Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Adverts Now Surround Photos  
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I felt it appropriate to post here just to bring to the attention of photographers who may be First Class members that there has been a change to the site. This has also been discussed in Site related, but I feel is worth raising here so photographers are aware.

When you open up a photo to look at it, it is now surrounded by three banner ads - one above and two large ones either side. Without exception (so far for me) the side ads are very colourful and completely distracting to the viewer. Sometimes the content is moving too. It's a personal thing, but I feel this seriously degrades the quality of the site - and I speak here as a viewer and a photographer who hopes other people will be viewing my images. I am very disappointed that the experience has shifted to one now where the aircraft photo seems secondary to the adverts - not the other way round as it should surely be.

Ad blockers and First Class membership will preserve you from this, but you may also feel unhappy that the viewing environment for your images has changed in this way. I understand the realities of the world, and the need for revenue. I also understand I have it in my power to do something about this should I choose - but I just feel it is a sad development for a site that I value for its quality - and that includes the quality of the presentation.

Paul

135 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMcG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 517 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4989 times:

If the photo is opened in Medium, there are 2 side banner ads either side - instead of the 1 when a Large photo is opened.

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3309 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree, they shouldn't be there. This is an unwelcome change, in my book.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For those who are unable to see, this is what it looks like:

http://www.kevin-bates.com/Ads.jpg

I needed a friend's help here, because it is still not possible to post using an image hosted in your profile.

Paul

P.S. Here is an example of the medium sized image:

http://www.kevin-bates.com/Ads2.jpg

[Edited 2007-11-04 09:07:15]

User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1753 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 1):
If the photo is opened in Medium, there are 2 side banner ads either side - instead of the 1 when a Large photo is opened.

This is the most egregious of the two. It's really ridiculous. OK, my monitor is big enough, I can deal with the ads on the sides in the large one, but really. On the medium one it's just ridiculous.

Talk about trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4964 times:

I agree. Absolutely unwelcome, and it majorly detracts from the photo.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineKLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4952 times:

I also agree! They are very annoying and distracting while viewing a photo!!

DM should get rid of them again!!

Björn


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4722 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4945 times:

I totally agree, for me this isn't acceptable. Banner on top is ok, but the side banners are just killing the image. I'm not going to threaten that I'll remove my images etc (not that DM would care with my numbers....), but this is another item since DM took over that does make me think about the position of a.net in regards to my photography.

[Edited 2007-11-04 09:19:02]


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineBmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1835 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4937 times:

It's discusting, it really does make our photos/the website look 'cheap'. It distracts far to much.

This isn't right Demand Media!

Quoting KLM772ER (Reply 6):
get rid of them again!!


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am not concerned about comparing A.net with any other sites - I simply want to be proud to have my photos hosted here. I look at my Ryanair shot above and simply want to remove it - it is just so unpleasant. As I said over at Site Related, it feels akin to hanging your own painting on a wall full of garish graffiti.

If only I had done a screen shot of another photo - then it would have had a well known scantily clad model advertising a shop dominating the page. What chance for some people to focus their attention on my photo given that competition (and it is so ironic given the debates of old about the portrayal of women in photos on this site  banghead  ).

Paul


User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2081 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4839 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
I understand the realities of the world, and the need for revenue. I also understand I have it in my power to do something about this should I choose - but I just feel it is a sad development for a site that I value for its quality - and that includes the quality of the presentation.

Thanks for bringing this up Paul!
I can't but fully agree with you!
Revenue is certainly required to keep the site running and earn DM some money but if it's done at the cost of the site's viewing pleasure (and the mentionned ads do exactly that) it is not acceptable.
Back to the drawing board guys and come up with something smarter!

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Screeners and headscreeners, what do you think of this development? I think you'll find that the photographers will be nearly 100% opposed to this. It would be nice if there was a voice talking directly to DM saying just how unacceptable this is.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4814 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
Screeners and headscreeners

Add to that list Mods, Database Editors, Article Editors, Customer Service & Support reps, management, Johan, etc....



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

I'd also add that it looks like the SIX banner ads now take up MUCH more space than the medium photos, and the large photos don't fit in my window anymore with the new ads.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Absolutely disgusting.

Our worst fears of the acquisition have been reached I'm afraid.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2821 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4762 times:

The look is now to be called Advertising by BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA

Take a look at how one of my photos looks. Surrounded by THREE of the same cartoon ads.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/Steve_YYZ/Misc_Photos/anetads.jpg

I'm going to have to seriously re-consider my participation with my images on A.net.

Steve


User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4741 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 21):

Seriously - I remember when I first saw that photo and thought it was amazing and it still is, but now if I saw it with them ads around I would just close it straight away.

If this is what Anet is going to do, it will go down the shitter - or another decent aviation site will start and it will attract all the customers away from here as they don't fill their pages with crap like that.

Demand media - you know adverts dont work well, not them types anyway on here - why not do what Johan was starting to do and use the Google adsense? atleast people didn't mind seeing that as much because it was relevant!

Like I care about looking at a "keep oceans clean" website if I'm looking at a picture of a plane (note I intentionally looked at the advert for the purpose of this, didn't "attract" me)

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5869 posts, RR: 39
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4731 times:

pain in the ass, anywhere but beside the bloody photo, seriously, do these people think that guest actually click on these stupid ads? not to mention the fact that it changes the dimension of the page, never had the problem of having to scroll across the bottom of a 1024x683px photo until now.

[Edited 2007-11-04 14:27:37]


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4858 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They keep giving us a sip of that koolaid...all that talk about "new improvements coming soon to make the site better" BLAH BLAH BLAH. Every tweak they have made to the site has been negative. Are they confusing improvements that will enhance the airliners.net experience for us with improvements that only benefit them, like revenue?! I'm thinking so!


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2528 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4671 times:

Demand Media - way to ruin the great work of the photographers here. I'm not a photographer but as a viewer, this is simply distasteful and detracts from the work. Look at the screenshot Photopilot posted... Is there really a need for 3 of the same banner in one picture?

It simply looks amateurish, but if this is the direction you want your investment to take, have fun


User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2342 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4662 times:

One giant leap towards a garbage website!


Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This problem is now solved for First Class members.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1025 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4654 times:

For a long long time, photographer-uploaders and photo-viewers have had a free ride at a.net - no charges to upload, no onus on photographers to share revenue from commercial photo sales initiated through the site (other than print sales), no charges to view pictures. Quite simply, the model is not sustainable in the long term, particularly when the size and useage of a site extends beyond the resources of enthusiasts and moves into the commercial domain. Now that a.net/DM have real employees running it who need to be paid, where does a realistic and reliable revenue stream come from? Sure a.net doesn't look as good as it did, but where's the alternative - charge for photo uploads/hosting maybe, and how many photographers would bitch about that? Disgruntled photographers may move away, but sooner or later those other sites reach a critical mass where the same challenges that a.net is now addressing will face those sites too. We may now need to accept that the days of the free ride are coming to a close - whether the right solution is more ads, or subscription/hosting fees, or something else, is a more relevent debate.

A


User currently offlineSandroZRH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 20):
One giant leap towards a garbage website!

 checkmark 

This is just a lame attempt to make more cash with the site. They throw in more adds which generates more revenue, and at the same time are trying to "force" more of us into first class membership. What a joke, and just now when confidence was starting to rise again.


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Andy.

Your points are very valid, and I welcome their addition to this debate. The issue of financing such a large venture is a taxing one.

But equally you could argue that not only have photographers had a' free ride'; so too has the site, being fed as it is by some of the world's best aviation photographers for free. These people have - in return for their free material - been provided with a quality, respected host. It is the classic 'symbiotic' relationship. That is the issue for me - hosting aviation photography. Now if the photos take second place to the ads that support the site's existence, then it seems to me we reach a point where that whole purpose is called into question.

