An End to WUWT Ad Frustration

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

5 33 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
242 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Toby Nixon
April 7, 2021 11:19 am

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!

Frederick Michael
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 7, 2021 12:03 pm

Me too. My DAF only allows donations of $250 or more—and it has to be to a 501C3. It should be easy, but …

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 7, 2021 5:48 pm

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.

observa
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 7, 2021 7:40 pm

Trust them as they’re from the Gummint and they’re here to help. Yeah riiiiight!

Txjwalker1
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 10, 2021 3:44 pm

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.

April 7, 2021 11:21 am

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.

Notanacademic
Reply to  John Robson
April 7, 2021 12:46 pm

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.

Last edited 3 days ago by Notanacademic
Dave Irons
April 7, 2021 11:23 am

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.

Dick Petschauer
Reply to  Dave Irons
April 7, 2021 1:47 pm

I only use PayPal or send written checks as needed.

jdgalt1
Reply to  Dick Petschauer
April 7, 2021 7:26 pm

PayPal cancels sites for politics.

sadbutmadlad
Reply to  jdgalt1
April 8, 2021 12:49 am

@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.

Robert Cherba
Reply to  Dave Irons
April 8, 2021 9:20 am

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.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Dave Irons
April 8, 2021 9:28 pm

You can use Debit or Credit card too.

miket
Reply to  Dave Irons
April 10, 2021 3:54 am

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.

badEnglish
April 7, 2021 11:26 am

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

WR2
Reply to  badEnglish
April 7, 2021 1:10 pm

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.

Murph
Reply to  WR2
April 7, 2021 7:57 pm

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.

Redge
Reply to  Murph
April 8, 2021 12:27 am

This is exactly what I do plus I make sure my ad-blocker is off for WUWT

Gene Doebley
April 7, 2021 11:33 am

is this site a non-profit 501c-3? If possible I would like to donate by check.

graham dunton
Reply to  Gene Doebley
April 7, 2021 2:46 pm

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.

jdgalt1
Reply to  graham dunton
April 7, 2021 7:29 pm

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.

graham dunton
Reply to  jdgalt1
April 8, 2021 11:49 am

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.

April 7, 2021 11:34 am

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.

Last edited 4 days ago by D, Anderson
D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  D, Anderson
April 7, 2021 11:44 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 8, 2021 2:42 am

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”

Jan Benes
Reply to  D, Anderson
April 7, 2021 11:48 am

I use Firefox with uBlock Origin and see no ads at all…

Editor
Reply to  Jan Benes
April 7, 2021 11:59 am

Of course, that’s one reason why ad revenue is falling. I hope you’ve been donating time or money regularly.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 7, 2021 2:52 pm

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.)

lee riffee
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 7, 2021 3:09 pm

I also use Adblock Latitude on the Pale Moon browser, but I also have (and will continue to) donate.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 7, 2021 6:20 pm

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?

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 8, 2021 3:34 am

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.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Doug Huffman
April 8, 2021 4:12 am

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.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Pflashgordon
April 8, 2021 6:26 am

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.

Last edited 3 days ago by Gary Ashe
TonyG
Reply to  Doug Huffman
April 9, 2021 3:04 pm

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.

Reply to  Gunga Din
April 8, 2021 8:11 am

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.

Annie
Reply to  D, Anderson
April 9, 2021 6:44 pm

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.

Annie
Reply to  Annie
April 9, 2021 6:48 pm

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!

chickenhawk
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 7, 2021 4:07 pm

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  chickenhawk
April 8, 2021 2:45 am

indeed. the bad apples (adware/malware infested ads) spoil the bunch.

AlexBerlin
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 7, 2021 7:19 pm

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!

John Endicott
Reply to  AlexBerlin
April 8, 2021 3:00 am

“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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  John Endicott
April 8, 2021 3:40 am

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

leowaj
Reply to  AlexBerlin
April 8, 2021 1:34 pm

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 8, 2021 3:38 am

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

Gary Ashe
Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 8, 2021 6:34 am

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.

Last edited 3 days ago by Gary Ashe
Reply to  Jan Benes
April 8, 2021 8:10 am

I refuse to use Firefox. I don’t support left wing organizations.

TonyG
Reply to  D, Anderson
April 9, 2021 3:18 pm

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.

Gilbert K. Arnold
Reply to  Jan Benes
April 8, 2021 9:52 am

I do the same…. no ads for me to see

Tom Abbott
Reply to  D, Anderson
April 7, 2021 1:23 pm

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.

Last edited 3 days ago by Tom Abbott
Jim Whelan
Reply to  D, Anderson
April 10, 2021 9:10 am

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.

vtsd
April 7, 2021 11:34 am

$5/month

Tom in Toronto
April 7, 2021 11:39 am

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.

Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 7, 2021 11:50 am

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.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 7, 2021 12:17 pm

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.

M Courtney
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 7, 2021 12:24 pm

I’m sorry Mr Watts but it is certainly not waning below the line.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 7, 2021 1:06 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Notanacademic
April 7, 2021 1:37 pm

Good point.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Notanacademic
April 7, 2021 2:22 pm

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.

geo
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
April 8, 2021 8:42 am

The goal of the climate nonsense is control. With control comes power, with power comes money. That’s pretty much it.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Notanacademic
April 8, 2021 9:26 am

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.

High Treason
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 7, 2021 2:22 pm

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.

TonyG
Reply to  High Treason
April 7, 2021 2:30 pm

“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.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  TonyG
April 8, 2021 6:46 am

Yeah the luke-warmers of covid1984

Jim Whelan
Reply to  TonyG
April 10, 2021 9:17 am

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.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  High Treason
April 7, 2021 5:09 pm

“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.  

TonyG
Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 9, 2021 7:28 am

Makes you wonder why they chose to use it as the standard.

DonM
Reply to  High Treason
April 7, 2021 6:10 pm

“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).

Lee L
Reply to  DonM
April 8, 2021 5:15 am

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.

RelPerm
Reply to  DonM
April 8, 2021 5:33 pm

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.

Gunga Din
Reply to  High Treason
April 7, 2021 6:56 pm

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.

Sommer
Reply to  High Treason
April 8, 2021 5:48 pm

“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?

Joe H
Reply to  High Treason
April 10, 2021 1:00 am

Do you have a link to that paper?

Joe H
Reply to  High Treason
April 10, 2021 1:14 am

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)

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 8, 2021 6:47 am

Oh dear we have a covid1984 luke-warmer in our midst.

Dmacleo
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 8, 2021 7:30 am

About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news

gee you think maybe vaccine stuff is recent news? nah…fool.

