AdBlock Talk
We’ve had a large number of new visitors from various webmaster boards. If you’re one of them, welcome! Thanks for spreading the word.
After reading the various threads on message boards and the information here, what are your thoughts on this issue? Is it a hopeless case? Can the Adblockers be swayed to at least be clear and fair in their actions? Is this all a big non-issue?
Arms races and cat and mouse games are no fun and leave no winners, what are some lasting and permanent solutions?
September 1st, 2004 at 8:29 am
Great resource!
As was mentioned on a few message boards, I think educating users is a good idea. its scarey that this software can be running on peoples computers without them knowing it!
September 9th, 2004 at 11:59 am
Did you know that the websites you view may not be visible because there are too many flashing ads and ads in flash?
Wouldn’t it be nice if websites used tasteful ads instead of
flooding their pages to make them look like racing cars?
Yeah, in theory, but it’s not going to happen. How is anybody supposed to concentrate on the content of a website with 16 different flash animations claiming that they have viruses and their computer is too slow and … are all vying for their attention?
Thus adblocking software.
I understand that you think that by intimidating senior citizens and overwhelming them with FUD you hope to maximise your profits, but I’m not vulnerable, so why would I want to see this spam?
Just the content; plain and clear.
p.s. yes, that really is my email address.
September 10th, 2004 at 9:40 am
Craig, thanks for the comment.
I can’t agree more that flashing, jittering, take-over-your screen ads should be banished from the earth. See our article on “Why adblocking software”. I make the exact same points.
http://www.adblock.org/article_why_adblocking.html
The point is that by blocking ads with such sweeping rules that it blocks EVERY ad and more without any indication to the user that it is happening is simply irresponsible.
Most reasonable people understand that websites cost money to run and don’t mind seeing passive ads on the page, e.g., Google Adsense ads. Are you one of those people?
September 24th, 2004 at 8:18 am
I would perfectly happy with the ability to leave
the ad but stop the flashing. I want the ability to turn on a feature that always stops the flashing
and I do not have to make 12+ mouse clicks to remove everything.
October 9th, 2004 at 11:32 am
If you want the right software when it comes to adblocking try the mozilla/forefox browser. With this broswer and an adblock plugin I can block all ads. Yes even the flash adds and even popups are blocked.
October 18th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
One subject you don’t seem to have raised is that of privacy.
For many users, it is not the visual clutter that advertisements cause that is the main problem. Rather, it is the privacy issues that come from (particularly) the large advertising/tracking companies. Some of these companies which for many years claimed that the information was not personally identifiable, later purchased extensive personal databases which they merged with their own. This made the profiles that they had built up over many years of trust instantly become personally identifiable. An independent website operator may, for now, do nothing more than deliver ads. However there is no way that this can be guaranteed into the future.
A competent user can make the choice to invest their time and effort to make use of more adjustable tools to pick and choose which advertisements to block and which to allow through.
Not all internet users are computer-literate. Many, and I believe the vast majority, have little understanding of the difference between advertisers with a strong emphasis on profiling of users and advertisers who do nothing but provide ads.
Users who would like to maintain their privacy, but with limited understanding of the way ads are provided are far better served to simply block everything than to place their trust in an advertising provider to “do the right thing” not just today, but into the future.
This also is compounded by the fact that basically all advertisers conduct themselves with a “trust me” attitude. The advertisers that offer the option to opt out of profiling tend to bury their opt-out page, rather than making it easy to find. None provide a robust method to avoid profiling in the future (any time cookies are cleared the user would have to go through the opt-out process of each advertiser over again).
Even if there were operators who were truly going to safeguard the privacy of their advertisees, the actions of the larger majority have severely limited the chance that they will not be trusted.
The online advertising industry have brought blanket ad blocking upon themselves.
October 25th, 2004 at 11:24 am
I would like to thank you for having a great site that is an invaluable resource..
On the issue of ad-blocking and NIS.
I think the first solution to the problem is to educate the consumer. Let them know what is installed on their machine may affect the way they view web sites. The average computer user needs to understand that tools like NIS and similar are overkill and that if they are concerned about pop-up ads that there plenty of free tools that do not interfere with how you view the web.
Second, we need to mobilize and put pressure on Symantec for black listing every major affiliate program, except certain Major sites. I can attest to this, I run a site for a membership management association and we use HitBox for our traffic reporting software and when users (w/NIS) come to our site all they get is a blank page (We do not serve ads on our site..its becuase HitBox is on the Black list). Immediately the user thinks that our web site is the problem. Maybe if the consumer was aware of how this software affects how they use the web they might not use it. I have installed the product on my machine so I can see how NIS affects your web surfing experience, but also to figure out how to configure the product to allow users to view our site with it turned on. Maybe if Symantec were a little more forthcoming on how and what their software does, maybe more users would not use it. Also Symantec has a responsibilty to provide better documentation. The documentation and support site is horrible for the basic user.
I commend this site for the breadth and depth of informatio available. I feel that we need to get this brought to the attention of the media, so we can begin to promote user choice and responsible software distribution. Lets take an example from Mozilaa with the Spread FireFox campaign. I’d be willing to donate money for a full page ad in the NY Times to bring this issue to the forefront.
-HHH
October 25th, 2004 at 6:01 pm
Wow, this site is really slanted… I can’t really blame you all though. My opinion: It’s my connection and my browser and I’m tired of being constantly annoyed with anigifs, flash, and popups. I urge people to install software that allows them to control this tripe.
Firefox + Adblock: Take back the web.
October 26th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
Slanted? I don’t think so. We talk a lot here about the importance of user choice. In fact, we’ve discussed how Firefox and Adblock is a good solution, at least for now, as the user must configure it to block what they don’t want to see.
The big problem, in our opinion, is when the blocking is done without the user even knowing what’s going on. What, are they doing people favors? Who is Symantec to decide what people should see or not?
November 10th, 2004 at 1:24 pm
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ll block ads for as long as I live. This is the way of the world, folks. TiVO, Adblock, and other forms of anti-advertising are the way of the future. People will be willing to pay for your services in some cases if you stop doing commercials & ads.
November 24th, 2004 at 11:03 am
Take Tivo off your list for an ad free medium….I think your missing the point and mission of Adblock.org.
HHH
November 25th, 2004 at 1:16 am
Ads are viruses
January 3rd, 2005 at 4:24 pm
I personally distribute a small set of adblock filters for Mozilla’s adblock to give people the advantages I gain from not viewing stupid advertisements. It’s my computer and I should be the boss of what I download from the net. I don’t like advertisements and I certainly don’t see why anyone would want to browse with them! I’ve seen maybe three advertisements in my 10 years or so of having the Internet that interest me… That’s not good enough odds to tempt me to remove adblock!
