DU Donors Now Have the Option to Hide Google Ads

[Skinner]

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please do not click on any of the Google Ads unless you are genuinely interested. Randomly clicking the ads to try to "help" Democratic Underground does not actually help us, because Google can distinguish legitimate clicks from accidental or fraudulent clicks. Thank you for your understanding.

----------

As promised, DU Donors now have the option to hide the new Google ads. If you are a DU Donor and you want to hide the Google ads, here's how to do it:

1. Click on the "Options" icon at the top of any page.

2. Click "Edit your preferences"

3. Scroll down the page until you see the words: "Display Google ads?" Select "no" and then click the "Update" button.

That's all. The ads might appear on the confirmation page after you click "Update," but after that the ads will not appear on any DU pages. If you wish to show the ads, simply return to the preference page and set "Display Google ads" to "yes".

If you are unable to hide the ads, check one of your posts to make sure you have a gold donor star next to your name indicating that you are a DU donor. Donor stars last for one year after you donate. If you do not have a donor star but believe you should, please send an email to [email protected] to let us know. Include the following information:

* Your forum username
* Your real name
* The method of your donation (Credit Card, PayPal, Check, Amazon, etc.)
* The approximate date of your donation

If you have any other problems, please let us know.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
DU Administrators

[mainegreen]

1. Yay! Thanks!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

74. I find it interesting to see what type ads different OPs generate...

I also click on any REPUBLICAN ads to cost them money and make cash for DU. my little way to pay them back for what they've done to America.

[Deb]

2. Cool! I felt so guilty using a blocker

Thank you!

[LSK]

3. cool - it works

Thanks guys, keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

[stop the bleeding]

4. thank you

some days peanuts some days shells

[asthmaticeog]

5. But do you lose money when donors block them?

Because they really don't bother me, and I'd rather you have revenue than I have a half-inch of screen space.

[SidDithers]

12. Excellent question...

If they help, I'll leave 'em up.

Sid

[arch_liberal]

59. real issue is that anyone who knows how to use their hosts file

never even knew they were there :-)

[Skinner]

14. We make more money if you show the ads.

If you don't mind them, our preference is that you keep them on. But we do not mind if donors wish to hide them, because you are already doing your part to help keep DU online.

[asthmaticeog]

24. Then I shall keep them on.

I think you should consider making this more widely known - I'm surely not the only donor who would leave them be.

[mike_c]

28. wouldn't blocking them at the browser end serve this purpose better...?

That way they're still served. Blocking them with Adblock is the equivalent of simply not looking at them-- google has no way of knowing whether users actually look at the ads or not, as long as they're served through DU's machines, right?

[ninkasi]

30. I keep mine on

I try to remember to click some of them every day, too. They are unobtrusive to me, and anything to help the cause. Some of them are even interesting to me.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

40. Hiya Skinner,

How about this? Now that I have hidden them, how can I make another modest contribution to DU?
:)
DITWL aka Dyedinthewoolliberal

[Pirate Smile]

54. They don't really bother me so I'll keep them on.

Your post made my decision easy. :)

[midnight]

72. Ok. I'll keep mine showing.

I want DU to make some money. Who screens these ads to make sure they are legitimate? Or does it not matter?

[lonestarnot]

77. Well fuck, now you tell me!

:evilgrin: Changing back to display. Money, ain't it a bitch.

[bettyellen]

6. tks david. i have a question though....

is it better for you if i leave them turned on? do you get more google $$ that way?
if so, I'm not minding most of them, IF you know what i mean.
:D

[Skinner]

15. It is better for us if you leave the ads on.

But we won't hold it against you if you choose to hide them.

[REP]

17. So "On" Without Clicking Through Generates $?

Doesn't seem to make a difference in how fast pages load (I'm on dialup) so if money is made by them just being there, no big deal to leave them there.

[Sgent]

37. It depends

some adds pay per click, and some pay per impression.

Note -- the above is normal for most highly trafficed websites, but I have no insight into DU's contracts specifically.

[wakeme2008]

7. Will not use it but Thanks

I have no problems with the Google ads.... LOL unless a skinny blond Repug sell her new book shows up :)

[Call Me Wesley]

21. And I just bought 2000 copies!

x(

Nah, not really. :P

[Vanje]

8. AH H hh. Thanks

Sorry about my tantrum earlier today.

[w8liftinglady]

9. They never bothered me..I'll pass...

you deserve the three cents you'll get from us all clicking on them...

[ThomCat]

13. I won't hide them either.

I barely notice them. And if I hide them then I can't occassionally click one. DU doesn't make any money if we never see the ads.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. What a clever idea! Thanks. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Thanks, Administrators.

That was easy.

[Ivote]

16. Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!

KnR
:bounce:

[Old and In the Way]

18. Thanks for the option.

If you can make a little on 'em, I leave it turned on. I hardly notice them anyway.

[Love Bug]

19. Thanks for this option!

For now I'll change nothing because the ads don't bother me. In fact, I find the juxtaposition of some of the ad topics versus thread topics pretty funny. Lots of potential for fun there....

[Call Me Wesley]

20. Thank you!

I don't mind them and I don't think they interfere with DU within their new placement. I'll leave them on and will click on them sometimes if something gets my attention :hi:

[mike_c]

22. firefox users can simply use Adblock...

...a great FREE alternative!

[SeattleRob]

23. Cool!

Another reason to Donate to the DU!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Thanks. Even the little displays I get on Firefox are annoying.

[neuvocat]

26. I think XM satellite radio really tapped into something here:

the option to pay for ad-free content. Works for me.

[datadiva]

27. I personally don't mind the ads

You never know, I might see something I want to click on.

[HeeBGBz]

29. Thank you

That's a lot better.

[Ilsa]

31. I'll turn mine one also. I'd rather DU get the $. eom

[durrrty libby]

34. I must leave mine on.

I can’t imagine passing the opportunity of getting a free laptop, by answering a simple question, such as “Was the Iraqi War a Mistake”?

[Tin Man]

32. Thanks Skinner, EarlG, & Elad - excellent idea, brilliantly executed!

:yourock:

[Brundle_Fly]

33. NO MORE ADS FOR ME!

Donating really does have it's advantages!

[bigwillq]

35. This is a very good idea.

Thanks Skinner. :hi:

[Mr_Spock]

36. This is the best feature ever!!

This is a very progressive way to deal with the adds!

I like it!

[TahitiNut]

38. All I have to say is ...

[zippy890]

39. Thanks!

I appreciate the option.

[Ladyhawk]

41. Thank you, Skinner. I'm hoping to donate again soon. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

42. Thank you Skinner

I first saw this at work (I only read DU from work), so I couldn't respond.

I am grateful for the choice.

[mod mom]

43. Hey Skinner....

:yourock:

[Bucky]

44. Is there a place where I can sign up for MORE Google ads? I love 'em!

Did you know that there's a website where you can vote to say you don't trust the president AND sign up for FREE gift... at the same time?!?!? WOW!

[TheCentepedeShoes]

45. The ads don't bother me n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

46. Thanks

That is so totally cool! Yet more evidence that you all ROCK!

[AnotherMother4Peace]

47. Some of the ads are real cute - I loved the yard gnome one

Totally cute with the little butt sticking out - I'm gonna buy a set.

[FlaGranny]

48. Thanks, but

they don't bother me at all. They're very unobtrusive.

[Blue_Tires]

49. ttt n/t

[Gemini Cat]

50. Thanks Skinner for the choice

I'll keep them on for right now.

[egadsbrain]

51. Don't mind the ads, but...

Is there a way to make them open automatically in a new window when you click? I always forget to do it myself when the menu pops up in my browser. My computer is so slow it's nice to be able to get right back to DU without going back...

:)

[Skinner]

52. I cannot figure out a way to do that.

But I will ask the google rep next week when we talk.

