Neowin No Ad Version


Recommended Posts

I am just interested to know what about Neowin's adverts he finds obtrusive? :)

Well, I'm not him, but what I find most obtusive are the IntelliTxt (or whatever the name) ads. Accidentaly hover over one, and it pops up crap covering the article I'm reading.

The rest are totally cool though.

Thank you for your point, Mephistopheles; whilst I already understand completely what Frazell Thomas' point is, he has also stated that he finds the adverts obtrusive. I am just interested to know what about Neowin's adverts he finds obtrusive? :)

I browse this site occasionally from work (used to be quite a lot until ->) and sometimes some adverts come up that would get me into trouble. A few times in the past there have been some very NSFW adverts. I'd pay for a completely advert free version of this site.

IntelliTxt. The others (other than what was stated above) don't bother me.

Edited by iamwhoiam
That is not my desire, but by and large I have been told that is what I should do. I asked to pay for no ads and got met largely with two replies.

1. The ads are not annoying (so i am now told what annoys me)

2. Use ad blocking software.

Very few have chimed in support or other positive thoughts. The only admin to reply essentially reiterated the first line.

So it seems I am being told the suggestion is pointless. I can spend my money elsewhere.

Lets get this straight though. You DIDNT pay for a "no ads Neowin". That is not what you where paying in to and not what was promised.

Its a bit like going to a car salesman, buying an old car from the 80's and expecting it to have the latest engine and mod cons of today, even though that is not what you paid for and it was never promised to you.

You have had two replies by numerous people saying the same things. Now by my understanding, does that not indicate that YOU are the one in the wrong?

If you really feel that the (unintrusive) AD's are annoying you, then i feel sorry for you in your overall internet browsing, as many web pages have AD's that are far more intrusive than Neowins.

I also go against what some others have said. Dont use an AD blocker, that just makes it unfair for the Admins, who are trying to make a bit of money with the little AD's they have, to keep the site running.

As it has been already stated, there is a possibility that an AD free Neowin will come around in the future for a little more money. So stop your continuous whining about the subject and get on with your life.

Ultimatly, if you really cant wait for the AD free version and they really upset you that much, then feel free to go elsewhere. You are just being un-greatful for the extras that you have been given for the money you spent on becoming a subscriber and its ****ing me off.

Ultimatly, if you really cant wait for the AD free version and they really upset you that much, then feel free to go elsewhere.

Actually, I think it's better to suggest that they just be a little more patient :) It's been stated by other members that there has been talk of introducing an ad-free package, why not just wait around to see if that happens or not and in the meantime, please just try to ignore the ads best you can? That's what we all do and the adverts don't bother me at all :)

Actually, I think it's better to suggest that they just be a little more patient :) It's been stated by other members that there has been talk of introducing an ad-free package, why not just wait around to see if that happens or not and in the meantime, please just try to ignore the ads best you can? That's what we all do and the adverts don't bother me at all :)

Because the guy moaning and moaning, i dont think he will wait any length of time from the way he is going on.

The AD's (appart from the one slap bang in the middle of the front page news) dont bother me either.

Frazell, nobody has said Neowin will never have an ad-free option. I just thought I'd point that out :)

Your suggestion is very valid. A lot of members seem to desire to pay for the removal of adverts. Like I said - no one has said it will never happen (likewise, no one has said it will happen).

Thank you for not blocking the adverts and for being mature about this issue, discussing it with the community.

What is it about Neowin's adverts that you find obtrusive?

I have been against blocking the ads ever since they were introduced. I love this site and it has been a big thing with me to not rob this, or any site dependent on Ads. Thanks for clarifying the posts in this thread.

I spend 95% of my time in the news section so the major annoyance without question is the intellitext stuff. It just gets in the way of everything. Not to mention, it is now Neowin's practice to put links inline so you're at risk of dealing with those things even more directly. They are worse than popups even...

The Google ads are annoying, but they are lot less annoying than the Intellitext stuff. The two ads on the top of the forum are not intrusive at all.

Lets get this straight though. You DIDNT pay for a "no ads Neowin". That is not what you where paying in to and not what was promised.

Its a bit like going to a car salesman, buying an old car from the 80's and expecting it to have the latest engine and mod cons of today, even though that is not what you paid for and it was never promised to you.