January 14th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Sorry folks, but the reality here is that even though you’re claiming to be mostly interested in ensuring that consumers have the “choice” of viewing ads (or not..) and seeing the websites as they were designed to be seen, that really isn’t the agenda that I see.
People that install adblocking tools are doing so because they are annoyed with the ads. If they wanted to see the adverts, they would not have installed software specifically designed to remove them. Bandwidth and annoyance issues aside, as long as the advertising community insists on using invisible web-tracking bugs, pop-* ads and other things that are outside the control of the average user, people are going to take the machete approach and block EVERYTHING THEY CAN FIND.
Tools like the firefox adblock tool allow anyone to block entire advertising domains (like the *click ones, for example) without regard to whatever might be there, valuable or not. Telling users that they cannot view the contents of a site without submitting to ads is going to be self-defeating, as most people that install adblocking software are probably savvy enough to get around it somehow, and I really think that most of the “un-savvy” users out there will respond negatively to the proffered ultimatum, and vote with their feet (or fingers..).
Lugash approves.
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:12 am
I use the mozilla firefox browser with the adblock extension. However I don’t actually use it often. The only ads I usually block are:
All ads which make a sound (shockwave)
Every single popup ad (firefox does this already)
Ads which seriously disrupt my browsing (sometimes they get in the way of javascript menus)
Pornographic ads
Ads which slow down the browser (see lockergnome site for an example of this)
Also do not allow a single ad to set a cookie on my machine. I realise that some ads use the cookies to determine how much the site gets paid (unique visitors). However I don’t care.
Some examples of good ads are google ads (just block that cookie) and blogads (the best I have ever seen).
My adblock config has only a few lines in it. However the cookie permissions list has hundreds of ad domains where I have set it to block cookies.
January 31st, 2005 at 12:24 pm
I *love* AdBlock. I have never clicked on a banner ad in my life, and I’ve been surfing since 1995, so I don’t miss seeing ads at all. Every day advertising, on the web and off, gets more obnoxious and in your face–thank God for the authors of adblock for giving me the chance to turn it off. It’s no different philosophically than taping TV shows so you can fast-forward through the ads, or skipping them entirely on your TiVo. To say it’s some kind of moral duty to put yourself through the hell of having blinking ads all over your screen is absurd. Choice is good–advertising I can do without with, if I want to buy something I’ll research it myself, I don’t need a flashing rectangle to tell me what to do.
January 31st, 2005 at 4:16 pm
It’s funny, everybody cites in-your-face, blinking ads as the evil that is advertising — and I agree with that.
I’m all for blinking obnoxious ads to disappear. I won’t ever put an ad like that on my website.
I’m also all for choice. If you choose to block ads, then fine. I may choose to not allow you to view certain content on my website as well.
The crux of this informational website is to promote software that offers choice and not default behavior that does agressive blocking without the user’s knowledge.
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:45 am
Someone anon a few postings back said “People will be willing to pay for your services in some cases if you stop doing commercials & ads.” Isn’t that the truth? Whoever saw an ad for the best spyware remover there is… *** LAVASOFTS AD-AWARE,*** . It’s IRONIC you don’t see ads about them because they don’t have to advertise! Everyone INCLUDING THIS SITE advertises for them for free!! haaaaaaay!
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:08 am
Cut all that hype about websites costing money to run and blah blah blah… Of course they cost money to run and more importantly than that is the time. But back when I first got on the net (’94) you didn’t have all these wannabe’s thinking that the internet was the perfect opportunity to make a million dollars overnight. We all knew the GREED KINGS were coming, but for the time being, everything was free. Everyone GAVE a small peice to the internet (well, except aol) and in return everyone got back the whole pie.
When you freely give, there is a magic about it somehow that you end up getting more then you gave without even trying. I know I made a stack more then all the websites I’ll ever own will cost me, just from having a valuable, informative, comprehensive website without ever placing a single paid advertisment on my site. My point is that websites don’t cost enough to snivel over and the cost certainly does not justify anything that blinks or pops up in ones face or spy/adware that accesses system resources that do not belong to them. It is my system I should be able to choose, without fighting, what my homepage is going to be set on, and what search engine I want to use. Don’t get me wrong, I believe strongly in the importance of advertising, but the problem starts when people think of ways to advertise to you when your not even on their page.
I do agree Symantec sux, not just the adblock software but everything they do, they over install on your system.
The threat of you choosing not to allow me to view certain content on your site if I block ads cracks me up!! WooHoo your scarin me!! hehee In a single second there is more uploaded to the internet that is valuable ad-free info then what I can view in my entire life! You block everyone who blocks ads and you’d find your website a lonely place.
March 7th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
“If you choose to block ads, then fine. I may choose to not allow you to view certain content on my website as well.”
I have a better idea. Load up your site with ads, the more obnoxious the better. Blinking, flashing, moaning, whatever. Instead of worrying about the few smart people who choose to not see that crap, why don’t you spend your time and effort raking in as much money as you can from the bovine drooling masses who “don’t mind a few ads?”
Seriously if you add up all the time and effort you spent worrying about adblockers and put it into more appealing content don’t you think you would come out ahead?
March 7th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
>> Seriously if you add up all the time and effort… <<
Honestly, we’re not worrying about the few who actively block ads. We’re worried about the software companies who distribute software and computers with adblocking turned on indiscriminately with no knowledge, action, or alerting of the end-user.
March 10th, 2005 at 10:37 am
“if you add up all the time and effort you spent worrying about adblockers and put it into more appealing content don’t you think you would come out ahead”
Sure, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. But then you have to pay for the extra bandwith the “bovine masses” use up, and you will probably have to move to a more expensive (hence reliable) dedicatedv server and then pay a couple people to maintian it.
So, now with the majority of people not even viewing you ads, you’re spending $3000/ month… Nice business model. let me know if you find somebody who wants to fund that.
March 29th, 2005 at 4:52 am
I don’t mind blocking pop-up ads…
That said, legitimate, non-obtrusive advertising is the backbone of “free” website content.
For the idealistic hordes of lame ass leechers that think this sh*t is free, go get a fugging job, or press the “pay-pal” button or better still get off the net. Just so you know, paying your isp for internet access does not mean we the webmasters owe you free content.
Most of us out here are not trying to make a living with banner ads, were simply trying to cushion the costs of our webserver fees, our bandwidth fees, our software costs, our computer costs, and all the other misc. stuff that costs us REAL money to bring you this so called “free” content.
Anyway I hope all you adblocking lamers get what your asking for, an internet that costs per site subscription fees, since your to good to view and or click a banner once in awhile, then go ahead and kill yer “free” internet and see how you like paying $5~$20 a month per site for content, bet you’ll be the first to say “why cant they pay for this stuff with advertising”
Okay, okay, /rant OFF
thanks for a space to air my grievance.
April 15th, 2005 at 2:10 am
1. If some of this has been covered in previous comments, my apologies. No, I may not have read all of them them because they appear on my browser (IE 5 on W98SE, don’t tell me to upgrade) with the text “squashed” together so that not more than one word appears per line.
2. To those like Dahrwihn who speak of “lame-*** leechers”, “thieves”, and “bovine drooling masses”:
a. Nobody says you have a right to make a living by a Web site, or even to have your costs reduced. You have the right to try, but that’s all. Other than that, frankly, you need to take a chill pill and an Ex-Lax (not necessarily in that order) and put a sock in it.
b. Calling visitors (or potential visitors) to your site “leeches” and “thieves” really isn’t how to win friends and favorably influence people. See www.anti-leech.com if this doesn’t bother you. I would also refer you to www.antiadbuster.com but this domain has been trolled (justice in my opinion).
3. Like Khalid Boussouara, I don’t do much ad-blocking, and mostly block what he does. If your ad is reasonably unobtrusive, I’ll probably let it pass. If it interests me, I may even click on it.
4. User/admin “AdBlock”:
a. Unless you have some really compelling content, go right ahead and block me if I block your ads. I haven’t seen anything I can’t live without from those of this mentality. I agree with Lugash that most people will respond to ultimatums with “Bye!”
b. Why does Norton Internet Security ship with ad-blocking on? Maybe because that’s what their customers want? A word to the wise…?
5. Do not assume that everyone has broadband Internet access (some seem to assume fast broadband) or Flash. I have dial-up and no Flash.
a. If you want me to view your site, make sure the page loads reasonably quickly. If one or more ads slow this down, don’t complain about me hitting ESC to stop that or using ad-blocking measures.
b. Flash especially is a millstone on dial-up, and is really aggravating in ads.
(1) In my opinion, Flash has no place in ads at this time. When everyone has 10 Mbps download, fine. Otherwise, no.
(2) I’ve seen Javascript to detect the player. It’s not perfect, but it’s good. If someone doesn’t have the player installed, they won’t likely be interested in installing it for an ad. If they do, they probably won’t be happy when they find out.
(3) You can also structure your page to load Flash after everything else. I have no interest in those who don’t.
April 21st, 2005 at 7:45 am
Well, I’ve used many many hours on my site and I know many people love my site because of that dedication. However, I’m fully aware that people don’t like paying for internet content, so I have to earn my money another way (big surprise for you leeching pissants who use adblock) bandwidth and servers costs money. People using adblock might as well go to a bookstore, read the books and magazines and the put them back on the shelf. See if you get away with that.
I do NOT want to give my users a choice, so I have blocked access from Firefox altogether, and guess what, the ad impressions didn’t drop significantly. So I can only conclude that Firefox users almost always use adblock. So there you have it. The optimum solution block firefox.
April 21st, 2005 at 10:40 am
“I do NOT want to give my users a choice, so I have blocked access from Firefox altogether” I would like the URL to time exactly how many seconds it takes me to get around whatever pathetic blocking scheme you set up.
“might as well go to a bookstore, read the books and magazines and the put them back on the shelf” They have those places but they aren’t called bookstores, they are called libraries. And on the off chance you leave your cave and go to a modern bookstore you will see that they have couches and coffee bars to ENCOURAGE people to read their books and magazines in the store. Savvy retailers know the more time people spend in the store the more likely they are to buy.
If your only purpose on the internet is to sell ads don’t let the knob hit you on the way out. We will get along just fine without you.
April 21st, 2005 at 11:07 am
All thrid party advertising is bad and should be blocked. The *click people don’t care about the content of your site or about your user, they only care about impressions. It is a form of spam.
Good advertising relates to the content of your site. Such as advertising movie posters on a site that provides movie reviews. It means you have to think about what your viewers want, not what you are trying to pimp on them this week.
April 27th, 2005 at 6:09 am
lol well i use my peerguardian to stop most of the Ads from the source, then i use a Iframe with a Anti-AdSense script coded in
I dont like those google ads in anyway so thank heavens i dont have to stand them ^_^ Advertising on a site is just like Spam, not wanted, not cared for.
April 27th, 2005 at 6:10 am
lol well i use my peerguardian to stop most of the Ads from the source, then i use a Iframe with a Anti-AdSense script coded in
I dont like those google ads in anyway so thank heavens i dont have to stand them ^_^ Advertising on a site is just like Spam, not wanted, not cared for.
April 27th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Lots of lovelty impartial advice here, jees, just like wandering into a Slashdot troll party! People, get a life, without advertising on the web half you people wouldn’t have jobs!
Boohoo,… don;t advertise to me, I’m too lame and pathetic to be able to take your flashing banners, no, it gives me a headache.
Children!
May 4th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Having been in since before the bubble, and weathering it nicely in a privately held company, I’ve had the luxury of watching web advertising arrive on the scene with simple impression advertisement to network-impression, to click-through, and pop-ups, and unique users, and pop-unders and so forth.
I use firefox and a personalized adblock (see my homepage). This puts me into the “very informed user” category. I’m also personally eccentric - I will go into bookstores to read the books and magazines, only to leave them there. The staff generally don’t mind - I usually chat and flirt with them.
The problem with advertiser supported web sites in my mind is that they don’t have a viable business model. Imagine, if you will, a book store where all the books are written by me, but none are for sale - you can’t actually pay me for them. But all over my store, there are advertisements for stores where you can go and buy stuff.
There are 3 models of web ads - impression, click-through, and partner/purchase.
Impression makes the most money for the advertising network - they offer a few cents per hundred impressions to the web sites serving impressions, and charge several dollars per hundred impressions to their client. If I block these, I am costing the advertising network significantly more than the web site owner, and I think that’s a decent thing to do.
Click-through adverts require that the visitor click on the advert before the webmaster gets any money. I’m not going to click, so whether or not the ad displays, the webmaster isn’t going to get anything from me.
Partner/purchase adverts require that the visitor purchase something from the advertiser before the webmaster gets any money - usually a significant chunk. I don’t have a credit card, or a permanent address. I’m not going to purchase something from the advertiser. Same as above.
Sooner or later we’ll all start paying the real price for things. And there’ll be a whole lot of changes!
May 9th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
American capitolism is sickening and I should know, I’m American. Advertisers will do whatever they can to get your attention. Pricewatch is a fair (though flawed) example of fair advertising because the user has choosen to search for products they are in need of. A web surfer does not visit the web to shop non-stop. If someone is smart enough to buy something online they will be smart enough to search for it through a search engine or site related (like pricewatch is to computer hardware) to what they are looking for.
Surfing the web since 1998 I’ve NEVER nor believe I will ever see advertising on sites I visit that showcase an item I would be interested in. More then just endless crap that advertisers are trying to sell is how IN YOUR FACE they are. Placing ads smack dab in the middle of articles, creating highly obnoxious flash ads. Furthormore I’ve setup many countless folks using dialup using adblock and Firefox. Not only do they HIGHLY enjoy advertising free surfing but they all feel the web loads a lot faster even if they’re connecting through aohell.
While I understand the desire to make money off the web there are a few important factors to consider. First off the number of people with computers is under a billion. Secondly most people simply avoid purchasing things online because of advertisers union with shady hackers. People may be dumb enough to still have spyware on their computer but they know that something is wrong with their computer. The obsession by shady marketors as well as banner freaks needs to stop. There are better methods then getting in people’s faces to sell products, assumming the product does not suck; so far they always have.
May 11th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I’m using dial-up, so I’m tired of spending 30 seconds to fully load a site, especially when 25 seconds is dedicated to loading the ads. Now I see we can block flash-based ads as well.
Your time is waning. Evolve or die.
May 11th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
>> I’m using dial-up…Evolve or die.
oh, that’s a good one.
May 15th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
<< Further, we believe that while users have the right to block advertising on the internet, they don't necessarily have the right to view Internet content without advertisements displayed. Here we explore the concept of website-owner rights to have their content displayed only with advertising intact. Website owners have a right to be compensated for their efforts and expenses. >>
I have problems with this. First, what you or others “believe” is irrelevent. People believe all sorts of things that aren’t true or are opposed by other equally dubious “beliefs”. If you want to argue convincingly about a “right”, then first make clear whether you are talking about a legal right or supposed moral right and how that right is derived. If indeed, “users have the right to block advertising on the internet”, then logically users must “necessarily” have the “the right to view Internet content without advertisements displayed”. One implies the other.
Unless legal decision or laws or regulations are cited to the contrary, ones which I do not know about, web users have the legal right to filter or modify any internet content in whatever way they desire for their personal use, regardless of the wishes of the originators of that material.
<< Website owners have a right to be compensated for their efforts and expenses. >>
They do not. No-one, whether performing a task as a business or hobby has any legal or moral right to necessarily expect any compensation for efforts or expenses, except as specifically specified by laws and practices and contracts. That people put a great deal of effort and expense into a business does not not mean that they therefore have a magic right to that business being “profitable” or continuing to be profiticable. That a hobbyest may defray expenses of a hobby by attempting to make some money from it, does not mean that that hobbyest has a “right” to any compensation. I don’t see why I shouldn’t try to prevent companies like Double-click and Claria from being compensated for their efforts and expenses which I don’t appreciate.
Website owners have no more (or less) rights in such matters than anyone else.
A business is insane to rely on protential customers or existing customers to go out of their way to keep them in business.
<< I ask that you choose to not block ads on my website. In return, I promise to not display distracting and annoying advertisements on my website. >>
Annoyance is subjective. How do you know what is annoying to particular individuals? You don’t. Personally, I’m far more annoyed by a text advertisement for a product I feel is shoddy than by an animated ad for a product I feel is good. You are making a promise you cannot keep. Some people find almost all advertising annoying. I’m close to that.
And why the word “guarantee” on the graphics? (For a definition of “guarantee” see http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=guarantee .) The word “guarantee” suggests some kind of refund promise if I’m not satisfied or suggests at possibly some sort of body exists to which I can complain if I find anything at all annoying in your ads. Are you “guaranteeing” that you will remove any ad that anyone finds annoying for any reason? If not, what is your “guarantee”?
Promise what you can deliver without the annoying marketdroid use of the word “guarantee”. “Guarantee” is a devalued and *annoying* trigger word to anyone who looks at advertising copy critically. Instead promise “text ads only”. Or promise “no popup ads and no animated ads”. Be precise about the deliverable. And remember that you are asking people using adblock software to go out of their way to enable content in which they probably have no interest in whatsoever and which is probably of no value to them.
Currently, you may be better simply using text only ads as these are generally not blocked (though many of them can be blocked) unless they come from a filtered server.
June 6th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
You know… I’ve read some of these from website owners who say, “block firefox users from even visiting my site…” I’ve been to a few of those sites… That’s what the User Agent Switcher is for… works every single time. I know my way around stupid websites.
Simply put, I’m sick of ads. PERIOD! The reason is obvious, they have ALL gotten more and more intrusive.
And this crap about “click a banner once in a while” yea right… almost every site I’ve ever seen advertised is usually a “non-honest” site as I like to call it. You “webmasters” who have this mentality of “duh… everyone should see my advertising”, I have news for you… No one said you even “need” to have a website. You can try to have ads, but users have the right whether or not they wish to view them. I have a website myself, and I do not have any ads. I refuse to have them. I’ve even found that users are willing to donate money to **not** have ads on the site. Work WITH your visitors, not AGAINST your visitors, and they will reward you every time.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
Two words for you: tough s**t.
I’m not obligated to view any ads whatsoever. That’s the end of discussion as far as I’m concerned.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Add *.googlesyndication.com/* to your adblock list and feel satisfied that you have blocked ads from a company that helps the Chinese government to block such terrible words such as “freedom” and “democracy” from the Chinese version of it’s news search engine.
Of course people are going to block ads on websites, the naivety of this website is priceless.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:16 am
Promise me the following and I won’t block ads that meet this criteria
1. no window control (popup, popunder, ads scroll same as content rather than being on seperate layers or frames)
2. no animation or sound
3. does not interfere with content (ads distinctly seperate from content, does not take up more than 15-20% of the page)
4. relevant to content (not generic served up from a an ad network)
5. not advertising scams or misleading (no free ipod or punch the monkey)
if your ads can meet this criteria I won’t block them, I’m not holding my breath though, so far no advertising has done it
June 26th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
<< After reading the various threads on message boards and the information here, what are your thoughts on this issue? Is it a hopeless case? Can the Adblockers be swayed to at least be clear and fair in their actions? Is this all a big non-issue? >>
I agree with the above comments that webmasters can’t expect their visitors to fund their website. If that is your business model, you are failing. If you are going to complain how this puts webmasters out of business, well that’s tough luck and capitalism at work. I guess the voices who have something to say and want to work hard enough to put it out there will succeed.
