Comments on: The AdBlock.org Webmaster Pledge http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:14:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Bohemia Bob http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-15592 Sun, 18 May 2008 23:49:36 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-15592 If AdBlock.org wants to encourage greater respect among users, including adblocking users, for the no annoying ads pledge then they need to publish an official and more descriptive definition of what constitutes "annoying". For starters, consider the following. The human brain and optic nerves have developed over the eons to process a great deal of information autonomously (i.e. without direct input of the conscious and high order cognitive portions of the brain) so that large amounts of thinking power are not devoted to mundane tasks such as auto-focusing the iris, encoding/decoding electrical signals, and recognizing faces etc. Among the useful adaptations, from a survival point of view, is the ability of movement in our peripheral vision to distract us from whatever else we are concentrating on relatively quickly. This is completely logical when one considers that predators of early humans would seek to attack from the side or from above in order to catch us unawares. However, in more recent times this adaptation has been exploited by advertisers in general, and web advertisers in particular, to distract users from the content and cause them to focus more on advertisements that may not interest the users. Now, as I am sure that you will agree, this is very annoying because it takes advantage of the fact that, like hearing, we cannot "turn off" this feature of our brains and nervous system without covering our ears (or our eyes) entirely which defeats their purpose entirely. In summary, the "no annoying ads pledge" should include NO SOUND and NO MOVING parts (i.e. sprites, backgrounds, foregrounds, etc). The ads must be tasteful like the sponsored text links on Google. I will not even consider letting my guard down (AdBlock, NoScript, FlashBlock) for a site which takes the "no annoying ads" pledge until these requirements are honored (Google text sponsored links get a pass in my filter rules because they are tasteful). If AdBlock.org wants to encourage greater respect among users, including adblocking users, for the no annoying ads pledge then they need to publish an official and more descriptive definition of what constitutes “annoying”. For starters, consider the following. The human brain and optic nerves have developed over the eons to process a great deal of information autonomously (i.e. without direct input of the conscious and high order cognitive portions of the brain) so that large amounts of thinking power are not devoted to mundane tasks such as auto-focusing the iris, encoding/decoding electrical signals, and recognizing faces etc. Among the useful adaptations, from a survival point of view, is the ability of movement in our peripheral vision to distract us from whatever else we are concentrating on relatively quickly. This is completely logical when one considers that predators of early humans would seek to attack from the side or from above in order to catch us unawares. However, in more recent times this adaptation has been exploited by advertisers in general, and web advertisers in particular, to distract users from the content and cause them to focus more on advertisements that may not interest the users. Now, as I am sure that you will agree, this is very annoying because it takes advantage of the fact that, like hearing, we cannot “turn off” this feature of our brains and nervous system without covering our ears (or our eyes) entirely which defeats their purpose entirely. In summary, the “no annoying ads pledge” should include NO SOUND and NO MOVING parts (i.e. sprites, backgrounds, foregrounds, etc). The ads must be tasteful like the sponsored text links on Google. I will not even consider letting my guard down (AdBlock, NoScript, FlashBlock) for a site which takes the “no annoying ads” pledge until these requirements are honored (Google text sponsored links get a pass in my filter rules because they are tasteful).

]]> by: Natasha http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-11503 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:11 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-11503 dont block dont block

]]> by: Butea Superba http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-5587 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:31:01 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-5587 Yes YOU Too Can Learn How To Butea Superba With Ease! Yes YOU Too Can Learn How To Butea Superba With Ease!

]]> by: Blanche http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-26 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-26 I found this page through an image on a genealogy site. It did have a moving ad on the page, although I wouldn't go so far as to say it was annoying. It's an interesting concept. There are definitely too many flashing, popping, floating, wiggling adverts and something should be done, but you have to get a balance between that and letting sites pay for themselves so they can keep going. As far as I can see anyone can put this button up. It might work better if there was some kind of seal of approval implied, that way it might mean something. I found this page through an image on a genealogy site. It did have a moving ad on the page, although I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was annoying. It’s an interesting concept. There are definitely too many flashing, popping, floating, wiggling adverts and something should be done, but you have to get a balance between that and letting sites pay for themselves so they can keep going.

As far as I can see anyone can put this button up. It might work better if there was some kind of seal of approval implied, that way it might mean something.

]]> by: AdBlock http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-27 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-27 Blanche, thanks for the comment. We do plan to keep an eye on sites that post the graphic, but it's a pledge, not a certification. If they don't follow it, it's simply like breaking a promise. I'm sure that site believes that graphic isn't annoying (I looked and personally don't see it as something designed to get me to click on it). Blanche, thanks for the comment.

We do plan to keep an eye on sites that post the graphic, but it’s a pledge, not a certification. If they don’t follow it, it’s simply like breaking a promise.

I’m sure that site believes that graphic isn’t annoying (I looked and personally don’t see it as something designed to get me to click on it).

]]> by: neosis http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-69 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-69 An idea, You could send at least to Mozilla's adblock developer(s), this logo could be identified by adblock, dynamic switching of ads on/off. Of course, the user decides what he/she wants to see. One reason for not willing to see ads is a slow internet connection, such as modem, gprs, or even gsm-data. If there was a functionality in the browser that asks the webserver nicely not to send ads, and the page was certified "annoy-free" with "don't block my ads"- logo, i would not block the ads when using an internet connection faster than a modem. Novadays, the web advertising fights against itself. Any guesses, how long will it take before the web gets even worse than email with it's spams and viruses? neosis An idea, You could send at least to Mozilla’s adblock developer(s), this logo could be identified by adblock, dynamic switching of ads on/off. Of course, the user decides what he/she wants to see.

One reason for not willing to see ads is a slow internet connection, such as modem, gprs, or even gsm-data.

If there was a functionality in the browser that asks the webserver nicely not to send ads, and the page was certified “annoy-free” with “don’t block my ads”- logo, i would not block the ads when using an internet connection faster than a modem.

Novadays, the web advertising fights against itself. Any guesses, how long will it take before the web gets even worse than email with it’s spams and viruses?

neosis

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-100 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-100 Interesting pledge. On the comment of the capability to enable/disable adblock dynamically using web/html/etc, code, it sounds nice, however it can be exploited if it becomes common knowledge, or exploited period. Interesting pledge.

On the comment of the capability to enable/disable adblock dynamically using web/html/etc, code, it sounds nice, however it can be exploited if it becomes common knowledge, or exploited period.

]]> by: duncanbeevers http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-111 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-111 Interesting, that the logo designed to convince users a website will not serve annoying content is a bit ugly. I think some serious rebranding (starting, of course, with the advertisements themselves) will be necessary in order to convince casual surfers that advertisements are okay. Consider the success of Google's text-only ads. Simple is beautiful, and a logo that uses non-complementary colors, multiple font styles, and exclamation points, all squashed into a tiny oblong, does not exactly embody this ideal. Ha! A green "No" circle! How counterintuitive. Ha! Imagine the logo of the adblockers, with their bold red "No" striking down a popup. Now consider the irony of your big green "No" enclosing this logo. "No No" You guys crack me up. Interesting, that the logo designed to convince users a website will not serve annoying content is a bit ugly.

I think some serious rebranding (starting, of course, with the advertisements themselves) will be necessary in order to convince casual surfers that advertisements are okay.

Consider the success of Google’s text-only ads. Simple is beautiful, and a logo that uses non-complementary colors, multiple font styles, and exclamation points, all squashed into a tiny oblong, does not exactly embody this ideal.

Ha! A green “No” circle! How counterintuitive. Ha! Imagine the logo of the adblockers, with their bold red “No” striking down a popup. Now consider the irony of your big green “No” enclosing this logo. “No No” You guys crack me up.

]]> by: blockads http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-133 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-133 ========================================= = Say NO to web ads ! Reclaim your web! = = You have the right to block ads ! = ========================================= Post comments to : blockads@gmail.com Use firefox http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/adblock =========================================
= Say NO to web ads ! Reclaim your web! =
= You have the right to block ads ! =
=========================================

Post comments to :
blockads@gmail.com

Use firefox http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/adblock

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-136 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.adblock.org/2004/09/adblock_webmaster_pledge/#comment-136 I have been using firefox with adblock, I haven't seen an ad in years. I do however set adblock to hode the ads rather than not download them, so the advertisers think they have had the exposure, everybody wins. M I have been using firefox with adblock, I haven’t seen an ad in years. I do however set adblock to hode the ads rather than not download them, so the advertisers think they have had the exposure, everybody wins.

M

]]>