| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Ad Removal Suggestion; What I'd like to see different. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 26 2009, 10:40 PM (796 Views) | |
| AmplyAngelic | Jun 26 2009, 10:40 PM Post #1 |
|
Member
  ![]](http://209.85.62.24/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Ad Removal ; My suggestion to enhance the feature : Scroll down to see the other issues in my later posts, for it has become more severe Don't get me wrong, it's a very useful tool. I only purchased this feature yesterday, but I've managed to make great use of it already. However I'd like to make a suggestion as to how the feature can be improved. - Currently, you're allowed to say how much you'd like to pay for it, and you get a certain amount of Ad Credits in exchange. I think, the feature would be more useful and efficient if you were given the option to pay for the Ad Removal feature monthly, without the use of these Ad Credits. 1) The Ad Credits are fine for a temporary necessity to remove ad's, but what about those who intend on consistently updating the Ad Removal feature? It could be a hassle to pay every time your board runs out of Ad Credits, when you intend on renewing the feature anyhow. 2) The use of Ad Credits are quite worrisome. I can't help but be suspicious of those who may spam-click several navigational links throughout my board in effort to make the Ad Credits run out. I understand that the feature can be disabled for guests, but that's not very appealing, granted, I assume, that most people (including myself) care just as much what guests think of my board's performance, just as well as the members. It just feels as if limiting the use of the feature isn't exactly what was paid for. If a monthly payment of, say, $15-20 was an option, nobody would need to worry about going over their budget just because hooligans find it amusing that they can take money out of people's pockets by simply clicking some links. - So, basically, my suggestion is the option to pay for the Ad Removal feature as a monthly fee, granted that it'd exclude the use of Ad Credits for that month. Less heartache, less hassle, more gratifying. I hope this suggestion is taken into consideration. Thanks! ~ Monichiwa Edited by AmplyAngelic, Jul 27 2009, 10:14 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Reid. | Jun 26 2009, 10:53 PM Post #2 |
|
C'est un piège!
|
Ad credits are a major pain for coders. We have to be careful not to step on anyone's toes when coding because of the way AJAX works. AJAX is integral to some of the coolest and most advanced features, too, but we are limited because we have to make sure that there aren't too many ad credits spent. AJAX is basically loading pages in the background, submitting/editing signatures in the background, etc.. |
|
|
|
| Lout | Jun 28 2009, 04:42 PM Post #3 |
Member
|
Hmm, I see both sides here. I think a flat fee to get rid of ads would be a great idea, and would possibly elevate ZB into the realms of fully fledged, paid for forums (which I would be happy to pay for), but I'm sure they would have to consider that bigger, and therefore more popular boards would generate more money from a per-clicks system as is used now. But looking at it from the coders point of view, why can't codes be released that would impact on a per-clicks system? Surely if it were made clear that the code could impact seriously on their Ad-Removal then they would have to choose if it would be beneficial to them? Overall I think that more options should be available, on all sides 
|
|
|
|
| Reid. | Jun 28 2009, 04:52 PM Post #4 |
|
C'est un piège!
|
I agree, generally, but the reason for the zEdit never being released was its impact on ad credits, since it used like 3-4 per edit. Of course, I have solved this problem with my variation of the code, called rEdit, and now I'm waiting to see if I'm allowed to release it or not. Reid. nudges Nicola and Jonathan. Oh well.... |
|
|
|
| Nicola | Jun 28 2009, 05:04 PM Post #5 |
|
.....
|
Sorry, forgot to check it out. I think I was poorly that evening and off sick from work the following day, didn't feel like dealing with PMs  |
|
|
|
| Lout | Jun 28 2009, 06:25 PM Post #6 |
|
Member
|
But surely if users were aware of the impact it could have then it should be down to them? Perhaps I'm missing something... |
|
|
|
| AmplyAngelic | Jun 28 2009, 07:25 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
Hey guys, I appreciate the activity but, although the coding ordeal is one good reason to enhance the Ad Removal feature, only fixing the coding issue won't solve the other ones  I think LargerLout's comment on the subject was quite interesting. Let's say (hypothetically?), the per-clicks system may generate more money in some cases (in theory), but it needs to be taken into account that perhaps more people would pay the monthly fee (or some alternative to per-clicks) if it were simply just an option. Thus, assuming that each way has the same amount of customers wouldn't be accurate. I believe that they could bring in a larger income from the monthly fee (it doesn't necessarily need to be a small fee either). Or... One could maybe remove the option to those boards with such a large quantity of people, or at least make a scale to increase the price, as a board increases in member count or visitors each day. If it's not possible to make a monthly fee per se, even an option to pay daily for X amount of days would be very helpful. Really nothing reasonable could be more unappealing than Ad Credits, in my opinion. Edited by AmplyAngelic, Jun 28 2009, 07:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| cvn-tv-dip | Jun 28 2009, 10:00 PM Post #8 |
Retired Soliloquist
|