As far as the “Adblockers” (symantec, mcafee, etc.) are shipping their product the way customers want it. Users who bought these products bought them in part **TO BLOCK ADS**. What does that tell you? They aren’t interested in discriminantly and individually deciding what ads they do and don’t want to see.
<< Arms races and cat and mouse games are no fun and leave no winners, what are some lasting and permanent solutions? >>
It’s funny you mention arms races. Sometimes you hear about the weapon vs armor race. More, greater weapons are produced, better armor is made. This seems to be true in the fight against pop-ups/downs/etc. and advertisement. Unfortunately this means you will be losing most of the time.
Permanent solutions? Stop think your website visitors as dollar signs. In fact, save yourself some of your massive webmaster costs and take this site down.
Gol
June 28th, 2005 at 9:47 am
What happened to the days when all you had to do was produce a good product to get business? If your product was good, people would spread the message by word of mouth and you would get the business. That was the best advertising one could get, free. The product spoke for itself.
July 5th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Man, I remember when Internet ads were cool. I used to compare online news to televised news. On TV, they would interrupt the content to bombard you with several annoying ads, but on the Net, it was just a discreet banner ad at the top (or bottom, sometimes both).
Since then, it’s been like a war between advertisers and Internet users. Ads are not only annoying now, but they’re invasive, popping up after a delay anticipating a click (Amazon’s old ads that would pop up over the search box) and for many Net users, they’re very deceptive.
I’ve set up a few peoples’ computers and I’ve installed Firefox with the Adblock extension. However, I tell them what I’ve done, so I wouldn’t call it invisible. I explain that I’ve configured their computer to not display ads, and every time they appreciate it. Anyone who lets me use their computer, if they don’t have it I suggest letting me install Firefox and a few extensions (incl. Adblock). Every time, they say they’re getting more out of their computer.
I strongly advise websites to NOT block Adblock users. If I go to a web site and it doesn’t work for whatever reason, I’m going somewhere else. It’s not going to make me lower my security. And that’s what it’s about, really. You have firewall and antivirus, AdAware and the Firefox Adblock extension. These four components (or more) of your system security. You should never lower one or more to “make something work”. Anything that requires you to lower your system’s security is simply not worth viewing.
And if there are sites out there blocking people who use Adblock or similar, I’m sure Adblock will, or another extension will, somehow lie to the script, make it think we’re viewing the ads, so we in fact get the content as people viewing ads do, just without the ads.
It’s like the no-right-clicking scripts. Not only can Firefox stop some of these out of the box, but there’s an extension that makes it more effective. Plus, if it’s images they’re protecting, Imageshack has you covered. They have something called a “Transloader” that loads all the images on the page onto a blank page, and you can click on any image to have Imageshack re-host it. I do this because I don’t like to “Hotlink” images. Imageshack allows hotlinking, so I will respect a website that doesn’t want to be hotlinked.
I really have no sympathy for webmasters not getting revenue for their site. Please. I run a message board for my friends and I, and I pay the people who make the software $10 a month for hosting and a leased license… and the URL is like $10 a year to renew. No one pays this for me (I don’t get enough hits to qualify anyway), I pay it out of pocket. Because I like to. And I’ve promised the members on my forum that I won’t display ads. I’m proud that my site is in that tiny minority of sites that don’t display any ads. I’ve thought about adding a Paypal donate button to raise money for a perpetual license, so I can get better/cheaper hosting, but I don’t like asking others for money, so there’s no real motivation.
I paid for all the parts for, and built my own computer. I pay a pretty penny for DSL service. I also pay to host my own site. Until I see advertisers willing to reimburse me for some of that, I consider my time my own, so I block ads indiscriminately.
That there is a site for advertisers and ad-supportive webmasters to complain about people blocking software (this site) says a lot. We’ve had this war the advertisers have been waging on the Net, and finally the Net is winning some battles. Ad blocking utilities mostly don’t work, because MSIE was always ad friendly, but now that Firefox is gaining ground and people are installing Adblock… Advertisers are getting nervous?
July 12th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
It is foolish to believe users will willingly allow themselves to be bombarded by ads in the prevailing advertising environment on the internet.
It is foolish to expect all sites to find support outside of advertising.
There is no law against blocking ads.
There is no law against showing ads.
Hey, webmasters! Want to make some money? Make your viewers happy. Strike a ballance. If your content sucks, viewers aren’t going to put up with your annoying ads! Don’t gripe about how “unfair” it is that users are blocking your ads! Viewing of ads is ultimately optional! If you don’t want users to indiscriminately tune-out ads, work to reduce the pervsive offensiveness of ads on the internet. If you can’t do that, you have to either use less intrusive means of advertising, or continue the tech war to force viewers to view your ads.
If you feel you need to take measures to force your viewers to view your ads, chances are your site will never be able to properly support itself through advertising. If viewers don’t want to see your ads, don’t want to buy your stuff, don’t want to make donations, and don’t want to pay to see your crap, if you can’t get any sponsors to support the site, if you don’t want to or can’t pay for the site yourself, perhaps your website should just DIE.
July 22nd, 2005 at 8:09 pm
“PROMOTING USER CHOICE”
I can change the channel when a tv show hits a commercial break. I can turn on a cd when a talk show stops for a commercial break. If I don’t want to be exposed to advertisements, I’ll take steps to ensure that happens. That’s my choice. Don’t like it? Find a more financially solvent business model to get in to.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:20 am
If a website uses ads that are site-specific, in a file format that does not take a long time to download, does not give me spyware, and do not make noises, flash, or take over the page, then I will not block them with my Adblock.
If they trip up anywhere in the above, the ads are toast, period, too bad. If you use one of the advertisement servers that give these kinds of ads out 99% of the time, then it is your fault if I block them. And if you require me to have Adblock off when visiting your site, whether or not I have blocked the ads specifically on your site? I have alternatives. I will go elsewhere.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:16 am
Advertising has gotten to be too much. Reading the comments of advertisers shows me just how much they’re not in the market FOR me, they’re in the market AGAINST me. They’ll do whatever it takes to annoy me into remembering an ad.
Until the time comes when advertising is at a reasonable level, I’m going to block it all. Plus, I’m going to block the cheesy little script you’ve developed that implores users to be aware of the advertising model.
