Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Site updates

This is topic Site updates in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001104

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-19-2000, 11:39 AM:

My advance apologies to everyone for the banner ads. As the site has grown to an immense proportion, this has become an economic necessity. (It was either that or start deleting older manuals, pictures, forum posts, etc.) As anyone who has ever worked with managing a website knows, storage can be an expensive thing (just check out the incredible number of manuals). Bandwidth is an ever bigger thing though, and with the site traffic we have been seeing over the last several months, not only are our servers getting to a point where they are having difficulty handling the load (we will be switching to yet another upgrade in a few weeks to handle it) but the "overuse" in bandwidth bills are becoming extreme to keep the site running. (Bandwidth is any time someone downloads a file, or even peruses the forum, the size of the file is recorded and only so much is alotted without extra charges.)

Anyway, the ads are the answer to keeping the site going in it's current state, with future additions planned (details soon). I'm not too thrilled about the flashing neon green ad that popped up this morning and will see what control I can get over displaying non-animated files. However, I feel even if nothing can be done about the selection of ads displayed, it is most important to keep this information publicly available and free of charge.

Finally, I have currently only implemented the ads into the top of the forums entry page, so as only to distract for a few seconds. This entry page may be awful ugly at times (the codes are not finished), but I have done it in this manner to avoid disturbing the forums once you are inside. Hopefully this will be enough to cover some of the increasing costs.

Thanks to everyone in advance for your understanding.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-19-2000, 01:39 PM:

It's quite understandable, and I for one certainly want to keep as much of the previous postings, etc. as possible. Just as long as you never EVER agree to play Movie Tunes here.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 06-19-2000, 01:45 PM:

I agree. The services provided by this website FAR out weigh the presence a few banner ads. Brad has worked hard for a long time to provide us with this service while absorbing the full cost himself, the introduction of a few ads to offset the cost is completely understandable.

High marks to Brad and the whole Film-Tech team for providing an outstanding service and passing NONE of the cost down to the users.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-19-2000, 02:34 PM:

I don't think the presence of a few advertising banners will detract from this site, and it is a small price to pay for having all of the information available. I have been reading USENET groups since 1992, and have seen many types of forums, and this site definitely has one of the best signal-to-noise ratios of any newsgroup or forum I've ever seen.

The only types of banners that I truly despise are the ones that pop up a separate window when a page is loaded. The ones that just sit there, or at worst, animate themselves to beg for attention, are not that bad.

Evans (who remembers the WWW before commercialization and the net before the WWW)

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-19-2000, 08:19 PM:

That's OKAY, chief! You do whatever you have to, we're with ya!

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-20-2000, 08:16 AM:

Are these click through ads where you get paid when clicking or just for presentation.

Paul.

If click through, then everyone needs to click 2-3 each visit.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-20-2000, 06:41 PM:

The ads are click through AND "impression". A significant higher rate is given to actual ads that are clicked on, but there are a few catches to it being counted.

First, once it is clicked on, the page it takes you to must completely load, or it does not count. (In other words, a quick click and then a "back" click will not count.)

Second, the system records IP addresses and will not count multiple clicks as more than one over a 6 hour time span. So if you haven't been at Film-Tech for at least 6 hours, it would count if clicked on again. However, if the last time you were at Film-Tech was 5 hours 55 minutes earlier, a click through would not count.

Of course, I'm not allowed to ask visitors for click throughs, but you DID ask and it would be rude of me not to reply.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2000, 09:07 AM:

Everytime I click on one of the ads, I am asked if I will accept a cookie from ads.adflight.com. After I accept the cookie, I get the message: "The document contained no data. Try again, or contact the server administrator." So even if I want to read the ads to "help the cause", I can't.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-21-2000, 09:17 AM:

I don't mind the ads THAT much. I thought it was rather odd at first, though.

Not knowing a whole lot about the subject, let me ask a question...

Can you ask for only certain types of ads to be shown? You know, for a certain demographic or audience? The one thing I DO hate about ads is that you'll get ones from completely unrelated subjects to what you're watching.

