16

I'm not sure if this falls under sponsored tag bug fix, but I've placed the the adobe tags in my ignored list and still receive the logo on the sponsored tag. If the tag is in my ignored list, I'd prefer to not see the icon as well.

I can just imagine stackoverflow down the road....

picture with some icons in the ignored tag section... or something like that

Edit - As a work around, the icons can be ignored via wild carding the ignored tags

Improve this question
3
  • 15
    +1 for hash icon ... Perhaps that's why it keeps forgetting the values I give it...
    – ベレアー アダム
    Sep 30, 2009 at 14:57
  • 1
    +1 for "hash", but -1 for no "cucumber".
    – gnostradamus
    Sep 30, 2009 at 14:57
  • I'm pushing the "add" button to it but its not working :(
    – Gordon Gustafson
    Dec 12, 2009 at 20:55

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
13

I disagree with Jeff Yates. Showing an Adobe logo to someone who has specifically ignored Adobe tags is not effective advertising. In fact, it only serves to foster resentment - making it less likely that the user will take interest in the sponor's product in the future.

I agree that the logo-free tag should appear in the ignore list. However, I don't expect this would be a high priority for the team.

Improve this answer
4

yes, and I still see questions with the flash tag even though flash is in my ignore-list and I don't show ignored questions.

I find this sponsored tag thing extremely annoying, I don't want my user experience trashed with all kinds of unmatching colors and shapes.

Improve this answer
1
4

I'm not sure this would really be helpful to StackOverflow. After all, they are being paid to advertise their sponsor and even if you want to ignore the tags, I don't think it's fair to allow you to ignore the advertising too.

You can't eat a free lunch and then complain that someone wants to try to sell you something while you eat it.

Improve this answer
11
  • 8
    If you're not interested in that product, by adding it to your ignore list, you're not in their target market anyway.
    – random
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:00
  • Isn't everybody in Adobe's target market?
    – Rich Seller
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:03
  • 2
    However Alex has stated that the majority of users come from google and don't use ignored tags, so really it won't hurt SO that much.
    – Gavin Miller
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:03
  • 2
    "I don't think it's fair to allow you to ignore the advertising too." I'm sorry, but nobody is gonna tell me what I can or can't ignore! It would be unfair if they would.
    – fretje
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:38
  • @fretje: Come on now, that's not what I meant and I think you know that. I meant ignore in terms of the "ignored tags" feature, not the actual act of ignoring. if you choose to physically ignore the advertising, that is indeed your choice, but you can't blame a site for wanting ad revenue.
    – Jeff Yates
    Sep 30, 2009 at 17:13
  • @random: Yes, I can see your point, but if we all had great ways to block advertising, we wouldn't get any - even the stuff we might find useful, and then, awesome free stuff like SO would vanish.
    – Jeff Yates
    Sep 30, 2009 at 17:14
  • @Jeff: You said "I don't think it's fair to allow you to ignore the advertising." I meant "I don't think it's fair to not allow you to ignore the advertising."
    – fretje
    Sep 30, 2009 at 17:54
  • @fretje: Within in the context of this site...not your entire life. What you choose to ignore is up to you, but I don't think the site has a responsibility to make it easier for you.
    – Jeff Yates
    Oct 1, 2009 at 13:44
  • @Jeff: I am talking within the context of this site. As this site is run by the community, it's this site's responsibility to please this community. Let the "daily Google click-through traffic" (which is much bigger than the community anyway) watch and click on the ads, but I don't think the active community itself should be put up with them. They're creating the content for crying out loud!
    – fretje
    Oct 1, 2009 at 14:53
  • @fretje: We have to encourage people to actually participate, not run them off with annoying advertising. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and just because we provide the content doesn't mean we can demand that their revenue sources can be duly ignored. The community creates the content for the love of their craft.
    – Jeff Yates
    Oct 1, 2009 at 15:25
  • @Jeff: Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
    – fretje
    Oct 1, 2009 at 16:22
3

Greasemonkey FTW

// ==UserScript==
// @name           Tag img remover
// @namespace      remove_img_from_tags
// @include        http://stackoverflow.com//*
// ==/UserScript==

$('#ignoredTags .post-tag').children().remove()
Improve this answer
7
  • 2
    I confess that for a long time I though FTW meant "F* the What!", ie WTF backwards so it was something good instead of bad. Now I know better, but I still like my alternate interpretation.
    – Joel Coehoorn
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:38
  • 1
    @Joel: Don't feel bad. When I first saw it, I thought it meant "F**k the world", like you were just giving everyone a big middle finger or something.
    – gnostradamus
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:43
  • Now I have the image of a greasy monkey humping planet earth... Thank yoiu very much gnovice!
    – perbert
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:46
  • That's what I'm here for!
    – gnostradamus
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:47
  • 1
    Humping the world?
    – Jeff Yates
    Sep 30, 2009 at 17:15
  • @Jeff: Putting unsavory images in peoples heads is my job... humping the world is just my hobby.
    – gnostradamus
    Sep 30, 2009 at 17:55
  • Or if you want to get rid of all of the sponsored tag nonsense in one go: $('.post-tag img,.welovestackoverflow').remove();
    – ベレアー アダム
    Sep 30, 2009 at 18:24
3

I don't see anything wrong with that picture. It helps me visually group related tags together. And I think lots of icons is actually less visually jarring than just a few. Otherwise, the few look really out of place.

That said, I think this makes sense. If you're ignoring a tag, you probably don't need to see a logo right there. The only reason not to do it is that it probably means added extra code clutter for the special case. As mere users of the site that's not really our problem (though I do understand that it might be a long while before the time has time to make that change).

There's also the thought that if this becomes common, omitting the icons from the ignored tags actually looks like a bug at first glance.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    is $('#ignoredTags .post-tag').children().remove() a lot of code clutter?
    – perbert
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .