• John Kugelman (unregistered)

    I don't get the Yahoo one.

  • Zolcos (unregistered)

    I don't get the MSBC one,

  • PeriSoft (unregistered)

    I don't get the toothpaste one,..,;"\

  • nightkhaos (unregistered)

    I don't get any of them! :P

  • Andy Goth (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • bobday (cs)

    This is not a WTF because they are pictures.

  • TheRubyWarlock (cs)

    This shit passes for content nowadays? Give me a fucking break. It's not like one can control the sponsors on a page, eh?

  • misguided (cs)

    Unfortunately so many of those annoying, in-line square, oft AJAX-based ad boxes are contextual, reading keywords out of the page title, headline, and article... and then we end up with sometimes ridiculously inappropriate "targeted" ads. I especially love the ones that cover the article or your entire monitor and force you to use their close button. Which doesn't always work. and you have to reload the page. and if you get the same ad you have to resort to disabling some rich-browsing features just to read a damn site. For me, no amount of ad revenue could ever be worth frustrating the shit out of visitors. but wtf do i know.

  • Perl Guy (unregistered) in reply to John Kugelman
    John Kugelman:
    I don't get the Yahoo one.
    Dude, it's the Eye of Sauron. (e.g., a huge flaming eye).

    CAPTCHA: Sanitarium -- Too bad I can't spell it.

  • sockatume (unregistered)

    Bwuh? I got confused there and thought I was in BBSpot's BBloopers for a moment.

  • Anon Fred (unregistered)

    Isn't it good that AT&T can continue to sponsor MSNBC while the journalist disses the provider in a product review?

    That's a positive sign, isn't it?

    (gygax)

  • Josh (unregistered)

    Ha, I remember when I was working at a dot-com in during the first boom, and the tech people came in and were describing the spiffy new automated ad-serving system they were going to use, and our managing editor, who had years of experience in print media, asked, "So there will be ways to prevent embarassing juxtapositions of ads and content, right?" And they just sort of looked at her in dumb horror.

  • bobday (cs) in reply to TheRubyWarlock
    TheRubyWarlock:
    This shit passes for content nowadays? Give me a fucking break. It's not like one can control the sponsors on a page, eh?
    Okay, this is not a WTF because they are pictures and one can't control the sponsors on a page.
  • Diamonds (cs)

    I think the iPhone one is a WTF because only Cingular can be a carrier for it. AT&T owns many telecommunication companies (way to go anti-trust courts), but Cingular is not one of them.

    Its a WTF in bias.

  • Hank (unregistered) in reply to TheRubyWarlock

    Uhh.. actually theres more control than in the bad old days.

    The Colgate and I phone ones are pretty bad. The LoTRO one was just kind of odd to have flames coming out of an ad when reading about a nuclear fire.

  • Hank (unregistered) in reply to Diamonds

    Hmm I started sending my money to the wrong people then?

    (Cingular IS one of them)

  • K (unregistered) in reply to Diamonds
    Diamonds:
    I think the iPhone one is a WTF because only Cingular can be a carrier for it. AT&T owns many telecommunication companies (way to go anti-trust courts), but Cingular is not one of them.

    Its a WTF in bias.

    ...

  • Andy (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to Hank
    Hank:
    Uhh.. actually theres more control than in the bad old days.

    The Colgate and I phone ones are pretty bad. The LoTRO one was just kind of odd to have flames coming out of an ad when reading about a nuclear fire.

    I agree, Colgate and iPhone are bad. Yahoo one isn't bad, nor not classy. It's just mildly coincidental. Overall, this is a weak Error'd though.

    And yes, AT&T has owned Cingular for quite some time.

  • anon (unregistered)

    First glance I thought the eye was Godzilla, when related to a nuclear disaster in Japan would have been... better?

  • Ethan (unregistered) in reply to misguided

    Sounds like you should be using Firefox, and the adBlock Plus plugin. I get surprised by the existence and magnitude of ads, when I'm on other people's computers. I haven't been bothered by a pop-up ad in ages!

  • sinistral (cs) in reply to Diamonds
    Diamonds:
    I think the iPhone one is a WTF because only Cingular can be a carrier for it. AT&T owns many telecommunication companies (way to go anti-trust courts), but Cingular is not one of them.

    Its a WTF in bias.

    Bzzzt, sorry, but thanks for playing. "The New AT&T" is the joining of the previous iteration of AT&T and Cingular. Go to http://www.cingular.com and tell me what you get.

  • celeriac (unregistered)

    From Wikipedia:

    "Formerly a joint venture between SBC Communications and BellSouth, Cingular Wireless soon acquired the old AT&T Wireless; SBC later acquired the original AT&T and rebranded as "the new AT&T". Cingular became wholly-owned by the new AT&T in December 2006 as a result of AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth."

