# Inappropriate Advertising on the Site



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

This banner


Spoiler: Inappropriate content












With this link. I haven't followed it for obvious reasons.

Don't know what, if anything, can be done to avoid this sort of odious sexism.

https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net...MIh8ahlaKq-AIVJkfBCh0FWQiGEAEYASAAEgLy0_D_BwE


----------



## classic33 (13 Jun 2022)

Dismiss the advert and you'll be asked why. You shouldn't see it again.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

classic33 said:


> Dismiss the advert and you'll be asked why. You shouldn't see it again.



Not for my personal benefit, more how to avoid the site funding and promoting misogyny.


----------



## Threevok (13 Jun 2022)

Dismissing it doesn't work. Neither does reporting it (to AdChoices)

There's a couple of different ones, all on the same theme of dodgy photos


----------



## classic33 (13 Jun 2022)

These are two of the pictures from the link given,









And for balance


----------



## nickb (13 Jun 2022)

Aren't these ads 'curated' specifically for the person that sees them based on the copious data that Google holds about them?

If you've seen an ad that you deem inappropriate, maybe ask yourself what you've previously searched for or clicked on that might suggest that it's of interest to you


----------



## Tom... (13 Jun 2022)

Just use an Ad Blocker browser extension and it won't bother you


----------



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

Tom... said:


> Just use an Ad Blocker browser extension and it won't bother you



It isn't about what bothers me. 

It's whether a cycling site should be financing misogynist adverts.


----------



## Alex321 (13 Jun 2022)

roubaixtuesday said:


> It isn't about what bothers me.
> 
> It's whether a cycling site should be financing misogynist adverts.



The cycling site doesn't actually get to choose what adverts are displayed. 

And they certainly aren't financing them - in fact it is the reverse, this site is funded (at least in part) by advertising revenue.

I'm not even sure it really classes as misogynist either, although the photo you linked to could be classed that way, the photos on the site linked to are of a variety of "fails" relating to all genders/races etc. That particular photo is of a particularly poor piece of cycling kit design for (IIRC) the Columbian women's team.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I'm not even sure it really classes as misogynist either



I think using cycling kit with women's genitals printed on the front as clickbait advertising is most definitely misogynist.


----------



## Tom... (13 Jun 2022)

As above, the Ad's nothing to do with CycleChat. 

Use an Ad Blocker if it bothers you (which it clearly does).


----------



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

Tom... said:


> Use an Ad Blocker if it bothers you (which it clearly does).



As explained at least twice above, the point is not about what bothers me, or any other individual.

The Ad does, whether we like it or not, have to do with CycleChat, as CycleChat is being used as a vehicle for misogyny.

It's about the normalising of misogyny, specifically on a cycling site, an activity which itself has a long and inglorious history of such.

Hope that helps, at risk of being repetitive.


----------



## Alex321 (13 Jun 2022)

roubaixtuesday said:


> I think using cycling kit with women's genitals printed on the front as clickbait advertising is most definitely misogynist.



That kit was genuine .
It didn't actually have genitals printed on the front, it just looked like that from certain angles and certain lighting. It raised quite a furore when it was released and used in 2014 ( I was right in recalling it was the Columbian women's team - I didn't realise it was that long ago).

https://road.cc/content/news/130207...eam-show-little-more-they-bargained-revealing
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2014/09/16/nude-cycling-uniforms/15707777/
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/rep...ing-colombian-womens-cycling-kit-controversy/


----------



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

Alex321 said:


> That kit was genuine .



And genuinely misogynist!


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2022)

roubaixtuesday said:


> And genuinely misogynist!



It presumably wasn't mysogenistic, as it likely wasn't intended to convey pretend nudity.

It was a bad design certainly.


----------



## Chris S (13 Jun 2022)

I got a warning for posting a picture from a sponsored site. The moderators obviously haven't got a clue about what's on them.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (13 Jun 2022)

Profpointy said:


> it likely wasn't intended to convey pretend nudity.



It definitely was in the context of the advert.

Or do you believe it was done as a way to promote understanding of the history of women's cycling in South America?


----------



## Threevok (13 Jun 2022)

addtionally, now that the subject is being talked about, more of the adverts seem to be popping up



> Uncensored Photos Reveal All
> Warning - The Following Images May Trigger Sensitive Audiences
> History Daily


----------



## PaulSB (13 Jun 2022)

Tom... said:


> As above, the Ad's nothing to do with CycleChat.
> 
> Use an Ad Blocker if it bothers you (which it clearly does).



I fully appreciate the OP's point so this post is simply to suggest by far the best way to block ads on CC is to donate to the site and get the ad free version. It's a win win solution.


----------



## Alex321 (13 Jun 2022)

roubaixtuesday said:


> And genuinely misogynist!



Given it was apparently designed by one of the women from the team, I don't think so. Just a genuinely poor design.


----------



## Threevok (13 Jun 2022)

nickb said:


> Aren't these ads 'curated' specifically for the person that sees them based on the copious data that Google holds about them?
> 
> If you've seen an ad that you deem inappropriate, maybe ask yourself what you've previously searched for or clicked on that might suggest that it's of interest to you



 If that was the case, all the ads I would see on here, would be bike or harmonica related.

I've seen a few bike ones, however, I have yet to see any harmonica related ones.

I suspect it's more to do with the popularity of subject matter of the threads or conversations within.

Assuming this is the case, i'm going to continue to say the word harmonica, because I would like to see ads about harmonica, even if nobody else wants to see ads about harmonicas, even If i do want to see ads about harmonicas.

harmonica !


----------



## Threevok (13 Jun 2022)

Update : I have just gone to AdChoices and my setting for personalised adverts was turned off. I'll see if turning this on helps


----------



## T4tomo (13 Jun 2022)

roubaixtuesday said:


> It definitely was in the context of the advert.
> 
> Or do you believe it was done as a way to promote understanding of the history of women's cycling in South America?



the click bait site being advertised was misogynistic, 

the original kit design was a badly spec'ed gold colour which, when combined with the lines of the pad, cast an unforeseen shadow.


----------



## PK99 (13 Jun 2022)




----------



## ColinJ (13 Jun 2022)

PK99 said:


> View attachment 648836



If you really want to see a bad example you could search for _*Polish men's team unfortunate red cycling shorts*_!!


----------



## Threevok (13 Jun 2022)

Threevok said:


> Update : I have just gone to AdChoices and my setting for personalised adverts was turned off. I'll see if turning this on helps



Well that was a waste of time. I selected to hide "gambling" on my sensitive topic settings, yet the first ad I saw when returning here tonight was for a casino.


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Jun 2022)

Threevok said:


> Well that was a waste of time. I selected to hide "gambling" on my sensitive topic settings, yet the first ad I saw when returning here tonight was for a casino.



What are the odds on that!


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jun 2022)

Not seen the ad in the OP but often see ads in a similar theme... _you won't believe these photo fails_, type thing. I'm good at ignoring ads but i have wondered if they're appropriate for a 'family' forum.


----------



## Chris S (13 Jun 2022)

PK99 said:


> View attachment 648836



They look like Action Men


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jun 2022)

Some outfit was trying to flog me a 16 seat Bombardier executive jet last night. OK, it was a 2015 model but it probably cost north of $25 million. Lord knows what a shopping trip to Dubai for me and my pals would cost.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jun 2022)

slowmotion said:


> Some outfit was trying to flog me a 16 seat Bombardier executive jet last night. OK, it was a 2015 model but it probably cost north of $25 million. Lord knows what a shopping trip to Dubai for me and my pals would cost.


Did you buy it?

Think it'd work out at £1500 per hour on fuel. Then you've take-off, landing fees and storage whilst your in Dubai to take into account.


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jun 2022)

classic33 said:


> Did you buy it?
> 
> Think it'd work out at £1500 per hour on fuel. Then you've take-off, landing fees and storage whilst your in Dubai to take into account.



You also need a couple of crew and some people to ply you with food and grog in your comfy seat. Then there's all the tedious servicing and certification. I think it works out at about $4000 for every hour you're gadding about.


----------



## Svendo (13 Jun 2022)

slowmotion said:


> Some outfit was trying to flog me a 16 seat Bombardier executive jet last night. OK, it was a 2015 model but it probably cost north of $25 million. Lord knows what a shopping trip to Dubai for me and my pals would cost.



Gotta replace the Russian Oligarch market somehow


----------



## slowmotion (13 Jun 2022)

Svendo said:


> Gotta replace the Russian Oligarch market somehow



I think they made a mistake in assuming I would be a suitable substitute.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jun 2022)

slowmotion said:


> I think they made a mistake in assuming I would be a suitable substitute.



You should have gone for a test drive at least


----------



## Cycleops (14 Jun 2022)

slowmotion said:


> You also need a couple of crew and some people to ply you with food and grog in your comfy seat. Then there's all the tedious servicing and certification. I think it works out at about $4000 for every hour you're gadding about.


Doesn’t seem to worry Harry and Megain despite their environmental pronouncements.
Mind you they’re pretty hot on the misogyny and sexist front which should please the OP.


----------

