GDPR privacy laws!

[Shannon Apple]

@Carlos: Perhaps, but they cost nothing to remove and put you in the clear. 😉

@azrael: I dunno. I think people are blowing it out of proportion. Watch this die down over the next while. Hobby site owners aren't going to get sued simply because they have nothing to get sued for. Besides, first time offenders and people who are unaware that they are doing anything wrong will recieve a warning the first time.

People who are running businesses with an online presence might have something to worry about if they are tracking user data. That's not a good thing of course, but it might be worth it from their perspective to have a chat with a lawyer. I can't help but feel that lawyers are cashing in on the fear though, especially if the business is only little.


Having said all that above, slightly unrelated...

There is a search engine/mobile browser called Duck Duck Go. They run it on a model that collects no private info from people. They claim that Google are lying when they say that they NEED to collect your personal data to target you with personalised ads. Instead, this engine targets you with ads based on the keywords you type. If you type "car," or something related to a car, you'll get car ads. It makes sense. They have an affiliate deal with Amazon. It doesn't keep any data on you, but if you purchase something from Amazon via their search/browser, they get a little commission. It's been around for years, but is becoming more popular. Its image search is still shite, but if they do manage to make that work, we could be looking at THE ultimate alternative to data collecting BS. As it stands, I need google images.

I have always been of the belief that we don't need to use targetted ads. Well chosen affiliate advertising can be just as affective.

 

[Carlos X]

@Carlos: Perhaps, but they cost nothing to remove and put you in the clear. 😉

Well, I'm not going to do it. Because I lose the overall postcount. GDPR is stupid altogether.

Well chosen affiliate advertising can be just as affective.

People don't want that, either. So, might as well just be targeted ads. *rolleyes*

 

[Shannon Apple]

You can roll your eyes and be as argumentative as you like. I disagree with you.

Postcount doesn't matter one bit. If you're relying on stats to bring in members, you're barking up the wrong tree. Take it from someone who's been admin of a big board, a VERY big board. Say 3.5million posts, 100k members with 5-6k active. During lull times where members weren't creating much new content, there would be a dip in signups. Staff kickstarts things by making new discussions everywhere, lots of new signups. Therefore, your few posts from that member who wishes to be forgotten is not going to make a difference either way. People look at your membercount, and then at your forum index to see when the last posts were made.

As for advertising.When one of our owners put uuuuugly google ads everywhere, people were sooooo pissed off. Those things are distracting. Hell, I said nothing, but even put ad block up myself til they replaced them. lol. When those ads were replaced by affiliate ads the members no longer kicked up a stink. They knew the server had to be paid for, they just wanted to have a little say in it. Every community is different, but that's how ours are. They're still like that, even after we jumped on a life-raft and formed SC.

I've always communicated with the members, so I understand what they will and won't accept. I chat to them in IRC or on Skype from time to time. I have a relationship with some of them and call some of them my friends. They ARE the site, not statistics. I care about them, nd every forum has it's unique characters.

So far, we don't need ads yet, so currently not using any. Our members donated a lot of money to start us up.

 

[Carlos X]

You can roll your eyes and be as argumentative as you like.

When you start off like this, you come off as provocative. You rubbed me the wrong way here. Drop it.

I disagree with you.

That's all you needed to say.

Postcount doesn't matter one bit. If you're relying on stats to bring in members, you're barking up the wrong tree. Take it from someone who's been admin of a big board, a VERY big board. Say 3.5million posts, 100k members with 5-6k active. During lull times where members weren't creating much new content, there would be a dip in signups. Staff kickstarts things by making new discussions everywhere, lots of new signups. Therefore, your few posts from that member who wishes to be forgotten is not going to make a difference either way. People look at your membercount, and then at your forum index to see when the last posts were made.

You're missing the entire point.

First of all, deleting threads removes SEO from your site. Your [community's] threads are how people find you. That's one part. If you just prune all posts by members, your threads are collateral damage. This drops your overall threadcount from 20,000 Threads to 15,000 threads. Same is true for posts, when you have a member with 9,000 posts, that member goes down. So, newcomers perceive the forums as a small site. Perception is everything when it comes to "first impression." This is true with ANY platform whether they show postcounts or member numbers. Even facebook. The difference between the "little guy" and the behemoth that is Facebook or Twitter, is that they have consistent, recurring visitors.

As for advertising.When one of our owners put uuuuugly google ads everywhere, people were sooooo pissed off. Those things are distracting. Hell, I said nothing, but even put ad block up myself til they replaced them. lol. When those ads were replaced by affiliate ads the members no longer kicked up a stink. They knew the server had to be paid for, they just wanted to have a little say in it. Every community is different, but that's how ours are. They're still like that, even after we jumped on a life-raft and formed SC.

Again, you miss the point. In the past, ads were "presented" to you, and the revenue does not reflect the intention of the ad. Lets say I run a Call of Duty Forum (which I do), which kind of ad would you rather have me serve? An ad trying to advertise a drama series? Or "Shooter," a TV show about a Marine trying to unearth a conspiracy? Or when I own a site called "DestroyRepeat"? Which one: A TV sitcom like Simpsons, or an action film with explosions? Before the algorithms employed by Google, people would ignore ads anyway, because they're not relevant to their tastes, or the discussion at hand. People don't hate ads just because it "personalizes" to your search type-ins or clicks. They're pissed because some ads redirect you to a page or force you to go to a page. Happened to me on NeoGAF recently:


NeoGAF is supposedly about breaking-news, leaks, and whatnot. But they still haven't solved the problem of ad redirects, and don't tell me it's because of xenForo, because it's more stable than fucking vBulletin.

I've always communicated with the members, so I understand what they will and won't accept. I chat to them in IRC or on Skype from time to time. I have a relationship with some of them and call some of them my friends. They ARE the site, not statistics. I care about them, nd every forum has it's unique characters.

So far, we don't need ads yet, so currently not using any. Our members donated a lot of money to start us up.

GOOD for you! Want a cookie?

 

[Azareal]

NeoGAF is supposedly about breaking-news, leaks, and whatnot. But they still haven't solved the problem of ad redirects, and don't tell me it's because of xenForo, because it's more stable than fucking vBulletin.

The problem is mainly with the whole ecosystem. Sites engage with the ad networks. The ad networks act as proxies for the ad agencies who act as proxies for the advertisers. Plus a lot more in-between. It's a very complicated system and I can't remember it all off the top of my head.

When an ad is loaded, it will do an auction where countless companies will bid for the slot, however that is not efficient enough, so they will even pull in rival networks or ones who aggregate ads and what-not to search for the highest value ad which can be placed in the slot.

There are all sorts of layers of companies and systems and no one wants to cut into their own profit margins by doing something like vetting advertisements. And this all trickles down to the webmasters who want to make a living, but have to deal with that unsavoury bunch.

It is an absolutely horrible nasty system.

 

[Carlos X]

The problem is mainly with the whole ecosystem. Sites engage with the ad networks. The ad networks act as proxies for the ad agencies who act as proxies for the advertisers. Plus a lot more in-between. It's a very complicated system and I can't remember it all off the top of my head.

When an ad is loaded, it will do an auction where countless companies will bid for the slot, however that is not efficient enough, so they will even pull in rival networks or ones who aggregate ads and what-not to search for the highest value ad which can be placed in the slot.

There are all sorts of layers of companies and systems and no one wants to cut into their own profit margins by doing something like vetting advertisements. And this all trickles down to the webmasters who want to make a living, but have to deal with that unsavoury bunch.

It is an absolutely horrible nasty system.

I already knew this, but site owners should know how to control this by rejecting domains (can be done).

 

[Jordan]

There are all sorts of layers of companies and systems and no one wants to cut into their own profit margins by doing something like vetting advertisements. And this all trickles down to the webmasters who want to make a living, but have to deal with that unsavoury bunch.

If you are using Adsense, vetting advertisers and advertisements will actually increase your revenue.
For example, I constantly block ads from appearing on my gaming sites that are not related to gaming or I don't think users will click on them.

 

[Azareal]

If you are using Adsense, vetting advertisers and advertisements will actually increase your revenue.
For example, I constantly block ads from appearing on my gaming sites that are not related to gaming or I don't think users will click on them.

Quite a few ads are I believe, by impression, and it apparently pays out a fair bit better.

 

[Jordan]

If you are using Adsense, vetting advertisers and advertisements will actually increase your revenue.
For example, I constantly block ads from appearing on my gaming sites that are not related to gaming or I don't think users will click on them.

Quite a few ads are I believe, by impression, and it apparently pays out a fair bit better.

Per impression will always pay less than per click.

 

[Azareal]

Per impression will always pay less than per click.

An owner of a very large site told me before that per impression pays out far better than per click.

 

[Carlos X]

Per impression will always pay less than per click.

An owner of a very large site told me before that per impression pays out far better than per click.

That's because his site has a large scale - the more users you have on your site, the easier that the impressions help your revenue grow. Even 1 Million people viewing your site every month will put money in your pocket no matter - impressions or clicks. But yes, clicks is what you want. Another thing: The more clicks you get, the higher on the bracket your ads go. Yup. That means you're attractive to new advertisers.

The more attractive you are to other advertisers, the more competition there is for your site. That means you end up being paid more.

So, both are correct. Even your impressions can earn you $1 each. The thing is, though is that you need to have a strong site authority on Adsense to get that kind of money coming your way. Always has been this way, and always will be. Thing is, you need to choose your advertisers. (That's what I was saying, and Jordan even reflected that.)