Too much animated advertising

Cool.

But of course that's not what it says.

Marcus got very angry with me once when I carried on about stuff like this so I'll shut up. But demanding more rights than you claim you want never goes down well.

[moonlustie]

I appreciate you have to have advertising to pay for the site but I'm finding the moving advert really really irritating and why, again as mentioned on the old forums, does it have to take up one third of the page?

[Rachael DCruze]

Hi there,

The adverts need to be the size they are to pay for the (free) site.

Hopefully you'll find the animated ads less distracting over time.

Rach

[Zephya]

Originally Posted by Photo Admin

Advertising is necessary to bring you this site without charge.

yes - but not in-your-face, annoying distracting visual equivalent of thrash metal in a lift - it induces nausea and site-blindness and just makes you want to escape

we're not two-year olds - given a nice static image or quiet add-tag a la google and I'll happily click through - but whizzy flashing ads make me leave the page

[tfrankland]

The defamation clause is in the interest of free speech.

It simply means that if another user defames you, you can't sue Future. Otherwise we'd have to start moderating all the forums and posts BEFORE allowing them to posted up, which I'm sure you'll agree would be rather inconvenient and annoying.

Hope that clears things up there,

Amy

Amy,

so why don't the Ts&Cs say that?

As I said in another post, if they are written in a way that needs you to post a clarification then they need rewording.

....Tony

[CaptainPenguin]

Got to agree that the advertising is irritating and that may be the reason the site seems slow to load,if that is the norm I am more likely to continue to use Talk Photography as my main forum and just pop over here occasionally

[tfrankland]

Boy, I must be thick :-(

I've only just realised why PhotoRadar claims 108,241 active users. If Canon new it was only 83 they wouldnt pay much for their adverts would they?

.....Tony

[number13]

Originally Posted by tfrankland

Boy, I must be thick :-(

I've only just realised why PhotoRadar claims 108,241 active users. If Canon new it was only 83 they wouldnt pay much for their adverts would they?

.....Tony

That's just the world we live in, dude. I wouldn't get upset about it.

After all, the ads are what enable the magazines/websites/etc to exist in the first place. Readership figures are all well and good, but ad space is where the real money is.

[tfrankland]

Originally Posted by number13

That's just the world we live in, dude. I wouldn't get upset about it.

After all, the ads are what enable the magazines/websites/etc to exist in the first place. Readership figures are all well and good, but ad space is where the real money is.

Dictionary definition: Tongue-in-cheek is a term used to refer to humor in which a statement, or an entire fictional work, is not meant to be taken seriously, but its sarcasm is subtle. The origin of its usage comes from when Spanish minstrels would perform for various dukes in the 18th century; these dukes would silently chastise the silliness of the minstrel's performances by placing their tongue firmly to the side of their cheek. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "Ironic, slyly humorous; not meant to be taken seriously".

[stevef]

I think this site looks too much like the Photography Monthly site. Was this intentional