[orangepeel]

It was only a matter of time

I know u use the ads to help pay for costs but how open are u to letting us have ad free accounts for a fee? I know you where resistant in the past but maybe things have changed

For the record I don't see the ads, the ad providers are blocked via my hosts file. However it does mean there is a chunk of empty space down the rhs of the forum index.

I'd be more than happy to pay a nominal fee if it ensured I didn't have to put up with crappy advertisements.

[GainfulShrimp]

I use Adblock Plus, the Firefox extension. Seems to work pretty well.

I wouldn't mind ads if they weren't abused by so many sites.

[Steve]

Well, lets see...as you rightly point out the ads help fund the site and keep the costs manageable so its not an option to completely remove them as many guests view the site and don't contribute...but guests currently see more ads than members anyway. Some of the ads are deeply integrated now to allow matching of themes etc and also we now employ geotargetting in some ad spaces too. Altering that for specific users would be time consuming but not impossible...

I am not saying it will happen but out of curiosity what would you suggest as a fair cost to have them removed?

[orangepeel]

dunno, I'd be happy enuff to pay say £10 for a year...

I'll pm u the GITonians link where they show their pricing and what u get for it.

u could also bung in extras like added gallery space, adjust the max no. of uploads to the gallery per day and other things like that... lots of options that way.

[Steve]

Thanks for the PM. I've had a look at the link and we'll discuss it.

In the mean time if anyone else wants to add anything to the discussion here please go ahead.

[fionaB]

have to say i have never really noticed the ads, so i doubt wither i would notice if they were gone or not.

Fi

[silkstone]

Well TBH I didn't know there were any ads! - Adblock zaps them.

[GainfulShrimp]

This whole subject is more complex than it looks. You could argue that it's wrong to block or circumvent advertising because it supports 'free' sites. Many people would support that argument...
... but those same people probably have no problem with skipping through the ads on recorded TV programmes. Same principle applies, I reckon.

I'm firmly in the camp that I should be able to use ad blockers just as freely as I use the remote control on my PVR. Advertisers have a right to include ads on their pages and I have an equal right to ignore them.

But then again, ads on the web only pay when clicked compared to those TV ads which generally earn money based on estimated audience figures and demographics. So you could say that ad-blocking is a worse crime than fast-forwarding... if it weren't for the fact that I never click ads anyway.

[Summerleft]

I have to agree with FI I never really notice them, they are no where near as instrusive as other sites.

There is a well known biker one that drives me nuts, its now run by a magazine and theres no way Im paying them to use a forum

[snap2photo]

I do not mind ads and it does improve the site as it brings in reveue.
Don't feel guilty about blocking them. I rarly click on them an I don't feel a thing. Also you can click on them and not buy anything and, in some cases, the host site still makes money.
Generally speaking the more targeted the content, the more targeted the adds, the greater the hits and the more money the site make to make more site. Generally it promotes better content.
I would prefer to see more adds and get more free storage, for example, or pixalo squirral away a few £k to get a web developer to redesign the cut and shut gallery/newsgroup halves of the site in one. Even if they make enough to buy themselves more toys, they will be photographic toys and there will be more kit reviews.
I think ads are part of what is, to me, a free service.

I must own up to being slightly bias as I run a site with adds that brings in some pocket money for myself. However the site is free to use and provides a service. It also has a band width that requires hosting that I would be nuts to pay for out of my own pocket. The links on the site actually very useful to the visitors. Its a bit embarasing sometimes when the ads are more interesting. If I was interested in a new camera a small column of the latest bargins from jessops, pc world etc etc etc would complement the reviews very nicely.

[orangepeel]

One thing that I may not have made clear. I'm not proposing loosing ads. Just removing them from those that pay to have them removed. They'd still be visible to those that don't mind them.

[_MB_]

It's an idea that seems to be diminishing on sites, I guess because of ad blocking software. I guess it would be worth polling the users of pixalo to work out how many look at the site as is, how many block ads, how many would pay for an ad free account. I'm guessing uptake would be pretty low as adblock is free but I may be wrong.

[Steve]

Having looked at this and discussed it in detail we really see no way of being able to offer any value to our members for an ‘ad free Pixalo’ in return for payment – no matter what cost.

We have considered the option to remove any ‘pay per click’ adverts, the likes of Google and auction ads etc but as you have already pointed out these can already be blocked locally without much trouble and certainly for no cost to members. Neither Dave nor I are happy to take payment for something that you can do for free.

As we now have adverts (one currently but more on the way) from companies that are paying for the ad and not the potential clicks we are not prepared to take their money and then our members money to remove them. Not only is it unfair on both the advertisers and the members, but it’s also morally wrong.

Pixalo is not run for profit but the small income from the current adverts and future advertisers allow us to keep the site running at no cost to our valued members and also give away small prizes for the monthly competitions and occasionally bigger stuff too. We recently had a server move to accommodate the sites growth, at the same time we ‘gave back’ a little more in the way of increased gallery space for everyone. If the income increases then so will the value of the prizes that we will be able to give away too.

Hopefully that explains the situation from our perspective and helps the members for whom the adverts are perhaps not to welcomed. As it has been pointed out there is nothing we can do to stop you blocking some of them and we will not think any less of you for doing so, but ultimately for Pixalo to survive there has to be some income to offset the daily running costs and we would rather that come from somewhere other than our members pockets.

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by Steve

we will not think any less of you for doing so