What Happened to the old commitment for high quality, high level posters to not see ads?

Personally, I think the number and types of ads you see are based on the browser you use.

There was a recent issue with many users receiving 408 Request Timeout errors. It turned out to be an issue with a Google Chrome setting.

Since then, I've noticed that I see many more ads at work (on Chrome) than I do at home with FF.

Perhaps this is a browser issue.

a reply to: charles1952

THX THX THX.

What a refreshing experience . . . someone read my words as I wrote and intended them to be read! Sigh.

I think you put it better than I have.

originally posted by: Komodo
a reply to: BO XIAN

. . .

I've been on the boards since 2009 nearly almost daily .. and remember this was presented to us which really lit quite a fire under me to think about what I posted and the quality of each thread and each post.. granted we all get heated of certain subjects.. but the average of all threads and post is what I shoot for..

. . .

What an excellent summary of what I was poking at. THANKS THANKS THANKS.

I had a similar response to the msg when I first read it. It really gave me a good kick in the pants to raise my contributions up a notch in terms of amount AND CERTAINLY QUALITY.

I think that was good for me . . . and generally speaking . . . for those who had any capacity of self-reflection and insightfulness at all, I think it was good for ATS. And would be a lack for ATS if it's really been arbitrarily changed.

a reply to: marg6043

I have not noticed a great deal of difference between Chrome and Fire Fox in terms of the ads seen.

I'm all for clipping Google's wings any way possible, generally speaking. Their globalist engulfing raging tech-managed tyranny is well beyond the pale, imho.

Not sure how one minimizes Google successfully but I think it's to everyone's ultimate benefit to attempt it, at least.

It's just not something I've gotten around to--though I think I have nuked as many adons as I know how to nuke.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Who says your posts are any of those ? lol jk

Being in the UK and having the BBC we get no ad's....I get none on ats also.
I know why but If I mention It I will get banned

a reply to: boymonkey74

Congrats on your faithfulness to your perspective . LOL.

I try to live within reasonable expectations of members, hereon. And, I tend to hate ad-ons. My system has enough stuff loaded on it.

BTW, you have a PM re another thread.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I don't understand how it makes a good business model to infuriate and trash one's best contributors with the best posts and threads bringing the most readership. How does that make sense?

maybe....just maybe......your not quite as prolific and important at ATS as you think you are?

Just a thought

a reply to: sheepslayer247
You know, I wouldn't put it past google to slip in some of their own ads on pages in their browser

I have heard also that some ISP are adding their own ads to pages somehow as well.

a reply to: Argyll

Ahhhhh . . . the ever faithful insult.

Evidently you haven't read well enough the OP . . . there appears to have been a CHANGE vis a vis said ads and the commitment to their absence for those of us who

DID

reach the criteria

formerly given.

There was NOT A PROBLEM in reaching the criteria.

However, I do notice your resourcefulness in not missing a chance to insult.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Not an insult at all

merely an observation

[Font colour change merely for dramatic effect]

a reply to: BO XIAN

Dear BO XIAN,

Your exchange with Argyll is interesting.

If I may offer an outsider's opinion? I think you and your supporters, have clearly put forward a legitimate issue. This issue should be addressed by the staff. Your concern should be with them. I don't believe there is much you can add, except, perhaps, to send a U2U to management every week or two to ask "How about it? Do I get an answer or not?"

Management can say either yes or no, then you can decide what to do.

The conversation with Argyll? It's a meaningless, annoying distraction from your topic.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

[evidently my reply post disappeared into the ethers--so trying again]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Had come to the same conclusion--perhaps slightly later or maybe at the same time.

Thanks for the timely and wise exhortation.

BTW, the ads that are NOT

the SASQUATCH . . . BEST BUY ads . . . seem to be 50% or so Ad Council ads. Don't know what that indicates but it's slightly interesting.

Have a blessed rest of the weekend and next week.

I'm on the latest version of Internet Explorer. For the most part, the ads aren't too intrusive. There was a little Norton ad on the right side, but easy to ignore.

I don't have that many posts, stars, or flags. When I first log on to this site, there are pop ups, so I always turn on my pop up blocker to the maximum setting before I log on. Other than that, things are okay.

a reply to: ChiefD

May I have a little word with you? For whatever reason, I suspect it's age discrimination against those of us with weak and tired eyeballs, ATS management has chosen to shrink the font they print the T & C in to near invisibillty. To rub it in, there is a vast field of empty screen next to the tiny little dots which make up the governing rules.

It is not surprising, therefore, that you didn't notice this:

20b) Ad Blockers: As the Websites are provided as a free service, in part through the income of our advertising, you agree not to use "ad-blocking" software or similar built-in web browser options designed to obfuscate or block online advertising while using the Websites.

a reply to: charles1952

I don't use ad blockers. As I stated in my last post, I do use a pop up blocker. You must have misunderstood.

a reply to: ChiefD

Dear ChiefD,

I did misunderstand. I was clearly wrong and I'm grateful to you for pointing that out. May I also beseech you, however, to have pity on an old and nearly technologically illiterate old man. I didn't immediately recognize the difference.

Truly, thanks for the lesson.

With respect,
Charles1952

It saddens me as a long time ATS member that after 3+ pages not one mod came here to answer a simple question to a long time member "BO" but yet they can come here and remove post that are off topic or answer dumb questions about the 1 mil post.

A disappointed member.

a reply to: thesaneone

Thanks for your kind post.

An update . . .

From sometime earlier today . . . about 40-50% of the time, there's an ad at the top. Otherwise, not.

And when the social whatever thingy buttons appear on the right, it's like the ad starts to flash and appear then doesn't.

And there's a weird thing going on with my cursor trying to post this . . . if I stop . . . . about half or more of the time, the cursor jumps UP 2-5 lines. Curious. Sometimes it jumps in middle of typing a word.

Yes, I've had my system scanned extra by 2-3 high quality scan programs (above the usual high quality antivirus). It's clear.

Curious.

Perhaps they are tweaking the software related to such ads.

Am happy to be patient about that. Good to see some seeming progress being made.

Yes, I'm seeing the ads again too. On both of my laptops. *sigh* I guess they decided to revoke my non ad seeing privileges as well.

The ad is at the top, sometimes it doesn't load right and causes the pages to load unbelievably slow. (even tho I'm on a 25mb connection) I remember seeing those a long time ago, and was happy when I stopped having to deal with them. The worst are the huge ones that cover half the screen and are made very difficult to close out of.

Not cool....

a reply to: BO XIAN


Think nothing of it.

Nothing irritates me then not having a question answered.


Peace be with you.