Nah, I like this coop, why would I go out and try another one? Anyway, I made it clear that some reviewers here are so pathetic that they don't even know what an intersitial is and invent rules whenever they want to. And worse of all, they have the nerve to invent something as stupid as "my browser is crashing" LMAO!!! Since when can an ad crash your browser? You should stop visiting those porn sites and letting them install all that stuff on your computer instead of blaming others Im sure most of the editors are professionals, but you know what they say... one drop of shit can spoil a barrel of wine. As I said, continuing this argument is pointless. Lets move on
Fryman, I can understand how you feel. I just don't think you are serving yourself any justice with comments like this: That's not fair to say...I'm sure these guys are doing the best they can and have method behind thier madness. Because you like this COOP may not be a reason to use it in some scenerios. Business has no emotion I, for one, have put a few of my sites into another coop. Not because I'm pissed at the way this COOP is being run but because I felt static linking would be a better long term approach. Maybe you should consider the same if your needs are not being met by this COOP. It's not a crime Good Luck to you
fryman, every time you repeat this you re-emphasize your ignorance. Popops and popunders and the like can and do crash browsers in some circumstances. The fact that you own a site using these obnoxious technques and don't realize that is a bit worrisome. The fact that you resort to namecalling when an editor points this out is also worrisome.
1) Well the way he's saying it aint helping for sure. 2) If the end user looks at porn and has a damaged broswer that they won't or can't protect or fix after exploitation maybe? His ads don't crash my browsers. 3) I find a popup and or a pop under occuring once to use a service part of the price, there is no free lunch. There are some that are annoying when seeking information, but one ad per visit to play java games I can live with. 4) Yeah, but it sure makes us feel good sometimes when frustrated! I'm not defending his attitude, but I do have a problem with these broad statements of testimony on the qulaity of the ads vs someones ability to operate a browser. I don't buy the "they crash my browser" line if that is in fact how it played out. The fact that no princpal has stepped in and explained this or linked to the specific rule about it rings of DMOZ crap. Take it as it is and get lost. Now what is that other network that was mentioned? It's obvious havin all of one's advertising eggs in one basket is bad for business. Without other options being known to be available, one or the other can get a big head.
I don't think you need that scenario. I think this one will do it: Combine limited RAM and multiple open windows on an older slower processor with a slow internet connection. Mix with a healthy OS and an intact browser with no spyware, adware, or other infections. Add in moderate to heavy graphics on the site and in the popups et voila! Porn sites not needed, optional.
I doubt it can help matters. I'm trying to draw a line between the issue and the people so that we can all learn something. As for slow computers and overloaded graphics... Since software is delveloped on what would be super computers to us, forcing end users to rise to the ocasion, I think your point is moot and we need to delvelop for future markets. Anyone with a computer that old aint buying anyway.
This thread may shed some light nopid OK, I was wrong about VS being the editor I can feel for fryman. I had some of my ads rejected over and over and could not understand why. Once I understood why, I moved on, no biggy. I did not take it personal as Shawn and crew are the owners/ proprietors of this network. So they have final say. Questioning and discussing is about all you can do. In the end they decide, not you. So venting may be is not helping the cause but perhaps defeating your purpose. Whatever, fryman, it is your porogotive how you wish to proceed. I am just trying to say when you remove emotions there may be more suitable alternatives for you.
I'm not talking about something like 10 years old here, noppid. Go to www.dell.com and or Hewleett-Packard and look at their "specials" -- typical config is Windows XP with about 256Mb and an on-board graphics card. An average non-tech user probably won't know how low that is... add in a slow internet connection and you may have a problem. I think web designers forget that highspeed access simply isn't an option in many parts of the world. I'm not even talking about third world countries here... I'm also talking about rural North America. So as for "forcing end users to rise to the ocasion, I think your point is moot and we need to develop for future markets", that's your decision as a developer, of course. But if you are trying to sell a product or service, my advice is don't piss off potential customers and don't sneer at their money if they don't have the latest and greatest technology -- that's just bad business, IMO. My 82 year old father stills buys stuff on the net. He has absolutely no interest in upgrading his computer again. But he still has credit cards... so he is buying but he won't be buying from a site that crashes his computer or makes him grumpy with popup ads.
Good explaination, I'll address the last line only and in three words... MS, INTEL, AMD. That is exactly how they do business and they are not doing bad IMO.
Also, people who dont use the internet reguarly, those that have no access to highspeed, those that have just moved, mobile access - there and many reasons that you may have a slow connection without being "behind the times' in anyway - this will stay for years yet too.
But the issue raised was a general one, as was the statement (that the reviewer who claimed that ads can crash computers was lying). This isn't about fryman's site -- I haven't even looked at it. This is about (1) the right of the owners of an ad network to set their own TOS without being insulted when they do, and (2) general statements made about popups and their kin.
In a general sense I agree with most of the posters here including Minstrel and Fryman didn't handle this the right way at all. But I will say that I looked at the site and I personally would have no problem with it being in the Coop. But I understand why this thread went in this direction. Fryman - You might want to stick to the issue in the future as this might have played out differently.