Static ads don’t fare as well as ads with movement, ’tis true, there are endless studies to back that up. That shaking thing that the current CR ad uses to attract your attention feels dirty though. Anything moving in that way in your peripheral vision causes an involuntary reaction. Attracting people with information and interesting content is one thing, shocking them into looking at the ad is of questionable benefit though, as it must alienate some potential clickers. Just my thoughts. Ultimately it’s the advertisers call, if it works for them then they’ll be happy, and presumably so will those that click on the ad. As for this site, it needs clicks not just ad presence to stay afloat, so if an advertiser’s tactics work, then why would they want to stop them? I do wonder if there’s a limit though in the attention/annoyance battle. If there is a limit then this site it nowhere near it compared to others, none of the ads here effect or cover the content for a start. Anyone complaining about distracting ads here should look elsewhere for examples of REALLY distracting ads. You don’t HAVE to click on any of the adverts on this site to dismiss them and get at the content, and long may that continue.
I’d better go read the rules to make sure I’m not upsetting anyone…
For those stressing about load speed on their phones or pdas, this site seems to load plenty fast enough on handhelds. Give it a go… it works very well on the iPhone at least.