| 6:09 pm on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Tried to post a screenshot, no luck. WW is not allowing it. Will sticky mail link to anyone who wants to see it.
| 6:45 pm on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Yep, posted about it here:
I saw an even bigger one the other day in a 320 s 250, it was 250 wide and about 75 high!
| 7:22 pm on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Pretty sure this isn't browser specific and yes there's a "Home Page Featured Discussion" going on the subject already. It's here...
Existing threads are great sources of information if one isn't opposed to reading.
| 7:24 pm on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
It's not. Seen it in FF and IE
|Pretty sure this isn't browser specific |
| 10:31 pm on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Play_Bach for clearing this up with a screen shot. You have my apologies for jumping to a bad conclusion. This is actually a different issue than the 90 x 90 images discussed in the thread I mentioned above. It is in fact a 90 x 90 Nessie arrow of sorts. OMG, UGLY!
Why Chrome, well maybe G just feels more comfortable using their own customers as guinea pigs. Could also be a temporary size bug. All this experimentation is bound to lead to some real interesting side-effects along the way.
| 2:47 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
They're getting bigger, I have them on 336 x 280 measuring 336 x 69.
I have an image, where's the most suitable place these days?
| 2:52 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I think this is working!
| 3:19 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The experiments continue...
| 3:57 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Ridiculous. Is this just another attempt to make publishers finally give up and opt in for image ads by making text ads as unattractive as possible? I don't get it.