Comments | no_lj_ads: create a new account lately?

kunzite1 in no_lj_ads

create a new account lately?

Apr 27, 2006 19:40

default setting for account level is s+. neato.

ad implementation, bitching, pushing plus level

Comments 90

tenna April 28 2006, 02:44:02 UTC

Do paid accounts revert to s+ also?

kunzite1 April 28 2006, 02:44:49 UTC

i would assume that they revert to free.

not sure where to find that code. :\

burr86 April 28 2006, 02:49:56 UTC

Paid accounts revert to whatever they were previously.

tenna April 28 2006, 02:54:05 UTC

Oh okay. Thanks. :)

decadence1 April 28 2006, 04:20:50 UTC

Seriously??

*bites tongue*

kunzite1 April 28 2006, 04:22:15 UTC

srsly. :\

halfawake April 28 2006, 04:51:46 UTC

That's a comforting thought.

kunzite1 April 28 2006, 04:52:27 UTC

if you're serious, i shall have to disagree.

halfawake April 28 2006, 04:59:29 UTC

Not serious, that was supposed to be sarcasm. No worries though, I know it's quite hard to tell when someone's trying to be sarcastic online.

kunzite1 April 28 2006, 05:05:21 UTC

yay sarcasm. i fail at picking up on it IRL, so, online i really suck at it.

sasuko April 28 2006, 05:31:52 UTC

Is this some kind of scheme to try to hide the fact that there are free accounts (because if you're totally new and have no idea where to go to get your account type changed) you'll just learn to live with it? Or is there a more rational, less coercion theory at work?

kunzite1 April 28 2006, 05:51:58 UTC

can't speak for the staff. :\

sasuko April 28 2006, 07:13:10 UTC

^^; Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. What I really meant to ask was this: is there anyway that I can possibly see this as being good, rather than coercive in nature (as I'm currently seeing it)? I'm trying hard to think of a reason why this is the default (other than LJ wants to force people to go into sponsored+ mode by playing on ignorance), but I hope that I'm wrong. I want to believe that there's another reason why this could be, but I can't find one. As such, I was hoping that someone would be able to point me in that direction. Would you, as an individual, have any ideas on how I could possibly view this in a more benign fashion than I'm currently seeing it? If not, it's ok. I'll just have to hunt about for more.

PS. I'm really sorry about the paragraphing. I know it's awfully chunky, but I can't see a place to split up the paragraph. I'm really sorry about that.

foxfirefey April 28 2006, 05:53:54 UTC

No kidding. There's enough for a person new to LJ to learn without trying to figure out why their layout is so adfugly upon singing up.

What do you wanna bet there will be people who sign up, look at their journal with the still problematic ad-layout issues, and head on over to Blogger, which won't slap ads on without giving you a cut?

Thread 13

foxfirefey April 28 2006, 05:50:46 UTC

...well, that's somewhat unsettling and ick.

kunzite1 April 28 2006, 05:51:41 UTC

yus. :(

foxfirefey April 28 2006, 06:06:25 UTC

Especially considering the numbers of people who are currently switching on Sponsored+ only to find it breaking their layouts (or making them too ugly to deal with) and switching right back out again. People in Support are giving out advice that fixes layouts for the Sponsored+ and free folk, but breaks the view for Paid folk. The system is still in BETA (as some indignant Support+ supporters in news were eager to point out when folk were mentioning things going wrong), yet it's the DEFAULT for new users?

If this had happened to me when I first signed up, I probably wouldn't've stuck around long enough to figure out I could turn them off.

burr86 April 28 2006, 16:13:10 UTC

It actually doesn't break for *anyone* -- the reason things break are that people who have individual customizations don't account for ads, and so those customizations don't all work properly along with the HTML needed for ads. Because new users won't have any customizations in place, their layouts shouldn't be fubared at all.

Thread 61