Talk:Banner blindness

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aishwarya889. Peer reviewers: Rashed Alzeer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Ad blindness and Banner blindness

 * Support Because there is no point in having duplicate articles on Wikipedia concerning the same information. Better to have the same information in one article.  Ad Blindness and Banner Blindness should be merged as one article.  Adamdaley (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My plan for the Article
Hello Editors ,The structure of the article i am planning as of now will have - Lead section, Causes (viewer behavior , banner layout) , Experiments that were conducted , Recommendations that research suggests These are the articles i am considering as of now Drèze, X., & Hussherr, F. X. (2003). Internet advertising: Is anybody watching?. Journal of interactive marketing, 17(4), 8-23. Briggs, R., & Hollis, N. (1997). Advertising on the Web: Is there response before click-through?. Journal of Advertising research, 37(2), 33-46. Cho, C. H. (2003). The effectiveness of banner advertisements: Involvement and click-through. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 623-645. Djamasbi, S., Hall-Phillips, A., & Yang, R. R. (2013). An Examination of Ads and Viewing Behavior: An Eye Tracking Study on Desktop and Mobile Devices. Margarida Barreto, Ana. "Do users look at banner ads on Facebook?."Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 7, no. 2 (2013): 119-139. Infolinks (2013) ’Beating Banner Blindness: What The Online Advertising Industry Can Do To Make Display Matter Again’, infolinks Aishwarya889 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Odd Tone
This article has a someone strange tone in my view. It seems to cater less toward general readers and more toward advertisers seeking to combat the phenomenon. Some of the sources (e.g. boostcompanies.com, marketingtechnews.net) are probably not reliable sources and the "Recommendations" section suggests some (IMO) ethically dubious courses of action without question. In particular, I was struck by the statement "(a)ds should be presented as tips or expert advice, rather than just plain ads." Sizeofint (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Placing a banner on the article was amusing but unhelpful. Sources and sentiments are best dealt with using inline tags, which indicate the contentious details more clearly. Or one can even edit the article per WP:SOFIXIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrew: the issue with sources makes sense to put inline, but overall the article's tone is biased. Every other sentence would have that tag. I actually was about to mark it with Template:Essay-like before I checked the talk page and saw this discussion. I also don't think irony is a valid reason to avoid tagging the article for its issues. Strugee (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a section called "Recommendations" is a big red flag, this is very POV. If we're going to recommend anything (which we shouldn't), the average reader might want to have recommendations on how to avoid or ignore ads (not that I'd advocate that, it's also POV, just a more common one). – gpvos (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)