[egadsbrain]

53. It's not a big deal

Google search doesn't let you open your search in a new window for some reason. The ads do if I take the 2 seconds to do it myself! BTW, I've already found some ads I'm going to order from, one was a banner specifically targeting pet owners when I was in the Pets forum. :)

[arch_liberal]

61. Just add target="_blank"

to the anchors (link tags) the code you have added to the pages has in it, or as it is written-in to the ad anchor tag (link) by the script, this opens a new unnamed window (which will grab focus with no history, leaving DU open in the old window) or new tab in advanced browsers, for users to peruse this new distraction without becoming completely sidetracked and leaving Democratic Underground :-)

target="name" is a tag property that allows anchor HTML tags can tell the browser to direct a web document to load into a particular named rendering frame or named rendering window. _blank is a special anchor (link) target window name that always requires a virgin, new, unnamed window for it's content, but any name you use for target="X" will also require the browser to do the much the same thing, UNLESS there IS a browser window with that name already open here or somewhere else ("main" is a bad choice lol)

Sites (like google cache or angelfire) can also leave your browser window as proud new "owner" of some old frame name that was assigned by another website that used frames, that you 'jumped out of' a while ago.

target="_self" is the default behavior for any tag without a target specified in it (it means this window).

format is: <a href="http://www.blah.blah" target="_blank" title="what you want the link to say when moused over"> link stuff, could even be an image</a>

[Skinner]

62. I know the target=_blank trick.

We use it all over the place on Democratic Underground.

But we don't have access to the code for the ads, so we can't use it for the ads.

[arch_liberal]

64. ummmh

Sorry I don't see how that's possible, unless it's an Iframe. That inline remote frame from hell thing only works for IE browsers. Otherwise they give you an html code string or a .js file to include and it's (html to be written-in) in there. (and that is also text, but the document.write()command string is just 'escaped' html code set by some var.)

Never heard of an advertiser forcing visitors to leave your site completely to follow their ad, nor with windowed or tabbed browsing, is that technically possible.

[Skinner]

65. ummmh.

It is possible. We don't have access to the code. It is delivered directly from Google's servers. All we have is a little snippet of javascript that tells your browser to grab the code from Google.

[arch_liberal]

66. smart devils lol

oops sorry I use a news.google.com homepage and have had all their adservers blocked in hosts for some time :-)

But doesn't the snippet just write an image tag into your document, regardless of the source it sets for that image, you should still be able to control the format of it's html additions since it is your script.

ok i see pagead2.googlesyndication.com and you got some variables let's see...

yup, their show_ads.js wants to take advantage of IE's hellish, insecure Iframe kludge, otherwise for users of normal browsers, their function A() has made no provision for altering the normal html format inclusion written by their function G() which is where the target would need to have been specified.

only they can help u with this

[Zhade]

55. Well, and those who use Firefox + Adblock.

Lame ads, btw. But hey, you gotta make money, right?

[Mr_Spock]

56. Well, I found some of the adds interesting - then an ad for "Fox News"

popped up. Sorry, I come here to escape that crap.

That's like an add for "Nazi propaganda" popping up :puke:

[tyedyeto]

57. How is this determined?

IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please do not click on any of the Google Ads unless you are genuinely interested. Randomly clicking the ads to try to "help" Democratic Underground does not actually help us, because Google can distinguish legitimate clicks from accidental or fraudulent clicks. Thank you for your understanding

Personally, I have not clicked on any ads and find so many to be offensive, but how can Google determine a valid click?

[arch_liberal]

63. Sponsor ad tracking network

When you get an ad you get a cookie. When you get another ad, you get another cookie. The cookie-ad guys all exchange information with each other. So it doesn't matter who's cookie-ad you got. You end up with a cookie-ad-A at one site, cookie-ad-B the next site cookie-ad-C the next then another cookie-ad-B and another cookie-ad-A the next, etc. If you do a lot of mainstream bigshot site surfing you get a lot of cookies and usually they can track your ever movement.

