digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

10 reasons why digg needs to not have banner ads

thefixed.org — So I'm browsing digg with my speakers on thinking that I am safe when bam! Out of no where some chick is yelling at me about a free APPLE ipod nano.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • deadatmind, on 01/09/2008, -256/+26Yeah, Digg is pretty gay in the first place, the Ads just make me not want to come to it at all.
    • Chompy, on 01/09/2008, -12/+141K. Bye.
      • lava, on 01/09/2008, -6/+36That's my guinea pig's name!

        I'm going to do this to you every time I see you comment :)
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 01/09/2008, -11/+23That just means more Digg for the rest of us!
    • urbandistrict, on 01/09/2008, -19/+6The irony.
    • brundlefly76, on 01/09/2008, -40/+19The only really gay thing about digg is diggnation.
      Diggnation is so gay the first time I saw it I thought they were getting ready to go across town and give Jay Adelson a makeover.
      • kevinmotel, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9This apartment needs more Macs and WoW
      • keeganspeck, on 01/10/2008, -8/+2The thing about Diggnation is that 'douchebags' are not its target audience.

        Douchebag.
    • brbeaird, on 01/09/2008, -3/+17You must be new here.
    • mugicha, on 01/09/2008, -1/+32Can I have your stuff?
    • nikkesen, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5Ah... 'tis ashamed that we gotta see the southend of a northbound deadatmind. No loss really.
    • someone173406, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Yet you're here. Call you ISP, and tell them that you're canceling your internet, because you don't deserve it.
    • DYNAMICENTRYYY, on 01/10/2008, -0/+7 Obvious troll is obvious.
    • topogio, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0So that's why you came here... now I get it....
  • ZeeshanHasan, on 01/09/2008, -124/+5remove the ads by just disabling JavaScript from your browser and all the websites would be without ads.
    • uptown, on 01/09/2008, -1/+102yeah ... 'cause no sites use that pesky javascript anymore.
    • Me1000, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5is there a special no-script version of digg? because without javascript the digg that I know would cease to function!
    • Matri, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6Try Adblock instead.
  • iBenzin, on 01/09/2008, -6/+259they are so ***** annoying.
    • NickyBatts, on 01/09/2008, -10/+110Dude, adblock.

      You'll never see another one.
      • TheKorn2, on 01/09/2008, -23/+5Or use Opera and its selective content blocking.
        • MWeather, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Firefox does that too. IE pobably does as well. It's just not as easy or useful as ablock.
          • musicbear, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1Even with ad block, there are scripts running that ALWAYS fail, firefox has to tell me they fail, there is still fiddle faddling with the ad servers, the pages take forever to load and just scrolling the page can mean waiting through a number of system interrupts. Digg for me is using the RSS feeds. To actually GO TO DIGG and WASTE my time waiting for digg to get out its own way means the story must really be awesome.
        • lowerlogic, on 01/09/2008, -0/+9I'm completely convinced that there is an Internet law as real as the laws of physics that says if Firefox or a Firefox plug-in is mentioned, within a minute an Opera user will spawn stating Opera can do the same thing.
      • xcecatalina, on 01/09/2008, -13/+2Or Camino, it has the same thing.
        • edwartica, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8Isn't that the planet where the race of master cloners lives on? Where Obi-won fought Jengo Fett?
        • RedS0x, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah...or firefox.

          Really though, I use Camino usually...it does a good job.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Just for reference, it's "Obi-wan," "Jango Fett," and "Kamino," you uninitiated *****.
        • Blandyman, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Minus the unneeded swearing... yes, its Obi-wan, Jango Fett, and Kamino.
      • fluidfoundation, on 01/09/2008, -13/+8not quite true, but its'll be a better browsing experience.
        • kcdstudios, on 01/09/2008, -3/+37dugg for its'll
        • fluidfoundation, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Its'll. Contraction. It is or will be.
          ;)
          • twisterrust, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2lol @ Contraction... you do know there is a check spelling button..right ?
      • ricree, on 01/09/2008, -8/+48Personally, I like leaving ads on whenever possible to help support the sites I visit. However, I draw the line at ads that start making sound, flashing brightly, or covering up part of the content. Those ones I tend to block immediately. It's kind of a shame too, since if they'd just leave it at reasonable ads, I'd keep them in the browser.
        • planksconstant, on 01/09/2008, -15/+15the only way you actually support the site is if you -click- on the ads. otherwise they're just sitting there being annoying.
          • pjkli, on 01/09/2008, -1/+34Not true. Some ads are pay per view as opposed to pay per click.
          • ericberglund, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Which is actually the most popular route. Advertisers will pay on average around $3-$7 for every 1000 times an ad is displayed.
        • spyrochaete, on 01/09/2008, -0/+26Until very recently I just blocked all ads. Now that I use AdBlock Plus I block all ads by default but whitelist the websites I love and trust. Unfortunately, for reasons stated above, Digg is not one of those sites.

          http://adblockplus.org/en/
        • Otto, on 01/09/2008, -13/+1Looking at a site's ads doesn't help them at all unless you also click through on them.
          • SydBarrett420, on 01/09/2008, -0/+9Dugg down as false.
          • daborg, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Right. Which is exactly why showing ads help them. Otherwise there would be nothing to get interested in and click on.
      • trickyt, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Digg has ads?
        • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1I didn't know this until reading this digg. I always use the free FireFox (FF) browser on my pc since it's much way better than the Internet Explorer (IE) browser. I installed a free addon called AdBlock Plus and I have Webroot SpySweeper running in the back ground so no wonder I never see ads on this site
    • rwallen, on 01/09/2008, -4/+8I do think ads are neccessary as large sites need to pay for bandwith, but they do need to draw the limit somewhere. There are sites out there like http://www.mixx.com and http://www.linkbin.com that dont have any ads, but strangely enough without ads it feels like something is missing. My eyes don't have anything to ignore.
      • l2OI3, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1Holy crap your right, it makes them feel like new startups.
      • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Advertisers can all go to Hell IMHO
    • timdorr, on 01/09/2008, -8/+1Why not just have sponsored stories mixed in with the normal feed? You're almost guaranteed to get a ton of clicks. Plus, they would be non-intrusive compared to banner ads.
      • mcnearcj, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7Your Idea is good but I think that's against what digg is all about, user added content.
      • Firehed, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Then it stops being community/driven.

        Unfortunately for Kevin and Co., most of the Digg users are the type that will net a site exactly $0 in ad revenue (given a sufficiently intelligent advertiser, anyways).
        • rwallen, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1That's not really correct. The advertisement plans on digg I looked into were a set limit. It didn't matter how many people acually click. I believe it was $60,000 for a banner ad for 1 day. So digg is making some nice cash based on it's huge traffic.
      • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5I don't want paid-placement stories on Digg.

        No way, no how.
        • patik, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3What if they were clearly marked, for example with a different color Digg button or background? Someone would work out a Greasemonkey script to get rid of them and we'd be fine.
    • optimus_maximus, on 01/09/2008, -4/+6congratulations! you have just won two free ipod nanos...
    • LordByr0n, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Doesn't it make you want to punch it in the face?
    • dotlizard, on 01/09/2008, -0/+18it's not just annoying. it's a given that any number of us are surfing digg at work, and websites that yell at you are definitely NSFW.
      • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2They can get you in deep trouble at work if the boss hears shouts and screams blaring from your cubicle.
    • Draakan, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8I can honestly say that I have never clicked on a ad of any kind on the net. So I do not feel one bit of shame blocking something that has no chance of ever catching my attention.
    • tyywebb, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Quit yer whining and get abp. Now sound off like ya got a pair.
    • raju1, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1yes they are annoying.
  • uptown, on 01/09/2008, -2/+396I'd left ads active on Digg.com until this point. Last night when that ad fired off, I changed my mind.
    • oldbalddude, on 01/09/2008, -21/+9I will drop Digg altogether if this doesn't go away forever very quickly. I inadvertently woke my wife at 5 AM because of this thing, and I won't do that again.
      • SydBarrett420, on 01/09/2008, -9/+4Might I ask what you are doing on Digg at 5AM?
        • Matteos, on 01/09/2008, -4/+13Looking for NSFW Tags?
        • CedEx, on 01/09/2008, -3/+5The more applicable question for a true digger is "Why WEREN'T you on digg at 5am?"
      • Dwebtron, on 01/09/2008, -4/+2why wasn't he doing his wife?
    • signal15, on 01/09/2008, -0/+101I turned on adblock on Digg yesterday because of this. I don't need banner ads alerting any coworkers that I'm not working.
      • op12, on 01/09/2008, -4/+10The mute button also works for that.
        • mugsoh, on 01/09/2008, -1/+13I shouldn't have to disable ALL sound to not have to listen to idiotic ads.
      • gimlik, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1... I block Flash as well. Digg doesn't use it.... yet. But I love it for other sites.
    • Ajenthavoc, on 01/09/2008, -0/+19It's kinda funny really. Yesterday night I watched Transformers and forgot to turn off my speakers before going to bed. Well I have developed a morning routine of surfing digg during breakfast and this unfortunate morning my daily mood (which usually starts out high) was immediately impaired thanks to that wonderful ad blaring through my action-movie-volume-set speakers.

      While I've known about adblock for a while, due to principle, I never installed it. I always figured that since running the site isn't free, I should check out the ads I find interesting and 'contribute'. Even despite the vastly annoying, epileptic inducing "YOU ARE VISITOR 999999999 AND HAVE WON A PRIZE!!!!!" ads, I stuck to my principles. This though was the concrete block that crushed the camel's everything. The second an ad gets that intrusive, I'm gonna take measures to protect my mental well being. I'll probably never end up visiting another digg ad again.
      • happyseamonster, on 01/09/2008, -9/+2That's what you get for DL'ing Transformers. : )
        • XBSHX, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Who said he downloaded it?
        • OptimismPrime, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2There are these arcane I/O devices called "Optical Disc Drives" which enable people who have Multimedia Content on so called "Physical Media" to be accessed by your computer.

          I have reason to believe he might have used such a device to watch a copy of Transformers he bought in a store on said Physical Media or maybe rented it somewhere
    • superfuxxorr, on 01/09/2008, -6/+2Or you could actually work.
    • Xerces, on 01/09/2008, -4/+1Maybe thats what kevin rose wanted. He can't get rid of the ads, so he found one he knew we would all despise. We must now raise our voices.
  • Necoras, on 01/09/2008, -3/+313I looked at every other tab I had open before thinking to check digg when my computer started screeching last night.... I didn't think digg would sink that low. BOOOOO DIGG!!!!
    • Rocketbird, on 01/09/2008, -0/+18I agree. Also, has digg not been completely loading for anybody else? It never times out, but the tab shows the little rotating wheel thing saying it's still loading something, and it'll stay that way forever, as if it's constantly trying to receive data from some broken ad server.
      • IllBeBack, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7Yep, it does that sometimes for me.
        • musicbear, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I ALWAYS have to tell digg to stop doing something. And what is it waiting on? google analytics? the ad server that will never connect due to ad block? Though I can't count the times prior to ad block that I have 404 failed to connect windows instead of ads.
      • trvr, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2Are you running Firefox 3 beta? I had the same issue with the beta. It sucks, bad.
        • Rocketbird, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah I'm on 3, but I had the same thing happen on 2.
        • Bennito, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I second that motion.
    • j2diz, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT AN IPOD NANO IS
  • geekchic, on 01/09/2008, -43/+11While I also find audio adverts incredibly annoying - I also appreciate that websites need an income to operate.

    Yes, I probably would pay an annual subscription today to get Digg without adverts - but I certainly wouldn't have done that on day 1 of visiting this "unknown" website. So even with a subscription model, the site will still need to earn ad dollars from the vast majority of people who are not as addicted to the site as I am - and the worrying large number of people who expect websites to be completly free of charge - regardless of their back end costs.

    When I used to manage the publisher account for my previous employer, they had a policy of automatically blocking all audio adverts n their websites. However, despite that, the odd advert would slip past as the agency would upload their advert and not tell the distributor that the advert contained any audio content.

    I have not seen any audio ads on Digg myself, so I would be interested to know if Digg has a policy of blocking audio ads and these instances are advertiser errors, or if Digg actually allows audio ads on the site.
    • MillionsLivio, on 01/09/2008, -0/+12I've had the free ipod ad several times, this is not the odd slip up.
    • Rodalli, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Have also seen the ipod ad several times. Last night was particularly bad. I think I actually screamed at my computer at one point.
    • joeadk, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8"and the worrying large number of people who expect websites to be completly free of charge - regardless of their back end costs"

      Why is that worrying? If people would rather not visit a site than pay for it, they don't really offer a service worth paying for.
      • musicbear, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Kevin has always said that it would be free for the user, so while we can't really complain about something we don't pay for, it has become something many users like to integrate into the web browsing on a daily basis if not add its functionality to a commercial site and we certainly have a right to let Kevin know how we feel about functionality at that point.
    • arbulus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4"I also appreciate that websites need an income to operate."