Last edited 3 days ago by Dmacleo
Toby Nixon
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 9, 2021 9:06 am

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.

Komeradecube
April 7, 2021 11:39 am

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.

John K. Sutherland.
April 7, 2021 11:48 am

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.

RelPerm
April 7, 2021 11:50 am

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.

A6A2BD6C-B412-4455-A0F5-FE36A04BB09F.jpeg
Reply to  RelPerm
April 7, 2021 11:53 am

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.

M Courtney
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 7, 2021 1:04 pm

So any advice on how to not get the air fryers?

Ed MacAulay
Reply to  M Courtney
April 7, 2021 2:37 pm

Spend more time on porn! The ads will be targeted accordingly.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ed MacAulay
April 7, 2021 7:09 pm

Or search for “Hot Pork!” sites.
(But that give you ads for both … never mind.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 7, 2021 7:03 pm

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?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 7, 2021 7:36 pm

That is one good looking air fryer. Where can I get one?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 12:02 am

Isn’t that Chrissy Teigens? Something there is definitely fried!

Earthling2
Reply to  Abolition Man
April 8, 2021 12:41 am

No, that’s Naomi Oreskes from a few years ago, when she let her hair down.

John Endicott
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 8, 2021 3:31 am

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.

whiten
Reply to  RelPerm
April 7, 2021 12:17 pm

You definitely are a male… a very horny one… dude. 🙂
What were you thinking!

Jerry
Reply to  whiten
April 7, 2021 6:13 pm

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…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jerry
April 10, 2021 6:49 am

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.

Gunga Din
Reply to  whiten
April 7, 2021 7:11 pm

He might have just done a search for a beach vacation spot.
They don’t call it “click bait” for nothing.

whiten
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 7, 2021 11:30 pm

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 🙂.

Gunga Din
Reply to  RelPerm
April 10, 2021 6:52 am

The person you forward the link to will probably not see the same ads you do.
Go ahead and forward!

April 7, 2021 11:55 am

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.

Martin Gibson
April 7, 2021 11:56 am

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.

Earthling2
Reply to  Martin Gibson
April 8, 2021 12:50 am

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Martin Gibson
April 8, 2021 3:51 am

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

Yooper
Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 10, 2021 9:55 am

I use WISE.COM to send $ to our daughter in Northern Ireland. They used to be TransferWise.

RelPerm
April 7, 2021 11:58 am

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.

starzmom
Reply to  RelPerm
April 7, 2021 1:01 pm

I like the concept of tiered rates–one for the Griffs of the commenting readers, something less for those more supportive.

M Courtney
Reply to  starzmom
April 7, 2021 1:52 pm

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.

Drake
Reply to  M Courtney
April 7, 2021 2:07 pm

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.

M Courtney
Reply to  Drake
April 7, 2021 2:28 pm

I’ll say it before others point it out more vehemently.
I am a lefty too.

Climate believer
Reply to  M Courtney
April 8, 2021 1:18 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Climate believer
April 8, 2021 6:51 am

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.

Kevin
Reply to  Drake
April 7, 2021 6:06 pm

Grif has to change his name to Grift.

John in Oz
Reply to  RelPerm
April 7, 2021 5:06 pm

We would lose Griff as those on the Left want everything but paid for with OPM

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  RelPerm
April 7, 2021 7:38 pm

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.

fred250
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 5:09 am

I thought it was one. Never backs up its mindless erroneous bot-like comments.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  RelPerm
April 8, 2021 5:29 am

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.

Tam
April 7, 2021 12:01 pm

Um, who sees advertising on the internet?

Pariah Dog
April 7, 2021 12:04 pm

What about some merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt with “My carbon credits go to WATTSUPWITHTHAT” or something witty.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Pariah Dog
April 8, 2021 7:32 am

I suggested previously a t-shirt:
“Stop Climate Fear, Warmer is Better”

Editor
April 7, 2021 12:12 pm

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!

Christopher Simpson
April 7, 2021 12:16 pm

There are ads?

Bill Rocks
April 7, 2021 12:16 pm

I, too, am very cheap regarding Internet subscriptions but WUWT is certainly worth at least $100 per year. I prefer one payment per year.

John Thorogood
Reply to  Bill Rocks
April 7, 2021 1:30 pm

I’m the same way, happy to contribute a minimum of $100 per year, but prefer one-off payment.

Oldseadog
April 7, 2021 12:24 pm

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.

Erik Magnuson
April 7, 2021 12:31 pm

Consider placing a contributor or supporter label on posts as done with the editors.

PaulH
April 7, 2021 12:32 pm

I don’t mind paypal, but I would like the option to send a donation via eTransfer.

Bill Rudersdorf
April 7, 2021 12:33 pm

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).

Toby Nixon
Reply to  Bill Rudersdorf
April 9, 2021 9:25 am

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!

Last edited 2 days ago by Toby Nixon
Joe Chang
April 7, 2021 12:36 pm

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

sadbutmadlad
April 7, 2021 12:42 pm

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.

ETHAN BRAND
April 7, 2021 12:50 pm

Anthony,et al:. Fine idea to go with donation only…suggest you somehow “tag” those that periodically donate…I would be happy to poney up a extra donation now and again when your budget is stretched.

Note that I was going to make a donation right now…but on my android phone, and no obvious donate button…will do once I am back on my PC. Should be a quick mobile platform edit.

Also, would prefer to have a choice other than PayPal….or even a physical address to send a check or info to make a electronic transfer…eft.

Perhaps consider posting a monthly budget target with a donation progress bar…then if you want to increase…provide a bit of an explanation…and the new target.

I have to believe wuwt has enough support to fund any reasonable budget.

Regards
Ethan Brand

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ETHAN BRAND
April 7, 2021 1:45 pm

“Also, would prefer to have a choice other than PayPal….or even a physical address to send a check or info to make a electronic transfer…eft.”

Me, too. I still write checks.

Randle Dewees
April 7, 2021 12:51 pm

I made my donation for this year ($500). I don’t like monthly installments, maybe it’s because I’m older and just don’t like things that resemble bills.

CD in Wisconsin
April 7, 2021 12:51 pm

I won’t necessarily donate monthly, but I will on a regular basis. Thanks to Anthony, Charles and all the contributors to postings at this website. I have learned quite a bit about climate and energy issues.

I would be happy to see those ads go because their headlines/bylines are (in my opinion) an insult to one’s intelligence. They treat you as though you have the IQ of a child or teenager. I would gladly be a regular contributor to see them go.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 7, 2021 1:48 pm

“They treat you as though you have the IQ of a child or teenager.”

Or an alarmist.

I shouldn’t have said that! 🙂

James Allen
April 7, 2021 12:52 pm

To me, this is like a magazine subscription, I’d donate $25.00 a year to keep it going.

ETHAN BRAND
April 7, 2021 12:58 pm

The donate button did show up, but in an unexpected place. Make it obvious at the top of the home page.
Best
Ethan

ross
April 7, 2021 1:01 pm

Use both methods and you will get a better response, also if you supply a bank a/c deposit number as well its much easier from my end and I find it less intrusive. Each month I do my bill payments and if I have your a/c number in front of me its easy to add a donation without providing too much of my personal info.

rickk
April 7, 2021 1:11 pm

Linux Mint – Free – gives a 10y old laptop the performance of a 1y old laptop – zero bloat

Brave – Free linux browser – no tracking and very fast and zero popup ads unless you opt in for their ad program (for rewards)

LibreOffice – Free MS Office equivalent suite of products – fast, efficient

No more BSOD or annoying ‘strokes’ that windows frequently suffers from

If WUWT goes donations then a one time is preferable

CSinKS
April 7, 2021 1:24 pm

I’ve commented here a few of times over the last decade+ that I’ve been aware of this site, so I am probably more representative of lurkers than an active participant. I use an RSS feed that updates daily, so most of the time all I look at are headlines.

I don’t actually click through an article that often. It’s become clear to me that AGW is a post-scientific topic, and no amount of evidence will sway the True Believers. I do very much appreciate that there are other topics covered on WUWT, and if I look at the things I’ve archived in the RSS feed, almost none of them over the last year or so relate to AGW (nor to the COVID panic).

All that rambling aside, I am one of the many who use an ad blocker. I’ve had too many bad experiences with malicious ads served on sites that I frequent to leave that attack vector open. I’d be willing to participate in a monthly or annual rate, but, to be honest, even $10/month is more than I can justify for the time I spend on WUWT.

Since that’s not a helpful answer – at the level I participate with WUWT, I would be willing to contribute $25/year as a “Lurker Level” member. Maybe I don’t get to participate in the debates in the comments section, but at least I’m not entirely a freeloader.

MarkY
Reply to  CSinKS
April 7, 2021 2:23 pm

I’m with you.

jim2
April 7, 2021 1:36 pm

These ads don’t pop up or interject themselves into posts. They aren’t intrusive. I say, leave them.

John Endicott
Reply to  jim2
April 8, 2021 3:41 am

It isn’t so much the intrusiveness (though the ads that pin themselves to the bottom are somewhat intrusive), it’s the NSFW content of the some of the ads that’s the biggest problem with them, IMHO (see the ad image posted by another user further up the thread for an example of what I’m talking about)

fred250
Reply to  John Endicott
April 8, 2021 5:15 am

“ad image posted by another user further up the thread”

.
Unfortunately, I never get those sort of images 🙁

Last edited 3 days ago by fred250
Mark Pawelek
April 7, 2021 2:10 pm

I don’t have a problem with adverts but they should be ideally ghettoed in a limited area of the screen and should not delay page loading by more than about 20%. Modern adverts become ever more intrusive. A good example is how TV sound volume ratchets up during the advert break. Targeted adverts are actually good. The thing that really annoys me is page loading delays due to pages waiting on advertising content. Finally when the content arrives it’s often not even customized, So one wonders – if it’s just standard advert content why weren’t they caching it better. All-in-all, the most annoying jerks seem to get jobs in advertising and delight in making the user experience ever more miserable.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
April 8, 2021 7:06 am

Funny thing you mention the sound level of TV ads. The other week I was watching a show on Tubi on my Roku and noticed that the ads were actually noticeably quieter than the show I was watching. Not sure if it was Tubi or Roku that was responsible (or just that the show was particularly louder than normal) but it had me thinking “why can’t ads always be like that!”

Earthling2
April 7, 2021 2:13 pm

While I have donated to some of the special causes here in the past, I was really hoping for a Professional version of WUWT, that had exclusive content not available to a ‘free’ version of WUWT. I think it would be a big hit, and I would especially subscribe to something like that, maybe paying $250 a year for a professional subscription.

That way, maybe Griff and the other trolls would have to pay to join, or they would only be able to access the free version of WUWT. That could run in parallel with some of the pro content, but the professional version would perhaps have much more content and perhaps layman courses in specific related climate subjects by educated authors. Or ask an expert a question, and everyone on the pro site gets access to the answer. I have 1001 questions.

Considering what I have learned here the many years I have been hanging around, the best thing I have learnt is critical thinking. And to practise my writing skills. I have to admit that much of my life I was influenced by many sources that I know now to be corrupted, because I hadn’t honed my critical thinking skills. That is probably the most important thing I have learned here, so I will continue to donate from time to time. But I also see so much more opportunity for WUWT to offer some type of professional version that would bring enough funding to continue a free site without advertising for the masses.

M Courtney
Reply to  Earthling2
April 7, 2021 2:32 pm

A professional version would be a bubble.
Try the intellectual agility of academia if you want that.

No way that I would get in. Because I am not from the prevailing political paradigm of the site.

John Endicott
Reply to  M Courtney
April 8, 2021 7:09 am

This site isn’t like the typical lefty sites you’re use to. Unlike those sites, there’s no “cancelling” people for their political views going on here. You’d get in, politically you’d be in the minority, but you’d have no problems getting in.

Smart Rock
April 7, 2021 2:21 pm

I wasn’t even aware that there were ads on WUWT. Apparently using Firefox lets me avoid them. As I continue to learn a lot from the site, it’s definitely worth paying a subscription fee in the future. I just remitted $120 to compensate for lost ad revenues in the past.

Thomas
April 7, 2021 2:39 pm

Keep it free and open to all !!!

Thomas
Reply to  Thomas
April 7, 2021 2:41 pm

If you need more revenue try a having a Patron Membership. I would join for a reasonable annual fee. Say $200. I don’t see any ads on this page. And when I do see them, they are relatively unobtrusive.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Thomas
April 8, 2021 3:58 am

even Patreon is removing certain sites /blogs etc that arent pc enough for the few moaners

Last edited 3 days ago by ozspeaksup
John Endicott
Reply to  Thomas
April 8, 2021 7:11 am

Patreon gives in to cancel culture. Even if WUWT manages to have a Patreon account, I doubt it would be long before Patreon cancelled them. Best to avoid Patreon.

Hal_C
April 7, 2021 2:40 pm

If I don’t want ads like in news sites, I use BRAVE browser.
First and probably last posting.

Bernie
April 7, 2021 3:52 pm

The current version of Malwarebytes kills most advertising. I read WUWT every day and I never see any ads here.

