Advertising

[martin_wynne]

21 minutes ago, Neil said:

Time to pull the plug on this thread perhaps?

 

Definitely not. Why are some people always so keen to close down someone else's discussion? If you are no longer interested, the solution is obvious -- stop reading it. RMweb already locks topics at the drop of a hat, don't encourage them.

 

Martin.

[Huw Griffiths]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

people have ... gone away to bus-spotterforum.co.uk

 

Wow! That sounds exciting!  

 

I wonder if they've got some decent photos of that Bristol RE, which got rebodied with a prototype of some new coach body - which only otherwise got used on mid-engined chassis, some of which were recalled due to structural weakness around the rear luggage locker ... .  

 

I mean ... I'm sure they must have even more exciting stuff just like this. I can't wait ... to give it a really wide berth.  

 

 

Huw.

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by Huw Griffiths

[Compound2632]

I'm training myself to ignore the little video running on the bottom right of the screen (I'm on a PC). Occasionally it provides a soothing distraction - I quite appreciate the gently swimming turtle. The next upcoming video pops up in a pop-up-within-the-pop-up a second or so before the transition. I was disconcerted when a caught in the corner of my vision a giant giraffe head and neck appearing out of the sea alongside a cruise liner!

[Neil]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Definitely not. Why are some people always so keen to close down someone else's discussion? If you are no longer interested, the solution is obvious -- stop reading it. RMweb already locks topics at the drop of a hat, don't encourage them.

 

Martin.

 

I've no desire to close down discussion but it seems to have got to that stage where it's going round in circles. Equally I have no problem if threads are closed when they've reached a natural conclusion, which this one seems to have. Adverts are here to stay for cheapskates like me but banished for the golden ones, with the possibility of a half way house on the horizon for those who are only semi-miserly.

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

Adverts are here to stay for cheapskates like me but banished for the golden ones, with the possibility of a half way house on the horizon for those who are only semi-miserly.

 

Cracking summary! 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

Cracking summary! 

Well then that’s exactly what you should have said in the first place….save all this carp! 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Equally I have no problem if threads are closed when they've reached a natural conclusion, which this one seems to have.

 

Hi Neil,

 

There is an easy way of telling if a topic has reached a conclusion -- folks stop posting. But that's no reason to lock it -- new information may come to light, circumstances may change, an error may need correcting, a new member may arrive with additional knowledge on the subject.

 

Martin.

[Andy Hayter]

I have had no problems with intrusive adverts

I have had no problems with videos in the middle of the screen.

It seems I don't even see all of the banners installed to inform RMWeb members of what is going on.

I don't have an ad blocker installed.

I am not a gold member.

I have had a BRM subscription for many years.

Despite several changes of modelling focus, I have no desire to sell my stock

So gold membership would bring me a big fat nothing.

 

The reason behind this ability to avoid the "evils" that others see is I think related to problems a few years ago where non-UK members seemed to be bombarded with non-advertising video content.  The solution to this I think has also inadvertently blocked the current adverts and videos.    I don't intend to advertise it, so don't ask.

 

The point of all this is to reiterate that Gold membership would bring me nothing.  I could argue that a silver membership might also bring nothing but if sensitively priced I would be happy to pay in support of the site.  If you want to be blinkered then substitute in support of the site with in support of Warners.  To me it matters not.

[MartynJPearson]

13 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

a new member may arrive with additional knowledge on the subject.

 

Sadly, given that previous suggestions have been met by accusations of telling Warners how to run their business, I suspect it's unlikely they'd bother sharing that knowledge. 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, MartynJPearson said:

 

Sadly, given that previous suggestions have been met by accusations of telling Warners how to run their business, I suspect it's unlikely they'd bother sharing that knowledge. 

 

Hi Martyn,

 

Some misunderstanding there. I was referring to the principle of locking topics -- any topic. Not the subject matter of this specific topic.

 

No topic should ever be locked (other than admin announcements which don't require any response and are locked from the start).