I always said that I don't MIND the Coke ads as long as they have some kind of a movie theme or have some kind of a tie-in with movies. All right, the anti-drug PSAs and the Air Force recruiting ones, I'll let slide because they are for a noble purpose. (Not that I always agree with noble purposes but HEY! This is America!)

Back on the subject: I would be more friendly towards ads if they were "somehow" related to the subject matter of the site. Okay, advertising film products would be too narrow a nitche to advertise for but maybe ads targeted towards "20-40 year old males with technical backgrounds" or something like that.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2000, 09:30 AM:

Randy said: "...maybe ads targeted towards "20-40 year old males with technical backgrounds" or something like that."

What about the women and us "old timers"? I need to see ads about AARP, Geritol and retirement homes!

Actually movie/entertainment industry ads would be of interest to most of us, as well as "techie" things. But age and gender have nothing to do with it.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-21-2000, 11:56 AM:

John,

You're right. There are a lot of younger, older people and there are men and women too.

It's just that I'm not THAT good of a typist and typing "Men, women, younger or older" was too much for my fat fingers to tap out! That's what "something like that" meant.

Point was: Is is possible to to some informal research (or even just sit down and think about) the types of people who log into a particular site and tailor the kinds of ads that get displayed?

It's not that I mind the ads, it's just like last winter when we had to play those dumb "Buddy Lee" spots on our movies. They SUCKED! Not only were they stupid but they were pretty ineffective becasue they also played on TV. On the other hand, those "Standup Spotlight" ads we played for Coca-Cola were tolerable. They plugged a movie-related product. (ie: "Go out to the concession stand and buy some Coke.") Furthermore, they told jokes about funny things that happen in movies. You may not like the comic AND they get real old after you've seen them 9,000,000 times but the point is that you're not being forced to sit through an ad for "American Express Blue Card"! (Heck! Most movie theatres don't even TAKE credit cards!)

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 06-21-2000, 12:53 PM:

If the marketing guys at Christie, Strong, etc.... were smart, they'd jump all over the oppertunity to advertise on this site. Talk about targeted demographics....

It would be a GREAT venue to advertise and promote their new products. All of course to be reviewed by Joe

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-21-2000, 01:45 PM:

I don't have the capability to specify certain types of ads, although I do think there is some form of advertising that can be done direct if a certain advertiser wanted it. I've actually received a few interested "high profile" companies in the cinema industry interested, but as of current, I'm still learning on how this whole thing works.

John, you seem to have all the surfing fun here! Maybe your browser was secretly manufactured from Fuji, eh? I'll pass the word along to the advertising company.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-21-2000, 01:54 PM:

>It's not that I mind the ads, it's just
>like last winter when we had to play those
>dumb "Buddy Lee" spots on our movies.

>On the other hand, those "Standup
>Spotlight" ads we played for Coca-Cola
>were tolerable. They plugged a movie-
>related product. (ie: "Go out to the

Speaking of ads:
Have y'all seen the new Regal policy trailer? It is a bar scene and this little girl comes in talking with a man's voice telling people not to talk, smoke, etc. It also has a built-in ad for Pepsi (she orders one). I thought, "This is cute, but I hope I won't have to see it too many times, because it will get old really quickly." I saw it for the first time last night (Titan A.E.). After using the "Regal Train" since at least 1987, it's good to see something different, but after seeing this new one 2 or 3 times, I'll probably long for the Regal Train (or whatever it was) again.

As for the banner ads on this site, it would seem perfectly logical for theatre equipment companies to use this very unique site to help push products that most people here would be interested in inquiring about. They'll not get a better opportunity.

Evans

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2000, 03:00 PM:

Brad: It's not always my browser's fault. Recall the "fade-in" problem that turned out to be a software change by Film-Tech. But in this case, I suspect our IT people may be automatically "locking out" certain sites, like advertisers. Just would have liked helping Film-Tech by reading a few ads.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-21-2000, 04:52 PM:

Brad- My Netscape browser does the same thing as John's, so it seems to be a real problem and not him just snorting polyester flakes. I use Netscape (I refuse to use IE simply because it sucks, but will admit that Netscape isn't exactly perfect, either). I use version 4.72 which is perfectly stable on my Mac G4.

