it's bloody irritating, especially on a phone obscuring part of a comparatively small screen.I'm surprised the dissent took this long - I turned it on around 3:30!
It's just an experiment which I knew would be unpopular.
Ads now pay primarily on viewability so the regular banners deployed on the site are relatively poor payers are they aren't on screen often/for very long - c57%. In contrast the sticky bottom banner, which has been used for non-logged in users for a while, gets seen 88% of the time.
I thought it would be less intrusive on mobile, rather than desktop, but I wonder if the opposite is true.
That style of ad is used on a lot of sites, but maybe it's the way it appears, instead of being there when the page renders, which makes it more jarring.
Everyone having a busy afternoon working hardI'm surprised the dissent took this long - I turned it on around 3:30!
A static banner ad of the same size would be (I think) less annoying, and visible 100% of the timeI'm surprised the dissent took this long - I turned it on around 3:30!
It's just an experiment which I knew would be unpopular.
Ads now pay primarily on viewability so the regular banners deployed on the site are relatively poor payers are they aren't on screen often/for very long - c57%. In contrast the sticky bottom banner, which has been used for non-logged in users for a while, gets seen 88% of the time.
I thought it would be less intrusive on mobile, rather than desktop, but I wonder if the opposite is true.
That style of ad is used on a lot of sites, but maybe it's the way it appears, instead of being there when the page renders, which makes it more jarring.