Hover ads

[Lucille]

The banner ads help this site and sometimes I click on the interesting reptile ads. And since I've renewed my interest in bicycling the bicycle banner ads follow me here and I click on those, drooling over the $3,000 road bikes that are not in the budget at the moment.
But a few of the front center ads (the ones I saw were for a jewelry store, I think, why am I seeing those, I have not gone to any jewelry sites) are hover ads. This means that if one's cursor touches the ads it expands significantly. It takes some thought and skill but one can learn to not go through the ad but rather around it.

[AbsoluteApril]

Hover ads are super annoying IMO. I haven't noticed them on fauna (yet) but there are a lot on yahoo. To me, it's a test of - how fast can one click to the 'XCLOSE' button.
:D

[deedeeiam]

Honestly, I have no idea where you're talking about - but that's probably because I have ads blocked on this computer. Generally speaking, one should avoid clicking on ads that are redirected the way these are setup. Most businesses or organizations with any type of halfway decent training program should be educating their users to watch for redirects. Although, here the risk is somewhat diminished.

Correct (more safe) way:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=2889&pictureid=24435
Incorrect (more risky) way:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=2889&pictureid=24436

Redirects also kill the SEO and bring less traffic to a site.

Annnnyways, before clicking on any link, users should take advantage of places like linkpeelr to ensure the website is correctly routing.

[snowgyre]

I know you like to browse some of the ads on Fauna, Lucille, but if the hover ads ever become a big enough problem, you can download and install the free Firefox add-in AdBlock Plus. Either that, or you may install the free Firefox add-in NoScript, although the latter does require a lot more hands on teaching of the software (you have to create your own white list). Well worth it though. On Fauna, the script running ads is called "faunaads.com." I'm not sure if these ads actually generate any revenue for Rich, but I have all ads blocked as a security measure against trojans and other viruses.

[WebSlave]

I know you like to browse some of the ads on Fauna, Lucille, but if the hover ads ever become a big enough problem, you can download and install the free Firefox add-in AdBlock Plus. Either that, or you may install the free Firefox add-in NoScript, although the latter does require a lot more hands on teaching of the software (you have to create your own white list). Well worth it though. On Fauna, the script running ads is called "faunaads.com." I'm not sure if these ads actually generate any revenue for Rich, but I have all ads blocked as a security measure against trojans and other viruses.

FaunaAds.com is my own website, and the only redirects it permits (as far as I know) is THROUGH the site to the adveritiser's site. The coding of FaunaAds only allows graphics images to be displayed, or text in the relevant text ads. It doesn't allow active code to be embedded in that ads themselves other than that link via a URL. None of those ads allow mouse over commands in any way.

And yes, advertisers pay to run those ads on my sites.

My opinion is that if you are getting mouse over ads popping up, it is from the Google ads. And yes, I get paid for each click through from those Google ads.

Sorry if ads are a hassle for some of you here, but they help pay the bills and keep food in my refrigerator.

[Lucille]

By happenstance, Google's name came up in an article I read this morning

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/technology/google-to-pay-17-million-to-settle-privacy-case.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131119&_r=0

[Magic]

Must just be me? I've purchased several things from the advertisements here on fauna. I get distracted if the ads are interesting. It's like window shopping, but the windows come to you. Now why haven't I seen the jewelry one? Lol.

[deedeeiam]

By happenstance, Google's name came up in an article I read this morning

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/technology/google-to-pay-17-million-to-settle-privacy-case.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131119&_r=0

That decision was hilarious. They should have just came out and said, "Hold out your hand and let us smack it for you doing absolutely nothing illegal and leveraging your technology knowledge in supporting your business model."