Would you tolerate an annoying ad on INGO for 3 weeks - Money goes to Toys for Tots

[mike4sigs]

YES

Yes for the kids

 

[mattkellyind]

Throw a couple memberships in the toys for tots ben it will educate the youth and bring smiles

 

[radar8756]

I thought you made a small amount for the ad on the page but the "big" money was determined by how many people clicked it and got directed to the new page?

 

[cornfused]

Definately Yes, For the kids!

 

[JohnP82]

Since it is for a good cause I voted yes.

 

[AuntieBellum]

Okay, I'll fess up. I voted no. Obviously I'm out-voted, but I figure I'll share my reasoning. I would, technically, tolerate it because I wouldn't leave my INGO friends, try starting a competitor website, or anything like that. I might visit a little less while it runs, but maybe not. I would likely curse more.

At Christmas we're pelted with ads from every direction, and even more so from people hitting us up to help feed starving field mice in Timbuktu or whatever. There's a point when enough is enough. I don't want to login, curse outloud, and then feel guilty for being annoyed because the money is going to kids.

It's certainly not a terrible idea since likely you won't actually lose any members because of it. Lots of children will have a brighter Christmas, and we'll all help the economy in a very, very small way by wearing out our computer mice just a little bit faster with those extra clicks.

 

[TopDog]

Its for a great cause. I can handle being nice for 3 weeks. Put it up.

 

[Arm America]

It looks like most here don't mind a little annoyance since IT IS for a worthy cause.

Actually, I can't think of more deserving of help than the little ones that otherwise,
would have little or nothing to look forward to.

This is just ONE more reason that I enjoy INGO as much as I do.

Fenway, thanks for asking our opinion,
but better yet,
thanks for putting smiles on kids faces that could otherwise feel alone and forgotten.

 

[esrice]

Rep to you AuntieBellum for your honesty!

But your ironic signature banner made me laugh!

 

[loony1]

DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!, and the 8 that said not............you suck!

eta: 15 suck!

 

[Suprtek]

Rep to you AuntieBellum for your honesty!

But your ironic signature banner made me laugh!

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[loony1]

Throw a couple memberships in the toys for tots ben it will educate the youth and bring smiles

I'm giving away 1 + a shirt
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2-hey_ingo_toys_for_tots_needs_your_help.html

 

[shibumiseeker]

I voted no.

As I am not a site supporter I feel that the ads that help pay for the place are a fact of life and the current ones are pretty nonintrusive, though the Brownells ad and the Noreen ad REALLY make me want to spend money...

But I hate ads you have to click to get to go away, and I probably would severely curtail my time here if the place started having them, and if they were a regular feature I would probably stop contributing. Just my pet peeve here.

 

[AuntieBellum]

I was thinking the same thing!

I'm guessing you mean the O'Connor quote? Ironic....or perfect?

 

[Suprtek]

I thought you made a small amount for the ad on the page but the "big" money was determined by how many people clicked it and got directed to the new page?

You are partly right but if a sight is popular (like ours) advertisers will pay more just for the privilege of being seen on it because they know more people will see the ad. Also, this is going to be a large ad which also means more money. In short, more view equals more possible clicks. Therefore the ad is more expensive.

Hope that explains it a little bit.

 

[loony1]

I voted no.

As I am not a site supporter I feel that the ads that help pay for the place are a fact of life and the current ones are pretty nonintrusive, though the Brownells ad and the Noreen ad REALLY make me want to spend money...

But I hate ads you have to click to get to go away, and I probably would severely curtail my time here if the place started having them, and if they were a regular feature I would probably stop contributing. Just my pet peeve here.

You do not support this site, however you have over 3,000 posts?????
Do you really think this site funds itself, wow man i use to enjoy your posts.

 

[esrice]

I'm guessing you mean the O'Connor quote? Ironic....or perfect?

Well. . . there's that.

Or, perhaps I was pointing out the irony in someone with 800x258 banner in their signature not liking the idea of having a banner at the bottom of her page.

 

[Suprtek]

I'm guessing you mean the O'Connor quote? Ironic....or perfect?

That IS an awesome quote!

 

[AuntieBellum]

Well. . . there's that.

Or, perhaps I was pointing out the irony in someone with 800x258 banner in their signature not liking the idea of having a banner at the bottom of her page.

Touche.

 

[esrice]

You do not support this site, however you have over 3,000 posts?????
Do you really think this site funds itself, wow man i use to enjoy your posts.

In shibumiseeker's defense (and everyone else who chooses to not support the site financially), I will say that INGO (and every other forum) takes two basic things to succeed-- members and money. Just remember that some people choose to support INGO through their posting, rather than through monetary donations. Others choose to help financially.

Both keep INGO afloat.