[Closed] Susan Tully

I stood next to her in IKEA once ...

I bet that has made your day

Susanne innit?
I've seen that on loads of different sites. Funnily enough I don't see it on this one.

Yup, that and invitations to click a link to look at a former soap actor who is apparently 36 which might be "heartbreaking". It's still better than ads for far-right merch sites.

Has anyone mentioned subscribing yet? 😉

I keep getting ads for those shitingly pretentious backpacks that were on a PSA a few weeks back, didnae even click on the ****in thing!

There's ad's

Ha, i always enjoy those "what she did next was amazing" type links. Never clicked on one though. I always feel it would leave me underwhelmed.

Has anyone mentioned subscribing yet?

No but I'm sure someone would mention the fact you get signed out when you move between devices if they did.

So the current Susan Tully as I'm seeing on this page says 'Susan Tully used to be beautiful in the 80s, now it's hard to look at her.'

Wrong on a number of levels.

I remember her from sex ed videos in school but it seems she's now a successful TV director so good on her.

Those stupid ads that come up when you click a link for a thread and for some reason STW decides you clicked a link for an advert give me one of two things - horse riding lessons or erotic manga cartoon subscriptions.

Is there a way to stop just those interstitial adverts on mobile?

I keep getting ads for those shitingly pretentious backpacks that were on a PSA a few weeks back, **** thing!

Me too.

And bloody Thrudork as well 🙁

Is there a way to stop just those interstitial adverts on mobile?

Yeah, a really easy one. Costs about the same price as a pint of beer a month.

It says more about you and your 'habits' than STW 🙂

Tell me more about the ' shitingly pretentious backpacks'.

I remember her from sex ed videos

Are you not confusing her with Paula Ann Bland?

Yeah, a really easy one. Costs about the same price as a pint of beer a month.

I've made my choice about what I do and don't subscribe to each month, thanks. You have to draw the line somewhere, and for me STW is over that line.

Yeah, a really easy one. Costs about the same price as a pint of beer a month.

It's like some paradoxical proverb though.

I am logged in, therefore I will be logged out.

erotic manga cartoon subscriptions.

I think that might just be you, I just get eurocarparts!

I’ve made my choice about what I do and don’t subscribe to each month, thanks. You have to draw the line somewhere, and for me STW is over that line.

That’s easy then - you pay a subscription and you don’t get served with ads (when logged in). You want someone else to effectively pay your subscription then you get served with ads. That’s how media on the internet largely works.

I keep getting ads for those shitingly pretentious backpacks

Nah, it's all gone full Thrudark for me now.
#jointhebrotherhood

I'm one of the mature aged ones on here almost a sexagenarian so remember her from Grange hill but never ever fancied her even with the raging hormones going on back then

Have you seen the ones that say Susan (what is it about Susans?) Boyle is beautiful now?
If anyone's clicked on that can you tell me if it's true please?

Is there some sort of plugin I can install which blocks posts whining about advertising on a commercial website?

I’m one of the mature aged ones on here almost a sexagenarian so remember her from Grange hill but never ever fancied her even with the raging hormones going on back then

Never really watched Grange Hill - the last thing I wanted to do after getting out of school was watch another one on TV - but I had a fleeting crush on her in Eastenders days. One of the red-tops ran a photoshoot with her and I think that's what set me off.

She went from starring in Grange Hill and EastEnders, to becoming a successful producer and director. A stark contrast to Lee MacDonald, who played Zammo Macguire in GH. And what happened to 'Nasty Nick Cotton' actor John Altman ('ello ma...')? One of the all time best EE actors, in my opinion.

Nasty Nick was in one of those Z Listers live in India programs. He didn't come across well. Mind none of them did a bit too gammony or about to disappear up their own fundament.

I saw Tucker as the baddy in a panto a few years ago. He was really good.

I’m one of the mature aged ones on here almost a sexagenarian so remember her from Grange hill but never ever fancied her even with the raging hormones going on back then

You would have been closer to 18 when she started as a 13 year old in 1981, if not a little older? Hardly a surprise you didn't fancy her. (The only reason I noticed the age disparity is that I'm the same age as her.)

I was in 1st year at high school when it started and I think she was one of the original ones along with tucker
Must have been about 1974

Ok I take it back I'm getting her mixed up with someone else

Is there some sort of plugin I can install which blocks posts whining about advertising on a commercial website?