B Clarke
April 7, 2021 4:26 pm

I’d be willing to give 50 notes a year ,once ayear ,pp is ok for me ,also keep in mind pp can if pushed close down payments to individuals and organisations. I don’t contribute much but I sure learn a lot. I see the adds , but if the content of what I’m reading is interesting there not a problem.

Joel O'Bryan
April 7, 2021 4:31 pm

On the ads, I had to switch browsers on my iMac to only viewing WUWT using Firefox, with Firefox set to “strict” privacy and blocking all pop-up preferences settings to stop all the pop-up ads on WUWT. Using Apple’s Safari browser to view WUWT even with all the settings I could lock down and restrict, I could not block all the popup Ads and especially the annoying one at the bottom of the screen that usually covered content. I would click it away and then it kept coming back. Since I went using on Firefox and “strict” setting and block popups, the ads that can make it through are just a few at the side bar.

There is a huige advantage to using two separate browsers in this way since I use G-mail (logged in with my gmail credentials) and watch some Youtube vids occasionally. It means Google can’t ad track me across browsers since I don’t log into Gmail or Youtube on the Firefox browsers, I remain an anonymous visitor anywhere I browse using Firefox. When I’m on Safari, any site I visit Google can track me since that is where my G-mail and Youtube log-in resides with those tracking cookies.

As for sending you money once a year, yeah probably okay. I know there are many many visitors here who would not risk their anonymity by making a donation via credit card, paypal, etc. So I’m not sure that (pay to play) would work for you Anthony and Chrles with the time you have to spend on the moderation and upkeep.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 7, 2021 8:04 pm

“I know there are many many visitors here who would not risk their anonymity by making a donation via credit card, paypal, etc. So I’m not sure that (pay to play) would work for you”

Well, if Anthony will provide an address, I would be happy to send cash as long as Anthony would verify that he received it via email. I would probably prefer doing it that way.

Last edited 3 days ago by Tom Abbott
Keith Rowe
April 7, 2021 4:34 pm

Go with $5 a month for ad free. You would be surprised by how many would. Perhaps an added incentive would be only people who are members can comment. Perhaps a $20 a month for some other benefit, like a gold name plate in comments.

OmniShambles
April 7, 2021 4:59 pm

I am just a permanent Lurker that likes to read people sometimes much smarter than me argue about things I can only begin to grasp. I just like to look at all the pretty graphs.
With that Being Said I would be more than happy to occasionally put a few bucks into a pot if it helps
Would be One-time only every few months.

Michael S. Kelly
April 7, 2021 5:26 pm

I miss the Israeli tourism ads, with that spectacular woman model…it made me want to visit Israel, though my wife could never see the attraction.

The other ads, with the horrific photos that are somehow supposed to be clickbait, I could absolutely do without. I experimented with various adblockers and photoblockers on this site, just so I wouldn’t get physically sick at the sight of toenail fungus, or some other such disgusting thing. Nothing worked satisfactorily. But I’m Jake with a subscription on this site. Not on most other sites, but this one, definitely.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
April 7, 2021 7:43 pm

Download and use Firefox browser for this site and this site only. Set the Privacy restrictions to “Strict” and also check “block pop-ups” and you won’t see that stuff. Use your other browser for other websites where you have user logins like email etc.

Vuk
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 7:03 am

Opera ( the fastest browser-in-the-West ) blocks everything you tell it to do and remembers set-up exceptions for individual websites if you choose to do so.

Last edited 3 days ago by Vuk
Yooper
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 10, 2021 10:15 am

Yeah, I had to stop using Safari because it would hang all the time on here, but not a bunch of news sites I frequent. With Firefox it runs smoothly, and I don’t have the strict privacy setting set, yet.

TonyG
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
April 9, 2021 7:31 am

The apparent “default” ads (when there’s no browser history to use) seem to be the most disgusting things they can provide. I’m a supporter of websites making money, even if via ads – it takes effort to maintain something like this. But the toenail fungus, poop ads, and huge globs of earwax are what prompted me to install an ad blocker.

TRM
April 7, 2021 6:03 pm

I have made donations to specific projects here but not regular contributions.

The ads don’t bother me as I run the extension from adnauseam.io so it clicks on everything but ditches the responses.

ROGER
April 7, 2021 6:08 pm

I’m already donating $5/month, and support multiple sites/YouTube channels; seems to be a sustainable model

Pat from kerbob
April 7, 2021 6:36 pm

Expressing an opinion is part of the package, in my estimation

At 55 I learn new things every day, because I know what I don’t know (a lot) which is the problem with people like Griff.
Everything is the biggest word in the English language, by definition if you know everything you cannot learn anything new.
An abject lesson for all.

I used to think AGW was settled science.

Then I learned, much of it primarily here.

So I would donate.

But I now use an adblocker on chrome and no longer have issues with ads

Dena
April 7, 2021 7:22 pm

I was on a donation based web site for a while and saw the good and the bad. The good was it allowed periodic automatic donations and one time donations. This allowed the member to contribute when and how they wanted to.

The bad was part of the donations weren’t reported and the expenses/needs were a complete mystery. It was especially bad for that site because the owner was living off the money and people had no ideal if they were funding a lavish lifestyle or if ends were barely meeting. I knew most of the time the owner had a pretty lean life but unfortunately she would post picture along with descriptions that suggested otherwise. Honest accounting so people know how their money is spent will encourage donations. This site is more trusted that that site but there may still be some that are unsure how their money will be used.

Tom in Florida
April 7, 2021 7:22 pm

Whatever amount is chosen, I think there should be pro-rated options: annual, semi-annual, quarterly or monthly pay options. Example: if the donation is set at $100 annually, it would be $55 semi-annually, $30 per quarter and $12 monthly.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 7, 2021 8:22 pm

“Whatever amount is chosen”

The amount should be voluntary. Each person should give as they are able.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 4:37 am

Yes, real socialism. Give what you can, take what you need. Fine, except when the entity providing what you take can no longer sustain itself because too many people do not give what they can. Then everyone loses.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 9, 2021 7:53 am

Maybe a couple of “standard” options/suggestions and a “other” option. i.e. $5/month, $10/month, “other”.

jdgalt1
April 7, 2021 7:24 pm

I would chip in $5 a month. I suggest you use a service like SubscribeStar that doesn’t cancel people for politics (vs Patreon which does).

