« Work to begin next month on W&OD and Custis Trail Safety Improvements | Main | Southeast Boulevard Project restarts the EA phase »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

4th - 8th best? U R # 1 !

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.

@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.

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.

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!

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?

I'm not entirely sure. It goes through a go between. But it's identified as an ad up front.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

What are your rates?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader