[chris v]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

For people who are still seething, I should note the following: Intellitxt is currently disabled on the forums and at the moment there are no plans to reenable it. It's still present on the main news page, but these are two separate issues, so let's at least deal with one at a time.

This is what I had been looking for. I had withheld posting until that determination was made. Thanks for bringing it to our attention that the thing has been permanently shelved. And thanks for a nice, resonable well-thought-out response. I appreciate everything you un-paid, or under-paid admins do on the forums. It must be thankless at times.

[porieux]

...

[Simon]

Thank you, gorgonzola.

That was the first post in quite some time from MacNN that really made some sense. I'm anxious to see if this board will live up to what you have promised.

[gorgonzola]

To clarify, there are currently no plans to reenable intellitxt, but that does not mean that I can guarantee it will never reappear. It's been shelved for now, but that may or may not be permanent. We are carefully looking at other options and regardless of what changes we choose to make, we will try do a much better job of communicating our thought process before things go into motion. You should have the opportunity of voicing your concerns before things get rolling if we do decide to bring intellitxt back (in which case, I assume there will be a good reason for it). For example, some people suggested a paid subscription model instead, and that's another thing we're looking at now.

I really don't deal with the advertising, so I can't guarantee anything, but I can promise a sincere attempt to noticeably improve the level of communication between MacNN and its users and between different parts of MacNN staff (and I will be dealing with that). I don't like IntelliTXT either, though, so hopefully we can find something else that gets the job done.

Regarding this:

I'm anxious to see if this board will live up to what you have promised.

Though I apologized for and tried to explain our misstep, I also wanted to make very clear what reasonable response from forum users should be. We are going to make a very sincere effort to noticeably improve our communication (both internally and externally), but that does not mean flawless operation from here on out. I do hope the board will live up to what I promised too, but you should expect that we will continue to make some mistakes in the future, as all people do.

This also doesn't mean that we will always agree and that posting your criticism of something we've done will guarantee that we change it. This is obviously not the case. What we will do is communicate what we're doing and respond to feedback. This is about as much as we can reasonably give.

I should also finally note that when I say "we," it means some subset of people involved in MacNN. I'm not personally involved in all of these conversations and decisions (often out of choice). For example, I don't deal with advertising at all, and I wasn't told that IntelliTXT was going into effect either.

[Kevin]

I really like MacNN. But I would never pay to read it without intellitext.

There are simply too many other sites that are free and intellitext free out there.

Is this MacNN jumping the shark?

Besides, non-paying members can just block it. Thus making a fee irrelevant.

[gorgonzola]

The paid subscription stuff wouldn't be for no intellitxt, it would be for no ads at all. Paid subscription and intellitxt are two separate things and offering paid subscriptions could obviously be done without having any intellitxt at all. Also, users would get stuff like an avatar, a custom user title, etc, I suppose, but these are secondary issues. The main point of it would be a way for a user to support MacNN without having to look at ads. In any case, this is just off the top of my head and isn't reflective of anything we've discussed. It's just an example.

I believe I explained in the earlier post pretty clearly that paid subscriptions were being considered as an alternative to things like intellitxt, too...

[Kevin]

Again... people are already getting the "no ads at all" MacNN.

[ghporter]

Kevin has a pretty good point here. There is enough ad blocking around that I think the "ad free subscription" idea has run its course. What would be better? I don't have a clue...

To piggyback on what gorgonzola said, we mods are really here for the users. I get zippo for doing what I do here except for a warm feeling when somebody says "that fixed it-thanks!" Of course I'm not going to get any of those warm feelings if there's no user traffic, so why would I (or any mod for that matter) want to do something that tends to disrupt or even stop users?

To paraphrase Pogo, "We is not the enemy." Really.

[gorgonzola]

I actually think it's totally missing the point to say that somebody can look at the site without ads. This is obviously true, and you're not pointing out anything that everyone doesn't already know. The difference between this site and others is that *none* of the content costs money, so the only way to keep the site running is through advertising. We've resisted installing really annoying advertising (minus intellitxt), and we believe that by keeping the advertising to a reasonable level and by showing relevant ads, users will be less likely to just remove all the ads out of sheer irritation. The advertising on MacNN is much less offensive than on many other websites.

