Linking in two pages for examples of an alternative.
http://www.amazingtechs.com/
http://amazingtechs.com/index.php?showtopic=22014&
Interesting possibilities. And compare to ours.
Printable View
Linking in two pages for examples of an alternative.
http://www.amazingtechs.com/
http://amazingtechs.com/index.php?showtopic=22014&
Interesting possibilities. And compare to ours.
Alternatives? They have no ads. They must be privately owned sites. And the 2 columns on either side of the main table on that 1st one, taken together, are just as wide on my screen, as the one ad here.
Goose,
Perhaps it may not be an example of a (Jupiter) site that has "evolved" in to the planned final format, but if you take a look at http://www.codeguru.com/forum/ it seems to be an example of something where they have some of the same fundimental layout characteristics the vdr does, but with perhaps a more acceptable implementation. For instance, they have ads on the right side, but in any case I could see those ads are kept to the thinner (manageable) width type. Where wider ads are used, such as when you open a particular thread, the ads then shift to the top of the page. Now I noted that in the case where you are viewing a thread that the content display did exceed the screen boundries (cause the scroll bar to appear and be used), but this looks to be something that is caused by a bug/mis-coding in the page and not something that should really be there.
In other words, in cases I say browsing around screen boundries were maintained, ads were either kept to a manageable width or moved to a top of page location where needed, and a better use of "page real estate" seemed to be in effect.
I may not have explained this all sensibly so ya may just want to browse around that forum and see.
I saw something that was pleasing to my eyes and easy to use. I will look further into this as you suggest.
I have just looked at: http://www.codeguru.com/forum/ and find they have a similar setup to ours. There is one big difference. The individual thread pages are formatted full page.
This means that the forums index and individual forum index have the wide margins for ads. But the individual thread pages are full width.
The home page is full of info at the top and then breaks into the forums down the page.
After going through the index pages and being exposed to the ads why does the member have to look at the ads on the page he is working with in a thread?
This is a much more pleasing JupitorMedia website and has better continuity to it.
codeguru looks like what I had hoped we would look like.....not as feature rich as we are though.
Poppy4,
As I said, I think codeguru offers something that might be a viable compromise to members, and would encourage people to browse around it (focusing on ad placement, page real estate taken up by ads, and such). I'm not sure what you mean though by "not as feature rich".
Doc, I just went back to codeguru and checked, and the features I was referring to ( thread tools and the others)... ARE there...so I am in error...:o
I do like the look of it and of course that fact that the posts go across the page.
No problem poppy.
My reasons in posting a link to that site is that it is a Jupiter site, it is running our version of board software, it has undergone some of the page layout changes we have, but those changes are implemented in a way that would seem more paletable to vdr members. If nothing else it at least would seem to offer something we could all (both sides) work from.
...and I would definitely welcome a compromise right now.....Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMDJ
I find it particularly 'gut-wrenching'.....if I may overstate my emotions, when I read posts of members who are going to quit, or not come here as often... and these are normal contributors to VDR..
it's like family leaving because gramma put gravy on the 'taters....
I know in time these wrinkles will be worked out......but patience is a hard to come by commodity....here at least... :p
Maybe its the 'nature of the beast' :confused:
poppy
The site you posted will look like this one sometime between now and the time I'm done upgrading all the forums' software.
Unfortunately I had a feeling you were going to say that JP. And that is troubling.
It seems at the end of the day that the full "new look" was implemented here on vdr first of all the Jupiter sites. We didn't just get a board upgrade (like others did), we got the whole nine yards (the final vision) including the layout and ad changes all at once, without any prior warning to boot. And honestly, it would seem without any concern for member reaction. The members here thought they were getting a board software upgrade, but got much more than that (and not in a good way).
I know these things were not directly your call JP, but I can only hope that Jupiter will now after the fact be will to listen to its customers (as board members are customers) and be willing at least to find some middle ground. I think the current layout at a place like codeguru would be workable (other members can give their opinion). But I think that it would be very bad, and very bad timing, for Jupiter to take a position here of "we decided to do this, and that's the way it is". No one is disputing that Jupiter is driven by business needs, and ads are a part of that. But customer/member needs/wants need to also be part of the equation. I know that my saying this is preaching to someone caught in the middle. But it is people like you (and Big John) that we must rely on to convey the member feelings.
I just hope there is ground to work this all out so both sides can be happy, or at least that Jupiter is will to try.
Actually it was 4th.
Ah, Ok. But I've heard that at least two (maybe more) of those sites had very low member populations compared to vdr.
Regardless, I'll stick to the rest of what I said above. We'll have to see what happens now.
True but one would still expect a comparable % of complaints, relative to the membership size. 2 sites generated a couple of complaints, the other 2 none.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. The fact that the other sites' members didn't object means that we shouldn't? Or that all of the objections that have been voiced from numerous members of this forum are in some fashion not valid?
Note that all of codeguru's ads are (1) narrower and (2) uniform in width. Is there any chance that a compromise along those lines can be reached on this forum? Certainly the upgrade has a lot of positives. They are more than outweighed (imo) by the wide and varying ad/emptyspace format.
As I mentioned, CodeGuru will look like this fairly soon. In a few months+. No of course it doesn't invalidate complaints. I take the complaints seriously, and I do bump them "upstairs", so to speak. What the members aren't seeing is, that is not the same ad as was previously on top. We call it a "flex" ad, because it will appear as it does now, a square, and it will appear as a rectangle, 2 to 3 times it's current height. That's why it needs to be on the side. Can you imagine how far it would push the content down if it were 3x it's height, and on top of the main table?
Funnily enough I went to http://www.datamation.com/forums the day before VDr changed and apart from the fact that almost no one posts there my thoughts were "man this layout sux". :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMDJ
Imgaine my shock and horror when my beloved VDr looked the same the vey next day. :eek:
:( :( Boo hoo hoo. :( :(
We aren't seeing it because that wasn't clearly explainedQuote:
Originally Posted by JPNYC
But when it is the ad 3 times the height is about 1/4 the width so visually it is much more aesthetic.
So you must either make all the ads the same dimensions eg square like the HP sytle and place them at the top, or skinny and long like the Sony one and place them at the side.
That's what we're try to say and, hex on me for saying so, but what the Site owners aren't seeing.
And surely it's not the advertisers who should be calling the shots on what shape the ads are ?
Surely if they want to advertise they're product then they fit in to the dimension that your guys specify ??
Plus currently the ads seem to be the block square one 9/10 times thus resulting in the big strip of white.
Yes, I did mention it prior to this. I don't recall which threads. I've been responding to so many since the upgrade that I can't keep em straightQuote:
Originally Posted by Nix
No, not at all. They have a completed ad they bring to us and we are to find space for it.
I don't think the expanding ads have been loaded yet for this server.
It isn't too much to ask the advertisers to give you ads that would conform to the specs of vb3.07 so you could then satisfy the inmates, is it?
I didn't say it wasn't mentioned, I said it wasn't clearly explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPNYC
As far as the second point are you saying that if they cam to you with an ad that was 800x600 you would have to find a place to fit it !!!!
I don't think so.
As that would be a full screen ad for the poor folks using 800x600 resolution.
And if they are coming to JM management with that sort of demand then I think someone up there needs to have the guts to tell them where to stick it.
Sorry, but no manner of advertising $ gives them the right to take over the control of the website layout and design as far as I'm concerned.
I'm afraid so. They don't design ads for us. They don't advertise just on our forums. Their design dept. comes up with an ad, then they buy space to display it. Anyway it has nothing to do with the software version at all. It's the fact that the ad will expand to 2 to 3x it's current height. That's why it's not on top.
Please provide us with an email address for complaints.
Just like I can compain to any company, government office, government official via direct channnels, I think it's time we were given the opportunity to do the same with JM.
That would be my email address. All forum complaints are supposed to go to me.
How do we send an email to JM's CEO Alan Meckler ?
I can't seem to find a Contact Us option anywhere on the various JM links from the bottom of this page ?
So we can't contact any of these fold http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/executive.html ??
And if we send an email to any of those at the bottom they'd probably get lost in someones mail box along the way ??
Not unless you want to get me in some trouble. I'm supposed to handle all forum issues and bump only the ones that require it upstairs.
And whilst these boards cost money to run it would appear that JM is making it quite easilyQuote:
March 10, 2005
Instant Million Dollars
How would you like to create $1 million of revenue virtually overnight?
We just did this at Jupitermedia. We created a new stock photo Web site called Comstock 1700k Subscription Plan in about 8 working days. We populated the site with Comstock stock photo images that were selling on a pay per download basis - in other words we had no inventory expense in populating the new Web site - only a manpower expense of several developers working several days. We used existing software created by our Tucson image subscription team.
The 1700k product allows a subscriber to download up to 50 images per day for any of four subscription periods (one month, three months, six months or a year). The prices range respectively from $299 a month up to $1199 for a year. 1700k images refer to each being 1.7 megabytes.
We launched the site a few weeks ago and sales are moving in on $20,000 per week and building. Our promotion effort was nothing more than running banners on our various image Web sites as well as some of our developer sites in the JupiterWeb network.
This is an example of terrific organic growth for virtually no cost. It is also an example of how amazing the Internet is as a distribution channel. No promotion cost, no inventory cost and very little effort.
And finally the great thing for JupiterImages is that we are doing similar launches every few weeks with results that look to be comparable to the 1700k launch!
I will keep you informed about some of these other launches in forthcoming posts.
Posted by Alan Meckler at 01:20 PM | Comments (1)
Yes, the company is growing. JupiterImages division is doing extremely well.
I just had a quick look at the Datamation forums Nix mentioned, and I got one of those rectangular ads. See the first two screenshots.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPNYC
Yes, screenshots. Plural. I've got a 1024x768 monitor with a reasonably small browser footprint and the ad doesn't even fit on one screen. It wouldn't even fit with the browser in kiosk mode.
The third screenshot is of the same site at 800x600.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the point of ads to be readable by the end user?
I will be blunt here.....This is like a company running a 1/2 page ad in the New York Times about how great a company they are and how good investing in their company would be...all the while covering up 1/2 of the daily stock reports with the ad. They are turning off and angering the very people that the ad is targeting. Does Jupiter realize this? Just exactly WHO is their target audience if not the regular members of VDr? If not,who ELSE is the target audience? The occasional 'drive-by" lurker? Awful lot of money being sunk into someone who is probably not paying attention to the ad anyway.
I mentioned this to my dad who is a retired professor and dean of the business school of a major university...he specialized in marketing. The way he put it..."sounds like they are killing the goose who lays the golden egg". I couldn't agree with him more. Do they or do they not realize that they are killing these sites with their indifference? :mad:
I assure you there is no indifference to the members wishes.
Interesting.
I take it then that we are stuck with the new format and we may as well end the discussion on it in all threads now and be done with it.
Just as there was always a blanket response to off topic forum a few years back, ie NO, there should be the same in regards to the compaints about the ad positon.
The impression was given in one of the many threads where this issue has been raised that the ad was moved to the side to appease the people who complained about the ads being at the top ebcause they then had to scroll down.
In reality though it was obviously a pre-planned design to allow for the "flex ads".
Tuttle, the ad is viewable before you scrolled down.
The 800x600 screenshot? Yeah, you can see all of the top half of the ad before you scroll down... if you also scroll right a bit. That screenshot was just a reminder that despite what the ad creators seem to think, we don't all have quad Xeons with 1920x1440 displays on our desks. We've had flash ads that cause 100% CPU usage, we've had Java banners that redraw constantly and max out a system if more than a few windows are opened at once, and now we've got an ad that won't even fit on a rather common 800x600 display without showing up a horizontal scrollbar. :rolleyes:
Well the top half is where the info is. Also, our stats show that the average user visiting our site has 1024x768 screen res., whereas a mere 3 yrs ago it was 800x600. Screen res. are increasing. Anyone know anybody still using 640x480? I sure don't. But that was the industry standard once.