On 2011-06-30 16:40 , John Sessoms wrote:
I don't even get the little bar across the top that I occasionally get
from other sites that says "Firefox has prevented this site from opening
a pop-up window."
that's because the pop-ups we're talking about aren't actual windows,
they are javascript
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: drd1...@gmail.com
>
>> I think I'll just continue to cuss at the ad. Carry on, gentlefolk.
>
> Or you could go to http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm and download the
> batch file that will automatically install a new hosts file that
From: drd1...@gmail.com
I think I'll just continue to cuss at the ad. Carry on, gentlefolk.
Or you could go to http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm and download
the batch file that will automatically install a new hosts file that has
a current list of most abuse sites.
If you have an exi
You need a space in there between "127.0.0.1" and "ads.doubleclick.net".
The line should read:
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
Comments in the hosts file begin with '#'
There's a good site for pre-written hosts files:
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Also contains a lot of troubleshooting
From: Stan Halpin
What some of us object to is the big pop-up that appears about 1
second into the page-load process. The pop-up covers about 80-90% of
the window and (for me at least) is blank. Presumably, if I wait long
enough, some advertising pitch will appear in that pop-up. I have
never wa
Bob, as Ecke and Mark point out, you can poison hostname lookups to
doubleclick.net (and any other ad-domain hostname you please) right on
your local workstation by adding entries to the HOSTS file. That's
/etc/hosts on UNIX offspring (Linux, *BSD, and Mac OS X). It's
C:\windows\system32\driver
I think I'll just continue to cuss at the ad. Carry on, gentlefolk.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts
Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:12:16
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
Ecke PDML wrote:
Ecke PDML wrote:
>In Windows, open C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts in notepad and
>add a line that says 127.0.0.1ads.doubleclick.net then restart your
>computer and links to that server will go straight to nirvana =)
Also:
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad-g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1
In Windows, open C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts in notepad and
add a line that says 127.0.0.1ads.doubleclick.net then restart your
computer and links to that server will go straight to nirvana =)
2011/6/29 Bob Sullivan :
> Bruce,
> Oh you gotta give us more details on that!
> Regards, Bob
On 11-06-29 2:08 PM, Bob W wrote:
It's commerce in a free society, and, for the most part, it works.
The evidence of your own eyes here shows that to be incorrect with at
least this, admittedly, small and self-selecting sample. The reactions
vary from "so what" to vehement abhorrence. Not the
> > It's commerce in a free society, and, for the most part, it works.
>
> The evidence of your own eyes here shows that to be incorrect with at
> least this, admittedly, small and self-selecting sample. The reactions
> vary from "so what" to vehement abhorrence. Not the response I would
> want
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:01:32PM +0200, mike wilson wrote:
> On 28/06/2011 02:48, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>
> >It's commerce in a free society, and, for the most part, it works.
>
> The evidence of your own eyes here shows that to be incorrect with
> at least this, admittedly, small and self-s
> No, I love ads.
>
> To a great extent, you are an ad.
>>>
>>> It was, ahem, ad hominem...
>>
>> I just knew someone would come back with an ad lib comment.
>
>Probably some ad hawk.
Adieu believe this thread will continue.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdm
On 28/06/2011 02:48, Paul Stenquist wrote:
It's commerce in a free society, and, for the most part, it works.
The evidence of your own eyes here shows that to be incorrect with at
least this, admittedly, small and self-selecting sample. The reactions
vary from "so what" to vehement abhorre
ntax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's an
>>> annoyance, but not a disabling one.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Tim Bray wrote:
>>>
On 11-06-29 12:13 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
[...] But we're deviating from the topic here.
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>
>>> We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
>>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
>>>
On 27/06/2011 6:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
No, I love ads.