 

If a topic contains unwanted material, that material should be deleted, or the entire topic deleted. Not locked in place for ever more and indexed on Google for 100 years. It makes no sense whatsoever, and means misinformation can spread far and wide with no means to correct it.

 

Martin. 

[Andy Hayter]

What about multiple threads on the same topic?  Such as this one for example where I must have seen four or more parallel threads.  Does it really make sense to allow them all to run in parallel?

[Oldddudders]

9 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

What about multiple threads on the same topic?  Such as this one for example where I must have seen four or more parallel threads.  Does it really make sense to allow them all to run in parallel?

No, and if reported they will often be amalgamated to good effect. Anyone reporting a piece of 'news' when there is already a 3-page thread about it tends to get short shrift, though, and those 'stub ends' get closed off. 

[martin_wynne]

3 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

What about multiple threads on the same topic?  Such as this one for example where I must have seen four or more parallel threads.  Does it really make sense to allow them all to run in parallel?

 

Hi Andy,

 

No it doesn't. The forum software allows them to be merged into a single topic. All combined posts will be re-arranged in date order.

 

Alternatively, if someone starts a new topic exactly duplicating an existing one, the new topic should be deleted rather than locked. When content is deleted, the forum software can send a message to the contributor(s) explaining why:

 

 

Martin.

[Phil Parker]

6 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

If a topic contains unwanted material, that material should be deleted, or the entire topic deleted. Not locked in place for ever more and indexed on Google for 100 years. It makes no sense whatsoever, and means misinformation can spread far and wide with no means to correct it.

 

The problem with all this is it would require a much larger moderation team. They would need to be sitting watching the forum and all the postings 24/7/365. Bearing in mind people's reluctance to pay anything at all, dumping an extra four salaries on the overall RMweb bill isn't going to make things any easier. Not only would you need to watch all the posts, you'd need to be fully aware of all the threads on the forum so you can make decisions on whether threads should be merged.

 

As it is, the forum runs on a "best endeavours" basis - a good example is that I'm taking a quick look, replying to you and not being paid for my efforts right now. This is probably very acceptable for most people, but if you insist on a massive amount of work for no money, I'm offski.

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

if you insist on a massive amount of work for no money, I'm offski.

 

Whereas if Warners were to remunerate Phil in proportion to his efforts, he'd be off skiing instead.

[Phil Parker]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Whereas if Warners were to remunerate Phil in proportion to his efforts, he'd be off skiing instead.

 

I'm more worried they will remunerate me in proportion to results. I'll end up owing them money!

[melmerby]

23 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

I don't have an ad blocker installed.

 

How do you know?

Security programs e.g. Kaspersky Internet Security block certain ways of inserting ads by default.

Browsers e.g. FF may also block ads.

 

It annoys me that some sites are totally unusable (not RMWeb) unless you turn all security off. I steer clear of them.

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I'm more worried they will remunerate me in proportion to results. I'll end up owing them money!

Your secret's safe with us. For the time being. 

[Legend]

On 09/10/2021 at 15:02, Huw Griffiths said:

 

Wow! That sounds exciting!  

 

I wonder if they've got some decent photos of that Bristol RE, which got rebodied with a prototype of some new coach body - which only otherwise got used on mid-engined chassis, some of which were recalled due to structural weakness around the rear luggage locker ... .  

 

I mean ... I'm sure they must have even more exciting stuff just like this. I can't wait ... to give it a really wide berth.  

 

 

Huw.

 

 

 

I can’t see . There’s adverts on the sides of the buses . 

[Huw Griffiths]

7 hours ago, Legend said:

I can’t see . There’s adverts on the sides of the buses . 

 

Either that, or there's another bus on the same route, a few metres in front of it.

 

 

Although my post was a comment about the sort of stuff that I'd imagine might fill up a notional website about bus spotting, I referred to a real vehicle (which, as a prototype, found its way into a number of books and magazines).

 

The stuff about other vehicles with the same design of bodywork being recalled was also well known - others (including some in a town I worked in) also had completely different bodies fitted some years later.

