Forum:Wikia, I'm thoroughly disappointed

Forums: Index → General Discussion → Wikia, I'm thoroughly disappointed

Fandom's forums are a place for the community to help other members.
To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.

Note: This topic has been unedited for 2975 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Information in this thread may be out of date. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Wikia, over the years there's been furious debate about ad content here. First it was no more top banners because advertisers DEMANDED a 300x250 top right in the content area, as well as banners in the content area. We were told ads couldn't be "hidden" at the bottom of the page.

Then you revamped the skin again. With that revamp came a shift of ads OUT of the content area, however sites now feature at least 2 ads much larger than 300x250 in many cases to the right, as well as 2 box ads at the bottom.

Today, I find out that on top of all that advertising, checking my main page a huge banner pops up that follows content down on the screen. I've also observed popup ads, and now the final straw: the green-underline text Vibrant ads.

Previously, Danny described these types of ads as "Horrible...ugly and distracting, and it creates a direct link between what contributors type and what advertisers sell," as well as "more aggressive than what Wikia plans to use." Wikia was described as having "fewer ads, and less aggressive ads" than other sites. Now, in 2011, this is totally false.

At what point did Wikia allow the advertisers to dictate the site content to them? Before it was effectively 'we just want this little corner or we're not interested.' Now it seems that they want every inch of wiki space possible, and Wikia is only too happy to provide that, especially when mobile ads are coming too.

For a company that has claimed in the past that you're "not happy about taking up content space," you do a fairly inadequate job of demonstrating that. In fact, I'm convinced that since 2008 advertising has significantly increased each year.

What happened to the "sacrosanct" principle of advertising not encroaching upon content? Is anything here sacrosanct?

When we're steamrolled with skin and editor updates that don't provide options, and ludicrous amounts of advertisements, I really don't think any principles exist. As a 6-year community member here, I can't stress my disappointment enough. I find it hard to take anything seriously any more. -- LordTBT ^Talk! 00:23, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

What are "green-underline text Vibrant ads"? What do they do? How are they bad? Can you link to a page with them. Maybe a screenshot. --Timeshifter 02:21, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

You can find them on just about any page. Basically, random text is underlined so it looks like a wiki link, but it's not, it's an ad. When you mouseover that link, an ad pops up, and clicking it goes to an ad site. This is a link before mousing over. This is what happens when you move your mouse over it. -- LordTBT ^Talk! 03:17, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

There are few things I hate more on the web than these type of link ads. I leave most websites right away when I happen to come upon these type of very irritating ads. If this continues I may have to reconsider whether to fork to another wiki farm. --Timeshifter 09:20, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't the autoplay bandwidth draining ads, it's these intrusive link ads. And it's especially disturbing that they are within the content area of popular articles... I thought one of the points of Oasis was to remove inner content ads. It wouldn't surprise me if readers believed the ones who typed the content are responsible for these types of links. The links are suspicious and it makes it seem as if you have malware on your computer. There is no reason why advertisers should dictate a Wikia skin. We could have had larger content area by using narrow banner ads. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 03:38, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind ads as long as they are not in content space without my permission. I should have to click on an ad in order for it to expand into content space. --Timeshifter 09:20, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

If you hate ads, use FF and AB. TK999 09:32, September 10, 2011 (UTC)\

I love FlashBlock. On-off Flash button for Firefox. It also has a whitelist. I allow Youtube.com videos. So they show up on my userpage and other places they are embedded. But all those bandwidth hogging and popover flash ads are gone. Except for a play button if I choose to see one. --Timeshifter 21:46, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, browsing Wikia when logged out is akin to being on a porn site. The problem is not that we have to see the ads, it is that the content we spend so long on is presented to the majority of viewers after being whored out and covered with ridiculous adverts that look a lot like malicious software. I remember the ads for the film "priest", where ninja death stars flew all over your computer screen even outside of your browser, completely obscuring the content of wikia as well as anything else on your monitor. I don't know what else would cause someone to leave a website quicker. I made a complaint to special:contact, and my feedback was "passed on", but lo and behold those sorts of ads prevail. It's a stupidly short-sighted tactic, because these ads will drive wikia's reputation down and lose lots of traffic. And the adwords masquerading as wikilinks are just as bad, attempting to trick people into click on them--Acer4666 10:15, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

