We’re spending a LOT of time planning a complete re-vamping of the www.ASP.NET web site.
Recently I came across this comment in a blog entry discussing what Microsoft should do to improve the web site.
The justification that the ads exist to offset the cost of running the site is indefensible for a company Microsoft’s size.
Though most folks don’t care about the ads and many folks tell us they even find them useful, this is not the first time I’ve hear this.
The last time I made a comment about the cost of running our little collection of web properties a “community member” with a healthy sense of entitlement basically called me a liar and demanded to see our accounting 
Some times folks don’t want to hear it, or don’t “get it” but Microsoft is a company like any other.
A few notes as it pertains to operational funding at Microsoft.
- Microsoft is not permitted by the government to print it’s own money. The company’s operating expenses are acquired by way of SALES, just like any other commercial entity.
- If, after all is said and done, if there is any money “left over” from the difference between the COST of developing and supporting our products and the revenue from sales – it goes to the people who OWN Microsoft – OUR SHAREHOLDERS.
- There is no “Vault” at Microsoft where teams go with their shopping cart to get the money they need to do what they need to do.
So as to avoid the nastiness I experienced that last time i discussed how much it costs to run the .NET sites, lets just agree it is a non-trivial amount of money.
Apart from “pure operational costs”, where do all the articles, videos, whitepapers, code, design, new features, etc come from ? One way or the other, they all cost money. Some we pay for outright, some are paid for by way of the salaries of the Microsoft staff who have commitments to deliver those materials.
To me this seems like basic math (though maybe I’m missing some magic formula).
- Everything costs money.
- Each dollar can only be spent ONCE.
So given the costs of delivering the .NET community web sites and all the content they contain we can …..
- Find ways to supplement our Microsoft budget in order to deliver MORE to our web site users.
- Don’t supplement our operating budget (with things like ads) and do whatever we can with the budget we have. (Which clearly means less content for our developers.)
I’ve always assumed that our developers would prefer that we run ads in order to be able to afford to deliver more Videos, Samples, Articles, Whitepapers, Code, Features, etc.
Maybe I’ve been wrong about this.
Understand that we ONLY accept ads for things that are of interest to DEVELOPERS.
Given our traffic, we could make TONS of money if we sold ads for Cars, Hair Replacement, Viagra, etc. but we don’t. We only run ads for software development related products and services.
So, what would you suggest ?
- Keep the current model of Developer only ads discreetly displayed?
- Remove all ads and publish less content?
- Broaden the advertising policy to advertise “anything” and generate more content?
- Do something else (and you email me what to do and HOW to pay for it )
Thanks !
I don’t know why people would get so worked up over whether Microsoft has adverts on it’s sites, we’ve put up with them for years on MS’ other sites such as Hotmail and understand that it’s part of the reason that resource is free.
I would also have thought that the target audience for http://www.asp.net would contain a larger percentage of users who’s view of the net is Firefox + AdBlock = what adverts?
The Ads on the Silverlight.net site but most of us more than the ones on asp.net, since they take up so much space.
I’m using a nice plugin for IE8 that removes all ads on the asp.net site, makes it cleaner, less distracting.
There is an implicit assumption that the ads make you money and withouth ads, you would have less of it. This may not be necessarily true.
The asp.net website is probably the first place newcomers will visit and a certain amount of them might be discontent or even annoyed by the presence of ads (however valid reason you might have for them). These people they might decide to use or learn a technology with website that looks more friendly and less "enterprisey" (like http://rubyonrails.org/). In the end, you might lose an ASP.NET developer and a potential customer that would purchase a license to one of your products.
So the revenue these ads will bring you is not net. You need to subtract the unsold Windows Server licences, Visual Studio, SQL Server or even Windows client licenses. Of course there is no way to actually quantify those but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. So from a purely economical view, it is not correct to assume that the ads always have a net benefit over a website with no ads. Theoretically, you may be even losing money by placing the ads on the asp.net website, who knows. But you are certainly losing hearts and minds of some people which is a shame.
My answer:-
3.Broaden the advertising policy to advertise “anything” and generate more content?
Ads can be blocked who don’t wanna see them. More content sounds very exciting.
and u can use some of the money earned from new ads to advertise for http://www.asp.net in return, like on stumbleupon.com so that others developers can get here too
regards,
nitin
I find the ads useful. Sometime, I don’t know there is such kind of product or component is available in the market. I consider the ads are content only.
If somebody doesn’t like ads, he/she can block it anyway.
Option 3.
I think the ads don’t of http://www.asp.net don’t disturb, and some people can find them useful. I you don’t find it useful you can ignore it, i don’t think it can be a problem.
I am alo agree with taking profit of the ads to be able to public more content.
Option 1, keep it as it is, it is nice to see what is out there to make our jobs easier.
Keep the ads.
The problem with the ads at asp.net is that they’re positioned incorrectly. The ads shouldn’t obstruct potential content areas. Keep them at the top or bottom. Also If a user chooses to block the ads, make the layout degrade properly when a div is removed.
I believe that without money nothing can progress. I like the asp.net site and i know with some inprubments (Any kind of add plus the new content) users will be happy. Us developers need more content no matter if it has adds or not.
I did jump the gun. and it isn’t entitlement, its arrogance.
Nonetheless, both Phil Haack and Scott Bellware pointed out that my focus shouldn’t be on the absurdity of my own assumptions, but rather, as Haack puts it:
"I think that could have led to a more interesting post in which you critique the ‘old school way’ Microsoft builds community sites (as you did in the comments) as it would be based on facts, rather than your actual post."
That _is_ where I’d like to see the discussion go. There’s more than enough evidence to suggest that communities and content don’t have to cost a fortune – look at wiki, codebetter or rubonrails/community.
There is so much free content, and qualified individuals inside and outside of the community, that http://www.asp.net should do little more than help organize it. The current model is archaic in the sense that classified in newspapers is irrelevant.
I think looking at RoR or django would be beneficial. They somehow manage to have great pages, meaningful content, and rich community, without any ads or any other [meaningful] sources of revenue. Why does the model work for them, but not http://www.asp.net? Maybe there IS a legitimate answer to that question, but it feels like no one is asking the question.
You seem to believe money is the solution. I’m pretty sure its the problem. You want us to believe that no ads means less content, I’m pretty sure it’ll mean better content (the noise to signal ratio on http://www.asp.net is a big part of the problem, so less content is actually appealing).
who cares, just please *please* bring back the feature you removed:
when viewing a forum, bring back the search text box that searches the *current* forum
Hi Joe, glad to see you came across my post (reference for others: john-sheehan.com/…/reimagining-www )
I’m not against ads entirely on the site as I mention in the post. In Part 4 of the series I’ll talk about a way to incorporate ads/sponsorships to keep the revenue coming, but in a much more useful way that doesn’t detract from the new/migrating user experience.
Probably needless to say, I agree with Karl completely, minus the ignorance.
Hi John,
Thansk for posting the link (I didn’t do it becuase I didn’t want to seem like I was picking a fight. )
And I very much agree that we can get much smarter about what we do with ads to minimise the intrusion and maximise the value (to user and advertisers) – we started doign this with changes on the Silverlight site and are doing a gret deal of planning on what the ASP.NET site should become.
The "it works on the RoR site so Microsoft COULD do it" is naive on many levels ans the fact that this is an OFFICAL Microsoft web site creates some expectations and responsabilities that some of my reader tend to easily ignore.
The need for secondary funding is a FACT – sure it would be great if some executive just added millions of dollars to our budget, but it simply won’t happen, we have to work in the read world.
Keep the suggestions coming – love the new bnlog series on how you would re-do http://www.asp.net from scratch.
And please forgive Karl, I useually just delete his comments but this one was less tyrade than useual.
He’s not well
:):)
-Joe
Option 3.
More content please….
Hi,
I don’t see any ad in adobe website.
And all your reasons are valid too for this site. It seems there are too reasons to remove the ads.
Anyway, I see your point and I prefer option 1.
But,if possible, with more attention to design and usability.
At least, lets do it with attitude!
.
Regards,
Matías
So neither http://code.google.com/ nor http://developer.yahoo.com/
contain any ads (which given that Google only really makes money off of ads and Yahoo doesn’t HAVE any money is surprising).
So, why does Microsoft need ads on asp.net again?
Keep in mind, I don’t really care if asp.net has ads on in or not. If they are obnoxious I’ll just block them .. If I ever need to go to asp.net
Scott – Google and Yahoo are both AD COMPANIES ! Anything that drives traffic to their .com supports their revenue model.