      True, websites need adverts to generate income, but audio adverts are offensive. They invade my space without my permission. If you want to put audio in an ad, then put an "audio on/off" switch on the ad (turned off by default), and i find the ad appealing enough to hear it, I will turn the audio on.

      A street vendor downtown can tackle me as I walk by and punch the ***** out of me, then try to sell me his products. Yes, he definitely got my attention, but not in a good way, and definitely NOT in a way that will make me want to buy his products. That's what advertisers these days don't understand. When you kick people in the nuts to get their attention and then pitch them a product/service, they are NEVER going to buy it, plain and simple.
    • honorableSimon, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Buried for using "advert" six times in one reply.
  • MDKAOD, on 01/09/2008, -3/+125While I respect that a website functions off of ad revenue, (one reason I don't block ads) Digg used to have _some_ prestige. Having low standards for the ads displayed on your website really takes away from the experience. There is always another website one can visit.
    • hansonc, on 01/09/2008, -6/+17Digg has never had "prestige" Only krose fanboys think it does.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -3/+8seriously - you overrate this site and its ghastly blue interface. i think the prestige color theme was sampled right from the windows default theme.
    • SpectralSounds, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7I didnt block Ads on Digg until today when this Ipod nano ad started making noise. Now, they get no ad-revenue from me.
  • skarbreeze, on 01/09/2008, -19/+466Firefox > ABP (AdBlockPlus) > never even notice all this stuff you guys complain about.
    • dsmx, on 01/09/2008, -12/+110digg has ads?
    • Chompy, on 01/09/2008, -30/+25Seriously, how can anyone on this site still be using IE? There's no excuse, short of a locked down workbox. And if your workbox is locked down, get a new job.
      • duckyinc, on 01/09/2008, -8/+29firefox is that good for you to give up your job? Can't you feed your internet addiction at home or are you really addicted
        • Firehed, on 01/09/2008, -2/+5It's more a matter of how they're treating their employees. Unless you're a government employee, there's really no reason for it - blocking sites like digg only goes to lower employee satisfaction levels and increase stress. For some people, they couldn't do their job with a locked-down terminal (myself included), but for most it's more a matter of giving a little in order to keep the masses happy.
          • hansonc, on 01/09/2008, -2/+5If I had employees other than myself I'd consider blocking sites like digg... I mean I can waste time on digg but I don't want to pay someone else to do the same
        • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -2/+6obviously you've never administrated a network with 100 machines fully unlocked.

          1 word - *****.
          • musicbear, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1And off the rails the thread goes....

            iiiiiirrrrrkkkkk... crash.....
        • p0ss, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1SOE
      • Deranged, on 01/09/2008, -7/+1Yeah, if you are getting a new job because you don't want to use IE, you're probably making money through drugs and not worrying about your legit biz. But for some of us, the paycheck at the end of the week does a good job of saying "sorry you had to use IE all week to search digg"
        • Firehed, on 01/09/2008, -2/+7If your employer is that anal about what software you use, your employer sucks. I get a legitimate paycheck which does a good job of saying "thanks for doing what you're paid to do". I don't want to be paid as an apology, nor would I work somewhere that would give me such an experience. I'll frequently remote into my home machine for whatever reason (anything from needing to test something on a Mac because they don't have one here to starting a torrent downloading), keep my google reader, personal gmail, and IM running all day long, and yes, even browse digg, and they don't care. I've was screwing around on Google Earth while the CEO was walking by, and he didn't care. So long as I do my job, keep our customers happy, and don't do anything illegal, they really don't give a crap what I'm up to for the rest of the day.

          Posted from work.
        • SadForLeibniz, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0What Would Marlo Stanfield Do?
        • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1Your paycheck is actually saying "Thank you for working, instead of ***** around on Digg".

          You're just being dishonest in taking it.
      • simplenation, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2so you feel left out huh?
      • Cerebral, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Or just bring a thumbdrive with Firefox on it that runs FROM the stick. Note you can also use Ghostzilla as well.
        • imsteve22, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1unless (like my situation) there is a program that stops pretty much any game or browser or any foreign .exe file from being opened
          • Chompy, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Your employer sucks, it's time to get a new one. You know, maybe someone who trusts you.
        • Cerebral, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Yea sorry about that one then... I wonder if there is anyway that you can rename the .exe to something trusted like notepad.exe or winword.exe and it would still load? In other words does the filter look at the NAME of the .exe or the entire filepath?
    • bsddork, on 01/09/2008, -2/+32Help for the unknowing...
      1. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
      2. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/186 ...
      3. Surf w/o ads and help your favorite websites miss out on their $
      • op12, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4Or whitelist just your favorite sites (easy to do in ABP), and there's no negatives!
      • twentytortures, on 01/09/2008, -0/+13They don't get any money from me anyways, I never click ads. So if I never click them, I see no problem blocking them.
        • Cerebral, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5I never quite understood this. Who is clicking these horrible ads all over the place anyway?
        • TheVirus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+8Income from ads are also based on how many times they are viewed, not just clicked.
          • twentytortures, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Well, since the ads are blocked on my end, wont the system think that I'm viewing them anyways? If that is the case (I don't know, it may not be) then everybody wins. No ads for me, and they are still getting their impressions.
      • celkin, on 01/09/2008, -1/+74. ?????
        5. Profit

        *runs away*
    • mrjofo, on 01/09/2008, -6/+47So AdBlockPlus also blocks iPhone stories and Ron Paul references?
      • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5No, but there are Digg scripts you can add to Firefox to do that.

        Here, from Userland.org. These are just Digg related scripts. They have them for dozens of social networking sites, too.
        http://userscripts.org/scripts/search?q=digg

        Firefox is incredible.
      • zongamin, on 01/09/2008, -4/+1No but digg has preferences you goon
        • mrjofo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5It was a joke, chief. I don't really care about seeing those things.
        • tyywebb, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Plus you'd still see it in the comments. ***!!!RON PAUL '08!!!***
      • TomTruelle, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1iPhone stories?!
    • lava, on 01/09/2008, -7/+2AdBlock plus isn't working for me right now for some reason. Firefox says the plugin isn't compatible with my current version of Firefox. I'm on Firefox 2.0.0.11. I could have sworn I had it installed on this computer before I left on vacation.
      • Sabin, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I had the same problem with a firefox update breaking ABP. just remove and reinstall it, its still compatible even if the firefox update says said it isn't.
      • zongamin, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Install Nightly Tester Toolkit. This gives you the option to force all extensions to work.
    • beangawlowski, on 01/09/2008, -9/+27You keep using that symbol. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      • Rocketbird, on 01/09/2008, -1/+20It's often used in guiding people through steps. e.g. View > Toolbars > Customize
      • lukas88, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4inconceivable!
        • tyywebb, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2unbelievable!
        • bagelmaster, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Over 9000?
        • OptimismPrime, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1so....over HAL?
          (i get the damn DBZ reference, but can't help to think of 2001 when i see '9000')
    • danielsamuels, on 01/09/2008, -10/+1Shame AdBlock sucks on Mac.
      • Synchro, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Works just the same as on windows from my experience.
      • stalefries, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Huh? What are you talking about?
      • danielsamuels, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Makes Flash suck.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -6/+5All very well saying to use AdBlock but some of us aren't free loaders who actually want to support the websites we visit.

      But when websites sink this low it's no wonder some people resort to AdBlock. Websites dont realise they're shooting themselves in the foot over this one.
      • Protoss, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2I used to whitelist Digg in AdBlock, but after putting in those annoying nano ads, I must unwhitelist them...What ever happened to the Snorg Tees ads?
    • GLMonkey, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Those of us who use Firefox 3 Beta don't have the luxury for Adblock seeing that it is only supported for Firefox 2.
      • buckdog05, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Get Beta 2, i'm running it right now.
      • RobbieCrash, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Stop using beta software if you don't like the drawbacks.
        • NeilM, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2Stop encouraging stagnation.
          • RobbieCrash, on 01/15/2008, -0/+1Are you daft?

            If I'd said "Stop using beta software," your comment would've made sense. People trying to be bleeding edge and then being upset when things don't work is ridiculous. Those kind of people have no business testing software.
      • metalrock76, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Adblock Plus supports Firefox 3 Beta
        http://adblockplus.org/en/installation
      • Protoss, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Works fine here.
      • Featherlake, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Go back to Firefox 2, DUH!
    • Worldchrisis, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Yup, I haven't ever seen an ad on Digg
    • AjaxtheGoat, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1My sentiments exactly.
    • Featherlake, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1Shut up about Adblock Plus already! We know about it, some of us just don't want to use it because it blocks out more than ads.
      • ryan83189, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1like what?
        • KidFlash2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Commercials and solicitations.
        • bagelmaster, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Porn ads. They're like porn...but not...ICANMEETSEXYSINGLESINMYAREAFORSEX!!!!
    • Quicksilver4648, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3skarbreeze speaks the truth. I didn't know digg had any annoying ads.
  • emmanuelsotelo, on 01/09/2008, -6/+213There is nothing wrong with Ads, in fact I click on them whenever I see something worthy of my time.
    However, Ads with sound that plays automatically or those that take over your screen just create negative publicity.

    Dugg cause I HATE that damm "free APPLE ipod nano" Ad.
    • KingGorilla, on 01/09/2008, -9/+4but I do love free ipod nanos
      • Gimpishi, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Problem is, you never actually get the ipod...
    • asauterChicago, on 01/09/2008, -2/+29Ha, whatever Dude, I clicked that ad ten times, I have like 10 ipod nanos coming now, some Viagra, free penis enlargement pills, lowered my mortgage rate, and some talking smileys to put on my awesome myspace page. Excuse me while I get back to my job selling soap for Amway (only a temporary thing, there's a banker in Nigeria that's going to deposit 4 million dollars in bank account once I'm done paying the legals fees).
      suck it, loser.
      • xlneoMAXlx, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2LOL
      • grumpyrain, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5May I interest you in a purple gorilla to help you in your browsing? He will explore the Internet with you as your very own friend and sidekick! He can talk, walk, joke, browse, search, e-mail, and download like no other friend you've ever had! He even has the ability to compare prices on the products you love and help you save money! Best of all, he's STEPHEN HAWKING!
      • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Me too!!! I also had to get paid subscriptions to Netflix, BlockBuster, Playboy, Maxim, FHM, etc. in order to get a "FREE IPOD" that was never shipped to my address!
    • Rocketbird, on 01/09/2008, -2/+7It's funny cuz the picture isn't even of a nano, it's of a mini.
    • DeepNarcosis, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I still swear that the iPod Nano girl is Amber Mac's voice, I'm almost tempted to click on the link just to see if it's her....
  • ashmael, on 01/09/2008, -1/+104Ads are an interesting problem. If you shove your product in my face, not only will I now recognize your product and brand, but I will hate it and avoid it at all costs. I'm definitely not the average person, but that's my take on it.

    Similarly, if your content is spread out on multiple pages so that I see multiple sets of ads, I will ignore your content, recognize your website brand, and hate it and avoid it at all costs.

    The same with pop-ups, and the same with sites that require e-mail registration so they can sell your e-mail address to spammers.

    Website owners need to look at how they can change their tactics so as not to drive away the very customers they are seeking.
    • ryan83189, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5agreed, if i were to visit a forum, and knew the answer question, then i would have to take 5 minutes to regester, just to help somebody. It just makes it not worth it.
    • Vektuz, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3If adverts have such a negative impact on you, why not install adblock plus?
      You'll actually be doing advertisers a favor. One, you wont be using their bandwidth and wasting an impression, and two, you wont be negatively biased against their product.
      • logic, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Interesting perspective.
      • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1You still pull the ad - adblock just doesn't display it - check your cache if you don't believe me.
    • booticon, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1So when you see an advertisement you go out of your way to avoid the product? How else are you introduced to new things besides word of mouth?
      • HarryTruman, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6The real question is this: what "new" or useful products have you seen advertised lately? I can't recall seeing anything that isn't complete ***** being advertised on 99% of the sites I visit. Most of it is stupid ***** like "free this" (ipods) or "free that" with some gimmick. The worst are those terrible 3D animations of people dancing about a mortgage or loan -- MSNBC has those all over the ***** place and for some reason they piss me off to no end.

        But I think what Ashmael is trying to say is that if someone forces an ad on him, or presents it in a generally annoying fashion, then he isn't willing to try that product. And anybody that's taking any type of marketing class knows that there are tons of ways to advertise besides annoying internet ads.
      • Testiculese, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1He's talking about idiot marketers making idiot ads. I'm not an idiot. He's not an idiot. You probably aren't an idiot either. Would you buy something someone shoved in your face, or would you back away?
      • grumpyrain, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I think you can make a distinction here between ads which are unobtrusive and big flashy banners with sound. Ashmael claims to not be the average person, but the reaction he has is not abnormal. Consider what you do when you are confronted with one of those annoying fire-sale ads with the yelling guy. If you are like me, it motivates you enough to flick channels, both robbing the advertiser of any chance of me buying one of their products, and also robbing the TV station of a viewer for the next few minutes (or longer if I find something more interesting on some other channel).

