Quantcast

About Author

1,095 Comments

  1. BOBBY MURDOCH’S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS

     

     

    Next you will be telling me that the smile the BM’s claimed to put on your face was actually a grimace.

     

     

    My world has been shattered.

  2. Tony

     

     

    As you say each to their own, we all have different opinions, for me Kris & Lisa are (were) good for Celtic and Celtic very good for them…..

     

     

    KevJ all the best today

  3. Every thing that is Celtic and registered through CFC, that includes the PLC to a onesie you buy in a Celtic shop comes under CFC, anyone needs explaining on that, should just be ignored as they are heading down the company not the club road, and there is on one reason they are heading down that road, and I’m sure we know where that’s going to end up.

  4. CLOGHER CELT on 19TH DECEMBER 2016 11:27 AM

     

     

    The point is, it costs money to host a site, and the more people use it the more it costs. Now some may manage to pay this out of their own pocket, others won’t.

     

     

    Ultimately though, if you don’t count as an ad view, or you’re not directly contributing to the cost, you’re expecting the host to pay for your access.

     

     

    To me that seems unfair, and so I’ve taken the decision to remove the ad-blocker. As I said earlier, if I find that Paul67’s chosen business model no longer works for me, I’ll stop using the site.

  5. Q) When does it become the case that the self serving ‘custodian” is deemed to be bring the club into disrepute and acting purely in his own interests?

     

     

    A) When Sevco win the league? When they are in Europe? When BR leaves?

     

     

    Who knows?

     

     

    They’re second at the moment, seven points clear of Aberdeen (having played a game more).Not bad for a team that we were told would struggle in the SPFL.

     

     

    Ah well I heard somewhere that we have ‘two generations of domination’ to look forward to, that’s 50 years;)

  6. WEEMINGER on 19TH DECEMBER 2016 11:51 AM

     

     

    Just to clarify – “Now some may manage to pay this out of their own pocket, others won’t.” Means some site hosts.

  7. CLOGHER CELT on 19TH DECEMBER 2016 11:52 AM

     

     

    Unless it’s an Alex Salmond generation, which seems to be about 5-10 years.

  8. Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on

    Mags,

     

    The meeting did not go well, we again done all their thinking for them in terms of why res12 should be progressed, they found new reasons to discount previously accepted evidence, which has been their sole input throughout the process. Again we provided alternative strategies and reminded them that criminal fraud had been carried out against the shareholders, they responded by trying to degenerate the meeting by interpreting personal insults when discussing the boards input to date, a strategy I expect has proven useful in the past on other people but quickly nipped in the bud. The meeting was cut short because they had not allocated enough time base on previous meetings.

     

    They have all the evidence as they always had, they now have further strategies to consider and will get back to us, when asked for a timeline they refused to make any commitment, more or less, don’t call us we’ll call you and further meeting was arranged. This does not bode well as we have previously waited around 6 months, only to be advised they were reneging on actions they had committed to taking.

     

     

    I expect there will be one or two on here happy with this update, as they fully support the boards apparent policy of no action on criminal fraud.

  9. BOBBY MURDOCH'S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS on

    CANAMALAR

     

     

    Disgraceful if not unexpected.

     

     

    PerfidiousAlbionCSC

  10. Mags

     

     

    Stuff that turning off “java script” then you can’t put a bet online, my gambling addiction is far important than my can addiction …… Sometimes the pop-ups are quite handy I then read what I was going to,post and hit delete

     

     

    Must run, school lunch run, it’s probably more relaxing being at work :-)

  11. WEEMINGER on 19TH DECEMBER 2016 11:51 AM

     

     

    More and more sites are now detecting ad blockers and either requesting that they be switched off or simply blocking access.

     

     

    It’s only a matter of time that the same thing happens here.

     

     

    The advertisers won’t pay if their ads are being blocked.

     

     

    The problem with this site is that the ads are so numerous and so invasive that it’s not worth trying to view it without an ad blocker. That’s just not sustainable.

  12. can addiction should read Cqn addiction…….although maybe correct the first time

     

     

    Aff oot

  13. Weeminger,

     

     

    Thanks for that. So if you have an adblocker you aren’t counted for the advertisers? I didn’t know that.

     

     

    My brother for example gets CQN on his phone via Twitter. He never looks at the comments anymore but just reads the main article. He used to follow the comments but gave up. He usually reads Paul67’s article at lunch:)

     

     

    I just wondered how relevant the comments were in terms of income.

