Talk:Hover ad

message: Do not archive this message unless specified text is no longer present in article.
Currently, this article contains text copied from . According to that page, the text is "Copyright (c) 2006, Svetoslaav Zabunov", and "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts." Therefore, it may be used on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright explanation

message: As with pop-up ad, "hover ad" does not need to be capitalized. I'm moving the article to Hover ad, but we'll still need to fix the capitalization issues in the article. --Lethargy 12:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, wasn't logged in. --Lethargy 12:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: There is no point trying to fix up this article. It turns out the entire thing was just a cut-and-paste from a web-site hawking "hover pop-up generator" software. I'll delete this and set it to redirect to pop-up ad, which appears to at least be trying to be encyclopedic. --Ben 09:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't this mean that the page needs to be flagged with Template:Copyvio? --Lethargy 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, Lethargy. My apologies. I will revert and do that now. Ben 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a loss 

message: Creating a separate article about Hover Ads is in deed needed as these types of web advertisements are quite different from popups and they tend to deliver a principally diverse approach to web ads - a non annoying, non-obtrusive and non-SPAM approach. The latter is guaranteed by the ordinal technology used, not allowing the hover ad webmaster user to block/tie/spam the web visitor with the well known chain of self opening popup ads. This very technological hole of chain popup creation lead to classifying popup as spam, quite justified.
The other point on separating hover ads from popups is their totally different technological and thus visual and presentational bases, compared to popups. They are practically and theoretically more close to banner advertisements as both approaches are realized using the DHTML/JavaScript client side web programming capabilities, putting both ad brands to be part of the HTML content itself instead of utilizing operating system window-like capabilities for obtaining extra visual estate in new windows from the visitors resources.
About commercial links, I agree and will follow this wikipedia policy. The only links I would provide are not advertising in their nature, but rather presenting thorough and exhaustive examples of the described technologies.
Szabunov 19:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Adverse Opinion 

message: See the referral article here:
http://popup-toolkit.com/articles/artistic-popup-approach.html
The hover ad article is not a copy of the latter, also, note the permition by author at the bottom.
Szabunov 09:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About copyright dispute

message: I do not like the second reference. The point of view expressed there is far from neutral.  It should be noted in the relevant section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.70.50.117 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and NPOV 

message: I removed a link to http://popup-toolkit.com/hover_ads_examples/
The code there, whilst a good example, can crash browsers.
That problem was highlighted by an anon user on Helpdesk, . So, I have removed the link . Of course, discuss below. Best,  Chzz  ►  21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be commercial spam anyway.TMCk (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example at popup-toolkit.com removed