Extremely strange ad

[TB]

The "Promoted Story" tag coupled with no comments for the article make it pretty obvious it's an ad.

 

[TexRex]

Sharp!

Not so much...

 

[KinLM]

The "Promoted Story" tag coupled with no comments for the article make it pretty obvious it's an ad.

I strongly disagree with this.

This is what it looks like for me:

Aside from there being no comments, it looks EXACTLY like an article.

I completely understand that this helps pay for GTP, so I need no remind of the reason for ads.

But these are extremely sneaky and deceptive ads.

I often check the news page for anything new. When I look at the articles, I don't want to get my hopes up all because of an ad.

I want to see news articles where news articles go, and ads where ads go.

I am 16 and do not have the money to afford Premium, so this is not an option for me.

I would be totally fine dealing with normal ads, and I wouldn't block them either.

But these ads would almost prompt me to use AdBlock if I were on the computer. They are completely wrong and very dishonest. GTP is my favorite site, and I would do anything possible to fund it if I could afford it. I do not want or need deceiving advertisements to try and get me to buy Premium.

But if these ads are to stay, then I and many others will definitely express our displeasure.

The last thing I want to do is upset @Jordan or anybody else. I wish I could afford to pay for Premium, but I have petrol bills and car expenses in general. Especially right now, during back to school season.

These ads are simply wrong though. It's clear that they are wrong based on how many people have expressed their displeasure in just this thread.

As somebody said above, it is like the church and the state; separation is needed.

 

[BobK]

I am 16 and do not have the money to afford Premium, so this is not an option for me.

GTP is my favorite site, and I would do anything possible to fund it if I could afford it.

I wish I could afford to pay for Premium, but I have petrol bills and car expenses in general.

So you can afford to operate a vehicle but can't pony up the lousy twenty bucks for premium?

But if these ads are to stay, then I and many others will definitely express our displeasure.

These ads are simply wrong though.

This, however, I fully agree with. I tend to be suspicious that has to resort to misdirection and subterfuge.

 

[KinLM]

So you can afford to operate a vehicle but can't pony up the lousy twenty bucks for premium?

Yes. I actually owe money to my parents on it, since they paid the repair bills for a small but costly dent in the hood ($675 repair job).

It takes even longer to pay that off when I keep paying for gas. I'll always try and drive it like a granny to get 35 MPG, but it's still not cheap.

So yes, once I have money to blow, I will. But right now, I'm really not in much of a situation for that. Paying for little fixes and upgrades and stuff in real life comes before paying for things on the computer.

 

[KinLM]

I hate to bump my own thread, but I've noticed something else.

Look at this again. But look more closely.

"breaks"

On a car site. "Breaks"

@Jordan I would either inform the advertiser, or fix it if you're able to. Because misspelling a word like this on a site so car related makes the ad look extremely tacky and poor.

Again I really hope I'm not upsetting anybody with all this, and I definitely don't want to sound like a grammar nazi. But if these ads are to stay, it would be good if they look as good as possible.

 

[Ameer67]

I've noticed that the ad space located at the top refreshes and gets replaced with a new one every few seconds. No wonder I keep seeing that loading circle on my GTP tabs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The "Promoted Story" tag coupled with no comments for the article make it pretty obvious it's an ad.

I don't see that? Is it to do with opening it in a specific view/browser or does the page do some "device-type" thinking?

That's not a complaint, I'm a free-loader here so I don't mind opening some adverts to help things along... but if the site management think it shows one way when in fact it shows another; it helps you avoid falling foul of territories where not clearly showing that a link is advertising is frowned upon (eg FSA Disclosures in Advertising).

 

[EF12345678]

I don't see that? Is it to do with opening it in a specific view/browser or does the page do some "device-type" thinking?

That's not a complaint, I'm a free-loader here so I don't mind opening some adverts to help things along... but if the site management think it shows one way when in fact it shows another; it helps you avoid falling foul of territories where not clearly showing that a link is advertising is frowned upon (eg FSA Disclosures in Advertising).

