The thread title sounds a but dramatic, and I’m prepared to accept Ads as I’m not a “P” member but my forum page is bombarded with click bait about the shocking interview that Kate Winslet gave that had to be stopped by the authorities. It’s clearly a bitco!n scam, but with the BBC and other media cited as confirming the legitimacy of the interview, albeit in much the same way as Martin Lewis took action over the Facebook thing.

I just wondered if STW had any say or could do anything to stop adverts of this nature. By virtue of them being displayed on here, could they be interpreted as being endorsed or legitimate and anyone who lost money have any recourse to stw?

Bring back the days of unaffordable Maserati giblets.

Bring back the days of unaffordable Maserati giblets.

Actually, the Ghibli is in the same price range as a mid-range Audi, about £45-50k, and a damn nice drive.
Dunno about the ads, not seen them, but I do now get loads of ads no matter what site I go to, whereas I never used to, that’s using Firefox and DuckDuckGo as search, so I don’t know what’s changed

“anything to stop adverts of this nature”

If you raise your Ad prices then most of the malware gets priced out. What would enable STW to raise prices would be more information on the users (if you really are all Audi driving middle aged IT managers).

Actually, the Ghibli is in the same price range as a mid-range Audi, about £45-50k, and a damn nice drive.

So unaffordable for the majority of the UK population.

So unaffordable for the majority of the UK population.

Depends how much it is PCM. RRP is largely irrelevant at those prices.

So unaffordable for the majority of the UK population.

Depends how much it is PCM. RRP is largely irrelevant at those prices.

TBH you won’t get great data talking about “UK Population” as 25% or so of them are too young to drive.

Anyway, lets assume average Man or Woman on the street who works full-time.

First google, £650 – £950 a month.

Average UK full-time salary outside London is £26k (which rules out anyone retired or under 18 – so £1715 take home if they haven’t opted out of WPP.

Average rent in the UK (excluding London) is £800
Average mortgage payment is £700

Assuming no kids most underwriters will want £600 a month set-aside for living expenses so:

£1715 – £750 – £600 = £365

So average, non-Londoner with a full-time job, no kids, living alone couldn’t buy one. Someone cohabiting would have enough disposable income to get into a low-end to mid-range one, but they’d be very stretched and any other borrowing would probably rule them out.

They seem nice, but I can’t ever see me paying double, to three times what I pay for my Superb for one.

I just wondered if STW had any say or could do anything to stop adverts of this nature.

Ads are served by a third party provider, usually Google but it varies from time to time. I believe you can report rogue adverts to ads(at)singletrackworld.com and they’ll investigate, a screen shot would probably be helpful.

By virtue of them being displayed on here, could they be interpreted as being endorsed or legitimate and anyone who lost money have any recourse to stw?

It’s a good question and I have absolutely no idea what the answer is.

Daniel Craig is now promoting this on “This Morning” with Philip Schofield. Seemingly, the boss of Barclays called in to get the interview pulled….

He’s now disappeared, I was going to screen grab it.

Daniel Craig The actor or the finance/tech journo?

The James Bond one.

Ads are served by a third party provider, usually Google

Working in cyber security, this attitude really grates.

Some of the most famous hacks/breaches have been performed by third party code running on sites – e.g. BA

ST run the site, ST need to take responsibility for the ads the site is displaying.

When I used to run a kiting based site (ok, back in the early 2000s) I ran ads, but I went direct to the industry and sold subscriptions that way, avoiding having to use Google etc. This meant I had full control of the ads and where the links pointed, but also the adverts were relevant to the site!

my current faves are the ones that dodge when you go to close them

So average, non-Londoner with a full-time job, no kids, living alone couldn’t buy one.

The average salary is not the average salary for full time workers. No kids would increase the likelihood of full time working, and thus higher salary.

I’m not saying a Maserati is “affordable”, but I reckon a good number of people could afford it.

Also, when we say average, I’d suggest median is more appropriate here, rather than mean. though this might well put the numbers down.

Working in cyber security, this attitude really grates.

Also working in cyber security, it wasn’t an attitude, it was a statement of fact.

STW’s choice of ad delivery methods is a business decision and I know that it’s something Mark spends a lot of time analysing and reviewing. I can tell you with a cast iron certainty that if there were a better way of doing it then they’d be doing it, and I rather suspect that if they changed to the model you describe then they’d go bust by the end of the month. Was your kiting site the primary source of income for over a dozen people? It’s not really a comparable scenario otherwise.

And yes, you’re absolutely right of course that poorly maintained third-party code is a major security risk. But it ain’t 2000 any more, the IDE of choice isn’t Notepad, and I reckon you’d be hard-pressed to find many major websites which are 100% in-house code. And even it were, are your programmers producing code that’s more secure than mature open-source plug-ins?

You’re right, it wasn’t a primary source of income, and it was just a suggestion of a potential different way of doing things.

I’m not suggesting that all code should be developed in-house, but when there are regular threads about dodgy ads which all seem to come with the reply of “blame the ad provider” it doesn’t stack up – someone needs to take responsibility for it, and that responsibility only lies in-house at STW.

someone needs to take responsibility for it, and that responsibility only lies in-house at STW.

Does it though – I don’t get any of those dodgy ads, at least, not on STW. I use Flipboard a lot, and pop-up ads and ads that wander all over the page are almost a feature.
Bloody irritating too.

If you work in cyber security and think wordpress plugins are mature and secure … I hope it’s not for my bank

As is so often the case, it’s a little more complicated than that.

 that responsibility only lies in-house at STW

Does it though

Yes

I only have a contract with STW and Gofar. I don’t have a contract with Quantcast, Google Ads, or any of the (presumably several) other ad agencies or any other sub-contractor that ST/Gofar may wish to use. Unless of course someone is able to prove that I do, and remind me of each sub-contractor that I do have a direct contract with (and an obligation to execute their software on my hardware) but just plain forgot about.

It’s the 3rd party cross site tracking that I intentionally block.

And yet for a teeny subscription you can make all this shit literally go away.

Your choice

I only have a contract with STW and Gofar.

Is this a contractual issue?

Do I , as a non-P, non paying,   forum member have a contract with STW and Gofar?

What version of the law applies given that I am in Scotland and they are in England?

If it’s English law, then where is the element of consideration in the contract given that I don’t pay them anything?

Should I be  presenting STW towers with an annual peppercorn?

I await the wisdom of the assembled legal minds of STW.

someone needs to take responsibility for it, and that responsibility only lies in-house at STW

Site users can take responsibility for it if they choose. I think the ad-funded model of web use is unsustainable so if sites offer no ads in return for a small sub that’s compatible with the value they offer, I’ll choose to pay it. If more sites were paid, advertising was a tenth of what it is and product prices reduced (ultimately the purchaser pays for the ads) I doubt the users would be out of pocket.

It’s a long time since I signed up and I can’t find the T&Cs on the site now (should I be able to?) but I’d be surprised if there isn’t something that says STW are not liable for the content of ads.

If it’s English law, then where is the element of consideration in the contract given that I don’t pay them anything?

Maybe, you agreed to be served with ads in return for a licence to post on the forum? I don’t know, can anyone find the T&Cs?

If it’s English law, then where is the element of consideration in the contract given that I don’t pay them anything?

*reads forum rules*

Site Terms & Conditions

Oh , there it is…..

However, by posting on our forum you agree to allow us to reproduce your comments in any form at any time. After all you may write some words of genius that we want to share with all our readers.

I’m paying with my genius

You can read the Privacy conditions here which give more information.

Privacy Policy

if sites offer no ads in return for a small sub that’s compatible with the value they offer, I’ll choose to pay it. If more sites were paid, advertising was a tenth of what it is and product prices reduced (ultimately the purchaser pays for the ads) I doubt the users would be out of pocket.

Mark told me a fair while back how many extra subscribers it’d take for STW to be able to afford to do away with third party advertising networks completely. I can’t remember the exact figure now, but I thought at the time that it was an astonishingly small number. And nothing would give him greater pleasure to do so, because as various threads over the years ably demonstrate they’re a pain in the arse.

