UKC

Is this advert misleading?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
If you look to the right of this post you may see an advert. It shows a picture of 5 Karabiners with a price of £19.50 then a picture of 10 cams and a price of £29.99. Now I believe that the first one is for the set but the second is for an individual item so is this advert fair?
1
 balmybaldwin 03 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

All I'm seeing is trousers in a variety of garish colours
 Timmd 03 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I know the advert you mean, with neither deal 'flash' being detailed (about how much you get), I guess it's vague enough to not be definitely misleading?

Email them and say what you think?
 Stichtplate 03 May 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> All I'm seeing is trousers in a variety of garish colours

Yes, but are you looking at the screen or in your wardrobe?
 Tony the Blade 04 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Ad blocker prevents me from seeing any adverts.
8
 Trangia 04 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I know the ad you mean, and I thought exactly the same. Misleading, although common sense told me it couldn't possibly be true. Not withstanding that I was annoyed by it, and that would put me off buying from them in the future.
 Andy Johnson 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:

Those adverts are what pays for UKC. If everyone blocked then the site wouldn't exist in its current form.
4
 Tony the Blade 04 May 2017
In reply to andyjohnson0:

You are quite correct. It's just the annoying flashing ads that bug me, that's why I use blocker.
J1234 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:

Interesting you have posted that. It was an automated ban at one time.
1
 Toby_W 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:

I use an add blocker but allow all UKC adds as they are not annoying and support the site.

Cheers

Toby
1
 Tony the Blade 04 May 2017
In reply to J1234:

Oops, that's what I get for posting drivel.

Well, I'm still here, albeit wearing sackcloth and ashes.

If I knew how to disable it for selected websites then I could allow ads to run on UKC, but block all others... Facebook for instance!
 Blue Straggler 04 May 2017
In reply to J1234:

> Interesting you have posted that. It was an automated ban at one time.

It was indeed, and I fell victim to it quite ironically one time - ironically because I only posted the word as a joke within a post listing the most typically regurgitated phrases spouted on UKC
1
 Blue Straggler 04 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

It's fair.
Lusk 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:

> If I knew how to disable it for selected websites then I could allow ads to run on UKC, but block all others... Facebook for instance!

If you've got AdB Ultimate, you can.
Click on the icon and click 'Enabled on this site', disables it on this site.
 Tony the Blade 04 May 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> If you've got AdB Ultimate, you can.Click on the icon and click 'Enabled on this site', disables it on this site.

I don't have ultimate, in fact I'm not sure what I do have.

I have just clicked on the red hand (top right-hand side of this page) and I have a number of options:
Pause AdB
Block an ad on this page
Don't run on this page
Don't run on pages on this domain


Should I just click 'Don't run on this page' or should it be the 'Don't run on pages on this domain'?
In reply to J1234:
My original post included a reference to that product and got me blackballed so I removed it.
 Luke90 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:

Don't run on this domain.
Lusk 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:

Errr, I'm not right sure.
Try the domain option.
 Tony the Blade 04 May 2017
In reply to Luke90:

> Don't run on this domain.

Thanks, I'm no longer ad free
Removed User 04 May 2017
In reply to Lusk:

You shouldn't use A-d-B-l-o-c-k (the addon) in any form. It allows companies to pay for their ads to be shown which increases the chances of a malicious ad sneaking through their filters. Switch to uBlock Origin for full blocking. I keep ukc blocked the same as every other site. Everyone on here saying that we shouldn't block ads here simply doesn't know how ad revenue works. If you're not clicking the ads there's no point having them displayed. There's no revenue gained from ad loads, it's entirely based on clicks.

UKC blocking the word 'a-d-b-l-o-c-k' is and always has been atrocious behavior. People are prevented from helping others secure their machines in order for UKC to display more ads.

"Your post wasn't submitted because of the following error(s):

Sorry, posting links about A-d-b-l-o-c-k isn't allowed. The only site exists thanks to the support of it's advertisers. Please consider whitelisting us."
3
 gethin_allen 04 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

As far as blocking adds goes, I'd like to see a way of voting down or blocking individual particularly annoying adds. Maybe the site owners could then use this to dump the really irritating ones or at least charge them double for the irritation.
The majority of the adds are fine, it's just the ones that flash and jump about that annoy me.
 Andy Johnson 04 May 2017
In reply to Removed User:
> Everyone on here saying that we shouldn't block ads here simply doesn't know how ad revenue works. If you're not clicking the ads there's no point having them displayed. There's no revenue gained from ad loads, it's entirely based on clicks.

I'm fairly sure that revenue on most internet adverts is based on "impressions" - the number of times the advert is fetched and displayed. Thats why blockers are a problem for sites that are supported by advertising, as the ads are never fetched or displayed.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_(online_media)
Post edited at 15:29
 deepsoup 04 May 2017
In reply to Tony the Blade:
> but block all others... Facebook for instance!

For Facebook specifically, you might find it's worth having a look at FB Purity, it's really very good (for stripping ads out and various other things besides):

https://www.facebook.com/fluffbustingpurity/
 Luke90 04 May 2017
In reply to Removed User:
> Everyone on here saying that we shouldn't block ads here simply doesn't know how ad revenue works. If you're not clicking the ads there's no point having them displayed. There's no revenue gained from ad loads, it's entirely based on clicks.

If you're going to lecture people from a position of superiority, you probably ought to check your facts. SOME adverts are pay-per-click, some are pay-per-view (and I'd imagine other payment schemes and variations on those basic principles are being used as well).

I'm not sure what deals UKC has but I'd be very surprised if blockers didn't cost them money. At the very least, it would have an indirect effect on their income but I suspect it's quite direct.

I question their stance of blocking forum discussions about the topic, mostly because it evidently doesn't work! Having said that, they're clearly well within their rights to try it and the motivation is pretty clear and pretty reasonable.

Their actual stance when people visit the site with a blocker turned on is actually pretty reasonable (or was last time I saw it, before disabling my blocker for this site). They simply replace the adverts with a subtle and polite request to disable the blocker. No attempt to lock you out of the site as some others do.

For the record, I use ublock origin and will do until the advertisers collectively find a way to stop malware delivery mechanisms sneaking into their ad deliveries. UKC only seems to host targeted ads from outdoor manufacturers through their own delivery mechanism so I'm happy to unblock them.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I think the discussion that ensued from this post has been quite useful and I can now report that I have had a very favourable response from the company who ran the advert.
Trevor from Needlesports contacted me and included the following statement 'That advert is due for updating so I’ll take your email on board and try to make it clearer the cost is per cam.'
I think this is a good result!
Thank you Needlesports.
Post edited at 19:57
 Timmd 06 May 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

That shows genuine integrity on their part.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...