We are considering getting rid of advertising, much to the fanfare of many readers. Unlike the favorite meme of the left that we are in the employ of “big oil” the reality is that we aren’t, never have been, and never will be. WUWT’s “big oil” donations are about as real and valuable as these carbon credit certificates.
We don’t get that much from advertising, and lately it seems like it has become too intrusive, and slows down the site. In actuality, our ad partner is serving more ads than ever before for even less returns. It’s seemingly the law of diminishing returns in action.
If we do eliminate the advertising, we would be moving to a donation support model and will be encouraging donations more regularly. Some of you have already setup monthly donations, and for that we are very grateful.
Of course both Charles and I are curious how our audience will respond so we set up these two polls to help in our strategic planning.
Thanks again for all the great support we receive, both in emails and comments, and of course for your generous financial contributions as well.
Anthony Watts, Charles Rotter
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe you could incorporate as a 501(c)(3) educational foundation. Then those of us whose employers match charitable gifts would be able to double our money!
Me too. My DAF only allows donations of $250 or more—and it has to be to a 501C3. It should be easy, but …
If you become a 501(c)(3) organization, you come under strict IRS rules and are subject to audits and to official claims (just or false) being filed against you. There are also rules about having a Board of Directors, meetings, keeping certain records, filing annual tax returns. etc.
In addition, if the organization is headquartered in California and registered as a California California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation (equivalent to IRS 501(c)(3)), it likewise falls under a bunch of California statutes on what it must, and must not, do.
Please give very careful consideration to the $ advantage (bestowed to donors) being worth the hassle to those running the WUWT business. There may be better paths for WUWT . . . a good lawyer would know.
Trust them as they’re from the Gummint and they’re here to help. Yeah riiiiight!
And around 2010 the IRS and FBI got together to stop 501c3’s who had non-progressive leanings (Tea Parties)… You know “facts and some science” are non-progressive.
How about exactly 100/year in equal monthly installments? It is much harder to get people to make monthly than one-time pledges, even if the monthly ones are 1/12 of what they’re giving one-off. But it’s the best sustainability model.
That’s the best use of the word sustainability I’ve seen for a long time.
I agree a monthly contribution is easy to set up most of us have direct debits set up with our banks, it’s easy and once set up your contribution is automatic and won’t need reminders.
At age 83 I don’t make long term commitments but will respond with one time donations when asked and given a mailing address for checks.
I only use PayPal or send written checks as needed.
PayPal cancels sites for politics.
@jdgalt, yep they do. Paypal just stopped processing payments to the TimWorstall.com site based on “inappropriate content” when all Tim does is comment and give opinion on news stories mainly about economics.
I’m 84 and in the same boat. One-time donations so my wife, who spends near-zero time on the internet, doesn’t have to hunt down and terminate any long-term commitments.
You can use Debit or Credit card too.
I can’t match your 83, but similarly, I don’t make long term commitments, but intend to make one time donations on an annual basis.
I’ll miss the ads for solar panels, but happy to contribute at least once per year. I have gained greatly from WUWT articles and the many reader comments.
Thanks!
badEnglish
That raises a good point…your click through rates are probably much lower than other climate change focused sites, since we are much less gullible, nor are we interested in the latest green scams. That could be why your ad rates are falling. In any case, the nice thing about an ad-funded site is that these rent-seeking, green-washing companies that advertise are wasting their money…and that’s a good thing.
Perhaps we all should click on a few of those green’s ads, push up the advertising revenue and allow them to subsidise the site. Then you’d be able to tell them that you are on the Big Green teat, like them.
This is exactly what I do plus I make sure my ad-blocker is off for WUWT
is this site a non-profit 501c-3? If possible I would like to donate by check.
Gene -is this site a non-profit 501c-3?
I doubt WUWT would want the enormous regulator burden involved. It is not a simple matter of a single National approval. All states require their own annual reporting regime.
You wouldn’t have to register in states where your 501(c)3 has no physical presence. But you would have to file an annual return (Form 990) which is then public information. The 990s of every nonprofit in the US can be viewed at guidestar.org.
The form doesn’t require listing all members but you do have to name major donors and the major things you spend the money on. I don’t think it’s worth it.
You may be interested in following
Charles Ortel is CLOSING IN- a video broadcast with Jason Goodman – crowdsourcethetruth.com
Like the majority of fully independent broadcasters, they are being constantly disrupted by Big Tek.
Charles Ortel, has a pedigree, in exposing established charities-frauds.
I don’t mind ads if they aren’t so invasive. I resent them taking over my browser and moving stuff around on the screen. Or covering half of it.
They are VERY invasive here.
I’m currently using MS Edge, and the pop-ups show at the bottom of the screen. I just hit the “X” to clear them. Not that onerous, really.
I use edge on my work computer, and the few times I’ve visited the site from it, hitting the “X” (when it’s available) only temporarily removes the add, 15 seconds or so later another ad gets served. And not all the ads have an “X”
I use Firefox with uBlock Origin and see no ads at all…
Of course, that’s one reason why ad revenue is falling. I hope you’ve been donating time or money regularly.
I use an adblocker. But it’s possible to temporarily exclude WUWT each session or permanently.
Perhaps if enough of us with an ad blocker allow allowed WUWT ads at times …
(I just “paused” on this site.)
I also use Adblock Latitude on the Pale Moon browser, but I also have (and will continue to) donate.
I allowed ads here a few hours ago.
Left the site, did other stuff.
I just came back and still no ads.
I’m not complaining about no ads but I wonder why?
Why? Few or no accumulated tracking cookies.
Folks that are annoyed by ads might clean out their cookies and compare the experience before and after.
I use an ad blocker now after ads had become massively intrusive on WUWT and other sites. I cleared cookies after almost every internet browsing session, but it made no difference.
Same here, i did it to save data being stolen from my free data allowance, otherwise i have to pay, but a free 5 gigs a week on the sim card i use in my dongle in my laptop is all i need.
I tend to get some set of default ads, which seem to be the most obnoxious, when my cookies are cleared. I WISH they would be more relevant.
More and more sites detect ad blockers and instruct you to turn it off or leave. And the ad blockers don’t seem to do much anymore.
I had to use an ad-blocker for my sanity! The intrusive nature of so many ads, especially those with endlessly moving or changing graphics are just maddeningly distracting. After Firefox ‘upgraded’ me, I lost the ad-blocker; got really fed-up searching for a replacement that would work and ended up uninstalling Firefox. Installed DDG, thank goodness.
Chiefio has a couple of ads, easily deleted while reading. Those ads aren’t relevant for me.
We have donated here in the past and would like to again, the problem is that we are pensioners and there are several sites we’d like to support. As a rule, what we can manage goes to Jo Nova.
I should have added, any request/instruction to turn off the ad blocker results in my leaving a site. I appreciate why they ask but if they have important info they are keen to have disseminated, then they need to have a rethink. A lot of ads are too large, too bright, too ‘busy’ or too salacious and tasteless for me to be willing to tolerate them!
The reason some people use ad blockers, is that some ads load adware onto unsuspecting users’ computers. If ads were known to be safe that would be one reason for allowing them. Second, if one could pick ads about things they are interested in, they would probably want to look at them.
Just a thought…
And yes I would consider donating once per year.
indeed. the bad apples (adware/malware infested ads) spoil the bunch.
I don’t see why ad revenue should be different whether I don’t see the ads thanks to my adblocker, or just see but ignore them. However, I have to agree that currently available adblockers are very shoddy pieces of programming because “the other side” so easily recognizes them and then demands or forces one to turn them off. Done properly, there should be no way for the advertiser to find out that an adblocker is being used at all. In fact, a well-designed adblocker should also incorporate routines that simulate occasional clicking on ads so that advertising revenue is generated on the pages one browses using the adblocker, to benefit the makers of these sides, because the advertiser gets the signals he is paying for, namely that his ad has been noticed and reacted on. In the end, the advertiser pays for “clicks” and “views” – it is said nowhere that those must be acted out by a human, and AFAIK the advertiser has no right to snoop on who is doing the clicking and looking anyway! All this must of course happen without ever transmitting actual personal or financial data of the human user, or letting that user see any of the ads nor the robotically clicked-through links. So-to-speak, a second silent browser window dealing with the ads on one (hidden) screen automatically by “clicking” on them, “looking” at the linked ad content for a few seconds, and then “closing” them again, while the real content of the page is forwarded to another screen that the human reader uses. A robotic equivalent of a secretary who opens the page for me, deals with the ads, and forwards me only the interesting bits (and as the latter option – delegating the filtering and sorting-out of ads and content to another human in my employment – surely cannot be considered illegal, a piece of software doing exactly the same is no less legitimate, as the situation is no different from the choice between employing someone to wash my dishes vs. using a dishwashing machine). I’m not a programmer myself, but an app/tool like this should be an immensely satisfying task for any expert in the field!