        I think a good example of advertising is most Google ads. They do not take copious bandwidth. They do not flash. They do not block the content I am trying to read. They do not move around. They do not make sounds or use other techniques. They are also the most effective at converting clicks to dollars.
  • CoolGoose, on 01/09/2008, -10/+140I don't disable the ads because i understand (not like other people) that a site needs $ for it to survive. Servers don't come cheap nor is the bandwidth. The problem is that those new ads are so ***** ANNOYING. I miss the old google text ads that were actually sometimes useful.
    • Nitesmoke, on 01/09/2008, -1/+20I disable the ads because I have never bought anything from an ad. Lots of people don't use credit cards, me included. Audio ads do much more harm for their product than good, and it usually isn't even the manufacturer's fault. Apple isn't the one making the "free iPod Nano," ads but I won't get a Nano, now because every time I think about it, all I can remember is how at 3am I was offered a free one at 2000 decibles. This is why everyone who doesn't like ads should be using Firefox with adblock. Digg will never make a penny from my ad revenue, so no point in annoying me into not using the site. But if you don't use adblock, you really have no right to complain. Its like driving a car with no brakes, and you get mad when it doesn't stop.
      • celkin, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1*bashes Firefox, praises Opera, and runs away*
        • orijimi, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Because Opera doesn't block ads, it's better?
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4"But if you don't use adblock, you really have no right to complain. Its like driving a car with no brakes, and you get mad when it doesn't stop."

      So you're saying that those that want to support the websites they visit have no right to point out when websites are abusing this privilege. I don't block adverts because I appreciate websites like Digg, but when they ***** up their advertising model it's up to us to give them a kick up the ass rather than quietly back down and block adverts.

      If everyone blocked adverts then half these websites wouldn't exist including Digg - server farms and bandwidth cost real money, hate to break that to you. It's all very well freeloading off other visitors but telling everyone to block adverts and saying they have no right to complain unless they do is pretty lame.
      • Nitesmoke, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1So you are saying they have the right to use ads, but only the ads you like? Of course they have the right to use ads, but I have the right to block them. Since you didn't understand my point, I'll spell it out for you and the rest of your friends from the short bus. I NEVER EVER CLICK BANNER ADS. Digg makes no money from me clicking that crap. The only people who should not use adblock, are people who buy stuff from ads. If you choose not to block the ads, you know you will get the occasional audio ad, don't bitch about it. Digg has the right to use ads, I have the right to block them, but you don't have the right to tell Digg which ads they can or can't use. It makes no sense to not block ads, then bitch about them. Idiot.
        • SpasticThinker, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4Love these guys who can't have a discussion without resorting to name-calling. Of course Digg has the right to display whatever ads they please, but rather than just blocking them, why not take the time to let the company know that you will be viewing zero ads if they choose to continue displaying the one you don't like? Give them a chance to change before you block them completely?

          In reference to your initial comment, why would Digg care if you used the site in the first place? They don't need your belligerent comments, and they don't need you wasting their bandwidth. Hopefully Digg finds a way to annoy you enough to go find somewhere else and save us the pissy attitude.
        • GreenAlien, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I don't usually bother replying to people that resort to name calling but anyhow...

          "I NEVER EVER CLICK BANNER ADS."

          No need to shout. I understand English fine thanks. But also bear in mind that some advertising models use impressions rather than click-throughs. So you'd be supporting the site even if you dont click on them.
  • banq59, on 01/09/2008, -0/+49That ipod nano ad is horrible and the reason why I am now adblocking the site.
    • arbulus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I block the ads because they cause a digg thread to take 5 minutes to load.

      Digg thread with 300 comments + 2 big ass flashy ads and 3 sets of google liner ads = slow as molasses
  • kevinrose, on 01/09/2008, -20/+766Argg, this absolutely sucks, we are working on getting this yanked and avoiding these ads in the future. No ad should auto-play sound... Thanks for your patience and congratulations you've won a free ipod! Kidding kidding...
    • plasticated, on 01/09/2008, -67/+22Nice one Kevin... Serving these kinds of ads makes you look bad, and to be honest it makes Microsoft (your ad provider?) look even worse! Thanks for listening to the users :)
      • Fixthemedia, on 01/09/2008, -2/+48IPOD NANO SAYS SHUT THE ***** UP
    • trunkster, on 01/09/2008, -10/+156Thanks Kevin, I'm glad you guys are taking notice and going to do something about it.
      • digjam, on 01/09/2008, -5/+4same comment posted by the above user plasticated and got buried (-29 at this time) and you get +98 ... NICE NICE!
    • DarkSamus, on 01/09/2008, -51/+10wtf is up with the two comments before me

      yeah, as if getting rid of the sound is really hard, just stop with the flash ads, you're already filthy rich
      • OUberLord, on 01/09/2008, -2/+19Well, the ad space is likely just rented out by an actual ad company that puts up ads of their choosing. Either way, it's nice to see Kevin stepping up and doing something about it.
    • collinmurphy, on 01/09/2008, -13/+27Thanks Kevin. I'm glad you understand how much audio ads would ruin Digg's good name.
    • penguinshome, on 01/09/2008, -7/+21Thanks for the initiative Kevin.
    • tjkisst, on 01/09/2008, -15/+4The ads are kinda ok, the torture of sound makes it annoying.
    • Nougat, on 01/09/2008, -4/+14It makes me simply long for the days of the X10 spy camera ads.

      And it's got to be nice to be able to feel the pulse of your patrons at a moment's notice.
    • Anonymouz, on 01/09/2008, -5/+15It's not just about ads auto playing sound(although that is cardinal sin numero uno), some of the ads on digg are really not that good or even very interesting. Honestly i don't mind ads on digg (if i owned the site i would probabily do the same) as long as they're non obtrusive and sell or advertise something worthwhile, most users i think would be willing to put up with em, we all need to make a living (*coughs* get filthy rich).

      "2 free ipods" i didn't think digg ads would stoop to such a sucky level! What next $0.99 Viagra??!
      • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -4/+5Notice what you did there? You gave YOUR opinion. Bravo.

        What is worthwhile and useless to you could be the opposite to me. Until digg starts doing deep analyzation of each member and displaying ads customized to their known interests there will always be ads and products that are and aren't worthwhile - in your opinion.

