In the interest of Keeping It Fresh, DR presents The Most Annoying Web Ads of 2005 or, more accurately, The Few Annoying Web Ads Annie Managed to Screen-Capture in 2005. The first title just sounded more official, like obnoxious police sirens or Annie’s recent adoption of the title “Media Critic” on MySpace. That title is arguably groundless; the following commentary is not.

First up: this. Hmm. What IS wrong with that toenail? It’s a tough call, especially when there’s only one option and it’s helpfully checked off for you. I’d appreciate at least a fakeout answer or two — at least throw a box in there that just says “Nothing.” or “Other.” or “If you want to get the question right, don’t check this box.” If I’m as successful a trendspotter as I think I am, Internet ads these days are supposed to be fun and interactive (see below), but this one doesn’t even pose a challenge.

Then there’s my personal least favorite, the ubiquitous “Love Happens” ads that show up in the same pop-up windows as the colorful geometric-pattern challenges for which people are apparently expected to drop everything. Do these advertisers honestly think that people on a serious quest to check e-mail or download porn are going to just take a “timeout” in order to solve a remedial puzzle? Even with the promise that their brains will be “tickled” if they take a likely invalid IQ test? Actually, maybe. That sounds kind of hot.

Sorry. Those puzzles are generally harmless. Shit like this (left) is what I really can’t stand. This young woman is promoting an online dating service called Love Happens, an outcome that couldn’t possibly derive from the question presented here. “Interested in her?” Um, why? Is she spying on me? Will she call me in five minutes for a date if I say yes? What is the point of this question?

The question wouldn’t bug me so much if it wasn’t so blatantly rhetorical. You can tell the people at the Love Happens marketing meeting scoured their databases for the girl who looked the most like a common slut, and just went with her. Wait. Actually, no, that’s ridiculous. My guess is she’s not even a client. They probably found her in some younger assistant’s spring break photo album that happened to be lying around the office and just cropped her out of a “friends forever (or until graduation!)” group hug in front of some cheesy, overpriced bar in Acapulco. With her sexy messed-up side braid and dreamily vague look of accomplishment, she honestly looks like she just participated in some mild amateur porn.

The “yes” and “no” options are, like the rest of the ad, really insipid. I’m intrigued, though, by the presence of the “maybe” link. What kind of person takes the time to look at an ad like this and ponders the question long enough to say “You know, I’m still kind of up in the air — I’m gonna have to go with a ‘maybe’”? I’m torn between wanting to meet this person and wanting to slap him, hard.

Moving on to the “Sponsored Links” table prominently featured next to every single inbox message in Gmail. First of all, I’m aware that I’m not the only one who hates these — in fact, someone even created a site dedicated to how creepy it is that the G-robots basically infiltrate Gmail users’ lives way more than they know.

Whatever. It doesn’t bother me so much that these sponsored links exist. I think it’s hilarious to go through all my messages — especailly the ones I send to myself about eating and food, which can be vastly different entities — and check out the suggested links. I never click on them; it’s just amusing to see the term “Nachos History” to the right of my message.

Sometimes, though, I just don’t understand the yielded results (case in point: right). In the e-mail message sent to me that prompted these links, someone mentioned he liked the first 2006 episode of NBC’s “Scrubs.” Fine. So I get some generic links about scrubs. Obviously, no one in her right mind would ever actually click on the three links offering “Free Scrubs info” or “Your complete reference for Scrubs.” These are laughably ridiculous and therefore fine.

The Sarah Jessica Parker bit? That’s severely annoying. I scoured this e-mail exchange for any trace of something that could possibly invoke my favorite character (but least favorite character-voice… just imagining the voiceovers makes me cringe) on “Sex and the City,” and I found nothing. The name “Zach Braff” was even in the e-mail, but apparently not detectable enough to get its own sponsored link. There was also the phrase “go food shopping,” but that has even less to do with SJP than “Zach Braff.” I give up.

Up next is something that has literally given me nightmares:

I defy any company to come up with a more disgusting premise than this. The image is animated, which means that not only are there SPIDERS on your screen (one of which is RED) but that they are racing across the window past, towards, and into each other with no other intention than to get you to click basically anywhere in said window.

As absolutely vile as this little game is, it provoked some really profound insights for me a few nights ago. While lazily following the ants with glazed-over eyes, I ended up dealing with all sorts of deeper philosophical questions. What really makes the spiders run? When will their sick and twisted crawling routine stop momentarily and then repeat itself again on a constant loop? Or does that even have to happen? Holy crap — what if I was willing these computerized insects to move?

Watch this ad long enough, and if you’re like me (which hopefully no one is), you’ll eventually get terrifyingly freaked out over the idea that maybe someday technology will be advanced enough that you the beholder, and not some gadgety little appelet (do you like my attempts at tech-speak despite any knowledge whatsoever of programming jargon?), will be in ultimate control over the spiders.

Think about it!

No, don’t.

Currently loving: lighting candles with an unnecessarily large torch
Currently hating: Doteasy.com Web hosting and e-mail. You ****ers.

Send me pics of annoying ads you find! I am rather enjoying myself. Maybe DR: Version 2006.0 should consist of only Internet-ad analysis. I’m cool.