To a
On 6/28/2011 23:18, Ken Waller wrote:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
I can relate to Paul Stenquist here, who has great many pictures on
photo.net and re-uploading t
ot a disabling one.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Tim Bray wrote:
>>
>>> From: Tim Bray
>>> Subject: Photo.net no more
>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>>&g
Bruce,
Oh you gotta give us more details on that!
Regards, Bob S.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> On 11-06-27 1:09 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>>
>> I just clicked on a PESO hosted on photo.net. It popped up an
>> interstitial ad that I had to view or dismiss before I could see t
On 11-06-27 1:09 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
I just clicked on a PESO hosted on photo.net. It popped up an
interstitial ad that I had to view or dismiss before I could see the
picture. [...]
I'm no fan of photo.net, but I've never seen these popups and I see very
few of the banner ads, so I've been a
the thread will continue until someone invokes Godwin's Law and takes it ad olf
2011/6/29 Matthew Hunt :
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Bob W wrote:
>>
We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Wil
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>
>>> We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
>>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 27/06/2011 6:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No, I love ads.
>>> >
>>> > T
Bob W wrote:
>> We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>> > On 27/06/2011 6:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> >
>> > No, I love ads.
>> >
>> > To a great extent, you are an ad.
>
>It was, ahem, ad hominem...
It was, ahem, ad hominem...
>
> We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
>
> > On 27/06/2011 6:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No, I love ads.
> >
> > To a great extent, you are an ad.
--
On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm not forced to read or avoid the ads before I can get on the bus. I
>> don't strongly object to sites, or buses, carrying ads, what I object to is
>> the in-yer-face intrusive approach that photo.net have taken with thei
Bob W wrote:
>OK, I'm not forced to read or avoid the ads before I can get on the bus. I
>don't strongly object to sites, or buses, carrying ads, what I object to is
>the in-yer-face intrusive approach that photo.net have taken with theirs
>which spoils the experience of looking at your photos and
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
I can relate to Paul Stenquist here, who has great many pictures on
photo.net and re-uploading them may be a big effort for him. L
On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:10 AM, Bob W wrote:
>
>>
>> I lose, you lose, photo.net loses, the advertisers lose. How can you think
>> that works?
>>
>
> Unfortunately, the advertisers don't lose. Pop-ups score more hits than
> banner ad
flickr is way cleaner than photo.net for showing a single photo. just
check out godfrey's examples. habit is another thing tough, your eyes
immediately knowing where to look is always a help. but it usually
takes only a couple dozen visits to get used to any layout.
f
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:03 P
On 28/06/2011 3:35 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
A wee testy today? That wasn't an attack any more than saying you are an
American from Detroit is an attack.
Well, I suppose that might be an attack.
--
William Robb
--
What some of us object to is the big pop-up that appears about 1 second into
the page-load process. The pop-up covers about 80-90% of the window and (for me
at least) is blank. Presumably, if I wait long enough, some advertising pitch
will appear in that pop-up. I have never waited long enough t
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> ... I assume you're a flickr members, so that's why the ads are
> inconspicuous. They're not inconspicuous for non-members. ...
Again, if I send you the links to photos like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/5865448384/lightbox/
On 28 June 2011 20:50, wrote:
> Just for information purposes, I get a pop up window with an ad that I have
> to close in order to see the picture. I use a MacBook with Safari.
>
Are you referring to Flickr or photo.net? I get an occasional pop up
at photo.net but never at Flickr. Occasionall
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:40 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see the "in-yer-face
> intrusive" nature of the advertising at photo.net.
>
> I am not a member of photo.net, so if it's bad I should be getting the brunt
> of it. Right?
>
> I don't see the a
From: "Bob W"
If I get on a bus that says Trafalgar Square on the front, I don't
> want to
> > be forced to go shopping first.
>
> A fallacious argument. You won't have to go shopping, but you will see
> ads on the side of the bus, on the bus shelter, and perhaps on the
> interior of the bus a
From: Sandy Harris
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Rick Womer
wrote:
Well, compared to the Flickr interface, or the tectonic launch
time of the Pentax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of
Smugmug... it's an annoyance, but not a disabling one.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
I've
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Unfortunately, the advertisers don't lose. Pop-ups score more hits than
> banner ads. I don't know why. Like you, I click them off immediately.
