackshack's net.

Originally posted by mikeylove
I don't really think so. If i remember correctly, WHT was down alot more often when it was on rackshack's net.
Actually, it was down a lot LESS from what I recall.

Originally posted by linux-tech
Actually, it was down a lot LESS from what I recall.

Yes I concur.

Doc

Originally posted by TheDoctor
Now I am wondering if you just seized the oppurtunity to inform us of changes.
The changes were planned already, just Ryan let it slip a few days earlier than originally planned.

when is that ad bar suppose to be gone or is it perm? I'd like to unblock the top, but if it stays i'm just going to keep it blocked or turn on adblock.

About 90 more minutes if my calculations are correct.

Originally posted by mikeylove
I don't really think so. If i remember correctly, WHT was down alot more often when it was on rackshack's net.

That would be true if "connection refused" is your only definition of "down", nowatdays it's never "down" (using that definition) it's just showing an "Under maintenance" message from inetinteractive.com LoL (and that happens a LOT) :stickout:

Originally posted by SEATi
That would be true if "connection refused" is your only definition of "down", nowatdays it's never "down" (using that definition) it's just showing an "Under maintenance" message from inetinteractive.com LoL (and that happens a LOT) :stickout:


When that does happen, as it did Monday, I was having to reboot the MySQL server because of an issue. It was back up in under 15 minutes. Instead of getting the vB SQL error page, and me getting 10,000 emails of vB errors, you saw a nice little page saying WHT was down. Some of you might have seen a 403 forbidden page, this was due in part to my error. When I shut the site down I set a .htaccess to DENY FROM ALL and a error redirect to the down page (which has a very generic statement).

Originally posted by Ryan Elledge
They wanted to try something different and it definitely created a buzz across iNET's network. Good for them! Gave us a black eye, but kudos to them.

We have stayed away from allowing new types of advertising from hitting WHT, largely because of the negative reaction from many visitors anytme there is a change.

:rolleyes: The negative reaction isn't from the changes, but rather how you go about implementing them. When the skin was last changed, there was no forewarning and for some of us it didn't go smoothly. You had my email address and PM box at your disposal. In addition to the newsletter you sent me, a heads up about going to my profile to review the changed skin options would have been nice.

I don't think anyone is against Site 5 or iNet experimenting with a new placement and sizing of an ad. I think we're concerned, that it was an additional ad on a page with two rotators already. This year, I've had such frequent trouble even logging in here that I'm being completely sarcastic when I say, "Y'know what this place needs? To load even slower..."

How many ads will the new skin be loading? How soon will that be subject to change? If everybody starts shutting ads off in an effort to make WHT pages load as quickly as they did last year, can I buy advertising space somewhere else on the page? For instance, instead of "Premium Member" that graphic could so easily say, "Bison Systems" with a link to my website. How much for that?

Originally posted by Ryan Elledge
Again, the modifications to the skin are designed to enhance WHT from an advertisers perspective. I cannot reitterate how important that is, as the advertisers are the ones who ultimately pay for this community.


Again, iNET recognizes that we were in error in allowing the extended toolbar advertisement.

I don't think you were in error experimenting, it's just that you went about it with all the grace of a bull in a china shop. If I were an advertiser, I would have expected forewarning that another advertiser had purchased all top banners for the date of April 28 and that the usual top rotator would be disabled for that date. There are some rough customer service edges over there at iNet, maybe you could send someone to night classes or something.

:eek3: As a community member, it's that emphasis on the advertisers which concerns me. Where are your priorities? I'm wondering when the board will run in a reasonably stable fashion again, instead you're focusing on advertiser-friendly skin modifications?

The advertisers ultimately pay for the community? They "allow me" to participate? Isn't that a chicken-and-egg argument? I notice plenty of my threads here are highly ranked on Google. Additionally, I report spam posts all the time.

If it weren't for the legions of members and (volunteer) moderators keeping the spammers at bay while also making quality contributions from time to time, what would happen to your advertising revenue? Why don't you ever acknowledge that we're the product you're marketing, instead of treating us as an expensive inconvenience?

Maybe iNet would get more respect from this community if you would show us more respect.

Well since the Site5 ad bar is now gone, I've now changed my hosts file back to normal so standard ads are appearing again. Since they fund WHT I hope that we now all do the same. :)

Originally posted by SEATi

So what's next? Popups?

Just my 2c

oh i have THE idea of the century....

charge for signatures!

better yet, charge per character!

Wohoo - charges. :)

Electricity meter - woops - Forum meter. :p

These new changes look BAD. A 720x ad? I think not, i will now be blocking ads on this site.

Originally posted by Hostex Australia
These new changes look BAD. A 720x ad? I think not, i will now be blocking ads on this site.

Where is that? I can't see it...

Originally posted by LaurenStephens.com
oh i have THE idea of the century....

charge for signatures!

better yet, charge per character!

No That is too obtrusive. I think they should have adds on the actual posts. When you go to write a post an add pops up ... "Brought to you by Hosting Unlimited" It could be one of those floating adds or it could be like the little Butler in incredimail .. that the one that walks out and annouces 'Your got mail Sir" instead he walks out and say "Get unlimited hosting at Mikey's". And he would be carrying a flag.

You would also have adds on the forum. Webhosts could have adds that popped up on there oppositions posts, things like "Would you really trust your hosting a person with this low standard of posts.

Yes there is a lot of untapped resources available. perhaps they should hire me a s a creative consultant. I would get the borads humming.

Doc

Originally posted by SEATi
So what's next? Popups?
I believe it has been stated on many occasions that popups will never be implemented as an ad format.

Originally posted by mikeylove
I don't really think so. If i remember correctly, WHT was down alot more often when it was on rackshack's net. Originally posted by linux-tech
Actually, it was down a lot LESS from what I recall.
Unless you chaps have specific uptime stats from 12mths on rackshack and 12mths on rackspace, you're only speculating.

This new advertising is great. There is one or two small problems with sizing for the new image but basically it is great. The conceipt of having images pertaining to each individual member is a marvelous idea. Not sure how it will go with the advertisers buy hey the members are more important.

Doc

hey Doc, how did you get your photo on the right there?

Also, you have an unread PM too. :D

That's a joke right? :p

Edit: Must be and is!

Ok, never mind, ignore this post.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
hey Doc, how did you get your photo on the right there?

Also, you have an unread PM too. :D

www.proxomitron.info - let's you set up customer UA Strings too

The program not only stops ads you can replace the ad with your own image. Now this is working with all images on every page of WHT not onlt that as it is a generic setting then it will work on any site with ads. This would be a good little too to include for you clients. You could preset it to display your advertising on every page they visited. :emlaugh:

Doc
btw. couldn't find that PM ??

As the banner in question has expired, it's time for this thread to as well.

And so; thread closed.