I absolutely despise it. In fact they were not working properly earlier and the text was over-top of the ad which made it impossible to read. On a side not, I would pay a membership fee to do away with ads altogether. I know other sites do so, has DVDTalk considered it. I mean what would it take and what would it cost us as members?

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....t=subscription
That's a thread from August '03 considering it, including a November '05 update from Geoff saying "it's back on the table and I'm working on it!!!" So yes, it's been considered (for a while).

Never had a problem with the ads being between posts, but I think having ads inside of someones post is rediculous and was very surprised to see that it was made to be that way intentionally.

Post #158 by The Bus had me literally laughing out loud. That's hilarious.

No sir, I don't like it.

I can't stand it, the ones that load up with sound when you open a thread are so annoying! When they first started I thought by browser had not loaded the page right and kept refreshing it, it's the worst idea ever.

They're horrible. Put them in between posts, put them on the side, put them anywhere but within people's posts. Why advertisers would want to tick-off internet forum users with this new "idea" suggestion is beyond me...it actually encourages me NOT to want to check out a product when it's shoved in my face like that. A poor, poor marketing scheme.

I hate the ad being inside of the original post. There has to be a better way get more ad revenue for you, Geoff, than using this method and piss off most of your members.

I actually like Josh's suggestion of a sidebar of ads like on AVS. I've actually clicked on a few of the AVS ads because they were laid out in an easy to read way that I could look at before or after reading the actual posts in the thread. I always ignore ads between posts because I'm trying to read the next post, and the in-post ads are very aesthetically displeasing, which make me far less inclined to look at them, let alone click them. But I'd be all for the sidebar run of ads. And for the record, I have no problem with the HD DVD ads.

as much as I like the new ads, why are they promoting things like selling movies on DVD that haven't even been released on DVD, and DVD duplication, like in this ad:

Yet another vote for UGH!

N
o

B
i
g

D
e
a
l

Ugh. Not a fan of how things are reformated when the ads are inserted into posts.

My favorite post ever!

Oh, I forgot to mention, BWG's post might be the funniest thing I've ever read on the internet.

I don't hate it, it will just take some getting used to.

This ad is in poor taste

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=498613

Sucks

Meh, not crazy about it. Ads within posts are instrusive but IMHO ads between posts are even more distracting and annoying.

I'm another one that would be willing to pay a subscription for an ad-free site, but barring that GK has to make enough green somewhere to keep this baby afloat.

Some Otters dressed like Indians were spotted throwing advertisements into the harbor this morning.

I think the fact of the matter is, no matter what we all say, Geoff is not going to offer us an ad free membership fee.

Lets look at the facts, HD DVD says "Hey Geoff, nice site you got there, how many users you have there?" Geoff says " oh, over 10 thousand " "Great Googly Moogly Mr Kleinman, how about we offer you $x + $.25 per click thru(Or however that works), and then Geoff can go "well, my user base has promised not to use Ad Block/Pop Up Block/anything like that, so howabout you give me $x and a bit more for a click thru, and we can talk." If he offers us a $30 annual fee for no ads, he's going to have to tell the advertisers "Yeah have 8,000 regular users, but 1500 won't see your ads. He's going to lose more in ad dollars then he will make up for in fees.

I'd also like to say I'm not knocking the site, or it making money. I just don't think that we will ever be allowed to block the advertisements. Too much revenue.

Well, that's what would determine the membership fee, right? Then each user can determine whether it's worth it to them for that price, or put up with the ads, and Geoff makes out fine either way. Obviously nobody wants Geoff to LOSE money due to memberships so the price would have to take that into consideration.

There are a lot of web sites where people complain when they start to charge a fee. Here Geoff has people BEGGING him to PLEASE charge them money. There are a lot of sites I frequent and all of them are free. This is the only place I would actually offer to pay a fee just to remove the ads. That's not because the ads are worse than anywhere else, it's because I feel like it's worth it given the improvement it would be to the experience and I would feel like I am genuinely contributing in some way. By ignoring a given number of ads like I do everywhere else on the internet, I don't feel like I'm helping, even if it gets him a few tenths of a cent per view in the long run.

I for one believe Geoff is doing just fine without the membership fees.

He's NO fool...No sir-ree!



If my calculations are correct, he's making more mean green from keeping the ads than he ever would from paid membership, or he would have started charging LONG ago.

...and sure, there are all those who say they are willing to pay a fee (myself included), but I believe it's a little more complicated than that.

I mean, it's one thing to charge (those that say they will pay) and another to collect (from those who said they would, but actually, for one reason or another couldn't, or wouldn't).

I suppose if it came to that, he could always do it like some other sites where they offer one month, six months, or one year memberships, whereas you have to pay up-front to ensure the dues are paid, and that could be a way to weed out the fruits, nuts, & or flakes.

Wait a minute...

That would eliminate THE ENTIRE OTHER FORUM!!!

Oh, what do I know, anyway?

-THEEK!