        Advertising something you are already interested in really isn't advertising is it?
        • fantasticjon, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2The only time web advertising is really effective for me is when I go to google to do a search for something I want to buy, then I might click on a sponsored link and actually buy something. Other than that most web ads are useless.
          Anonymouz is right. The ads displayed from microsoft are more annoying and less pertinent to the type of person that uses digg. Those T-shirt ads were not too bad. The worst was that one add with the old lady cleavage. Google did a better job with ads.
        • Anonymouz, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I don't think it takes deep analysis to work out digg ads suck at the moment! Again it is my opinion but one many digg users seem to share. My comment was also a general one implying digg ads need to improve. Seeing as digg was or is primarily a technology focused site this is an interest all digg users would share in common hence it's a category perfect for the type of ads digg should deploy. How can a false advert e.g. "2 free ipods" be of any use to you?

          BTW I think digg already customizes their ads to users based on what country their in.

          --"Advertising something you are already interested in really isn't advertising is it?"
          I said the ads are not very interesting NOT the product, maybe appealing would have been a better word to use.
    • Abatrour, on 01/09/2008, -2/+33Kevin, there are also more ads that are very obtrusive. Like this one http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2029991181 ...

      Or any other ad that goes "outside" their adspace.
      • SpectralSounds, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9Chances are, that add is because you have spyware. Ive never seen anything like that on Digg and I just installed an adblocker today because of this Ipod ad.
        • Abatrour, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4No I don't have spyware. Its an ad I got a few months ago.
      • heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1Excuse me for not clicking the link to the ad. I'll take your word that it sucks.
        • verivalta, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5It's just a screen cap posted on flickr....geeze...
      • digjam, on 01/09/2008, -5/+2How was your conversation with Bonny by the way.... and looks like u are in vancouver..:D
    • Vektuz, on 01/09/2008, -1/+23How about all animated or flash adverts are not allowed?
      Obtrusive, animated adverts are there purely to draw the eye, which makes reading the site irritating and unpleasant.
      As well as those that break their containers.
    • sonofman1984, on 03/03/2008, -6/+23This post is a great example of why digg.com ROCKS!
    • dafragsta, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3At least you addressed the issue... you should make a post that you are aware of it. I agree with most here when I say I don't run ad blocking plugins because I understand the idea of monetizing the interwebs and getting paid for the work put in, but ads that auto-play or auto-popover are terribly annoying.
    • 1310nm, on 01/09/2008, -10/+7omagawd Kevin Rose spoke to me! /faint
    • linagee, on 01/09/2008, -7/+3Kevin,
      How did this actually happen? Is there some advertiser API (ads automatically placed?) or doesn't someone actually look at them before they get posted to the site? Kthx.
      • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6yah the digg ad review team previews all 45,000 advertisements that make it to their site per day. maybe you should go read how adwords works before thinking websites preview the advertisements and choose what they do and what they don't want.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -2/+4This is another reason why people should complain about these things. People that run popular websites don't intentionally go out of their way to piss off visitors so unless we let them know they won't realise the harm they're causing. Those that don't say anything and quietly activate adblock aren't helping anybody, especially because it sidesteps the website's revenue model. It costs Digg big money to serve all these webpages to us and if everybody turns into freeloaders then bye bye Digg.
    • lordtyros, on 01/09/2008, -8/+10WTF is with all these dickriders? Kevin, please let me fellate you tonight. C'mon guys, if you're so thankful, just digg him up and be done.
      • dafragsta, on 01/09/2008, -5/+8Their brush with pseudo-celebrity makes them wet themselves uncontrollably like a nervous little lap dogs.
      • sliksta, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1It's creepy is what is it. The way people trip all over themselves to get their lips on someones arse.
    • DrRossi, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7Please give me the option to buy an ad-free subscription. Yes, like the dreaded slash. There it costs me $ 10 or 20 a year. I hardly notice.
      I would like to pay for digg as well.
      • SLockhart, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Ad free subscriptions are already available. It's called adblock plus and it works on all websites.
      • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1can't digg just get voluntary donations from their fans in order to pay for their operating costs?
    • jus1haz2, on 01/09/2008, -2/+26Wow kevin rose commented on my article
      • dawger, on 01/09/2008, -1/+21You can now die.
        • jus1haz2, on 01/09/2008, -2/+8Hey all I am saying is that I'm really surprised it got this many diggs and that Kevin posted a comment. That means I somehow changed digg (although not really but I like to think that) and got the ads removed. haha
        • lehmon, on 01/09/2008, -1/+15I think what dawger was trying to say here, was that you fulfilled the purpose of life and can pass on now with honor.
      • svivian, on 01/09/2008, -9/+2Shame your "article" is one of the worst on Digg. Obviously it makes a good point, but it reads like the ravings of a moronic 10-year-old.
    • heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Doesn't Kev have a tool to give himself first comment?
    • sfacets, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Good on ya Kev.
      • mrosen310, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1i was like that the first time i've had two
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 01/10/2008, -14/+2*****< YOU KEVIN OSE

      ***** yeah i said ***** you to kevin rose
      • SKick, on 01/10/2008, -0/+13No...no...you "said" it to Kevin Ose, instead.

        Fail.
    • kutateli, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5Who is Kevin Rose??
    • supporter12, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3he has posted only because he saw alll those comments about adblock,
      i say install adblock nonetheless !
    • SKick, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1I think it's time that Digg places a nice MIDI on each page. Everybody loves MIDIs.
    • sclifford, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Thanks, dude. A while back, I had my first ad-induced seizure with the flashy you're #10,000 ads that were in all three spots. Vomity head-splitting vertigo goodness. The flashing pop-under was icing.

      These ads were everywhere for a while, not just on Digg, so lamentably I had to install ABP.

      I found the Google Ads useful - surely Microsoft has something halfway decently comparable.
    • Gizmo679, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0damn it where is my free ipod :P
  • blackmage439, on 01/09/2008, -2/+27Just got one for the first time this morning. At first I thought Digg had the nerve to spawn pop-ups. Apparently, they're not far from that. The old text ads were fine. It seems the sale of Digg has degraded whatever loyalty the site once had to their fans. Digg, stop becoming some kind of bastardized MyDiggSpaceBookJournal.

    Due to the emergence of this new, irritating form of "dynamic" advertising, I will be implementing AdBlock without remorse. I have no problems with advertising; free websites are always a plus. My problem is with disregard for a pleasant viewing experience.
  • darny, on 01/09/2008, -5/+25Adblock?!
    • Featherlake, on 01/10/2008, -4/+1Shut up about Adblock Plus already! We know about it, some of us just don't want to use it because it blocks out more than ads.
    • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Right On! AdBlock fights corporate and other stupid ads day and night 24/7
  • Schneckehaus, on 01/09/2008, -5/+15I never blocked ads because I appreciate Digg making money, and thusly giving us a good site...
    But if that stupid apple one doesn't shut up, I will disable ads in my browser again.
    • Neiby, on 01/09/2008, -4/+11You think Digg is really going to miss any revenue if you block their ads?

      Ads = clutter + distraction. I hate them and I never, ever click on them anyway.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3"You think Digg is really going to miss any revenue if you block their ads? "

      You think Digg appreciates people viewing/clicking their adverts so they stay in business? Don't try and belittle/discredit the opinions of one person - he has a valid point.
      • Chakat, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1You know, they could do like every other successful web forum and offer subscriptions.
    • K3ITHK, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Thus was an adverb to begin with, I don't know what that "thusly" garbage is about.
  • collinmurphy, on 01/09/2008, -1/+9I have no problem with any advertising that does not have audio that plays. Please dear god make the free ipod nanos stop. whats next? Talking smileys?
  • godisdead, on 01/09/2008, -3/+12Let's try and beat the HDDVD key removal digg count on this one guys - that ad darn near scared me to death
  • darkbob87, on 01/09/2008, -5/+63People are saying "use AdBlock! use AdBlock!" This is obviously true, but the point is we shouldn't have to on a site like this.
    • mhanley, on 01/09/2008, -1/+14yea, we get it... you want to support Digg by allowing the ads. Me too. But when they become overly intrusive/abusive/annoying, I feel justified in taking steps to avoid them. I find all of the irritating "Digg fuxking sux!" posts just as annoying! I'll quietly turn Adblock on, and maybe turn it back off in a few weeks and see if things have quieted down.
      • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1That's what's great about AdBlock Plus besides being free ad blocker. You can choose to let it display or prevent ads from appearing on your favorite websites
  • Ghoztt, on 01/09/2008, -10/+9Firefox + Noscript
    'nuff said.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -2/+4Firefox + Noscript = Broken Interwebzzzz
    • ninja0, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2firefox + noscripts = no popus, not no in-website ads.
    • Featherlake, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Shut up!
    • MnMs, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, noscript disables javascript. But most of the ad networks (doubleclick, google, adbrite, etc) now use javascript to serve up their ads. So noscript does a good job of blocking ads as well.

  • cavie2002, on 01/09/2008, -1/+16i was JUST thinking about this 2 minutes ago i heard that same ad twice, but im sick of that girls voice i here it everywhere for xboxs iphones and more, god help her if i ever hear her talking on the street
    • DeepNarcosis, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Dude, I'm telling you, it's Amber Mac's voice....
  • brbeaird, on 01/09/2008, -2/+44Thank you for finally pushing me over the edge to download adblock.
    • KidFlash2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2I'm impressed with it. My optical nerve thanks you, all.
  • stealthboy, on 01/09/2008, -3/+31Google text ads or nothing. Sorry, but annoying a potential customer doesn't really work. I can't stand watching football anymore (live) because of all the dumb truck commercials. They apparently think that if they show the same frikking ad to me for 43 times, I'll suddenly change my mind because 42 times just didn't do it.


    • sfrench, on 01/09/2008, -1/+17"This is ourrrrrrrr country"
    • Smuikas, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4Google text ads are cost-per-action (ie, website owner only gets money when the ads are clicked). The most prevalent pricing model on banner ads, however, is cost-per-million: how much the advertiser is willing to pay the publisher per million impressions of the ad.
      • logic, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Actually, no. CPM means cost-per-thousand. M is the roman numeral of 1000.
    • motiontomove, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1You hit the nail on the head my friend.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2It worked for Ron Paul - oh wait.....
  • floatingpoints, on 01/09/2008, -10/+6If you've gone this long without using adblock, then that's your own dumbass fault.

    Quit bitching and use it, otherwise, don't ***** worry about what digg puts up.
    • tacroy, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3No.
      You see I WANT digg to be able to support itself, cause its neat, so I don't ad-block Digg. However, I don't like my computer yelling at me. So, I have two options : Either ad-block (and deny digg cash) or request that digg remove the ad.
      • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1You CAN whitelist Digg and selectively disable ads with a right-click option, thereby leaving all of them visible except the ones you specifically block.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1The third option would be to turn down your volume its like adblock for audio.
  • Slungsolow, on 01/09/2008, -19/+3boo hoo, free content isn't free. boo hoo.
    • OUberLord, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Hardly any of the content on Digg is made by Digg, it's all user generated. Surely the site can use ads that are blatantly obnoxious to cover it's operation costs.
  • bSimms, on 01/09/2008, -9/+4Your blog sucks, at least capitalize things.
  • LazyZombie, on 01/09/2008, -3/+3I think its pretty bad when you click on how the audio ad fails, and you get the audio ad like I did.
  • Minus0, on 01/09/2008, -10/+17Digg has Ads?
    • Featherlake, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2STFU!
      • DrunkenSavior, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Do you work for an ad agency or something? You are hounding every comment that offers good advice.

        Oh, and before you get to it: Yes I do work for people who think adblock has made the internet more enjoyable.
  • pencilneck, on 01/09/2008, -2/+22The talking banner ads are like when I'm trying to play video games and then my wife comes in and starts talking about her feelings.... bad timing and ***** annoying.

    I don't have a problem with simple banner ads and every so often I'll see something that captures my interest and click... I've never made a purchase based on a banner ad though.
  • Monkeydew06, on 01/09/2008, -5/+0I hate all the ad's on digg... except for one...
    The one where there's a person, trying to start a business, and the mouth of the person moves like a ventriloquist doll. You know which one I'm talking about. I don't know why, but I'm compelled to watch those.. every time cause there sooo odd.
  • TheAngryPirate, on 01/09/2008, -3/+6Hey, the site is free to view and comment upon, and I'm all for the owners of said site making money where money can be made... But ultimately, if folks go away because the ads are so annoying, their ability to make funds will dwindle. I can ignore blinking, dancing and the like, but after the fifth time I heard the annoying iPod chicky, I had enough.

    Am I to turn my volume off before viewing Digg?
  • RizenBB, on 01/09/2008, -3/+5As lame as most of MySpace advertising is, at least a lot of the text product-placement ads are relevant to my interests (information on Subaru WRX performance parts, metal band stuff, etc). I hate random un-targeted ads, and I especially hate ads that have audio where the only way to shut it off is some obscure tiny "X" or "Audio Off" button that if you misclick opens the ad. I haven't seen any audio ads on Digg yet, but they infuriate me on every other site. Ugh.
    • MicrosoftBob, on 01/09/2008, -2/+4Dugg for being a performance-enhanced-Subaru-driving headbanger.
    • RizenBB, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I like how I'm being dugg down on this comment.