“I don’t see why revenue should be different whether I don’t see the ads thanks to my adblocker, or just see but ignore them”
Alex, I don’t think you understand the purpose of ads. The reason revenue is different is because advertisers buy ads for eyeballs – no eyeballs, no ad revenue.
They want your eyes on what they’re trying to sell you. If you ain’t seeing it, then that defeats the purpose of the ad. If you don’t see it they have no shot of getting your attention and thus won’t get your potential business. If you are seeing it, even if you generally “ignore” the ads, then they have a shot at getting your attention (with an ad that stands out in some way) and thus potentially your business.
dunno if fkbk pays but if you have their damned like button on a page they skim OUR info regardless I am told.
another reason i block and use Blur too
I’m a software engineer, Alex, and I want to examine of a couple of your claims. First, indeed, ad-blockers are typically shoddily coded because they are written by low-skill software developers or they are written in a short period time. Or they are morsels intended to get you to pay to get more or better features. Or sometimes it’s because they have a poorly designed user interface.
Second, advertisers can detect if an ad has been removed numerous ways. One way is, the programming code (Javascript) can periodically check if the ad is there (by querying for it in the HTML) and confirm to the ad agency that it showed for a certain amount of time. Naive ad blockers will simply remove the HTML containing the ad. But the code controlling the ads can detect that it disappeared and simply add it back in. Google is particularly bad about this. It’s a cat and mouse game with ads on their search results.
Third, clicking with code is indeed possible but easy to detect and reject. This is because there’s one way to move and click a mouse in code and that way is easy to intercept and examine for ad blockers trying to emulate clicks in place of a human.
Above all, ad agencies can track you across the internet based on your ip address. And they can track your behavior in simple and complex ways. For example, simple tracking can answer questions like “what websites does this device visit?” and “how often do they visit it?” This can be done by simply counting the number of times a single ip address requests an ad. When simple tracking is integrated with social media, ad agencies can resolve the “who” behind the device: you.
Ad blocking is an arms race so to speak because developers at ad agencies are always finding loopholes to exploit and ad block developers have to try to keep up with it.
My solution is a combination of different things. First is something called a Pi Hole. It’s a Raspberry Pi computer with software designed to check network traffic and reject it if it’s coming from ad agencies or a nefarious source. Second is a VPN that I use occasionally. Third is ad blockers at the browser level. And fourth, when I really want to go “stealth”, I can use a text-based browser like Lynx or just raw HTTP requests which get the HTML of the site without actually executing any code.
thing is for those of us with limited net gigs stopping ads running also means we can last the month without running outta credit, they chew a lot
Exactly, i get by on 5 gig free a week on my sim in my dongle without ad’s, and i play poker online 10 hours a day.
Ive been dealt 3 million hands of cards in the last 10 years i reckon, or pretty close to it.
I refuse to use Firefox. I don’t support left wing organizations.
Did you write your own browser then?
Seriously – which one is made by a group that isn’t seriously left-leaning? Certainly not Chrome or Safari.
I do the same…. no ads for me to see
I never see an ad on WUWT. I use a script blocker/ad blocker. Works perfectly.
I prefer one-time, yearly payments. I don’t do PayPal.
Agree but what really burne me are the ads that chew up all my 4 processor computer time and 8gb of memory doing who knows what (animations maybe). That’s why I have an ad blocker.
$5/month
I wouldn’t donate unless the anti-vaccine stuff goes – I’m not clear how that’s related to climate and the lies of CAGW. But I love the site otherwise. I’d be willing to give $5/month.
It was timely and relevant an because we saw some of the same disinformation methods used in the “climate wars” in COVID19. But now that’s waning and you’ll see less of it.
Fair enough. I can see the parallel in methods, although I am (generally) on the other side as far as my opinion regarding the virus and vaccination.
I’m sorry Mr Watts but it is certainly not waning below the line.
It’s been said many times that cagw was never really about climate it was just a vehicle to achieve globalization. It has also been said that covid is being used to the same end. If that’s true then maybe covid 19 is relevant. Just a thought.
Happy to make a regular donation whatever you decide is fit for discussion.
Good point.
The goal of climate nonsense was to end or curtail fossil fuel use replacing it with renewables. The method of achieving the goal is globalized organizations: NGOs, GOs, UNGOs, … transnational corps. Since it began it seems to have got a life of its own: imagine a zombie raised with a voodoo spell which now thinks it’s a proper person – that all the other other living people are somehow illegitimate because they call it a zombie. Like Religion begins with spreading the word (of God), and invariably mutates into self interested clerics doling out dispensations for loot.
The goal of the climate nonsense is control. With control comes power, with power comes money. That’s pretty much it.
A few more thoughts on covid. I’m an an average Joe not a scientist. I’ve learnt more about covid from wuwt than I have from my government or from the MSM. Wuwt is a valuable resource when trying to see through the confusion. With over 442,000,000 total hits and the amount of comments a covid article generates I doubt I am alone in my thinking.
The ads never bothered me, what ever you decide is fine with me.
The modus operandi of how “climate change” and COVID ! are sold to the public are very similar. They both prey on FEAR. They both engage in fudging the data. We are constantly kept in fear-repeatedly. Propaganda is a big lie repeated frequently (and usually backed up with retribution towards those that refuse to buy in to the narrative) until people believe it out of fear. The propaganda is still a pack of lies.
Plugging windmills and solar to save the planet-sounds eerily similar to-“take the untested, experimental vaccine for which we can not be sued so you can have the freedoms we confiscated back.”
As yet, there is no solid evidence at all that the 3-5% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is of human origin is the dominant driver of catastrophic or dangerous global warming / “climate change.” As yet, there is no evidence that the vaccine prevents the spread of the virus or even makes you immune. Note, the PCR test is a DNA multiplier-it was never intended as a test for a virus- the test itself comes up with too many false positives. BTW, if it is secreted in saliva and faeces, why do the test right near the blood/ brain barrier??
We are likely to see masks still being worn and the insane virtue signalling of swabbing things down, even after people get the jab. Please note, being experimental, the untested, experimental vaccine needs fully informed consent, otherwise the entire rollout is in contravention of the Nuremberg code. Yes, the rollout is in violation of International agreements because there is a level of coercion and a lack of full disclosure. Covering up adverse side effects and misrepresentation of the dangers of the disease makes the whole vaccine thing very suspect-like the whole cAGW thing.
Dr Fauci, in his 2008 paper on the Spanish flu came to the conclusion that most of the deaths from the Spanish flu were from bacterial pneumonia from wearing masks!
What do you think- vaccine/ COVID discussion does belong on WUWT.
“vaccine/ COVID discussion does belong on WUWT.”
Apparently not in the opinion of people who disagree with what’s being said. And on a skeptic-oriented site, I find that quite sad.
Yeah the luke-warmers of covid1984
Sites that stray off topic often find themselves abandoned by all. People are here because of climate change issues and to move to CoVid just because the propaganda techniques or goals are similar is a mistake.
“High Treason
Note, the PCR test is a DNA multiplier-it was never intended as a test for a virus- the test itself comes up with too many false positives.”
That is indeed correct. Even Mullis, the person who created it back in the 70’s, has stated as much.
Makes you wonder why they chose to use it as the standard.
“Dr Fauci, in his 2008 paper on the Spanish flu came to the conclusion that most of the deaths from the Spanish flu were from bacterial pneumonia from wearing masks!”
There ain’t a lot data wrt 1918 mask wearing, so no one would be able come to such a conclusion. Fauci, dumb-assery not withstanding, would not have referenced masks in such a way … in a written paper. And he wouldn’t have made up such garbage unless there was good political reason to do so (in 2008 there wasn’t).
The actual paper from 2008:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/
A ‘search’ of the paper shows NO MENTION OF or NO REFERENCE TO masks or masking. None.
It concludes the pneumonia caused by bacteria normally found in upper respiratory tract was probably a major cause of death in the Spanish Flu pandemic. It is not surprising to me since Penecillin, the first antibiotic, had not yet been discovered.
The ’caused by masks’ claim made by ‘TREASON’ was a made up add on probably copied mindlessly from somewhere else. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I don’t believe all “fact checks”, but on the Fauci Spanish flu paper…
Verdict: False
While Fauci did co-author a 2008 study about the causes of Spanish Influenza deaths, it mentions nothing about masks. The study found that a majority of the deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia related to influenza infection.
Perhaps a reminder about the site is in order.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2006/11/17/welcome-to-watts-up-with-that/
As time went on, a meteorologist came to focus on CAGW and the lack of science supporting it. That led to “Why the hype?” and the politics behind the hype.
Now we have hype about COVID. How much is science and how much is politics? Actions based on the hype likely put Harris … er …Biden in the White House.
Asparagus is not needed to open a discussion on something that doesn’t smell right.
“Plugging windmills and solar to save the planet-sounds eerily similar to-“take the untested, experimental vaccine for which we can not be sued so you can have the freedoms we confiscated back.”
Could Nuremberg trials end the incursion of industrial scale wind turbines and solar panels?
Do you have a link to that paper?
Found that paper: it never mentions masks or implicates them at all. (btw I’m very anti-mask and am familiar with the scientific literature which clearly concludes they are between useless and harmful – a position Fauci hadat the beginning of this)
Oh dear we have a covid1984 luke-warmer in our midst.
gee you think maybe vaccine stuff is recent news? nah…fool.
I’ve always considered WUWT to be a Science web site, not limited just to “Climate Change”. Lots of great topics covered here if you’ve followed over the years. Although, admittedly, bolstering my ability to argue that “humans are not the primary driver of climate change and changing human behavior is unlikely to have any measurable affect on climate” is what keeps me coming back.
I’m pretty cheap when it comes to internet subscriptions but would be happy to make an annual donation. $100 seems a little steep but if the paying readership is small then I guess that’s what we’re looking at.
I deliberately make an effort to not notice the advertising, which seems targeted specifically at me to piss me off, rather than to enlighten me.
You didn’t have option to keep advertising
🙁
Just kidding, these embarrassing ads have prevented me for forwarding links to great articles. Eliminating annoying ads may improve growth of WUWT by wider distribution of forwards.
As I’ve told users emailing about this, I don’t see these kind of ads on my PC or phone. I see targeted ads related to my Internet browsing. Much more likely to see an ad for an air fryer than any of the soft porn.
So any advice on how to not get the air fryers?
Spend more time on porn! The ads will be targeted accordingly.
Or search for “Hot Pork!” sites.
(But that give you ads for both … never mind.)
Hmmm … in a comment above I said I allowed ads on WUWT but still didn’t see any.
But I also run something that clears all my cookies (she looks like a nice one).
Maybe clearing my cookies is why I haven’t seen ads?
That is one good looking air fryer. Where can I get one?
Isn’t that Chrissy Teigens? Something there is definitely fried!
No, that’s Naomi Oreskes from a few years ago, when she let her hair down.
I don’t see those kinds of ads on my home PC. My work PC, however, does (on the few occasions I’ve visited WUWT from work) get those NSFW ads – which is why I try not to visit WUWT from work all that often anymore (wasn’t always the case, the ads use to be completely inoffensive) . Outside of work related sites, my work PC only visits a handful of “news” type sites, certainly it never visits any of the “sleazy” sites that your post implies those seeing the ads must be visiting (ie “targeted ads related to my internet browsing”). None of the sites visited by my work PC, nor any of the searches made on it, would indicate a “targeted” interest for such ads.
You definitely are a male… a very horny one… dude. 🙂
What were you thinking!
Hey wait, I’ve never looked at porn on my phone and it’s the only way I’ve accessed this site for 7 years. Still, I get weird porn like hottest redheads available and stuff like that even though I’d never look at redhead porn.
The old site site let me see what my wife was searching due to our google/amazon accounts being intertwined. So I knew when she was looking up new patio umbrellas and divorce lawyers in Greeley.
oh wait, I think I’ve just figured out the nude redheads…
Just asking for a friend, but he gets the naked redhead too. Not complaining. Er, I mean, HE’s not complaining. But seriously no porn browsing to explain it. Possibly if your only activity is RealClearPolitics and WUWT, they figure you need something to spice up your life.
He might have just done a search for a beach vacation spot.
They don’t call it “click bait” for nothing.
Yea, l searched once for a J Lopez in the beach, followed soon after by another, D Lama on the mount.
You wouldn’t want to know wat whip ads I
got for quite a while 🙂.
The person you forward the link to will probably not see the same ads you do.
Go ahead and forward!
For me, it depends on how much the cost is. It also requires a price (and performance) comparison against those who claim they can remove all ads. At the moment WUWT is for intrusive ads by far the worst site I visit. I’ve been a part of the WUWT “family” for 12 years now, and Anthony and Charles have even been kind enough to re-publish a dozen or so of my articles. But my resources are limited; even more so than in preceding years. So, I can only give when I can. I’ll hit the tip jar (in a small way) in a few minutes.
You might consider a model like ZeroHedge: They have equally intrusive ads, but if you subscribe, then you can access their site free of advertising. WUWT brings such value by accumulating writings on issues I cannot find addressed elsewhere that I would willingly pay $250/year to subscribe ad-free.
