The Government's Plan To Kill Independent Web Sites, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 169 times


reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 10:34 PM by badmedia
reply to post by Perseus Apex



DING! As I said before, if they want to track you then it's not going to be with cookies. There are much better ways of doing those kinds of things.

That information isn't just given away freely either. If you are getting tracked by something like that, it's going to be on purpose.


reply posted on 19-6-2009 @ 01:36 PM by badmedia
Originally posted by ADMIN X
Uhm, this is a well sourced and equally written article, however I own several websites and know the owners of even several more who would not dare allow even the slightest ad on our websites.
Many rely on our patron saint members for donations which many times barely cover monthly hosting fees.
But in any event many do it as a sense of patriotism, and morals.
Getting truths out leaves the independent site owner naked on the frontline, and more often than not financially strapped, bur it is recognized as a must do thing.
Ads have no role on many of these sites and heres why.

1) People dont trust Google
2) The ads actually dont pay anything worth the hassle.
3) Ads take precious space up
4) Many are not in it for financial gain in the first place.

You mentioned bandwidth, 99% of hosting plans are bandwidth protected on both shared and Virtual servers so thats not much of an issue.
I have sites on seperate hosts and both have unlimited bandwidth.

While I think the OP meant well and does have valid points, the entire article does not reflect even 50% of site owners.
Yes Internet V2 is indeed sure to happen, but not entirely in the context he paints.


No offense, but you obviously do not have alot of traffic and such. It is easy to give sites "unlimited bandwidth" when they do not use alot of bandwidth. It's simply a marketing ploy. As soon as your site starts using up a good bit of bandwidth, you will be getting messages about other resources being used up, such as CPU. Unless you just have a bunch of html pages, and again that is a sign of a small website.

I have a site that gets so much traffic it takes 4 servers for the 1 website. 3 servers that handle web requests(load balancing), and a database server for the site.

And on a site without much traffic, ads do not pull very much cash at all. It takes alot of traffic before ads make a dent in things. But when you do have alot of traffic, then the ads themselves help pay for things alot. I personally do not use ads for the main source of revenue, but it does help.

There is a big difference in the personal site and small sites, and sites that get millions of pages served per day where a virtual or shared option isn't even possible. We do use those kind of options as much as possible as we own thousands of websites. And in many cases such a hosting plan is fine. But a site that gets popular will quickly grow out of such plans.

Also, as far as ads go, it has alot to do with your content. Just some general website like ATS, you won't get very much for your ads. But if you have a website geared towards somekind of big market product, like say mortgages or insurance, then the ads will pay alot more. On my good sites, people compete in price for ad space, which is good for my sites. But for a site like ATS which isn't geared towards such things, it's not the same.

So I think these things are relevant to the sites in question and so forth. I probably wouldn't bother with ads on a site that doesn't get much traffic or attention. Where you might get 1 click on an ad a week, then you get like 10 cents a week if you were lucky. And thats not worth it I would agree. Also probably wouldn't put ads on pages where I am already selling a product.




[edit on 19-6-2009 by badmedia]


reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 08:39 PM by Nezuji
Originally posted by Nezuji
... but it's clear to me that the bill would actually target advertising networks that use cross-site cookies to track users.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
There is no such thing as "cross site cookies."

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
... do you think he could have been referring to "Third-party" cookies as cross-site cookies? Certainly those do exist and IE has separate cookie handling settings for those versus first party cookies.

Thanks. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. I apologise for not using the
correct term, but it's been a long time since I've done any real webdev work.


Originally posted by mister.old.school
The term "tracking cookie" has been created by the media to scare you. All cookies "track", calling such things a "tracking cookie" is like calling a chair a "seat chair".

While I agree that you are technically correct with regard to "tracking", I would like to make a distinction between the sort of cookie that has been set to try actively to track you accross multiple sites by storing data like "This is user #54712330", and something more innocuous such as, "Use forum layout #5 for this user."

Nezuji


reply posted on 2-12-2009 @ 05:33 AM by JonDeath
reply to post by mister.old.school



I think you're nuts!!
He wants the bill to stop websites from forcing ads on us as well as collecting personal information-essentially cyber stalking and fishing.

Personally, I have never in my life saw on ad on a website I used, clicked it then bought a product or service from one of these sites. Fact is if I do click it, these people see who I am and that website owner makes money.

From there, a lot of them track your activity around the internet and build a profile of your activity. In some cases, as I have experienced first hand, you encounter harassment.

A lot of these ads are clicked by kids or rely on "there's a new sucker born every minute" ideology.
Free Laptop!
Earn $5,000 a week working from home at your computer!
FLO TV - TV anywhere you go in your pocket!

The last one is real and yes, I believe it's an element to the destruction of free thinking. Currently, we do not have the freedom to choose NOT to have these ads, they're forced and realistically, I don't think there's a single person on the internet that wants them, other than the people making money from them.
It's gotten so bad that youtube now has commercials and sponsors.

I use Firefox and Flashblocker. With which I block countless ad images and flash videos which has made my internet experience far more enjoyable and productive the last few years. The logic here is, a site like A.T.S. would go under and no longer hold purpose. I honestly don't see enough activity here for someone to make money off of obnoxious ads that would create a loss of revenue/income and an ability to pay their bills.

Crap like that Bank of America banner gets clicked unintentionally if ever and really, the LAST thing anyone that comes to this site should be endorsing is the banking industry!

WTH is wrong with you people?
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?
  Posted 17 days ago with 31 member flags
"I AM" the documentary in full on Youtube
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
The one topic even TED won\'t touch: Income Inequality
  Posted 11 days ago with 10 member flags
Denying Ignorance about Copyright
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
Dan Rather Slams Corporate Media
  Posted 7 days ago with 9 member flags