* I think that
"targetted" schemes along the lines of
Google Adsense
are a bad idea. If we have ads, they should be as
little
connected to
the content being viewed as possible, as a matter
of integrity.
Article content and article titles should have NO relation to
advertising content. If it does, we are not only inviting
some raised
eyebrows about content validity, but we're
inviting people
to try and
game the system by modifying articles in
oh-so-clever and
minor ways
> to get their specific advertisements listed first.
I'm not sure I agree. A user visits [[Skiing]]. Ads for Rossignol,
Oakley and The North Face are shown. Where's the crime? The user
obviously has some interest in skiing - wouldn't he rather see ads for
big skiing brands, rather than ads for say, Volkswagen, ING and "Save
the bears from exploitation"?
Well, current appeal could be called
"begging". As Mav explained
already, we are far from having enough right now to fulfill our first
trimester needs. And we finished the year on our reserves.
So, "begging"
makes sense.
Sensible, but tacky. (IMVHO).
The problems associated with "selling hard
copies" are
* making a partnership with a firm or organisation to
"produce the hard
copy" and then to "distribute" the content. Or should we set
up another
organisation to do that ourselves ?
Surely online publishers would lap it up if someone did the hard work of
filtering and cleaning up first.
Steve