explain xkcd talk:Advertise Here

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Whitelisting

I did this WHITE HAT listing, and I just see this picture at the left side: Your Ad... But do I know if "www.projectwonderful.com" is just Black HAT? I do whitelist this page (expainxkcd), not more. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Whitelisting isn't short form for anything, it just means that you allow certain sites to pass through your adblocker. That image that you're seeing means that we don't have any advertisers running ads in your region currently, and clicking it will just tell you how you can advertise with us. If you can see that image, you're doing it right. EU tends to be less popular than our global traffic, despite EU being second in ad impressions only to our US traffic. An awful lot of our advertisers don't seem to be savvy enough to target EU manually, but if you have a business that you represent that you would like to promote through us, click on the bit of text that says "Your ad here, right now: $3.90" and try making an account and bid yourself on our EU/US space. Davidy²²[talk] 22:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous observations

Looking at the ad stats, the ads with the highest click rates (value for money) are grayscale. Moving ads tend to have similar click rates to ordinary, colored ads, and our ad provider seems to have had a recent shoot in popularity with kickstarter projects. Just a few curiosities that I've noticed recently. Davidy²²[talk] 08:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Full Disclosure on Lunarpages Ads

We should probably explain the Lunarpages ad, because an awful lot of our users really hate ads. Lunarpages is our new host, and they offered to give us dedicated scalable server space with unlimited bandwidth for free in return for a .jpg banner ad on our sidebar. That's a pretty big deal, because it shaves off about $700 of yearly fees, plus potentially unlimited overage charges with their standard bandwidth limit. If comic number 1190 had happened and we were on that bandwidth cap, we would have had to fork out up to $600 per month, which would make this wiki very costly to maintain indeed. By going with this ad deal, we can eliminate all unpredictable costs, allowing us to use our Project Wonderful ad money to pay for webpage caching/CDN services and buy ad space on other websites to spread the joy. With no ads, all of the above would put a ~$2000-3000 dent in our pockets per year. With ads earning at their current rate, we can very comfortably pursue things like our current dedicated hosting or cloudflare to make the site faster without actually having to pay out our own money or beg users for donations. Our ads are small in terms of file size, and they only take up space in the sidebar that Mediawiki would have otherwise left blank. That's not much to pay for substantially faster server hardware and essentially free advertising. Davidy²²[talk] 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated this a bit. --Jeff (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Donations

Can we make donations instead of looking at ads? If so, add a link in the adblock message. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

We can probably put that in our adblock message, I'll get the donation link. Donations in the past haven't been enough to pay for what we have now, but you can totally donate and keep adblock on if you want. If donations start performing well enough in the future, we might even be able to drop the ads entirely. That's pretty far off at the moment though. Davidy²²[talk] 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, how much do you make from ads, per viewer? I would guess that a typical donation would be larger? I don't see any donation links, though. 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You can donate via in dollars via Paypal or via Bitcoin. We will make these more prevalent shortly. --Jeff (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
If you sell a product, you may also consider advertising with us. Clicking on the "Your ad here" message on the side of the page should take you to our advertiser page, and you can use the money you were gonna donate to get some publicity for your stuff at the same time. Davidy²²[talk] 07:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Animated ads

Hello, I just wanted to say that the current ad banner displayed in Europe would be somewhat annoying enough for me to reactivate my ad blocker. Now I gave it a bit of extra tolerance because of its hyper-relevant topic (and in a way I was happy to be informed of the Bobcatinabox project), but I think this banner is getting too animated and distracts too much when reading the website's content. The first form this ad took was that static image, which I prefer a lot and by the way got my interest enough to click on.

I find the message displayed when using an ad blocker ("It seems you are using noscript,...") sincerely convincing, especially the part saying "our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs." It made me immediately disable mine when that message appeared some time ago, and since then I've been okay with static or quietly animated banners; but basically my point is that animated ads like this one could drive users, frustrated from the distracting effect, to activate their ad blocker.

So maybe the ad banners moderation should require less animation? I'm of course interested in any other view on the matter.

