Wow, not quite the feedback we were looking for. Quite insulting actually. Criticism is one thing, but what you've written is downright hate.
Regarding the page layout and ads:
I will admit our "front" page articles are out of place and confusing. We are working on a more static front page that is more appropriate for a "front" page. However, the article organization seems to be fine for others who've been asked to critique. The navigation links clearly link to articles of the correct subject. So I'm not sure what issues you are having. Perhaps you could be more specific. Specifics are helpful, and helpful criticism is why we posted here.
The ads are a deliberate attempt to support the website, as are any and all ads out there in the internet world. That is the entire purpose of ads, to generate income to support a business. Ad placement must also be optimized in order to do any good.
That being said, there are never more than two ad blocks on any page a user views. The context is not at all interrupted by ads. Each article includes an ad block at the beginning of the article, but no where further down the article do ads interrupt a reader.
Rarely are any other forms of advertisement included on the site. There are one or two articles which have links to products being referred to in the article. That's what a link is for, to provide more information. It would be quite dumb to talk about a Howard's furniture product without giving the reader a link to the Howard's product. Unless someone is already familiar with Howard's products, mentioning it in an article without reference is pointless and frustrating to a reader. If a reader is familiar with the product, then he/she won't click the link for more information, as it isn't needed.
You can certainly block the ads if you don't want to see them.
Regarding the subscribe feature:
I will probably be removing that anyway, as this site is intended to be rather static. Subscribing is only useful when content changes regularly. But, since ours is being updated frequently right now, I see no harm in allowing someone to subscribe to receive updates.
That being said, no one forces a user to subscribe to anything. If a user wants to subscribe to the site to view in a feedreader, how is that me spamming said user? A feedreader is simply a way to visit a website without actually visiting it, it's not spam. But a user has to choose to do that, I can't force it upon him.
Regarding email solicitations or "spam mails" as you have put it:
No where on the site have we asked for users to submit their email address. In fact, we don't even have a contact form at this time so there's really no way for a user to even contact us to provide an email address. I can't "spam" someone's inbox without his/her address, so I can't see what you are referring to here. (Perhaps the specifics would help here too.)
Regarding the content:
I would like for you to please point out any article that is not properly credited to its appropriate author. All articles from other sources are used with permission and credited properly. We have credited those articles to the exact specifications required for permission of use.
Any article that does not include a credit has been written by myself or another Attic-Addict administrator. So that content is ours and only ours. If we choose not to credit ourselves personally, that is our business. Our content is protected by our site's content copyright, so there's really no need to provide additional information about who the content belongs to.
Reproducing content to place on a relevant website doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, the entire reason for doing so is to provide users with one place for information, instead of having to go from site to site looking for things. There are articles out there relevant and useful to our site, so we wanted to include them. It's not like we have a site full of dog food articles or something else unrelated.
Regarding "dubious SEO":
Who in their right mind would bother creating a website without SEO?! The entire purpose of a website is to provide something to a user who finds the website. Without SEO, no one will ever find the site, and therefore never receive the service or information for which it was intended for. SEO is necessary for any site providing information to users. One would be a fool to not attempt to increase SEO on an informative website.
Since we are using some reproduced content, out SEO is reduced anyway, so I'm not sure what you are worried about.
Regarding keyword abuse:
Again, no specifics are mentioned here so I cannot be sure of what you are referring to. If an article is written to teach or assist someone in opening an antique booth, how else would you write it? "Antique, booth, antique mall, antique business, etc." are all relevant keywords and I can't see how we've abused this. Keywords are a form of SEO, so as I mentioned previously, failing to provide a search engine with keywords is foolish.
If you can be more specific, and point out an article that you feel has "keyword abuse", perhaps we can re-write the article.
Regarding the "obviously totally wrong forum section":
You are correct here, and I apologize to you and the other users. However, the decision to place this post into this section was not intended to be as back-handed as you interpreted it.
I deliberately posted it here because the "Antique Talk" forum section is not available to non-members. I didn't know it existed until I registered so I assumed other non-members wouldn't know this either. I chose to post it here because I felt as though it would be more visible to more people. You know, using a message forum for it's intended purpose...a place for people to learn and discuss. We have a website providing education, so I felt it was relevant in this section too. More relevant in the "Antique Talk" section perhaps, but still relevant here. But either way, I've apologized and removed the post from this area. It won't happen again.
