Talk: Working with Wikia

just another point

ok, so i never know if i should make a new chapter, and place it at top or bottom .. but i just felt i had to on this one, now first up; im not even going to start anywhere in the whole you should or you should not show ads. all i wanted to rant about is - show them AS adds

i stumbled upon the add on one of the macro for class pages; and i instantly frowned upon it - not that im pro or against adds - since i realize money has to come from somewhere to support the bandwidth and all that nice stuff

thing is, when i first glanced over that part it felt like it was part of the site - then i realised it was a add. there is of course a pro and a con about that. but even going by a 'pro' point of view that at least it wont break the overall aesthetics of the site and wont be a awfully disturbing page breaking flashing bouncing twirling sound creating overall obnoxious advert - it still sucked to have to take a second look after glancing over it, realising its a advert on my favorite wiki. well, i'm still going to try staying out of that debate - but overall I do admit i prefer as little ads as possible and preferably not obnoxious ones.

after finding it mildly ironic that i use wowwiki as my guide in the first place, and whenever I get questioned if buying any guide in general is a smart thing i typically respond with 85% of every guide is common sense and anything useful you could find yourself on wowwiki - i decided to see if it was a advertisement that was made by wowwiki or if it was genuine spam. which is my second reason for writing

why in the world does it not link to a uneditable page that clearly states the experiment of ads - all the partners that can be reffered to through such a ad (as instant verification for everyone that the other page does not hold some random genuine spam which can be deleted!) - and various other usefull stuff

now I happen to slightly know my way around a wiki in general and was able to relatively quick find my way to this page to rant that it lacked a couple things in my humble opinion.

and this also needs a quick comment

The only thing I can say is DOH - I make mistakes too - but as a group we all agreed to test this, so I guess we all get a big "oops" on that one. Now there were some positive elements of the test that I also want to share

You may not have noticed, but we had 200x200 pixel ads for killer guides running at the same time on the left hand nav (see below). See lower left corner
- The number of clicks per day on the ads within the content on 75 pages I hand wrote were HIGHER than the number of clicks per day on the 2 ads on the left hand nav that were on ALL 71,000 pages of wowwiki
This shows me that our readers did SEE and WANT to click on the ads and the PLACEMENT was the only thing that caused dramatically higher click-rates

I disagree

No, i did not notice - first I hardly use the menu in the first place.. secondly - that looks like a advertisement, I typically automatically mental block a advertisement at the first moment I recognize anything as advertisement

the way i go through a page - especially a familiar one - is mainly focussed at the center - where the actual content is i come here in search of information - advertisements, menu's , all that nice stuff is not information whenever i look for it. 95% of my time on wowwiki is done while playing wow (gee, that may be true for some other visitors).. and at that time i look for additional info about a zone, quest, mob, instance, tactic, gear,material, npc, etcetcetcetcetcetc.. (and we thank wowwiki for having this all at our fingertips - thanks ;) ) - my point, info is important.. i scan the page while reading it trying to pick the most important parts - a advertisement is very nice and all and sure i understand the necessity and all that nice stuff.. but i'll have to admit that it's not something i'm looking for when i browse the internet and especially this place. so i tend to ignore them over the good content on any given internet page.

and there is a lot of people that do the same, so .. "This shows me that our readers did SEE and WANT to click on the ads and the PLACEMENT was the only thing that caused dramatically higher click-rates " is i hate to say, in my opinion utter gibberish if you have no way of backing it up, i saw the add. i did not click on it because after "being forced" to read it i still recognized it as advertisement. potentially other people saw it as a advertisement which in it self potentially mean nothing but since it was presented in a way as you (wowwiki as entity) not only read it but actually used it and was so delighted about the guide that you think we actually should try it. - which brings me to a related point of what Graptor said in his comment -

how much of those that potentially saw it as a !wowwiki endorsed guide! (granted that person would fit the "oh if Mr T uses that kitchen appliance on buy-tv it must be brilliant lets get one" profile) - versus a 'paid advertisement'

just statistical "clicks" say little: how much clicked it to check if there was some sort of advert system being introduced and the page would first explain that test ? how much clicked it doublecheck , for example; to see if it really still went to the guides website and not a rogue website that modified an 'existing advert' to redirect to a phishing site and should be reported/removed from wowwiki

and mainly - how much people actually look at the menu ?? - i hardly ever look at the menu of a wiki page i typically instantly recognize spam/advertisements in a regular website menu and avoid reading those long but since this page is a wiki in the first place... if i need to know something and want to look it up on wowwiki i just type woww in my browser bar , then press down .. this gives the http://www.wowwiki.com/ url and then I add whatever the heck directly after it (keeping in mind that annoying feature of capitals)

the only thing you can really tell from the amount of clicks on one day is the amount of revenue your advertisements bring - not much more as that , at least not for your experiment, in my humble opinion

Think back to the comment of Graptor how much people may think now that they were fooled onto reading about a guide which they didn't want to buy but felt compelled to since the mighty wowwiki says to? - and will never ever come back ?