On the computer, the tag is clearly shown. Example:

Tags do not appear on phones.

 

[Ameer67]

I would find it more acceptable if the ads had a more distinct look. Maybe something like this:

(Ignore the "ADVERTISEMENT" part. I was messing around with the HTML.)

 

[Moglet]

EDIT: Never mind, I was looking at the wrong bit.

 

[OpticZero]

After all the debate it appears that these sneaky ads are here to stay. Looks like integrity and honesty have lost out, once again, to the almighty dollar.

 

[Jordan]

After all the debate it appears that these sneaky ads are here to stay. Looks like integrity and honesty have lost out, once again, to the almighty dollar.

I don't believe you are in a position to lecture anyone on integrity or honesty as you have, once again, chosen to use wildly exaggerated and needlessly inflammatory language to personally insult and publicly denigrate my character.

The ads are not misleading: they are exactly what they say they are, usually video content from AOL or a commercial from a relevant and established brand. The ads are not "unethical" or "dishonest": they are clearly labeled as promotional material, and your earlier comments on the "separation of advertising and editorial" are irrelevant. That would apply to editorial content itself being intentionally designed to mislead or change a reader's perception of events because of an advertiser's interests; that has no relevance or relation to the ads being discussed here.

The ads are also not "strange" or unusual: it is called "native advertising", and it is employed by nearly every web/media property you've ever heard of, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, the New York Times, Gawker Media (Jalopnik, Gizmodo, etc.), the BBC, and the list goes on. It's also not new - every TV show, radio show, newspaper, and magazine which includes sponsor-promoted articles or segments has done the same thing for decades.

You don't have to like native advertising and you are welcome to debate its merits and drawbacks. However, I have found a high-quality native advertising service which brings ads that I think are a good fit for GTPlanet and support my business, and I am well within my rights (and moral bounds) to use them. Why you, and everyone who has liked your posts, including @Coxis, @LMSCorvetteGT2, @KiroKai, @SkierPS3, @KinLM, @EF12345678, and @Ameer67, see that as a reason to vilify me with slanderous and insulting comments, is not so clear.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So is your plan to take up an issue with all of us that happened to agree with the post to some degree or absolutely? @Jordan

This is the only reason I can imagine that you would quote those who happened to express their equal right to like the user in questions post.

 

[KinLM]

I was in no way trying to "vilify" you @Jordan

My respect for you is above all else on this site.

I was merely asking about whether or not a specific ad type was going to stay, and expressing some displeasure with said ad type.

But like many here, I am not trying to insult you. I completely understand that ads help pay money, I just simply don't like them.

These ads are far better than what I see on most sites, but I see nothing wrong with some of us stating that we do not like them.

However, if expressing our opinions make ALL of the people you tagged "insulters" then I am greatly sorry and would like to humbly apologize on their behalf for making you feel such a way and wasting your time with such a petty thing.

EDIT: I also love the new "promoted by ___" which shows up on mobile now. Makes it look much less like a news article and also gives a specific source. Huge thumps up for that, I'm sure I speak for many other mobile users when I say that just this one change helps out a lot. 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was in no way trying to "vilify" you @Jordan

My respect for you is above all else on this site.

I was merely asking about whether or not a specific ad type was going to stay, and expressing some displeasure with said ad type.

But like many here, I am not trying to insult you. I completely understand that ads help pay money, I just simply don't like them.

These ads are far better than what I see on most sites, but I see nothing wrong with some of us stating that we do not like them.

However, if expressing our opinions make ALL of the people you tagged "insulters" then I am greatly sorry and would like to humbly apologize on their behalf for making you feel such a way and wasting your time with such a petty thing.

Exactly, I'm not going to apologize, because just like you we weren't of the intent to disestablish or insult another user and controller of the site by agreeing with the OP in question. I get this is your life @Jordan and you work really hard around the clock to maintain and make sure the site runs best for your means and that of the group you are running it for.