A reasonable person would understand that while they obviously have the choice of removing all the ads for free, the point of the paid subscription is to support MacNN, not to see the site without ads. It's like a donation, except that you get something back in a direct way. Nobody is so dumb as to suggest that the value of the benefits you get in the subscription is so high that many people would want to pay for them without the primary benefit of supporting a website that they enjoy using.

That said, nobody is suggesting that this is going to be effective. If it were so obvious, we would have done it already. This may not be a useful idea at all, which is why I said (several times now, I think) that it was just an example of an alternative we were considering.

[ghporter]

Very true, gorgonzola. But I was merely pointing out a sidebar about the ad-free subscription model. I expect that eventually (though not quickly) advertising rates will adjust to the fact that ads are effectively invisible to those that want them to be. Advertising money people tend to be fairly conservative and not as comfortable with change as their creative people...

I should note that there are a number of forum-type sites that have this subscription model implemented. Typically, a registered user has most of the site's priveleged (post, read, etc.) but has only a limited access to a search function for example. A paid user has additional priveledges such as establishing an avatar and a sig. It seems to work prety darn well for these sites, except for the tendency for paid users to treat non-paid users like an underclass...which has the effect of encouraging more of them to pay.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

we believe that by keeping the advertising to a reasonable level and by showing relevant ads, users will be less likely to just remove all the ads out of sheer irritation. The advertising on MacNN is much less offensive than on many other websites.

Relevant ads? RELEVANT ADS?

I've seen LOTS of non-relevant ads (what exactly does a lingerie site have to do with computers?) on MacNN as of late. And what of the talking ads? I think THAT is why people block the ads, because they don't want their computer "randomly" talking to them when they surf to a site.

For the record, I wouldn't mind a paid subscription model, if the price was reasonable and it was optional.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter

except for the tendency for paid users to treat non-paid users like an underclass...which has the effect of encouraging more of them to pay.

I for one, wouldn't stand for this. The moderators can either allow that class distinction to be made or disallow it, and I hope the mods here would keep that from happening.

[residentEvil]

If paid members weren't bound by moderator rules and had their own subforum for BS, that would be a 'value' to pay for something and avoid the 'we can view it for free now with no ads so why pay for it' arguement.

Normal subforums for all members (paid or not) would follow the rules set forth and moderated.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Person Man

I for one, wouldn't stand for this. The moderators can either allow that class distinction to be made or disallow it, and I hope the mods here would keep that from happening.

In the one forum on this model where I participate (as a non-paid member) the effect is generally more toward the "if you paid the measly $20 you could do this yourself" sense, but it does get rude at times, leading to the mods intervening (and sometimes seriously slapping down longtime users). I agree that anything beyond "it's only $20, and you paid $X for the Y you're asking about so..." is more clasism than is appropriate, and I mentioned it only to point out that it can and does happen.

Originally Posted by residentEvil

If paid members weren't bound by moderator rules and had their own subforum for BS, that would be a 'value' to pay for something and avoid the 'we can view it for free now with no ads so why pay for it' arguement.

Normal subforums for all members (paid or not) would follow the rules set forth and moderated.

First, they're not "moderator" rules, they're rules of conduct for ALL users, including the moderators who enforce them. Without sounding too self-serving, I think your unmoderated subforums would last only a very short time before they devolved into chaos. We have a number of users who insist on behaving poorly, even under the fairly lax rules in the Lounge; do you really expect that sort of behavior to go away without someone keeping the rowdier members in line? Experience shows that lax moderation tends to attract poor behavior. So how useful, interesting, or entertaining would a forum be if you were subject to having any post turned into an arena for calling you names or treating your inputs as idiotic or useless? I simply do not think such a model would work.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by ghporter

First, they're not "moderator" rules, they're rules of conduct for ALL users, including the moderators who enforce them. Without sounding too self-serving, I think your unmoderated subforums would last only a very short time before they devolved into chaos. We have a number of users who insist on behaving poorly, even under the fairly lax rules in the Lounge; do you really expect that sort of behavior to go away without someone keeping the rowdier members in line? Experience shows that lax moderation tends to attract poor behavior. So how useful, interesting, or entertaining would a forum be if you were subject to having any post turned into an arena for calling you names or treating your inputs as idiotic or useless? I simply do not think such a model would work.