"This shows me that our readers did SEE and WANT to click on the ads and the PLACEMENT was the only thing that caused dramatically higher click-rates " i also disagree on that , well aside that it's your view and that you're entitled to it, i'll admit i saw it - because i was actively reading a large slab of content and didn't expect a add to appear at the bottom of it - and as noted before, i normally try to focus only on actual important content, and when i'm still looking for it i tend to ignore non-content wise items... but i did not want to click after realising it was a advertisement and not leading to more actual important content. - the only good about the placement at the bottom is that its not al too intrusive. i could suggest doing it better, but i personally in general can live with ads at the bottom of a general website. my thought is that its more the other way around , this placement makes it look like wowwiki is endorsing the product. the placement is different from a regular ads banner thus the first time when you see a add there with a wowwiki skin a person might not recognize it as advert quickly enough.. or .. bottom line, placement was relatively nice (although i understand from the comments that at bottom was not the initial place).. but certainly not the main thing why it got clicked so much

I think i've done my best to make myself clear. and its getting late and all. i just wanted to share my current objections; - it doesnt look like a add if your sleepy and just browsing the page - it needs a slight distinction from the general information if you want it similar to the wowwiki gui, fine. but still make it difference put it in a nice box- but not full page width, but give it a header that says ---- advertisement ----- or sponser like now (i realised in hindsight) - but centerd- .. or something like that and make the colors just a tad similar but still based on the general wowwiki background

- add a link from every advertiment to a non editable page that explains why adds, and which adds. as reference - with a central talk page for discussions and all that nice stuff ;)

my suggestions -aside colors and width - (couldn't get that right quickly)

Sponsor

Advertisement: Paladin Secrets

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Want to reach level 80 fast? Then read up on proven leveling strategies in the Paladin Guide recently released by Killer Guides. Packed with insider strategies, the guide allows you to master the class in less than a week. Highlights include:

- A Paladin only leveling guide to hit level 80 in 10 days

- The top 3 talent builds for Paladins

- Detailed quest walkthroughs for important class quests

- Class specific strategies to make heaps of gold

Get your Paladin Guide now and start speed-leveling today!

To know more about this and other advertisements on Wikia or if you are interested in letting us host your advertisement here visit the Advertisement community

User:CoZ/signature Coz (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(seemed best could keep the original entry at the bottom)

Comments and Feedback

I like the idea of advertising within video, but not the video embedded into wiki. I know that we have a decent amount of embedding already here and there, but it still kills load time. It obviously is an excellent idea to pursue, though if we're going by load time, we're already one of the slowest websites on the web.

I don't know that ads-in-the-content is going to work well, considering the high number of images we use. This is presumably along the lines of "ads after (before?) each h2"? I'd much prefer that placement to an "AdTest" type situation as on User:Gil/projectspace though, unless AdTest was highlighted like that deliberately?

I don't have a specific goal here - as much as the goal of experimenting to learn. For starters, I would suggest one of two paths... make the second section of certain pages a "Our Sponsor" section as an H2 -or- insert the suggested content into the second section of the article without an explanation. Artistically I liked the first better, as it created a stand-alone section, but I'm not wedded to any particular execution... so if people have a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Gil (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's a stand alone section, $20 says it's not going to be clicked on nearly as much as if it's embedded into the 2nd section; i.e. if they expect it, they aren't going to want to view it. I'm sure we can try both ways, but I figure that the 2nd will generate higher funds. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For some pages i like/can imagine the idea - but not for every time .. in other words, yeh video is a nice shiny gadget but, dont forget a lot of people may view this site sometimes from other places aside home - for example my company lets people look online during lunch but not the entire internet. youtube is on the permanent block list. wowwiki is allowed. I wouldn't like it if opening wowwiki raises alarm bells on some IT guys desk that someone is trying to find a backdoor - and he goes 'oh, lets block that strange site too' User:CoZ/signature

Q&A, a la WW:WP, but as an extension?

SHHH: it's a secret, but if you promise not to blab, I will trust you. Go here: http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/When_is_WOW_Patch_3.0.9_being_released to see it. The goal would be to put something like this .PNG below into each article (header/body/somewhere)

OK, that looks like a cool idea...but how does it help generate revenue? --Pcj (T•C) 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What he said. Also, FAQs seem like the antithesis to a wiki; the general info is already going to be documented on the wiki, and so we're going to get FAQs which are specific; thus a contradiction to the term "FAQ". --Sky (t · c · w) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As for BradyGames and co, good ideas. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do video embeds kill load time, if it just shows a 2D preview poster before you hit play? I guess we should have discussed it in more detail, but I was aasuming non-autoplay of videos when you went to the page. Autoplay would be horrible. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:59 PM PST 23 Jan 2009

For the record - it's called pre-roll video, it runs only AFTER you click on an embedded video and BEFORE the video runs. Autoplay video within the embeds sounds like a big fat YUCK to me too. Gil (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Autoplay would be horrible, but that's not what I was asking about. Presumably, all videos load at the beginning of the load of the page, correct? This is the load time everyone hates about Monaco, and we should be doing more to reduce Monaco's load time itself, as well as keeping any extras from loading if possible. I.e., videos. I love the idea of ads in videos, but as I said before, everyone hates the load time. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let Wikia folks or Kirkburn explain the upcoming Q&A feature, as it is unannounced to the wider Wikia world. I will say that it is more than just a simple, free-form discussion area like the Warcraft pump, but I didn't get to see alot. --

Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:03 PM PST 23 Jan 2009

Related to this, JoePlay (of the Wikia Gaming team), is going to add a few CrispyGamer videos around the wiki. They will follow the normal policies for where video stuff should go, per WW:MOS, and will be directly relevant to the page subject. You can see an example in action on Dragonblight#Videos. :) Edit: we may do the same thing with 5min. Kirkburn talk contr 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

—If we must have spam can it at least be placed in the margins rather than smack-bang in the middle of text? Then again, I guess we can go back to Thottbot or Wowhead if we don't like the 'new direction' wowwiki is taking Ghost 9 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC) -- lol, yeah. if you want to get hit by the partypoker popup, go right ahead (yes, even with adblocker) User:CoZ/signature

Inline ads aren't going to work like this...

Now I'm not intending to move the debate over the placement of the ads here, but I don't think this is going to work.

The problem is, obviously, that the contect is user-editable, so anyone who doesn't like the ads can remove them. This is already creating a lot of administrative overhead, making sure the ads don't get removed, punishing users that keep removing them... it's only going to get worse.

So, I propose that some sort of system that injects the ads into the target pages via javascript be developed here. That way users can't remove them via editing and we put an end to this edit war across our most popular pages.

User:Tekkub/Sig 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that most of your uses haven't even heard of this particular problem, so the instant they see the ad the first conclusion is that it's vandalism and needs to be removed. The first thought upon seeing the comment on the tag for it is that it's the vandal trying to cover themselves by sounding official. If I hadn't given it just

enough benefit of the doubt to actually check this page I would've just deleted it outright.

And frankly...something everyone involved in advertising on the internet needs to grasp is that ads are most effective when the user WANTS to look at them. When they're intrusive or disruptive, they're not only LESS effective, but can actually have a NEGATIVE effect. I stopped reading Wired before I really started, and have a standing note to self to never, ever buy AT&T Wireless, because of one horrible Pop-Over Ad (We're talking one that has no close option and does not close itself automatically. It literally prevented reading the top of the article with the only bypass being reloading and hoping you don't get it, which wasn't happening). I similarly ditched Allakhazam because of their ads bogging down the site.

My father used to work as a customer service manager for one of the biggest newspapers in the state. One of the things we talked about a lot was that the amount that they charged for a copy of the paper didn't even cover the cost of the actual paper it was printed on. The money all came from the ads. When I asked why they didn't just offer it for free, like some people do, he said that they can get more money for the ads if they charge for the paper. Why? Because the fact that they're paying for it is proof that they actually want it. They could drop one for free on everyone's doorstop, but how many of them would get thrown away un-looked at like so much junkmail? 500000 people that mostly aren't reading it aren't worth much. 50000 that almost certainly are reading it is a different matter.

FORCING people to look at Ads is counter-productive. You want them to be visible, yes, but you want them to be visible in a way that people WANT to look at them, WANT to click on them. If it's intrusive... you could piss them off, seriously. Like 'I will never buy from that company' seriously (Looking at you, AT&T Wireless). Things like that are why we have popup blockers and firefox extensions that remove ads from sites.

It's also why I don't read wired and why I stopped using Allakhazam. Even if they fix the problem, I don't care. I'm not going back. Just this being seriously considered, much less implemented, has WoWWiki teetering on that line. It's pretty bad when a site run by a freaking gold seller is less obnoxious than a community run wiki. Graptor (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NO sir, I don't like it

Just noticed one of these adds in the article shaman races... Its location is eyesore, and breaks up the flow of the article.... maybe if it was the end it wouldn't be so bad... But where its located currently is wrong on so many levels... I don't want to be accused of being a communist but I think this goes too far, :p..Baggins (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Running into that interstitial on Heigan's page followed by the discovery it's not vandalism was almost enough for me to stop using WoWWiki entirely then and there. You guys start doing that kinda crap and you'll get ZERO revenue from me, as I'll find another site that isn't as obnoxious.

Even Worse is that on this page it says that they'd only be on a TEST site but I run into it on main? Ain't no wonder people are removing it. It's the wiki equivalent of a pop-over ad, frankly. If anyone else but the admin team put something like that in an article it'd be vandalism.

Being frankly honest here, I would rather see WoWWiki not even exist than have that kind of ad in it. They go or I'm taking the plugin out of Firefox and never coming back. I already stopped using Allakhazam because their ad providers bogged down page loading to an absurd extent, and haven't gone back(and won't) even though their redesign apparently cured it. If you want WoWWiki to survive, find something less obnoxious. Pissing off users is not a way to 'generate more revenue', it's a way to generate less. Graptor (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with you on this issue... I'd go as far to say that wowwiki is being vandalized by its own adminstrators by doing this... You won't catch me abusing my administration and adding those things in....Baggins (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather have had the domain name changed. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me. I can't believe the ads are for leveling guides, at that. I don't know about the rest of the community, but I personally find the leveling guide "industry" to be as sleazy as it gets. They sell freely available information at a high price.

When I saw the ad on the deathknight page, I honestly thought some spammer had added it themselves, and started digging through the history for the revision the ad had been added in to verify. Then I found it, and followed the link in the accompanying html comment in the source here. Part of the shock is that I have *never* seen an inline ad in a Wikia wiki nor *any* site on the mediawiki platform.

Two things need to happen: (1) Advertise something more reputable. Again, this may just be me, but leveling guide sellers are just as irreputable as gold farmers in my eyes. (2) Include text in the ad templates explaining that the ad is official, and supports wikia. Something to the effect of "This ad helps wikia keep WoWWiki free", with a link to a page like this one. Looking at the ad as is, there's no indication that the ad is supposed to be there, and allowed by policy Merreborn (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. I'd much rather just see the site go down or change domain name than having to put up with massive ads in the smack middle of pages, especially when they link to leveling guides. — Rhoot (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The amount of communication going on here is somewhat disappointing. How long are those in-content ads for leveling/strategy guides going to stay in articles? Are there any plans or desires to hide those ads from logged in users? Are the appointed representatives still being consulted, and/or contributing community feedback? What is Wikia's general perception of community acceptance of the ads currently being run?

Personally, the in-line advertising annoys me to the point of avoiding editing the affected pages entirely. That's not a very good situation. -- foxlit (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that this will probably lead to people being put onto the violation list for removing the "authorized" spam (which in its own way is hypocritically breaking another of our policies against spam & spammers). In other words it leaves open the possiblity that people will be punished doing the right thing by following spam cleaning policy, but punished for by breaking the unholy and contradictory "authorized" spam policy...Baggins (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Inline (Google) ads

They need to float to whichever side they're on, as they are currently block elements but without the float. Which means content gets pushed down instead of to one side or another. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sky - thanks for the feedback. I think you mean by this that the content should wrap around the ads, rather than the ad causing a blank space to the right of the ad. Do I have your feedback correct? Gil (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wrap is still not fixed, but this is a better test-version that shows color scheme: http://techteamtest.wikia.com/wiki/SuperLongArticle?action=purge

No Ads

I recently visited the Death knight page and saw the "sponsor" section. As a long time user of Wikipedia and Wikis in general I am very much opposed to the inclusion of ads in pages. I feel that any wiki whose purpose is to provide information for its viewers should be encyclopedic and should not include these ads. Not only are these ads not encyclopedic in nature but they do not look good in pages. Also new users could see these links and assume that these are guides that are community supported and could easily think that they should buy these guides only to come out with information that they could of found for free elsewhere in this sight. I feel that if there must be ads placed on the page they should be placed somewhere on the page not within the encyclopedic entry. Rearete rearete (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some of the others, this is a very good argument against inline ads. Advertisers are *always* going to want the prime real estate on the page, and that's smack dab in the middle, interrupting the user's attention and forcing it onto their ad. I personally think that taking a hard stance against those kind of ads says to your users "yes, we need advertising to run the site, but we're not going to sell out the quality of our content in the process." I'm placing my vote for moving the ads out of the page content with this argument here. User:Tekkub/Sig 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not stupid to click on these links they also appear to be the types of links that lead to websites that install malware, trojans and spameware. Frankly leveling guides and gold spaming guides just don't seem legit in any sense.Baggins (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are certainly "legit", but coming from the wiki I'd expect users are used to finding good free guides online. One could argue that putting the ads inline may be tricking users into thinking that the guide is both free and endorsed by wowwiki. Neither of which are good. Perhaps they shouldn't "blend in" with the wiki style, but stand out a little bit to make it obvious that they are an ad. User:Tekkub/Sig 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft ads

Have we approached or been approached by Blizzard to advertise any of the following:

Free Trial of WoW (like this ad I saw on wowhead)
Burning Crusade or Wrath expansions
Arena Tournament (image if you get redirected because you've seen this image before)
Recruit-A-Friend

They seem like viable ads to people who would be visiting wowwiki, at least the last 3. -Howbizr (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We absolutely have - we recently hired Bob Huseby who ran Gamepro sales - and he is trying to get Blizzard to do more buys on our site. To date they have been focused on spending $$ to acquire NEW members so most of their campaigns actually have been on our entertainment and music sites. But I will pass this on to Bob and see if it gives us another angle! Keep sending ideas! Gil (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how far it will go with Blizzard (or Bob - he he), but I know a lot of friends, the kind of people who are always on WoWWiki, and mmo-champion, tankspot, reading guides, etc, who have seriously considered duel-boxing two accounts since Wrath was released. That's really why I mentioned recruit a "friend" - the friend sometimes is yourself!

I don't know if you're aware of all of these details, but the offer Blizzard gives with Recruit a Friend for "hard core players" can be easily compounded with items in the game. Bottom line - Blizzard is trying to offer a fatter carrot to this market - people who play a lot - why not by a second account? You can make additional characters even faster if you do

(if you pay for it). -Howbizr (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mm... I wonder if there are guides for how-to-multi-box... Seems like there would be. There's quite a community out there - they have their own wiki now. -Howbizr (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So uh... Warhammer

Just wondering... why is there an ad for warhammer on the main page? Been getting some interesting comments on IRC about it.

Additionally, I've got my prefs set to see ads, but I can't see it while logged in. More often than not I can't even see the main page itself. --k_d³ 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont have the setting to see ads and I get a blank page - I have to use direct links to get into the wikia http://www.wikia_name.com/page_name then go from there like normal -- ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 02:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks- if you're seeing bugs PLEASE take a screenshot, include your os/browser version # and submit it so we can kill the bugs

warhammer is an ad campaign. Blizzard buys ads on the warhammer, and now the reverse. In this economy, advertisers seem more focused on targeting their competition. Gil (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Logged out, logged in. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009030503 Fedora/3.0.7-1.fc10 Firefox/3.0.7. Viewing the source of the main page while it's just showing the white page shows nothing. There's a timeout happening somewhere upstream. --k_d³ 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I turned on the See advertisment and still get a blank page ( like k_d³) until I log out - then i can see the page - so it is a problem with logged in settings vs not logged in settings -- ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohh yeah I am on IE8 RC1 Version 8.0.6601.18372 Build 86001 -- ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Like kd3, I also have not been able to access the main page all day. Using Fx3.0.7 also. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW - that is terrible. Pulling a fire alarm internally to see if we can figure it out. I'm VERY unhappy to hear this. Gil (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial thinking is that it may be a caching issue. The page is taking forever to load for loggedin (loggedout pages are cached much more aggressively). Not sure what makes the home page special though. Gil (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about "Pulling the fire alarm internaly or not" - but I had noticed our main page not working off / on for the last few weeks and finaly made a post on Kirkburn's Discussion page because the pages (Never) loaded - stayed a white page for over 4 hours so far before I stopped trying - and I was then refered to this page about the issue and User:Kaydeethree had made a post so I made a reply post to it as well - I never thought to logout to see if it loaded untill Kaydeethree posted the images of logged in / logged out -- That is when I noticed it did load and I made that comment so that you would know that the problem is only when we are Logged in not when we are Logged out - ( Morph | Contribs | Talk ) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not useful to solving your problem, as a silver lining, I've never experienced a problem loading a page, and as of the last 6 months or so, I send wowwiki a lot of traffic. I used to use Firefox 2.0, now I'm almost exclusively a Chrome user. -Howbizr (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: The issue seems to have been due to one of the RSS feeds not resolving, the WoW Insider one specifically. I'm not sure why, as the main feed still exists, but we're going to look into it, and try and prevent such a catastrophic result for the future. Regarding the ad, I think it's quite cool - it looks awesome, and Warhammer could do with some help at the moment. Edit: I should point out, we (Engineering and others) did spend two days looking at logs and response times to work out what was going on - unfortunately it didn't point to the RSS feed :( I checked for main page edits, but there were obviously none. Anyway, apologies again that it occurred at all! Kirkburn talk contr 01:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a random comment... We've now gotten three problem reports about the ad: 19823, 19859, 19901... >.> --k_d³ 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a paid ad, so the only thing I can say is that Blizzard's WOW bought ads on Warhammer as well. Gil (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a mix of the above situations. After awhile, pages stop loading on WoWWiki for some reason. The Warhammer ad is also gone by now. I then reset my Safari browser and have to do the whole log in thing again and the Warhammer ad comes back and the pages load. The Warhammer ad then disappears and I can still load pages. About a week or two later everything stops loading again. I then reset my Safari browser and have to do the whole log in thing again and the Warhammer ad comes back and the pages load. The Warhammer ad then disappears and I can still load pages. As you can see it repeats like that... Rolandius

(talk - contr) 04:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, when you log in, ads go away. Is that what you mean? -Howbizr (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ads Feedback

So first, let me start by saying thanks for the feedback on the Killer Guides in-content ad test. As you can see here: http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Working_with_Wikia#Ideas it was one of several ideas we wanted to test on two dimensions - customer feedback from you - and advertiser feedback. It's fair to say we got the data and if you decide to delete them now, I can provide the list of pages they're on

Here are my thoughts, having done the first of what will be several tests

I didn't like having to patrol for edits and definitely did not want to create edit wars by putting the ad within the content. That is a headache
It didn't occur to me in setting up this test that these ads would be the only ads that both loggedin and adblock customers could not turn off.
I agree that it would be nice to make it a little clearer to people that it is an ad

The only thing I can say is DOH - I make mistakes too - but as a group we all agreed to test this, so I guess we all get a big "oops" on that one. Now there were some positive elements of the test that I also want to share

You may not have noticed, but we had 200x200 pixel ads for killer guides running at the same time on the left hand nav (see below)

See lower left corner
- The number of clicks per day on the ads within the content on 75 pages I hand wrote were HIGHER than the number of clicks per day on the 2 ads on the left hand nav that were on ALL 71,000 pages of wowwiki
- This shows me that our readers did SEE and WANT to click on the ads and the PLACEMENT was the only thing that caused dramatically higher click-rates
I was told that no one would pay for content that is free on wowwiki, yet surprisingly killerguides did hundreds of dollars in sales per day, consistently, every day. Apparently people will pay to get easier access to the information - perhaps because they're noobs, perhaps because it's easy to print and read on the road? Not sure why, but our audience clicked and purchased, so they found the ads more relevant than the "am I fat" ads that have recently been running and driving me crazy

Now let me try to summarize the concerns listed above, which are all legitimate and need discussion:

Ads should not be in Recent changes or editable. It's a maintenance and community nightmare
Killer guides is bad (even though they are not a gold seller, they feel sort of like one). Also they could be a scammer
No one wants the killer guides product, it's an annoying ad
You should be able to opt out of ads via logging in or adblock. We SUCK for removing customer choice
Ads within the content are annoying and no other wikis have ads in-content

I'll try to respond to each concern:

Totally agree - ads need to be ads
We would never promote goldsellers, but killerguides is the most reputable guide site we found after doing significant research that would do a deal with us. We are also pursuing Brady guides. KG's site doesn't have popups or JS, they don't look like a scam or sound scammy in their description of their products, they are a e-book seller and customers clearly want to buy the product. I don't feel terrible selling a legal product that doesn't violate WOW TOS and helps people learn how to play the game
$5,000+ in eBook sales says this is not true. It's annoying to experts like you, but casual players see value in it despite having access to wowwiki. Frankly I find it much less annoying that animated ads we get from some ad networks. At least it's relevant.
We suck, this was the worst possible implementation of a test. We should kill the ads I hand-wrote and do it via ads that are blockable/disappear on login. Part of testing and learning is knowing when to admit you were an idiot. I can officially take the dunce cap for today. Let's get rid of the in-content ads.
I will respectfully disagree on this. Ads within the content proved to get not only high click-rates but generated a lot of purchases by our readers. Also in this economy as we all struggle to deal with un-precedented problems, many wiki sites are starting to get more aggressive about ads. A few you can look at include: http://www.mahalo.com/Aleksandra_Nikolic, the wikihow page from this link http://www.google.com/search?q=How+to+Make+French+Toast+Waffles http://www.aboutus.org/TheMortgageDirectory.com and http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page Bulbapedia and Aboutus are also using Kontera style green double-underline text ads within content, which we suggested not be tested unless the community views them as preferable to the existing test list.

Next up are a couple of other tests: Footer ads for Killer guides (200x200 size) and google-text ads within content: go here http://techteamtest.wikia.com/wiki/SuperLongArticle?action=purge then click OK to see them in action. I hope to report back on those two tests within a few weeks.

It takes a while to watch the ads performance and see their long term effect, so please bear with me and continue to offer your feedback. I would especially appreciate trade-off feedback around which tests you find more/less preferable so I can compare that to which tests generate the most revenue and allow us to continue to support the costs of running wowwiki and wikia. Ads are our only source of revenue to underwrite hosting your content, so we appreciate your understanding during this test period Gil (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Footer ads are now live. It's an accident, but apparently they're only visible loggedout. Even if you set your preference for loggedin to show ads, you won't see them. Not sure why... Damn coding complexity Gil (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye, they can't be editable, they need to be set apart from the content of the page.
People will always have issue with paid guides, just something you have to deal with.
If people didn't buy the guides, the guide writer wouldn't have money to buy advertising in the first place... As I said, I don't understand why anyone would pay for that when they can get it for free right here, but then I also don't understand why giving someone money for the chance to win more money when the odds are never in your favor is fun... but people throw away billions each year gambling.
This is a biggie. Adblock users aren't going to click the ads anyway. Accepting this fact and not (intentionally) making it a bitch to block the ads shows that you understand this. Not that you were trying to make the ads hard to block, but catering to those users shows we care about everyone.
I think the biggest issue with this is that the ads blended in too well with the wiki style. They need to be set apart from the content to make it clear they are ads. If logged in users and adblockers aren't seeing anything different on the page, then the freeloader users can just deal with it :)

If this was just a test and the blocks are removable now, you should put up a bot request to remove the warnings at least. Leave the ads in place, but remove the warning so users can edit them out as they see fit without fear of punishment. User:Tekkub/Sig 06:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I admit my lack of Bot knowledge and ask for help on this? How do I put up a bot request? Gil (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WW:BR User:Tekkub/Sig 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, I thought they were a good idea. But as a programmer, I understand the maintenance nightmare it created. They weren't too obtrusive, even with in the content.

You're 100% right that location, location, location is how ads work. If you look at a presentation a coworker of mine did, on slide 3, you can see where hot spots are in terms of "scanner" users, versus "readers." Until you find the page you are looking for, most people are in "scan" mode. Once you find it, you're more likely to read from top to bottom.

Clearly ads in the "hot spots" will drive more clicks, but run the risk of being more annoying.

In case you look at the rest of the presentation, beware that the "statistics" on browsers are skewed - these numbers were provided from w3schools, which is a developer website. It doesn't accurately represent the marketshare of non-technical users. -Howbizr (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Howbizr - it's a good presentation. The heatmap is definitely key and it looks like many of the human-edited ads were roughly in the red rectangle, so it matches the results we're seeing. The sales numbers on the back-end of the clicks were also healthy, so it appears people who did click were not universally disappointed :-) Gil (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Gil, you need more emoticons

. -Howbizr (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit, :) :P and ^^ have covered all my needs for years. User:Tekkub/Sig 17:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I love the skype icon of a guy dropping his pants... that's my fave Gil (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I must live on another planet or something... Apparently the ads were removed (in large part) by the 11th? I only spotted them by finding an edit where one was removed. But then, I run with as many blinders as possible: adblock, logged in, ads off, javascript off.... I can agree with another thing too, though: the ads need(ed?) something more than they had to show wowwiki's relationship with them. The "sponsor" section on the page left me wondering, "is wowwiki sponsoring that, or is it sponsoring us?".

There's another concern I have, though. If/once we approve of having advertising on pages, where DO we draw the line? I want WoWwiki to survive as much as anyone. But I'd like to be assured that the ads will not grow into an end in and of themselves. It's fine that wowwiki supports its cost to Wikia. It's even acceptable if WoWwiki becomes a net positive for Wikia. ... as long as it doesn't get out of hand. One scenario that pops in my head is escalating amounts of ads "because we get money from them". Gil has sounded reasonable and sympathetic so far, so I don't think this scenario is likely soon. Another, though, is: "we need more ads because we're (now) getting less revenue from them" as people train themselves to tune out the ads. This one is based on the numbers (clicks, sales, advertisers), and seems entirely more likely. See, for instance, the sidebar ads mentioned earlier not getting so many clicks despite being everywhere. I'd like to see WoWwiki avoid the fate of the "industry magazine" with 20 pages of content spread sparsely among 120 pages of ads. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the adds on the different pages - and thought they were done well other than just 1 main thing that Eirik Ratcatcher does bring up - the (wording) - Sponsor - for some reason makes me think we are sponsoring them - albeit it is a minor thing - but I think This section or This page is sponsored by: would be a better way of wording them - Otherwise I thought they were fine the way they were -- (<span="help title=Morph>M o r p h | <span="help title=Morph_Contribution(s)_to_this_Wiki>^C | <span="help title=Morph_Discussion_Page>_T) <imagelink>IconSmall_Gnome_Male.gif|Gnome|Morphgnome</imagelink><imagelink>IconSmall_Draenei_Male.gif|Draenei|Morphdraenei</imagelink> 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "google-text ads within content": Not just no, but (four letter word describing sexual intercourse) no. If that happens, I am out. I hate those annoying popups with a passion and will have nothing to do with any website that uses them. Ads in their proper place, ie at the bottom, or in the sidebar, I don't really care about... but those things are even worse than the hideously obtrusive spam ads already in place. Move your mouse across a window and half a dozen popup ads? Screw that.--Azaram (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Gigantic js-inserted killerguides ads

So we've gotten around the user-editable aspect of the ads, but if we're going to run them, could the js add a section header too? The Twin Blades of Azzinoth looks pretty bad with the horrendously large inline ad in the trivia section... not that I can see them while logged in (can we get that fixed?)

A more pressing concern is... where's the obvious "This is an ad" text in the images? Since they're using our darktable style it's not immediately obvious that the killerguides ads are not something editors manually added to the page... --k_d³ 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot for it: Image:Spam-trivia.PNG Yeah, it does look like this spam is supposed to be part of the offered information. Completely irrelevant to the page; the twin blads can't be used by death kniggets, and at least at that time, it was for a dk guide. I had been logged in when I saw it the first time, and then it was the first thing under the trivia header, with the actual information pushed down below it. Now it's in line, so the actual information is crammed off to the right. --Azaram (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, we're working on a couple things (of course they take longer than I would like because they require engineering and QA). All are in process Gil (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First, moving from JPG to HTML ads with a "click to login" message at the bottom right - see here: http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Greco02/project_space02 for list. FYI - i really like the login link idea thanks for that I have the first HTML ad live tonight - screenshot available at:

Kguide HTML screenshot — html ad - with login-to-remove link

Second, tweaking the ad server to be able to target a specific page, so the ads are more relevant. Right now they're run-of-site which is stupid for us and the reader :-(

Third, removing the 200x200 killer guide ads from the left

Hurray, even bigger ads. And taking out the ones that people didn't mind... --Azaram (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Azaram - I appreciate you popping in. We are testing, so as part of the test I'm trying to turn off ads that don't perform in the spirit of not using space on the page just because "we can". That said, the unfortunate truism here seems to be that the ads people click on tend to interupt their reading, while the ones un-obtrusively out of the way get virtually no clicks. I really wish that weren't the case, but that is what we're learning here. That's why I worked to get the html ad to have a "login to remove ads" link - because I want to make sure that people who "do mind the ads" are given a clear call to action to remove them. The rest, must not mind the ads as much as we think. Gil (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And the email spam that people read is the spam that ends up in their mailbox. And putting a million signs up around the roads 'works' for Herbalife (Note that that is a link to how well that (doesn't) work for Herbalife, not an herbalife sales site). Just because it works doesn't make it good. As long as they stay gone when one is logged in I can tolerate them, but while a lot of clicks is good for ad revenue, it isn't necessarily good for the site. Just because a lot of people aren't complaining doesn't mean a lot of people aren't irritated. How many of them are just going to other pages that aren't such a pain, like Wowhead? Wowhead has ads, but they're (HUGE OBTRUSIVE PICTURE AD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN) not nearly as obnoxious. When the (HUGE OBTRUSIVE PICTURE AD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN) ads break up the flow of what you're reading, they're really irritating. (See?)--Azaram (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest using a CSS class distinct from darktable: that would allow us to apply styling to the ads; for example, we could make sure that they aren't confused for actual content by using a slightly different color scheme. -- foxlit (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Foxlit, feel free to take a pass at a slightly different color scheme on this mockup I'm working on. I appreciate the suggestions and help! http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Gil/project_space#Talents Gil (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How important is it being a seperate section?

Gents and Ladies,
If we do have the html style ads I showed in the screenshot, how important is it for them to have their own section (==sponsor==) vs improving the targeting of them so they are more relevant to the page? Which is more important to fix? Can I get a vote or thoughts? Thanks! Gil (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please vote below

Prefer separate section for HTML ads

Separate Azaram (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) - (As it is, they look like they are supposed to be the content rather than ads.)

Separate Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC) - (The separation problem will only be accentuated if they are more targeted to the page. Targeting should not be entirely neglected, though.)

Separate Fandyllic (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) - (Without more editor control of placement, separate sections seem necessary.)

Prefer fixing the targeting so HTML ads are more relevant to the page

Page layout problem?

This isn't ads, but I noticed this logo covering the "contents" link section at the top of the page. I highlighted it in this screenshot. Does anyone know how to fix it? http://www.wowwiki.com/Archimonde

Fixed. --Pcj (T•C) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

We're having intermittent problems with Adbrite. Their ads keeping showing up with the wrong shape and over-lapping the content. I've gotten in touch with the Adbrite CEO and started yelling, so I am hoping to get this resolved... thanks for your patience Gil (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done on the wiki's end (us editors or Wikia) to force the issue ala specifying an image size for a [[image:xxxx]] specification? Sure as the sun rises, it'll happen again, and it would be nice to be able to point to the ad and giggle at the advertiser instead of yelling at them. Make it solely their problem and they'll be more interested in fixing it. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Eirik - I love the idea. I don't know if it's feasible - let me poke around. Can you set image:160x600 as a size, or does it have to be same height/width in the specification? I was under the impression our ads were served in an iframe or div, so I didn't really understand how this problem is happening. To date I've learned that the ad network is sending us a 300x250 IFrame into our 160x600 slot, which is how it's busting out - so it's really a question of whether the browser can suppress or compress an iframe. Anyone else have more ideas or diagnosis I can use to help troubleshoot this? Gil (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I yelled at the adbrite CEO a few minutes ago, then got our team to turn off adbrite till we get an answer. This will cost us $500 a day in ad revenue, but it's just not acceptable to have the ads totally bork the page. Screw it. Gil (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about direct HTML, but mediawiki image syntax allows height and width to be specified fairly usefully. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a CSS guru, but I assume you have access to one somewhere on your staff. I'm not as versed at iframes in particular, although I'm becoming more familiar with controlling div tags. It's possible you could limit the ad with overflow set to 'auto' or even 'hidden', but I'm not sure if it would work.

The good thing is, testing is cheap and easy. Just create a sandbox with a large image or even better an oversized flash ad, and see if you're able to size it down with your CSS solution. And then the real fun - cross browser compliance. SO many times I've fixed little things like this in Firefox, only to be thwarted by "querks mode" IE6.

Best of luck - there's probably a solution out there, if you search hard enough. -Howbizr (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more tests

Hey guys,

I apologize for reviving a mostly dead thread, but I'm working with Gil to test out some more ad changes, and wanted to give you a heads-up about two changes that we are planning to test on WoWWiki.

First of all, starting today we are adding an interstitial ad for all external links that leave WoWWiki. This means that whenever a user clicks on a link that leaves WoWWiki, they will see an ad for 10 seconds before reaching their final destination. (There is a link to continue clicking through if they prefer not to wait.) Only anonymous users will see these interstitial ads. You can see an example by clicking here. It may take up to 24 hours for all external ads to show up that way. There is one known issue: external links are currently styled as internal links ... they lack class=external and rel=nofollow. That should be fixed soon.

Second, we plan to test InfoLinks, which are the green underlined link ads similar to the Kontera links that you guys discussed with Gil earlier. Again, these ads will only show for anonymous users. We are currently planning to limit them to a maximum of 4 links per page. We're still a week or two away from launching these, but I do have a question: the bright green color of these links could possibly be confused with the item links for Uncommon quality items. InfoLinks allows us to specify the color of the link. Do you think we should choose a different color? It would need to be something that would stand out, but not be confused with a normal link. Do you have any suggestions for colors that might work well?

Thanks! --KyleH (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI - we reduced the number of banner ads per page in anticipation of this, to not overload people. If you get feedback about these ads, we really want to hear it. ie "ad xxxx is much worse than a banner ad" is the most helpful type of feedback. Gil (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think green might be okay, as long as you stay away from square brackets (

[Rigid Cape]), but you might experiment with a rarely used color like a dark pink or orange, or perhaps some fancy styling, like double underline or dotted (I've seen double underline on other websites). Just remember to test on all the skins, because some have light colors in the background.

Howbizr^(t·c) 1:57 PM, 8 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Well, that was quick. Need I remind people how badly the infolinks thing went down a few days ago? I strongly, strongly oppose them. --k_d³ 00:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, forcing it on a community whose general consensus is not to have it is pretty bad business I'd say. Strong oppose all the way. --{{subst:User:Charitwo/SigX}} 00:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wowpedia