SOUND ON SOUND

[desmond]

Yep. It's notable what message that words convey to the reader, and what the individual reader's takeaway about the originator of that message is.

Thanks for highlighting this so well. :clap:

[ConcertinaChap]

I don't see the point you're trying to make. What does it say about the site policy? If you think it's "Nothing for a serious user" then that is so transparently bullshit that I must assume you mean something else.

The site needs money to survive. I don't like ads either, particularly ones that flash so I also keep my ad blocker on. However I hugely value this site and I want to see it survive so I compensate for this by taking out an online subscription. I still see the message but it's not really very much in your face - the people who run this place are pretty considerate in the main.

CC

[zenguitar]

It is sad that someone who has principally used this site to promote his label is so lacking in understanding of what it costs to run a website and how simple it is to whitelist a trusted site in most adblockers.

Happy to piggyback on SOS's search engine optimisation, but unwilling to contribute in the slightest.

Andy :beamup:

[shufflebeat]

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

I think the point is, "I'm unhappy about an unconnected matter and everyone should know".

It usually is in these cases.

[S2]

Your f****** nag screen 'Disable adblocker' tells us something about your site policy in general. Nothing for a serious user.

As someone has already pointed out, words are such powerful things. You could have got exactly the same message across - maybe in the form of a question and the resulting posts would have been so different.

Also I can never see the point in swearing but with a load of asterisks. I have nothing against swearing in general though I don’t myself, but if you can’t actually do it (due to the forum limitations) then it’s rather wasted.

I must confess I’ve never found the ads too bothersome and I don’t have the adblocker on. I’m sure you’ll get used to them in time.

[shufflebeat]

Also I can never see the point in swearing but with a load of asterisks.

I think it makes me sound #+@#ing hard when in actual fact I'm a bit of a jessy.

[Sam Spoons]

TBF you are a big jessie Shuff... :D

[Martin Walker]

It is sad that someone who has principally used this site to promote his label is so lacking in understanding of what it costs to run a website and how simple it is to whitelist a trusted site in most adblockers.

Happy to piggyback on SOS's search engine optimisation, but unwilling to contribute in the slightest.

And I suspect it also tells you something about the sort of people that help run the SOS Forums that despite this outpouring from nr-ads-0 about the 'SOS nag screen', we have thus far left up all the posts advertising his label releases.

:headbang:


Martin

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think he was having a bad day... :lolno:

[Eddy Deegan]

Your f****** nag screen 'Disable adblocker' tells us something about your site policy in general.

I agree. The fact that it's a nag screen and not a "turn it off or you can't access anything" screen speaks volumes about the site policy in general.

Nothing for a serious user.

Does that mean we shouldn't take any of these seriously?

Hey there, Out now ...

Thank you both Mr. Spoons and Mr. Perret.

Your advices were very helpful.

Hello, Please have a listen to our latest addtions on Bandcamp

Hello, two current releases on Austrian label Natal Rec. are out now ...

If I had been you, doing what you do, and given that Sound On Sound is the biggest magazine brand in the industry, that it has a huge SEO presence, has freely let you promote your own stuff and is read by a large number of very well known people ...

... then before clicking 'Submit' on this post ...

Your f****** nag screen 'Disable adblocker' tells us something about your site policy in general.

... I would have chosen my words more carefully. I think the tone of your post tells us (and perhaps more to the point, everyone else reading this) something about your personal attitude in general.

[shufflebeat]

TBF you are a big jessie Shuff... :D

Yeah, and don't you forget it!



...um


...yeah.

[Dynamic Mike]

I use Adblocker on my PC but not on my phone. Seems like a reasonable compromise. I frequently open the Ads on my phone, mostly due my diminishing vision & coordination, as they're always dangerously close to the forum index! The only time I intentionally clicked on one that really tempted me, I was saved from GAS because it was out of stock.

I generally use startpage but if forced to used google I refuse to click on a sponsored link.

[Watchmaker]

I have a subscription and I click ads to drive traffic, but I'm not a serious user.

[wireman]

I'm more annoyed by other things in the modern web...

• Paywall barriers (US news sites), Don't allow your site to be indexed if you do this.
• Complicated cookie preferences
• Facebook hiding what should clearly be public information if you are not a user
• Having to agree to ridiculous terms and conditions to view some sites.
• Forms that have impossible to fill in fields or requirements

But in the end people who run a site can decide how people access and use it and the site often exists to make a profit from the visitors.

So far I have not taken out my frustration with angry posts or violence towards my computer.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Just in case anyone isn't aware of what the OP is complaining about, the window above is displayed once when the SOS site is opened in a browser running an ad-blocker. It is a polite request to consider white-listing the SOS site, simply because SOS relies on income from multiple sources, including web adverts.

It is removed and the website accessed normally with a single click and it doesn't reappear at all in the remainder of that browsing session.

So it's really not a big deal, and certainly not one that warrants online abuse and throwing toys from prams...