uhm, well...there have been a few moderators who DO make and police by their own rules, now don't they? they don't actually follow the rules for ALL users. if you haven't seen it, then you are selective in your reading and the complaints of other users. no where did i say the users don't ahve rules to follow; i said users wouldn't be subject to moderator rules. the 'i don't like you so i will delete/edit/gang up with other users against you' crap here has gotten out of hand. then, the spam links, while resolved for now, happens. so what if there is poor behavior? cause there isn't now, right? saying it would be worse is your opinion. while not every forum is the same, maybe if the users here weren't subject to personal BS from those with power and their hissy fits...maybe they could live and post without the 'help' of moderators.

you know what? aww screw it. whatever.

[ghporter]

I'm not getting into that except to say that we are unpaid people with our own lives going on. If someone is doing something wrong and we don't see it, how are we going to do something about it? There's a mechanism for reporting unacceptable behavior, but I've only seen it used for spam reporting. I have not seen evidence of moderators deleting people's posts because they "didn't like the poster." I HAVE seen really horrendously awful behavior show up and get stopped ONLY by having the truly eggregious posts deleted.

I'm remembering now why I don't reply to threads here... As I have said, moderators are unpaid, and we do what we do to help keep the forums usable by everybody that wants to behave civilly. I simply cannot subscribe to some idea that there are people "out to get" those who misbehave. I've seen how things work from both sides, and it just does not happen that way.

And now I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...

[gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Relevant ads? RELEVANT ADS?

I've seen LOTS of non-relevant ads (what exactly does a lingerie site have to do with computers?) on MacNN as of late. And what of the talking ads? I think THAT is why people block the ads, because they don't want their computer "randomly" talking to them when they surf to a site.

Random ads get stuck into rotation, so yes, there are sometimes ads displayed that make no sense. I don't know how the rotation is done, so I don't know why it happens. That said, many of the ads displayed are reasonably well targeted. Loading up the main page right now, I see ads for the Apple Store, Crucial, Ramjet, Tivo, and some strange thing about aerial advertising campaigns from Google. So one of the ads is bizarre, but the others are pretty reasonable. There's less advertising on the forums, so the probability of seeing zero relevant ads on a given page load is higher. There are still things like the following on the bottom of the pages (or in the case of the main page, "MacNN Marketplace"):

Support MacNN, buy from The Apple Store, iTunes.com, Amazon.com,
Buy.com, TechDepot, OfficeDepot, Computers4Sure, or donate.

Those are pretty reasonable too. Regardless, even the ads that make no sense aren't offensive, which is the main reason people block them.

And what of the talking ads? When there's some offensive audio or popup ad that gets stuck into the rotation by the ad provider, we remove it as soon as people let us know about it. We're not inserting talking ads deliberately -- we promptly remove them every time! What's the problem?

[gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

If paid members weren't bound by moderator rules and had their own subforum for BS, that would be a 'value' to pay for something and avoid the 'we can view it for free now with no ads so why pay for it' arguement.

Normal subforums for all members (paid or not) would follow the rules set forth and moderated.

A forum with no moderators is never going to happen, but it may make sense to have a private Lounge for paying members. Ars Technica does this, but they also have a much larger user base, so it's not clear how well it would work here.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

no where did i say the users don't ahve rules to follow; i said users wouldn't be subject to moderator rules. the 'i don't like you so i will delete/edit/gang up with other users against you' crap here has gotten out of hand.

Except that that does not exist now, nor has it ever. The only thing that conspiracy theorist readers see as "selective enforcement" or "harassment" is when, because we happened to not be around, something goes undetected. I don't claim to read every thread; far from it. I can't read every post here, nor can I be expected to. But if I happen upon something that merits a response (and I have the time to make that response... if I am browsing right before I head out the door, I may not have time for a thoughtful response), then I will do it. If someone reports something to me and I find that their grievance is founded then I will also take action.

