Please be aware that I do not endorse any of the products being advertised by Proximic at the bottom of the side bar on the right. I am responsible for the content of the side bar on the left and, of course, for all of the written material on this blog, but I have no control over the products that appear in the "Related Ads", or, for that matter, anything in the column on the right.
If I had my way, the Proximic ads would be removed altogether, because they look very tacky and, more importantly, they advertise rubbish such as the Neurology & Psychology of Masculinity audio cassette, by one Dr. Philip Mango, who is associated with a dubious-sounding organization called the National Forum on the Theology of the Body.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I've often written of "black holes of stupid" that threaten to rupture the fabric of the space-time continuum, so dense and full of stupid are they. Such black holes tend to come from places like the wretched hive of scum and antivaccine quackery known as Age of Autism, the wretched hive of scum…
The fallout from the social media firestorm from the antivaccine rant written by the Medical Director of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute and published by Cleveland.com last Friday has abated but far from faded away. The offending physician, Dr. Daniel Neides, was forced to issue an apology…
I'm not sure what to think of Michael Siegel. I'm really not. Even now, I remain of two minds on him.
Dr. Siegel first came to my attention back in July, around the time I was getting into online tussles with a certain opponent of indoor smoking bans, before which I had never heard of him. He's a…
I realize that I've been neglecting my woo. Indeed, yesterday I noticed that it's been a month and a half since I did a real Friday Dose of Woo. Of course, that particular installation of my long-running blog series (over two and a half years!) was some incredibly powerful woo. In fact, it was…
I don't go around suggesting software to people (let alone OSs), but Flashblock means I don't even see those ads...
Good point Ridger. I forget to suggest that readers who have not already done so might like to install some ad block software.
Another solution is to use Firefox with the Adblock Plus and NoScript add-ons. As The Ridger, I didn't even know what you were talking about until I turned them off.
Vonnegut told us that the Tralfamadorians communicate by tapdancing and farting. So does the advertising industry.
Aren't the ads in the right sidebar how you make money from your blog?
If you don't "endorse" the ads, doesn't principle dictate that you don't accept the revenue?
One more thing: Is it really ethical to accept ad revenue after suggesting to your readers that they use ad-blocking software?
I didn't understand what you're talking about, and then I remembered... Firefox. yeah. :)
Funny, but my ads are about solid cherry wrap-around bars (as in for the dispensing of alcohol), sunglasses, and Verizon phones.
Our cookies tell all about our tastes..... (or whatever the thingy is that Proximic reads to determine what we might be interested in).
Anthony: I don't receive any of the revenue generated by the ads, and I see nothing wrong with telling readers that I don't endorse them, because I want to dissociate myself as much as I can from the products.
Mo: Anthony didn't challenge you on the ethics of announcing you don't endorse the products. He specifically was concerned about you suggesting that your readers use ad blocking software.
And although you receive no revenue from the ads directly, presumably you entered into an agreement with ScienceBlogs in which you a) understood and agreed that they would place ads along the top, right, and bottom of the page; and b) determined that you benefitted sufficiently from the arrangement to allow them to do so.
So the questions is whether you're getting the benefit while also seeking to undermine ScieceBlog's benefit.
The way I see it, Anthony's is a moot point, because my miniscule renumeration hasn't change since the ads were placed. Plus, I wasn't the one who brought up ad blocking, and I would not have, had it not been for the first comment.
Personally, I think it's quite alright to speak up against those ads. Maybe the people who run scienceblogs will at least consider thinking about whether these ads really suit scienceblogs.
Another user of NoScript and AdBlock here. However, I suspect a polite complaint to the SEED Overlords would get the offenders booted off the Scienceblogs site rotation PDQ.
It is perfectly correct to speak out against the ads since the reality is that you do not endorse them and nor are you responsble for them. So it is right to say so lest there be any confusion.
Raiko agreed. If enough sciencebloggers speak out, then perhaps that particular arrangement would be looked at more closely.
David: the SEED people insist on keeping the ads, despite many complaints.