John, I look forward to seeing Part 4 of your blog posts. Independent of the ASP.Net specific design, the decision to completely remove ads off the home page of any site, means a significant reduction in views/revenue. For the purpose of the community at large, let’s say a site does depend on ad revenue as its only source of operating income. How do you increase the ad views on the underlying pages in a way that offsets the significant reduction of views now missing from the home page, without overwhelming the users with the ads on the lower pages? How many more adds on the underlying pages do you estimate it would take to offset the loss of ads on the homepage? Perhaps your Part 4 will address this.
Joe, out of curiosity, do you have metrics on the percentage of revenue produced from adds on the home page compared to revenue produced through adds on the underlying pages? I’m assuming the percentage for the homepage is heavy, but perhaps this isn’t true. This would be a good statistic for anyone to reference, if they own, or are building, a community site.
As the leader of a new(ish) Microsoft based user group, I’m interested to learn more from this conversation while considering for the expansion of our local community site.
Right Joe, they are both ad companies. But they aren’t displaying any ads on their developer pages. They don’t get any revenue if they don’t display an ad.
Or do you think any site that boosts their traffic to their TLD is useful?
I like ads, because as a friend of mine says, they show you things that you need but you haven´t realize you do until you see the add…for example Windows Home Server
Scott,
I actually asked somone from Yahoo a couple years ago what their motivation was for their dev pages and that’s what that told me – "anything that drives us traffic and increases our TLD as an end point has monitary value".
I’m sure that is not the ONLY reason but it’s a valid one.
Scott-Davis,
If you would like to email me we can have a quick call ande I can answer your question.
I won’t post that data here becuase, well, Karl will go nuts again
Have you considered consolidating the support forums (forums.asp.net and forums.silverlight.net) with the other developer forums on MSDN? Wouldn’t a consolidation ultimately save money?
Years ago, I think it made sense for the asp.net site to break away from the Microsoft.com domain and provide a web-based support forum. The official support forums still ran over NNTP, and the writing was on the wall for that technology. Since that time, the MSDN forums have made some improvements.
Today, I prefer the web-based MSDN forums to the forums on the asp.net site. They are quicker, cleaner, and easier to navigate. MSDN doesn’t require ads on the page to operate, which allows the pages inside to focus on helping people find answers.
Department politics and advertisements aside, MSFT should have one place to send developers who have questions, and one place where they can search for answers. More importantly, MSFT should have one codebase to maintain and improve when adding new features and improvements to make the support experience even better, and I’d suspect this would ultimately save on the total cost of providing support.
Scott Allen
Yes, Yes, Yes !!!!!
Our "org" also owns MSDN and included in our discussions are BOTH your suggestions.
1.) Doing some level of consolidation
2.) Updating to the MSDN forums code
You’re right on the money !
Option 1. It’s already a great site but like any other site out there, will benefit from some moderate reorganization and a facelift
Looks to me that most of the guys whoever posted comment and have given their website link till now, are mostly using ads in their own blog/site (4 out of 5) !!!!
I think you’ve chosen the wrong strategy
Ok, I understand that asp.net is very expensive but now, that Microsoft made it to have a very good community you threaten us saying that the options are:
1- AD = CONTENT
2- NO AD = LESS CONTENT
Think about many other guys that help the community, don’t get 1 cent and continue doing that.
We know that today ASP.net is the best tecnology (JSP and PHP are far away) but it’s not only because it’s good but also because the community is great.
Remember the past when it would be impossible to see a MSFT team lead interacting with the community.
Today all MSFT teams have blogs and help in many sites like ASP.net, Windows client, iis, etc.
So, in my opinion, this is the real AD to MSFT, this is the real value of the website…
Instead of wasting money advertising in other websites, MSFT use this money to maintain http://www.ASP.net
Sorry, as I said, I think you are using the wrong strategy… I had never made a complaint before, but I felt threatened and now the ads disturb me because I think it’s not fair to say that it’s a big favor from MSFT to provide content for us.
It’s not a favor, it’s something that allows MSFT today to say that it’s tecnology is the best. And we know that.
Cheers,
Oscar
Oscar, sorry you felt that wa.
No threats intended, just economic fact.
You need to remember – Microsoft is MANY organizatins. There is not ONE team that does "all advertising" etc.
I don’t care asp.net has ad or not.
but this statement sound fishy
====================
1- AD = CONTENT
2- NO AD = LESS CONTENT
====================
why don’t you get more budget for asp.net site from your big boss. I know that by putting adv on asp.net can generate a lot of $$, it can be one of the $$ source, but it makes no sense to me when saying NO AD = Less content.
Thansk like saying " Why don’t you get your boss to double your sallary !!"
