Forum:More talk on ads

Forums: Index > Village Dump > More talk on ads

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5986 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've been talking more with my boss about the ads on uncyc. It seems they have moved down considerably from when Uncyclopedia moved to Wikia... a few more entries in the toolbars and a lot more languages mean the ads are waaaay down nowhere. So, we want to move them back up again, under the search box should do it. He also suggested a new section for Wikia below the articles. If I understood his idea correctly, this would be above the current footer bar, and would be used to highlight some of our other wikis. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A more prominent place, again ignoring any little issue like the usefulness of the links that it would displace and usability issues, might be to replace ALL of the content with Google Ads. Just a thought? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• F☭R Communist Propaganda Ads ^_^ 11:02, 29 May 2007

Yeah, I think right under the searchbar should be fine, Sannse. <-I have it blocked anyway. Whoops! I didn't say that!->--<<>> 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that the higher the ads are, the lower the toolbox is. And there are fair number of new users who have a hard enough time finding the "upload file" link as it is. And breaking the important links on the sidebar apart seems like a bad idea. Not that I have a solution, of course. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 05/30 00:17

I'm not sure I like Famine's suggestion of ads first, toolbox second, and everything else after...--<<>> 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a fan of adding the adds in as misleading links in our toolbox. Or randomly returning 25% of all searches as ads. To be frank, I don't see why we do ads if we're forced to break from our mission here. If anything, we should feature them or something. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 05/30 00:58

Oh, so that's how you upload files..! RabbiTechno 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The ads and "projects" were originally directly under the toolbox, not above it. They weren't under the languages because there were none. There were, evidently, also no ads for irrelevant and unrelated wikis. --205.150.76.28 02:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The sidebars are now significantly longer than they were too. I asked Chronarion about this, and he said he set it up so the ads were just on the fold. That is, the top part of them was visible before scrolling. -- sannse (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sannse: You said "the ads". After looking a little closer (because I removed the chip in my head which forces me to notice them so I hadn't in a few years) I realized that what you're saying about the languages only applies on the main page. Are you talking about moving the ads up on every page, or just on the main page? I could definitely see moving them above the monstrous "in other languages" sidebar on the front page being a non-issue. I still am a little worried about dropping them below the search on every page, due to the afore mentioned "breaking of the useful links into widely-spaced sections which will confuse the n00bs". Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 05/30 02:24

The question is, is there a way to restore the ads to the place they were, without making things more annoying/difficult for editors. I think above the massive main page language list is definitely needed, but I'm not sure that replaces the visibility completely -- sannse (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind where they are, just as long as they aren't right up the top. I'll just add more links to my navbar and move them down again. :) Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with most people and say "If you have to". However, if you want an argument why not to bother, I think more people will look for a way to block them the further up the sidebar they appear... Btw, what happened to the idea of a little "other-wikia-sites" box at the bottom of the sidebar? I rather liked that idea, at least compared to a big cumbersome extra bottom bar. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understood sannse's explanation correctly, there wouldn't be any Google ads, the would be replaced with a "highlighted wikia" box similar to what's in the right hand bar in all other wikia.

Yep, at the moment we are talking ads for other Wikia, although that could easily change to other ads in the future - it depends what Gil's current shiny thing is -- sannse (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so I'm going with "I prefer the ads where they are for the several reasons given above, but would prefer the wikia ones to the google ones."

Also an interesting way of linking stuff might be to use an interwiki-style system to link to that article's subject on the relevant wikia. That is if you people insist on trying to get visitors and money, I mean, what company actually need those when they have uncyclopedians? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:27, 30 May 2007

I think we should advertise OLD FASHIONED ICE CREAM! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should turn the entire website into a promotion for Matlock. Let's try to get it back on air! YEAH! --Dexter111344 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• A☭AINST Capitalist Media Ads ^_^ 07:34, 30 May 2007
• Against See above vote. --Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • FFS • WP) 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• For Ice cream -- sannse (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Against The ads for "highlighted wikia" in all of the other Uncyclopedia projects seem to be fugly (a mess of graphic/logos, not just text) and poorly targetted - if not untargetted. Every time more ads are added to the right column, the content area gets still narrower. If the intent was to have Uncyclopedia look like Wikipedia, crowding out content with this mess isn't the way to go. --205.150.76.41 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no plan to change the current width of the sidebar. That will be exactly the same. Wikia are sympathetic towards this being a parody of Wikipedia, which is why the new Wikia skin isn't being added here, despite the complications of singling out a wiki in that way. sannse (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The new Wikia skin already has been added to at least one of the Uncyclopedias, along with the incompatible GFDL license. See sk:Hlavná stránka as an example... and try not to spork your eyes out on exposure to the hideous levels of yellowish-orange in the new skin. --66.102.80.239 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave the technical guys a list of Uncyclopedia versions, looks like I missed that one (or they did). Thanks for letting me know, I'll get it switched off default straight away. Please let me know if you see any others like that - I'll try and check through the list myself once I get home tomorrow.