Maybe some people have bad aim.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.n
: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
On 28 June 2011 11:43, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
(snip)
> I assume you're a flickr members, so that's why the ads are
> inconspicuous. They're not inconspicuous for non-members. The same is true of
> photo.net
On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:10 AM, Bob W wrote:
>>>
>>> If I get on a bus that says Trafalgar Square on the front, I don't
>> want to
>>> be forced to go shopping first.
>>
>> A fallacious argument. You won't have to go shopping, but you will see
>> ads on the side of the bus, on the bus shelter, and
We can always count on Robb for a childish personal attack. How trite.
On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
> On 27/06/2011 6:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> No, I love ads.
>
> To a great extent, you are an ad.
>
> --
>
> William Robb
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss M
> >
> > If I get on a bus that says Trafalgar Square on the front, I don't
> want to
> > be forced to go shopping first.
>
> A fallacious argument. You won't have to go shopping, but you will see
> ads on the side of the bus, on the bus shelter, and perhaps on the
> interior of the bus as well. An
rg/southernlight/
, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's
> an annoyance, but not a disabling one.
>
> Rick
>
> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
>
>
> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> > From: Tim Bray
> > Subject: Photo.net no mor
On 28 June 2011 11:43, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
(snip)
> I assume you're a flickr members, so that's why the ads are
> inconspicuous. They're not inconspicuous for non-members. The same is true of
> photo.net for the most part. However, I think photo.net should avoid pop-ups
> and stick wit
On 6/27/2011 23:06, Chris Mitchell wrote:
I made a decision years ago not to use any photo sharing sites. I want
control of where my images are stored and how they're displayed.
My ISP provides 2Gb of storage (plenty for low res PESOs and GesoS)
and Jalbum is a slick way of creating them - with
On 27/06/2011 6:44 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
No, I love ads.
To a great extent, you are an ad.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the
On 6/27/2011 20:09, Tim Bray wrote:
I just clicked on a PESO hosted on photo.net. It popped up an
interstitial ad that I had to view or dismiss before I could see the
picture. This is unacceptable behavior and, sorry folks, I just ain't
clicking on any more photo.net links.
FYI, for those folk
On 28 June 2011 12:50, Sandy Harris wrote:
> I've never seen an intrusive ad on that site. I just tested by
> clicking on Rick's
> link (Some nice photos there, by the way.) and got no ads.
>
> I'm using Firefox on Linux with so ad-blocking and script-blocking add-ons.
> I do not recall which, bu
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 07:20:55PM -0600, steve harley wrote:
> On 2011-06-27 18:48 , Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> i'm very good at ignoring ads, but for many people, and especially
> when pop-ups are involved, viewing an ad is fairly akin to forced
> window-shopping
And forced-to-watch ads are akin
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Rick Womer wrote:
> Well, compared to the Flickr interface, or the tectonic launch time of the
> Pentax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's an
> annoyance, but not a disabling one.
>
> Rick
>
> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
I've never s
On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
> On 28 June 2011 10:44, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> (snip) I like ads. No, I love ads.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> I'm not against ads. They let me have a service which costs me
> nothing, at the small cost of some inconspicuous advertising on the
> p
On 2011-06-27 18:48 , Paul Stenquist wrote:
A fallacious argument. You won't have to go shopping, but you will see ads on
the side of the bus, on the bus shelter, and perhaps on the interior of the bus
as well. And if they weren't there, you'd probably have to pay twice as much to
ride that b
On 28 June 2011 10:44, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> (snip) I like ads. No, I love ads.
>
> Paul
>
I'm not against ads. They let me have a service which costs me
nothing, at the small cost of some inconspicuous advertising on the
page where my work is displayed.