However, I'd think by this point in your tenure doing all this, you'd have a thicker skin and not be so quick to admonish emotionally those who probably didn't if at all have the same intentions as the OP (whatever those may be). People in your position are questioned all the time when some thing bizarre or out of the norms comes around changing what was common place, and simply answering that rather than getting upset seems more professional(at least that's how it read and then when you decided to put several others on blast for a hollow like as well). If the user is goading you on I can understand that but he seems to be just beside himself with why the site is changing and some of us to various extents also wonder. If this is the trouble caused by liking someones post in the site support sections I guess I'll just abandon that all together.

 

[Ameer67]

I don't think anyone was trying to insult you @Jordan. All we were trying to do is agree with a post by liking it. That's it.

 

[Jordan]

So is your plan to take up an issue with all of us that happened to agree with the post to some degree or absolutely? @Jordan

This is the only reason I can imagine that you would quote those who happened to express their equal right to like the user in questions post.

I am not "taking an issue" with or "admonishing" those tagged; I am questioning why so many of you supported a post which sensationalized and inflamed the facts at hand to question my character. I have a thick skin, indeed, and I will defend myself when accused of being unethical, dishonest, and lacking of integrity.

I don't think anyone was trying to insult you @Jordan. All we were trying to do is agree with a post by liking it. That's it.

Yes, that is indeed it. You agreed with posts that accuse me of poor ethics, dishonesty, and questionable integrity. I'm not sure what OpticZero was trying to communicate other than insult.

I was in no way trying to "vilify" you @Jordan

My respect for you is above all else on this site.

I was merely asking about whether or not a specific ad type was going to stay, and expressing some displeasure with said ad type.

But like many here, I am not trying to insult you. I completely understand that ads help pay money, I just simply don't like them.

These ads are far better than what I see on most sites, but I see nothing wrong with some of us stating that we do not like them.

However, if expressing our opinions make ALL of the people you tagged "insurers" then I am greatly sorry and would like to humbly apologize on their behalf for making you feel such a way and wasting your time with such a petty thing.

My post was in reply to OpticZero's messages and those who appeared to support his particularly bitter sentiment through likes. It is not directed at those of you who have expressed negative feedback about the ads; I recognize that most of you don't like them and I can understand that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I am not "taking an issue" with or "admonishing" those tagged; I am questioning why so many of you supported a post which sensationalized and inflamed the facts at hand to question my character. I have a thick skin, indeed, and I will defend myself when accused of being unethical, dishonest, and lacking of integrity.

And no one is telling you not to but as you've just been told that to varying extents and reasons people agreed with that users post, however one of those reasons wasn't not to vilify or defame what you've done here. Thus to continue to question it now after it has been told to you by three of those you called out is a bit lingering on something not there.

My post was in reply to OpticZero's messages and those who appeared to support his particularly bitter sentiment through likes. It is not directed at those of you who have expressed negative feedback about the ads; I recognize that most of you don't like them and I can understand that.

Maybe we all happened to agree because of the fact that it was another user also (since you nor I know his intentions) with the same mindset that the ads weren't needed and from the moment introduced seemed to be out of place and more home to a start up website about cars or a sloppy long term one like a jalopnik. Rather than a site that's been around for more than a decade and tends to be looked at better. If you found it to be the best way to support the site, then that's that and we should and will learn to deal with it. I have obviously since I no longer cared enough to follow this "issue" until you tagged me out of spite due to once again a hollow like that meant no more than me agreeing some degree with what the OP said.

When I read that post I don't see him calling out you, Jordan, but the general consensus of how many websites now days run and give into these types of ads that are nothing more than redirection of web traffic to scratch another sites back. You read it as a direct insult upon your character, so if we're coming from to different angles on this why do you think it's okay to, yes, admonish us? Why do you further extend that to those who agreed for their own reasoning not the one you give and then collectively place with the OP? I'm not of hive mind with the OP and thus if his intent was to be malicious I didn't agree to it or place agreement based on that, and neither did the others as you've come to quickly find out.

