Possible Duplicate:
legitimate ways for users to protest irrelevant sponsorship of tags

Ok, fine, Redgate has tools for Exchange and SQL Server, so maybe it makes sense to have the annoying little rg on exchange and sql-server tags (although it's arguable even there, since not every Exchange question is about archiving, and that's what all Redgate's ads are for).

But there are also rg's on email and backup tags, which make no sense at all. The first page of questions tagged "email" has only a few Exchange questions, so it's irrelevant to have ads for an Exchange archiving tool all over the place.

How about getting rid of the rg's altogether?

  • dupe: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/39613/…
    – balpha
    Commented Feb 22, 2010 at 19:23
  • I suppose you want to ban all commercials and product placement from TV and pay full price for cable/satellite? Or ban all billboards from road sides? Ban ads from magazines and newspapers too?
    – Chris S
    Commented Oct 21, 2010 at 14:44

2 Answers 2


They pay money to be advertised on those tags and they get it.

It may be annoying, and there are Greasemonkey scripts to deal with it, but think of it this way:

What would you pay to use Server Fault (Or Stack Overflow)?

If that number is not zero, then consider this the price you pay for not having to pay that money.


Maybe they can be hidden for users with more than 200 rep (which is an extremely small percentage)

  • Those uses are the mostly likely to be in a position to recommend buying products like the ones advertised.
    – Chris S
    Commented Oct 21, 2010 at 14:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .