Some people seem really upset that I've run some ads lately so I thought I would address them.
The reason I've done so is to cover the cost of the blog and other efforts. It costs money to host and to use typepad at the level I do, there are occasional FOIA requests [which in DC are free but for which I often have to pay for printing and in other places are not always free] and things like the Velocipede Race (which was a total bust, but left me with a box full of trophies that I donated to a worthy cause). So I'm hoping people don't begrudge me for trying to break even on all of that. And I feel better taking money from advertisers than through a tip jar. If bike shops and bicycle lawyers were beating down my door to advertise with me, I'd much rather go with them, but there you have it.
As for the DUI lawyer, I thought long and hard about that ad. In the end my thinking was that an ad for DUI lawyers makes the case that 1) Getting a DUI is serious business - you don't need a lawyer for a parking ticket 2) Lots of people get caught - so many that it's worthwhile for a lawyer from out of state to advertise on DC's 4th-8th best biking blog to get their name out there. I figured that ads for DUI lawyers probably make people think "I should not drink and drive" not "Wow, I can drink and drive and totally get away with it." I would not have run an ad for a license plate cover meant to allow one to thwart red-light and speeding cameras, but a lawyer is not meant to help you get away with a crime, even if that's sometimes what happens.
In the end, if the ads feel like a distraction, just don't read them.
4th - 8th best? U R # 1 !
Posted by: Roy | August 31, 2017 at 11:02 PM
I thought the drunk driver lawyers' ad was something from the Onion. I guess the drunks need lawyers, but they should be hanged from lightpoles and their bodies left to bloat in the sun.
Posted by: David Blair | September 01, 2017 at 12:27 AM
@David Blair - Only after they are found guilty in a court of law
@WashCycle the adverts thus far have been more entertaining than annoying. If it keeps the blog rolling its all good.
Posted by: Riley | September 01, 2017 at 10:28 AM
It's a surprise to me that they think it's worth the money. Once I had someone pay to add a link ad to an old post for a ridiculous amount of money - like "Honey we're going on vacation" kind of money. It made absolutely no sense. I was pretty sure I was unwittingly part of a plan to export meth to Switzerland or something.
Posted by: Washcycle | September 01, 2017 at 10:35 AM
The ads bother me a little, but then I think about all the time and effort you put in (a ton!) and what I pay to enjoy the blog (nothing!), and on net I'm super appreciative.
Thanks for keeping the blog going all these years!
Posted by: jmarcusse | September 01, 2017 at 12:28 PM
I'm more bemused than upset. The ads look like editorial content, and the calls to action are so subtly written that it's difficult to tell who the ad's for. I wasn't even sure whether they were intentional or the product of a link-spamming hacking effort, or even just unknowably subtle satire.
Does the ad network tell you who the ads are for? (Perhaps not—these look like SEO copy aimed at search engines, rather than consumer-oriented advertisements.) Would it be possible to identify the advertiser?
Posted by: David R. | September 01, 2017 at 12:40 PM
I'm not entirely sure. It goes through a go between. But it's identified as an ad up front.
Posted by: Washcycle | September 01, 2017 at 01:38 PM
Weird. Maybe someone was trying to launder money and had to look it up in the dictionary, a la Office Space. So they tried, but they were doing it wrong.
Posted by: DE | September 01, 2017 at 01:55 PM
I'm not anti-ad, since this blog has to pay for itself somehow.
I'm glad it was identified as an ad, but the thing that threw me off is that it wasn't clear who was paying for the ad. I don't understand why a lawyer in Rockford, IL would pay for an ad on a DC bike blog.
Posted by: Roo_Beav | September 01, 2017 at 02:19 PM
These aren't ads, not in the sense that real human beings are supposed to read them. Rather, they're intended for search engines like Google.
The key part is that text that says "Rockford DUI lawyer" with a link to the attorney's website. That one link is supposed to make this particular attorney more likely to show up in searches for "Rockford DUI lawyer."
WashCycle is a reputable site with substantive content, and search engines will tend to give those outbound links relatively high weight. That's especially true because the ads contain text that looks as if it has value to a reader.
SEO magic. I see the entire field of SEO optimization as akin to snake-oil sales–shady and ineffective–but there are worse things in the world.
Posted by: David R. | September 02, 2017 at 01:40 PM
In my opinion you do not need to justify the ads to your readers. You have created a well-visited site with high quality content. Kudos to you!
Posted by: Sam | September 02, 2017 at 06:19 PM
These particular ads tend to be a bit puzzling when they show up, but of course you're entitled to post them, no complaints here!
And thanks to David R., whose explanation makes perfect sense, they're now a little less puzzling. If they want to leverage the credibility of this blog (and its august readership), then they should pay handsomely for the privilege.
Posted by: Shalom | September 03, 2017 at 08:45 PM
What are your rates?
Posted by: Eric | September 05, 2017 at 04:08 PM