August 1st, 2005 at 5:56 pm
My view on the issue is the following:
Ads are advertisements that are displayed on webpages that can come in many forms (popup, banners, etc). The main reason for a webmaster to have them is for a source of earning money.
There is currently tons of popup blocking software and now there is adblocking which allows ads on pages to be blocked. A major percentage of internet users use popup blockers. It’s now in most browsers and included with major ISPs.
Therefore, you must also inform users of popup blockers taking away money from advertisers and webmasters to have a decent arguement.
I believe that blocking advertisements on a website while may prevent a website from getting the money to support the website is an acceptable choice for a user. In fact, I’d so much as to encourage the usage of an adblocker. Probably just about everyone uses popup blockers, it’s now in most browsers and included with major ISPs which shows that many people both don’t like viewing ADs nor support them. Now an increasing amount of users block webpage ads showing the want to get rid of advertisements on the internet.
I agree with Kai on 2005-07-25 00:20:51, he/she has an excellent argument that if ADs were not to contain spyware, make noises, etc that there wouldn’t be a need or want for an adblocker. Not to say people won’t block ads still because they don’t want to download unecessary things that slow down a dial-up connection or for other reasons.
Thank you.
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Craig on 2004-09-09:
“The point is that by blocking ads with such sweeping rules that it blocks EVERY ad and more without any indication to the user that it is happening is simply irresponsible.
Most reasonable people understand that websites cost money to run and don’t mind seeing passive ads on the page, e.g., Google Adsense ads. Are you one of those people?”
I guess we should differentiate between personal homepages and commercial homepages.
Ads on personal homepages just show that the webmaster is a sell-out or do you have advertisement in your living room?
(and don’t tell me that your webspace is so expensive. If you have to tell something to the world it should be worth the few dollars a month…)
Ads on commercial websites are understandable coz companies want to make profit and to exploit and manipulate people by showing them ads the whole day.
I don’t see any commercials while browsing and I can’t see any good reason why I should change that.
August 5th, 2005 at 9:34 am
=========================================
= Say NO to web ads ! Reclaim your web! =
= You have the right to block ads ! =
=================blockads@gmail.com===============
Post comments to :
blockads@gmail.com
Use firefox http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/adblock
August 24th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
I’ve used adblock extensions since they were offered and before that I modified mozilla to allow a crude form of adblocking.
I pay for the bandwidth, electricity, hard-disc cache, and CPU time. I would posit that gives me the ultimate right to decide what information I allow my browser to share and what I request to be downloaded.
This means animated GIF’s, and MacroMedia (I use an OS that doesn’t have support for Flash so I block *any* .swf), as well as “counter” images that are invisible on the page, and the links that go through multiple referral sites.
We do not ask for web pages to be littered with images hawking wares or services we don’t want or need. We do not ask for unsolicited faxes or phone calls.
I believe advertisers have made themselves a bed of thorns and an increasingly annoyed and cynical public has begun to put it’s hands over it’s collective ears.
My point is that whilst adverti$ing has helped proliferate some aspects of the web more rapidly, it has in general vastly degraded the quality of information therein.
If advertisers can stop using animated gifs and stop providing links that visit several referral sites before finally getting to the target then there may be some ground regained.
Since marketing is so fiercely competitive, whatever is not illegal, will be used as a tactic to get a surfer’s attention because after all … we’re talking about serious money and no legislative controls.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my views.
I truly wish you luck in reining in the hucksters and snake-oil merchants, it’s a massive job.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
As of today, my favorite news source (NY Times) is charging a $50 annual subscription to access their (previously free) online columnists and a number of other services.
When I visited their site this morning, I was extremely bothered by this. Then I noticed that my Firefox / Adblock combo was letting me view their home page without a single display ad.
I’ll defend my right to block ads in order to limit my browsing annyoyances. But I need to recognize that my action also limits sites’ ability to earn money through advertising revenue. So that limits my right to complain when sites decide to adopt alternate revenue models — like paid subscriptions for things I want to read.
In other words, we need take responsibility for the results of our behavior.
September 30th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
MY RIGHTS ONLINE.
If websites must use advertisements to generate revenue than do it discretely, because right now the web is obnoxious as hell with advertisements. I will block your ads and there’s absolutley “NOTHING” you can do that will be benificial for “your” revenue. block me from your website, put more advertisements on, you still loose. unless you change your ways. My privacy , my rights, my computer, If you webmasters don’t want people blocking ads take your website down, stop wasting money on bandwidth, and regualar cost because advertising is the only way you can afford to keep your site up. oh yeah and for those who use tracking techniques on their users aswell. You go to hell.
October 7th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
The people who make big money off internet advertising are the internet advertising companies.
By blocking their ads, you’re actually helping to reduce their income, which may reduce the commercialization of the internet.
FIGHT ADVERTISERS, FIGHT THE MASS MEDIA.
Free your mind.
October 8th, 2005 at 8:59 am
I run the AdBlock extension for Firefox and I imported an excellent filterset that blocks nearly every single ad in existance. I also run Kerio Personal Firewall which blocks not as many ads as AdBlock but its nice to have anyway.
Here’s a link to the filterset I use, I know many of you will find it useful.
http://www.pierceive.com/filtersetg/
To whoever came up with the brilliant idea for this website…congratulations! I mean, raising awareness on the topic is great but you can’t expect people to believe that leaving ads that may cause them a seizure will help in any way. I guess you are just a bunch of webmasters that aren’t getting enough income anymore from your advertising frenzies.
I will continue to block ads for as long as I live and I will encourage use of ad-blocking software to everyone I know, and you can’t do anything about it. I hold the right to filter all information that comes into my computer.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:12 am
i am fed up of wecome to aol talk popping up every time i log on to the internet i cancelled aol talk approximately a month ago and i have phoned them about it time after time do aol ever listen to their customers can you please do something about it
sleonard320@aol.com
November 10th, 2005 at 4:45 am
Grebekel, you are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Don’t get me wrong I hate ad bombers too, but there simply is no other revenue model in existance that is able to produce and sustain the revenue that can be acheived through advertsing. I mean Google have posted a record 1.65 billion dollar revenue from their advertising this year alone. Simple fact is without adverising revenue then a great deal of content on the Internet will simply cease to exist and future content generation will also be severely stunted. To not realise this is being extrememly short sighted. I would much rather have an Internet full of diverse and interesting content while putting up with having to view a few ads than the alternative of having to pay to view content or not having that content at all.