You could just not click the links! However, this might actually be useful for staff/mods/ex-mods who are members and manage to stay logged in - as you don't see the ads - this one is the sort of distasteful clickbait that's popular on the website of a newspaper that STW has decided not to support direct links to! Check @Spin's post above for the particular wording. It the sort of content that if repeatedly posted in the forum would get ban hammers waved - so STW might not want to permit it the ads either. I'm sure there's a "report this add" link but its not obvious.

So the current Susan Tully as I’m seeing on this page says ‘Susan Tully used to be beautiful in the 80s, now it’s hard to look at her.’

Wrong on a number of levels.

Very wrong indeed. A quick google reveals terrible 80's hair and clothing. Not a good look for anyone.

I was in 1st year at high school when it started and I think she was one of the original ones along with tucker
Must have been about 1974

TBH I think Claire was the yummy one and didn't she go on to do something tasteful with a dolphin ripping her bra off ?
(Or was that one of my fantasys)

Ahh question is shall I watch it and be carried back to the times of my yoof 🙂

The Fruit Machine is a unique film, a fantasy that is also a murder thriller, with overtones of The Little Mermaid, via Splash, a gay romance and the best striptease ever filmed! It is unmistakably of the 80s in every shot - the clothes, the day-glo look, bright lighting often with neon strips

I'm a subscriber now so I'm allowed to moan. The thing I don't get is, running a website hasn't suddenly become incredibly expensive has it? How come websites used to be able to exist without such intrusive, often borderline scammy advertising?

TBH I think Claire was the yummy one and didn’t she go on to do something tasteful with a dolphin ripping her bra off ?

[url= https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097550/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_8 ]I Bought a Vampire Motorcycle[/url] 🙂

You could just not click the links!

Of course, because a thread entitled "Susan Tully" is very clearly a complaint about adverts.

STW might not want to permit it the ads either. I’m sure there’s a “report this add” link but its not obvious.

I do not believe for a moment that any regular poster is unaware how to report potentially problematic advertising. Mark's email is common knowledge. Tech's email is common knowledge. There's a 'help' button on literally every page on the website. And there's an FAQ on the forum.

The thing I don’t get is, running a website hasn’t suddenly become incredibly expensive has it?

Because they aren't "running a website."

How come websites used to be able to exist without such intrusive, often borderline scammy advertising?

Because it's not expensive to run a website if you've got five visitors a month and you don't have a dozen salaries to pay. On the other hand, if you need to handle subscriptions, merchandise, editorials, articles, payroll, finances...

GoFar is first and foremost a content publisher. We're lucky the forum exists, up until STW's recent integration of the forum with the articles I was constantly amazed that it was considered to be worth the hassle.

Of course, because a thread entitled “Susan Tully” is very clearly a complaint about adverts.

Ironically, anyone who sees ads would know that's what it was about as it was all over the site!

I do not believe for a moment that any regular poster is unaware how to report potentially problematic advertising.

You can not believe all you want - but I'm a regular here and I seem to recall there's a different process for reporting ads from reporting posts, and its not visible on the page when the ads are displayed (at least on a mobile device). So what you are expecting is the users to remember where some hidden features is and go look that out for "you"?

Mark’s email is common knowledge. Tech’s email is common knowledge.

Is it? I think you overestimate the attention level of your users - I'm sure I could find it if I really wanted to.

There’s a ‘help’ button on literally every page on the website. And there’s an FAQ on the forum.

There is. It literally doesn't mention advertising at all. It mentions technical problems - and a form to report them. I know STW is small but I assume that the "technical team" are not making the decisions on which levels of scummy advert are acceptable.

I knew what the thread was about as soon as I saw the title because I too have been swamped by these particular ads.
I don't really mind the ads, I try and block them, they try and evade the block- it's a dance, but those particular ads are nasty, rude clickbait.
I'll be honest and say I thought better of STW than that, it's all very well saying the ads pay for the site so you can avoid them by paying, or you have no say on the individual ads, but if they are on your site you could at least check and remove the worst of them.

Totally agree.

Nobody minds  'Buy Daz,  it gets your whites whiter than white' or The New Ford Focus: exactly the same as the old one but with an updated glovebox etc etc

These type of 'ads' are just disgusting and drag down the site and just make the internet even more unpleasant than it is already.

I knew what the thread was about as soon as I saw the title because I too have been swamped by these particular ads.

Ditto. It just makes the site look like a cheap tabloid newspaper imo.

As above, this is the filler crap you find on local newspaper sites and, of course, the infamous sidebar of shame.

Honestly, the ads have been much better lately from a technical standpoint but clickbait aimed at the lowest common denominator isn't a good look.

Ironically it appeared 8 times through this thread - although it mercifully disappeared when I logged in.