Cos (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't specify a maximum speed for ads; the checkbox only lets us allow or disallow animated GIFs. We accept ads on a per-advertiser basis, so when we accept an advertiser, they're clear to change and put up new ads whenever they want, so they can vary the images they show without us having to say yes every time a change is made. That particular guy had actually been rejected before and told to slow down the animation, which he did initially. I'll talk to the advertiser about it. Davidy²²[talk] 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for this reply (and sorry for the delay of mine), that explains and addresses pretty much everything about that issue. Smile - Cos (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've disabled adblock for the site but this projectwonderful banner is extremely annoying, so I have no recourse but to enable it back. Things jumping around on the periphery of your viewing field are extremely annoying. I already hate the advertiser company, but I don't want to hate explainxkcd too - I actually like the site. That's why I am disabling the ads. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Huh. Which site was it, in particular? We can get that dealt with in short order. Davidy²²[talk] 03:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The image is http://www.projectwonderful.com/img/uploads/pics/22694-1385223182.gif and the link leads to http://theworstthingsforsale.com/tag/safe-for-work/. Still can see it right now. -- 20:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what's happening here. That guy's ads shouldn't be getting auto-approved. Dealt with it for now. Davidy²²[talk] 05:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this ad features WAY to much obnoxious animation. Enough to make me re-enable adblock. I usually enjoy the explain xkcd ads, but this ad fits my description for the most obnoxious kind of ad there can be: a weird, inexplicable animated gif. Suspender guy (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh. We allow ads on a per-advertiser basis, and that guy had a static ad in his initial submission. Ads from that site have been disabled for the time being. Davidy²²[talk] 16:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Augh! It's back again! Suspender guy (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Welp, changed to an actual block this time. Hate doing that to a guy who's been with us for a while. Davidy²²[talk] 02:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, same thing again with this animated ad for "Epic Escape". My earlier message two years ago (the one that started this section) applies in every bit: I like the site and I'm happy to whitelist it, especially when it promises ads "restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs", but for me that one goes against that. I usually give a friendly look to the explain xkcd ads, but when one gets distracting even after you've looked at it, that's when friendliness becomes frustration and I reach for the adblocker. Cos (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's ever an ad that annoys you, you can just report it and we'll deal with it. I approved that guy's ad when it was different, and we have our approval system set up so that if their initial ad image gets approved and they change it, their changes are automatically approved. It's to make things more convenient for us and them, but sometimes they switch to something like what you're seeing after they're approved. I might consider just barring animated gifs entirely, advertisers seem to be misusing it more often than not. The guy's blocked now. Davidy²²[talk] 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Annoying animated ad with Sailormoon is here again :( Looks like trusting the advertizers is always a mistake. I'm reenabling my adblocker.

[edit] Spelling/Grammar

It says "ads than masquerade as operating system dialog boxes", using "than" instead of "that" (Can be fixed quick) —Artyer (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Davidy²²[talk] 17:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe link to PW?

Greets: Just a quick suggestion that maybe the "It seems you are using noscript," text in the sidebar should include a link to the PW page? I suggest that since the Advertise Here page has its link hidden under a "here" link. (In other words, let's make the PW link a little more visible.) -- 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I didn't do it because you can already get there from the bottom of the ad box, the little message at the bottom of the sidebar and the ad description page itself. I guess it'd be useful, I'll do it in a bit. Davidy²²[talk] 06:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] It seems you are ignoring my DNT header

which is stopping me from considering whitelisting your site. Users use the DNT header to express to a web server that they do not want to be tracked intrusively by third party companies (or you). If you think you would find revenue helpful, please consider honouring DNT headers. -- 12:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] False Positive NoScript detection

I'm getting the message in the sidebar that I'm using noscript... right above a banner for Lunarpages. Trick is, I'm not using NoScript, or in fact any Ad-Blocking at all. The closest thing I have to an Ad-Blocker is Flashblock, which merely prevents Flash objects from loading until clicked on, (Functionality which is now built in to Chrome and enabled by default, I might add) and Firefox's built-in Pop-up Blocker. Using Firefox 43.0.4 -Graptor -- 12:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The lunarpages is a static image that uses zero javascript. The ad just above that is loaded with a little bit of javascript by an ad provider called Project Wonderful, and their code seems to not be rendering correctly on some builds of firefox. The noscript message is also static text, which the ad is supposed to render over and becomes visible when the ad fails to load. I'll report this as a bug and see what I can do about it. Davidy²²[talk] 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Firefox issue is still ongoing. It seems to have a non-js fallback of some sort which doesn't work. On the plus side, the banner looked interesting enough to want to enable JS to click it (which was a strange experience). 20:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A "strange experience" is an error message meaningless like "it doesn't work". NoScript is a sophisticated AddOn to Firefox and I recommend this only for advanced users. Broken or blocked links inside a page can always cause strange looking pages, mostly when a style sheet is missing because it's not loaded from a blocked part. This is a little bit like: Don't try it at home unless you really know what you are doing. But clicking "Allow all this page" in the preferences, waiting for the reload, checking again if there is something more to allow which wasn't visible before, finally it has to work. If not, YOUR NoScript is broken and reinstalling may still not work because there is too much chaos left at your installation folders. But that's a ticket for the NoScript people, this site works fine (for me with that AddOn). --Dgbrt (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also getting a message in the sidebar that I'm using noscript ("It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working."), when I'm not intentionally using any kind of ad-blocker. I am using Chrome, so assuming the previous comment about how Flashblock is built into Chrome is correct, this could be a Flashblock issue. 17:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on advertising rates

Regarding the bid amounts on the project wonderful page, is the number the amount per day? For example, the graph at the moment shows a bidding amount that varies between about $4 to $9. Does that mean the earnings of this site are about $4 to $9 per day? Nev (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The prices are per day, yes. There are four different regions that project wonderful lets people bid on, US, Europe, Canada and the rest of the world. Bids for the US tend to be high, and the starting price is also slightly higher. Earnings can vary day on day as advertisers don't always want to advertise on Project Wonderful. If we're looking at averages, income from the last few months has been about $4 a day. Davidy²²[talk] 21:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?