 

For obvious reasons, although I only mentioned stuff that would be "checkable", there was plenty more that I didn't mention.

 

I didn't want someone posting a rambling reply - setting out mind-numbing details of how I'd got my facts wrong - followed by full operational details of every vehicle fitted with this design of bodywork (and, presumably, where some individual sourced a cheap, nylon, zip-up jacket, about 10 years ago - I definitely don't want to know where they buy the fish paste for their sandwiches).

 

 

Just for information, my coat is made of waxed cotton - as was the coat it replaced. I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea ... .

 

Anyway, I think that's enough about that stuff.

 

Huw.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Huw Griffiths

[Stubby47]

I've recently purchased the Gold / WoR package, so have not seen any of the adverts that have been so intrusive.

 

Andy has said that related advertising does not cover the costs of the forum, so additional advertising is required.

 

However, should I want to advertise a model railway related business on here, either as a shop or a service, I would not want the Gold membership to be excluded from seeing my adverts - it dilutes the potential customer base.

 

Is there the potential for creating a Advertising sub-forum for Gold members (similar to the back pages of model mags) where paid for adverts can be shown for those who choose to visit ?

 

Or, can (should?) model railway related adverts be included for Gold members as a sidebar?   

Edited October 11, 2021 by Stubby47

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, Stubby47 said:

However, should I want to advertise a model railway related business on here, either as a shop or a service, I would not want the Gold membership to be excluded from seeing my adverts - it dilutes the potential customer base.

 

Gold users should see trade ads - unless that has been thrown out with the bathwater at some point. I'll investigate.

[Oldddudders]

Apart from a BRM ad at page-bottom, I am not seeing trade ads currently. Like others, I am happy for their sensible placement in a side-bar etc. 

[Huw Griffiths]

In the past, I seem to recall some sections of this site having been sponsored by some model railway businesses.

 

I'm not sure if something based around this might be an option in the future - or perhaps a parallel advertising stream, administered by Warners, in which businesses which directly approach Warners (and are presumably reasonably relevant) get the opportunity to place header / footer adverts, visible to everyone.

 

One of the issues for many of us is that we're never likely to have much idea of the terms of any ad placement contracts sites like this have with Google (probably "commercially sensitive", for want of a better description - and quite possibly designed to favour Google).

 

Anyway, if the "Advertising sub forum" concept could be made to work, it sounds like it could be a good idea.

 

I don't want to stop legitimate, relevant, businesses letting us know what they have to offer - I doubt if many people here would want to stop them.

 

Totally irrelevant (and in some cases downright offensive) or intrusive ads are a completely different matter - which the people "behind" this site probably "like" about as much as the rest of us.

 

 

Huw.

 

 

Before anyone "jumps in", I should probably mention that this post "crossed" with those from Andy and Ian - a situation not helped by the site automatically logging me out whilst I was typing. Still, what should I expect - after all, I'd been logged in for a full 2 minutes ... .

 

I could also mention that the BRM ad appears in a different place on my Android tablet (on the forum "front page", on the right, just before status updates - it doesn't appear otherwise).

 

Apart from this, after logging in, the only other ads I've seen recently have also been BRM / Warners related (skills week, stuff like that).

 

Of course, before logging in is a completely different matter, which I'm sure Andy is fed up of hearing about.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Huw Griffiths

[Reorte]

On 10/10/2021 at 10:28, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Martyn,

 

Some misunderstanding there. I was referring to the principle of locking topics -- any topic. Not the subject matter of this specific topic.

 

No topic should ever be locked (other than admin announcements which don't require any response and are locked from the start).

 

If a topic contains unwanted material, that material should be deleted, or the entire topic deleted. Not locked in place for ever more and indexed on Google for 100 years. It makes no sense whatsoever, and means misinformation can spread far and wide with no means to correct it.

I can understand locking a thread when things are getting heated and tempers frayed. Whilst there's definitely a case of deleting a few posts when that happens locking the thread (at least temporarily, and it's fair enough not to expect mods to keep track of every one but instead only reopen upon request) gives a chance for things to cool down.