The reason ad removal works by credit is because that way, you pay for whatever ads that you omit. Instead of the ads generating revenue for the service, you offer to pay the cost instead. Brandon set it up as a credit system with your alternative in mind, because if it's by time instead of by the exact number of ads, the larger boards with more views would get more benefit out of it. It would be disproportional to the ads that are supposed to help support the service. I understand that people might over-visit the pages and make credits run out fast, but ads themselves work that way. No one can control how often you visit the pages. It's really meant to be optional. You don't need to remove advertisements to have a good board, and I personally think that if you as a guest would mind the ads, then you might also catch that it's a free board service. In that case your preference would probably be a paid or premium services instead of a free Invisionfree board or Zetaboard. |
|
|
|
| AmplyAngelic | Jun 28 2009, 11:16 PM Post #9 |
|
Member
|
It could be an option as a package deal with ZetaBoards Premium, in which you'd no longer be using a free board. It already removes the second Ad (monthly). For a larger price, perhaps the Premium service could remove the first Ad monthly, too. Edit : Perhaps, at least, it can be possible to show ads on the board to those whom you catch purposely lowering your Ad Credits by using their IP, to keep your amount of Ad Credits from being lowered by that certain person? Edited by AmplyAngelic, Jun 28 2009, 11:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
| AmplyAngelic | Jul 27 2009, 02:00 PM Post #10 |
|
Member
|
Please note, that I really like ZetaBoards, and if this rubs off as criticism, I apologize in advance. I feel like I need to speak (or type, rather) my mind, though. -- I really enjoy ZetaBoards, and I prefer it to any of the other forum services I've checked out beforehand. However, I'm deeply saddened that there's not an alternative way to remove advertisements. I can't speak for everyone... but myself, and some others I know, would definitely pay a higher price for a monthly, or at least a stable ad removal system. I'm sure there could be a way to figure out one that generates a good enough income, like an option of linking it to the premium service for a higher price. Why not, when it's already being done to the bottom ads? Or keep it as a separate service... even if it was a different price for each board, depending on how many members are on it within the month they decide to pay for it. I am very sorry to see that there was nothing else to say about this topic, let alone a response by the ZetaBoard team themselves. I love this forum service so much... and as much as I hate to say it, I can't find ease using it, granted there's people out there whom take advantage of this somewhat unstable ad removal system, and visit the sites of those they dislike and hold down their f5 key, effectively draining $20 worth of ad credits in a matter of minutes. I'd really like an answer from the ZetaBoard team on the subject, in terms of whether or not this is something that may happen in the future. I'd really hate to give up on the board I've been working on since it's been such a great experience, just because I, alike many, have people whom find happiness in my misery. Those, particularly, are the ones I despise to see succeed. Thank you for taking the time to read this, those who did. Edited by AmplyAngelic, Jul 27 2009, 02:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Lout | Jul 27 2009, 03:42 PM Post #11 |
|
Member
|
That is the reason I wouldn't consider ad removal under the current system, all it takes is a disgruntled member or ex-member to make it worthless. I would seriously consider a flat payment option though, and who knows, if it were an option perhaps many more board owners would also consider it. Maybe if it were trialled for 6 months Brandon would get a better understanding on the financial implications (gains or losses over the current system). |
|
|
|
| AmplyAngelic | Jul 27 2009, 08:35 PM Post #12 |
|
Member
|
I agree, LagerLout. Also, it seems very unethical to accept money from people at all when the product is so unstable that it can so easily be pinched from them within minutes from anyone that the ad removal feature applies to with an F5 key. If the Ad Removal system simply can't change, I'd really like to see a solution to the page spamming problem I've stated in my last sentence. Every board owner will have somebody displeased with them eventually, and having ad credits is serving as a target, rather than a benefit (which is why people purchase that feature in the first place).
Edited by AmplyAngelic, Jul 27 2009, 08:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Reid. | Jul 27 2009, 08:54 PM Post #13 |
|
C'est un piège!
|
Holding down the F5 key? Please, if I was evil and I wanted to cause a dent in your ad credits I'd run a script to load the page a few thousand times then walk away from the computer for 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
| AmplyAngelic | Jul 27 2009, 09:11 PM Post #14 |
|
Member
|
Well, that sounds like just another reason to improve the Ad Removal system to me. ZetaBoards definitely shouldn't be a tactic to manipulate others you dislike.
Edited by AmplyAngelic, Jul 27 2009, 09:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Dorith | Jul 28 2009, 01:19 AM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
I don't personally use Ad Credits, and that is somewhat due to coding on my website. I love coding and I love having amazing codes on my forums, would I take away the pleasure of having a good code on the forums to have no ads? No I wouldn't. I'd rather have a nice code than no ad, and I'm sure my members would also agree. I also hang around ZB Coding forums and I sometimes notice how the coders are limited because of these ad credits. I don't think a person who pays for ad credits should be limited to what codes they can and can't have on their boards. That, in my opinion, is wrong. It also discourages those to even pay for ad credits. I agree this system has to change, or be modified. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · ZetaBoards Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:51 PM Nov 22
