Forum:Wikia's New Style

Possible changes for logged-in users
First, thank you for all your feedback. We have been responding where we can, and reading everything, so now we want to look at where we can adapt things to make them work a bit better for all of us. Obviously that doesn't mean that anything has changed about the need for ads, or in our conviction that the ad spaces that we have introduced are the ones we can best sell. As I said to some of you on this: "there may be wiggle room, but there isn't waving-arms-around room".

So, what options are there? One thing that people have said is that the ads are distracting for contributors and likely to dissuade people from editing. That's an important issue, and something we have been looking at closely. The number of logged-in users is actually very small compared to the number of logged-out users, only about 1% of users actually log in. So we have been considering what changes for this group might be helpful to encourage editing, while not affecting the income from ads more than we can bear.

One possibility we are examining is to remove ads from the content area, or even remove them completely from article pages, for logged-in users. Do you feel this would help reduce distraction and annoyance for those of you who contribute frequently or daily to the content of the wikis?

Would it help if we add clear messages to visitors that they can "log in to see pages without ads"?

We understand that this is not a solution that fixes everything, of course you are worried about the view that anons see and want the wikis to look good for everyone.

One consideration, is how would you (logged-in users) know how your edits are affecting a logged-out view? One solution might be to show "placeholder" boxes on preview pages. Another (which would take more time to develop) might be a "preview as anon" button alongside the current preview button. Or maybe we could add an option to switch ads on and off so you can see the changes. Or are new features necessary? As we remove the last bugs from the ad placement system, we hope you can begin to be able to trust that the proper box or banner ad is being placed, and that content is flowing properly around them.

So, I'm asking for opinions on this idea, and feedback on the best way to work around any downsides. I know there are a lot of other suggestions out there, and we're still discussing the practical ones, but for now we'd like a discussion on how this change would affect you. Thoughts? -- sannse (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all: The idea of removing ads for logged-in users is lovely! Far more than I expected :D :D :D Can't wait to see this. And about previews with ads - I prefer "preview as anon" button added option, but still think it could work wall as simple preview without any ads - if someone want to see page with ads then just save the article and logout. In most cases ads (even this ave-distracting square google ad) don't make more changes in page layout than resolution-change does. (ofq that's if we forget for a moment about moving the infoboxes by ads) SkywalkerPL 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflicted) The placeholders might be alright, though it's not to reflective, hard to determine differences... Rather I think 3 things would be useful combined together:


 * A user preference defaulted to off to enable ads even when they are logged in.
 * A url parameter &useads=0|1 which can override the user preference and let some advanced users just look at the current page (whatever it is, edit or not) and see what it would look like with or without ads.
 * And finally, a checkbox beside 'Watch this page" saying "Show Ads in Preview" defaulting to the user's preference on whether to show ads or not. That can be used when editing to checkout the differences.
 * However as a difference that "preview as anon" something more like the placeholder, and with a bit of JS. It would be possible to add that ad as a simple box which can be toggled on and off without reloading the page.
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Jun 30, 2008 @ 10:13 (UTC)


 * Removing ads for logged-in users is an amazing idea! I'm quite sure we'd get many more users logging in and maybe that would encourage them to edit a little more. Also, you said that 1% of users log in, so there will still be a lot of ad views because not everyone will want an account. But if possible if we could make a "Turn ads on/off" control in the widget under the logo (maybe a button next to recent changes, what links here, etc.), it may help admins and users checking page design, so if we quickly want to check a page to make sure it looks good for logged out users, we don't have to edit and preview the page first, or go and change it in the preferences tab. Other than that, thanks for listening to our concerns, and I hope a reasonable compromise between all parties is found in the near future. Wikada - Talk Contributions 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit preview with white or grey placeholder rectangles where ads will appear is my preference. I can't see the virtue of preview as anon since any one live ad that is displayed is purely random and not representative of the color or animation or subject of all possible ads that an anon user might see. The only information of value is the size and placement of the ad rectangle. So a white or gray rectangle without any advertising content satisfies the need to check article flow around the ad. If an editor really wants to preview a page as anon then they can easily log out and view the page as an anon visitor. To your credit you have made logout and login very easy at Wikia.
 * Informing anon browsers that by registering they may view wiki sites without ads is a great idea! However, if this is merely a bait and switch tactic then you'll have more egg on your face in six or twelve months time when Wikia membership has increased to the point where you feel compelled to show ads to registered wiki members who you enticed to register by promising no ads. That would not be a pleasant PR experience.
 * najevi 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess you may be right about this "bait and switch tactic" but since all the time it's best solution I've heard. So even if it would be temporary solution - it's worth the effort.
 * Anyway: It would be good also to make advert more predictable and less article-layout spoiling like centered horizontal banner appearing all the time in articles... SkywalkerPL 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Najevi, we have learned not to make promises that we don't know if we can keep in years to come. So we are not saying there will never be ads for logged in users.  It depends on more factors than we can guess at right now.  We have considered other ideas, such as removing ads for people with over 1000 edits, or for those that edit at least once a week... and perhaps we will have to revisit them one day.  But we believe this can work, and hope people will feel it gives a better balance between revenue needs and the needs of contributors. -- sannse (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand this - the issue is not about that if wikia says "logged-in users won't ever see the adverts" but rather that people login/register cause they see text "log in to see pages without ads", and then, after a year or so, adverts are back for logged-in users and people are mad. The issue is not that you promise to not give adverts ever, but rather that people THINK that they won't ever see the adverts.
 * The idea with removing adverts for people who edit once per week is very very great - it could greatly improve the quality of wikia wikis as people would be encouraged to edit form accounts, and -if they would be lazy- they still would make some useful edits, as fixing grammar or some other easy tasks which are still precious. IHMO it's far better than 1000 edits border as this could cause massive increase of spammers who make some random pointless edits (like write something stupid, then remove it - got only 998 edits to remove adverts; or other example: People who write article 2kb long making 15 edits - it's more than horrible.) just to remove ads, and after that would become completly inactive (in matter of editing). SkywalkerPL 08:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Placeholder Image: could this be taken from a default wiki image, like Image:Ad-placeholder.jpg on our wiki? That way, the wiki admins can decide what works best for them: grey, white, black, whatever. Could even be a site notice for editors only. --◄mendel► 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically, those who edit wikis already know how to hide or block ads, so hiding the advertisements for them would not change a lot. A clear "log in to see pages without ads" message would most probably only increase the number of inactive registered users, but still, it would be a nice way to get rid of the ads for people who do not have the knowledge/expertise to block them themselves. Drennan 08:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That defeats the purpose of having ads in the first place, then. Removal of ads should be the incentive that gets people to log in. Getting the option to turn them off while you're not logged in is still getting something for nothing, and brings Wikia back to the original problem of not getting enough ad impressions. And even if a large part of those people who join and log in are inactive, it still gets new users logged in and experiencing the editing process - and a number of those people will become regulars. Shawn ( talk ) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional issue to do with ads: doesn't seem to be 'slick' enough way of identifying ads, when problems - make ultra ultra easy helps. Also from a more positive angle is not theoretically impossible to like some ads eg on sca /green wikia etc there may be a particular green product or service that users approve of being advertised, similarly with ultra local advertising. Again ultra ultra ease of identifying - something like a tick box? - might be a help Philralph @ sca21 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * remove ads for logged-in users. Yes please Philralph @ sca21 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * add clear messages to visitors that they can "log in to see pages without ads"? Yes please Philralph @ sca21 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * some kind of switch to see with/ without ads. Yes please Philralph @ sca21 09:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove ads from content for logged in users: Yes. Log in to see pages without ads message: Yes. Preview as anon: Yes. Although, if no ads are an option for logged in users, I'm really wishing the Old Monaco skin could be an option too. --LordTBT Talk! 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification & one question for non-wikia staff
 * User:SkywalkerPL correctly interpreted the intended meaning behind my "bait and switch" comment.
 * Sannse wrote:
 * One solution might be to show "placeholder" boxes on preview pages. Another (which would take more time to develop) might be a "preview as anon" button alongside the current preview button.
 * I very much paid attention to the highlighted words in parenthesis. Rather than investing engineering resources to implement "preview as anon" I would prefer to hear that those resources are being invested to support the Monobook skin as a permanently available option for a wiki site's default skin. With ad placement inside the article content area there is no good reason why Monobook should not be available as an admin specified default skin for unregistered visitors. If there is a good reason then it has not been clearly communicated. Other higher priority (IMHO) projects are support of Monobook style Printable version and Permanent link special urls for the Monaco Link Toolbox.
 * Request of one of the non-Wikia staff advocates of the "preview as anon" idea. Would you please explain what benefit you see from "preview as anon" and why that same benefit cannot be got from previewing your article edits with a plain rectangle "placeholder ad"?
 * Sannse, if the "placeholder ad" was served from within wikia.com then domain name filters would not prevent the "placeholder ad" from appearing and so the all-important article flow around the 300x250 block ad could be accurately previewed even for contributors who have advertisement serving domains blocked.
 * I also like User:M.mendel's suggestion for sourcing that "placeholder ad" from within a project's Image namespace.
 * Triple. Blocking in the space used by the ad is all fine and good, but a white rectangle doesn't really give you a feel for the visual footprint of a ad that's trying to distract you from the article.  This would let the individual communities decide how obnoxious they want that block to be for their previewing purposes.
 * (Side note, is there a standard place you can report talking ads? I remember hearing someone complain about one friday-ish.) -Derik 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of the proposed 1000 edit count criteria or weekly edit frequency criteria for registered users to not be shown ads. If you register then by default you should not have to suffer the ads. If you register and you want to see the ads then you should be able to enable the ads via your user preferences. User:Dantman suggested using CGI parameters to enable ads on a one time basis. That idea also has merit.
