Top bar advertising

It seems worse tonight than it was yesterday. 16 seconds is the longest count I have had of the advert covering half the page before scrolling away.

Banner ad is too annoying. Hope you fix it MN, but it is still on every page. And on a talk board, you inevitably click on different pages extremely regularly. So this makes it extra annoying.

Use the mumsnet talk app, you don't get adverts at all, just sponsored posts at the top of each topic easily scrolled past

I don't have a problem with the speed- it's the sheer amount of bloatware that is being loaded and wasting all my data allowance. As Lilith said- I'm paying to be advertised at!

Well, I know which brands won't be receiving any orders from me in the near future...

I hear Reddit has a good MN board...

I just went on The Guardian site, and the banner advert does NOT scroll down the page with you. The Guardian has much less intrusive adverts.

I don't think you can compare yourself to sites like The Guardian. If I read them, it is for articles written by journalists. This is a forum with user generated content. And a fairly basic one at that.

All the ads I have ever clicked whilst being on MN, has been inadvertently.

This isn't really good enough is it? You're going to end up losing members. Other websites with ads like this are ones that I tend to close pretty darn quickly and not go back on unless I really need to. I spend a lot of time on MN and it is taking away the fun.

Taking up half the screen every time you load a page is intrusive and really boring. I don't want to have to wait for the ad to disappear before I can actually read anything.

I don't think the ads do slow the site at all now we've implementing the dual loading

Brutally - you think wrong. And if your official tests tell you otherwise then your testing service needs rebuilding to better simulate real workloads. This is a common problem when testing web services and websites.

I whitelist the Telegraph, Guardian, Independent and several other news outlets because I am very aware that good journalism costs money. I whitelist a number of self help type sites for the same reason.

I don't whitelist mumsnet because unlike those above your ads are intrusive, slow and annoying. You are not alone in this. I don't whitelist some others with equally badly implemented advertising. I occasionally unblock sites which I would like to support. So far results here have been disappointing each time.

It doesn't actually matter if you are using the identical product stack to the publications whose ad model you aim to replicate. It is how you have implemented and configured the model, the CDN, the data management and all the layers around it which is the problem.

You have many real users here telling you that the advertising causes them problems. You can tell us we must be wrong or you can look at the implementation and testing models.

I appreciate that the advertisments are a revenue source.
And that advertiser want their adverts to be on screen for a certain amount of time.

But why they have to dominate the screen for that time instead of just being there I don't understand.

I've never used an ad blocker. But I've got one now as the whitelist message pops up but then doesn't hide half of my screen and cut down the part of the screen I can see. I'll get rid of it when the ads stop being so irritating.

FFS - I came back on today expecting it not to still be a problem as things like this are usually fixed straight away.

Nope. I still have ads popping down to cover half of my laptop screen every time I go to a new page. It's getting very boring having to wait for them to go.

So has membership stagnated? If advertisers are getting snippy about the proportion of ad blockers/unseen ads?
It would a shame if the advertising Tail was wagging the talkboards Dog.

I have turned the adblocker off and am now getting the stupid begging notice which I have to wait to complete and then a huge bloody ad afterwards, followed by another one at the side. This is ridiculous. If I didn't need the distraction due to absolute shit in my life I wouldn't bother with it. Actually I think I will bugger off because I am getting irrationally annoyed by the whole pathetic situation. Two days of this crap is too many.

I quite enjoy sitting there with my eyes closed whilst having a laugh at the advertisers. Its the same on Words With Friends.

"I think most understand the value of authenticity"

The irony on a website full of trolls.

Hating it, it's infuriating.

Just give us a flat rate of how much revenue you would like us individually to bring in on an annual basis. Then we can weigh up whether we want to put up with the trolls, fantasists, perverts, malgorithms and garish ads for the money.

I'm confused, is this horror here to stay?

Ads are an issue if you are using mobile data. I've noticed since mumsnet became more ad heavy, especially the animated ads, it uses a lot more data to browse the site. I'm basically paying to be advertised at. I don't use the site when I'm not on Wi-Fi any more. I deliberately avoid sites with lots of videos and images when I'm using data.

For me, and many others i'm sure, MN is not just another web site. Please don't measure it by the low standards of lots of other sites

Actually many of the other sites are on far superior platforms. It took me a while to get used to how basic the functions are on here, especilly with regard to threads you are on - why doesn't it automatically reset when you have read it, and you have to specifically click bookmark? It is the only site I have been on that doesn't automatically rememeber where you were up to on a thread

For me, and many others i'm sure, MN is not just another web site. Please don't measure it by the low standards of lots of other sites

I think that's a fair comment. You don't really need to use Daily Mail type advertising, particularly as it isn't really about 'keeping the lights on'. A simple web search shows that Mumsnet is actually a very profitable enterprise. No harm in that of course, but perhaps the continuing urge to serve more adverts could be scaled back just a little?

This may be the straw that broke th camel's back with regard to the advertising. This is getting ridiculous!

I just close my eyes whenever one appears and so far today Ive had umpteen cat naps that have gone on far longer than 5 seconds.

I even missed my stop on the bus.

I would not pay to use the site, I do spend too much of my days on here but I could go back to not using it. I would find other things to read, maybe not join in with but to read.

For me the best solution would be ads that don't interfere with the use of the site, that means no flashing, moving, noisy and huge ads. I have only a couple of times looked at the recipes on the side and the only time I have seen more from the top banner ads is by activating them by mistake.

The ads are everywhere, not just on here, people really don't want to see them, otherwise no-one would use adblockers. Forcing us to see them by making them intrusive isn't going to work, and making it a nice exclusive site by charging for it may not go so well either.

Time will tell. Nothing lasts for ever...

Thank you Justine for the reply. I have my MN screen sized so that I don't have to see the thing. It's horrid.

Apologies for the free riding / free loading mix up.

My point still stands...

I strongly suspect that most MNers try to ignore the ads too. I'd bet good money that most of the "click throughs" are inadvertant

Personally I'd be happy to pay for an ad free version (provided that some system could be devised to keep payment details separate from user name info), though I know not everyone agrees.