One problem is that, in fact, the worst violators gang up on others and start reporting things that aren't violations of any rule here. I can't act on that. I can't act on a personal grievance that doesn't infringe on any rule or standard we maintain.* (We cannot allow ourselves to be used as tools in the gang wars that go on here.) Then, when I don't act on such a complaint, I am accused of taking sides with the other party.


As for "ganging up" on members, by which I think you really mean singling people out... if someone is a known offender who has broken rules and has been banned for it, then yes, we are "singling him out" for re-banning because the punishment was never lifted. It's only singling anyone out as far as enforcing a rule can be: you break the rule, and you are subject to sanctions. (Note that our rules explicitly remind you that just because we did not act on a particular violation, e.g. because we didn't see it, does not mean that the rule is invalidated.)

tooki

*I have stated repeatedly to many members that dissenting opinions are always welcome, so long as they are stated within acceptable standards of politeness. Somebody disagreeing with you is not a rule violation. If they do not conduct themselves politely, the misconduct is a violation but their opinion is not.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'm remembering now why I don't reply to threads here...

I wish you would more often. The fact that only a few mods/admins ever respond is a big reason that Some Members feel that individual mods/admins have personal vendettas against them.

tooki

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

And what of the talking ads? When there's some offensive audio or popup ad that gets stuck into the rotation by the ad provider, we remove it as soon as people let us know about it. We're not inserting talking ads deliberately -- we promptly remove them every time! What's the problem?

While you do a good job of removing them from the rotation when people tell you about them; it really shouldn't have to be that way at all.

Ad companies shouldn't be putting them into the rotation on the first place if they're not wanted. But apparently there are no ad companies that actually listen to what people want any more.

[tooki]

Indeed, all online advertising except perhaps for Google seems to be run by sleazeballs.

tooki

[Simon]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

A forum with no moderators is never going to happen

It already has: http://www.appletalker.com/forum

IMHO the issue here is that you guys have gone over your critical mass. There are far too many idiots here that have been attracted simply because this place is so big. I'll take democracy and common sense over pure size anytime. But that's just me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If someone is doing something wrong and we don't see it, how are we going to do something about it? There's a mechanism for reporting unacceptable behavior, but I've only seen it used for spam reporting.

There are people that make it a habit of abusing people any chance they get. They have been reported by more than one person.

And the mods say "You don't know what we have done and what we haven't"

Which is part of the problem, and frustration.

[tooki]

Well it's not reasonable to expect us to publicly state what actions we've taken against others. We believe that (to a certain point at least) you have an expectation of a certain amount of privacy with respect to disciplinary matters.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Simon

It already has: http://www.appletalker.com/forum

IMHO the issue here is that you guys have gone over your critical mass. There are far too many idiots here that have been attracted simply because this place is so big. I'll take democracy and common sense over pure size anytime. But that's just me.

Yet might I point out that when we take steps to keep it under control, we mods/admins get personally attacked by all the idiots, even those unaffected?

You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

tooki

P.S. Simon, you still owe me an apology for being so nasty to me in the other thread. (You attacked me personally when I tried to help the situation.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki

Well it's not reasonable to expect us to publicly state what actions we've taken against others. We believe that (to a certain point at least) you have an expectation of a certain amount of privacy with respect to disciplinary matters.

tooki

Maybe a "taken care of" would be all would be needed?

I understand what you are saying, and agree.

But lots of the frustration I've seen come from users is that they believe nothing is being done.

[tooki]

We do acknowledge that someone has been disciplined if we are asked. We won't go into details, but we'll acknowledge it. But that's usually not enough for you (plural) and you want more detail. When we don't give it, you assume that not enough has been done.

Furthermore, "you don't know what we've done" should probably be interpreted as "we've done everything we can possibly do, and have exhausted all the options we have", at least in the case of Some Members.

Sheesh, you guys need to stop always assuming that we are bad guys. Stop always assuming the worst. Assume that we've done the right thing, because chances are that is the case.

tooki

[ghporter]

Tooki, maybe you're right that I should show up (visibly) here more often. It just raises my blood pressure to have to deal with some of the "you're all against us" foolishness, and frankly I don't need that. However, as it makes sense to have more mods take the time to show up and participate here, I will do so.