 * najevi 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of an ad toggle option in the profile area. I don't mind the new placement and would just as soon turn the option off in order to see what the other 99% see.  If I am doing some intensive and not layout specific editing, I can toggle the ads off to speed up the process.  That said, I too am worried about the bait and switch issue.  It would be a problem is anon users signed up because the box says "log in to get rid of ads" and then a week later it changes on them.  What if once per month a logged-in user needed to click something (not hidden but easily visible in profile) to get rid of the ads for 30 days - and that button plainly says that this is a limited offer.  Then, wikia could more easily remove that option one day.  IDK - just an off the cuff idea. -- 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys so much for considering this. Personally, I feel like this option gives a little back to the wikis' main contributors for all their hard work.  (I do realize you could log in and not contribute, but I wouldn't think that would be all that often).  That being said, any of the above ideas to view the ads while considering layout design would work for me.  I personally don't have an opinion as to how this is done.  Thanks for doing this in advance!
 * --Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk &bull; contribs &bull; email) 16:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much a win situation, we get to keep hosting our wikis for free, it'll encourage more people to login to the sites. Plus, it gets rid of most of those ads. :) -- Phillip ( talk ) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is the best situation. I think it'll make a big difference, especially if every wiki really touts it on the front pages as a feature - nobody likes ads, and I don't think I've seen a site that allows users to turn them off simply by signing up and logging in for free. Shawn ( talk ) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Definite support of this idea. A good step by Wikia in rebuilding some of the strained community relations. I do like the idea of the ad placeholder as well. Atarumaster88 talk page 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely one of those who has been discouraged from contributing (especially images and new articles) by the new system (I uploaded some stuff a few days ago, ansd have frankly been depressed and reluctant to try to mess with it, especially on short pages with images, which look incredibly horrible), so this is definitely good news. I might add, by the way, that as a contributor, the banners don't bother me much. It's working around those horrible invasive boxes that's incredibly discouraging. As for the "bait and switch" concerns, here's a thought. There actually are people who register and never ocontribute, or vandalize or so on, so if necessary, maybe a system which would sort of "reward" active use, multiple edits and new pages, with the ad free set up rather than discourage it. It's just a thought, no idea if it would work, but it's a possible compromise. -- Andrew Leal (talk ) 03:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those who think that removing ads for registered users would get everyone to register and then have to be changed so that someone sees the ads are greatly underestimating the difficulty in getting people to register. If Wikia were to give out $100 to anyone who registered (this is a hypothetical example, of course, as actually doing so would be impractical for quite a few reasons), a substantial majority of those who visited the site yesterday would probably still never register.  Quizzical 09:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree. Removing the ads for registered users likely wouldn't help (much) in getting new people to register. But, frankly, I'm for whatever option helps get rid of those square ads that show up on the right-hand side, as those are the only ones that continually frustrate my editing. And any incentive to register, however small, is great. GrnMarvl14 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a solution. I'm currently an intermittent editor at the Transformers wiki, but before that took off I frequently used Memory Alpha (well, and still do) as a reference.  It never would have occurred to me that I could or should log into Memory Alpha myself; I don't have the depth of knowledge about Trek to feel comfortable as a contributor, and why would I log in if not to contribute?  I think that most non-editors would feel much the same way; why am I going to log in just to READ something?  It's counterintuitive and weird.  The bottom line will be that the non-editors, the readers, the people we're doing this FOR, would still have huge trashy ad boxes in the middle of the content.  That's going to drive away our audiences something fierce.
 * I realize that people use wikis for different reasons; some are by and for the editors, as a community thing, and this will work for those wikis. But if you're doing a wiki with an eye to sharing content with an audience, this doesn't accomplish much of anything. Chip 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming from this standpoint, can you make some recommendations on how we can get more people to register and contribute?! -- LordTBT Talk! 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Full agreement. I know whenever someone links to a messageboard thread that I have to log into just to READ, I just wait for someone to paste the relevant info someplace I don't have to. I avoid some messageboards altogether because the admin don't put restrictions on sig images, resulting in massive screen-wide obnoxious images under a line of "content". I'm not going to log in if I'm not going to post. Plus... frankly, the trust isn't there. Logged-in users may be 1% of the userbase as the claim goes, but what's the pagehit percentage they make up? The more prolific editors will spend hours a day on the wiki, on countless pages, re-viewing them many times to check their edits, checking the edits of others, making small corrections... the casual browser only a few minutes looking up a few things, resulting in far fewer pagehits... and isn't pagehits what the advertizers are looking at? Won't advertizers want that percentage? And what are the odds that Wikia won't capitulate to that demand like they have before, and we're all right back to where we are right now, if not worse? I'm sorry, but this isn't a solution. It's not a "win-win" situation. It strikes me as a desperate plea to keep wikis from leaving by offering a glimmer of a hope for a fragile, probably-short-lived reprieve. --M Sipher 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflicted) Just a few notes on najevi's #2 comment:
 * From my understanding of the code Wikia is using to display the ads, the issue of displaying a real ad vs. a placeholder isn't the issue here (In fact in the SVN repo there is already code to allow use of a ParserFunction to insert an ad into a page, quite likely just something added for testing purposes, but it just shows that ads themselves can be inserted as easily as placeholders). The issue is the preview feature itself. The code being used to display ads, or for that matter the code for determining sizes itself, is all coded to take effect on page views, not on previews. MediaWiki's code for viewing a page is extremely different than it's code for generating page previews. I believe the real issue here is that it'll take time to alter the page preview system in a way that allows for the system to place even a placeholder inside the preview correctly depending on what is in the page, much less even insert something into preview.
 * As for "there is no good reason why Monobook should not be available as an admin specified default skin", there is, the whole reason this is being done. Just to break down the whole issue with the ads:
 * Wikia needs ads that go by page impressions because Cost per Click ads don't generate any revenue to keep Wikia running.
 * Advertisers want a number of things if they are going to pay by impression:
 * They want ads in a visible location:
 * They don't want something thin in the sidebar (yes, that column in Monobook is thin)
 * They don't want a banner in the header
 * There are considerably fewer advertisers that will by a banner than those who will buy a box
 * They don't want the footer
 * They primarily want something inside the content area
 * They want the style of the site that the ads are being offered to be consistent (From their PoV Wikia is the site, not the wikis themselves). If Wikia offers some wiki in Monaco and others in Monobook, they will consider Wikia's style to be inconsistent.
 * If Wikia skips out on any of these, then they will not want to buy the Ads, and we're back to square one because CpC ads don't work.
 * Oh, btw, a note on the bit on people registering just to view without ads. Only anon views are replied by Squid/Varnish, if anyone is logged in then all their pageviews come directly from the Apaches, not the caches. If the number of users viewing Wikia using accounts the weight on the Apaches is going to grow, and Artur's work on switching from Squid to Varnish would be ruined. (last time I asked, by his stats one Varnish can handle as many anon users as 20 Squids, and does not slow down under low load like Squid does) Wikia's hardware costs will end up rising if they need to run more Apache servers because of page views. Just a note though, and this applies whether or not you need contributions to not see ads. If anon users think they can login and not see ads human mentality does not dictate that they are going to log back out when they see that they still see ads, there will plenty who just continue to browse.
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Jul 2, 2008 @ 17:07 (UTC)


 * Thank you Daniel, for that insight into the mechanics of serving up pages to anon users versus registered users. I don't look as closely under the hood to see how Wikia does things as you appear to. Also, I choose not to second guess Sannse when she states that "preview as anon" will take more time to develop than "placeholder ads".


 * The reasons Daniel lists for why Monobook should not be available as site-default skin even for anon browsers suggest either great insight into Wikia's corporate thought processes or considerable inference based on the scant reasons offered by Wikia staff both within this forum as well as in the initial announcement. It is because a "300x250 ad unit at the top right" is a new requirement for both Monaco and Monobook skins that makes the phasing out of Monobook as a site-default skin so unreasonable! From an ad placement perspective the only negative that Monobook presents is the narrower left-hand Nav bar and yet Wikia staff have repeatedly stated that the LH Nav bar locations are not favored by advertisers. On that point one Wikia community has already demonstrated how the width of the LH nav bar in Monaco may be reduced to the same 130 pixel width (edit:Is no longer viewable ) as the Monobook skin presented to anon users in the past. Gaining back 80 pixels horizontal space for article content goes a long way toward compensating for the 200 pixel intrusion by the block ad in top RH corner. I suspect this Monaco customization by HenryNe may become popular among sites who sorely miss the virtues of the Monobook skin and are facing up to the death knell for the Monobook skin here at Wikia.


 * Perhaps I am missing some subtle point but it seems to me that
 * locating ads within the article content area should only strengthen the case for allowing/supporting Monobook as a site-default skin choice.


 * Previously, Sannse explained that maintaining and developing both Monaco and Monobook skins is not cost-effective. That is a practical reason that is easy to understand and respect. I had that explanation in mind when I wrote that there are higher priority tasks wikia's design engineers could be working on than developing the Monaco edit preview to support "preview as anon" type complexity.
 * With all the commotion about ads my concern is that
 * the original issue of waning support for the Monobook skin (as a site-default) is being forgotten. 


 * najevi 18:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note about the narrowed Monaco sidebar -- I'm afraid that code can't be used in the site-wide MediaWiki:Monaco.css stylesheet. We build tools, spotlights and widgets that rely on the default width in this column, and we ask that you don't change that part of the layout for all visitors; HenryNe and I are discussing changing it back for coLinux.wikia. You are of course welcome to use this type of code to your personal stylesheet at User:USERNAME/monaco.css on your wiki, so that you can use the narrower layout for yourself; you can also change User:USERNAME/Monaco-sidebar and User:USERNAME/Monaco-toolbox to customize your own view, if there are links you use every day.


 * While we'd like the sidebar width to remain fixed, there are still a ton of other interesting customizations that can be done there -- just check out some of what http://rappelz.wikia.com/ has accomplished! — Catherine (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Catherine, your mention of the widgets for Monaco is a refreshing change of spotlight from all the talk about ads. Thank you for that.
 * Here's the thing with Monaco widgets. I have kicked the tyres on every one of them in the past month since the now infamous Monaco New style announcement was made. Frankly, there is no "killer app" in the arsenal of widgets that compels me to proclaim Monaco as the best thing since sliced bread or ... pick your favorite idiom. Monaco may promise wikia a consistent look and feel but it doesn't promise readers anything that they can't happily live without. Quite to the contrary (and not to overlook the more germane virtue of Monobook's leaner navigation and edit bars) there are two fundamental features that are sorely missed:
 * Printable version
 * Permanent link
 * I've quoted Stepen R. Covey before and I'll do so again for emphasis:
 * "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing!"
 * Guess what? The article content is the main thing.
 * A distant second are the navigation links for navigating the various articles.
 * The skin and the widgets are not the main thing. The ads are not the main thing either. Even the edit buttons, user page links, history links, voting buttons, site logo and so on and so forth are not the main thing for anybody except the ~1% of visitors who actually log in and contribute to the content. The minority who are motivated to contribute will find a way and frankly those who can't find a way might not have all of the qualities (patience, discipline, RTFM, etc.) that are desirable in an article editor.
 * You referred readers to rappelz.wikia.com, I now refer you to the official forum for that game. You don't need to spend much time browsing the recent posts at that forum (or even the stickied posts and guides) to realize that the caliber of material published and maintained at the wiki is head and shoulders above the caliber of even the best guide maintained at that forum. (That type of difference is what I suspect KrytenKoro was expressing concern over wrt "surly editors".)
 * If it is part of Wikia's business plan to allow and even encourage your hosted wikis to metamorphose into blogs, chat rooms, bulletin board style forums or some other social networking style site then by all means be overt about that but please don't presume that one skin (Monaco) should be used for both purposes.
 * I can well imagine that for one of those other types of communities the "main thing" might very well be one of the widgets that can be located in the oversize Monaco sidebar. To that point I say vive la difference! But for heaven's sake, please, let there be a difference! ... fair enough?
 * najevi 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A response to M Sipher's comments...


 * People don't need to log in to read. They need to log in if they don't want to see ads. If people are fine with reading the site and looking at the ads, then they don't need to log in. This system will give people a choice about their reading and editing experience. If they don't want to see ads, then logging in is free, and it takes less than a minute.


 * We're aware that heavy editors look at more pages than average. Right now, logged-in users make up about 1% of the people, and about 5% of the pageviews. We're okay with not showing ads to that group.


 * We've actually done this before -- on the Quartz skin, logged-in users didn't see any ads. At the time, we didn't see a huge rise in logged-in users on Quartz. This is a different situation -- the ads are bigger and more intrusive now, so we'll probably see some people logging in to avoid the ads.


 * Still, even if the number of logged-in users rises a lot, it's okay. We want people to log in anyway. Logged-in users are more likely to contribute, and feel like they're part of the community. That's why we've put big green candy-like login buttons on Monaco -- because we know that having people log in is good for the wikis.


 * As for the trust issue... That's a big deal. I totally understand that you feel burned. I think that the process that we've been through over the last few weeks demonstrates that we're trying to listen to the community, and make changes to the plan to make things work better. Trust is something that needs to be earned, so we'll keep working on it. -- Danny (talk ) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: How does this affect the ads on the main page, if logged in users don't get ads? -- LordTBT Talk! 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it looks like that wasn't clear enough in my message above. The main page would be an exception to this - it's article pages (and other internal pages) that we are talking about here -- sannse (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is great news, I thank Wikia for this. --Taylor Karras talk contributions 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...this is a horrible idea. You're basically using the stick to "encourage" those who just want to be readers into creating an account. Not only is it dishonest, but it's going to create a lot of surly new editors who are now able to get around page-protections.
 * From my experience, the main problem with the ads is that some asshat thought it would be a good idea to design them so that they rip apart page layout - and since the entire point of these wiki's is to conveniently inform and please the reader (NOT to massage the ego of the editor, as some seem to think), the reader still ends up screwed, unless they give out personal information and become a surly editor. What you are doing is slapping the face of 99% of your userbase in order to get slightly higher revenue.
 * The best solution, I think, is not to make the problem worse - just redesign the ads so that they don't disrupt the page layout. Have them as even banners that just move the page down a little, as they were before. I know you think "Any publicity is good publicity" - but believe me, creating giant disruptive banners that make a mess of content is NOT going to convince people to do more clicking. Hell, even nicely designed and integrated ads are lucky to get a lot of clicks.
 * Because, the way this is headed, a lot of prominent wiki's are discussing simply moving to different servers and "slash and burning" the wikia version - erasing everything and locking the pages to make it more difficult for you guys. I may not agree with this course of action, but it seems pretty inevitable that more and more people are going to figure "why let wikia keep sodomozing us?"KrytenKoro 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The rationale for why the ads work the way they do has been discussed a lot over the last few weeks -- you can check out the "Nobody clicks" thread for an explanation.


 * I'm not sure why you think the new logged-in readers would be surly, or why this is a dishonest system. Reading and writing on Wikia is free, and once this change is implemented, it'll be ad-free for people who log in. The system gives people a clear choice -- log in and see the site with no ads, or don't log in and look at the ads. It's up to the individual user to choose what they'd like to do.


 * I've also seen a discussion of the "slash and burn" concept, and I'm a little puzzled by it. Wiki editors know that it's pretty easy to protect a site from vandalism. Blanked pages can be restored; locked pages can be unlocked. Editors who "slash and burn" a wiki can be blocked from the site to prevent further vandalism. It would definitely be unpleasant if the people who spent years building up a wiki decided to vandalize their own site, but it wouldn't actually shut down the wiki. It would just be handled the way that any vandalism is handled. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Vandalism has a cost, but it can be managed. A bigger issue is likely to be the more subtle problems such as inaccuracy, libel or privacy concerns that were previously handled by volunteers. These must now be dealt with by paid staff, or not at all. Wikipedia has an out for this kind of thing because they can rely on third-party references, but most wikis hosted at Wikia rely on editors with specific domain knowledge. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, vandalism has its cost. But the way I saw it discussed, it would have to be reversed by an admin, and I think it's quite possible that anyone you tried to "volunteer" to that position would just say "to hell with it", and go to to the new, offsite wiki.
 * I've also seen a discussion of the "log-in solution", and I'm a little puzzled by them. If you honestly don't think the new users would be surly, then I'm sorry, but you've spent too much time in an ivory tower. I can tell you from experience that when someone is forced to subscribe, even for free, in order to not get shafted, they will be in an extremely bad mood - and you can hardly expect that the 99% un-logged readership we have will suddenly create accounts to get rid of the ads. So, this creates several problems, whether they login or not.


 * 1) If they do all log-in, then what? You'll have no ad readership, so what are you going to do? You're going to renege on this deal, and shaft us all up the ass again.
 * 2) They just leave, and stay away. You'll (again) have no ad readership, and you will again shaft us up the ass.
 * 3) They stay. And since the point of this project is (again) not to massage our ego's and let us pretend we're "experts", but instead to help the readership, you're forcing all the admins and editors to restructure every single page.
 * By the very nature of the "deal" you're offering, wikia will either go back on its word, and say "fuck you" to all of us, you're asking us to be assholes ourselves, or you're asking us to do a gigantic amount of work to fix a formatting problem.
 * Now, as was said before, the biggest problems with these ads is that they rip up the page format. In my experience, this is because most wiki's use that area for the lead image. As you've said before, you don't even have that many advertisers committed yet.
 * There are several solutions to this:


 * 1) A large-scale "slash-and-burn" and boycott which shows the advertisers that the ads are a losing proposition, and they pull out anyway. This can be done by the admins, forcing those you appoint after they leave to clean up after them. This could be done by persistent vandalism from new and anonymous accounts, which you would be unable to prevent except by removing the main draw of wiki's (that everyone can edit). This could be done insidiously, by "factual" vandalism that bots could not catch, that only the most obsessed editors would consistently catch (and you've got to admit, a lot of these would be among those leaving), and that would in some way or another leave most visitors disgusted with, and cause them to leave. This could be done by one editor posting instructions at the top of every page on how to remove the ads from your personal css (this could even be done to even out the page, and remove the formatting problems!). This could be done by making every page have a header at the top that lied below the ads, and have all links to a page point to that top header so that the ads were never seen. The editors who hate the ads REALLY hate the ads, and would very likely put the work into making wikia feel the pain, even if it ruins it for those saints who are willing to put up with wikia's jackassery.
 * 2) You move the box to the left. This would still muck up the layout, but the top left is almost always used for text, and the displacement would be much less destructive. I also can't imagine the advertising companies being that obsessed with the box being on the right.
 * 3) You even out the top. You would still have the ad be the first thing people see, and you would even have more space for ads. This would erase the formatting problems, and so the only remaining complaints would be the standard "I don't like having to look at ads at all" - which few people on the Internet still complain about, since most know they can't do anything about it.
 * So, no matter how you try to spin this "deal", it's still sodomy. ("When you put some grease on it, it doesn't hurt so much to shove a rusty, burning shovel up your rear!") You can go on and on about how the editors who are angered or boycotting wikia over this are "not listening to reality", or are just in denial, but the simple fact is that it is WIKIA which is refusing to listen to anything.KrytenKoro 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In the long term, I think wikis are robust enough to withstand even a sustained period of vandalism. But in the short term, you're right -- if someone is absolutely devoted to vandalizing a wiki, it can be a real pain in the neck, and it can be very discouraging for the community. I would hate to see a wiki tear itself apart because one group of editors decides to declare war on the rest.

I think we can rely, as we always do, on the good sense and maturity of our users, to choose collaboration over destruction. That's what a wiki is all about. On a wiki, threats and insults will never be as powerful as patience, mutual respect and an assumption of good faith. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The option logged-in users can select own skin and viewing how non logged-in visitors would seen this side is nonsense and non practicable. Last days I was logging in and out or have used two different browser sessions to see the view from non logged-in and edit on the other side as user. It's horror in handling. A: You are an user to edit pages, then must set the view as anon. B: You wand to see as logged-in style, then must set the option off.
 * Now, you needs permanently switching? Badly idea. Permanently switch on the "visit as anon"? Ugly, why we need than that option?
 * For me, I'd like to see the same view as the anonymous visitors.
 * If Monaco is the only supported skin for all visitors, then new site requesters and wiki admins (like me) would be select the wiki-hoster by layout. -- HenryNe 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm apparently coming late to this discussion, but I'm not sure that the benefits of this plan outweigh its flaws.


 * The main attraction of the new plan is, of course, removing banners from the articles for logged-in users. This seems to be a nice concession to faithful editors who don't want to be faced with banners in the editing process, but what does this really accomplish?  It is very unlikely that the ratio of logged-in users to unlogged-in users is going to change drastically.  You don't log into Amazon if you don't plan on buying something, and you don't log into Wikia if you don't plan on editing.  Casual users are very used to seeing advertising on the Internet these days, and I can't see ad-free page views being a big enough carrot to entice many non-editors to take the time to create an account.


 * The main problem, as I see it, is that this new plan encourages navel-gazing among editors. From reading this thread, I can tell that a lot of people are excited about this change because it solves a short term issue: I don't want to look at ads, and now I won't have to.  But what I think is inevitable, long-term, once you create two different user experiences is having 1% of editors designing pages for the 1% of editors and no longer for the vast majority of unlogged-in users.


 * I just logged in to Muppet Wiki and saw that Wikia has already removed ads for logged-in users. But there's no "Preview as Anon" system in place yet -- which is not surprising, seeing as how Wikia still hasn't fixed how banners appear on regular Preview pages.  So now, there's no way to see how pages look to unlogged-in users while editing without using multiple browsers or continually logging in and out.


 * Ignoring how the pages look for the vast majority of people who visit Wikia isn't going to solve this problem. But having the "Preview as Anon" button really won't fix it either.  It's just too easy to ignore what the regular viewing experience of the site is.  If 99% of users are going to see the banners, then I think it's in Wikia's best interest to have the experience be the same for 100% of users. -- <font color="Blue">Peter  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, I'm not sure why you're seeing no ads for logged-in users right now... The change hasn't happened yet, and I'm still seeing ads. We'll announce any changes here -- and if some pieces happen before others, we'll explain the expected timeline for the other pieces.


 * It's always been the case that some readers see the site differently. People have different browsers and screen sizes, and we're always finding things that look like they work on one screen but don't on another. Luckily, on a wiki, if one person sees things don't look right on their screen, they can fix it, or alert other people about the problem. It's easy for one person to navel-gaze; it's harder when there's a dozen, or a hundred, and everybody has a different navel.


 * Part of the idea here is for wikis to encourage their readers and contributors to log in. That's always been a goal for Muppet Wiki, and for lots of others too. It's true that lots of people won't choose to log in just to read; it's their choice how they want to experience the site. If logging in = editing, then maybe encouraging people to log in (to turn off the ads) will also be a subtle encouragement for people to try editing. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Danny, Peter has perhaps seen the same bug, like me: After Logout the Cookie was not cleared and all next pages can see with my default skin. Peter, have you Monaco as default skin? If not, the we can see some interesting side effects. That's why I say: Give logged-in users and anonymous visitors all time the same layout. This would never be bug free. -- HenryNe 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess I experienced a bug yesterday -- I definitely wasn't seeing ads at all on multiple pages, but they're back now. I just figured that the change had been announced elsewhere and I'd missed it.


 * I also wanted to add that I realize "navel-gazing" was kind of a loaded word. Clearly, no editor can view each page on every possible browser-resolution configuration.  And the more people you have editing a wiki with more of these configurations, the better equipped you'll be to notice glaring problems.  I still think that if all editors are logged-in, then that comes with a certain amount of risk, as it essentially doubles the number of possible configurations while putting extra steps in the path of editors to view the version of the page that most people will see.  But you're right -- in the end, managing that risk would be up to every individual wiki whether or not there were ads involved.


 * About something I said about "if all editors are logged-in" -- on Muppet Wiki, there's no difference these days; you have to log in to edit. I'm so used to conflating the two (editors and logged-in users) that I forgot for the moment that unlogged-in users can edit most wikis.  So yeah, I can see how this change could definitely contribute to a higher quantity of logged-in editors on other wikis, and that's a good thing.  Also, it doesn't hurt to throw content creators a bone once in a while. -- <font color="Blue">Peter  (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad change for logged-in users
Last week, we proposed making a change for logged-in users -- turning off the ads on article pages, so that logged-in users only see ads on the main page.

We got lots of feedback from the community, and the response was generally very positive. So we're going to be making the change within the next 24 hours, and logged-in users will see the article pages without ads.

One of the popular requests was to give logged-in editors the ability to see articles as a logged-out user would. We took those requests to our engineering team, and looked at the logistics of each option. What you'll see is a new option in user preferences, in the Skin tab. There'll be a checkbox under the list of Monaco skins that says "Show all advertisements: Select this option to see article pages as logged-out users see them." You can check that box if you still want to see the ads. The box will be unchecked as the default.

For people that want a quick view of one page, without having to go to preferences, there'll be a URL toggle. Just add ?showads=1 to the end of any page URL, and you'll see the article as a logged-out user would. The toggle will only apply to a single pageview, so it'll go back to your normal view when you load the page again.

We know that this change doesn't address everyone's concerns or complaints -- but we're happy that people will now have a choice about how they see the wiki pages. The new code will go live tomorrow, July 10th.

Thanks again for your feedback, your dedication and your passion. Keep talking to us about what you think, and tell us how things are working on your wiki. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 20:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great news. Thanks for your hard work Danny. --<font color="Green">LordTBT <font color="Green" size="2">Talk! 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good news :) ! Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC), Philralph @ sca21  10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely! :D SkywalkerPL 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom ad
There's a small problem with the bottom ad section on pages like this one where the name of the section show a lot higher than the add (and we have a lot of them on fr.guildwars). I think it miss a <tt>clear:both;</tt> attribute style. I could go in and insert the

template at end of every pages but that would be so tedious... — TulipVorlax 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way, on a french wiki, it looks really bad that the section name is in english. I did not find anything in special:allmessages so i suppose it's hard coded. — TulipVorlax 01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was there a discussion about the placement/type change for the bottom ads someplace that I missed? -- 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TulipVorlax: Can you try and get a screenshot of the misplaced title? I couldn't reproduce that. The translation part is being fixed, the message will be at Mediawiki:fast-adv so you can translate. It isn't showing up correctly at the moment, but Inez is working on it. Gahoo: To transfer what we talked about on IRC... the ad is always variable, sometimes a banner and sometimes a box. That's part of what we said originally about anonomous users seeing various sizes/placements of ads. The header was added when we realised that on pages with long final sections the ad appeared in the middle of the article... not what we intended! So this was a fix after seeing the effect in a live situation -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh i though that a link with showads=1 was enough...
 * Here the whole page capture done with Endicosoft tool and hosted on ImageShack :
 * http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screencapturedate110720ja9.jpg
 * The section title has changed and there's something strange to the left under the spotlight. — TulipVorlax 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The following capture is from GuildWiki. Ad in middle of page : — TulipVorlax 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AdBlocking
Thanks for making me install AdBlock Wikia. Really appreciate the way it made my Internet surfing smoother and prevented intrusive ads. Shaur M. S. Grizlin 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you say that... Logged-in users don't see ads on article pages anymore, so you shouldn't have any need for AdBlock on Wikia. -- <font color="Blue">Danny (<font color="Blue" size="1">talk ) 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says he didn't install it on June 17 and is just now getting around to mentioning it? Or that he's not installing it in preparation for when you inevitably backpedal on not showing ads to logged-in users (since you're clearly incapable of committing to anything anymore)? -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 22:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You corrupt corporatists, 99% of people who visit this place are just here to read articles on wikis. A few will click on ads and get spam in their inbox, or a computer virus/malware, or lose money in other ways, even get tricked into believing bullshit conspiracy theories from this www.NostradamusOnline.com ad next to me. --Whachsul733 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mikael, in addition to AdBlock Pro I recommend NoScript. For those web sites that you care to enable scripts it's easy enough to enable for that site either temporarily or permanently. najevi 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

...
Making logged-in uses unable to see ads is not the answer to the problem, as the ads are still there and decreases the quality of pages, lowing new users and even frequent users the doesn't log in frequently. It would be pointless to a user log in every time to just read pages, and the "preview as anon" button idea made me laugh. Wikia needs the ads, true, but as said here and in other parts of the forum, the ads should be outside articles like before, or Wikia will lose more revenue then win with the ads as it is now because users may block them, and blocking is a plus not only because it removes the intrusive ads, but also makes the pages load faster. I have a question: Making logged-in users unable to see ads would not also reduce it? Also, why not accept donations like Wikipedia? Obviously, if Wikia accepts donations there would be no need to be free of ads like Wikipedia, just place them in a better place of the pages that doesn't annoy everyone. --THIS IS SPARTA WIKIA! 02:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are unanswered questions going to be answered?
Danny and Sannse you know how politicians who plan to speak at conventions surround themselves by like-minded party members but screen out any vocal opposing party members? Well, that is what it seems like is going on here.

Wikia is pampering (even patronizing) the vocal few who care enough about the Wikia New Style to comment or ask questions. As new comment and questions evaporate from this population of users who either you pat yourselves on the back.
 * no longer see ads themselves and/or
 * enjoy special permission to use a preferred Monobook skin as site-default and/or
 * have tired of your stone-walling tactics

In reality you just haven't measured the impact of your policy honestly.

Take this past week as an a example. You haven't exactly been swamped by comments or questions here and yet you have not used that freed up bandwidth to answer the very reasonable questions that have previously been asked and yet continue to go unanswered in the now archived posts of this forum topic. You may have forgotten about those questions but those who submitted questions surely have not.

When you announce new policy; invite feedback; receive feedback (especially feedback in the form of clarifying questions) but then ignore it ... well ... that does not foster good will. It most certainly does not demonstrate the assumption of good faith that you seem so fond of appealing to.


 * Do you plan to reciprocate the assumption of good faith by reviewing the unanswered questions and responding?
 * Or are you waiting for those of us who assumed good faith on your part to repeat our questions under fresh forum headings?

najevi 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like others here, I feel somewhat let down in that the wiki I work on was created on Wikia under a certain set of assumptions, and now we find, after a year's solid work, that life has changed.
 * However, I can't see any common ground between my views and what najevi states above. I have read all the comments on this page (and archives), and I just don't see the alleged sinfulness. Below najevi has asked some specific questions -- that's good. But the above is just totally uncalled for, IMHO. I have never seen greater honesty and transparency from a commercial organisation than what I have observed here.
 * What would be useful would be if someone could research what alternatives for free wiki hosting are available. I suspect from the lack of decent comment on this that there really are no good alternatives. Some might see that as further evidence of Wikia's guilt, but to me it suggests that they really need the ad changes to pay for everything. --JohnBeckett 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Najevi. As I've said before, the detail you are asking for is not sustainable. We cannot sit here with you and micro-analyse every decision we make and every aspect of the company. We are answering all we can, but that doesn't mean we are able to reply to every single question and comment. And that extra time this week... we've been using it to get back to helping and supporting wikis and users. Discussing this is important of course, but so is all the other work we try to do to make Wikia as good as it can be. -- sannse (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't Monobook be a site-default skin?
Given that sites using Monobook as a default skin also see the 300x250 block ad and/or the 90x730 leaderboard ad, why shouldn't all wiki communities be free to specify Monobook as the site default skin to be seen by:
 * 1) visitors that do not log in
 * 2) logged in visitors who have checked "Let the admins override my skin choice."

The advertisers still enjoy the uniformity of their ads appearing in the two preferred locations. There is no impact to ad placement options available at the bottom of each web page.

The only obstacle I can imagine is the loss of the lower areas of the left hand navigation bar for so-called skyscraper ads.
 * Is the skyscraper ad format in such high demand that communities should be deprived of the Monobook skin as an option?

It is not reasonable to state that Monobook will continue to be available as a user preference skin and not make it available as a site preference skin.

It has been clearly stated that new wikia features (e.g. widgets) will not be developed for Monobook. For those communities who are happy with that condition, why not allow Monobook to be selected as the site default skin? Admins for a wiki community are able to make a decision as to whether the Monaco widgets provide any desirable value to their readers.

najevi 06:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that someone from Wikia had claimed that switching to Monaco led to greater community involvement (= greater interest to advertisers). That sounds complete nonsense to me, but I haven't seen any evidence. --JohnBeckett 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this is something that's in the archives... but they are getting rather long now. So... there are a few reasons for this.  Including, in no particular order:  The new skin has been designed to encourage people to participate.  We tried to make sure it emphasises that you can edit rather than just read, and we believe it will increase the number of people joining the wikis.  We also believe that new users will prefer the new skin, it's older users who will tend to prefer what they know.  And it will help newbies (especially those completely new to wikis) to see the same skin as they move around Wikia.  So we are looking out for them while still allowing older users to use Monobbook.  We will be developing for Monaco. Obviously we want new features like EditTips to be available to newbies, but they will only be available on Monaco.  That helps our development team and saves our resources.  Also, advertisers like a consistent look to the site.  They don't want to advertise on 6000 little sites, they want to advertise on one big one.  Having some aspects of the site consistent (the overall look) will help us attract advertisers.  So we think this skin will be good for us, and for users... but we understand that some will want to stay on Monobook, and so are providing that option as an individual choice. -- sannse (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikia approve of a link allowing readers to dismiss an ad?
This question or suggestion has appeared more than just a few times in the past two months but has never drawn a response from Wikia staff. It is clearly not a violation of the Wikia terms of service since it leaves the choice of action to each visitor on a page by page basis. najevi 06:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, can we get real! No one is going to document precisely what text can be used on a wiki. I could create a page commenting on some public figure, then each week make subtle changes that move the article ever closer to unsupportable defamation. No one can come up with a formula in advance that would predict when Wikia would react to my silly behaviour.
 * If we can assume anything, it is that Wikia is introducing ads to earn an income (they are not doing it to upset people). Actually, there is one other thing that we can assume: Naturally a "click here to irritate an advertiser" button will eventually cause trouble between a wiki and Wikia. Likewise, if a site notices ads for a particular brand of shoes, and the site then cunningly introduces a bunch of pages criticising those shoes, there will be trouble. Life is unfair, particularly when you have to pay the bills. --JohnBeckett 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does WIkia get paid for impression ads regardless of the number of page views?
I understand that click-through ads require viewers to click on the ad for Wikia to collect revenue. I also read that Wikia plans to transition away from click through advertising revenue to impression advertising revenue.


 * 1) I assumed Wikia is paid for hosting impression ads regardless of whether people view them, is this the case?
 * 2) *Does number of page views somehow factor into the revenue formula?
 * 3) Is there some date by which all click through ads at Wikia will be phased out?
 * 4) Are there going to be any click through ads in the 300x250 block or the 90x730 leaderboard?
 * 5) Is it accurate to assume that all ads appearing in the left hand nav bar are click through ads?

najevi 07:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In short:
 * No
 * 1) *Yes
 * No
 * Yes
 * No

In slightly longer: we are using a variety of ad suppliers, a variety of types of ad, and are working to increase and improve both. The individual deals that we make are more likely to be impression ads than click-throughs. But when we don't have a specific deal then the ads will be more likely to be per-click. All this is generalisation though, there are many variations. -- sannse (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad
I'm not sure if you are able to see this but I see an h2 header saying <fast-adv>, which I'm guessing is an ad space, on the bottom of pages across Wikia when you check "Show all advertisements" in your preferences. I see it here and here as an example, and I see it on the bottom of the Forum. <font color="darkred" face="Chalkboard">Wikada - <font color="darkred" face="Chalkboard">Talk <font color="darkred" face="Chalkboard">Contributions 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reported" a little higher on this page see . — TulipVorlax 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo. On safari (for the PC, but presumably for the mac as well,) your deep-page ad-block is mis-rendering with visible HTML.

Also- you suck. -Derik 02:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fixed now (the visible code that is, not us sucking). Which also means that the "advertisement" header is translatable.  Just edit Wikiamedia:fast-adv for your language -- sannse (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Telling users they can avoid ads, apart from main page, by signing in
Are there examples of this being done yet? Is it being included in welcome templates? Philralph @ sca21 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)