Although I agree with you that it is your perogative of what you view on your PC, it also could be argued that by stripping out content is a violation of copyright. Judge Posner, elucidating the holdings of WGN v. United Video (1982) among others, reasoned in Aimster that:
“[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner’s income from his original program, since “free” television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers.”
Now that would make an interesting case.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:13 am
The agenda here quite clear, they agenda of the website that is, not of the posters.
And that agenda is to find ways round add blocking software. And to see how the public are going to respond to it.
I dont want a flashing rectangle dictating to me what I need to purchase. If I wish to purchase something I will.
I PAY for my bandwidth. I dont want it being used by anoying adds that FORCE their way onto my computer. Trick their way on.
I read a page on this site, that described how to use Redirects in your HTML code so that add blocking software wont be able block the addverts.
Well thats just NOT FAIR. Please dont do this. What right have you got to do that to my hobby, Computers are my hobby, and one advert wont spoil my time, cos thats all you care about is the one advert you want to get to me, but your not the only person whose going to do, and so I end up with hundreds of adverts that spoil my online time.
YOU TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT to view adds, OH COME, this is nothing about our rights, its about how to con people into viewing adverts, and how to con browsers into not being able to stop them.
I just dont see the point in adverts anyway, especially online adverts, which often advertise products out of my range or desire.
Why am I going to womens clothing, or buy something from a forieghn country, I wont wear womens clothing and wont send away to a forieng country for anything.
So 99% of online adds are just targeted at the wrong people. They really are just the scurge of the internet.
I WILL PERSONALLY ENSURE that you dont have your way on my computer, and get to force feed my adverts, and they day you manage to, is the day I cancel my internet connection. I have a few diffrent softwares blocking UNWATED junk on my computer and it will stay there.
This website is a joke. Asking the public how they feel about adverts - with the agenda of MAKING them view them. HOW DARE YOU.
Who the **** are you to waste MY ******* bandwidth. MY TIME. Leave me alone.
When I want ADVERTS - I WILL INSTALL SKY and sit and watch a shoping channel. Until that day I dont want to see ANY adverts online.
Your efforts to ensure adverts reach rewiers spoils our fun. I goto work, and hate, I dont particulary like people, and so I come to my computer to relax, and I have your ******* adverts…. PISS OFF.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
wow. you’ve got bigger issues, I think.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
I’m trying to make a grass roots pro microsoft website, and i want to know how to block firefox browsers.
There are many anti microsoft websites the block IE, so I dont feel like im doing anything reaaly bad.
“Dedicated site developer” mentioned it.
Thanks, Marsha
December 8th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
haha! I clicked on my own link and it didnt work.
im not used to typing http, in IE you just start with www.
anyways here’s the URL of those MS haters.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=204331&highlight=religion
and here’s symantec’s security evaulation
http://news.com.com/Symantec+Mozilla+browsers+more+vulnerable+than+IE/2100-1002_3-5873273.html
Love Marsha
December 17th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
What a bunch of whinners, if I choose to adblock or not to adblock is MY CHOICE. We live in a world now a days where WE have a CHOICE. I live in Canada, and in Canada we have choice on what we see or do. I DON’T need BIG BROTHER making that choice for me. So if you wish to put ADS on your website thats your choice, and I am okay with that. But Remember its MY choice to block them.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:41 am
Like in many things with commercial activities, they over-did online advertising. If they never made annoying ads, nobody would be blocking them (well, maybe a few die-hards).
This discussion, (to block, or not to block ?) is good. I know i can visit sites for free because of the ads. However, i still block ads. For exable, a site gets ads from a dedicated ad-server. Quite often, this ad-server is very slow. In that case i’ll block the server in my DNS. If the ad-server works at a reasonable speed, i won’t block it.
Someone else already started about privacy. Because i like my privacy, i decided to configure my browser to ask me permission for every cookie. I thought that maybe a few sites use tracking cookies, but about every ***** ad on a site sets it’s own cookie ! It’s really amazing. Because of that, i block all cookies, en only let them in if the site really requires is (like a webmail application). If i don’t see the function of the cookie, i reject it.
I also think google is going the wrong direction. Now, with their ad-sense text advertisements, i don’t have any compains. They load fast, are not annoying, and sometimes even usefull. But i’ve seen news that they *may* also start serving graphical ads. In that case -for me- it would mean i can block the whole google domain (i don’t use their search engine, so that’s easy).
Conclusion: If the advertising companies also thought about the user (or consumer in their perspective ?), we woudn’t have this problem.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
*shrug*
These so-called “consumers” want to block all ads, so be it.
Know what, we people runinng sites should wake up. We’re businesspeople.
These freeloading mooches want to block our ads that bring them a free service, WHATEVER.
Well, Consumers have money. Let them pay fees for everything.
Take your adblockers. Enjoy them. Sure - your screens will be nice and shiny, free of ads. WOW, ZOMG THE NET NEVER LOOKED THIS GOOD!
And it’s never cost that much either.
Sure, it’s your connection, you pay for it, you’re holding the ball there -
… but if you’re using free sites, um, you’re missing the point of ADVERTISMENT BASED SERVICES.
My suggestion -> Ultra duty stats tracking, and possibly some way to detect ad blocking software. Make future versions of adblock report - just like good behaved bot does. If you visit an advertisment driven free site, deny the client access to the site.
You know - the webmasters PAY FOR THEIR CONNECTION TOO - JUST LIKE CONSUMERS DO. When you block their revenue - that is, ads - you’re killing them. Is that right?
Of course it is, I mean, come on! They should be working 24/7 so YOU can enjoy their site, right? Maybe you should have them come over your house and be your personal slave for the rest of your life.
Give me a break.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Hey, Kyan, be my guest.
You know how many sites have gone the pay-for-services route and just nosebombed? Go ahead and make all your sites pay-per-use. My guess is that you don’t offer anything earthshattering that people are willing to shell out any money for. Whoops, another codemonkey goes into complete e-obscurity!
Consider this: you take advantage of free things provided to you every day. Using JPEG’s? Then you’d better pay a fee to the folks who designed the format. Using HTTP? You didn’t design it, so where are you assigning credit? How about FTP, or PHP, or anything like that? Do you even KNOW who came up with them? Probably not.
The best things online have been free. You can’t stop it, primarily because the people who have been offering free content from the beginning are much smarter than you and can circumvent your annoying bullshit.