AlexBerlin
April 7, 2021 7:33 pm

In the end, I see no good reason to either have intrusive ads or ask for donations. The makers of this site are the ones who want to tell the world something. THEY have to finance it, and put their money where their mouth is. Not third parties advertising unrelated products. And certainly not those who they want to educate, which would mean an echo-chamber and endless preaching to the converted (already a problem here…). The message must get out to those who currently wouldn’t dream of paying for it, those who disdain, mock, and hate what is published here on this site. It must be pressed on the population by brute force. A site like this must not generate revenue but invest money. If anything, WUWT must PLACE advertisements everywhere on the Net, not carry others’ ads. AFAIK the makers of the site do have real jobs where they do productive work. Writing a blog, even a highly informational and educational one like WUWT, is NOT a honest source of income but something one spends money on. Artists and musicians being paid for making records and appearing in the media instead of having to pay for the privilege has caused the total decadence and ruin of the arts within less than a century already. Scientists asking for donations and grants rather than spending their personal income and wealth on their research has corrupted science no less. I fear that WUWT might be already further down on this slippery slope than it can afford.

John Endicott
Reply to  AlexBerlin
April 8, 2021 3:50 am

must be nice to be independently wealthy Alex. Unfortunately most people who have “real jobs where they do productive work” aren’t so blessed. They have bills to pay.

TonyG
Reply to  John Endicott
April 9, 2021 7:42 am

Only rich people and big corporations get to have a say, I guess.

Granum Salis
April 7, 2021 7:36 pm

I discovered WUWT when this site was mediating the funding of Climate Audit.

Since then, I have gotten far more from WUWT than I have given ( maybe $400 over all those years). I guess I’d feel pretty foolish if it were the other way around!

I’m not sure of the years, but if n=15, at $100 a year, I should cough up that dough; it was worth it. Good luck trying to get that out of me.

So now, every time I click a link, the WaPo or NYT or the Grauniad (okay, not them) or Forbes etc. wants me to give them a yearly stipend so that I can see what the other side is thinking. I have tried that in the past and stopped because it wasn’t worth it.

If WUWT required $300 a year, I would probably balk, but if you had a way for me to click you a Loonie (yes, Canadian Tire money) each day that I visited, you would probably get $350 out of me without any trouble.

As for the other approaches, my frugality would vary inversely to my sense that my contribution was significant; I actually have no idea what it takes to make this all happen.

Happy to pay US$100 a year. Newbies have to be free, somehow.

Joel O'Bryan
April 7, 2021 7:47 pm

Anthony,

My reommendation is you should consider setting up a Patreon account and ask for $5/month for those who frequent WUWT. On Patreon you can be more responsive to your Patreon subscribers requests/comments/questions there too.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 3:54 am

I suggest avoiding Patreon like the plague It has a reputation for cancelling people with political views they disagree with. Subscribe star has a better reputation in that regard.

u.k.(us)
April 7, 2021 7:53 pm

I must have donated $ 500 to WUWT over the last 10 years, and don’t regret a penny of it.
Keep up the good work.

John F Hultquist
April 7, 2021 9:16 pm

I read regularly on about 6 sites. I often give $25 per year to 3 or 4 of them.
With all the other needs I contribute to, that is all I can do now.
I do agree that ads have gotten intrusive compared to the beginning of such on WUWT.
I began at WUWT in 2008.
Best to all, and thanks.
John

Ariadaeus
April 7, 2021 9:54 pm

I use Opera browser and Adblock+ and there are no ads. Adblock is free.

Ariadaeus
April 7, 2021 10:01 pm

A few years ago I made a payment to Paypal using an AMEX card. I later discovered that Paypal had debited the card 4 X £99 for no reason [presumably £100 would have triggered some security breach]. It took me several months to get a refund after a lot of correspondence. I do not do Paypal.

Mike Dubrasich
April 7, 2021 10:38 pm

I heart WUWT. I have a fixed low income and can’t afford much, but I make regular donations. I prefer mailing a check, and I know where to send it — I won’t give the address out because I respect the privacy.

However, in thinking about this, it might be worthwhile for WUWT to get a PO Box just for mail-in donations — with an address you could post online safely — for those of us who don’t do Paypal but still wish to contribute.

Roger Macrury
April 7, 2021 10:52 pm

I’m ambivalent about yearly or monthly. I’m happy to contribute to a blog that you have been running for such a long time that has been valuable world wide. I think something in the order of a magazine subscription cost but somewhat less because there is no paper magazine to publish/post out. Don’t know if that would generate sufficient cash flow.

All the best for the future.

Brad-DXT
April 7, 2021 11:24 pm

Anthony:
You did make me realize that I have read and enjoyed your site for several years and have not contributed to continuing your excellent site. I just rectified that to the best of my ability. Hope it helps keep you going.

Keep up the good work.

sid
April 8, 2021 12:28 am

I love the site. Have no problems with ads. Dont know if its because son added Ad Blocker.
I would find $100 a year rather a lot to find.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  sid
April 8, 2021 2:57 am

That is my thought, paying a regular amount per month would be hard for me to sustain. I actually click on adverts here and other blogs just to create income for the site. I don’t find adverts intrusive as most news sites have them and it’s just part of life on the internet.

I suppose that I shouldn’t expect internet content to be free but I’d actually find more advertising acceptable or free content being available only after a few days delay after subscribers get access.

Abolition Man
April 8, 2021 12:54 am

Anthony and Charles,
Thank you for providing the most interesting and educational site that I know of! I apologize profusely for not biting the bullet sooner, but you now are part my monthly expenses and I will increase the amount when feasible.
The ads are obnoxious, but I don’t really mind them all that much; I tend to scroll right past them even though that redhead does remind me of my first wife!
What would be really great is some merch! There are several charts and graphs, like Hansen’s 2008 GSTA or Nahle’s 570Mya record of CO2 and temps, that would make great educational tools for enlightening those who are still capable of thinking! A full page, laminated chart with some irrefutable facts about geologic history or ocean cycles might really shake the faith of some of the alarmists! Small collections by particular authors or on certain subjects could be another way to attract new people to the site, and T-shirts with the WUWT logo and a catchy slogan would be fun!

Roger Tilbury
April 8, 2021 2:16 am

I just use AdBlock and don’t see ads here or anywhere else.I would keep the advertising even if the returns are small, it’s so easy to get rid of them.

ozspeaksup
April 8, 2021 3:34 am

easier to install adblockers surely
us i mean 😉
if ihad to subscribe to all the sites i visit and thats not many
I simply couldnt go there

Doug Huffman
April 8, 2021 3:39 am

CLEAN OUT YOUR COOKIE FILES FREQUENTLY REGULARLY – DAILY.