I think it would be cool to have an ad from a company on my review page when I am bashing their product.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 06-21-2000, 05:39 PM:

I've not experienced any problems using Internet Exploder.....

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-21-2000, 06:52 PM:

Any? Ever? On any site? The only problem it gives me is the overall lack of quality. Barring that it is freakin' phenomenal (if you like crap). Just kiddin', as I think you are as well (referring to the 'exploder" comment)

Better than Mozilla and Netscape 6.0 by leaps and bounds, however.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 06-21-2000, 07:14 PM:

Joe, barring a few quirks here and there, I've not experienced TOO many problems with IE5 probably about as many as with Netscape 4.72, but I use them both CONSTANTLY, however most of the sites that I go to for work related duties, are written specifily for IE, so Netcape dosen't work, and instead of keeping 2 browsers open plus the multiple other program that I have to have open as well, I just stick with IE, and have one LONG proxy bypass list

I TRIED Netscape 6, first thing I thought was what the HELL were they thinking, Its supposed to be Netscape 6 NOT AOL 6.

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 06-21-2000, 10:50 PM:

The chat program seems to be behaving oddly since the ads were added, though I don't know if that has anything to do with it. When I go into the chat room, I am automatically sent back to the main film-tech page after about 2 minutes.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-22-2000, 12:03 AM:

Why is it that every thread at Film-Tech is doomed to get off its original topic? The only forum this doesn't happen in is the For Sale one, and that's becuase no replies are allowed there!! Really, do projectionist babble like this all the time?

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 06-22-2000, 12:43 AM:

I don't know about the 'merican ones, but this is what projectionists around here do. They babble, as often as they can.

I know of theatre companies that have attempted to ban telephones in the booth... Gotta have something to do in a fully automated environment, eh?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-22-2000, 04:49 AM:

I will check into the Netscape problems and chat with the ad company. Very weird stuff! Everything is working normally with my IE and Netscape 4.72 browser.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-22-2000, 07:30 AM:

"Why is it that every thread at Film-Tech is doomed to get off its original topic?"

What do you expect? They keep us locked up in the dark most of the day!

On top of that there's a constant 60 decibel din. Just enough to keep you from being able to talk in a normal tone of voice.

We never get a chance to talk to anybody. When we finally do, we just go crazy!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-22-2000, 07:39 AM:

I'd say that having a phone in the booth is pretty important, as it can often save service calls if someone can talk the projectionist through a simple repair. I've worked in one booth that didn't have a phone and this sort of thing was a real problem.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-22-2000, 08:04 AM:

Both of my booths have phones in them but the one at TT-17 doesn't call out. You can transfer incomming calls to it though.

I think it should AT LEAT be able to call out to "9-1-1"! What the heck happens if I'm working by myself at night and something bad happens?

I DO have a "work-around"...
The A/C computer has a modem in it. I keep an old, cheap Radio Shack phone hiden in a secret place that I can attach to the modem line for just such emergencies.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-22-2000, 08:45 AM:

Joe said: "My Netscape browser does the same thing as John's, so it seems to be a real problem and not him just snorting polyester flakes."

Ever since Kodak introduced the improved VISION Color Print films that resist projector abrasion, things have been really bad for me. I've taken to secretly getting unlubricated prints made on another manufacturer's film to satisfy my "habit" of snorting polyester flakes.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-22-2000, 09:20 AM:

Just now, there was a banner ad for the New York Times, which I clicked on twice, but got a message that said; "Server too busy.."

Brad, tell them they owe you two clicks!

I'm trying to click on high-quality stuff, so the demographics show we are an elite group, where only the finest will do- movers and shakers of industry. You know; large disposable income, Range Rovers, etc.

Well, back to my New York Daily News (which we call the "Deadly News" because they show big pictures of car crashes and celebrities punching the photographer .... That about my speed!