If you must have ads, include ads that are not annoying and/or flash-based. ASP.NET site’s ads and the they are rendered forced me to go with firefox+adblock. Boy, it’s beautiful not to see those annoying flashes. How about text? text-based ads are not as disturbing as flash and flash-like ads.
Joe,
With the understanding that each business unit must be responsible for itself, I can see why the ads would be necessary. Comparing the asp.net site to other [free] web framework sites isn’t really an apples to apples comparison. Having said that I DO think there is a perception issue to contend with.
Sites like http://www.djangoproject.com/ and guides.rails.info/…/index.html don’t have ads but DO have nearly unimpeachable information, tutorials, and guides. So, regardless of the financial realities of the situation, you will always get comparisons between http://www.asp.net and those sites.
Of course, comparing all three sites based on content is very subjective but I’m comfortable saying that I have an easier time following the paths and funneling on the Rails & Django sites than I do on the ASP.NET site. The big difference between those sites & asp.net, however, is that while Rails & Django have (basically) one good prescriptive way of building apps, asp.net has many many (some good, some bad) way of building apps. It becomes a different IA and UX challenge to build the proper funnels to take people down the path of learning webform development, mvc development, etc. And while having "extra" content is good I think it’s important to get the basics of teaching good technique and software craftsmanship down first. I’d love to see the content organized into more than just "here’s how you get data on a screen" quickie demos. The ASP.NET site should be trying to build better developers.
If ads are required to do that, I’m ok with it, but right now I don’t feel that the ASP.NET site is doing as good a job as the previously mentioned Rails & Django sites and they operate ad free. Regardless of business requirements, that’s the perception I think you are dealing with.
Hopefully I’m not putting you on the defensive, just trying ot give honest feedback. I hope you’ll loop some IA and UX experts into the asp.net redesign and I wish you the best of luck with the project!
Cheers! – JP
JP – Not at all. I think you offer a fair evaluation and a resonable expectation. I’m very much in agreement with you!
If it helps put more usable content to help me I say go for it, it should be a self supporting site there is nothing wrong with that but then I live in the real world so that makes sense to me and I’ve found the ads very useful keep up the good work and keep the content coming
Joe, I would go for option 3. I’m a developer that doesn’t do .net development for a living. By trade, I do Oracle Applications, and I do some .net on the side. Your content is very valuable to me. I can’t tell you how much I have learned by watching your tutorials and reading articles. When, I look for a new service, I normally stop by the site to see the advertisements. I trust the input from this community, and I hope you keep it coming!
Thanks, Jason Coe
Hi Joe,
I use asp.net site regularly from remote desktop and know of many (I really mean many) developer in enterprise space who use the site. they all have one complain that the site loads very slow and its mainly because of add. The adds take a real long time to load. and since we are using remote desktop, the graphical adds make it more than difficult to access the site. I personally know a few users who want to work in forums but don’t because of performance problem of graphical advertisement.
To all of the folks who wonder why ASP.NET can’t work on the same model as the Django site or the RoR site -
I am opening a challenge to you! I am the lead writer for TechRepublic’s "Programming and Development" section. A few weeks ago, my editor and I were discussing the issue of reader contributions to the site. She told me that if a reader sends me something and I think that it should be published, we will publish it.
There is a stereotype out there that the .NET community can’t/won’t produce content, open source code, etc. like other communities do. Places like CodePlex are proving that wrong for code, but so far, it is not the case for content.
This is your chance to prove to Joe and the rest of the ASP.NET team that the .NET community can put out the free content with the rest of them. Here is what you need to do:
1. Visit my space at TechRepublic (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development).
2. Click the "Contact" button right underneath the masthead to get in touch with me. Let me know that you want to do this.
3. I will gladly respond and let you know what you need to do.
As long as your content does not require a ton of editing (please use a spell checker, ensure that it is readable, etc.), is about "programming and development", and is written in a professional manner (no foul language, gets to the point quickly, is not a thinly veiled ad, etc.), I will be glad to get it published. If I choose to not publish it, I will explain why, so that you can fix the issues if you want.
Folks, straight up… I love writing for TechRepublic. It has encouraged me to expand my knowledge so much, I stay ahead of the game with that motivation. I know 10 times as much programming as I need for my job, in large part because the writing encourages me to keep learning, and to learn new things. At the same time, without the paycheck I would not do it as regularly as I do now, or at the same level of detail. The fact of the matter is, writing quality content takes a ton of time, energy, and passion for the subject. It is much harder to justify it when I have a job, a wife, a kid, etc. without a financial reward attached to it. I will say this, the payment I receive is not well proportioned to the time I spend on it. But it is enough to motivate me.
So again, let’s see some folks step up to the plate. Give writing that content a shot, and I will get it in "print". This isn’t someone offering to put it up on a little personal blog. TechRepublic is one of the largest Web sites on the Internet for IT professionals, and the P&D readership is massive. Your efforts will not be wasted!
J.Ja
In a way, I feel like its my duty to contribute to this discussion — I seem to be the target demographic for a lot of the comments being thrown around. I’m a brand new developer (18 months strong, now) and have learned just about everything I know about .NET from Joe’s video’s and the forums on the asp.net website. I can say with 100% certainty that I owe my livelihood to the members of the forums and the authors of the videos posted on the asp.net website. I’ve spent hundreds (I’m not kidding, nor am I exaggerating when I say HUNDREDS) of hours browsing the forums, asking questions, participating in discussions, watching videos, reading articles, waiting for my search results (haha just kidding…kinda), and I can honestly say that the community is top notch and the quality of the content (especially Joe’s videos) rate at least 9/10, 100% of the time.
That being said, I can say proudly that not once have I been bothered by the ads on the site. The only ill-feeling I get with regard to an ad offering usually arrives in the form of jealousy; I see the new offering from a vendor and I get angry…not because its an "ad", but because I want to be able to build their solution on my own!
Based on those experiences, I can only draw two conclusions:
1) I am not the best developer in the world, and have MUCH to learn.
2) The quality of the product being pushed in the ads is usually good enough to make me envious of the content being sold…which is all anybody can really ask for in the game of web ads.
I guess my ultimate synopsis would read something like, "The site’s great, the content’s great, keep up the good work." However, if forced to offer a constructive critique, I’d say that most content passed the homepage is hard to traverse (for instance, the video tutorial library has SO MUCH content now that its overwhelming). I would also be amiss if I said that I hadn’t noticed http://www.asp.net loads slower than most websites…but I don’t know if that’s because of ads or the platform itself.
As the owner of the website http://www.dotnetfunda.com I can understand why the ads are necessary. Apart from hosting costs there are many other stuffs that needs to be taken care as Joe mentioned directly or indirectly. I do not see any reason why a developer should worry about whether Microsoft need to display ads or not, they should only worry about whether they are getting the right solution of their problem or not. No one force any one to click or concentrate on the ads, so if someone is not interested, they should simply ignore that, and that’s what is done by many visitors.
For me as a developer it hardly matters whether a website display ads or not as long as I get the proper solution
Unusual to hear you so ‘annoyed’ Joe…
Personally I’d keep it pretty much as it is. The ads don’t get in my way, and I’ve even clicked on one or two of them when I was looking for a new hosting solution.
I definitely do not want to see ad’s for cars or viagra – having them on the site will make it far less likley that I’ll use the site. Fickle though it may be I’ll keep looking for answers if I see 4guysfromrolla in the results because I don’t like the design – the answers are nearly always really helpful but the site doesn’t inspire me.
Amazing what a nice design will do for a site!
So please don’t uglify asp.net
Please!
Every one should be respected so do the average of four and do both 2 and 3…..:)
I appreciate seeing the developer oriented ads, so please keep them on the site. If anything, I would be willing to see the range of ads increased to include other computer orientated, non-development, ads.
Most of all, I appreciate the amount of content that is provided on this site, without even requiring a registration. I’m actually suprised that people are actually complaining about seeing ads, as if it makes it more difficult to read your content. Go figure…
Definately number 1. Keep the status quo. You guys run an excellent site an I would hate to see you change it due to the short-sightedness of but a few.
As a long time internet user I am virtually numb to adverts on web pages. I dont care if you run adverts for non-developer interests if it will make you more money.
That said some sites go overboard and have adverts in the middle of the content that either means you have a break in the flow and have to scroll past it or you suddenly get a 1 inch column of text while it wraps round it. That sucks.
"Given our traffic, we could make TONS of money if we sold ads for Cars, Hair Replacement, Viagra, etc."
Developers can drive
Developers can be bald
Viagra – yep, even Developers
So although I am quite sarcastic in my point, I smile when I say, that these adverts if not all or any adverts would in some way be directly/indirectly relevabt to the audience.