You have had two replies by numerous people saying the same things. Now by my understanding, does that not indicate that YOU are the one in the wrong?

If you really feel that the (unintrusive) AD's are annoying you, then i feel sorry for you in your overall internet browsing, as many web pages have AD's that are far more intrusive than Neowins.

I also go against what some others have said. Dont use an AD blocker, that just makes it unfair for the Admins, who are trying to make a bit of money with the little AD's they have, to keep the site running.

As it has been already stated, there is a possibility that an AD free Neowin will come around in the future for a little more money. So stop your continuous whining about the subject and get on with your life.

Ultimatly, if you really cant wait for the AD free version and they really upset you that much, then feel free to go elsewhere. You are just being un-greatful for the extras that you have been given for the money you spent on becoming a subscriber and its ****ing me off.

It is comments like yours that I truly get confused about. I'm not asking for a refund of my Neowin Subscriber fee. Let me say this one more time, I'm not requesting a refund for my Neowin Subscriber Fee. I'm asking about Neowin adding a NEW subscriber level that removes Ads. I don't see why that angers your really.

I prefer to discuss things instead of doing things swiftly and without careful thought or discussion. Before I decided to install an Ad Blocker or switch to another site to get my news I wanted to be sure this wasn't something Neowin was doing and at the very least inform the admins here as to what my pain points are.

I've never been a major forum poster because the people who respond seem to often get very angry and not really follow the point of posts :(.

It is comments like yours that I truly get confused about. I'm not asking for a refund of my Neowin Subscriber fee. Let me say this one more time, I'm not requesting a refund for my Neowin Subscriber Fee. I'm asking about Neowin adding a NEW subscriber level that removes Ads. I don't see why that angers your really.

I prefer to discuss things instead of doing things swiftly and without careful thought or discussion. Before I decided to install an Ad Blocker or switch to another site to get my news I wanted to be sure this wasn't something Neowin was doing and at the very least inform the admins here as to what my pain points are.

I've never been a major forum poster because the people who respond seem to often get very angry and not really follow the point of posts :(.

What are you confused about? You contradict yourself.

You started this thread saying you where angry about still having AD's after paying a fee. Fine, you have been told a new subscriber feature (at an extra cost) may or will be introduced at some point, that will take away the AD's. Yet you continue to go on about (possibly) AD blocking until that time, which is something that is really disliked by a lot of people on Neowin.

You also state that you prefer to discuss things instead of doing things swiftly and without careful thought or discussion, yet you bought the subscriber package, without, it seems, reading what you get for your money before hand.

I never said your asking for a refund...

Well, it's no surprise all the news posters are against this, they need to get paid :p However little that is.

I'm not against it. I'm against removing ads with ad blockers, but I've always been a proponent of an ad free Neowin subscription since there seems to be demand for it. I don't think the current ads are obtrusive, but I can the demand is there.

$10 for a year is quite reasonable.

I'd think for an ad-free subscription you're looking at more like $10 a month. :p Which to me is a bit much for 3 ads removed, but that would give Neowin a decent return.

What are you confused about? You contradict yourself.

You started this thread saying you where angry about still having AD's after paying a fee. Fine, you have been told a new subscriber feature (at an extra cost) may or will be introduced at some point, that will take away the AD's. Yet you continue to go on about (possibly) AD blocking until that time, which is something that is really disliked by a lot of people on Neowin.

You also state that you prefer to discuss things instead of doing things swiftly and without careful thought or discussion, yet you bought the subscriber package, without, it seems, reading what you get for your money before hand.

I never said your asking for a refund...

Naa I don't contradict myself, but I probably should have written more than 1 line when I started the thread.

I read the page for the subscriber deal and I noticed it mentioned nothing about removing ads. I signed up anyway as I wanted to throw some money at Neowin. As I knew I had no use for the other stuff. I don't post on the forum enough to care about them. I came here mentioning it because I was hoping there was another subscriber page to address my ad issue directly or we could get the discussion going on one. The only reason Ad-Blocking was ever mentioned is because I know that tool is pretty popular among people here. At least that's the gist I've gotten over the years with the gazillion comments in browser news posts or ad-block release posts about it.