    So Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, then Cingular's owners bought AT&T, then AT&T bought Cingular? (THIS IS THE REAL WTF)

  • Kasper (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • dnm (unregistered)

    misguided: Amen.

  • N (unregistered) in reply to TheRubyWarlock

    WWWwwwwaaaaahhhhhhh, wwwaaaaahhhhhh, I want something else to read even though I'm not paying for this site. Waaaaaaahhhh, waaaahhhh, I continue to come to the site and leave comments while complaining about it because I am a fucking douchebag ... wwwaaaaaahhh!!!

  • Atrophy (cs)

    Ok, so this Cingular thing's been bothering me for a while now... I believe that makes 8 of the 9 Baby Bells that are back in the mothership now?!

    G*&# D*&^ FU#$ING DUMB A$@ DoJ AND THEIR @#$%@#% LAME-A$@ PITIFUL EXCUSE FOR AN ANTI-TRUST CASE...

    • eye twitching *

    Robin Williams was right... congressmen should have the logos of their corporate sponsors sewn onto their suits just like the Nascar guys do. I need a drink.

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to misguided
    misguided:
    For me, no amount of ad revenue could ever be worth frustrating the shit out of visitors. but wtf do i know.

    Now, imagine you actually had visitors to your web site, other than your mother. Your attitude changes, doesn't it?

  • bassaf (unregistered) in reply to celeriac
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Confused (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Random832 (cs) in reply to celeriac
    celeriac:
    From Wikipedia:

    "Formerly a joint venture between SBC Communications and BellSouth, Cingular Wireless soon acquired the old AT&T Wireless; SBC later acquired the original AT&T and rebranded as "the new AT&T". Cingular became wholly-owned by the new AT&T in December 2006 as a result of AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth."

    So Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, then Cingular's owners bought AT&T, then AT&T bought Cingular? (THIS IS THE REAL WTF)

    Not quite - Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, then one of Cingular's owners bought AT&T, then that same one of Cingular's owners bought Cingular's other owner.

  • ripdanny (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Gareth (unregistered) in reply to Josh
    Josh:
    Ha, I remember when I was working at a dot-com in during the first boom, and the tech people came in and were describing the spiffy new automated ad-serving system they were going to use, and our managing editor, who had years of experience in print media, asked, "So there will be ways to prevent embarassing juxtapositions of ads and content, right?" And they just sort of looked at her in dumb horror.

    The web needs a lot more people like your old editor, that's for sure.

    It also needs a lot fewer people just grabbing mass-marketed generic solutions which do nothing in the way of enhancing a users experience on their site (and yes, adverts can enhance a user's experience)

  • KattMan (cs) in reply to Gareth
    Gareth:
    The web needs a lot more people like your old editor, that's for sure.

    It also needs a lot fewer people just grabbing mass-marketed generic solutions which do nothing in the way of enhancing a users experience on their site (and yes, adverts can enhance a user's experience)

    Oh no! you said "enhance." Now we are going to be inundated with ads for Viagra.

  • AbbydonKrafts (cs) in reply to Perl Guy
    Perl Guy:
    Dude, it's the Eye of Sauron. (e.g., a huge flaming eye).

    That's the first thing I recognized it as, too. Based on this line:

    Real classy, Yahoo.

    I'd have to say they keep their mind in the gutter or something.

  • AbbydonKrafts (cs) in reply to Ethan
    Ethan:
    Sounds like you should be using Firefox, and the adBlock Plus plugin. I get surprised by the existence and magnitude of ads, when I'm on other people's computers. I haven't been bothered by a pop-up ad in ages!

    I've gotten so used to Opera's ad-block that I get surprised, too. My wife wanted me to go on MySpace (which I hadn't done in a LONG time) to check out someone's blog entry. I was wondering why there were so few ads. After a little while, it dawned on me that I've done ad-block on so many providers that it must've covered virtually all of MySpace's. Sure enough, when I brought up the "Block content" option, it had the blocked indicator over half the page.

  • Andrew Badera (unregistered)

    The real WTF is that someone who reads/submits to this site doesn't use ad blocking software.

  • Izzy (unregistered) in reply to Gareth
    Gareth:
    Josh:
    Ha, I remember when I was working at a dot-com in during the first boom, and the tech people came in and were describing the spiffy new automated ad-serving system they were going to use, and our managing editor, who had years of experience in print media, asked, "So there will be ways to prevent embarassing juxtapositions of ads and content, right?" And they just sort of looked at her in dumb horror.

    The web needs a lot more people like your old editor, that's for sure.

    It also needs a lot fewer people just grabbing mass-marketed generic solutions which do nothing in the way of enhancing a users experience on their site (and yes, adverts can enhance a user's experience)

    Thank you, but if my "certain part of male anatomy" gets any more enhancement, I'll need a wheelbarrow.

