Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Vive Vivaldi
Irving, TX
reply to thegeek

Re: [Rant] "Answer a question"

said by thegeek:

i'm thinking they are weird fetish porn sites

I think he's talkin out his ass.

Which might be one of those weird fetishes...
Think Outside the Fox.

There's a reason I'm Command.
Washington, DC
reply to chances14
said by chances14:

dvd536 See Profile

some webmasters actually code their pages to not serve up content if ads are blocked, others will actually look for processes of well-known blockers and send you to a NO page if found.

i'm actually surprised that more websites aren't like that now. I have yet to run into a website that does this, but i'm sure in the future as more people become aware of the adblockers that this will become more common

The main reason for not doing it is the effort ($$$$) involved. There is no one single, universal means of determining if ads are being blocked. And the blocking strategies of different programs and individual users can change frequently.

The other reason is unless a site has a very specific purpose and/or audience the operator can impose requiring absolute trust and acceptance of its behavior, it is foolish for the majority of sites to turn away pageviews and potential customers (not to mention Google, Bing or other spiders).

What I have done for some sites that wanted to penalize blocking visitors is to restrict only letting them visit specific pages or sections, or injecting nagging interstitials for browsers we could determine were frequent visitors: "If you find this site useful/want to use feature-x, then we need you to help support the site by allowing us to serve third-party advertisements (or provide demographic data of interest to the business). We respect your choice and right to control your privacy and what appears on your screen; but if you would rather not support us, it is our choice and right to place limits on what we let you access."

Amazingly, people have had atomic conniption fits over being told there is a quid pro quo or that the Internet isn't all about them and what they want. I don't have problems with supporting sites I consider worthwhile and trustworthy. I draw the line at my email address, zip code, age and gender unless/until I decide a site has a valid reason for requiring more personal details *and* that I consider it worthwhile to disclose it. Sorry, but watching videos of puppies and kittens or reading nominally informative news articles does not meet my standards for disclosing any kind of personal information.
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."