I'm not continually going on about AD Blocking really. I posted my thoughts and it seemed I got too many people basically saying "use AD-Blocker" and "This will never happen so use AD-Blocker" and complaints about me not reading the subscriber page or something of that nature. Only a select few seemed to see what I was asking for. After NeoBound posted without anything more than a question of if the ads were intrusive and saying the amount a subscriber pays can't cover the ad revenue on an annual basis I got the impression that Neowin's official stance was similar to what the majority was already posting. An AD free Neowin isn't coming.

As I've said in the thread before, I'm not a big fan of Ad Blocking. It wasn't mentioned as a threat, but more so as me saying I didn't want to resort to a common (or at least their minority is vocal) practice so I came here hoping to let my grievances be heard and see what the admins thought of the idea (community support for the idea wouldn't have been a bad bonus either). Luckily for me a few of the mods have said the idea is on the table so I'll keep that door open.

I notice myself wanting to visit Neowin less and less because of the Ads. They might not be obtrusive to anyone else, that's fine. We each are allowed to have our own opinions. But where I spend 90% of my time, reading the news sections and the front page they get in the way. I've been bothered by Ads for as long as I can remember, but I always saw them as a needed thing to keep sites going. Now that I've started paying for at least one of my top sites, wsj.com (The Wall Street Journal), I feel it just makes sense to support my favorite sites directly. With Ads leaving as a result.

The only real message in my posts is that if I can't remove the Ads on Neowin I'll realistically end up going somewhere else. I'm only one user and Neowin gets bigger everyday so I could just not matter at all, realistically I don't. I would prefer to stay if I could is all ;).

There has been extensive discussion on the topic of ad blocking already. And as for an ad-free version of Neowin for subcribers...well you knew what you were getting when you subscribed, and an ad-free version of Neowin was not on the list.

No one can make you stay at Neowin, and if you can find somewhere better to go then all the power to you.

I don't see why some people are getting so angry at the OP. He's also staying calm despite the silly posts being made in this thread, such as "There are ads on Neowin?" or "I don't find them unobtrusive". The point he's making is that for people who can see and for people who do find them obtrusive, what are the chances of there being an ad-free subscriber version of Neowin. There is evidence that some people, who are annoyed by particular ads and would consider an ad-free option, in this very thread (but you need to be able to see/read these posts). If you don't find them obtrusive or simply can't see/find them, then you can carry on using the normal Neowin.

Even if this debate has occurred time and time again, there hasn't been a definitive answer as of yet. Mr Thomas was just wondering what the likelihood was of there being a Neowin No Ad Version, as well as the timescale and possible pricing. At least that's how I interpreted his posts.

Personally I can't see how it's a bad idea, if the subscriber fee would cover (or came close to covering) the income received from the individual visiting the site with ads. Also, if it stops (some) people using Ad-block, then it's an even better idea. It will therefore not harm the income or other users, and can only work to bring more people to Neowin. Some people here are of the attitude, if you don't like it, then **** off. In my opinion, the OP has asked for a reasonable suggestion in a reasonable manner, which can bring additional members. Then why are some people responding with unfriendly suggestions in a harsh manner, which causes Neowin to lose members?

Edited by Manish
I don't see why some people are getting so angry at the OP. He's also staying calm despite the silly posts being made in this thread, such as "There are ads on Neowin?" or "I don't find them unobtrusive". The point he's making is that for people who can see and for people who do find them obtrusive, what are the chances of there being an ad-free subscriber version of Neowin. There is evidence that some people, who are annoyed by particular ads and would consider an ad-free option, in this very thread (but you need to be able to see/read these posts). If you don't find them obtrusive or simply can't see/find them, then you can carry on using the normal Neowin.

Even if this debate has occurred time and time again, there hasn't been a definitive answer as of yet. Mr Thomas was just wondering what the likelihood was of there being a Neowin No Ad Version, as well as the timescale and possible pricing. At least that's how I interpreted his posts.

Personally I can't see how it's a bad idea, if the subscriber fee would cover (or came close to covering) the income received from the individual visiting the site with ads. Also, if it stops (some) people using Ad-block, then it's an even better idea. It will therefore not harm the income or other users, and can only work to bring more people to Neowin. Some people here are of the attitude, if you don't like it, then **** off. In my opinion, the OP has asked for a reasonable suggestion in a reasonable manner, which can bring additional members. Then why are some people responding with unfriendly suggestions in a harsh manner, which causes Neowin to lose members?