  • phaedrus (cs) in reply to AbbydonKrafts
    AbbydonKrafts:
    Ethan:
    Sounds like you should be using Firefox, and the adBlock Plus plugin. I get surprised by the existence and magnitude of ads, when I'm on other people's computers. I haven't been bothered by a pop-up ad in ages!

    I've gotten so used to Opera's ad-block that I get surprised, too. My wife wanted me to go on MySpace (which I hadn't done in a LONG time) to check out someone's blog entry. I was wondering why there were so few ads. After a little while, it dawned on me that I've done ad-block on so many providers that it must've covered virtually all of MySpace's. Sure enough, when I brought up the "Block content" option, it had the blocked indicator over half the page.

    Firefox's AdBlock plugins have gotten pretty advanced. I haven't set my own block rules since I started using AdBlock Plus. You just pick a ruleset to subscribe to, and it auto-updates based on what the maintainers find. It's very comprehensive, and it has rulesets localized to different areas of the world (I just use the US set).

    With the original AdBlock plugin, I ran into the "oh, I already blocked all those" phenomenon after I got really aggressive and added rules like "/ads/" to my list. (I originally wanted to have a targeted list of blocked ads, so that sites I wanted to support would still get my hits, but they eventually succumbed to the use of truly obnoxious flash ads, and killed that last little bit of idealism in me... Brute force all the way...)

  • James Schend (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • nightkhaos (unregistered) in reply to Gareth

    [quote user=Garth] The web needs a lot more people like your old editor, that's for sure.

    It also needs a lot fewer people just grabbing mass-marketed generic solutions which do nothing in the way of enhancing a users experience on their site (and yes, adverts can enhance a user's experience) [/quote]

    Actually I think it the IT industry in general that need a lot more people like Josh's old editor. I have seen many instances where people have "madde it JustWork(tm)" and it ends up like a horrific mess. To many IT developers are not user focused. I think the trend seems to be at the moment, give the IT techie a technical brief and let them go off and whip something up. Hello, we do have brains, if you actually tell us the big picture, we can handle it, and provide better more effective solutions. And we did, right up to the point where Microsoft made it possible for a 5 year old to hop onto daddy's computer and instinctively know how to do "everything".

  • charlie (unregistered) in reply to misguided

    The WTF is you don't use adBlock!

  • Adam (unregistered) in reply to bobday
    bobday:
    TheRubyWarlock:
    This shit passes for content nowadays? Give me a fucking break. It's not like one can control the sponsors on a page, eh?
    Okay, this is not a WTF because they are pictures and one can't control the sponsors on a page.

    I'm the crown-prince of sarcasm..and I don't think you're joking. Apologies if you were...but WTF? I scanned the page looking for people quoting you, and seeing none, I respond.

    They can't control the sponsors that appear on a page? WTF? Of course they can. They choose not to. In the time it's taken me to type this, I've thought of a way to stop this happening.

  • npt (unregistered)

    The toothpaste one isn't a WTF because the poisoned toothpaste was counterfeit. It shouldn't harm Colgate's reputation.

  • savar (cs) in reply to John Kugelman
    John Kugelman:
    I don't get the Yahoo one.

    Looks like a flaming vagina...not sure how that relates to the news story though.

  • Xepol (cs)

    Gotta love keyword targeted ads, context is HIGHLY over-rated.

    This is why most companies don't run google ads on their sites - it spends more time serving your compeitors ads than anything else.

  • Xepol (cs) in reply to savar
    savar:
    John Kugelman:
    I don't get the Yahoo one.

    Looks like a flaming vagina...not sure how that relates to the news story though.

    Seriously? You don't see how that would related to a nuclear accident? Wow. I'm just... wow...

    seriously? I mean? wow...

    What part of the world are you in, the rest of us want to know so we can avoid it (or not, I suppose as your taste in huge flaming vaginas go... damn, now THERE was a phrase I never imagined I would use, EVER)

  • M L (unregistered) in reply to Xepol
    Xepol:
    Gotta love keyword targeted ads, context is HIGHLY over-rated.

    This is why most companies don't run google ads on their sites - it spends more time serving your compeitors ads than anything else.

    It can also lead to some embarrassment too. Back during the last miner accident (the one in Wyoming, not the current one), I was reading an online article from the Charleston Daily Mail regarding the tragic deaths of the miners, the families' reaction, and the funeral plans.

    At the bottom of the page, there was a Google ad reading "Miners Needed - earn up to $7500 per month!"

  • SpComb (cs)
    • giggles slightly re the MSNBC one *

    Error'd is the best, disregard the nay-sayers, they can have their CSOD's if they want to (never read those).

  • CastrTroy (unregistered)

    Since nobody seems to have mentioned it, the problem with the AT&T/iPhone article, is that the article is about the shortcomings of the iPhone, and why the author won't be buying one. it's funny because AT&T is sponsoring an article stating why a product they sell isn't worth buying.

    Captcha: Waffles. I'm hungry

Leave a comment on “This Juxtaposition In”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article