She was great in the Human League 😂

I too have no idea who she is, but have 8 adverts for her on page 1 of this thread.

STW (as much as I love it) it's also the only website I've visited that makes my macbook try to take off, and I spend plenty of time on MS Teams, which seems pretty heavy on the old CPU usage versus a regular Web forum in theory...

BTW it's "I single mom" that apparently 'sponsors' the advert, if that helps the dev team

I grew up with Grange Hill so I know who she is (never watched Eastenders) Irrespective of these shitty click bait ads it’s ace to see she became an accomplished director though I only spotted it earlier this year watching the credits for Line of Duty (??).

STW (as much as I love it) it’s also the only website I’ve visited that makes my macbook try to take off, and I spend plenty of time on MS Teams, which seems pretty heavy on the old CPU usage versus a regular Web forum in theory…

Distributed cryptocurrency mining, just saying.......

No but I’m sure someone would mention the fact you get signed out when you move between devices if they did

It's that still a thing, mine seems to have fixed itself and I only need to log on occasionally, not sure if it's once a week or once every three, but it's not twice a day any more!!!

I'm a proper skinflint and even I subscribe.

But I didn't think STW directly controlled the advertising content anyway do they? They hand over some banners to what essentially is an agency who populate that based in the type of site, and the cookies in your browser...

If you get nasty clickbaity objectifying shite it may, in part, be down to what you've been looking at elsewhere and partly due to the main user demographic for STW being 'gentlemen of a certain vintage'...

It’s that still a thing, mine seems to have fixed itself and I only need to log on occasionally, not sure if it’s once a week or once every three, but it’s not twice a day any more!!!

Yes, every time I move to a different device I need to log in.

But I didn’t think STW directly controlled the advertising content anyway do they?

All internet publishers are accountable for the content they publish. They sometimes try to hide behind the “we just provide the space” defence, but STW have banned other adverts.

If you get nasty clickbaity objectifying shite it may, in part, be down to what you’ve been looking at elsewhere

I’m 99% certain that advert was not served to me because of any previous browsing history. Some of the ads I see are, but some are definitely not. Suggesting it’s the users fault is not helping STW to get high quality advertisers who might actually get clicks and maximise revenue.

I know its just a crappy advert but what a hateful thing to say about anybody. It's amazing how people think they can say/write anything they like whilst hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

Yes, every time I move to a different device I need to log in.

I seem to be able to bounce between my phone and desktop and only have to log in once a month or so?

If you get nasty clickbaity objectifying shite it may, in part, be down to what you’ve been looking at elsewhere

I assumed this kind of dross was what was served up after you'd rejected all cookies and the advertisers were scraping the barrel for advertisers who would pay peanuts to put them in front of anyone.

may, in part, be down to what you’ve been looking at elsewhere

Nope, I can guarantee those clickbait links are not targeted advertising. They're not even advertising anything, just take you to some shitty sub-reddit type website and usually to something nothing to do with the actual piece of garbage you've just clicked on.
Maybe STW gets a few pence for everyone who accidentally clicks on one as their phone screen is refreshing?

Just to clarify, as far as I know STW don't sell ads on a singular basis. Like most websites of this type (and I also work in this industry) the ads are handled by programmatic exchanges. Essentially STW pass their collateral onto programmatic exchanges whereby advertisers bid for the right to occupy the available space, based on content, user type etc. It's all automated and STW have very little say into the add that actually run (though I believe that they would be able to ban certain types or class of ads, though the process would be time consuming).

The reason websites like STW do this is that the alternative (salaried salespeople flogging ads) isn't cost effective. So the ads that run are the ones that bid the highest for your attention. As I understand it some aspects of it can be tailored to your particular browsing history, particularly if you're permanently signed into Google or facebook.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The fact that there are people out there who are willing to derive such benefit from a forum such as this and yet are unwilling to cough up a couple of quid A MONTH to support it is shameful. It reflects far worse on you than it does on a business like STW which occasionally has to make commercial accommodations in order to keep the lights on

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The fact that there are people out there who are willing to derive such benefit from a forum such as this and yet are unwilling to cough up a couple of quid A MONTH to support it is shameful. It reflects far worse on you than it does on a business like STW which occasionally has to make commercial accommodations in order to keep the lights on

You forgot to mention the failure to understand/remember what is explained every single bloody time the subject comes up.

But seriously, if you don't like the ad content, stop visiting the forum. If you want to visit the forum, pay the pittance so that ads like these go away.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The fact that there are people out there who are willing to derive such benefit from a forum such as this and yet are unwilling to cough up a couple of quid A MONTH to support it is shameful

Why is that, then?