A.net has prided itself on its high quality - in terms of photographic requirements, presentation etc. Screens such as those presented by Steve and me above just don't sit comfortably for me with anything to do with a quality product. That is fundamentally what distresses me about all this - it is so not what 'quality' looks like.

Paul


25 QantasA332 : This is not an annoyance, nor some unfortunate but inevitable development that we have to put up with. It's disgusting; a disgrace to the site and an
26 Post contains images QantasA332 : I'll say it again: the photographers make this site. Imagine what would happen if many people started pulling their photos?
27 Diezel : Off course it is, and right they are. No offense to anyone in particular but I'm getting sick of all those, we know it better, DM is trash, it used t
28 PhilGil : Wow, that's pretty bad. I've been using an ad blocker for years (I sleep just fine at night, thank you) so I had no idea. Just for reference, how many
29 AndrewUber : See a trend here? I have yet to see a post that says "OH come on guys, it's just ads, there's nothing wrong with it". The photographers are speaking,
30 Viv : A regrettable development.[Edited 2007-11-04 16:19:11]
31 AndyEastMids : Paul, My comments weren't particularly indicative of my support for DM's new approach, but rather reflected what I believe may be the commercial reali
32 QANTAS077 : for example, why not just can the stupid ads that nobody clicks on, how many visitors do you actually think click on a bloody ad for a gummi bear rin
33 D L X : This isn't about bashing DM, it's about the serious concern that I'm sure many photographers are having about continuing doing business with this sit
34 AndyEastMids : How do you know no one clicks on them? Ultimately, it comes down to a return on investment decision on the part of the advertisers - if they don't ge
35 D L X : Even if this is true (let's say it is), that's not the complaint here. I'm personally not complaining that there are ads on the page. I'm complaining
36 Dvincent : There are other ways to do it. Don't piss off your customers and contributors. It's like they're trying to see how far they can push us. Make them pay
37 QANTAS077 : you don't find it a little invasive/annoying that they're beside the damn photos? I mean what is it that we're trying to promote here? the photo or t
38 QantasA332 : Plastering cheap banner ads onto every blank surface of the site is not the only way or, indeed, the best way to generate revenue. It's a cheap, unpr
39 Post contains images DeltaAVL : Also, we uploaded our photos under the premise that they weren't going to be smothered in advertisements. After we agreed to let the site display our
40 Photopilot : Here's my take on this. Let's state the basics first. 1) DM needs to generate revenue from this site. They wouldn't have bought it if it didn't fit in
41 Unattendedbag : The t-shirt thread was a good idea before it got out of hand. I would buy airliners.net apparel if it was tastefully and smartly done. Maybe tweeking
42 Mattbna : . Hmmm... I almost feel like I predicted this happening! Here is a copy/past from Reply # 322 in the thread titled "Server Migration - Opinions/Thoug
43 Bruce : I agree with everyone else. It is disgusting and totally disrupts the viewing enjoyment. Heck, on my monitor at 1024 wide I have to scroll to see half
44 Mattbna : I have had a free membership for years simply by having more than 100 photos here (I think that was how many it took)... You don't have to pay for a
45 Psych : Many thanks to all for their contribution to this thread. I shall try to break the habit of a lifetime and be brief. In my opinion this development ma
46 Scottieprecord : We could call a boycott on photo uploads until this is taken care of. I think that's a reasonable protest, and it'd send a pretty clear message to DM
47 Jid : You might find that incorrect....
48 KLM772ER : That is the point! This Site lives from the visitors coming to see the photos. And it is not only the point that there are directly coming less visit
49 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : Which of course can not be done without the explicit agreement of the photographers
50 Mattbna : That my be how things are now, but it certainly isn't how they were back when this site was cool... I paid for a First Class membership (which is now
51 TransIsland : I noticed that a few posts in this thread were deleted, once the mentioned the competition. I wonder how long this suggestion will be allowed to stay
52 DeltaAVL : I support it as well.
53 TimdeGroot : from the thread in site related As it was mentioned earlier this was merely a glitch caused by an update. Nothing to be upset about nor to start carry
54 Linco22 : Rubbish progression for the site. Shame really. Colin
55 D L X : Tim, I don't think this was a glitch. I think DM has purposefully added extra ads to all the photo pages. The glitch was that first class members saw
56 TransIsland : We shall see... right now, I think the more appropriate terminology would be "intolerable ads," and non-uploading the appropriate response. Let's hop
57 Psych : I am fearful this may not be the case Tim. I would be thrilled if it could be proved otherwise. In the Site Related thread - which related to the ads
58 Post contains images Ptrjong : I hope it is, but I find that hard to believe. Peter
59 TimdeGroot : That was merely an irrelevant quote from another thread as you know. Don't take it out of context. As for DM not responding, I think many of you forg
60 Post contains images TransIsland : Sorry, Tim, I didn't realise that this was a quote from another thread, as it wasn't marked as such. However, it surprises me that you should quote a
61 Acontador : Arriving a little late... For what it's worth, DM's decision to include more adds on the photo pages is consistent and to be expected from a commercia
62 Post contains images AndrewUber : It's not a quality, respected host when my photos are surrounded on all sides by "Click here for ten free PS3's! Click here to get two free iPhones!
63 AndrewUber : Then the thread needs to stay alive at least long enough to get a legitimate answer and satisfy the paying and contributing users, yah?
64 D L X : Those aren't Tim's words, those are the words of a triggerhappy moderator. I asked him to reopen the thread to discuss the new ads, but he has done n
65 Viv : Guys, The issue may not be simple, but the solution for each individual photographer is. If these intrusive adverts are not removed, I for one will st
66 Post contains images Linco22 : Viewing photos is just not 'attractive' anymore. Combined with my awful acceptance ratio I might as well just not bother anyway! Colin
67 Granite : Hi all I think this is a glitch. During the crew summit there was no mention of adding adverts to the photo pages. If this was the case it would have
68 TransIsland : I'm looking forward to this; until then, I've pulled my photos from the queue. (Not that too many people care, I know.)
69 AndrewUber : Gary - First - thank you for posting, and thank you for sharing our views. If this is indeed a glitch, we photographers look forward to seeing it fix
70 Psych : Hello Gary. I considered contacting you off the Forum, but then felt it appropriate to say what I have to say in public.. I am very grateful to you f
71 Post contains images Walter2222 : I couldn't have said it better PS: I wonder if DM ever checked the effectiveness of these multiple adds on a page. I am pretty sure that less is far
72 AndrewUber : I apologize to Tim for making that assumption, and I'll send him a PM relaying that message personally. Tempers were flaring in here, I'm feeling bet
73 D L X : It looks like either they heard us and changed their policy, or it truly was a bug that is now fixed. Either way, the extra ads are now gone from the
74 TransIsland : As long as the vertical side banners are kept, nothing is fixed, only made less worse. Having to scroll horizontally for a 1024x683 pixel photo is ju
75 Flyheligirl : Hi all, Let me clarify a few things, some issues are bugs so hopefully that will clear up most of this. The four ads on the medium version was 100% a
76 Post contains images DeltaAVL :
77 D L X : First, thank you for your response. I think that's still a problem. The large version photos are all at least 1024 pixels wide, meaning the smallest o
78 Silver1SWA : Let me clarify a few things. -This thread isnt about FC members seeing the ads. We understand that was a bug and has been cleared up. NEXT! -We don't
79 Psych : Thanks for the intervention Monique. May I attempt to clear up a couple of issues? We are all agreed the medium sized shots look plainly ridiculous sa
80 DeltaAVL : EDIT: I initially thought that the ads had been removed, but going back and trying a few more photographs, it's evident that the ads are still promine
81 Post contains images Mattbna : That's not what it looks like from Monique's comments, Chief. Wow! They bamboozled all of the crew as well? 8 hours behind who? Which of the (probabl
82 JRadier : looks like they are still in place here...
83 DeltaAVL : Yep, it must have been a one-time-only glitch on my computer. They're back for me now too...
84 Post contains links and images QANTAS077 : removed? just look at how wide the page becomes with two stupid ads beside the photo, I can't view a photo that I used to view without having to scrol
85 TimdeGroot : The thread was started by european members, I was merely replying to them that we don't have a johan aymore who lives nextdoor. No they did no such t
86 AndrewUber : Finally - a positive note from a crew member. Tim, we appreciate your help, and I think your suggestion would satisfy most of us on here. I know it w
87 D L X : Thanks Tim. As was correctly pointed out I can only speak for myself, and even though I'm only a minor contributor here with only 86 photos, I apprec
88 McG1967 : I have 2 possible solutions that may address the problem: 1) 1/2 the width and height of the ads, so that they are less prominent when they are displa
89 Post contains links and images DeltaAVL : As you can see in this image from his profile, his screen resolution is high enough that he doesn't have to scroll to view the entire photo. Royal, i
90 JRadier : heck, I don't have to scroll either (widescreen rules), though they still annoy the hell out of me.
91 Whappeh : That basically sums it up for me. Though I think I may have to update to FC just to avoid the disgustingly obnoxious advertisements. Edit: though I d
92 Psych : Okay - some further (slightly irritable) debate overnight (UK time). Can I just reiterate a couple of the key issues, as I see them, as they feel cent
93 Post contains links and images QANTAS077 : tell me your kidding, Paul? my photos appear wider today than the one I linked in reply 89... same image 10hrs later..the width of the scroll bar is
94 Post contains images Linco22 : Interesting discussion going on here. Pure and simply DM wins here no matter what in my eyes. I think they will probably keep the ads, and if you don'
95 Viv : Anyone who would like to see a photography upload site that is properly presented - without intrusive adverts - should visit onexposure.net.
96 AndyEastMids : How can the two be de-linked? Photographers don't want to pay for first class membership... Photographers don't want to pay to have their photos host
97 DeltaAVL : I'd be interested in what Johan would think of this is he were still around. Surely he would have listened to us and removed the ads by now...
98 Silver1SWA : When Johan ran things, as changes were made or new things were introduced, he immediately started a new thread in Site Related to gather input from t
99 KLM772ER : If you would have followed the thread, than you would see, that most of the photographers here are not completely against ads on airliners.net and th
100 Nx622 : Without knowing the recent history as far as a business program goes, it appears the site has gone from being ‘for aviation fans, by aviation fans
101 Psych : I think I may have reached a point where I am 'all talked out' on this issue. But to say finally: * I fully understand the need to generate revenue, a
102 Seachaz : Add me to the list of those bothered by the new ads though I'm not really surprised by them either. DM didn't buy this site simply to make enough mone
103 Prat : I'm gonna have to side with the majority of the peanut-gallery on this one. The new ads are a terrible addition.
104 PhilGil : The problem here is that a.net does not fit any of the models it is being compared to. It's not a photo hosting site like Flickr or PBase where we pay
105 Post contains images Flyheligirl : I don't think you've been ignored. I've kept up on this thread and many of our crew members have too... just stating that ignoring you would be not a
106 QANTAS077 : well if that's the case then get rid of the ads sooner than later...
107 Psych : Thanks for this Monique, and your other clarifications. I look forward to hearing what the management's final decision will be. I have been away for
108 Post contains images ZakHH : Seems like certain messages of a certain crew member have been withdrawn for certain reasons... Just hope that Monique's statement (thanks!) will not
