1. Agreed. Anytime I see anything that interferes with my ability to digest a webpage the way the author -- and not the third party hacks -- intended, it annoys me to the point of using the web less.

Perhaps that's their ploy, and Vibrant is funded by print media...

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Justin Kownacki

2. Can everybody just calm down- “evil” and “hate”…… mmmm a bit over the top.
I am a user of Forbes and actually find these links unobtrusive and often relevant. And yes I did click on them on occasion. What I liked about them was that I could choose to ignore them, which I did on 95% of the pages I read.

On the other hand I can not choose to ignore the full page take over ads that hinder my navigation of the Forbes site. I am a user and that in my opinion is what counts when discussing a website or any aspect of the evolution of the net. If it meant IntelliTXT replaced pop ups or other noisy adverts to fund my favorite websites then these underlined links get my vote every time.

Rather than cut and pasting half a quote to manipulate a story (mmmm maybe that is evil journalism) I have attached the full article by Brian Morrissey that gives a balanced argument to this issue:

http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=31184

From what I can tell, editors are skeptical of IntelliTXT as they were to sponsored links in search all those years ago (do not hear many editors complaining about this anymore) but users are indifferent or find it useful and click… it is as simple as that

My last point on this subject is are we forgetting that advertising pays for editors wages… the debate is not IntelliTXT but how best to fund content on the web….. as a user I do not like paying for subscriptions, I do not like pop ups, I do not like MPU’s and I ignore banners and skys…. John what is your solution to paying for these editors wages as I note all the advertising on your website?

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by John Lane

3. That's why Lockergnome doesn't carry 'em. ;)

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Chris Pirillo

4. Jason, I have no idea of what you would consider to be an acceptable advertisement on an editorial (publisher) site. Could you at least give us some examples so we can comprehend your way of thinking? I've used the Forbes site and didn't find the Intellitext ads intrusive at all. (Rather, they were very helpful and gave me Christmas shopping ideas along with making me better informed.)

I'm assuming you also hate any show that does product placement (Survivor, Queer Eye, HGTV/What Not to Wear) as part of its content. I work for a publisher site myself and we're smart enough to realize that we, as writers and editors, are not the target audience. At the same time, we never comprise our writing for any advertising that may appear on the site. It doesn't matter if it appears in clearly marked links on the content (unobtrusive), as a separate copy link (unobtrusive, but taking away real estate) or as a graphic advertisement (obtrusive and taking up real estate) – we write to be relevant and effective to our audience. If we can't do that, then people won't read us and no advertising anywhere will make any difference.

Despite what I feel is your unfounded and undeserving criticism, I have to commend VibrantMedia for not only being unobtrusive with their ads, but actually improving my web experience. That's something I never thought any ad medium would be able to do -- hats off to them.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by John Turner

5. Agreed. Anytime I see anything that interferes with my ability to digest a webpage the way the author -- and not the third party hacks -- intended, it annoys me to the point of using the web less.

Perhaps that's their ploy, and Vibrant is funded by print media...

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Justin Kownacki

6. Can everybody just calm down- “evil” and “hate”…… mmmm a bit over the top.
I am a user of Forbes and actually find these links unobtrusive and often relevant. And yes I did click on them on occasion. What I liked about them was that I could choose to ignore them, which I did on 95% of the pages I read.

On the other hand I can not choose to ignore the full page take over ads that hinder my navigation of the Forbes site. I am a user and that in my opinion is what counts when discussing a website or any aspect of the evolution of the net. If it meant IntelliTXT replaced pop ups or other noisy adverts to fund my favorite websites then these underlined links get my vote every time.

Rather than cut and pasting half a quote to manipulate a story (mmmm maybe that is evil journalism) I have attached the full article by Brian Morrissey that gives a balanced argument to this issue:

http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artprevbot.cgi?article_id=31184

From what I can tell, editors are skeptical of IntelliTXT as they were to sponsored links in search all those years ago (do not hear many editors complaining about this anymore) but users are indifferent or find it useful and click… it is as simple as that

My last point on this subject is are we forgetting that advertising pays for editors wages… the debate is not IntelliTXT but how best to fund content on the web….. as a user I do not like paying for subscriptions, I do not like pop ups, I do not like MPU’s and I ignore banners and skys…. John what is your solution to paying for these editors wages as I note all the advertising on your website?

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by John Lane

7. That's why Lockergnome doesn't carry 'em. ;)

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Chris Pirillo

8. Jason, I have no idea of what you would consider to be an acceptable advertisement on an editorial (publisher) site. Could you at least give us some examples so we can comprehend your way of thinking? I've used the Forbes site and didn't find the Intellitext ads intrusive at all. (Rather, they were very helpful and gave me Christmas shopping ideas along with making me better informed.)

I'm assuming you also hate any show that does product placement (Survivor, Queer Eye, HGTV/What Not to Wear) as part of its content. I work for a publisher site myself and we're smart enough to realize that we, as writers and editors, are not the target audience. At the same time, we never comprise our writing for any advertising that may appear on the site. It doesn't matter if it appears in clearly marked links on the content (unobtrusive), as a separate copy link (unobtrusive, but taking away real estate) or as a graphic advertisement (obtrusive and taking up real estate) – we write to be relevant and effective to our audience. If we can't do that, then people won't read us and no advertising anywhere will make any difference.

Despite what I feel is your unfounded and undeserving criticism, I have to commend VibrantMedia for not only being unobtrusive with their ads, but actually improving my web experience. That's something I never thought any ad medium would be able to do -- hats off to them.

Posted at 4:21AM on Dec 19th 2005 by John Turner