     

     

    Anyway I hope it works out for you.

     

     

    HH

  14. canamalar

     

    Kinda sits with what the guy from e-tims was saying does it not?

     

    The longer this dragged on the more I became convinced the board were looking for a way to stop taking this forward, are there any further options open to shareholders?

  15. CLOGHER CELT on 19TH DECEMBER 2016 12:02 PM

     

     

    I suspect at the very least, each new comment page you view will be tracked and counted, if not every refresh.

     

     

    I have no skin in the game, as it were, I just had a think about my interaction with sites and how they’re paid for.

  16. Awe_Naw_No_Annoni_Oan_Anaw_Noo on

    Why the advertising industry needs to embrace AdBlock

     

    Posted Sep 5, 2016 by Vinay Kumar Mysore (@vinaykm)

     

     

    I am now part of the problem. The advertising industry is wringing its hands and shaking its fist at the use and growth of ad-block technology, but I am not above temptation. I simply installed it. And much like the many million people who have done so already, I love it and probably won’t ever fully abandon it.

     

     

    So instead of excoriating people for using them, it’s time we reflect on how we got here, what its inevitability means for our future and whether this might even be a trend worth embracing.

     

     

    The most commonly cited statistic on ad blocking reports that roughly 200 million people worldwide installed ad blocking on their computers as of August 2015. That group is rapidly growing:

     

     

    Mary Meeker’s 2016 Internet Trends Report shows an upward accelerating trend in ad-block adoption across desktop and mobile worldwide.

     

    HubSpot’s Global Interruptive Ads Survey (Q4 2015 to Q1 2016) found 50 percent of respondents already had installed AdBlock, and more than 60 percent of adults 18-35 expect to by Q3 2016, with respondents 35+ not that far behind.

     

    PageFair and Adobe report a growth of almost 50 percent in the usage of ad blockers in the U.S. from Q2 2014-Q2 2015.

     

    The recent IAB report on ad blocking found 26 percent of desktop users block ads online.

     

     

    Cumulatively, these reports indicate that the number of individuals using ad blockers will have doubled many more times over within the coming year or two. And their impact is real. Ovum and The Wall Street Journal report that in 2015 alone, publishers lost $24 billion dollars in ad revenue because of ad blockers.

     

     

    Ad-block technology stops almost all ads a person might otherwise see. Search ads, banner ads, remarketing, pre-roll, YouTube ads, social posts and even some “native” ads are all covered. When loading a page, AdBlock looks at from where content is being called and uses that information to infer what is or is not an ad. On computers, AdBlock typically comes as a plugin to install in a browser. On mobile, it takes the form of browsers or browser settings that do the same. It’s easy and relatively tinker-proof. With one or two clicks, an ad-free internet is at the fingertips of anyone.

     

     

    In response, some websites now have AdBlock walls. Upon arrival, AdBlock users are requested to enable ads by putting the site on a whitelist. Users are often amenable; the Times reported that more than 40 percent of users agreed to whitelist the site when provided with a message about the need to pay for high-quality content.

     

     

    However, the bulk of internet publishers, along with the bulk of online ad inventory they represent, have not pursued similar measures: perhaps because they (rightly) assume that click-bait headlines and repurposed content aren’t reason enough to get users to turn off their ad blockers. Their objective is traffic, and lots of it. Meanwhile, premier content publishers are beginning to understand how much their core audience dislike their many ads and now even offer products that obviate the need for AdBlock in the first place. Publishers like the NYT and even YouTube now hawk ad-free supra-subscriptions for their most dedicated and ad-weary audience members.

     

     

    Most users are blocking ads for specific reasons — reasons that can be addressed.

     

     

    Fundamentally though, everyone understands that a world with no ads online is an untenable one. AdBlock Plus found that 75 percent of their users supported sites having ads, so long as they weren’t too many and weren’t aggressively disruptive. In response, AdBlock Plus developed the Acceptable Ads Manifesto, outlining a series of rules for ads on sites, most all of which follow common sense. If a site agrees to meet these standards, AdBlock Plus will not block their ads.

     

     

    Moreover, much like the Times’ experiment, the latest IAB/YouGov study on ad blocking in the U.K. finds half of all users willing to disable blockers in exchange for content. The IAB U.S. survey found that most users are blocking ads for specific reasons — reasons that can be addressed. People understand the value of ads in supporting content; it’s just that now they are demanding better accountability from the system.

