Ad reporting functionality

[Gruftlord]

You know, this is the best incentive to switch off adblockers in a long time (yes, i know i'm a supporter anyway). I'm sure there might be a way to market that idea :D (the irony).

 

In further news: Can we also report ads, that do shady stuff like fake download buttons, 'you got mail', virus detected, 'press now, you are the 500.000th visitor and a somalian prince wants to send you money'?

 

Next thing i probably need to do is talk to my ISP about that thing with the 1.5 MB/s, lol.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Gruftlord

[Dark0ne]

In response to post #35626992.

GrimnirOneEye wrote: As soon as I read this, I decided to disable Adblock on Nexus. And almost immediately (perhaps three pages into my current session) I got hit by a very loud auto-play video ad. So I did the appropriate thing and hit the "report this ad" link just under the offending ad. I'm now curious how this new system works as I was never asked what was wrong with the ad, simply thanked for reporting it. Ha, and just as I was about to hit send on this comment, the ads refreshed and another auto-play video ad started. I don't envy you guys your task, but I'll keep Adblock disabled to help out as much as I can.

If it becomes too debilitating, then I honestly have no issue with reporting the first few, then turning back on Adblock, waiting a week, and seeing if it's improved at all. Auto-sound ads aren't supposed to be playing, so until we fix it, I can't begrudge the use of Adblock in this manner.

Thank you.

[1wolffan]

I actually logged in today to un-block the ads on this site. I just got an upgrade in my internet bandwidth. So I loaded up the page, disabled the Adblocker, and refreshed the page to get the ads going. When I refreshed, there was a new notification... about ads... I found this humorous.

 

I've had lag issues whenever I try to support you guys by running ads, and I figured, "Meh, double speed should be enough to cover the lag, and I really want to support them". Boy was I wrong! In the time it took me to read this article to this point (where I can leave a comment) my browser slowed to an absolute crawl, and there was a minute-delay between scroll-wheel, and actual screen scroll. As soon as I re-blocked the ads, and refreshed the page, I have full zip-zip browser abilities.

 

I REALLY do want to be able to run the ads for you guys. But when the website becomes un-navigable just from letting them run... I just can't. D:

 

Sadly, I've been completely unemployed for the last 4 years. So I can't even afford the silly 2 dollar opt-out option. :'( If I had the income, I'd likely me an all out Premium member, but I just simply don't have any money.

 

PS: *glares* If any of you other commenters tell me to, "Just get a Job, you bum." I might just explode. Employment is not an option for me at this time, so BACK OFF! *ahem* Sorry, too many people telling me that lately.

PPS: Moderators... if that last statement is too strong, feel free to edit it down, or remove the PS: completely. I'll understand. I'd rather it get pulled then get myself pulled from the site. heh.

[AntiSkillshot]

In response to post #35626632. #35626837, #35626877, #35626962, #35627237 are all replies on the same post.

gameboytj wrote: I have to admit...
The reason i use adblock is because the ads are making my browser's performance worse over time to the point where the browser stops responding altogether... :(
I want to let the ads play to help the site though but not if it freezes up my firefox...
If they are performance friendly i will turn my adblock off.

ZengarZonvolt wrote: i know right. my firefox sometimes shoots to 500mb ram usage. its practically chrome already but with a much much more stable environment but good lord does it lag my game as well. i usually play games and do youtube at the same time so there is something on the background rather than a silent droning noise.

gameboytj wrote: yeah, i really do want to support the site. Ads in the past on this site didn't affect performance before, maybe a little but that was it, it didnt make it get progressively slower to the point of not working anymore.

Dark0ne wrote: The memory leak issue on certain ads is a major one and one we've reported and worked with the ad supplier to root out and fix, for sure.

ZengarZonvolt wrote: it seems that most ads that uses gif are the one causing the leak because in my experience, site with s#*!-ton of gif ads and video ads causes the spike. youtube have that problem before and maybe still has it because their front page has a large un-intrusive ad, video ad, maybe just here in the philippine side but that causes one heck of a lag for me. considering my pc is a dinosaur dual core to boot.

I only use adblock for this site because of the ads with sound.
I'll likely disable it for this site because of this announcement. Because ads with sounds can now be reported.

[InsomnusUnwaking]

In response to post #35626372. #35627002, #35627327 are all replies on the same post.

elderlord wrote: Strange request I know. But even after having premium is it possible to enable ads on the site for myself? I understand strange request but I have premium for the servers, I am more than happy to view ads and support the site.

20rakah wrote: was gonna suggest the same thing. Give people the option to turn it on but obviously have it off by default

sunshinenbrick wrote: I third this. I don't mind ads as long as they fall within the parameters described, especially if it can help you guys out.

Thanks for your hard work.

I actually looked to see if this was an option shortly after becoming a supporter because I don't mind ads when they aren't obnoxious or intrusive. The only reason I paid was because I was tired of turning adblock ON for the nexus when doing heavy mod searching because every page kept getting a stupid autoplaying video ad for some candy that wasn't, and couldn't be muted.

[piotrmil]

In response to post #35627322.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

> I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

[Psijonica]

In response to post #35627282.

adammcbane wrote: Wow very nice thank you for this. The auto ads are my pretty much only issue so glad to hear this, to me it at least shows our opinions matter more. This makes me want to go premium when I can for sure.

Hi, I just want to use your post as an example.

You see it only costs $2.00 to remove the adds. Is that not affordable to you?

The reason I ask is because you mentioned in your post that you would do it when you "can". That kind of paints a picture that you think it is an expensive thing to do.

So my question to you is: How cheap does it have to be for you to buy a membership today?

No offence to you. Please don't take this as me being rude. I am really trying to help this site because I believe that this idea which is not knew is not being Packaged properly.

So again I honestly ask you, How much would you pay to remove adds today. As in right now, right away. If the Nexusmods and Dark0ne offered you a, "LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP" that permanently removed adds FOREVER, what would that be worth to you? How much would you pay? If Dark0ne offered that to you for $1 dollar would you buy it right now? Edited March 15, 2016 by Psijonica

[Psijonica]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617 is also a reply to the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships? Edited March 15, 2016 by Psijonica

[piotrmil]

In response to post #35627322. #35627617, #35627792 are all replies on the same post.

Psijonica wrote: As someone who has been very critical with most of Dark0ne's positions in the past I have to support this decision. I do believe he is trying to find a middle ground. The fact of the matter is simply that expenses are rising almost exponentially and so if everybody paid the 1-2 dollars then add revenue would not even be necessary.

And that brings me to my point: This is the area that should be focused on. How do you get more people to buy memberships? You would think 2 dollars would be an easy sale yet it seems you are unable to turn that around in your favour. This is an issue that needs to be solved.

I think you need help in this area. I don't think you will get the results to want by increasing download speeds. I do think it comes down to "PACKAGING." You are not "selling" it effectively.

Years ago I predicted that Pay-for-Mods would one day become a reality and I have also predicted that in the future the hard costs of running a service like this will become so high that some type of "Membership" will be required to download mods. I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership. *Again like all predictions they don't happen exactly as predicted but I picture something along this vein.*

piotrmil wrote: > I can picture a future scenario where in ten years users would get 10 free downloads and then they would have to buy a basic $2 membership.

Oh sweet cheese and crackers, no. That's a horrible future. Although, to be completely honest, that wouldn't hinder playing with mods in ANY way. People would simply upload their stuff (or other people's stuff) elsewhere. So that silly and - let's hope to god - hypothetical restriction will do absolutely nothing.

Psijonica wrote: I think it is inevitable.

I think that is going to happen across the board so it would be3 an even playing field. The costs are sky rocketing. Every year the costs are going up.

The real point is how to turn over more memberships. How do you turn more users into paid memberships?

Well, I seriously do hope that you will be wrong. Although, as the modgate showed us, we are prepared for the worst, and have a correct mindset. Just like Nexus does - the addition of donation button, a donation - not-obligatory payment - was the simplest rebuttal against Steam. It's the simple fact that telling people "you can do that" is better than "you HAVE to do that".

As for how to attract more memebrships, I dunno.

[piotrmil]

In response to post #35627282. #35627707 is also a reply to the same post.

adammcbane wrote: Wow very nice thank you for this. The auto ads are my pretty much only issue so glad to hear this, to me it at least shows our opinions matter more. This makes me want to go premium when I can for sure.

Psijonica wrote: Hi, I just want to use your post as an example.

You see it only costs $2.00 to remove the adds. Is that not affordable to you?

The reason I ask is because you mentioned in your post that you would do it when you "can". That kind of paints a picture that you think it is an expensive thing to do.

So my question to you is: How cheap does it have to be for you to buy a membership today?

No offence to you. Please don't take this as me being rude. I am really trying to help this site because I believe that this idea which is not knew is not being Packaged properly.

So again I honestly ask you, How much would you pay to remove adds today. As in right now, right away. If the Nexusmods and Dark0ne offered you a, "LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP" that permanently removed adds FOREVER, what would that be worth to you? How much would you pay? If Dark0ne offered that to you for $1 dollar would you buy it right now?

Remember Psijonica that your argument is slightly flawed - just because someone doesn't pay for some optional feature doesn't mean they don't have money, or think the price is set too high. For some the fact that the price is set at all is already an issue. For example, I'm playing a free-to-play game right now which constantly punishes me for not getting some upgrades with mone- I mean, no, not money, uh, jewels! Yes, totally not money. But I promised myself never to stoop such low and use any of the payment options. Edited March 15, 2016 by piotrmil