(Addressed to everyone) In general it is extremely bad management to conduct any form of disciplinary action where anyone but the one being disciplined can overhear, see, or otherwise witness it. The phrase "praise in public, punish in private" capsulizes this principle, and it's one that as far as I've seen all of the mods and admins apply it religiously. It would definitely be bad for anyone to have themselves publicly chastised for anything they've done in error or under adverse circumstances, and those errors or adversities are almost never anyone else's business.

I will also point out that I've been publicly called on the carpet for a number of let's say ill concieved assertions I've made in these forums, even (particularly) in Networking where I was recruited to be a moderator in the first place. Go back through the archives-you'll see a number of incidents where tooki told me off quite thoroughly and publicly. But the catch is HOW he told me off: my facts were incorrect, my statements based on incorrect interpretation of user's issues, and so on. I am not a stupid person, and would be very upset if someone was in a position to call me such. I am however human and prone to take what I've learned first as "the truth" particularly if I haven't encountered contradicting facts later. In education this is called the "law of primacy" and competes head-to-head with the "law of recency" (which you can probably figure out).

This all boils down to the fact that I have yet to see any mod or admin behave less than professionally towards a user unless seriously and specifically provoked, usually over an extended period of time. On the other hand, I HAVE seen many of our mods and admins in action short-stopping flame wars, telling people who are acting poorly to take their infantile behavior somewhere else, and generally trying diligently to maintain enough order here for the average user to both feel comfortable asking for help or expressing an opinion, and for the user base in general to have confidence in the quality and integrity of the forums overall.

And yes, I do tend to get long-winded. It comes from standing at the lectern for over 11 years and providing "the truth" to students who would rather be sleeping (no matter what time of day it is) than listening to me drone on and on... Live with it-I have to.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tooki

We do acknowledge that someone has been disciplined if we are asked. We won't go into details, but we'll acknowledge it. But that's usually not enough for you (plural) and you want more detail. When we don't give it, you assume that not enough has been done.

Furthermore, "you don't know what we've done" should probably be interpreted as "we've done everything we can possibly do, and have exhausted all the options we have", at least in the case of Some Members.

Sheesh, you guys need to stop always assuming that we are bad guys. Stop always assuming the worst. Assume that we've done the right thing, because chances are that is the case.

tooki

Not assuming the worst, or you are always the bad guy, quite the opposite. As for myself, I don't think I've asked about someone being banned in awhile. Others have asked me, heck Cub keeps asking me why he is banned. I think I know why, but I keep telling him to ask you guys.

[gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by Simon

It already has: http://www.appletalker.com/forum

IMHO the issue here is that you guys have gone over your critical mass. There are far too many idiots here that have been attracted simply because this place is so big. I'll take democracy and common sense over pure size anytime. But that's just me.

I actually meant that it's never going to happen here...

[iLikebeer]

Cube knows exactly why he was banned, it's not exactly a mystery. We even told him why at that other place. Can't expect hardcore porn leniency when you're on probation. I love you guys though But I'd love to see a banned list in here so people don't think it's all a conspiracy against "their side."

[Kevin]

I am not sure they would put a "ban list" in place.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am not sure they would put a "ban list" in place.

Maybe a tree of woe?
It'd be like in Pirates of the Caribean, the pirates hanging from the gallows.
So and so was banninated for spam. This guy for personal attacks. That guy for linking to porn or bittorrents or whatnot. Kind of a warning that bad things can happen to you if you break the law. Make it a sticky in here and voila, everyone's happy. Break the rules and suffer the shame you deserve. Easy way to keep track of Ca$h too.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tooki

P.S. Simon, you still owe me an apology for being so nasty to me in...

Tooki, I find it rather pathetic of you - as a mod :cough: - to take our private business into a public area (repeatedly). Check your PM.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

I actually meant that it's never going to happen here...

I know you did.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Simon

Tooki, I find it rather pathetic of you - as a mod :cough: - to take our private business into a public area (repeatedly). Check your PM.

I didn't take it public, it was started there. Your vicious, misguided and unwarranted attack was public, and you even re-emphasized it publicly. It stands to reason that that's where the apology goes.