Point is why not take this up individually with those who liked it in a multi person private message, instead of accusing them in open of being morally corrupt in line with the OP. It almost comes across a contradiction to say the OP is being unfair with you when you do the exact same thing to us by lumping us in with him and then getting irritated with the idea we liked his post in an open forum.

 

[Dagger311]

Am I the only one who likes these ads? I've read some of the articles they link to. Like the Huracan one.

 

[KinLM]

I am not "taking an issue" with or "admonishing" those tagged; I am questioning why so many of you supported a post which sensationalized and inflamed the facts at hand to question my character. I have a thick skin, indeed, and I will defend myself when accused of being unethical, dishonest, and lacking of integrity.

Yes, that is indeed it. You agreed with posts that accuse me of poor ethics, dishonesty, and questionable integrity. I'm not sure what OpticZero was trying to communicate other than insult.

My post was in reply to OpticZero's messages and those who appeared to support his particularly bitter sentiment through likes. It is not directed at those of you who have expressed negative feedback about the ads; I recognize that most of you don't like them and I can understand that.

I think that those of us who "liked" his post may have onlu been partially agreeing with him, in that he and us both dislike the ads. But I doubt that many of us would EVER agree with somebody who accuses you of being a villain, and who insults you.

Sometimes I feel like "liked" posts can be related to a politician and their voters.

Very rarely do the supporters of a politician agree with every single one of the candidate's ideas. But they may agree with the general idea of how that candidate feels to the point where they would vote for said candidate. This may be a bad example, but it just seems parallel to how some of us may not have liked his tone towards you, but simply that he dislikes the ads too.


I personally would not want to agree with somebody who was insulting you, and I most likely chose to like his post because it related to how some of us felt about disliking the new ads. Again, I doubt many people here would want to insult you/agree with somebody insulting you. They probably just thought that he was disliking the ads as well, and wanted to relate.

Either way, I'm very thankful that you cleared this up, as I would feel very bad to be seen as somebody who would insult you in your eyes. And I cannot thank you enough for all that you do for this site. It is truly impressive.

Even if some of us dislike changes that are made, I think that we all still marvel at what you've created, and how important GTP is, and we can get past these small changes at the end of the day. Especially if they result in the betterment of GTP.

 

[Jordan]

And no one is telling you not to but as you've just been told that to varying extents and reasons people agreed with that users post, however one of those reasons wasn't not to vilify or defame what you've done here. Thus to continue to question it now after it has been told to you by three of those you called out is a bit lingering on something not there.

Maybe we all happened to agree because of the fact that it was another user also (since you nor I know his intentions) with the same mindset that the ads weren't needed and from the moment introduced seemed to be out of place and more home to a start up website about cars or a sloppy long term one like a jalopnik. Rather than a site that's been around for more than a decade and tends to be looked at better. If you found it to be the best way to support the site, then that's that and we should and will learn to deal with it. I have obviously since I no longer cared enough to follow this "issue" until you tagged me out of spite due to once again a hollow like that meant no more than me agreeing some degree with what the OP said.

When I read that post I don't see him calling out you, Jordan, but the general consensus of how many websites now days run and give into these types of ads that are nothing more than redirection of web traffic to scratch another sites back. You read it as a direct insult upon your character, so if we're coming from to different angles on this why do you think it's okay to, yes, admonish us? Why do you further extend that to those who agreed for their own reasoning not the one you give and then collectively place with the OP? I'm not of hive mind with the OP and thus if his intent was to be malicious I didn't agree to it or place agreement based on that, and neither did the others as you've come to quickly find out.

Point is why not take this up individually with those who liked it in a multi person private message, instead of accusing them in open of being morally corrupt in line with the OP. It almost comes across a contradiction to say the OP is being unfair with you when you do the exact same thing to us by lumping us in with him and then getting irritated with the idea we liked his post in an open forum.