At first I did not understand this thread because I never see any advertisements here at Wikia. But then, when I read Acer’s comments immediately above, I realized that this is what occurs when one is either not logged in, or has ads turned on in preferences. Imagine how awful this must be for wikis like the Runescape Wiki where the vast majority of their visitors are IP-only editors! One would expect that these in-content ads would drive people away from Wikia. I also think that Bunai had a good point when he wondered if visitors think that those content contributors listed in an article’s revision history created the advertising links. Sheesh! — SpikeToronto 10:32, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

On top of all that Acer, it's the fact that Wikia community members were misinformed and basically lied to about all of this, and I struggle to see why anyone should trust any Wikia pronouncements going forward. -- LordTBT ^Talk! 16:59, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if Wikia corporate has a profit-sharing scheme with its employees, then there’s an even greater incentive to pack in as much advertising per square centimetre of screen space as possible. More advertising “clicks” means more revenue which means greater contribution to the bottom line which means more profit to be shared, again assuming the existence of such a scheme. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for profit-sharing schemes that enrich front-line workers (e.g., the techies and the support staff that are our interface with them). It’s just that, as old and jaded as I am, reading this earlier today still came as a shock — not to mention the shock at seeing that my home wiki is exactly the same when not logged in. So, these are more stream-of-consciousness comments than they are complaints (although I can see how those in-content, Vibrant ads could drive people away.) — SpikeToronto 23:19, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

As with many things about wikia, my position is: just move your wiki somewhere else. I did it, it was simple.  Nidek   (Talk) [[Special:Contributions/Nidek| Special:Editcount/Nidek edits made ]] 17:18, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

How simple? --Timeshifter 21:37, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia is really going downhill. I'm thinking of trying to get a large group of wiki's together and moving over to Shout Wiki, they actually seem to listen to their community--Soul reaper 07:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I am using a library wiki - and the banner/floating 'ad for particular wikis' is overlaying the rest of the text - most un-user friendly. And - what happens if 'company X' decides to sponsor a particular wiki and then demands editorial input? (Or several companies, making conflicting claims) I am not against external funding - but one can see the issues. Jackiespeel 16:10, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Restrict ads with AdBlock or personal CSS if they disturb you. No comment. TK999 16:24, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

LordTBT: we've had Vibrant ads for (I think) about two years now. And in that time, yours is something like the third complaint about them... in total. Which suggests they haven't been too intrusive.

On the other hand, we did get complaints about the Priest ads. So we have changed our guidelines to make that type much rarer. Acer, your feedback was part of that decision.

Complaints are not the only factor of course, what the advertisers want to buy, and what we see in terms of clicks/interactions also matter. Some of our ads come to us via intermediaries, which can make them harder to control (although we recently stopped doing business with one of those until they stop sending us game-gold ads!). The way our direct ad sales work means that we sometimes have commitments for some time ahead. Agreements for movie or game ads can be made as much as 8 months before date the ads will be shown - you can imagine how that can make it tricky to get all the pieces in place, especially if we change our selling guidelines. But as far as I know, there are no Priest-type ads in the pipeline.

SpikeToronto: There is definitely not an incentive to pack ads in to the exclusion of everything else. That would mean less people coming to the site, and so would be totally counter-productive. We're constantly trying to get the balance right; juggling agreements, ad spaces, changes to the site, experiments in different ad types, and so on. We have regular meetings with a group of senior staff every week to talk about this stuff and set the policies for the future. The overall goal of all this is to make sure that Wikia is stable, successful, and long-lasting. That's what everyone here is working for. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 17:31, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sannse, one of the reasons that there are no complaints is that the only people who knew they were there were unregistered. They would've just run off at the first sight of the things and/or never contribute to discussions. Manga (talk • contribs) 17:38, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I guess the lack of complaints is because: I) Logged-in users don't see ads and II) Logged out users that see ads doesn't care about complaining, or they just close the page --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) ^-WikiDex 18:05, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sannse: Thank you for your comments! They were very informative. I do have one question, though, and it’s a re-hash of the one that Jackie asked that must’ve got missed among all the other questions and comments on the page. Let’s suppose on WikiTea, where Jackie is doing the lion’s share of the work, Lipton decides it would like to sponsor the Lipton Tea article. From that point on, can they exercise editorial control? Can someone from their P.R. department re-write the article as a puff piece? If so, would the rest of us then be locked out of the article with a level of protection akin to Wikipedia’s Staff-level protection? Again, I really appreciated your comments above. They truly clarified the issues. I look forward to a reply to this last, inadvertently overlooked query. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:09, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

No, such decisions remain with the community. Any attempt at this by the staff would likely not go unpublished, and you would hear about it.  Monchoman45  Talk  Contribs  Skystone  19:25,9/13/2011 

Absolutely what Monchoman45 said. It is against our policies and our values to turn any wiki, whether a staff member started it or a regular user, into some sort of paid content fluff. Even if working with a wiki and adding content based on a campaign, our content staff are just as aware of their professional obligations to the wiki readership and do not try to take over the leadership of the wiki nor exercise editorial control. --daNASCAT (help forum | blog) 20:00, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Are not Vibrant ads paid content fluff? They are in content space. I never saw them because I only turn the ads on in preferences for a quick look, and then turn ads off quickly because they hog bandwidth. That slows down my editing, and so I turn the ads off soon.

That means I don't have much time to run my cursor down the page much, and then run into Vibrant ads. That is almost the only way to find them, unless one knows they exist. Then one can look for special underlining, double underlines, etc.. On other websites I usually leave immediately because they are so irritating, and they slow down reading greatly. I know I am not the only one. So Wikia is losing readers, and may lose editors and wikis once the word gets around. It won't effect Wikia much, but invasion of content space is the last straw for many people. The most intelligent editors will leave, and Wikia will descend further into fluff wikis. --Timeshifter 20:40, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sannse, first thanks for responding. I always appreciate when staff do in fact respond. Here are my issues: 1. As others have noted, most registered users have ads turned off. I have ads off, and an adblocker because internet ads in general have gotten out of control with their browser resource abuse. I had no idea the Vibrant ads were occurring until that post. 2. If they've really been in effect for 2 years, this does not help improve Wikia in my eyes. That means they've been in effect since some point in 2009, which was only a year AFTER Danny stressed the only ads advertisers wanted to buy were 300x250 AND only a year after Danny stated those ads were "more aggressive than what Wikia plans to use." So was Danny lying? Were the advertisers? Someone was lying here and it's disrespectful to the community. The phrase "fewer ads, and less aggressive ads" is just not something defensible any longer. I'm more inclined to second Acer's 'porn site' analogy...I mean honestly is this a friendly welcome ? -- LordTBT ^Talk! 00:41, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Manga Maniac and Ciencia Al Poder: On logged out users being the only viewers: that's true of almost all ads, but we do get feedback sent to us. Either people do what I do, and view ads so as to understand the reader experience, or they see them when browsing logged out, or they write to us even though they don't have an account (it happens :) So less mail about this particular type of ad is significant

SpikeToronto: Sorry for missing that question, I tried to pick out the top points to reply to :) The situation you describe on the Tea Wiki is not one I can imagine happening. I can picture a company creating an "official" wiki here (the button is available to anyone after all), and even us agreeing to build that official wiki - but that is not a service we currently offer. As for an established wiki being asked, or told, to change content to please an advertiser.... no, I don't believe that will happen.

Timeshifter: no, I don't consider that the same thing. I consider the Vibrant ads to be pretty much the same as the sponsored links, or other ads. And on losing readers: that's not what we are seeing on the visitor stats, and these ads have been around a while now. But, as I said above, we do record and consider all feedback on ads - including all of the feedback on this page.

LordTBT: adding to the forum is not generally the best way to get us to reply. As it says in the intro for the forums, we don't monitor this fully - it's mostly for people to help each other. When we don't reply, it's more likely to be that we are busy elsewhere or haven't noticed a thread than an intent to ignore.

Danny certainly was not lying. The market for ads can vary drastically from month to month... let alone from year to year. 300x600 ads are still an important part of what we have available for advertisers, but there have been many changes over time. I've learned over the last 5 years to be very careful about making any definitive statements, because what I know to be true today may not be in the future. But what I do know, is that we'll keep having those regular meetings to try and get the balance right. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 01:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sannse and daNASCAT for taking the time to clear this stuff up for us. @LordTBT: Is that a real screencap or a mockup? I hope it’s the latter! — SpikeToronto 01:57, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

@SpikeToronto: That is not a mockup, that is a real screenshot. That big banner at the bottom moves as the screen scrolls down.

@Sannse: "Balance" is not the right word. "Balance" is indicative of equal parts of something. When there is a banner ad at the top, 2 box ads at the bottom, 2 ads of any given size to the right of the screen (all of which are flash heavy), as well as Vibrant IN TEXT ads, I struggle to see how there is an equal balance of anything. The scales are pointedly tipped in one direction. The advertisers didn't say they wanted less of advertising, it seems that they said "we want more." And Wikia said "Ok, have more." And then they said "Oh, we want more again," and Wikia said "Have even more chaps!" etc. Advertising has significantly increased on all fronts, so to suggest there is a balance anywhere is inaccurate. Each time this has happened, I've been concerned about what's coming next, and now I just don't know what to think any more. Especially if Wikia cannot make definitive statements to the community. -- LordTBT ^Talk! 05:24, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

LordTBT, I gess you missed my blog about that some time ago: User blog:Ciencia Al Poder/December update - New ad formats for your visitors. Ass Sannse said on that blog post, the end of the year is always a heavier time for ads. It seems that now it doesn't matter the time of the year. I can't imagine how it could be this end of the year. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) ^-WikiDex 09:28, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

@Sannse: Many thanks for the reply. I have a question though: How do you define "priest-type" ads? My complaint was specifically the fact the the ad actively obscured content. I have not noticed any reduction in content-obscuring ads, (ie, the 50/50 ad at the bottom of LordTBT's screenshot here). Is that what you meant? Are there no more of those ads in the pipeline?--Acer4666 09:54, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd prefer cutting Vibrant ads (and any other Anon-only thing) at the cost of expanding the normal sidebar ads to everyone logged in. I want to see exactly what everyone is viewing, whether they're logged in or not. Manga (talk • contribs) 16:16, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

@Sannse. The reason Wikia's page views keep going up is because there is little competition in MediaWiki wiki Farms. Also, until this thread most people did not notice just how much that ads have invaded content space. See LordTBT's screenshots. Many editors draw the line at ads in content space. You will not notice readers leaving the site because of Vibrant ads. I do not leave a message at the many sites I have visited and then quickly left due to Vibrant-like ads. Until this thread I had stopped seriously considering forking to another wiki farm. But now I am reconsidering. I am sure many other editors are reconsidering. Back when I was going to move to another wiki farm, and even applied to Shout Wiki, the other wiki farms did not seem to have their act together. They did not seem serious about the longterm need for ads, and lots of them, if they wanted to survive longterm financially. I tried to explain this to a few of those in charge, but they seemed to be bumbling along (don't we all sometimes!). But competition is Darwinian in weeding out the wiki farms without finances, and so I bet more of the current wiki farms are getting their acts together. And if they have enough ads and finances, and those ads don't invade content space, then those other wiki farms will become popular over time. Wikia's page views will level out, or even decline. Then you might start removing ads from content space. I will probably be long gone by then, though, if you don't remove ads from content space. I am talking about the Vibrant ads, the popover ads that cover content space when one runs their cursor over an ad, the bottom ads that cover content space as they follow one up the page, etc.. Unlike some people I do not use ad blockers that block everything. I want to support sites, and so I try to click on ads now and then. I do turn off Flash ads though, when I am editing. Flash ads really slow things down when opening multiple pages. On sites where I do not edit I leave Flash ads on much of the time unless they become a problem. --Timeshifter 18:38, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

You really have to be an admin at a bigger, favored wiki for Wikia to take action based on complaints (this includes me, even though Wikia doesn't trust me). I would ask some admins at Wikia's biggest and most favored wikis if they worry about this kind of stuff. If they don't, not much is likely to change.

Personally, I see all the ads as the price for being too lazy to create an account and login. So maybe my attitude is more common and more influential to Wikia than the many very good arguments about how horrible some of the ads and ad methods are. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Sep 2011 5:27 PM Pacific

LordTBT: “Balance” is getting things right for both our contributors/readers, and our advertisers. I acknowledge that you don't feel we are achieving one side of that at the moment.

Acer: For the "Priest-type ads", the technical term is “overlays”. These are the ads that float over the content, sometimes seeming to interact with it (the shurikens landing in the page). We also sometimes have ads that expand from the top of the screen, pushing content down briefly, and footer ads like the one in LordTBT's screenshot. Those are still on the site, but aren't something you will see on every page load. The norm is for a maximum of one per 24 hours (if we have a campaign running that includes this type, your wiki, and your location).

Timeshifter: part of the reason there is little competition in wiki farms is that they are not easy or cheap to run. Ads are necessary, and in a type and variety that will actually support the site. That said, we have removed some in-content ads already (remember that the old Monaco skin had the content flowing around box ads) and I'm willing to ask about options for any wiki that objects to Vibrant ads. Please contact us. For smaller wikis, we tried a pay-to-remove-ads scheme, but only had a very small number of takers. I still look after the wikis on that scheme, and can accept new wikis on to it. I don't think that's going to help most of you commenting here (as your wikis are too large for that to work out) but it is something we offer where we can.

By the way, I don't think anyone has mentioned auto-audio ads here yet. We don't accept these, but (like game-gold ads) they occasionally sneak through from our providers. If you get them, please let us know as soon as possible. I've asked for the help page on reporting ads to be updated, but the info on there now should still be enough to show you what we need to track these down and stop them. Thanks all – sannse (help forum | blog) 01:15, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Sannse. I read that MediaWiki installation is getting easier. I don't think ad opt-out will be chosen by many wikis since most wikis aren't really "owned" by one person willing to pay for it. In a related subject one wiki farm was thinking of implementing paid-for premium features as a way to allow more options for individual wikis, and to pay for staff time for these features, skins, etc.. I pointed out that it likely would not work well because wikis may have many readers, but far fewer admins. Admins may or may not be committed enough to pay a yearly premium. And unlike blogs, wikis are not controlled by one person. No one admin has total control usually, and committing to paying for premium features without longterm control is problematic for many admins. Blogs on the other hand are controlled by one person. Wordpress.com has premium features that are very popular (more customized CSS, for example), and it has millions of blogs. So premium features raise substantial revenues for Wordpress.com. Some wiki farms allow private wikis that are controlled by one person. That one person has final say over all decisions, other admins, etc., and can even delete the wiki. The wiki can be viewed by a selected group, or by the public as a whole. It is up to the owner of that wiki. That kind of wiki may be more inclined to pay to opt out of ads. But most people aren't that ideologically opposed to ads.

I don't mind a few box ads in wide-format skins like Monaco if the ads are clearly captioned "ads". Then I don't consider those ads to really be in content space. But box ads, popover ads, flashover ads, etc. in content space in narrow-format skins like Oasis-Wikia feel really invasive. By the way, I prefer a medium-format skin with a flexible, fixed-range width that expands within a limited range. Up until this forum thread, and its discussion of ads in content space, the narrow format of Oasis had been the only remaining serious reason I saw for forking the wiki I work on. See: Forum:Need flexible width up to a wider fixed width, Moving to another wiki farm, and Problems and bugs. It is easier and easier to export wikis, and gets more and more tempting as wiki farms add full database dumps (on the Special:Statistics page) to their features. So I wouldn't feel stuck in any particular wiki farm if things didn't work out. --Timeshifter 18:54, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on the ad part. "Less ad" cool, but now this is just BS. Mand'alor Skyobiliviator The Devastator 08:14, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I've just found a 2007 quote from Angela, co-founder of Wikia: "There should never be pop-ups on Wikia".[1]. Nice one--Acer4666 11:32, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Humm... I'm reluctant to say this, because it's going to sound like semantics... but pop-ups are new windows opened by a site that appear over your current browser window (there are also pop-unders that do the same, but show under the current window). We don't have any of those, and still don't plan to do so. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 17:13, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to be accused, your distinction is purely semantic and arbitrary. Just because an advertisement doesn't create a new browser window, doesn't mean it isn't a popup. If it obscures content and "pops up" over it. It is a popup. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 23 Sep 2011 11:00 PM Pacific

Convenience break

Hypothetical: Suppose a wiki has decided after a deletion discussion to delete a particular article. Further suppose that that article is sponsored in the External Sponsor Links section (i.e., Special:AdSS). Despite the article’s sponsor, will the wiki be permitted to delete the article? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 10:26, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

@Spike - I think sponsored links just affect a percentage of all articles on the wiki. I don't think they are article-specific - you can just buy "shares" which equate to your ad appearing on a percentage of the articles.

I've just noticed Sannse's response to that quote from Angela - if you click on the link I provided, you can see that Angela was directly referring to adverts that "block the text". So Sannse is taking the quote out of context and changing the meaning of what Angela meant, namely, that articles should never pop up and block text (which they do).--Category:Acer4666 13:25, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Acer! I did not realize that that is how sponsored adverts worked. So, that means that a community can still make the decision to delete an article regardless of any sponsored advertising that may be attached to it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:43, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

My current problem with Wikia. I don't really see how "balanced" this is between editors and advertisers. We've been limited to 640px space, advertisers are taking the rest of the spots and now even taking up some space in that 640px area. This is balance to you? Mckrongs 02:26, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

The founder of Wikia and Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, says that "ads are not evil. But they don't belong here. Not on Wikipedia. Not here." So why won't that go the same for Wikia?!!? ADS DON'T EVEN BELONG ON WIKIA! (I'm not really screaming at you Jimmy) -- I Pity The Fool. - Mr.T 00:36, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

If you log in you won't see ads other than one at the bottom of the page. Iggyvolz 00:50, December 2, 2011 (UTC)