Bill S
April 8, 2021 4:12 am

By way of comparison, the WSJ subscription is $40 per month. I choose not to subscribe but NYT appears to be $14.00 per month, WaPo is $10.00 per month. I pay You tube $15.00 per month to avoid ads.

WUWT has a unique value that is different than most other news sources. I learn a great deal from the news articles, but the scientific expertise of many of the commentators is also very valuable to me.

I can easily justify $20 per month, or $240 per year. Do you have data on income levels of your subscribers? Some may find WUWT valuable information, but have less income to work with, Perhaps a discount for your most qualified commenters would make sense, with an understanding that their contribution to WUWT is the value of their comments.

I would be okay paying more than some, because I can contribute cash more readily than expertise. Perhaps those with expertise get a lower price, to keep them as commentators, and their commentary is an important part of the value of that I willingly pay for.

Just a thought that a one size fits all structure may not be the best approach because WUWT is such a unique resource. Many non profits have a hierarchy of levels, Admiral, vice admiral, captain etc, perhaps with a hat, coffee cup etc at each level. Perhaps some version of that is worth considering.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bill S
April 8, 2021 7:20 am

you’re wasting $15/month. I pay youtube $0 and I don’t see any ads there (effective ad blockers are easy to find and don’t cost anything). Suggest instead of paying youtube for something you can accomplish for free, you take that money and donate to WUWT.

Last edited 3 days ago by John Endicott
Editor
April 8, 2021 4:27 am

I got it, I got it! Unfortunately I doubt there’s any blog host that supports it.

I’d be happy to pay some two bits ($0.25!) per comment I make. (Perhaps with “scholarships” for useful or broke participants.)

That might make Griff put his money where his mouth is. 🙂 And cut down on the subsequent flame fests that help discourage me from wading through all the crap comments over the last few years.

fred250
April 8, 2021 5:12 am

Only “ad” type stuff I get are those in the “recommended” column on the right

Very easy to ignore.

MJB
April 8, 2021 5:35 am

I don’t necessarily mind advertisements, even when they make scrolling/reading inconvenient sometimes – sadly I’ve become desensitized to it. However, the number of ads featuring scantily clad or near naked women is a problem. I’m no prude but viewing this site at work (many topics relate directly to my work) has become impossible lest someone be ‘offended’ and question what i am viewing. I use the feedback function to report each such ad as inappropriate but they continue to come up week after week.

John Endicott
Reply to  MJB
April 8, 2021 7:27 am

I feel your pain. The only time I see those ads is on my work PC (where I’m blocked from installing software and add-ons of my choosing, so can’t use any of my usual ad-blockers). One work around is to move your browser window so the parts that are occupied by those ads are off the screen as much as possible.

Gary Ashe
April 8, 2021 6:20 am

Iv’e never seen an advert on this site, i use Ad-blocker so that’s probably why, seriously i never knew there were ad’s on this site, this article came as a surprise to me.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  Gary Ashe
April 8, 2021 7:45 am

I use the Brave browser, which also blocks all advertisements. My worry is that by blocking the ads, WUWT gets no benefit from me frequenting the site.

April 8, 2021 6:43 am

The ads at the bottom always cover content.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Joseph Turell
April 8, 2021 9:46 am

It’s been my experience that you just need to scroll to get to the content being covered. At least on the PC, can’t speak for the experience on a phone.

Dmacleo
April 8, 2021 7:25 am

could leave as is, I run adguard adblocker and u block origin on firefox so ads never bug me. if you leave as is those bothered can just run an ad blocker those ok with it can keep on keeping on.

I do disable them on this site 1 or 2 days a week and click some stuff then re-enable.

I can’t commit to anything, VA disability is my only income, but would try to do some one time things even if its small amount should help.

Last edited 3 days ago by Dmacleo
Vuk
Reply to  Dmacleo
April 8, 2021 8:32 am

Clicks on the ads are supposedly covering some of the cost for running the blog, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”.

geo
April 8, 2021 8:35 am

Just keep the ads. I’d rather sift through a few ads than be hounded for donations. I see and here ads on TV and radio every day, big deal. Try offering an ad free experience for a donation and keep the ads for those who don’t donate.

littlepeaks
April 8, 2021 8:54 am

I am going to break my comments down in two separate posts.

First post: The ads —

  • I often get ads with scantily clothed young ladies, implying if I click on them, I will get more of the same. I get these both on my laptop and PC. One time, my daughter was over here, and asked what those ads were all about. They appear to come from Google, and I reported them once as inappropriate. I tried deleting all cookies on my PC, but that didn’t help. I use Norton 360 on both of these devices.
  • Another irritating ad is an antismoking ad that severely divides up the the WUWT content.
  • Is it possible that your site is being targeted by the companies providing the ad “services”, because they don’t like your content?
John Endicott
Reply to  littlepeaks
April 8, 2021 9:44 am

I’m not bothered by the existence of ads. At home I don’t usually see them (thanks to various ad blocking tools depending on the browser I’m using at the time). The problem is the content of some of the ads. The “scantily clothed young ladies” ads are problematic for those using their work PCs (where ad blocking tools that they use at home may not be an option). They’re what’s known as NSFW (Not Safe For Work).

littlepeaks
April 8, 2021 9:11 am

Second post:

Before you ask for donations, how much is required for WUWT to stay afloat (report as two categories (501C3 and non-501C3)? I would probably make a one-time donation anyway.

If you are looking at 501C3 status:

  • What reason(s) would you use to justify 501C3 in your application?
  • What restrictions would be placed on WUWT?
  • The IRS takes time to process 501C3 applications. Your application may be delayed, since the current administration probably doesn’t agree with your climate opinions.
  • Are there any other climate organizations that have successfully applied for 501C3 status? What reason(s) did they use to justify 501C3 status? Beside using the IRS web site, charitynavigator.org is a good site to search.
  • If you do become a 501C3, it would be good for you to register with charitynavigator.org — supposedly they will performed a nonbiased evaluation of your organization, based on the information you provide them. The information you provide is available for the public to see, and may increase (or decrease) contributions to WUWT.

Good luck!!!! 😎

April 8, 2021 9:11 am

For me the most annoying ads are the ones that are endlessly repeated in between every paragraph.

Ellin
April 8, 2021 9:40 am

To make your WUWT experience even better, you can also install the ‘I don’t Care About Cookies’ extension to rid yourself of that accursed EU cookie warning. You still get the cookies, but this nifty bit of magic accepts them without you having to hit that stupid ‘accept’ button every time you come to this site, or any other site – it works for all but one site that I use. I clear my browser info every day, so I get the cookie warning every day… well, I used to….

https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

colin p smith
April 8, 2021 9:40 am

A couple of points on the need for ad. removal and the the donation other vote.

Ads. don’t bother me one bit. I view on a desktop PC with a modest monitor.

Donations? Hmm, I suspect that anything at the levels you are suggesting is going to substantially reduce traffic, especially those sceptical-curious who are the people one needs to draw in.
By sceptical-curious I mean knowledge-seeking default-concensus people.
I certainly would never have come here initially if there was a paywall.

Others have suggested a two tier access – free with ads or donation supported add free. That might be a suitable optimisation.

John Endicott
Reply to  colin p smith
April 9, 2021 3:06 am

don’t confuse donation (with is entirely voluntary) with pay-to-play (a paywall). As I understand it, Anthony is suggesting a donation model not a paywall. (for those in the US or familiar with US television, think “PBS pledge drive” – PBS is mostly ad-free and you don’t have to donate to get access to PBS, however periodically PBS will “encourage” you to donate via pledge drives).

colin p smith
Reply to  John Endicott
April 9, 2021 9:43 am

Ah, thanks John. As you were 🙂

TonyG
Reply to  John Endicott
April 9, 2021 3:50 pm

That’s what it looks like to me, and if regular donation gets rid of the ads I’m all for it.

However, I disagree with your statement that “PBS is mostly ad-free” – if you account for the inter-show ads for their own shows and the block at the beginning and end for the sponsors, you end up with shows about the same length as regular ad-driven TV. Just not broken up in the middle.

April 8, 2021 9:58 am

I donate when I feel a bit richer and the markets are up.
I think donation is the way to do, then you can scrap 90% of the cookies as well

CapitalistRoader
April 8, 2021 12:01 pm

Two clicks to shut them off. Ad’s are fine.

April 8, 2021 2:35 pm

I just set up $10 monthly contribution via Paypal.

angech
Reply to  Sam Grove
April 8, 2021 4:00 pm

skinflint.[me]
Ads can be inappropriate and intrusive at times but if needed for site finance so be it.
3 different demographics.
General public is very important but will not pay.
suggested rates are far too high, sorry.
Will try to get the energy up to make a donation as you do a very good job.
Thanks for coming back to it and all the effort you, Charles, Willis and the rest of the team put in.

John Endicott
Reply to  angech
April 9, 2021 3:17 am

pretty much agree with you there angech. As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m not particularly bothered by ads, so intrusiveness isn’t much of an issue. It’s the inappropriate ads that I take issue with. Not out of offense – like most healthy straight males, I don’t mind the seeing the occasional “scantily clothed young ladies” (as one poster described the ads) but rather because most places of employment are not so keen on such images appearing on their screens.

In short, if it wasn’t for the inappropriate ads, I’d be all for keeping the ads, they’re easy enough to ignore or block most of the time.

As for donations, I see nothing wrong with the suggested pre-set amounts so long as there’s also a “one-time donation” option that lets one pay any amount they want so that those who can’t or won’t do a recurring donation (be it monthly or yearly) can donate as much as they want (or can afford) whenever they want.

RickWill
April 8, 2021 5:10 pm

I have personally benefitted from discussions on WUWT in refining my understanding of the surface temperature control processes that regulate Earth’s energy balance.

That has enabled me to clearly identify the glaring failure of climate models. Specifically every model is making ridiculous hindcast cooling of the Nino34 region to match the current temperature while still maintaining a warming trend where there is no warming trend.

Beyond that, what can WUWT offer? Does WUWT have any scientific merit that policy makers should view as valuable and be paying for? Who is willing to pay for a scientific understanding of the climate rather than “modelled” predictions? Is WUWT an educational blog? What is the endgame for WUWT; how will it evolve? How can WUWT develop robust funding?

I do get some entertainment value and am willing to part with AUD100/year for that.

My only problem with the adds is when a paragraph that I have spent time composing gets wiped. I think that occurs with pop-ups but may be the result of other posts occurring while I am composing.

April 8, 2021 6:27 pm

Your advertising revenue has fallen because your visitors are skeptics, in the best sense of the word. “Invest in Amazon: with Just $250 You Could Get an Extra Income.” Sorry, I’m skeptical. “Men: Forget the Blue pill ….” Sorry I’m skeptical. “granny remove wrinkles with $5 tip?” Still Skeptical. Your readers like this site because they get to read a lot of back ground information on an important issue. There are graphs and even formulas. That’s okay. we like to study before making big decisions. we think about our decisions and weight the evidence. Advertisers hate people like us. The only way to sell us something is to provide a well made product at a reasonable cost. That’s no way to make a fast buck.

Darrin
April 8, 2021 6:46 pm

One time annual payment at the most for me. I don’t do subscriptions and haven’t for a long long time. They are to easy to forget about and to many made it extremely difficult to cancel.

You might want to consider the model some sites do where pay for ad free experience but still allow free viewing with ads. If you go pure subscription you’ll lose the curious visitors who then get hooked on the site.

Steve
April 8, 2021 8:13 pm

Sign up as a Brave Browser rewards creator (https://creators.brave.com/) and visitors can contribute while surfing.

Sunsettommy
Editor
April 8, 2021 9:31 pm

Just Donated $50 by using the Donate button at top right corner of this page.

It took me just 2 minutes to do it and easy too using the Debit card.

Lowell
April 8, 2021 9:42 pm

I am currently giving 50 twice a year. I can switch to monthly if it adds up to 100.

I had to use an add blocker because the adds were slowing me down to where this site was acting like molasses on a cold day. In the past they also have tried to slip in adds that would try to get me to download and install software. Thankfully I never agreed no matter how alarming the message was.

u.k.(us)
April 8, 2021 10:37 pm

Most of my ads are scantily clad redheads, what’s not to like ??

 “No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength.”

OldCynic
April 9, 2021 2:31 am

Charles, Anthony:
AUD$100 annually is OK with me (age 67)
I don’t like monthly payments
I do NOT like Paypal.
Debit card, credit card, or better still BPAY would be fine.
I believe you need to make a distinction between financial supporters – who can post comments – and the impoverished, or occasional visitors, who can read and learn but not contribute.

Russ Wood
April 9, 2021 4:10 am

Well, I live in South Africa, on a rapidly diminishing (because of inflation) pension, and we’re on the wrong end of the Rand/dollar exchange rate. I intend to donate a lump whenever there is some free cash, but although I really appreciate your blog, I am unable to commit to any regular payment. Right now, after paying lump sum insurance, plus whatever will be demanded as excess after my last hospitalisation, I seem to be suffering from “Too much month at the end of the money” syndrome. Let’s see what I can do in future months, because I frequently refer to “wattsupwiththat” when local warmists demand sources for my ‘denialism’

Michael
April 9, 2021 5:41 am

Anthony the only ads that I don’t like on this site are the Google ads that show up in a box at the bottom of the page. These ads make it harder for me to read the article and I always X them out. But it is a pain to do so.