It ultimately boils down to the whole ‘internet is free’ attitude that seems to prevail across so much of society. In my mind, if someone isn’t prepared to pay the relative pittance that annual subscription is for this site – approx 75p per week, or 11p per day – then they ‘probably’ deserve to get scammed by Daniel Craig, Gordon Ramsay or Philip Schofield (disclaimer – I work in publishing) or whosoever is the latest sleb to magically discover the secret to eternal wealth, health and happiness, in which we too can join once we’ve handed over our bank details, passwords and Mother’s maiden name.

And before anyone uses the ‘I contribute to the forum, therefore I add value’ argument, in August last year the site had 1.6 million unique visitors, of whom a tiny percentage use or contribute to the forum. That traffic is what advertisers on the programmatic ad exchanges buy into.

So to repeat again, if you don’t want crappy ads, and want to feel good about yourself too, cough up for membership. Simples innit

And yet for a teeny subscription you can make all this shit literally go away.

Your choice

No you can’t, it still logs you out (although it’s not valued my privacy for a while?).

in August last year the site had 1.6 million unique visitors, of whom a tiny percentage use or contribute to the forum.

That’s not unique to STW either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

And out of that lot, the people who contribute regularly, the ones most likely to scream “you should be paying me!”, the ‘big hitters’ if you will, you could probably count on the fingers of both hands. (Slight exaggeration perhaps, but it’ll be a small percentage of a small percentage.)

This is so very much the case that if an unfamiliar username pops up in the middle of a conversation we’ll go and check to see if it looks like a returning banned.

the ones most likely to scream “you should be paying me!”,

Not me. I give my genius away for free.

I’m nice like that

you could probably count on the fingers of both hands

That’s what STW stands for innit.

Same Ten W****rs

The ads at the bottom of the page, are now offering a plug in, mains powered virus killer. If it only it was that easy to remove them, that “x” is very hard to press without opening the ad.

funkrodent ^^^ how right you are.
I have taken every possible opportunity to bang the drum about forum users converting from member to subscriber.
Spurious arguments and verbiage don’t change the fact that long-standing ‘members’ have used the forum free of charge but given nothing – other than their *wit and wisdom*, which has no value.
Many of the most frequent posters have been ‘members’ for many years but have, in real terms, done nothing to support.
If the mag and forums closed, where would they take their *wit and wisdom*? Mumsnet or pistonheads are the likely homes.
Thanks to them for their ‘support’.
Anyone in favour of turning the forum into subscription only?

Scam me like one of your French girls…..

STW’s choice of ad delivery methods is a business decision and I know that it’s something Mark spends a lot of time analysing and reviewing. I can tell you with a cast iron certainty that if there were a better way of doing it then they’d be doing it, and I rather suspect that if they changed to the model you describe then they’d go bust by the end of the month. Was your kiting site the primary source of income for over a dozen people? It’s not really a comparable scenario otherwise.

And people think “there’s a magazine?” Is a joke

Spurious arguments and verbiage don’t change the fact that long-standing ‘members’ have used the forum free of charge but given nothing – other than their *wit and wisdom*, which has no value.

If people don’t post then there is no reason to click to the site, you become bikemagic and fizzle and die.

The loss of the old classified format must have cost lots in clicks the main forums are slower. It must be the advertorials driving the income…..

And the crypto mining….. 😉

Anyone in favour of turning the forum into subscription only?

There were always the rumours of a “special” forum for the in crowd…..

long-standing ‘members’ have used the forum free of charge but given nothing – other than their *wit and wisdom*, which has no value.

I’m only subscribed in the hope that Jamie will return. Perchypanther is OK too I suppose.

big – why don’t you subscribe?

The loss of the old classified format must have cost lots in clicks the main forums are slower. It must be the advertorials driving the income…..

Come on, time to move on. On my device the classifieds works well for me and the site is stable and fast. (perhaps I’m just lucky?)

I completely understand that folk don’t want to pay in order to subsidise a loss-making magazine. I would rather my subscription went towards relieving the pressure on the website development team in order to remove all the bugs.