Adnetwork suggestion

Good point- I like the broad approach better. I suppose people within the ad network may want to plan for that when choosing where to link, rather than the other way around.

 

I thought maybe something along these lines;
-------
You give your account a category.
Each account already has x total weight.

You can assign a % of x total weight to your ad.
You assign a category to your ad.

Finally, you bias what your acct (site) will show on topic.
ie 70% category only. (leaving 30% for off theme ads)
--------

The aggregate biased weight of each category is displayed, minus your own weight(ie, the total of (biased acct weights) in your category except yours), so new participants can see how much maximum weight they can assign (obviously no more than 50% or less of the total).

It is in some ways similar to the standard categorised click exchange scenario (except the actual weightings are generated from clickthrus in those cases).

What do you think ?

Cheers,

JL

 

I like it... well thought out JL!

 

At first read I would agree - not a bad idea at all

Maybe, also, the answer could be that we have the right to exclude certain types of categories within what JL has proposed.

In other words we approach the issue from what we do not want.

 

Being the peon and new guy here I'll try to be careful what I say. It seems that trying to categorize sites and ads on a network of this size isn't very practical. It also would seem to make a simple straight forward system much more complicated. I've gone to some of the sites carrying ads and the ones I've seen in many cases opt to use text only ads with a font size of 1 placed either at the bottom of the page or someplace non-obtrusive. I would guess that in many cases normal visitors never even notice or see them. So basically my novice, not know what I'm talking about thought would be to leave things as they are. If it's not broken don't fix it. At least not until you have a few thousand more sites or so signed up.

 

lowrider140444 - This is a very good comment and well respected.

Where I am coming from is that I really like the simplicity of the system, and you should not meddle with these sort of things that are working - however for us, we have this problem of compatibility, and I am looking for a solution. By talking about it here the idea may emerge as to how.

That solution will enable us to use it more

 

I know this is a big no no by SEO standards but what about a small layer that was non visible? After all, I think the main intent of the network is backlinks rather then ttraffic and I know non-visible stuff gets spidered because for my keywords the #1 site in most cases is a really nice looking home page with almost no text but when I spidered their page I came up with nothing but a page full of spam text. Does anyone know for sure what if any sort of penalty G might impose? The site I mentioned above may use other methods to achieve what they have rather then a hidden layer? I have no idea since I'm not a professional web designer or programer.

 

I just made a test page with one hidden frame and loaded it to my server and spidered the page. It spidered the page just fine. Now the question would be if this would solve your problem? Would Shawn have any objections? And how ticked off would "G" get?

 

I was just watching our news and an article appeared about knives being sold by mail order and how no checks were being made etc.

The knives were obviously for uses that were not in the kitchen or other places where you would use knives normally

My wife said "those are the sort of knives that are being advertised on our sites"

Eh?

Weapons?

I am out of here until it is sorted - I will not advertise for one second anything like this.

 

Well that solves that. Just trying to think of something that would solve Foxy's problem and possible allow her to put ads on all her pages without worrying about it. FWIW...I have 5 display size ads on all my pages. I ain't trying to hide nuttin.

 

Not sure how big a "problem" this really is ... for me it is a non-issue right now.


But, had a thought on what I think would be a low level-of-effort enhancement that might be worth considering ...

What if each user could define a certain number of domains to filter ... like 10 or 20 or so and when the ad network gets a request for an ad it will not return any ad from a domain on that site's filter list.

It isn't perfect, but I think in terms of implementation probably not too difficult.

Would allow a site owner at least some control to omit ads they see on their site that they find highly objectionable.

... just an idea ...

 

That seems feasible but what if a large percentage of the network decided that a particular ad or site was objectionable? Where would that leave them? Especially if they objected to no one? To me the responsibility of deciding what is/is not objectionable gets stuck on Shawn. Which he appears to do a pretty good job at.

One part of the network I don't fully understand is being allowed to join and be ranked based on one website but point ads to another. I know Shawn or someone has to approve all ads and I assume this includes the content of the site it's pointed to but this seems like a lot of checking to do. And as the network grows the burden will increase.

Another thought, and this may already be available but I don't know where it is, would be a listing of member sites and url's ads point to. This might be helpful? If nothing else it might serve to let prespective members make a decision if they want to join the network or not before joining?

Just some off the top of the head thoughts.

 

Her? lol! Hey I'm 280pds+ with 1 lovely wife and numeorus ex others in legal and un-legal format. Kids? ahh...another time!

Appreciate the thoughts

The problem here is that some sites are "non-specific" in that they are on the side lines of direct product image, and then there are the sites who are directly connected and rather sensitive to that which is shown, which is where we are.

That is why I keep asking for the "solution" but ......

That's fine by me

 

I noticed that after the "my wife" in your previous post. Was going to apologize but thought I'd wait to see if you caught it. Guess I'm just a male chauvinist. Actually I'm not but for some reason the name or word Foxy puts visions of ladies in my head. Guess I spent too many hours listening to Jimmy Hendrix and Foxy Lady when I was young?

 

LOL - I used to be [sort of still am] foxyweb but I found that too many people had hijacked the name using it for a variety of uses some of which involved porn.

So I decided to change it to z+2 [another reason] and found that the members here didn't want that so I just picked up on what people called me here anyway, which is "Foxy".

Now as for JH and Foxy Lady ah....

 

What can I say.....This was a strange place back in the 60's and 70's. Still is really unfortunately. Actually got to hear Hendrix at Woodstock.

 

I distinctly recall referring to certain males as Foxy in the 70s. Didn't apply just to females.