      /wrist
      /internetisserious
  • Goodanswer, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4 I will not even look at one that screams at me when I first come in, like a Mrs Doubtfire that hasnt seen you in years.
    HELLOOOOOOO!
    At least for now they dont call you by your first name like in Minority Report. That would mean WAR.
    I will not listen and, I CERTAINLY wont click on it. not to mention now that I hate your product for interrupting my train of thought and distracting me.
    I have no problem with SILENT ads that are funny or amusing.

    (ipod nano sucks, too.)
  • vigorously, on 01/09/2008, -1/+12If only I had a in-browser shotgun, I'd shoot her.
    • Nougat, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6PUNCH THE MONKEY
    • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Have the spammers gotten around to making an animated ad yet called Choke the Chicken or Beat the Monkey?
  • RedXlll, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9Ads are fine, just not that one. Anything but that! Do they seriously know how much it torments us?
  • Goodbyeworld, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9Congratulations! You have just won 2 free iPod Nanos!
  • dennisk85, on 01/09/2008, -6/+7DIGG should be ashamed of itself for allowing this type of advertising! This is so annoying that if they continue it, I will be forced to stop using DIGG. Is this what they want?
  • ElAssoWipo, on 01/09/2008, -9/+7Too bad this guy is stuck in 1998. He might want to try one of hundreds of free ad blockers.
    • happyseamonster, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1He knows about it, he's complaining about a certain type of ad... it's better to allow ads so sites you like can make money, but the ads don't have to be intrusive and obnoxious.
  • Mightyc, on 01/09/2008, -7/+10What banner ads?
  • ebrake21, on 01/09/2008, -9/+1Buried due to unoriginality and the fact that I'm tired of listening to people whine about banner ads. Write Digg a check and maybe then they'll take down the ad.
    • heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1You had something going, then you decided to write a retarded conclusion...
  • WorkingDead, on 01/09/2008, -2/+6For ***** sake, cant you just use god damned Google Adds, and let us get on with our life? Its not ***** rocket science. Between the spam and the adds, I'm seriously about to give Fark another chance.
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2AdBlock works great there, too.
      • happyseamonster, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1...but if you want the site to make money, but not with obnoxious banners...
        • Chakat, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Then tell them to offer subscriptions or the like. It's not rocket surgery, y'know.
  • aGoodFisting, on 01/09/2008, -5/+3loose stool ads bother me the most...its like it knows...scary...rawr!
  • cheeser83, on 01/09/2008, -6/+1I almost cried. I didn't know where it was coming from and then my worst fear was confirmed; it was from my favorite website!
  • Flowbee, on 01/09/2008, -1/+9I just re-installed PithHelmet for Safari. Bye bye Digg ads.
  • cawfee, on 01/09/2008, -3/+2Accept donations and put more interesting / witty stuff in the store. I'd throw in a dollar a month to keep the site ad-free, and if all users did that or more, you'd have your server costs covered.
    • Tweekster, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4This site is not about covering their server costs, it is about making money
      • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1they should sell Digg merchandise than so digg geeks can buy Digg gear like coffee mugs, pens, pencils, backpacks, etc.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1LOL this isn't a game server douche bag, try infrastructure - NOT A SERVER. Server costs are paid - now what about the employees - oh they'll work for peanuts.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Also, site donations do not work. My-symbian.com which is a popular forum said they get 10's of thousands of users but practically nobody will donate. A tiny fraction of 1% which doesnt remotely cover the server costs. It's unfortunate but most website visitors are freeloaders.
  • lebatte, on 01/09/2008, -3/+8Ads in general aren't too bad, but the notorious "2 free iPods" ad should not be allowed.
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Censorship!

      Bad idea? Yup. Make them "not allowed"? That's getting touchy there, Sparky.

      Just use AdBlock and quit your damned whining about it.
      • happyseamonster, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Networks, site owners can communicate with ad agencies with what is suitable and what is not. No big deal. Listen to a classical music station -- when a car ad comes on the guy WON"T be screaming in your ear, he'll be speaking softly and reasonably.
    • Rileyper, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1not as annoying as the buzzing fly and the flyswatter
    • raloeldorado, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Advertisers can go to hell!
  • mcnicks, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3The only adverts I have ever clicked on are those small Google text adverts, when I have spotted a UK company that was selling and I have thought, "hey, I will give them a try and see what their prices are like."

    I don't think ad-blockers are a great solution because they fail the "what if everybody did it" test. There are plenty of web sites that need the ad revenue, and widespread use of ad-blockers will cut that off. Surely the best long-term solution is for the producers and the consumers to come to an unspoken compromise: keep your adverts reasonable and relevant, and we will keep viewing them.

    Surely advertisers know that yelling will not get you new custom?
    • niviche, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2> Surely advertisers know that yelling will not get you new custom?

      I wish you were right, but "real life" advertisement sadly shows that they don't.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Does adblock block just the annoying adverts or also the text-only Google adverts? If by default it blocks everything instead of allowing the text adverts through then that's pretty poor. Not only does the site owner not get revenue from this but it's not encouraging site owners to use text-only adverts instead.
    • happyseamonster, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Though- with the threat of ad blocking, advertisers may try to not make their ads so obnoxious.
  • Misinformant, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9"9. Top ten lists suck!"

    With emphasis on your list.
    • jus1haz2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2You think it was actually supposed to be a list...I was making fun of the fact that everyone on digg is obsessed with top 10 lists.
    • sfacets, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1More chances of getting to the front page ...smart thinking.
  • digitalpencil, on 01/09/2008, -7/+13Oh STFU! this is Digg for God's sake, everyone in here knows full well how adblock works, use it or don't, but quit bitching about ads that keep the site going! More importantly, although it's an nano ad that pissed you off.. why the ***** is this in the Apple section?!?
    • ElAssoWipo, on 01/09/2008, -5/+6Because only a mac user would not figure out how to block ads.
      • Ozzsanity, on 01/09/2008, -4/+2I don't know how to block ads
      • MeatBiProduct, on 01/09/2008, -4/+2Install a a waterwall, it sits in front of the firewall and blocks ads.
  • TritonX, on 01/09/2008, -2/+5Unsolicited sound effect from a web site is BAD and it's a practice that should be punishable ;), just kidding. But it is very annoying to be listening to loud music and browse at the same time. You pass your cursor over these damn ads, and you almost do a stroke.
    • GrooTheWanderer, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2It IS punishable. The punishment is loss of advertising revenue.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Firefox needs a mute button.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 210 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.