Comments on: Quick note: Auto-play ads

By: -Scott a.k.a. BINNER

-Scott a.k.a. BINNER — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:53:18 +0000

Under the top article (Veras), a wassup baby video is playing. DOn’t mind ads, but hate videos. Slows down the browser.

-BINNER

By: Joseph Pawlikowski

Joseph Pawlikowski — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:54:11 +0000

I just misinterpreted what you meant by corporate-sponsored. Yeah, I suppose we could do that. It seems everyone wants a spot in the header image, though. I don’t think I’m ready to sell that out.

By: Yages

Yages — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:51:41 +0000

I’m a publisher with a journalism degree, so I hear you. Having said that, I don’t think having “Today’s posts sponsored by _____” would detract from your integrity. But hey, whatever works for you guys.

By: Rick A

Rick A — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:33:48 +0000

I’m ambivalent toward the auto-play ads, just don’t get rid of Angelica Chavez any time soon, she is hot. (And undefeated.)

By: ChrisS

ChrisS — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:31:31 +0000

Thanks guys, I have no problem with static/passive ads. Pop-ups and audio auto-plays drive me batty. I rarely visit ESPN.com anymore because of the constant pop-ups, survey requests, and frame changing ads.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:51:26 +0000

Yes, sir. We are not allowed though to encourage people to click if you get my drift.

By: Joseph Pawlikowski

Joseph Pawlikowski — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:11:59 +0000

Appreciate the suggestion, but I’d like to retain a shred of dignity.

By: King of Fruitless Hypotheticals

King of Fruitless Hypotheticals — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:11:32 +0000

You get any extra if the ads are clicked through?

By: Yages

Yages — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:09:46 +0000

You could always write commercially-sponsored posts. Ad blockers would be rendered irrelevant. Just an idea.

By: jsbrendog

jsbrendog — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:52:39 +0000

charlie murphy. awesome