# Aw, Snap popup



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Is it intentional that paid TC Club members are subjected to this?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Just got that too. At some point, they were messing with the add-on and everyone was getting the message (club or not) so maybe they are tweaking again. Pretty sure that we should not be seeing it, as club members.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Should TCF Club members be seeing this?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

David must be playing with it...along with customizing the message.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Should be good now.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Cool! I could whitelist the forum but I like blocking the huge logo at the top.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

I just got it at work. I assume their firewall or whatever blocks some ads from banned sites.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

I could simply whitelist as requested to stop this harrasment...or I could simply remove the bookmark from my browser and never visit again. I'll let you guess which one I choose.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Big Deficit said:


> I'll let you guess which one I choose.


I'm going to guess neither.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Any chance we could decrease the frequency of how often it pops up? I've gotten it about 8 times today alone. I realize it's purpose is to be annoying, but we don't want to be TOO annoying, do we?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

It's this or each click.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

So what triggers it? Time? Seems to happen every time I come back, but not during my session.


----------



## JandS (Oct 1, 2010)

I whitelisted the site in AdBlockPlus but the nag popup still happens in Firefox. I think it's related to having NoScript on.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Right now it is set for once per hour. FYI...I am waiting for an update so I can do it based on minutes, so it will get worse. The site has lost a lot based on people telling others to use an adblocker. Add to that that it looks like TiVo, having been sold, may stop supporting the site, well, I have to do what I have to do.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

There are people still paying for ad views? Not clicks, but just views? That doesn't seem like a very good business model in todays Internet. I thought those were long gone.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Nope...It is views and you get more for clicks. And if more people click ads on a site, then the cost to even be viewed on the site goes up as it has a higher chance of a click. But we are talking $X per 1,000 views. So it could be $1 per 1,000 views or less. So as you can see, it is important.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

I can't find the cost for the TC club, but I don't remember there being a lifetime option. I don't know if others are like me, but I'd be more likely to buy a lifetime membership than paying every year. One forum I'm on was $25/year or $200 for life so I did the lifetime membership.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/community/index.php?account/upgrades


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

Mike Lang said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/community/index.php?account/upgrades


Thanks. Any thought of a lifetime membership?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Not sure. That would be up to David.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

mtnagel said:


> Thanks. Any thought of a lifetime membership?


Along the same lines...how about the option to purchase a gift membership?

Members do nice things for other members all the time. A comment by one member about the ads prompted me to consider, could someone gift a TCF Club membership to another member? Could this be set up?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Ozzie72 said:


> Members do nice things for other members all the time. A comment by one member about the ads prompted me to consider, could someone gift a TCF Club membership to another member? Could this be set up?


Sweet idea, buddy.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Ozzie72 said:


> Along the same lines...how about the option to purchase a gift membership?
> 
> Members do nice things for other members all the time. A comment by one member about the ads prompted me to consider, could someone gift a TCF Club membership to another member? Could this be set up?


I have not seen such an option. But nice one.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

It seems that Happy Hour gets most of the traffic here (but I could be wrong) and I know that a lot of HH regulars have migrated to the "other site" (although some post at both places). Seems that this pop up might just encourage others to do the same.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Could be.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

spartanstew said:


> Seems that this pop up might just encourage others to do the same.





David Bott said:


> Could be.


----------



## bkc56 (Apr 29, 2001)

So I added this site to my AdBlocker white-list. Now I'm flooded with animated ads fading in, moving around, and generally being a huge distraction. I think perhaps I'd rather click the dialog once-a-day when I visit than put up with all this visual "noise". And they wonder why people use AdBlockers....


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

bkc56 said:


> animated ads fading in, moving around


I always have ads active on the site and not once have I seen anything other just standard banner ads.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

I saw the popup today at home, but don't have Adblocker?

Haven't seen it at work where we couldn't have adblockers if we tried.

Also haven't seen any floating ads, just the standard ones down the side.


phox


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

phox_mulder said:


> I saw the popup today at home, but don't have Adblocker?


Thats pondering. Not sure why that would be other than if it had seen something else it thought was an ad blocker. Sorry Phox.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

David Bott said:


> Thats pondering. Not sure why that would be other than if it had seen something else it thought was an ad blocker. Sorry Phox.


I don't have Adblocker per se, as in any browser addons, but I do have a pretty big hosts file that very well be seen as Adblocker by the forum software.

I had forgotten I had that.

phox


----------



## bkc56 (Apr 29, 2001)

David Bott said:


> I always have ads active on the site and not once have I seen anything other just standard banner ads.


Perhaps our definition of "standard" varies. I would consider a standard banner ad one that is displayed with the rest of the page (does not fade in after a brief delay) and is static (does not have animated or moving components). My eye is drawn to motion, which I find distracting. Of course that's EXACTLY why advertisers use it, to draw attention away from the page content to their ad. The problem is I'm here for the content, not the ads.

I figured I'd white-list the site because, while I never view ads and NEVER click on them, it was an easy thing to do. But the ads are more distracting than the popup. So I optimized to the least painful thing.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

bkc56 said:


> Perhaps our definition of "standard" varies. I would consider a standard banner ad one that is displayed with the rest of the page (does not fade in after a brief delay) and is static (does not have animated or moving components). My eye is drawn to motion, which I find distracting. Of course that's EXACTLY why advertisers use it, to draw attention away from the page content to their ad. The problem is I'm here for the content, not the ads.
> 
> I figured I'd white-list the site because, while I never view ads and NEVER click on them, it was an easy thing to do. But the ads are more distracting than the popup. So I optimized to the least painful thing.


At the risk of being proved wrong, I'm pretty sure DB's response was meant to say ads that are "displayed with the rest of the page." I'm by no means the most active visitor to the site, but I don't think I've ever seen pop-up ads associated with this site. I'm inclined to think that the annoying pop-ups are NOT related to the general ad service used on TCF.


----------



## bkc56 (Apr 29, 2001)

I'm not talking about pop-ups.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

My apologies; I thought your comment was related to the pop-up discussion. I forgot that you'd mentioned "animated ads" in your post. Having said that, I think my comment about pop-ups stands. I'd amend that comment to add that I'd assume that your experience with ads is based on evolution of the ads themselves rather than anything specific implemented by David. This wouldn't be the first or the latest site served by advertisements to display "live" ads (in motion, video, etc.) to users. Like it or not, in 2016 it comes with the territory.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

Ozzie72 said:


> Along the same lines...how about the option to purchase a gift membership?
> 
> Members do nice things for other members all the time. A comment by one member about the ads prompted me to consider, could someone gift a TCF Club membership to another member? Could this be set up?


It is technically capable of being done on XenForo, as on a few of the forums I admin we did that, but it's a manual process where we adjust the subscription to reflect the gift-receiver and not the gift-giver.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

bkc56 said:


> Perhaps our definition of "standard" varies. I would consider a standard banner ad one that is displayed with the rest of the page (does not fade in after a brief delay) and is static (does not have animated or moving components). My eye is drawn to motion, which I find distracting. Of course that's EXACTLY why advertisers use it, to draw attention away from the page content to their ad. The problem is I'm here for the content, not the ads.
> 
> I figured I'd white-list the site because, while I never view ads and NEVER click on them, it was an easy thing to do. But the ads are more distracting than the popup. So I optimized to the least painful thing.


I think you just asked them to make the ad block pop up more painful...


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

I got this nag today (despite having my adblocker disabled), just as I was clicking from a thread index to a thread. (The nag was on the page I was leaving.) Maybe this happened because the ads hadn't finished loading, yet? All the ads on this site seem to be loading very very slowly, today.


----------



## Zephyr (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm not understanding yet... I added tc to Firefox allowed pop-ups and still get the incessant message. What sould I do next? Thanks.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

This is about ad blocking and has nothing to do with pop up blockers.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Yes, I get it everytime I return to the main page this morning.
Firefox - exactly what should I do to help David and turn off these nagging banners?


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Every time? It is set to have a timer of 5 mins for guests and 30 mins for registered users before it will show again. So it surely is a browser setting I think. Are you using cookies?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

David Bott said:


> Every time? It is set to have a timer of 5 mins for guests and 30 mins for registered users before it will show again. So it surely is a browser setting I think. Are you using cookies?


Apparently, the timer isn't quite functioning--sometimes it works along the lines you mention, at other times, I'll get the interruption a few times in a few minutes (as a registered user).


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Mikeguy said:


> Apparently, the timer isn't quite functioning--sometimes it works along the lines you mention, at other times, I'll get the interruption a few times in a few minutes (as a registered user).


I have tested this now 8 times and have yet to not have it come very close to the time that has been set. I am using Chrome.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

BTW...It is cookie based.
There's few cases in which you may see the alert more frequently:

You switch browser (cookie is not shared between browsers)
You logout and login again in the same browser (logging out clears all cookies)
The permission is changed (if we change the value of the permission, all users will see the alert again to refresh the counter based on the new value. But we do not do this often.)
So if you have anything that does something with cookies, that could be it.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

It's also attached to a page though.

For example:

Go to new posts (get pop up).

Click on a thread from there.

Go back to the page you were just on (new posts) via the back button. The pop up will come up again.

Rinse and Repeat.



If you are using New Posts often, you'll get the snap pop up about every 60 seconds.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> It's also attached to a page though.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


And that seems to be my scenario, going back and forth between sections.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

I sent a note to the developer. He will try to reproduce it.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

When I use the back button in chrome, I'll get it back to back times, but if I simply click another link on the site, like the watched threads link, then I only get it the one time when I initially come to the site. I just assumed that it was my fault for using the back button.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

mtnagel said:


> When I use the back button in chrome, I'll get it back to back times, but if I simply click another link on the site, like the watched threads link, then I only get it the one time when I initially come to the site. I just assumed that it was my fault for using the back button.


You are not far off in thinking that as the back button will load the complete last page, all content, thus it would be running the same call to call up the notice. My guess is that is if you were to come to the site, get the notice, clear the notice, go to next page, and then do not click back, but move on, you would be fine. After that, as long as you do not click BACK all the way to the first notice page, I would have to think you would not see it for at least 30 mins.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

David Bott said:


> My guess is that is if you were to come to the site, get the notice, clear the notice, go to next page, and then do not click back, but move on, you would be fine. After that, as long as you do not click BACK all the way to the first notice page, I would have to think you would not see it for at least 30 mins.


That has been my experience.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Just to report on that, I just read through a 13-page thread and the notice appeared at least 3 times as I read forward through the thread, as I passed on to the next page. (And I did not spend hours on the thread, lol.)


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

I sent a note on the the developer as mentioned and got this back...



> Ok I can confirm this. It's an edge case..
> 
> When you click the back button, it shows you a reflection of the page without actually reloading it.
> 
> ...


This is what I thought was going on. But he will see if he can work around it. Not sure how though.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Mikeguy said:


> Just to report on that, I just read through a 13-page thread and the notice appeared at least 3 times as I read forward through the thread, as I passed on to the next page. (And I did not spend hours on the thread, lol.)


Operating system, browser version, Ad blocker name and version? I can send the info on.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Mikeguy said:


> Just to report on that, I just read through a 13-page thread and the notice appeared at least 3 times as I read forward through the thread, as I passed on to the next page. (And I did not spend hours on the thread, lol.)


This can happen when user has multiple adblocks installed. (sometimes without knowing that)

Do you sees ads on the site. If not seeing ads, then it must mean there is a second adblocker running.

Not sure if you are whitelisting the site or not or just clearing the notice.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Win10, IE11, AdBlock Plus for IE v. 1.5. And I'm not aware of having a second blocker; IE doesn't reveal any other and I don't have a separate OS-wide ad blocker (unless Windows Defender counts, lol)--just verified under Task Manager's listing of running programs and processes.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Mikeguy said:


> Win10, IE11, AdBlock Plus for IE v. 1.5. And I'm not aware of having a second blocker; IE doesn't reveal any other and I don't have a separate OS-wide ad blocker (unless Windows Defender counts, lol)--just verified under Task Manager's listing of running programs and processes.


Are you whitelisting the site or just clearing the notice? (Was not sure on that and thus the issue could be different.)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Clearing (the site's ads seem to overwhelm my tablet and cause it to crash).


