Site left column ADs

[ikonomov]

After the new beautiful and simple site layout the left column of the page that is reserved for ads takes about 1/4 vertical space.  I understand how important it is to have the site funded but having the ads stuffed up in our throats is infuriating.  Please move the ads to the right side, to the top, or to the bottom, so that if a browser window is sized narrower we don't have to scroll sideways to view the articles.

[kaelaria]

lol what are you on a 10 year old computer?

[ikonomov]

I'm on a screen with 2560x1440 resolution, using Chrome set at 150% zoom.  My browser window is never maximized, and its size is usually set according to the width of most of the other websites I visit on regular basis.  The total width of the left column for the ads plus the width of the main content on the right is definitely more than what most other websites have, which forces me to scroll to the right or adjust my browser window.  Ultimately this is not a good design, no matter the device or resolution on which somebody is viewing the site.  The visual emphasis is on the ads, and not on the content, which I would think is simple enough for most people that visit this website to understand.

[kaelaria]

So you choose to bump up your magnification and work with a scrunched window.  Yeah, THAT'S the fault of the website...don't expect people to design for those with non-standard habits.  I'm on a tiny chromebook right now and it's perfect.  Its also perfect on my mobile devices, and any window on my desktop.  You are the weird one, it's not the site.

[Schewe]

The visual emphasis is on the ads, and not on the content, which I would think is simple enough for most people that visit this website to understand.

Uh huh...and what do you think the advertisers are spending money for? Right side ads that could be hidden? Really? I guess you are new around here...the alternative for ads would be subscriptions to view the site. You really wanna go there?

Look, if you don't like the site as is, I suggest you demand your money back....wait, oh yeah, LuLa is free to view. Hum, looks like you are getting your money's worth, don't ya think?

[ikonomov]

Maybe the new site is built using a template.  I visit hundreds of websites every day as most of us do, and I don't pay for a subscription to any of them.  If there was the same issue with another site I would have noticed.  In fact I have never wrote a criticism of the design on ANY website.  The fact that I have done so here should suggest that I care deeply for the site, and my hope is that it would serve to improve the experience for all of us here.  Having ads on any of the other 3 sides of the page would not hide them in any way.  It might influence how many clicks the visitors make, but at least I have stated here my opinion that I think it is too much.  And yes, I'm the weird one, but aren't we all.

[Schewe]

Maybe the new site is built using a template.

Guess you missed the discussions about the difficulties of putting the mass of legacy editorial going back over a decade into a web site that makes all the old and new content equally available.

No, sorry bud, you have no clue about how to manage a massive web site...and other sites that started more recently have neither the legacy nor content to offer. Again, deal with it or move on. Your choice...you are tilting at windmills...what you want ain't gonna happen.

Not for nothing but considering your first post was a complaint about the web site, I personally don't think you've paid nearly enough dues to have a legitimate complaint...,maybe if you spend some time on the forums, you'll realize just how petty your complaint comes across. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth :~)

So what if there are a few cavities...

[jeremyrh]

As has been pointed out before, LuLa readers are not customers, they are product, neatly packaged and sold to advertisers. So there is no need to care for them to avoid them taking their subscription money elsewhere. But there is a need to care for them as one cares for any other live product - so that it grows fat and fetches a good price at market.

[ikonomov]

I suppose this last post is the official stance.  Yes, indeed, how rude of me.  It is as good answer as any, and "spending time on the forums" or paying "enough dues" is not needed for my simple observation.  I appreciate the enormous amount of information that has been presented on the site, and I have been following it since the beginning, if 10 years is the number.  My post here seems to be inappropriate for this forum, it just seems another technological trap that we encounter begging the question who is in control.  I'm sure it will be resolved in time, and we'll just have to ride along for the time being.

[Jim Pascoe]

I suppose this last post is the official stance.  Yes, indeed, how rude of me.  It is as good answer as any, and "spending time on the forums" or paying "enough dues" is not needed for my simple observation.  I appreciate the enormous amount of information that has been presented on the site, and I have been following it since the beginning, if 10 years is the number.  My post here seems to be inappropriate for this forum, it just seems another technological trap that we encounter begging the question who is in control.  I'm sure it will be resolved in time, and we'll just have to ride along for the time being.

What Schewe is trying to say is that we know the site is not perfect but the layout is a compromise.  The site needs to be able to house a lot of legacy stuff, plus it needs to make money from advertisers.  The new layout was discussed to death a while back and it is what it is.  Because of that fresh criticism is not going to be well received and we all learn to get along with the layout as it is.  Because LuLa is well-loved it feels like we all own a bit of it - which we don't.  Some of us support it by paying for tutorials etc.  Do you?  The site has become more commercial - not a good thing, but people need to earn a crust.  We all like free stuff don't we?
Schewe does tend to shoot from the hip with his comments - but if you read the forums you will see that he has a lot of constructive stuff to say.

Jim

[daws]

...Please move the ads to the right side, to the top, or to the bottom, so that if a browser window is sized narrower we don't have to scroll sideways to view the articles.

I dunno, for me it works fine as is. Home page pops on; if I don't want to see the ads, I scroll right -- takes what, a half second? I'm usually gonna scroll down anyway to frame any new photo or to see if there's a new article; if not, I click on "Forum."*shrug* Easy.

[darr]

If the OP is zooming to 150%, he may be visually impaired; I would not be too mean to him (just saying). I have no problem viewing this site on multiple formats. A couple of years ago, I went back to school and got a degree to become a TVI (teacher for the visually impaired), and he does make a point that the screen scrolling would not be a hassle if the advertisements were on the right, but my guess is they are strategically placed on the left for the reason the OP is having a problem: they are the first thing you see. We are trained to read left to right. And yes of course this is a free site, but you have to be careful how you treat the population of those with impairments.

[Schewe]

....but my guess is they are strategically placed on the left for the reason the OP is having a problem: they are the first thing you see.

Actually, that's not the case. The reason why the fixed size left column is there is that allows editorial to flow off the right side. This site has many, many years of editorial with various formatting. Allowing the editorial to flow out to the left allows the various formatting to fit on the page. And, it the OP is visually impaired, he should have said so...I didn't get that read at all. All I read was pissing&moaning about having to see the ads and scroll for the editorial.

[dreed]

As has been pointed out before, LuLa readers are not customers, they are product, neatly packaged and sold to advertisers. So there is no need to care for them to avoid them taking their subscription money elsewhere. But there is a need to care for them as one cares for any other live product - so that it grows fat and fetches a good price at market.

It was not always that way and even still, this website produces and sells product that is "home grown" to help fund itself - unlike many others.

I imagine that if the home grown produce became self sustaining that the advertising would again become less important and potentially disappear, but maybe that is dreaming.

[Schewe]

...but maybe that is dreaming.

Yes, it is...it the totality of the revenue that rules...ideally in a manner that is not totally obtrusive to users but if some find it too obtrusive, they are free to quit visiting the site any time they want. If you want to bring about positive change, nothing in this thread is in the least bit useful. Positive criticism goes a lot further than piss&moan™ complaining...ya know?

[hjulenissen]

I do believe that finding the _right_ mix between offering stuff for "free" (reviews, articles,...) and capitalizing on the users through ads etc is an art. If you can find a system where you provide something useful to people without them being annoyed, while still making money, you are on to something.

Simply claiming that "our service is for free, so you have to live with whatever we throw at you" may be correct, but it may not make much sense.

-h

[kaelaria]

Some of you are missing the point.  He's on a HUGE monitor and is CHOOSING to use a small browser window.  USE A BIGGER BROWSER WINDOW solves 100% of the problem.  It's 100% user created 'problem' so screw him.

[Schewe]

Simply claiming that "our service is for free, so you have to live with whatever we throw at you" may be correct, but it may not make much sense.

It makes perfect sense...this website is an amalgamation of over a decade of editorial content (some still as fresh and useful as the day it was written) that have had a variety of web site formatting made to it...without going back and completely redesigning and reediting all that content, there is no friggin' way to keep that stuff live and available except within a very tight web design constraint. The guy who does the web work (Mark Guertin) has done a really remarkable job of designing the current LuLa web site to preserve all of the legacy content without having to go back and edit prolly thousands of pages.

The bottom line is, the current web site design (such as it is) is the best that Mark, Mike & Chris have been able to come up with after spending lots of time and money. From my point of view, I have little to zero tolerance for people looking a gift horse in the mouth and complaining about the teeth. You don't like it, lump it or go someplace else that tickle's your fancy...there's a world wide web out there for you to search and find what you think you want. If you don't find it, LuLa will still be here plugging along.

Seriously, if you don't like it here, don't come here...

And to me, it makes perfect sense that Mike (and now Kevin) and Mark & Chris do what they do to the best of their abilities...if you don't like it, please leave. I'm getting tired of listening to the whining. (note, this is my opinion and should not be confused with the opinions of the owners of this site–although I suspect I'm not too far off, maybe a bit more forward in my approach).

[LKaven]

While I don't think the OP was tactful in his choice of words, in the end, it was to raise a question about design and ergonomics.  He didn't question the need for ads or ad revenue.  And he had nothing but praise for the site's content.  No reason why such questions can't be dealt with in stride. 

[JeanMichel]

Hi,
Just a short note to simply say thank you to the Luminous-Landscape team for providing this site, and for the various tutorials, etc. The articles in that site were most helpful to me when I decided to 'go digital' some years ago.
Again, thank you.
Jean-Michel