You seem to be mis-characterizing my comments. I was answering your question and clarifying why I tagged you - that is not "lingering", nor am I pressing the issue, as you are trying to imply.

To summarize: a user made several posts which I felt were clearly intended to be insulting. You and others "liked" them, which I was further offended by, and I called you on it. Several of you have clarified what your intentions were, not realizing the post was offensive. OK.

Am I the only one who likes these ads? I've read some of the articles they link to. Like the Huracan one.

I have watched and read them all as well and also found them to be interesting, which is why I'm keeping them on the site. Better yet, they are not advertising wrinkle creams, testosterone boosters, or "one weird trick for weight loss", they don't direct you to other websites, they will not distribute malware, don't pop up or pop under, don't hide or interfere with the article content, and don't appear anywhere in the forums, where most community members spend their time.

 

[Aki Ko]

Can we settle on 'buy Premium' if you can and move on?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I'm more surprised by lack of adverts if anything.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You seem to be mis-characterizing my comments. I was answering your question and clarifying why I tagged you - that is not "lingering", nor am I pressing the issue, as you are trying to imply.

To summarize: a user made several posts which I felt were clearly intended to be insulting. You and others "liked" them, which I was further offended by, and I called you on it. Several of you have clarified what your intentions were, not realizing the post was offensive. OK.

Yes that's all I wanted you to realize for me and the sake of the others, if the OP intention was to devalue you and I happened to agree with it while not knowing that, then sure I apologize for that. Glad you realize we aren't trying to make you look bad or feel bad about the job your trying to accomplish that you see fit for your site, nor should you when others actually try.

 

[palyacho]

I'm not using an app to visit the site, but if it's so in the app it's realy annoying.
I wasn't be able to find where is the ad when I first saw your screenshot.

 

[EF12345678]

I'm not using an app to visit the site, but if it's so in the app it's realy annoying.
I wasn't be able to find where is the ad when I first saw your screenshot.

App? What app?
Right now is not the best time to show how much you dislike the AD's, and enough people have already shown their displeasure.
=====================
@Jordan, I'm sorry for supporting posts that offended you.

 

[Coxis]

@Jordan

After reading that particular Liked post, I'm pretty sure people liked (agreed) more with the sentiment that the ads are sneaky rather than the fact that he was calling you unethical. I don't feel like I vilified you but then again if that's the impression you got then I'm sorry. I just agree that the ads are misleading.

At the end of the day it's your site and I'm not going to leave because of the ads. Quite frankly I had entirely forgotten about them and this thread.

 

[KiroKai]

I didn't read nor like the post as a personal insult either, I agreed to the point that mixing content with ads in a confusing way is annoying and misleading. Reading it again now, the word choices do seem overly dramatic and it does insult you, but when I skim through an entire page and like posts that make a point I agree with I might not have paid attention to it.

 

[OpticZero]

So is your plan to take up an issue with all of us that happened to agree with the post to some degree or absolutely? @Jordan

This is the only reason I can imagine that you would quote those who happened to express their equal right to like the user in questions post.

Exactly, I'm not going to apologize, because just like you we weren't of the intent to disestablish or insult another user and controller of the site by agreeing with the OP in question. I get this is your life @Jordan and you work really hard around the clock to maintain and make sure the site runs best for your means and that of the group you are running it for.

However, I'd think by this point in your tenure doing all this, you'd have a thicker skin and not be so quick to admonish emotionally those who probably didn't if at all have the same intentions as the OP (whatever those may be). People in your position are questioned all the time when some thing bizarre or out of the norms comes around changing what was common place, and simply answering that rather than getting upset seems more professional(at least that's how it read and then when you decided to put several others on blast for a hollow like as well). If the user is goading you on I can understand that but he seems to be just beside himself with why the site is changing and some of us to various extents also wonder. If this is the trouble caused by liking someones post in the site support sections I guess I'll just abandon that all together.

I don't think anyone was trying to insult you @Jordan. All we were trying to do is agree with a post by liking it. That's it.

And no one is telling you not to but as you've just been told that to varying extents and reasons people agreed with that users post, however one of those reasons wasn't not to vilify or defame what you've done here. Thus to continue to question it now after it has been told to you by three of those you called out is a bit lingering on something not there.



Maybe we all happened to agree because of the fact that it was another user also (since you nor I know his intentions) with the same mindset that the ads weren't needed and from the moment introduced seemed to be out of place and more home to a start up website about cars or a sloppy long term one like a jalopnik. Rather than a site that's been around for more than a decade and tends to be looked at better. If you found it to be the best way to support the site, then that's that and we should and will learn to deal with it. I have obviously since I no longer cared enough to follow this "issue" until you tagged me out of spite due to once again a hollow like that meant no more than me agreeing some degree with what the OP said.

When I read that post I don't see him calling out you, Jordan, but the general consensus of how many websites now days run and give into these types of ads that are nothing more than redirection of web traffic to scratch another sites back. You read it as a direct insult upon your character, so if we're coming from to different angles on this why do you think it's okay to, yes, admonish us? Why do you further extend that to those who agreed for their own reasoning not the one you give and then collectively place with the OP? I'm not of hive mind with the OP and thus if his intent was to be malicious I didn't agree to it or place agreement based on that, and neither did the others as you've come to quickly find out.

Point is why not take this up individually with those who liked it in a multi person private message, instead of accusing them in open of being morally corrupt in line with the OP. It almost comes across a contradiction to say the OP is being unfair with you when you do the exact same thing to us by lumping us in with him and then getting irritated with the idea we liked his post in an open forum.

I think that those of us who "liked" his post may have onlu been partially agreeing with him, in that he and us both dislike the ads. But I doubt that many of us would EVER agree with somebody who accuses you of being a villain, and who insults you.

Sometimes I feel like "liked" posts can be related to a politician and their voters.

Very rarely do the supporters of a politician agree with every single one of the candidate's ideas. But they may agree with the general idea of how that candidate feels to the point where they would vote for said candidate. This may be a bad example, but it just seems parallel to how some of us may not have liked his tone towards you, but simply that he dislikes the ads too.


I personally would not want to agree with somebody who was insulting you, and I most likely chose to like his post because it related to how some of us felt about disliking the new ads. Again, I doubt many people here would want to insult you/agree with somebody insulting you. They probably just thought that he was disliking the ads as well, and wanted to relate.

Either way, I'm very thankful that you cleared this up, as I would feel very bad to be seen as somebody who would insult you in your eyes. And I cannot thank you enough for all that you do for this site. It is truly impressive.

Even if some of us dislike changes that are made, I think that we all still marvel at what you've created, and how important GTP is, and we can get past these small changes at the end of the day. Especially if they result in the betterment of GTP.

Yes that's all I wanted you to realize for me and the sake of the others, if the OP intention was to devalue you and I happened to agree with it while not knowing that, then sure I apologize for that. Glad you realize we aren't trying to make you look bad or feel bad about the job your trying to accomplish that you see fit for your site, nor should you when others actually try.

@Jordan

After reading that particular Liked post, I'm pretty sure people liked (agreed) more with the sentiment that the ads are sneaky rather than the fact that he was calling you unethical. I don't feel like I vilified you but then again if that's the impression you got then I'm sorry. I just agree that the ads are misleading.

At the end of the day it's your site and I'm not going to leave because of the ads. Quite frankly I had entirely forgotten about them and this thread.

I didn't read nor like the post as a personal insult either, I agreed to the point that mixing content with ads in a confusing way is annoying and misleading. Reading it again now, the word choices do seem overly dramatic and it does insult you, but when I skim through an entire page and like posts that make a point I agree with I might not have paid attention to it.

I couldn't have said it better myself; so I won't. I'll let the community speak for me.