The adverts are random, generated by your browser history (and think they may be affected by the contents for the page too? Not sure). For example the ad on my page is currently for New Look because a friend sent me a link for some dresses - the very dresses in her link are appearing on the ad.

where does dogsey say this?

that would be at the top of the page
right under `dogsey`.

That's your "doh" moment for today KW

Julie the site itself doesn't carry advertisements for e collars, but when they are mentioned in threads the independent advertising which appears on the site 'notes' this and responds accordingly, in other words the advertising seems to be tailored to fit the content of the site.

My concern about all these e collar discussions (and there have been a lot of late) is that they are to some extent self perpetuating both in the advertising content as mentioned above and in discussions. Those who are interests in e collars (and this could be a troll) do a search and on seeing them being discussed here join and take part in the discussion . This feels to me like in one way we are helping to promote the collars.

It can be argued that it is healthy to discuss e collars but I am not sure if when they are mentioned it would not be better to have a message stating they are banned in certain places and by welfare organisations and we would prefer not to have them discussed here. After all discussions on the subject always end in stalemate and locked threads.

I think what incenses people the most is threads or Blogs where the odd person claims to have had 'a miracle cure' using an e collar and they state this without presenting all the facts or give dubious accounts of their 'success' which if left unchallenged could encourage the inexperienced owner looking for what might appear to be a quick fix to follow the same route.

I know why they appear I just think if they do it gives the very wrong impression of this forum.

And I have never looked for e-collars so it isn't my browser history making them appear !

Personally, I'd get rid of blogs and move their content over to a dedicated section of the site. Then anyone who wanted a blog could just have a single thread in there, instead of having a blog out on the site's boundaries where not as many people will look at it. You'd have to be a member for X amount of time and have X number of posts before being able to access it, to prevent advertising and such. Then at least everything comes unambiguously under the same rules (and it makes it much easier for me to find pictures of puppies to drool over )

I think that an 'official stance' on e-collars could be useful too- written and editted by the members to a point where the majority is in agreement with it, to be put somewhere where it's easily accessible (in the user guidelines maybe). Then anyone starting a thread on e-collars could first be pointed in that direction and see exactly why most of us are against it, in a way that cuts out all of the ad hominem and emotion that inevitably comes in those threads. If they had a query that it didn't answer the discussion could then continue (or not, Id' have no problems with it being banned personally).

no,clair.
where does it say this is a site for dog lovers but NOT trainers,
or similarly, that the 2 arent the same?

i dont share your interpetation trainers are a side group that "we" welcome. they are part of the same group as anyone else, surely?
that being "members".

wouldnt it be azz that would make such definitions?

I read a good article on google ads once- apparently if you type in '9/11', 'murder', 'death' etc often enough (once every 60 words, I think) it stops scanning the text for personalized ads incase it brings up an innapropriate ad and upsets the user. Maybe we need to petition google to add 'e-collars' to that list

Surely all dog owners should be trainers