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

There's two ways of dealing with back button issues I can think of offhand.

My preferred, which you won't like for the same reasons, is to use cache settings that prevent pages from being cached so using a back button automatically causes a fresh copy to be retrieved from the server side. This way one always gets the latest versions of pages where this paging method is often used (seeing new posts), instead of old cached versions.  This of course requires synchronizing form-related (HTTP POST) things in some manner to avoid issues because of that.

The other way should be usable with just some client-side javascript code involved in the popup, allowing locally stored state info about whether the popup has already been shown. The state info should persist within the cached info (maybe that can differ a bit from different browsers, but there'd be other ways, like using Javascript to retrieve/set a cookie to save that state). And if you're using logic to only present it every X seconds, then the state info could be retained as a timestamp so that even the back button behavior could remain mostly consistent with the server-side behaviors.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

It sounds like once the nag banner is dismissed, if the browser page is then refreshed, the nag banner should not pop up again for 30 minutes no matter how one navigates. If that's the case, how about having the dismissal of the nag banner call a page refresh of the underlying page?


----------



## pgoelz (May 1, 2005)

David Bott said:


> Right now it is set for once per hour. FYI...I am waiting for an update so I can do it based on minutes, so it will get worse. The site has lost a lot based on people telling others to use an adblocker. Add to that that it looks like TiVo, having been sold, may stop supporting the site, well, I have to do what I have to do.


Well, OK. It is your site. Go ahead and do what you need to do. But as a user.... someone you rely on to VIEW your site..... I'm here to tell you that I will either stop using this site or visit it FAR less frequently unless the nag screen either goes away altogether or becomes a lot less annoying. Is that really the best outcome for you?

I get it.... you need either membership or ad revenue to support your site. And some ads are acceptable. But given the onslaught of highly annoying (and time and data consuming) ads these days I am forced to use an ad blocker. I gave in and currently have this site whitelisted. But with it whitelisted, it is now so heavily infested with ads that take up space and seriously slow page loads that I will not accept whitelisting it as a long term solution. And like many people, I don't react well to being FORCED to do something.

So I urge you to find a better solution. The current settings are going to eventually force me away from your site, and I doubt that one less pair of potentially ad-seeing eyeballs is a good outcome for you.

Paul


----------



## direfan (Jun 28, 2002)

Now I guess we have the reason for the switch XenForo, so that the nag screen could be setup. The only result of this is I will be visiting much less often.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Seeing it is NOT part of Xenfono, but an add-on, nope, not the reason. Even Vb sites has a plug-in now along with a lot of other main sites doing the same type of message. So if not visiting here, I guess that means you also will not be visiting other places. At least I have it set for every 30 mins vs all the time like say Forbes which you can not ready unless you unblock it. (Not saying you read it or want to, it is just an example.)

All in all, if you were in my place, I have to think you would do the same to try to cover costs.

BTW...in regards to be "forced" to do something....you are not. You can X out the notice and should not see it for another 30 mins. If you are on the site site longer that that....welll.....  

(Actually, we have a lot of long time members that spend a lot of time here chatting with others that is not even TiVo related. To all of those members I can only say thanks and that I enjoy reading the posts. After all, I did purchase the site back vs it selling to someone that did not really care about the community. Doing so costed me six figures. But I did so to protect the site and the long time members. I am not sorry for trying to make that back by putting up a message about ad blockers.)


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

David Bott said:


> a lot of other main sites doing the same type of message. So if not visiting here, I guess that means you also will not be visiting other places.


While I'm certainly not a member of every forum, I am a member of a lot of them. The only ones where I've seen this message are sites that you own.


----------



## direfan (Jun 28, 2002)

David Bott said:


> At least I have it set for every 30 mins vs all the time like say Forbes which you can not ready unless you unblock it. (Not saying you read it or want to, it is just an example.)


See I think this is where the problem lies. It may not be working properly because today every time I used the back button or went back to the message list, the popup returned.


----------



## pgoelz (May 1, 2005)

David Bott said:


> BTW...in regards to be "forced" to do something....you are not. You can X out the notice and should not see it for another 30 mins. If you are on the site site longer that that....welll.....


If that is how you think you have it set.... it isn't how it is working for me. I get the pop up just about EVERY time I hit a page and then use the BACK button to go back to the list of threads. I'm using up to date Chrome with uBlock Origin.

30 minutes between nag windows would be quite acceptable. Whitelisting it would also be acceptable if the ads weren't so horribly intrusive and CPU hungry.

Again, I get it. You need ad revenue to support your site. But the way it currently is working is going to drive me away.

Paul


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

direfan said:


> See I think this is where the problem lies. It may not be working properly because today every time I used the back button or went back to the message list, the popup returned.


If you use the back button, it will pop up again. It's discussed earlier in the thread.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

You just have to know how browsers work. The back button doesn't load a new page so you're reloading the pop up.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Try this the next time it pops up - click the X to dismiss it, and then reload the page in your browser (press F5 or click the reload toolbar button).

Then use the site as you normally would.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

The best thing this site could do to get me to disable my ad blocker is figure out a way to make the ads load faster.

When I tried turning off my ad blocker, I was shocked by how slow the site became.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Nothing this site can do about that - first the server needs to decide which ad to serve and then to serve it. Not under control here.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

stevel said:


> Nothing this site can do about that - first the server needs to decide which ad to serve and then to serve it. Not under control here.


Using an ad network that provides a more responsive feed methodology would be one way (not saying such a thing exists ).


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

stevel said:


> Nothing this site can do about that - first the server needs to decide which ad to serve and then to serve it. Not under control here.


I'm sure, but it's still a problem. If the ads are still as slow as they were before I used an adblocker, turning it off isn't an option. I understand David Bott needs revenue, but ads, as they are now, are impossible to deal with.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

stevel said:


> Nothing this site can do about that - first the server needs to decide which ad to serve and then to serve it. Not under control here.


Just saying what needs to be done to get me to turn off my ad blocker again. If there's nothing the site can do about that, then there's nothing the site can do to get ad revenue from me.

But I suspect there are some things the site can do. Things that come to mind are:

1) Put pressure on the ad network to fix things.
2) Choose a different ad network.
3) Display fewer ads. (Fewer ads + fewer users with ad blockers might actually increase revenue.)

I'm not saying those are all feasible, but on the face they seem to be.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Another way is IN ADDITION to the ad network ads, also serve ads locally that are less likely to be blockable if one avoids separating things by domains or by scripts using identifiable tags/names for advertising.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

In the past I would recommend paying for TC Club to support the site, but the price for that has gone up so much that it may force me off the site when my current membership expires.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Isn't it only like 7-8 cents a day for a 2 year membership?


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Mike Lang said:


> Isn't it only like 7-8 cents a day for a 2 year membership?


Times 12 for the other forums that I visit. So, now it would be several hundred dollars per year for me to visit forums that interest me.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Hi...

I will now close this thread as it is just a few people going around and around with it and I have explained all I can about how this works. Unless you have worked with ad networks and understand how they function, you would have no idea on how complex it is. I will leave you with this...

As far as speed goes, other than reducing the number of ad calls, that speed issue is NOT on our end. Our main provider, pubgalaxy.com uses the Google Ad Services platform (DoubleClick) so the calls happen VERY quickly and all at the same time. One call to the Google Ad Services server asks for an ad for X number of slots. This happens with one call. At that point, ads come down from various places and are NOT served from our server. So if the ads are loading slow, it is do to the routing your provider is taking to pull down the ads from the various locations. This would not be "Just on this site" as it is how all ad networks operate.










I am on a slow connection in an RV Park right in AZ. I have NO speed issue with ads running on the Cox network they are using. I have ALL the ads loading, I do not turn off ads as I want to see them just in case. It all comes down to the speed and routes of the provider.

We are doing what we can to balance the operation of the site with the over all user experience. We have always had ads, nothing has changed in that regard. (Even the same provider.) The only thing that has changed is now we can detect and alert people that are using ad blockers to please consider not using one. If you care to use one, thats fine. But you will get a notice.

Here is a video on how it all works if you care to know.


----------