That’s a good idea, and I would even go further and say that in order to comment, one must be a subscriber. That would probably cut moderation by 90% and also get rid of most trolls. And would hopefully make the comment section more productive if not having to deal with some of the snark from a few people that make the site look bad.
ZH new look is ok most items are acessible still
other issue is for us OS readers the exchange rate n fees paypal bites us for, make donations costlier than Anthony actually might ask for
ie avg us$ to au$ is 30c down for me and fees on a recent purchase from OS paypal added about 10$ more to my costs
so a 160 buy cost me nearer 180
I use WISE.COM to send $ to our daughter in Northern Ireland. They used to be TransferWise.
Hey, what about a special rate for Griff, maybe $10,000 per month, and that not Trinidadian $ either. US, Australian, or Canadian $s would do.
I like the concept of tiered rates–one for the Griffs of the commenting readers, something less for those more supportive.
It’s engagement that matters.
Griff should probably get in for free as a regular contributor.
He does inspire thought.
Mainly, “Er… What?” But answering ‘what’ is useful.
I agree re Griff for free. It gives us an idea of what lefties actually think, and where they are getting their “knowledge”, i.e. misinformation.
When you see the CNN/ MSNBS/WAPOO fact checks that are always off base, you can understand since they are written by Griff type leftists. At least we here can see where the basic incorrect information is coming from.
I’ll say it before others point it out more vehemently.
I am a lefty too.
The last thing I want is a safe space for climate realists where we are never challenged.
I’m always surprised by the lack of “alarmists” views here considering it’s the dominant doxa.
Agreed. We want as much serious alarmist input as possible, all the better for coming up with effective arguments against their dogma. The problem is most of the alarmist we do get tend to be more troll than serious commentators.
Grif has to change his name to Grift.
We would lose Griff as those on the Left want everything but paid for with OPM
Nah, Griff should come here for free.
If we didn’t have a Griff to keep us amused, we’d have to invent a Griff -bot.
I thought it was one. Never backs up its mindless erroneous bot-like comments.
I think we need to pay Griff for his entertaining comments. If we didn’t have Griff this site would be a little stuffy.
But seriously, how much does it cost to run WUWT? How many readers are there? I don’t want anyone to get rich off this site, but I also want to continue to read the fine posts and comments. The price point for some of the smaller news sites that I’ve seen seems to be about $10/month, so that must be the point marketers think people will pay.
If we can have no ads for such a great site I think many readers will be willing to pay. I like Martin Gibson’s idea of no ads for subscribers but ads for others because it would still allow us to forward articles to friends to persuade them to start reading WUWT.
Um, who sees advertising on the internet?
What about some merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt with “My carbon credits go to WATTSUPWITHTHAT” or something witty.
I suggested previously a t-shirt:
“Stop Climate Fear, Warmer is Better”
I’m not sure what has annoyed me more – the crap ads that massively detract from the blog or some of the poor quality posts that have been showing up.
I’ve spent a lot less timne here than I have in the past (and there are reference pages I really need to update). A lot of that due to focusing on some personal interests, some due to spending way too much time on FaceBook. Suffice it to say there have been several posts I haven’t link to on other science pages because of the bogus ads. “This Discovery Leaves Doctors Speechless.” “A friend of Kim Kardashian …” ( never finished that headline). “… Will the Stock Market Crash …?”
I’ve been thinking about talking to Anthony about the ads…. I’ll donate!
There are ads?
I, too, am very cheap regarding Internet subscriptions but WUWT is certainly worth at least $100 per year. I prefer one payment per year.
I’m the same way, happy to contribute a minimum of $100 per year, but prefer one-off payment.
I don’t see any ads and was not aware that there was a problem. However I would donate on a regular basis if necessary to keep the site going.
And FYI on the second vote above I ckicked “other” but no option to leave a comment appeared.
Consider placing a contributor or supporter label on posts as done with the editors.
I don’t mind paypal, but I would like the option to send a donation via eTransfer.
I have been donating $10/mo for a while, I will increase it as I can. It’s certainly worth at least that. I don’t need any incentive like 501(c)(3).
I donate without the 501c3. But it sends a thrill up my leg to think I could force Microsoft Corporation to match my gifts to WUWT!
some of the ads are for malware, to the extent I had to stop visiting the site, let us know what you need for an annual budget, and show progress towards the goal. private schools find a rich donor to offer matching (to a point) in a certain period. this really helps with fund drives
I don’t pay monthly to any YouTuber or website. I pay when the place is needing it or when I have some spare cash. I usually pay in the region of $20 or so.