Subject:
|
Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:22:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
221 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> The ads were for Playboy and Maxim, FWIW. Porn by my definition.
Which is the definition that counts.
> I have
> never done business with them, never gave Yahoo any indication that I desired
> to, and asked (for family issues) *several times* for Yahoo to have these
> particular ads removed from my ad-targeting-profile-thingy. (Yahoo refused.)
>
> > [...snipped context...] and
> > we need to be inclusive in this, we need ONE ring that everyone is in [...]
>
> The ONE ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them, eh? I think we
> all know who THAT might be... ;-)
>
> > 4 - I follow a few links to ads that I don't find objectionable on purpose so
> > that the system might think that those are the ads I want to see.
>
> If this strategy really works, and I end up validating some of Yahoo's ad
> revenue just to keep bad elements off my screen, then I'd argue that their ad-
> profile algorithms are extortionist by nature.
Yes, I suppose. But I do it from a screen that i'm not looking at anyway (I'm
doing it right now as I type this... I clicked on an ad and switched away)
which makes it only a teeny bit intrusive. Still, it's the principle of the
matter. If you don't like ads, you shouldn't (1) use advertiser supported
services. As James says you're within your rights to spend your money that
way. I choose differently but it's about choice, isn't it?
Here's a quandary, though. Web rings cost money. I don't want to pay. I want
to get some advertiser to pay by seeing his ads. It's not fair to ask Tim or
Todd to pay, is it?
I want to remain part of the community and stay in the ring. Should I have to
pay in order to satisfy *your* desire not to see ads? (and your definition of
what porno is...) We're talking of fractions of a cent here but this is about
principle.... :-)
I have no idea of the right answer here, but since you posted followups
to .debate, what the heck.
1 - be *forced* to, in the case of the ring thing, in order to stay part of a
community... but the flip side of that is are you willing to personally pay
for some share of the web ring(2) related hosting work? It does add additional
costs to LUGNET or wherever it lives, which is why I am OK with using an
advert supported service for it. *You* are prepared to pay in kind by doing
some web work, but that's the same as money. Time is money, after all.
2 - is Web Ring a trademark? I dunno. What else can you call it, though?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) According to the USPTO, Yahoo! (via GeoCities) has a registered servicemark on WEBRING, with pseudo marks WEB RING and WE BRING, in the goods and services category of "Computer software, namely a navigation tool that enables users of a global (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| (...) Webrings shouldn't cost that much money. It's not a portal service (in the current industry sense of the word). It's simply a linked-list collection of Web site URLs and descriptions, nothing more. If it gets really expensive, then it's not (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Lego Maniac's Webring and Yahoo
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip, extraction mine> In theory, they don't. (or rather, the cost is inherently shared between all participants by their very participation) The basic functionality of a webring is (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