109 Viv : A post of mine was deleted because the post I was replying to (from Clickhappy) was deleted. Replies to deleted posts are deleted for housekeeping re
110 Post contains images JRadier : same here, completely . But lets keep on topic
111 Mattbna : I asked this a month or so ago in a thread about these new monitors...and no one ever provided an answer. As far a consistency goes, all of the scree
112 Flyheligirl : Agreed and we are working on this. Calibration is a must! Check out the ads... we removed the two vertical ones and left 1 horizontal. I hope this is
113 Mattbna : Whatever has changed in the last little while - I'm already happy. I just viewed a few large photos and the side ads are now gone. I'm not sure how l
114 Post contains images AndrewUber : I had several replies deleted as well due to that same circumstance. Good riddance to all those posts, they shouldn't have happened in the first plac
115 Post contains images D L X : Tremendous! Thank you for listening, communicating, and understanding our concerns. BTW, I noticed you've been promoted to "community director" from
116 PhilGil : Thank you for listening, Monique. The page looks much better.
117 Post contains images DeltaAVL : Thank you, thank you, thank you!! You have no idea how much this means to all of us photographers, the guests, and the entire site. Thanks for being
118 Seachaz : And now I believe it! Thanks so much for listening! -Charles
119 Whappeh : Brilliant and beautiful!
120 Scottieprecord : Brilliant! I'm greatly impressed with DM on this move! Time to upload more photos =) -Mike
121 Dendrobatid : I have to say that I did not like the adverts and I was not aware of how they looked until I did a bit of lunch-time surfing the other day at work. I
122 Post contains images Psych : I am very pleased to see this today Monique. I am now content that I made such a nuisance of myself here . I think it was hugely important for the fu
123 Post contains images KLM772ER : Thanks for this! And yes, this is a fair compromise! The photos now look like upmarket ones (what they are!) again Cheers Björn
124 KMB : This brings up another issue for me, I have just over 1000 images but have seen no print sales since April. I would normally assume that nobody wante
125 Post contains images Walter2222 : Thanks for all your efforts, Paul! And for starting this thread! Up to the future! Best regards, Walter
126 JRadier : Looks a lot better indeed. I've got one small remark tho. At present the situation is as follows: -ad -text ad -picture info (which wouldn't be neede
127 Mrk25 : I don't have anywhere near that number of images but have always had a steady trickle of sales, mine have also ceased for the last few months.
128 Jid : Snap
129 Dvincent : I am glad to see this change happened. I wish that DM and co. will take this lesson to heart the next time they want to try something, but I said that
130 Viv : As am I. Thanks to Monique and all concerned.
131 JohnJ : Much improved - thanks for listening and making the change. John
132 Post contains images QantasA332 : Excellent, thanks for acting sensibly! This is how democracy should work!
133 Scottieprecord : My last sale was 2 May 07. In the six months prior to that I had 9 sales, but in the past 6 months since I haven't had any... And I took some pretty
134 KMB : I contacted Monique about not seeing any payments for prints sold. I have received a reply and she believes that may be the case for the last few mon
135 Mrk25 : Kevin, Thanks for asking the question on our behalf, I think if nothing concrete comes of it I will consider disabling sales all together. Mark
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AirNikon Now Only 9998 Photos? posted Thu Jun 21 2007 10:05:28 by Scottieprecord
Need Info NOW!- New TSA Directive Banning Photos? posted Thu Dec 2 2004 23:45:46 by Law4fun
Full Screen Photos Now For First Class posted Thu Apr 29 2004 04:21:46 by Bruce
C/n Now Added With Photos posted Fri May 23 2003 15:49:20 by GOT
Who Is Touching Up Airliner.net Photos? posted Fri Oct 19 2007 07:37:36 by Fishmeal
Best Time/location For Photos At ZRH? posted Fri Oct 19 2007 02:48:36 by Thesandbender
I Need Help So Bad 14 Photos Rejected! posted Wed Oct 17 2007 23:02:04 by Sokol
Stolen Photos - May Affect A Few Of You. posted Mon Oct 8 2007 02:52:09 by Mrk25
Contrast, Now Dark. B&W Image Help posted Mon Sep 17 2007 10:28:15 by Linco22
Old Air To Air VC10 Photos- Good Enough? posted Fri Sep 14 2007 15:02:35 by Opso1