People like you have no pride in your ideas or work. You expect to be compensated for everything, yet you constantly use “free” (read: no cost to YOU) technologies and software to further your simplistic commercial greed. Guess what? It’s not going to fly, and as more and more users become educated because you piss them off to no end, you’re going to drive yourself right out of a market.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Adblock, I somewhat agree with your idea here, and in an ideal internet, it would work - however, in an ideal internet, there’d be no need for adblockers, because anyone wanting to make a profit would use relevant text ads, or very small static images, and with moderation.
As it stands, there’s no certification process for your little downloadable badge. There’s no discernable requirements for being “unobtrusive”. A lot of idiot for-profit webmasters who are relative newbies on the online scene who see the internet as a means to their end consider popunders to be unobtrusive. They consider flash to be unobtrusive. These sentiments aren’t reflected by the online community at large, but these webmasters would feel completely justified in putting a “Don’t block my ads” banner on their pages, when in actuality they’re annoying everyone with their spamvertising and privacy-raping tactics.
Frankly, my only beef with Symantec adblock is that it’s a cheap-working HOSTS file interface, and listing stuff in HOSTS causes browser problems in some networks. I don’t see a problem with taking the initiative to block ads for folks - in all the years I’ve been working with Symantec on an end-user basis, I’ve never heard one complaint about having the ads gone, just with other problems the software causes.
John Q. User doesn’t realize that they have a choice. They hate ads, but their knowledge of blocking ads ends at popup stoppers and adware removers, for the most part. They figure that it’s just one of those things that comes with using the internet, and that’s really sad - they don’t even REALIZE they have a choice. Spreading very restrictive ad-blocking software across-the-board would be good, in my opinion, because it’s the only way to get advertisers and for-profit webmasters to realize that they don’t control the internet, and that it’s their responsibility to be good “netizens”, or we’ll just play by our own rules and remove their ads. As it is right now, there’s no incentive for webmasters to limit advertising, and the sky (or their greed) is the limit as they add several “skyscraper” flash banners, Javascript floaters, numerous text ads from every contextual affiliate out there, and then on top of it all, hard-coded HTML sponsorship messages.
Simply put: Would an across-the-board blocking of ads affect the internet? Most certainly. Would it shut down sites? Undoubtably. But in all likelihood, the internet would be a better place for users, and even potentially be more profitable as webmasters come up with ways to unobtrusively harness a profit that don’t involve blitzkreiging people’s senses or selling personal information. The most interesting and most helpful sites out there existed before online advertising became big, and would persist if it went away tomorrow.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:39 am
We we’ve lived with ads for years some good (text ads) but most were so bad that you’d want to stop browsing. Now there’s a choice ads slowing you down and more or get a adblocking tool.
Honestly
I use FireFox
with Ad Block Plus
It’s time for us to enjoy the web…
January 28th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Here’s my take on it:
-I filter ads on a case-by-case basis. If it’s obnoxious (shoot-the-monkey, animated GIF’s, appears in the middle of content), I will block ads from the entire domain. Anyone participating in that behavior well deserves it, you’re the reason for the development of ad blockers.
-I filter -ALL- Flash ads. Sound and motion have no place in Web advertising, and if you’re doing none of those, you have no need for Flash.
-I will filter -anything- that scrolls with your screen instead of scrolling with the rest of your page. This is annoying and distracting.
-I do NOT filter -STATIC- (NO MOTION) banner ads that are part of the main page, and at the top or bottom of it. Nor do I filter text ads which are obviously separate from the main page. Those are not annoying and distracting, and sometimes they’re actually relevant to something I -am- looking for.
-I filter ANYTHING that would allow me to be tracked. You have no right to track me without my -explicit- (read: OPT-IN) consent.
I was online when a 14.4 modem was fast, so don’t presume to tell me an Internet “can’t exist without ads”. It can and it did. Do those of you who -do- use obnoxious tactics such as popups and Flash want to take your ball and go home? Goodbye, and do be careful of that door on the way out, it tends to leave a bruise on the ass. We won’t miss you.
I use an -entire operating system- built by
“hobbyists”, because I grew sick of the commercial garbage. And you know what I found? It’s not as good as Windows-IT’S FAR BETTER! No DRM, no draconian EULA, just “Your computer is a tool which you purchased, and we respect your right to use it however you wish”.
It’s the same with the Net. You want to block adblocking scripts? I don’t care that much. There’ll be a hack out in a few days. Maybe I’ll help in creating it, and maybe not. But a cautionary tale to absolutely anyone-when you begin to deliberately do things the way you know your customers don’t want, you’ve already got a doomed business proposition.
Are you only on the Net to make money? I hope adblocking does put you out of business, and good riddance. The very best comes from those who do it out of love and offer it for free.
January 30th, 2006 at 8:55 am
@ anonymous:
Your argument that stripping out content is a copyright violation is as ridiculous as saying it is illegal to rip a page from a book, a newspaper, or a magazine. Periodicals like magazines and newspapers profit greatly from advertising, but they also profit from the sale of those items to the consumers. Basically, even if you pay for the content you still get the ads, and that would probably be the case in the internet. As long as someone can profit from ad sales and someone is willing to pay for it there will always be ads.
Blocking ads is a simple security measure against risks involving Java, Javascript, Flash, and ActiveX based advertising. Since many advertisers employ extreme tactics using such technologies and many hackers find new ways to exploit them, I feel compelled block everything I want. I will block an offensive picture as fast as I will block any ad, and it is pretty common to find porn related ads in gaming sites, so why not block them all? I can block entire sites based on keywords found in the URL, and I do; is that also a copyright violation? I think not, and to think otherwise would be absurd.
I understand that it is a large market. Google, as you said, profits mostly from their ad program. Google’s ads are the least obtrusive on the web today and I don’t mind having a list of subtle ads related to what I’m searching for or reading in my inbox on the right side on the screen. Another reason why I don’t mind Google ads is because they are HTML based, so the security risk is as high as clicking on any link.
In conclusion, if all ads were like Google’s then there would be no need to block them. Yahoo also has similar ads to those of Google, although it has a different advertising system for free Geocities pages. Basically, display HTML ads or I will adblock them.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:36 am
I think this is so stupid. Companies have just gotten out of hand and pathetically greedy. Forcing products on us in movies, etc… It is a load of money grubbing crud. I don’t go to movies to see some starlet holding a can of Pepsi anymore than I want to see ads on the internet for Dating Services.
Get a clue… ads are spam in the worst way - you are infringing on something I have already paid for. Make the internet free if you want to hoist your garbage about. Frankly - I don’t need panty liners and if I did I am smart enough to know where to get them. It didn’t start out that way it shpouldn’t end up that way. BTW - who backs this site the Milk advisory board?