Even if you delete cookies every day, you still get them back the next time from the sites you visit that have cookie-ads (most bigshot sites do), and they can see your IP address so they know you deleted the old ones.

When you are on a persistent connection like cable or DSL you get an IP address that lasts a fairly long time unless the power fails. If you don't delete cookies they know your old and new IP address.

If you are on dial-up you get a new IP address every session so unless you also deleted all cookies every time they know your old and your new IP address.

Ok so everybody wants to make money so they can offer cheaper services, so even internet service providers monitor and sell/trade their users surfing request histories to amalgamators like Webtrends who do the honcho ratings and click though thing.

Webtrends, the biggest internet user snooping operation, can track the average surfer and every major point of attraction quite well.

The only way around this is to prevent your machine from contacting adservers using your hosts file and get a new IP address after deleting all new, unknown cookies as often as possible. Also, using a third party internet proxy service like Megaproxy can vastly improve your privacy.

Nonetheless you are always at the mercy of your Internet provider for forensic purposes and law enforcement can get your history at a glance (logfiles) anytime they want.

I am one of those surfers Webtrends hates as you can probably deduce :-)

So "fraudulent clicks" is a roomful of IP addresses clicking a certain link all day long with no result, or not the expected result like following a link on that page to somewhere else, and not following those to any fruition.

"Accidental clicks" is an odd IP address following the link with no result, or not the expected result like following a link on that page to somewhere else, purchase or no. (or me)

The name of the game in advertising tracking is the click-thru. This usually means the ad that leads to the purchase.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. I never saw the ads on my browser to begin with.

Didn't know what the fuss was about till I accessed from another computer.

Guess I wasn't missing anything.

[arch_liberal]

60. For your own homeland security

It is far better to never load common third party spam/ad server items, they each can give you cookies along with that ad, which they can then also read with another ad elsewhere, and they trade info like thieves with each other.

Once this "non identifying" information is all patched together, it can track a huge percentage of the movements you make on the internet between colluding advertisers, since ad cookie cutters can always also see your IP address provider and where you just came in from (anywhere).

Use a good hosts file and it will block them all, all the time.

[laylah]

67. As always,

you guys/gals rock! Thank you!

Jenn

[NashVegas]

68. Thank You So Much

I didn't mind the text ads as much as the animated banner at the bottom. That's gone now. Y'all rock.

[Peace Patriot]

69. Skinner, I don't mind leaving the ads on, as long as they're at the top

and bottom of the page and don't intefere with reading, BUT the CONTENT of some of the ads is REALLY bothering me!

See my thread on the ad for Contra soldiers' Nicaraguan coffee, which describes the "Contras" as "freedom fighters"! Totally, totally offensive! And all the "military" ads, and ads for Republican candidates. We don't need any more fascist propaganda! We have to put up with enough of it already everywhere else in the war profiteering corporate "news" culture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1396525

[El Fuego]

70. I don't mind the ads at all, so I will keep them on if it is better for DU

They're not obtrusive, it's not like DU has annoying pop-up ads!

[shanti]

71. perfect!

that is the best option, imo. thanks, skinner!

[Narraback]

73. Thanks

nt

[aquart]

75. I've stopped them from bouncing around.

If they don't bounce, I don't care about them.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FloridaPat]

78. Thanks.

[dwnforthecount]

79. shot heard round the world?

i had heard that google was beginning to mark some blogs (particularly liberal blogs) as indescent. don't stop with banning the ads (which, i guess, you guys aren't banning ads but just giving the option to) i say tear down the system and make google as useless as a MAc running on WIn 98.

[MeandYou123]

80. Thanks!

As usual, thanks for helping out the forum members in a positive way!

[The Bastard1]

81. Thanks!!!!

Me not like Google ads unless I'm getting the money :-)

[kentuck]

82. Doesn't work...

That's what I was trying to say.