I have posted the following comment in several AOL journals. It's a point no one else has brought up, and I want as many ex-AOL journalers as possible to think about it. Could it be that AOL is not being truthful? Gee, is that possible?
We have been told that the text in the alerts was shortened (in the same update as gave us the banners) in order to fix the alert delivery problem.
In the past, the alerts were long enough that I was often able to read an entire entry without having to go to the actual journal. Now, I almost always have to go to the journal (which has forced me to cut down on the number of alerts, since I don't have time for that, especially since the banner ads slow load time). However, I notice that the UK journals, which do not have the ads, still provide long alerts. This implies that the shortening of the alerts is connected somehow to the addition of the banners.
One cannot help but wonder if the purpose of shortening the alerts was NOT to fix an alert problem, but to forcefeed the banner ads. !!!!!
Wouldn't it have been more efficient, more effective, and less disruptive to put the ads in the alerts, and leave the alert text long, rather than putting them in the journals?
~~Silk
No comments:
Post a Comment