Joomla! Forum - community, help and support

This thread is to discuss the blog post about OSM Third Quarter 2012 Goals Updates

Thanks for the great work.


Just a comment on this:


> Research and implement plan to increase sponsorship income by $20,000 from 2011
> Added banner ad to main downloads page

I think it's terrible that there are ads on the download page. Whatever the goal of the Joomla Project is, I doubt that sticking ads and drawing people away from the downloads page is a step towards that goal. Sure, let's crap on the home of Joomla, the face of our Project, so we can earn a few extra dollars to spend on lawyers and a few parties a relative handful of people can have fun at.

That's my rude two cents worth on the actual idea. Now as for the implementation...

Making the ad look like a button is pretty scammy. Making it the most prominent button on the page, with the 'go/affirmative/next-step' green color is downright shameful. This is what those sleazy software download sites do to trick people into clicking on ads and I'm sad to see that done on the Joomla property.

Did you check the budget and see how much was spent on lawyers recently? I respectively think you are still thinking in the past. To save you thinking for the period January 1 - September 10, 2012 it is less than it was for a single month

Straw man.

Not gonna edit my post now, despite it being very poorly written. But... consider my comments about what OSM needs the money for , retracted.

Increasing funds in ways that are still assuring there is a win(project)-win(user)-win(advertiser) is completely on par with how the internet has always worked.

Getting benefits and "paying" by accepting some banners (heck they might even be relevant) and there by supporting the project should be in everyones interest.

If our aggregated volume and specificness is interesting to advertisers and we enable the community financially it means that we can, as a whole, afford to realize a lot of ideas for the project and the community is a whole.

So thumbs up for utilizing the options in as optimal a way on behalf of us all.

Another straw man.

I'm not arguing against ads. There was a time when there were no ads on joomla.org. I (and many others) argued FOR the introduction of ads to generate income for the project. In one particular discussion, I remember a response by Brad Baker saying that we should tread with caution, because it could be a slippery slope. I don't like Brad, but the guy was right.

Anyway, I'm merely pointing out that this particular ad is sleazy and should be removed. There are ways to sell advertising without resorting to tricking users into clicking a false-button. How much is Rochen paying for that link in the footer? Is that link up for auction?

Hi Mark,

Thanks for reading the blog post, for starting your comment by acknowledging the great work being done by our volunteers, and also for sharing your thoughts about the ad on the downloads page.

I understand your points that (1) you don't like banner ads on the Joomla downloads page, and (2) that you feel like the current ad on the downloads page is confusing.

Regarding your (1), we've got plans and ideas for the future that we believe will benefit the project and the community in a variety of ways. Some of those plans and ideas will require more funding, and so we're going to have to look for more ways to bring in more money. We'll continue to be open about those plans and ideas along with what the money actually ends up being spent on, and we'll continue to encourage you and everyone else in the community to let us know how you think we're doing.

We've had an ad running on the downloads page since July 10, and while there have been some other complaints about it, the good news is that so far the total number of complaints about it has been pretty low (single digits that I am aware of). We will try and find a balance between bringing in revenue without compromising the principles or ideals of the project, and I promise to be sensitive and responsive to feedback from the community about that.

Regarding your (2), we talked with the advertiser a couple of weeks ago about changing the current ad to avoid any potential confusion. They were very responsive and cooperative, and they quickly submitted a new ad that should avoid any confusion. The truth is we simply haven't gotten around yet to replacing the current ad. Your post was a good reminder about that, and I promise we will get that change made this week.

I hope that helps to address your concerns!

Best regards,

Hi Paul,

Thanks for reading my comments, and even more for responding in the manner that you have.
It is enough to know that my "feedback" has been noted, but I'm glad that the ad is being changed.

I appreciate your leadership.

Have a good day.

Mark