I'm sort of tangentially aware of such things, but with an always-logged-in Paid account, I've yet to see a single ad. I though they'd returned some free option without showing ads? Or is it that they don't show -you- ads, but show them to visitors, or the reverse, or what?
They kept using the language "bringing back basic accounts", so that anyone reading in a hurry would think that they were doing what that sounds like -- restoring the option of creating free/ad-free accounts with minimal features. And a lot of people cheered that and never did read any farther. But what they did instead was to convert all existing basic accounts into this new type which, yes, doesn't show the user ads but does show ads to (not-logged-in) visitors. They were counting on most folks only bothering to be tangentially aware. And/or only caring whether they personally were forced to view ads install Adblock, not what others see when looking at their journals.
(Which must mean that their logs show enough not-logged-in people coming to LJ for a peek to make advertising to them worthwhile.)
I think the idea here is to make the ads-on-basic "out of sight/out of mind" for the folks who might complain aloud, we LJ users ... not entirely sneak the ads in, because they did explain all of this in official posts, but to sneak them past all the folks who don't pay all that much attention (which probably means the number of users who bother to write comments to the news posts are too small for LJ to have to listen to, and most people aren't watching that closely). So many basic users probably won't even realize that their journals are showing ads unless their non-LJ-using cousin or coworker says something about an ad they saw there.
In the discussion of the different proposals, I wasn't the only one saying, "I don't want to be used a a vehicle for serving ads," (and a large number saying, "the ads break my carefully crafted custom layout!"), but there were also a fair number of people saying, "you'd better not make me look at an ad (but I don't care what anybody else sees; let 'em sign up and log in if they don't like ads)," as well. So somebody was going to be pissed off either way. This way a lot of people who would object won't even notice until it's been going on for a long time. And if someone accuses LJ of being sneaky about this, they'll be able to point to about 1500 comments on three or so official posts and say, "Oh, we were quite open about it."
(no subject)
(no subject)
view adsinstall Adblock, not what others see when looking at their journals.(Which must mean that their logs show enough not-logged-in people coming to LJ for a peek to make advertising to them worthwhile.)
I think the idea here is to make the ads-on-basic "out of sight/out of mind" for the folks who might complain aloud, we LJ users ... not entirely sneak the ads in, because they did explain all of this in official posts, but to sneak them past all the folks who don't pay all that much attention (which probably means the number of users who bother to write comments to the news posts are too small for LJ to have to listen to, and most people aren't watching that closely). So many basic users probably won't even realize that their journals are showing ads unless their non-LJ-using cousin or coworker says something about an ad they saw there.
In the discussion of the different proposals, I wasn't the only one saying, "I don't want to be used a a vehicle for serving ads," (and a large number saying, "the ads break my carefully crafted custom layout!"), but there were also a fair number of people saying, "you'd better not make me look at an ad (but I don't care what anybody else sees; let 'em sign up and log in if they don't like ads)," as well. So somebody was going to be pissed off either way. This way a lot of people who would object won't even notice until it's been going on for a long time. And if someone accuses LJ of being sneaky about this, they'll be able to point to about 1500 comments on three or so official posts and say, "Oh, we were quite open about it."