As an admin, I also need to make a point that attacking others with the venom you used is unacceptable here. I gave you some leeway since everyone was understandably upset about the IntelliTXT, but now that it's over, you owe me an apology.

tooki

[Simon]

[iLikebeer]

I guess that means no list of baninatees? lol

[ghporter]

I do not see what benefit a list of banned users would do anyone. It would be bad management to air "dirty laundry" and what sort of message would it send to say "X has been banned" without stating why? No list.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I do not see what benefit a list of banned users would do anyone. It would be bad management to air "dirty laundry" and what sort of message would it send to say "X has been banned" without stating why? No list.

Ars has done it forever, and it seemed to work fine for them. With all the problems you guys are having with "extreme of both sides" wondering what's happening, why not. It's not like it's really dirty laundry being aired if people have done something bannable. It's more of a warning and acknowledgement to those who want unacceptable practices banned. It would probably save you guys work as well.

Personally, I think several dozen people use this as their own personal venting/retarded postings board. I think a banned list would be a good way to take control back and embarrass(sp?) people who are constant offenders into being a part of the community again. For example, i've noticed that half the time, new users defend ca$h. Put up a public area to show all the nuisance people, and maybe everyone will come together to just ignore them.

This place is all just words anyway, if someone takes too much offense at being publicly humiliated, then they probably couln't handle MacNN anyways.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I do not see what benefit a list of banned users would do anyone. It would be bad management to air "dirty laundry" and what sort of message would it send to say "X has been banned" without stating why? No list.

besides in one week it would be loaded with a bunch of stupid names all being the proud owner of Ca$h.

What I think would be good is a quiet room. Something that normal members and non members cant see and those that are banned and mods/admins can post in. It gives a outlet for some one banned to bitch and get there message across to all the mods and admins vs having to figure out the emails of mods and admins to argue the case/ making new users to PM them. Also when its a pair of people banned it gives them a chance (well for some that) to get it out of there system with each other or come to a understanding with each other. Just a thought. And about time Simon was banned

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

With all the problems you guys are having with "extreme of both sides" wondering what's happening, why not. It's not like it's really dirty laundry being aired if people have done something bannable.

Not all "bannable" activities are public. Some people have been banned for overusing private messages, particularly to harass other users. One user actually "cyberstalked" someone else, all through emails and PMs sent via MacNN.

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

This place is all just words anyway, if someone takes too much offense at being publicly humiliated, then they probably couln't handle MacNN anyways.

While I agree about the "public humiliation tolerance" issue, I can't say that it would be good to post banned people's nicknames. I really don't think that new users would get it, honestly. "These people have been banned for misbehavior" says several things, one of which is "we slap people down right and left." Well we don't.

Over time we've accumulated a ton of banned user names, the vast majority of which belong to spammers-good riddance. How does a huge list of mostly spammer names help a new user figure out who's an instigator and who isn't? I think most new users are smart enough to see "user B" posting bilge and gunk as a bad thing, and to thus understand why he/she gets banned.

I think the BEST option is for certain people to give up "converting" the vast majority of polite, cooperative users and just either cooperate politely with everyone else or go away. Note that I'm not holding my breath...

[Dork.]

I generally agree with the thought that a list of banned usernames is a bad idea, but when someone gets banned with a name that I recognize I do admit that I sometimes go through their last few threads to figure out what might have caused it, if I was bored enough that day. If the banned user is familiar enough to the other regular forum participants, then a short explanation in the thread that got them banned might be appropriate, for no other reason than to satisfy our curiosity. But I generally have no problem with how this place is run, as long as the spammy ads stay away.

Speaking of which, the real reason for my dredging up this thread again is that I saw something funny at work today. I keep IntelliTXT enabled on my work PC just to make sure I know it if it ever creeps back into the forums. But I clicked on one of the news stories, and this is what I saw:



At least, I found it funny. Do you guys at MacNN consider applelinks.com part of the "competition"?

[tooki]

That's hilarious!

tooki

[PookJP]

Won't stay disabled for me...

[Macola]

Originally Posted by PookJP

Won't stay disabled for me...

Same here. I can't get it disabled on the home page. Have you tried deleting cookies?

[Corpse of Chewbacca]

I am simply enjoying the open discussion on this issue which occurs with all levels of the MacNN management.

Sincerely,
me
macnn.com product reviewer