Leave Theo's thread alone so he can get the functionality that we need. Post your gripes about the ads here.

I'm with Matt Peckham on this one.... Firefox + Ad Blocker....no more problems.

I know the PDGA's "partner" is not getting the extra $.0000002 per ad view, however I feel better and my browser is not working as hard.
:eek: :D :o:D:cool:

Makes me wonder why this company is doing "DEVELOPMENT". By their own admission, they are in the "security" realm of the 'web'.


About Ciphent

Ciphent is a private company headquartered in the Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan area and has over 150 clients ranging from 2 million to 80 billion in annual revenue. Our suite of software, strategic security consulting, and secure development solutions enable government and private industry organizations to evaluate, enhance, and reduce the cost of their cyber security investments. Ciphent is a pre-IPO company that has written over 25 books on cyber and software security.

I didn't realize quite how bad they were until I brought up a different browser the other night. With firefox+adblock I have no problem, in Safari or IE, the site looks terrible.

anyone know of an ad-block plug in for safari?

I have them blocked with IE7...just takes the page about 10 secs longer to load

nice thread, it is well deserved!

but do not let this thread stop your efforts to get rid of the ads. this thread makes it too convenient for the powers that be to ignore the complaints. if anything, complain on EVERY thread.

BTW, the first draft of the contract gave Ciphent authority to decide what content to put on which page. a couple of the current Directors pushed back against that approach. i found it ludicrious that such a clause was even in the contract, and wondered why it was even presented. the contract was finalized by Brian under the new BoD's watch, so i dont know if Theo's original wording/intent was retained.

BTW, the first draft of the contract gave Ciphent authority to decide what content to put on which page.


Shocking. :confused:

Here's something I posted on the other thread, but it is more relevant here:

OK here's some constructive criticism - while the ads may be a good way of generating revenue, everyone that has a message board account has already generated plenty of income for the PDGA. How about turning off the ads for users that are logged in to the board, but keep them for people that are non members or are not logged in?

Once the whole site is login enabled, it could even stretch that far. There are thousands of non-PDGA member visitors every day to the site, so it would still provide a revenue stream while also keeping in mind the opinions and thoughts of the paying members.

brilliant!

BTW, the first draft of the contract gave Ciphent authority to decide what content to put on which page. Shocking. :confused:

Not so much :D I doubt that any major ad serving company is interested in much detailed negotiation about letting a customer like the PDGA determine the ad mix to a website this size. It is in Ciphent's best interest to follow the traffic logs and see which ads perform best, so the topical themes will no doubt get more precise over time.

Frankly, folks, viewed from the long term, it is a big deal that any out of the sport, major people are advertising in here at all. That should be celebrated. I celebrate it. No, that doesn't mean that big-time REI knows about us yet, but it increases the odds.

From my user side of this apparent gulf of disagreement, the fact that we have "big company" ads, no matter how I feel about how many or where, actually lends the organization credibility. If I were new to disc golf but knew what I know about Web advertising, I would be impressed on my first visit here. If it's also giving us some decent revenues, then I can handle a few extra ads.

As for the call to overload the DISCussion board with complaints on every thread about the ads, well, . . . let me say only that doing so would be kind of a Denial of Service attack, by some definitions, which is just one variant of what hackers and others do to websites which they want to harm. Never heard yet of a DOS attack on a website that was conducted by people that had its best interests in mind.

No, that doesn't mean that big-time REI knows about us yet, but it increases the odds.



our local REI (timonium, MD) sponsored the druid hill open c-tier in baltimore earlier this november.

Yeah, and we've had the local one here doing stuff, too, which is great. (Although they don't stock all that much disc golf stuff). I'm hoping that local efforts will merge with national ones at some point. It's hard to think of a more appropriate disc golf sponsor than REI.

Yeah, and we've had the local one here doing stuff, too, which is great. (Although they don't stock all that much disc golf stuff). I'm hoping that local efforts will merge with national ones at some point. It's hard to think of a more appropriate disc golf sponsor than REI.


Well, maybe just one:

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/jacuzzi.jpg

Everyone,

I was one Board member who voted in favor of the new website, so I can shed a bit of light on the negotiations. Early in August we were presented with a contract from the Ciphent and urged to accept it, so that the new website could be installed before Worlds. I put the kibosh on that, because I felt that the contract in hand was unfavorable to the PDGA. For one thing, it did not allow the PDGA control of website content, and I strongly opposed it for that and other reasons. I subsequently participated in negotiations with Ciphent, succeeded in obtaining terms I thought were fair, and recommended that we accept the amended contract. We did, but by then it was too late to attempt a pre-Worlds transition.

The contract with Ciphent was approved by the old Board. Unless that contract has been subsequently renegotiated, the PDGA retains ultimate control of website content. In my opinion, this is critical. Ciphent could have run spots that might make lots of money, but be in very poor taste, and we would have had no way to stop it.

Personally, I don't like the new site. It lacks "class". If I had known in August how the site would change, I would have voted against the contract. Still, if the PDGA wanted to upgrade the class of the site, it is in their power to do it. The prevailing opinion must be that money is more important than class.

thanks for the insight peter.

THC, i didnt say they wanted control over ad placements. i said that the first draft gave Ciphent control over the content. i am sure you understand the difference.

"it is a big deal that any out of the sport, major people are advertising in here at all."

do you really understand how internet banner ads work? we self identify as a sports site, so we get REI ads. its not because these advertisers decide one by one to ask Ciphent to go on the pdga site. most of them have never heard of a good portion of the sites on which they advertise.

finally, where was this call to overload the pdga web site? that is complete hyperbole. i did say we ought to continue our complaints throughout the site so that we are not so easily pushed aside. are you sure you wish to categorize my commnet as a call to wage a DOS attack??? are you really that threatened by me THC???

Peter is mostly right. i recall that we gave Braham the go ahead to negotiate a final contract. i do not recall that we ever saw that final contract. i will check to see if i have a copy of the executed one. regardless, it was myself, Steve Dodge and Peter who voted against this deal. Bob, who normally voted last and with the majority, had to finally cast a tie-breaking vote.

Peter is mostly right. i recall that we gave Braham the go ahead to negotiate a final contract. i do not recall that we ever saw that final contract. i will check to see if i have a copy of the executed one. regardless, it was myself, Steve Dodge and Peter who voted against this deal. Bob, who normally voted last and with the majority, had to finally cast a tie-breaking vote.



Pat, are you saying that you voted on a contract that you never saw?

The contract was certainly presented to the Board via the established method (Yahoo Group) and in fact it was Peter Shive who made the motion to approve it and voted for its approval.

Without going into any detail or debate with anyone, I can safely say that much of the information that has been presented on this thread is not at all accurate.

without going into detail that merely becomes one more bit of he said/she said.

without going into detail that merely becomes one more bit of he said/she said.



Life is full of choices. You can choose to believe the person who wrote the contract and the person who acknowledged five posts up that he voted in favor of it, or you can choose to believe the the guy who can't remember if he even saw the contract that he voted against. ;)

regardless, i dont care who voted for it or against it, its garbage. the is no reason for ads on the MB especially because its a "membership benefit". unless viewing banner adds is a membership benefit too? unacceptable.

where are the BOD minutes these days?

i got copies of august and september from brian via email a while ago.. . the october were supposed to be approved at the november meeting. write to brian, i'd say. its more important that he take emails about posting electronic files in order to get the ad banners running quickly.

in most cms packages, settting up a list of links to stored files takes less time than setting up advertising. i doubt drupal is different. this is a pretty clear indication that business priorities are either whacked or not considered much in the project schedule.

Everyone,

Brian Graham is correct. I moved that we accept the Ciphent contract, spoke strongly for it during discussion, and voted in favor. The contract was available to all Board members before and during the meeting.

I wasn't worried about the website at the time because the contract specified that the PDGA would control website content, and I believed that Board would not allow the site to be degraded by excessive advertising.

maybe so brian, i cant find the minutes on the site to check.

"Pat, are you saying that you voted on a contract that you never saw? "

no, i am not. after seeing the first contract that Theo presented and that you encouraged us to authorize, there is no way i would vote to approve a contract i never saw. my understanding on the vote was to authorize you to make whatever tweaks had to be made and then execute it. i will be happy to compare the final version to my latest version, if you will email me the final version.

hmmm, was it Chris who voted against it? i am pretty sure there were three. sorry i gave ya that much credit Peter :D

Personally, I don't like the new site. It lacks "class". If I had known in August how the site would change, I would have voted against the contract. Still, if the PDGA wanted to upgrade the class of the site, it is in their power to do it. The prevailing opinion must be that money is more important than class.



how did we get a BoD that values money more than class? i thought the frisbee community was one place where one might find a refuge from such a lack of awareness... :(

the lowest common denominator prevails again

Could be interesting to see what happens:
www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ic19bb33a86fd66429b985553373d44b0 (http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ic19bb33a86fd66429b985553373d44b0)