THIS THING I GET FOR FREE AND USE FOR SEVERAL HOURS A DAY EVERY DAY ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!

Aside from the morally bankrupt adblocking choice, all readers have three options. They can subscribe to support the site, or they can put up with the adverts.

Faulty adverts are a different matter. Report them and they will be hunted down.

I've spoken with Mark about this previously and there is little more he would like in the world than to do away with a reliance on third-party advertising networks. It is a massive pain in the bollocks but a necessary evil.

Aside from the morally bankrupt adblocking choice, all readers have three options. They can subscribe to support the site, or they can put up with the adverts.

Who is saying that there shouldn't be adverts?

I thought @Mark had maybe blocked this ad, but I see it’s back again.

Does anyone know if there is a time delay before the close button works on the between pages ads on mobile? I keep thinking my device has frozen...

Are the freeloaders moaning again?

Is the service they're not paying anything for not living up to their expectations?

As I said it looks more in place in the Daily Mail site so if you think that's a good look crack on by all means. I was just under the impression STW had a little more moral fibre than that.

I'd also like a direct quote where I asked for no ads.

Thanks for the usual unsurprising level of attentention. Rant on.

I use to subscribe and still got ad’s. so cancelled.

I only use the forum, no interest in the articles

Maybe you could compile a list of adverts you approve of and deem worthy of your delicate sensibilities, then email it in to the STW staff for them to make it so?

Alternatively, you could pay the less than 2 quid a month so that you don't have to look at any adverts at all, and also support the mag/site you spend so much time on?

Just a thought...

I see disapproving of generally offensive and demeaning ads is worthy of ridicule now.

It's all your own fault, apparently.

How many subscription services is too many for everyone screaming for everyone to just pay for it then? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Shall we just keep throwing money at everything that asks us to subscribe?

I've picked my subscriptions and STW didn't make the cut. Partly because other bike websites I visit (Pinkbike and Cycling Tips) also offer news and discussion for free and without looking like the Daily Mail website.

Well, if you're not funding it, stop whining about what's on it, and head off to the forums that are worthy of your support.

Well, if you’re not funding it, stop whining about what’s on it, and head off to the forums that are worthy of your support.

If everyone did that you would end up with the tumbleweed of the members forum throughout the site.....

See that thing where you've stepped in dog shit and not noticed until someone pointed it out?

I'm not sure I can really make my point clearer. You might be happy enough walking about with shite on your feet and trouser legs but don't be surprised if people judge you for it.

I’ve picked my subscriptions and STW didn’t make the cut.

I want a t-shirt saying that.

See that thing where you’ve stepped in dog shit and not noticed until someone pointed it out?

I've paid to make sure I don't have to deal with the dog shit, and if more people did that, there wouldn't need to be any dog shit. This gets explained every time people complain about the number and/or content of the ads.

I’m not sure I can really make my point clearer.

Well, if you’re not funding it, stop whining about what’s on it, and head off to the forums that are worthy of your support.

Err, the audience for advertising does fund it.

I’ve paid to make sure I don’t have to deal with the dog shit, and if more people did that, there wouldn’t need to be any dog shit.

If I actually thought I'd never see it again I might. But I will, every other sodding day. But that's immaterial, because its still there and every new visitor sees it, and judges.

Partly because other bike websites I visit (Pinkbike and Cycling Tips) also offer news and discussion for free and without looking like the Daily Mail website.

For now

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/letter-from-the-editor-pinkbikes-next-chapter-with-outside.html

I've honestly never seen the ad. I have to log in every so often but it's more like weeks than days.

Maybe you should cancel your subscription then you can join in with the whining?

Remember, in internet land, if you aren’t paying for the product then you are the product. Same is true here. I hadn't realised my subs was not a direct debit, I just thought the ads were now here. Painful as it might be. Especially the one that blocks the whole screen.

Any way I too was delighted that she’s a successful director.

For now

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/letter-from-the-editor-pinkbikes-next-chapter-with-outside.html/blockquote >

But then if you go to Outside Magazine's website there is loads of content for free and the only ads I get are for Hoka, which is pretty relevant to the site content. It also doesn't make my computer fan spin up to warp speed unlike here.

I don't really have much time for this 'well we have to have scummy adverts' stuff. If STW don't want to let people use the site for free then don't, but don't compromise your integrity by regularly serving up ads for bitcoin scams and celebrity clickbait and saying 'not our fault' when it happens. Clearly there are ad services around that don't do this.