Topic: Some of the "True" ads verge on porn...

[Smash_Brother]

One of the girls in the "True" ads is wearing a camo daisy-duke and has it half way slid off, practically showing bush.

I have nothing against porn, but this site is rapidly becoming unsafe to surf while at work, or while around carriers of the X/X chromosome.

Could the ads be toned down a bit?

-SB

[vudu]

Why haven't I seen this ad?

EDIT #1:  Okay, I just saw it for the first time.  I assume this is the ad you're referring to....
EDIT #2:  Here's another one.  Collect the whole set!
EDIT #3:  Found two more.  This is fun!
EDIT #4:  After a few days of nothing new popping up, I found a new one.  Woo-hoo!

[Smash_Brother]

That would be the one.

-SB

[KDR_11k]

Looks like you won't find many women on that dating service...

[Pryopizm]

I love how they totally confuse the concept of "Love" and "OMG ME SO HORNY!"

[Bill Aurion]

Hahaha, I was totally thinking the same thing...It's especially insulting in the ones that just show breasts and below the belt, yet no face...

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
I love how they totally confuse the concept of "Love" and "OMG ME SO HORNY!"

Although I completely, 100% agree, I won't use that as the basis of my argument because I'm truly worried about someone walking past me while I'm surfing PGC and thinking I'm looking at porn.

I have severe qualms with advertising attempting to use sex to sell products. If a product can't sell itself without preying upon the natural desire for companionship, then it's likely a garbage product.

And furthermore, anyone who expects to find women who look anything even remotely like those using an online dating service is a goddamn fool. I wouldn't be surprised if they added fake members with pictures like those who are, for some reason, always "unavailable", but they're not real.

I could snowball this into a discussion of the sort of standards society imposes upon women and how it disgusts me, but I'll change the world later.

For now, I just don't want to have to hide the window with PGC in it if someone walks past for fear of being labeled a pervert.

-SB

[UncleBob]

Pervert.

Seriously, I've got a co-worker at work who is pretty hot (don't tell my wife I said that) and she uses online dating services quite a bit.  She just can't find "Mr. Right".

Beside that (non-)point, I do agree.  At what point do the ads start to drive people *away* from the site?  4-7 ads on every single page, the godawful Intellitext ads, the pop up ads, the flashy-cause-a-seizure-ads and ads that look like porn? (Thanks for getting rid of those stupid LOUD NOISE ADS!)  You can argue that the end-user can always disable the ads using various means, but the majority of users don't know how to do that *or* want to do that.  And while I love the ramblings of Ian and stevey's crazy antics, if new users are quickly driven away from a site, the site will get stale.

I heard/read somewhere that it takes less than 5 seconds for the average person to "look" at a webpage and make up their mind if they like the design or not.  It probably took you about five seconds to read that last sentance.  *That* quick.  I spend more than five seconds at times closing all the pop-up windows that I get from visiting this site!

Take that as you will...

[Pale]

Smash,

Firefox + AdBlock

Your workstation's best friend.

If you don't know how AdBlock works, its a very customizable app where you can decide which ads to block.

I use it to block irrelevant ads, like stupid dating services, that I will never click on yet I leave PGC ads that I think are interesting up, like the ones for their t-shirts, or for lik-sang, etc.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Firefox + AdBlock

Your workstation's best friend.

Agree, that's what I use, and I don't get any of the PGC ads, which  includes those Intellitext ads that I hate more than anything.

It's very easy to set up, and the plug in will automatically notify you when there is a update. After using it, I really can't imagine how I lived without it.

[UncleBob]

I can't speak for him, but many work stations (or those who own them) won't allow you to install software...

[Smash_Brother]

I'll look into some sort of ad blocker. I have control over this station, fortunately.

-SB

[KDR_11k]

I've got Opera and disabled plugins and GIF animation. Intellitext doesn't work with it most of the time either so it's pretty ad free.

If those five second thigs are true, IGN/Gamespy is f#cked because they use those stupid interceptor ads.

[UncleBob]

Ah, but not on the front page.

[bustin98]

Using Internet Explorer, I just go to 'Tools - Internet Options - Security'. Click on 'Restricted Sites' and add the domain for the offending ad service. Yeah, its manual and you have to see the ad once, but its an option. And those 'Interceptor Ads', just refresh quickly to get past them. I do it quick enough where I don't even see what the heck they are trying to sell.

[Pryopizm]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Ah, but not on the front page.

Haha 1Up does.  Which I'll never understand.  Intercepter ads elsewhere I makes sense, but on the front page.  That's just wrong.

[UncleBob]

heh, really?  Well, I don't go there, so bleh.

[Jonnyboy117]

I appreciate the feedback, but these ads are well short of crossing the line for me to complain to our ad partners.  Yes, they're sexy, but they contain no nudity or profanity, and they are clearly advertising an online dating service, not pornography of any kind.  There are much more provocative ads in most magazines, newspapers, and television commercials.  When you see Girls Gone Wild ads with stars over college girls' breasts on PGC, then we've gone too far.

Since these ads are not pornographic in nature and are not affiliated with a porn company, I have no grounds to take action on them.

No offense, but if you're surfing PGC at work, you should probably be more concerned that someone will pass by and notice that you're not working.

[Smash_Brother]

No offense, but I don't know what's more regrettable: the fact that you lack the spine to question your sponsor's content or the fact that you have a very strong foothold argument already at your disposal and yet you refuse to use it.

The ads didn't start out this lewd.

I've been around long enough to remember the original batch of ads: the girls were attractive, wearing swimsuits and looking aloof (as misleading internet dating services seem to think men will be enticed into following the link would imagine them), but they were not in the middle of removing any pieces of clothing, nor were they revealing skin which is normally covered by a bathing suit.

I don't think asking for a more conservative set of pictures (especially when we already know they exist) would be asking too much, but I digress.

It's your site, do with it as you will.

-SB

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
...or the fact that you have a very strong foothold argument already at your disposal and yet you refuse to use it.

Hmmm... that if you don't like them then you could always paypal the site a check each month to cover expenses so they wouldn't have to even run adverts?

If the True ads offend you *that* much I would suggest you just block their URL of origin so you won't have to see them again. You said you have control over your station, so just download "Firefox", and then go to "Extensions" on that browser and find, and download, Adblock. Problem solved.

[Smash_Brother]

Depends on how much "expenses" are. If it's bandwidth, sure. If it's a salary or two, then no go.

And if I were him, I'd be more worried about THIS sort of sentiment:

Quote
Beside that (non-)point, I do agree. At what point do the ads start to drive people *away* from the site? 4-7 ads on every single page, the godawful Intellitext ads, the pop up ads, the flashy-cause-a-seizure-ads and ads that look like porn? (Thanks for getting rid of those stupid LOUD NOISE ADS!) You can argue that the end-user can always disable the ads using various means, but the majority of users don't know how to do that *or* want to do that. And while I love the ramblings of Ian and stevey's crazy antics, if new users are quickly driven away from a site, the site will get stale.

I heard/read somewhere that it takes less than 5 seconds for the average person to "look" at a webpage and make up their mind if they like the design or not. It probably took you about five seconds to read that last sentance. *That* quick. I spend more than five seconds at times closing all the pop-up windows that I get from visiting this site!

Forget whatever I've said in this thread (you can chalk me up an an angry sociopath anyway so everything I say is skewed), I'd be more concerned about this sentiment. I understand advertising is how the site pays for itself, but Unclebob raises some excellent points.

My company sells bandwidth, with a colo facility in Mae East and everything. I'd be the IDEAL sponsor if the target demographic of PGC was different. As it stands, this just wouldn't be the audience to pitch bandwidth hosting or VoIP to.

-SB

[Jonnyboy117]

No one at PGC earns a salary.  Ads (and t-shirt sales) pay for our expenses, and that's it.  Most of our expenses are for hosting.

We can't do colocation for various technical reasons.  Dedicated server is the only way to go, and it costs a lot of money.

Of course I'm very concerned about ads turning people away from the site.  How could I not be?  But there's little I can do to reduce the number of ads or change their content, except in extreme cases (which I don't believe this is).  The only thing I have real control over is the quality of our content.  If it's good enough, people will read the site regardless of the ads.  So that's what I concentrate on.

[Smash_Brother]

I apologize if I came across as harsh: the spine comment was unwarranted.

I wouldn't recommend co-lo unless you had a person there 24/7 who you know you could rely upon (which, thank god, we do). I've had co-lo monkeys who took a week just to get a damn server restarted.

I'm guessing you're hosted out of Texas (which is near Mae Central), judging by your registered technical contact. Who provides your bandwidth?

Although it may or may not ever come to fruition (depending on how good or bad Nintendo's online service is), you have enough of a fanbase to host regular weekly tournaments for their games, once the Rev comes out. Just use email addresses (not free ones, like yahoo, hotmail, etc. because they can be hacked easily) to send the game's password and/or friend code to the various participants. Charge a $5 entry fee via paypal for entry into the tournament. PGC takes 50% of the entry fees. Winners could either get a portion of the pot or an actual game could be on the line (like trivia is now, just with a cover charge).

$5 is a paltry sum for going head to head in a SSB tournament where prizes are involved (hell, I'd pay that just to play in the tourney at all!). The only requirement is being able to gather up enough players to make it an actual competition instead of just having 5 people show, and PCG could do that with ease.

Again, sorry about what I said. You guys do a great job and while I may not agree with such ads, there's no need to drop my spiel on you over it.

Also, I've donated $50. Hope that takes the sting off the next bandwidth bill.

-SB

[Dasmos]

More sexy ads.  

[UncleBob]

You *pay* for bandwidth?  So when I download three backup copies of everything on PGC every day, that's bad, right?

(just teasing)