The GFDF licence is correct, versions in other languages are not translations of this one and so do not need to be the same license.

By the way Carl, don't you think it would be better to sign your comments? After all, you do have something of a personal bias when it comes to Wikia, it's only fair people should see who is commenting. -- sannse (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue with :sk: is that the eventual content for Slovenčina is going to be split directly from existing necyklo.pedie.info content (as the Czech wiki currently holds any Slovak articles we may already have) and *that* wiki is not GFDL. Ditto for anything pulled from Babel:Cs pages on this wiki. To dump this content into the new wiki and magically claim it to be GFDL does violate the license and copyright. --66.102.80.239 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand the issue. The skin mistake was because it's a new wiki - that's been fixed now and the default for that wiki is monobook. And of course, yes, as this is a move of an existing wiki then the licence will be the same. I understand that this is an issue with some of your forks? Isn't Nonsensopedia shown as CC on yours, when they started and continue to be GFDL on the original wiki? I may be mistaken in that, I'm not on my own computer so can't check. Apologies if so. -- sannse (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• For ads, especially if they're those blinky ones that give people seizures. Bonus points if they have the hamster dance tune playing in the background. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deeky dee dat dee dee doh doh, dee bah doo-doop doh... -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• AGAINST. Uncyc is the top tier Wikia Wiki, along with Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia. Maybe the second tier Wikia Wikis could be advertised. Just keep them off Nihilism. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that means it's the most expensive to run... baby needs new shoes... -- sannse (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, you can go ahead and move the ads, but NO WIKIA CRAP. that'd just be an insult --» >UF|TLK|▋» 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking...

If Wikia is a for-profit site, and content is licensed under the CC-BY-NC (noncommercial) license, then is it not copyright infringement for them to make money off it? goshzillacorrespondence 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Taking content from this site and translating (or copying, or moving) it to an Uncyclopedia in another language is also blatant infringement, as the license on those other wikia is commercial GFDL (therefore entirely incompatible with our CC-BY-NC-SA). That Wikipedia (also GFDL) will delete Uncyclopedia content almost on sight as "not licensed for free commercial use" should make the concept more than clear. No idea why this has been allowed to go on for this long already. --66.102.80.239 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have SOME corporation making money off of something, no matter what. For example, Steal This Book made the publisher millions. You simply cannot exist completely outside capitalism on the internet. There are some who believe as you do, that the presence of a corporation of any kind is a violation of our license, but even the mirror is making SOME corporation money (whatever company made the servers, whatever company provided the domain name, etc). Wikia's presence at Uncyclopedia has been minor to date, and thus is still compatible, in my view.--<<>> 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. 11:28, 01 June 2007

Whatever company made the servers isn't busy taking our content and plastering ads all over it. Odds are, they've never even heard of Uncyc. If the wording of the CC license is "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation", how is the server factory exercising these "rights"? --66.102.80.239 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, there are ads and have been ads forever. Unless some billionaire wants to fund our bandwidth out of his private account (which I'm totally open to), ads are going to be here.--<<>> 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you accept ol' Soviet Rubles? 12:52, 02 June 2007

Or British Pounds? They must be worth a lot, because the paper £ is enormous. I use one as a bedspread. It's kind of creepy having the queen rub up against me while I sleep. What were we talkng about? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I get around to writing and publishing my novels, and when those novels make me millions, Uncyclopedia is on the short-list of charities I'd give back to. Billionaires bedamned. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 06/2 00:56

Some sort of conclusion

Soooo... where are we?... seems the feeling here is: 1. ads are yucky, 2. we need ads, 3. moving them above the interlanguage links would be OK, 4. moving them above the toolbox would split the menus too much, 5. Wikia would like them back above the fold where they used to be, 6. no one cares wildly about the idea of having some at the footer. So I'll pass that all on to teh Boss -- sannse (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What 'bout my idea? 08:14, 06 June 2007