TonyG
April 9, 2021 7:26 am

I’ve seen proposals to only allow “members” to comment, and some comments about “only if this type of post stops”

I fully disagree with both of those. One of the best things about WUWT is the ability for anyone to freely comment and the extremely light touch on moderating. Another great thing is the way it’s open to sharing many different positions and opinions, opening them up for discussion. Moving away from that model would, IMO, ruin the site.

I’ve also seen a proposal for something like an ad-removal pass. I would be 100% behind that and would get on. $5/month for no ads wouldn’t even be a question for me.

Randle Dewees
April 9, 2021 7:32 am

Lots of comments. And sifting thru them I think it comes down to voluntary contributions as the way forward. I’ve gone on record as not liking subscriptions, and some of the subscription vehicules are problematic anyway.

Over the last few years as I’ve disengaged from making a living and started paying more attention to what’s going on, I’ve stepped up my monetary support for things that effect me. Political campaigns, candidates, political pressure groups. So, where before I might sent $25 or $50, I now send $200 or $500. Because it makes a difference. I have friends of the same political ilk that send nothing. They can afford to but they are tight, I sometimes wonder if they have ever bought a round. But they talk talk talk about how crappy it all is. I suggest to them they send some money and they look at me like I just grew a third ear.

Among other causes I send WUWT money on a semi regular basis, more this year because of the platform difficulties. In the future I plan to donate at an increased level. I think it’s an important Blog, and I want it to stay healthy. I don’t care about the ads, I just ignore them. If the income from them is so marginal as to be useless I’m sure we won’t see them.

It’s time to support what you care about. I hate to call what we are going through a war, but we are in a great struggle, and it’s time for people to pick a side and do something.

Last edited 2 days ago by Randle Dewees
Brad
April 9, 2021 9:08 am

If it was me and would offer multiple tiered amounts/frequency if possible, barrier free support

James Binkowski
April 9, 2021 11:43 am

I voted “other” with the understanding that I could leave comment. But, the opportunity to leave a comment was not apparent in the voting procedure. Some of us are living on a fixed income. So, I would suggest you have an annual fundraising period (Like PBS) where you ask for donations to make a goal. Then even the poorest of us could make a pledge. Otherwise, I guess it the same old story of “Money talks, Poverty walks”.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  James Binkowski
April 10, 2021 4:48 am

That is a good idea. However, what are the legal requirements for WUWT for this? Are there any restrictions or does WUWT have to comply with being a non-profit to do so?

TonyG
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 10, 2021 7:44 am

I’m not sure of the laws in CA since leaving, but at the federal level, even a “for-profit” business can solicit donations. It’s no different than any other source of revenue. “Non-profits” get certain tax benefits. The big deal about the 501(c)(3) is that it’s the only type of organization (or one of a very few types) that allows the donations to be deducted from taxes.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  TonyG
April 10, 2021 8:00 pm

I get all that my question was more to how WUWT is structured as a business for income tax purposes. Is it a business or a personal blog?

renbutler
April 9, 2021 12:12 pm

I was considering sending a contribution through my Brave browser, but it appears that WUWT is not set up to receive tips at this time.

I do not see ads, but I would make up for it if I could tip. I probably won’t get around to donating otherwise.

Myron
April 9, 2021 6:47 pm

The ads don’t annoy me as much as the format change did. I just find the new one completely less appealing, especially the font change.

John MacDonald
April 9, 2021 9:40 pm

I vote for solicited once a year donations, say $20. OR, for small monthly donations, say $2 to $5.
I subscribe to the idea that small amounts times very many donations will always be larger that large donations a few times/people.
I also believe that open and honest expression of need catches more fish. Tell us how much you need: to run the site; to pay your expenses; to make a profit? Lay out the business case.
I’ve helped in the past and am willing to help again.
Please keep up the good work.

Joseph Zorzin
April 10, 2021 4:28 am

The ads on this site are the most aggressive I’ve seen anywhere- especially the one that splatters itself across the bottom of the screen. I don’t mind if there are some on the side of the screen as long as they don’t flash at you.

I don’t really think it costs all that much to run a site like this but maybe I’m wrong.

Dave
April 10, 2021 7:37 am

So essentially you have been driven out of the public arena. Hidden behind a pay screen. Another great victory or the alarmists.

TonyG
Reply to  Dave
April 10, 2021 11:50 am

Where do you get that from? There may be COMMENTS suggesting restricting access but that’s not mentioned in the article.

Jim M
April 10, 2021 7:57 am

Just donated. Keep up the good work either with or without ads. You guys keep me sane in a world gone mad.

ATheoK
April 10, 2021 2:44 pm

I’ve donated when I could and in amounts I can handle.

  • Meat has near doubled in price.
  • Vegetables have more than doubled in price.
  • Fuel costs are rising.
  • Electricity prices are leaping.
  • Anything else of substance and made in a country that I trust is much more expensive.
  • Services are more expensive

As a fixed income retiree and a government consumer price index that does not track increased prices at the consumer level, I can not expect any benefit from consumer price index increases to payments.

If you decide to exclude us poorer folks, so be it.

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.”

Fewer beginners, newbies or terminally stupid people are clicking ads. Increasing ad frequency is part of the path to a total burnout for that ad revenue. It is exactly the type of decision made by marketing majors instead of aiming for higher quality products in their ads.

What’s worse in the ad-stream is that a greater frequency of ads generally reflects cheaper pricing for the ads.
Lower pricing, greater frequency of even more absurd advertisements promising everything from better health, instant wealth, amazing increases in sexual prowess and attractiveness.

Next will be psychic predictions from California, amazing Weddell seals predicting more global warming, polar bears drinking Coca-Cola, cannibal penguins and great white sharks that want to communicate with Biden…

Especially alarming, is whether any of the techie semi-deities, e.g. googly are tampering with the revenue clicks, which they are known to do; e.g. shadow banning, revenue blocking, etc.

None of which allows WUWT a decent revenue source.

Is there any way to charge bot owners for every incursion their bots make?
I like the idea of charging googly, faucebook, binged, twitty and others for their invasive data collecting software… A penny per character, a dollar for every image, entire articles for 1500 bucks?

Russell Robles-Thome
April 11, 2021 4:16 am

Set the smallest monthly fee which might support your budget needs. Hint: You are not worth nearly as much as Netflix.

%d bloggers like this: