Skimlinks adverts

Not got an issue with skimlinks myself, do agree they should be double underlined though.

Instead of protest why not think of an alternative method of them generating this revenue?

Would really suck if bit-tech went behind a pay wall or became for CP subscribers only

 

A side banner down the forums perhaps? So long as they weren't a flashy/spinny/eats CPU ones, fine by me. They are out of the way there and provide a *lot* of extra space.

 

This is very disappointing bit-tech.

You may well think that these skimlinks only annoy a very small portion of your users but its these hard core of forum members who are responsible for the majority of the content in the forums, and the vast majority of debate and comment on the articles and reviews you post.

It's this community that lends legitimacy and weight to bit-tech and makes it into the vibrant, bustling website it is, not the people who find you through Google.

Please don't be so short sighted to think that you can ignore the opinions and feelings of the hard core forum members just because they make up a relatively small amount of your traffic.

 

I dont have a problem wth advertising, I do have a problem with my posts being modified without my permission. Why the hell should we think of a way of generaing money, 99% of all posts on bit-tech are made by the users free of charge which in turn generate hits on the banner adverts. Without the forum users then bit would be nothing. In this business the customer is king and if we want to protest we damn well will. If the heads at Dennis choose to ignore this thread and decide to keep these links then they will suffer massive financial losses.

 

So far, from what I can see they have lost £31.98 per month in this thread alone? There's a thin line between trustworthy and dubious. I wont be giving my money to something so close to said line.

 

I've always seriously disliked forums with Skimlinks and various similar services. They interrupt the flow of the posts and mean I end up checking each link before clicking. They cast doubt on whether people are genuinely linking to a product or have been skimlinked.

Also, many of the products being linked to here are tech related for obvious reasons, I'm probably not wrong in saying that most members already have a chosen vendor(s) from which they make their purchases.

I've never bothered with ads before and never used AdBlock but I really can't stand Skimlinks so I've installed AdBlock for chrome. When Skimlinks are removed then I'll happily disable it.

 

You mean like the Videoegg video banner ads which just aren't tailored to their audience (tech users on a tech site.) Had to rip the earphones out of my ears after accidentally triggering one.

 

I've not been a regular user of bit-tech for a while now, seeing the red link in Pookeys signature was a bit of a shock.
Reading through this thread even more so.

From the cases I've seen, the simlinks are pretty annoying - the older versions did have an alt-text attached which wasn't so bad, but the recent cases just seem to appear as "standard" links.

The biggest shock for me is the apparent lack of communication between the forum/site mangers (whoever they may be) bit-tech members and especially the bit mods. The divide seems to be pretty clear and somewhat unanimous.
While I understand the business needs of sites such as bit-tech and their reliance upon advertisements as an income stream, given the current (and historic) response to inline-links/ad's it seems an odd decision. It smacks a bit of "screw the regulars, lets cash in on the passing trade" - not a great way to build up and manage a thriving community.

I wish you guys every success in getting rid of the simlinks - but also consider the commercial side of bit-tech. I'm not saying keep the links, but maybe be prepared for some compromise in ad's elsewhere to keep the site up and running.
For those holding the purse, don't alienate your community - listen to their concerns and work with them to make a profitable site while also covering your commercial requirements.

 

^^This. If I logged in one day and found one of these links in one of my project logs. It's
the last time I post on this forum.

There are alternatives though, non of them are very appealing but ads just aren't, are
they? I've seen banner ads between posts and at the top, inside the thread. A column
down one side or both, there are lots of ways to be seen without tampering with peoples
posts.

 

No, they're really annoying as well, far too easy to trigger. I seem to find when I switch to a tab with one on, they pop up without me realising I'm doing anything. Then take ages to load before I can quit them! (I have actually mentioned them in another thread)

 

For the time being, people should just use codewords so that Skimlinks cannot automatically link words, even if that means spelling things wrong deliberately.

Or is the service smart enough to see around that?

 

I do agree with all that has been written *against* Skimlinks in this thread so far. No need to reiterate.

A line has been drawn in the sand (somewhere ) and WE SAY NO TO SKIMLINKS AND OTHERS OF IT'S ILK! At least in the forums.

 

if skimlinks is not removed I will leave bit-tech and cancel my subscription for the custom pc mag

you may get money from skimlinks but you will lose money because of it plaguing our once loved forum

 

I'd just like to reiterate to everyone that the bit-tech staff are reading all your comments and are talking with management about what do with Skimlinks on the site/forum. This is because we do care what you, the readers/forum posters, have to say because you are our customers.

Unfortunately however, the decision on what do with Skimlinks isn't going to be made after a few days and certainly not over the weekend.

However, once we and the suits are back in the office next week hopefully we can get this unpleasant situation sorted out.

 

...and that was when custompc.co.uk was closed - taking my project blog along with it. I remain angry that CPC offered no warning on the old site - it appeared on the Bit forums with 3 days warning before total deletion - which I only spotted months afterwards when I finally relented and signed up on Bit-Tech.

It also took away the one website on the net that did high-end reviews in a few paragraphs, without going on for multiple pages of detailed analysis. All I care about is whether the reviewer thinks it's worth buying or not. CPC did that perfectly and had no competition. Bit is no different to any other tech website on the web in that regard and I always find myself reading only the 1st and last pages of the reviews. I know that I'm probably in the minority, but I remain angry about the closure of the CPC site and the manner in which it was handled.

In addition, that I'm seeing skimlinks in this thread shows a complete lack undestanding from Dennis and the staff Bit-Tech regarding the content posted by the users of these forums.

Agreed - I usually only linke to websites I used to purchase from and have had good experiences with. Allowing skimlinks to modify my posts without my permission isn't on for that reason, especially as it will has the potential to link to products or websites that I may not personally want to recommend.

To me, they need to go - the fact that the Intellitxt inline ads are still here and across other Dennis websites, even though the poll on Bit-Tech previously posted had not one vote for "I might find them useful" says everything I need to know about milking a website for every penny. It also suggests that, despite overwhelming opinion, the users were ignored and Intellitxt links remain - something, I fear, tells me that history will repeat itself.

It's simple for me. No Skimlinks. At least with Intellitxt, the green colour and double underlining make it obvious they're ad links. Skinlinks tries to decieve by using the same colour as user-inserted links making it very difficult to tell the two apart. For that reason, if they stay, I'll move on.

 

How about a compromise -provision of an opt-in/out item on our profiles that we can edit to allow/deny skimlinks on material we contribute? that being reflected in how skimlinks interacts with the forums would, I think, quell the rebellion to some degree.

I too am a CPC migrant that was happier with the old forum. I've stopped buying the magazine.

 

Please show them some of the fine arguments their customers have made in this thread. I would also like if you could ask them why it was implemented without warning. And finally, how will you prevent something like this from happening again?

 

Can you please ensure it is made as obvious as possible to the suits that without the community this site would be worth jack sh*t, making their purchase of bit worthless.
Our free content makes bit what it is. Their insistance on altering our posts for their own financial gain is not acceptable.

By all means place banner ads between posts and on the sides of the forums like other sites do, but do not alter our content.

 

Once again, I'd like to recognize the work you and the rest of the staff are doing on this. I think we all recognized this wasn't your decision and that you've been working on our behalf to rectify it.

 

However you can lose alot of members over a few days, especially a weekend.
Bit of common sense would of suggested to introduce skimlinks where if a situation like this does occur that you have time to sort it out.
You will be surprised at how forums like this are held together by a small group of people, get some of them leave and its like a landslide.

Skimlinks was a very very stupid move, from how it was introduced to how its being handled now, a lot of people gave dennis publishing a benefit of a doubt after the whole intellitext scenario but now with Skimlinks on top you will have convinced people you are here to make money only.

(replace you with Dennis Publishing, im fully aware that your just the poor bloke in the middle and by god do i not envy your job right now)