     

     

    For publishers who sign on and are part of this advertising future, it means significantly fewer digital ads. It means higher premiums on banner ads, pre-roll ads and the like, and, quite possibly, an end to the cost savings previous models of digital advertising offered. It will mean that running a series of banner ads will not a campaign make. Challenged by the fact that the cheap replication of a print-style advertising model no longer is profitable, more publishers will have to look to more innovative ways to incorporate their commerce with their content.

     

     

    This is a position that the entire advertising industry needs to move to embrace. The honest truth is that the prevailing model of digital advertising, of ubiquitous cheap ads, is a broken one. The incentives in this model have encouraged the worst behavior: publishers squeezing more and more ads into a cluttered space and marketers pointing to these masses of impressions and clicks as the sign of a job well done. Ads that aren’t viewable, bot-generated clicks, phantom ads across the internet, video ads that aren’t seen or heard or both: These are all symptoms of a business model that rewards quantity over quality.

     

     

    When these are the rules, the winning strategy will be a simple numbers game.

     

     

    Worse yet, the common model of digital attribution compounds the same tension. Standard practice attributes on-site success to the final ad clicked or final ad seen, rewarding mass amounts of bottom-of-the-funnel advertising. Whoever is responsible for that last ad takes full credit for that consumer’s decision to convert. Again, incentives in this model encourage the worst behavior: publishers flooding consumers with cheap ads to claim credit and marketers pointing to the cost-efficiencies of the same ads as the sign of a job well done.

     

     

    Successful marketing is nothing if not pragmatic. So long as this is the nature of success, it’s unsurprising that all parties pursue the same end game. Admittedly, some of this is beyond the industry’s control; unlike other mediums, there’s no body that can similarly regulate the nature of all digital ads and their quantities.

     

     

    So long as the model of digital advertising is about quantity, impression counts and video views, and so long as the medium of digital advertising involves barraging users with thousands upon thousands of ads per day, it is the correct and right strategy to get as many ads out as possible to get the most chances of success. When these are the rules, the winning strategy will be a simple numbers game.

     

     

    However, widespread adoption of ad-blocking technology upends this model and gives everyone a chance to slay digital advertising’s Ouroboros. Publishers either must have such high-quality content that users will agree to let them show their ads, or, if their content is not sufficiently compelling, have to abide by a model that puts a real cap on the number of ads they can deliver. Fail to do either, and none of the ads are seen.

     

     

    This immediately helps combat a number of the inventory issues digital advertising faces. Phantom ads and viewability are less likely to be concerns when the ad ecosystem supports a much smaller set of permissible ads. The better the publisher, the larger the premium offered by digital advertising for their content. And with fewer chances to show an ad, the quality of those ads must go up. Advertisers will need to develop higher-quality ads and will have the budget to support it given the cost of the medium. And consumers get higher-quality ads while also avoiding the barrage of bargain-quality banners they hate so much.

     

    Related Articles

     

    Facebook’s blocker-blocking ads blocked by blockers

     

    AdBlock Plus closes in on a billion downloads

     

    Facebook will bypass web adblockers, but offer ad targeting opt-outs

     

     

    This demands more of our industry, not the simple escalation of an arms race. Any advance in our technology to force ads upon users will be met with an equal development to block them. At this point it’s wholly Newtonian. Facebook’s recent announcement, followed by the immediate update to AdBlock Plus, is instructive. The sad truth is that Facebook’s own announcement acknowledged that the issue consumers had was not with all ads, but with how many currently live in our marketplace.

     

     

    Instead of language chastising consumers for their selfishness, instead of spurious accusations of secret profit behind ad-block technologies, the advertising industry needs to recognize that it has built no good will, that its failure to stop and active decision to escalate this problem is the direct cause of consumers’ actions.

     

     

    Far too often the incentives of digital advertising allow the industry to revert to a simple formula, and the consequence has been more ads, more often, to more irritated consumers. Yet we didn’t change course. People want services and people understand the importance of ad support. They just want better ads. Now people have a tool powerful enough to hold the industry accountable, and their voices are finally being heard.

     

     

    The shame is that for an industry that prides itself on understanding consumers, it has taken us this long to listen to them.

  17. CANAMALAR

     

     

    Can you say anymore on their : “new reasons to discount previously accepted evidence”.

     

     

    If not i fully understand why.

  18. Re Res 12

     

     

    Over to you Paul 67.

     

     

    Weeminger,

     

     

    Thanks again. It’s a valuable resource and I guess it’s just a matter of trying to get the balance right. You’re right to think about how sites are paid for, that’s something I’m guilty of taking for granted.

     

     

    Duty Calls

  19. I expect there will be one or two on here happy with this update, as they fully support the boards apparent policy of no action on criminal fraud.

     

     

     

    Oh noooooo not at all, we won’t even wait to see what the board says we believe you, cough! cough,

     

    Personal insults? No surprise there then eh?

     

    If the board are taking no action, then that means they (the board) do not think the evidence is solid enough, if the board get it wrong on that criminal fraud charge, they could be sued for millions, I’ll stick with the board on this one, and wait to see how the next meeting goes, still talking so that’s a good sign right?

  20. BOBBY MURDOCH'S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS on

    TONYDONNELLY

     

     

    Might it be that in time you realise you’ve been duped?

     

     

    The board hold all the cards,it’s up to them to act or not. If they don’t,the can rot in hell.

     

     

    I’ll support Celtic,board or not. The latest reports on this are not good reading at all.

  21. Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on

    Burgas..,

     

    There’s no more that can be said, previous documents included as evidence to the SFA and UEFA and commented on are now discounted because the Plc do not want to ask questions, or ask the appropriate football regulatory authority for an investigation.

  22. Canamalar

     

    Thank you very much for your prompt response. I always had a vain hope. I want to express my gratitude to you, BRTH, Auldheid and Morrissey who are undoubtedly amongst the greatest Celtic supporters in history.

     

    This board are Tory hun scum.

     

    Maybe Paul67 has something constructive to post but I doubt it.

  23. THETIMREAPER on 19TH DECEMBER 2016 10:41 AM

     

     

    No problem

     

    Can someone supply the above with my e-mail address please.

     

     

    HH

  24. BMCW

     

     

    I doubt if the board are trying to dupe anyone, the res. Is out there been out there for a while as the gang of 4 have been pushing it, I’m thinking along the lines of something outside the board and the gang of 4 pushing it, and I think there is more behind it than what we are being told, and only time will tell, maybe the board know more than they are telling the gang of 4 and that being in the interests of giving thems enough rope to hang themselfs, I don’t know? But I’m sticking with the board .

  25. Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on

    The board are restricted by football rules about bringing criminal proceeding against other football entities, that’s why the only authority with the power to fully investigate the matter was cited in the resolution. And why provenance is not as big an issue as the board would have everyone believe, the CFCB have rights to access all the relevant material and evidence from their sources.

     

     

    Provenance is a red herring the evidence is plentiful the board simply refuse to request the appropriate authority to investigate even after being invited to do so by both the SFA and UEFA and using that as the reason for doing so.

  26. Good Afternoon.

     

     

    Res12 could have and should have been passed in 2013 in my opinion.

     

     

    It certainly should have been adopted in spirit and action in 2014 after SFA responded to enquiries made.

     

     

    The evidence accumulated as result of the activity of the Res12 lawyer backs up a case for investigation on its own regardless of provenance issues but passing Res12 overcomes that issue.

     

     

    TD is correct that accusations of fraud need to be made on solid ground. Res12 would have produced more solid ground to decide if indeed a case exists and it is possible it may not, but the time taken to get back to the beginning makes it hard not to believe that something is amiss.

     

     

    Asking the questions is accountability in action, which is a goal of Res12, to remind the SFA, who are made up of clubs including Celtic, that they are the custodians of football but not it’s owners.

     

     

    I see Paul and WC being asked questions and I think that unfair. Without their help and all of those who contributed to meet the cost of the Conclusions that were circulated to signatories and later published on CQN there would have been nothing to conclude and bring us back to the 2013 and 2014 position, but much better informed. So can they be left out of discussions please?

     

     

    As it stands, although the meeting was disappointing in terms of deja vu, a number of suggestions were made by the gang of four (copyright TD67 and Res12 Ya Bass :) ) in terms of taking matters forward and information on a line of enquiry that came up during the meeting was provided after the meeting.

     

     

    The ball is in Celtic’s net so I suggest giving them a little time to either kick it back into play and continue the game in an acceptabe manner or kick it out of play because it can be demonstrated the game is actually over but importantly recognise that there is no long grass left to kick it into.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information