September 4, 2001

7:29 PM

Right hand, meet left hand. Is Yahoo! so desperate for ad revenue that they'll take banner ads that go against their own published guidelines? Snapshot here for those that don't want to click refresh over and over. More inside.
posted by machaus (16 comments total)

Unless Yahoo forgot to modify the site in the second link, we're in for these awful blinking ads everywhere. Their guidelines pretty specifically say:

Advertisements cannot mislead the user. For example, they may not mimic or resemble Windows/Mac/Unix dialogue boxes, error messages, or the like.
posted by machaus at 7:31 PM on September 4, 2001

Isn't that an ad for a yahoo service? Seems like they aren't even making any money from it.
posted by Doug at 7:43 PM on September 4, 2001

It leads to Bonzi.com, which in turn spawns a pop-under that says that your internet connection speed could be boosted.
posted by machaus at 7:50 PM on September 4, 2001

Just block them.
posted by skallas at 7:55 PM on September 4, 2001

The reason is probably because Yahoo! employs not only their own ad system, but also other ad systems. I think they utilize DoubleClick for unsold space that they haven't sold direct.

It is against their policy to sell an ad with that type of format, not to show it or allow another ad reseller they utilize to show it.
posted by benjh at 8:06 PM on September 4, 2001

Granted, I don't know much about Doubleclick, but would the image still be sitting on a yahoo server if it was a Doubleclick ad? This one is. WHOIS record...
posted by machaus at 8:24 PM on September 4, 2001

g00gl3 0wnz y@h00
posted by kingmissile at 8:28 PM on September 4, 2001

blocking us.a1.yimg.com in your hosts file will also block some of yahoo's non-ad related images, too, such as the compass in their maps section. Blocking doubleclick's servers will not will not block ads served by yahoo themselves, they know better.
posted by Hackworth at 8:55 PM on September 4, 2001

This Yahoo policy is complete nonsense and has, to the best of my knowledge, never been unilaterally enforced. I have battled firsthand with Yahoo tech wonks in 1999-2000 who rejected banner ads based on this policy, only to have our team come back with numerous examples of other banners ads on their site which mimic and fully copy OS attributes from Windows and Macintosh. Yahoo backed down every time.
posted by gsh at 9:00 PM on September 4, 2001

It surprises me that in their financial condition they would want to reject ANY advertising.!!!
posted by fresh-n-minty at 9:04 PM on September 4, 2001

I found this ad more shocking, especially since they got all puritanical earlier this year.

BTW, don't like the ad? Don't use the site. Blocking is freeloading.
posted by owillis at 11:28 PM on September 4, 2001

if blocking is freeloading, is it ok to fast forwards through commercials on a taped program, ignore newspaper ads, or change radio stations when they take a break for "important messages?"
posted by chiheisen at 2:16 AM on September 5, 2001

BTW, don't like the ad? Don't use the site. Blocking is freeloading.


According to whom? There is no agreement between the viewer and the webpage. Even if there was how could you dictate what eventually lands on my screen? Say the ad is scrolled off because of my low resolution or my browser doesn't do shockwave, or my browser (lynx) doesn't even do graphics.

I block and maintain an hosts file (see my homepage) for a couple reasons. The gaudiness and distraction of most banner ads are annoying (I don't have a problem with Google's text ads). The wasted bandwidth makes a difference on dial-ups, especially when you've pledged never to click an banner ad. I partially believe that being hit with thousands of marketing messages a day is mentally damaging. "Webbugs" let advertisers track your surfing. Last but not least, its my computer and I'll do as I please especially when its within the law.

owillis, I hope you've never got up during a commercial break if you want to seem credible with this opinion.
posted by skallas at 5:38 AM on September 5, 2001

One extra or less user does not impact the distribution costs of a television or radio broadcast, they have a fixed cost to send out their product. On the web, each individual user impacts the cost of the site owner's costs - the more users, the more expensive it is to operate a site, very much unlike television.
posted by owillis at 8:04 AM on September 5, 2001

How about the user's bandwidth costs? They were not informed and did not agree to view to download the ads (often huge java applets or animated gifs.) Many of the viewers cannot afford high-bandwidth connections.

If you are really that worried about Yahoo!'s revenue stream, it'd be easy to write a script that views their ads.

Of course, they only make a couple cents everytime the ad is viewed.
How much did it cost the viewer on a slow connection to download it?
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:30 AM on September 5, 2001

I've never worked in broadcast media, but I have in print, and I'm about 99% certain that ad sales work the same way on both sides: you sell space/air according to your publication's/station's circulation/viewership.

So if everyone in a major TV market bought Tivos or VCRs and skipped the commercials---yeah, the advertisers are getting screwed.

Which makes me cry rivers, you bet.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:55 PM on September 5, 2001