Thank you. I was beginning to think I wasn't making much sense with my posts.

We have discussed this before and while I haven't seen a breakdown of the numbers, I get the impression that the amount we would need to charge to make this worthwhile would turn off a lot of people. We'd likely need to set an ad-free rate that would somewhat reasonable (and obviously more than $10/year) but we would likely have to settle on a number that would earn us less than if they didn't subscribe at all but kept our ads.

So, for all of those people who think they are morally justified in blocking our ads because they give us $10/year, you should realize that you would do us a better service by keeping our ads. We try to keep to ads that are as unobtrusive as possible. The intellitext ads on the news articles are only a problem for people who like to skim their mouse under the word they are reading (which is probably a bad habit they reduces your reading efficiency even without intellitext). We try to avoid the flash ads they expand to cover the article. If any sneak through we ask for them to be removed from the pool. The forum has only one ad at the top and one ad at the bottom unless you aren't registered in which case you see a third between the first and second posts in a thread.

[Thread Moved from GD to S&FI]

I'll chip in.

I've been on Neowin for a little over 100 posts now and it's an awesome forum. Best forum I've ever been registered at, in fact. That being said, I do tend to agree. If you're a +Subscriber, you should see advertisements. If I may offer a random suggestion:

$10/year buys you the current level of service.

$15/3 months buy you the advertisement free service + a few other benefits.

15x4= $60.00/year

Seems fair to me.

I could offer a very detailed idea if requested.

Well actually the ads on the front page ARE obtrusive depending on the geotargeting. For me, I get Microsoft SQL Server 2008 ad taking up the full page, I had the same thing near the end of 2007 with a Nikon ad (which Neowin presumably reported when I made a thread about it, but never went away until this one).

I would prefer to pay a small fee that would at least cover the lost revenue from the absence of my per-view ads being served, than to have to adblock each computer I access Neowin from.

We have discussed this before and while I haven't seen a breakdown of the numbers, I get the impression that the amount we would need to charge to make this worthwhile would turn off a lot of people. We'd likely need to set an ad-free rate that would somewhat reasonable (and obviously more than $10/year) but we would likely have to settle on a number that would earn us less than if they didn't subscribe at all but kept our ads.

So, for all of those people who think they are morally justified in blocking our ads because they give us $10/year, you should realize that you would do us a better service by keeping our ads. We try to keep to ads that are as unobtrusive as possible. The intellitext ads on the news articles are only a problem for people who like to skim their mouse under the word they are reading (which is probably a bad habit they reduces your reading efficiency even without intellitext). We try to avoid the flash ads they expand to cover the article. If any sneak through we ask for them to be removed from the pool. The forum has only one ad at the top and one ad at the bottom unless you aren't registered in which case you see a third between the first and second posts in a thread.

[Thread Moved from GD to S&FI]

So Neowin makes more then $10 per person a year in Ad revenue? - What if you never click any of the Ads (It's very rare that an Ad is actually advertising something I want). Do you still get Money just by having viewers see them?

I'm just thinking here what would be the problem with coding in a 2nd subscription that removes ads for a reasonable or high price $30 a year or something. I mean if people don't pay for it your still getting the Ad Revenue from them and if they are paying your getting a years worth of Revenue up-front (Which provides interest if its kept in a bank and/or long term financial stability).

I'm just saying work out what is a reasonable average price for a years worth of Ads per user and then do a sub for it. In-fact you could do it for a quarter of a year just 4 months to see if the money from the Subs works out to be more substantial then the Ad revenue for the same period without the extra sub. Anyway just an idea.

I think a few of the Staff that are opposed to the idea have got themselves in to a mindset of 'Either / Or' where you need to have ads or you need paid subscriptions for everyone. But you could do both, ads for all until you pay for the Ad-Free subscriber. That's two revenue sources simultaneously. And obviously there are people who are willing to pay for it. I'd certainly pay up to ?30 GBP a year to use Neowin Ad-Free. On top of the Subscription of ?8 that I already paid for Subscriber Status.

Just my 2 cent:):)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!