But let me qualify that statement.
On 2011-06-27 16:16 , Tim Bray wrote:
Hey Paul, would it cost you severe personal or business pain if
photo.net declared bankruptcy tomorrow and shut down on Thursday?
photo.net is among the oldest community websites around; i was once fond
of it and used to read Greenspun's articles and look
On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Bob W wrote:
>
> If I get on a bus that says Trafalgar Square on the front, I don't want to
> be forced to go shopping first.
A fallacious argument. You won't have to go shopping, but you will see ads on
the side of the bus, on the bus shelter, and perhaps on the i
Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Each time I see said adds, I wonder why the user would tolerate it.
>>> I'll continue to click on the "X", but I imagine it will discourage some
>>> from using Photo.net.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>
They know you're too cheap to buy anything, John.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:27 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: "Ken Waller"
>>
>> Apparently it isn't universal - I don't get the pop up ad.
>>
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a pop-up ad on photo.net
>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
>
"If I get on a bus that says Trafalgar Square on the front, I don't want to
be forced to go shopping first.:
Never go to London with my daughter, then. I'm just saying . . .
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Bob W wrote:
>>
>> >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Beha
From: "Ken Waller"
Apparently it isn't universal - I don't get the pop up ad.
I don't think I've ever seen a pop-up ad on photo.net
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1513/3728 - Release Date: 06/26/11
--
PDML Pentax-Disc
I imagine it will discourage some from
using Photo.net.
Jack
--- On Mon, 6/27/11, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
From: Daniel J. Matyola
Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 10:25 AM
Really, it can't be that difficult or
tiring t
A few of us use Zenfolio. Basic ($25/yr), Unlimited ($50/yr) and Premium
($100/yr) plans available. Customizable, park your own domain there, unlimited
traffic, unlimited storage for all plans above the Basic . . .
http://www.zenfolio.com/zf/all-features.aspx
stan
On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:54 PM,
>
> >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Mark Roberts
> >>
> >> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >>
> >> >Photo.net members don't see the ads.
> >>
> >> Apparently, non-members who visit photo.net with JavaScript turned
> off
> >> (use Firefox with the NoScript
the "X", but I imagine it will discourage some
>> from using Photo.net.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>>
>>> From: Daniel J. Matyola
>>> Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss
Bob W wrote:
>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>> Mark Roberts
>>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> >Photo.net members don't see the ads.
>>
>> Apparently, non-members who visit photo.net with JavaScript turned off
>> (use Firefox with the NoScript plug-in)
On top of which, photo.net is butt-ugly to look at these days.
I pay the $25 to flickr for ad-free photo-sharing with family &
friends. For the stuff I care about, I host on my own blog. But to
make it work the way I like it, I had to write a whole bunch of
software, so I can't in good conscienc
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Mark Roberts
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> >Photo.net members don't see the ads.
>
> Apparently, non-members who visit photo.net with JavaScript turned off
> (use Firefox with the NoScript plug-in) don't see ads either.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>Photo.net members don't see the ads.
Apparently, non-members who visit photo.net with JavaScript turned off
(use Firefox with the NoScript plug-in) don't see ads either.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail Li
On Jun 27, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Bob W wrote:
>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>> Paul Stenquist
>> Sent: 27 June 2011 21:38
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
>>
>> Photo.net
You post a photo of salt shakers and people start commenting on the Buskers.
Often the comments don't seem to follow the pictures.
And the damned interface is still slow!!!
Do they think they are tricking me with those rotating red & black balls?
How about just using the old spinning hourglass.
Reg
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Paul Stenquist
> Sent: 27 June 2011 21:38
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
>
> Photo.net members don't see the ads. I've considered changing but I
> have ov
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Scott Loveless
[...]
> I may start hosting my own again, because the photo hosting sites are
> like operating systems - they all suck.
>
Hear, hear!