The content is what drove them to the page, I would re-iterate your statement above:
"Microsoft is a company like any other."
So with this in mind, why not take the intiative to make more money and in turn increase the content through put, as it is pure gold! I appreciate it and learn from it everyday and I am sure so many others do too.
OMO
Andy
If the website starts to run ads that don’t pertain strictly to development, then perhaps offer a subscription model that doesn’t show ads and maybe has more content. I wasn’t aware that a person was paid for having their article published on this site. Maybe the site should stop paying for content from 3rd party sources, since MS employees have an obligation to post on here.
Many many thanks folks for all the valuable input.
We probably would not consider running "generic" ads on the site.
But what would you think of "Geek" targeted ads ?
Cool gadgets, etc ?
I have to say, ads bother me not in the slightest. In the case of things like affiliate hosting sites and paid extensions kits and such, I even find them to be useful and click through. I think your policy of having development-work-focused ads to be part of the value of the site, frankly.
I say keep the ads. The ads expose me to vendors that may offer products I need. This is especially true if the ads are highly targeted. Here is a made-up example- I decide to dedicate 200 work-hours to build a control. I come here to read a tutorial and find an ad that offers a third-party control that does what I need for $200. That $200 third-party control is worth more than 200 work-hours; i just gained something. That is awesome.
Now, I am not concerned about this site’s finance and how Microsoft uses it money. If this site does not offer content, someone else will. My comments are just about this site’s content.
No, I just plain disagree with this blog post. I do not think Microsoft needs to display ads, any more than the Mozilla site would need advertising. (In truth, Mozilla would need ads more than Microsoft, yet they have none.)
The ASP.NET site is basically a big support site for Microsoft’s development products and servers. It is not some guy working out of his house trying to start his own company and buy his own data center bandwidth.
It’s kind of nonsensical to me, and the cracks about Microsoft not being permitted to print its own money is a red herring. You should not make strawman arguments when trying to deflect the criticism.
Forget posting ADS for gadgets and development products. A directory of products and services works even better, and would frankly make more sense in terms of exposure.
By using ADS to spread the word about products and services, you are limiting that exposure to companies with big advertising budgets, and basically exclusing startups with minimal funds.
Personally, I think there are places to put ads, and places not to put them. For example, if I’ve got an urgent problem, and I’m searching to quickly find a fix, I don’t want to have to deal with the ads. But if I’m just reading a technical article or reviewing a new product, then I obviously have time to kill, and I don’t mind the ads so much. I recommend balancing the ads based on the type of content.
People are amazing, in every way. They take for granted of what’s free to them and rarely consider the actual work involved. I think in their world, everyone volunteers and no one gets paid. Like your phone bill, if your line goes dead, maybe a tree fell on the phone line. So YOU pay for the tech to come out and fix the line OR you can ask for them to fix it free (which I seriously doubt they will do).
For the ads on the site, I think it’s a great idea. The only other way to get the content is if I PAID for it rather than get it freely. Just imagine if Microsoft had a subscription service for all it’s content, videos, whitepapers, etc. If it’s available to you free, dont’ take it for granted, but take full advantage of it or you could be required to pay for it.
Ads are good if they are displayed aesthetically. ASP.NET ads are useful and we ended up buying some products advertised.
I agree with others that I don’t find the ads annoying, and I don’t have an adblocker installed. Like some of the other readers, I have also clicked on some of the ads because I found them relevant and interesting. But more often than not, I just ignore them.
I think the ASP.NET website is a great service from Microsoft, and of course it has costs to drive it. So I think you should keep the ads. However, regarding geek gadgets, I would prefer that the ads would remain development related.
What I really think you guys should focus on, is to make the website faster. As others already have mentioned, the page load is really slow, and that is kind of annoying. The forums is especially slow. I think the speed should be one of your main priorities, but I’m sure you’re already aware of that.
Keep up the great work! And I look forward to see the new ASP.NET website sometime in the future.
The AJAX toolkit samples section has been broken for some time on that website. AutoComplete extender to name just one. I tried to "big-up" the toolkit to a colleague of mine the other day only to look like a fool!
I just tested it and it works fine !
Hi Joe,
1) Related to Ads, No Problem till Developer only ads are there.
2) But surely, asp.net website does take some time to load.
some rework required here
Regards,
Vishal
I just tested it and it works fine !
Joe Stagner — October 1, 2009 8:49 AM
My bad, work computer is running IE8… although (to be fair) this shouldn’t be an issue.