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mai
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Photo.net members don't see the ads. I've considered changing but I have over
> 3000 images on photo.net, and I"m paid up through 2012. Plus, I don't really
> have time go fool around with something new. I really don't like the flickr
> i
Den 27. juni 2011 kl. 21.26 skrev Larry Colen:
>
> How much would people be willing to pay for a photo hosting site that didn't
> suck?
I think I pay about $80 a year to the web hotel and made everything in
Rapidweaver (about $60 on apple app store). A nice thing is that if it sucks at
least
On 2011-06-27 15:26, Larry Colen wrote:
How much would people be willing to pay for a photo hosting site that didn't
suck?
I pay about US$ 10 a month for mine.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCR
Mon, 6/27/11, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>
>> From: Daniel J. Matyola
>> Subject: Re: Photo.net no more
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 10:25 AM
>> Really, it can't be that difficult or
>> tiring to actuall
I have to say that I'm tired of the ads and the attitude. Too commercial
for me.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
On 11-06-27 3:26 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Jun 27, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Rick Womer wrote:
Well, compared to the Flickr interface, or the tectonic launch time of the
Pentax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's an
annoyance, but not a disabling one.
Every time the photo.n
On 27/06/2011, Rick Womer wrote:
> Well, compared to the Flickr interface, or the tectonic launch time of the
> Pentax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's an
> annoyance, but not a disabling one.
>
> Rick
>
> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
I made a decision years ago not
Apparently it isn't universal - I don't get the pop up ad.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Bray"
Subject: Photo.net no more
I just clicked on a PESO hosted on photo.net. It popped up an
interstit
Each time I see said adds, I wonder why the user would tolerate it.
I'll continue to click on the "X", but I imagine it will discourage some from
using Photo.net.
Jack
--- On Mon, 6/27/11, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> From: Daniel J. Matyola
> Subject: Re: Photo.net
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> The Flicker interface has other problems for me...can never tell which
> picture I'm supposed to look at.
If I send you the links
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/5865448384/lightbox/
or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/5865448384
; Pentax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's an
> annoyance, but not a disabling one.
>
> Rick
>
> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
>
>
> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>> From: Tim Bray
>> Subject: Photo.net no more
>&
On Jun 27, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Rick Womer wrote:
> Well, compared to the Flickr interface, or the tectonic launch time of the
> Pentax Gallery, or the merely glacial launch time of Smugmug... it's an
> annoyance, but not a disabling one.
>
> Rick
>
Every time the photo.net ad pops up, I grumb
>
> http://photo.net/photos/RickW
>
>
> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>> From: Tim Bray
>> Subject: Photo.net no more
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 1:09 PM
>> I just clicked on a PESO hos
gt; Subject: Photo.net no more
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 1:09 PM
> I just clicked on a PESO hosted on
> photo.net. It popped up an
> interstitial ad that I had to view or dismiss before I
> could see the
> picture. This is unacceptable
it's not difficult, but it's behaviour from photo.net that's in your face and
offensive. More often than not when I click to see someone's picture on
photo.net and the ad pops I just think 'Well, fuck you', and click out.
There are plenty of hosting sites that don’t shove this crap down viewers
I told those idiots to shove it a year or more back when they started
censoring posts in threads, in addition to annoying me with stupid
advertising all the time. It's become a waste of time and energy to
deal with photo.net: they've become a crass marketing organization,
not a photography site.
Really, it can't be that difficult or tiring to actually click on a
"x", is it? Oh well.
Dan
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> I just clicked on a PESO hosted on photo.net. It popped up an
> interstitial ad that I had to view or dismiss before I could see the
> picture. This i
I just clicked on a PESO hosted on photo.net. It popped up an
interstitial ad that I had to view or dismiss before I could see the
picture. This is unacceptable behavior and, sorry folks, I just ain't
clicking on any more photo.net links.
FYI, for those folks depending on photo.net hosting, this
89 matches
Mail list logo
