AdBlockers Getting Popular Major companies not responding...yet.... Last month, we watched as a tirade by an unknown web designer backfired, actually turning many people on to ad blocking software, which, at this point, is available for both IE and Firefox. The New York Times explores how ad blocking software is starting to move from niche product to mainstream use, though impacted companies aren't quite worried -- yet: Wladimir Palant, developer of the open-source Adblock Plus project, wrote in an e-mail message that he had not heard anything from large companies like Google, because, he suspects, the program “isn’t popular enough yet. Attacking it would be a waste of time for these companies.” He estimated there were 2.5 million users of Adblock Plus around the world. Palant says there are 300-400,000 new users of his software every month.
|
  Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ | OpenDNS I use OpenDNS and when I looked at the statistics, nearly all of my top domains were ad sites. OpenDNS lets you easily block them though, and I did. So now every time I see an ad, I just look at the properties and add the domain to the block list. It's nice not having to deal with the ads anymore, and not having to have extra software on my PC is nice as well since OpenDNS servers handle the work for me. | |
|  |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: OpenDNS I used a host list for a while, but some ads and ads companies can spread viruses, and some don't respond fast enough to DNS. The problem with ads is they are completely inconsiderate of the viewers. Especially ads with noise or just trashy. I use it specifically for that purpose. If ad companies realized that some people dont want to be annoyed but entertained, there would no reason for ad blockers.
--
Go courageously to do whatever you are called to do. fear nothing. - St. Francis de Sales
| |
| | | | Just how goods is OpenDNS at blocking all popup ads? | |
| | | | I don't get it...been running WXP and Vista..wxp since it came out...I run FREE Anti-Virus, panicware pop up blocker..
haven't had popup problems for years...what to He** are you people doing that you have pop up issues????
maybe you should re-think the sites you're visiting...LOL | |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Ethical use of blocking please I believe in supporting sites that I like by letting their ads onto my browser and monitor while visiting the site. They need the money from ads to pay for development, traffic, hosting and other costs. Therefore I don't use indiscriminate ad-blocking and I encourage others not to. I even click on ads sometimes if they are interesting.
On the other hand, certain ad techniques go too far, in my view. Any form of animation prevents me from reading text, so I turn it all off and block Flash. And tech that tracks users from site to site is unacceptable, so I block third-party scripts and iframes and known tracking companies.
If others followed these principles we could support sites and have less obnoxious ads. | |
| | | | Re: Ethical use of blocking please I'm not sure but aren't most sites paid for ads that people click on? So even if you let them load but don't click on them you still aren't making the site any money right?
(again not being sarcastic or anything... thats just the way I thought it worked.) | |
| | | swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | Re: Ethical use of blocking please Aren't some pay-per-view and others pay-per-click? (I don't run a commercial site myself) Maybe some advertisers pay only per click, but I think some pay a smaller amount per view and a larger amount per click.
Anyway if you leave non-offensive ads unblocked and click on those that interest you, that's more support for sites than if you block all ads. | |
| | | | | | Re: Ethical use of blocking please 90% of ads are pay per click. Pay per impression is a much less common payment type, but it exists.
I occasionally click on ads if I like the site, but, for the most part, I have ads blocked. | |
|
| |  richdelbGo Hawks GoPremium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL | Re: Seeing how many ads this s/w gets rid of .... I agree. Browsing with ad blocker is much faster. Most of the slowness I ever see with web pages is from the ad servers. Things are much quicker now.
Plus... Just think of all the precious bandwidth we are saving...... | |
| |
approval from:
Romney2012 
| Exactly... I don't need all that stuff cluttering up my screen.
Look, I know people generate revenues from having ads on their site, it's the nature of the beast. But you can bet if I have any say about it, I'm going to go for the purest, cleanest surf I can find.
Firefox/NoScript/AdBlocker Plus = NICE | |
|
 StraitShootWho Loves Ya Baby? - Theo KojakPremium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
kudos:1 | This is all bull! When I browse, I don't want to see any ads. Period. End of discussion. I don't care if the developer needs to have the audience to see the ad so he or she can get paid. The developer can also sell the product. As for me, where there is a will there's a way, and I'll do anything I have to to keep ads of MY machine....
Firefox is opensource. It's MY Software.
My computer belongs to ME! I paid for it with my cold earned hard cash!
I use Win2000 Pro sp4. When it matures a little more I'll switch to Linux..
--
Don't Forever Alter Your Computer! Don't Install or Use Anything with Kaspersky or AOL, including AOL Active Virus Shield!
| |
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: This is all bull! I do agree with you on many points.
I wouldn't go as far as to claim that Firefox is 'your' software though, but rather its licensed opensource.
Your PC belongs to you (paid for... no license terms required)
Windows unfortunately is licensed 
Linux is a good workaround for the Windoze blues (or blue screen of death).
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | The obvious selfish flaw in your statement is that you assume the developer has a product to sell besides the content you are viewing. For example, DSLR doesn't really have a product to sell besides the content. If you block the ads it has no other significant revenue source. | |
| | |  davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
 ·Comporium
| Re: This is all bull! Actually DSLR/BBR makes money off of referrals on some of the carriers. Not all of the participate but most of the ones on the business/enterprise side do (i.e. for T1s and business DSL) and those sales pay exponentially more than the banner clicks. (Like $50-100 v/s $.05-.10.)
DSLR/BBR happily lets you turn off banners and such in your profile. Now if only every other website were so considerate of its users. | |
|
|  badjoeAmerical DivisionPremium
join:2003-12-04 | I've been using a companion to Adblock Plus for a couple of years. It greatly increases the effectiveness and automatically updates it's list of ads to block every 4-7 days, but still allows you to add your own list or individual ads that may slip through the filter. Adblock Filterset.G Updater »addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1136 | |
| | | | | Re: This is all bull! Was a long-time user of Filterset G myself, but it is obsolete.
A much better solution can be found at »easylist.adblockplus.org/. | |
|
| | | As both a website operator and user, I'd have to take issue with that attitude. Some ads to help keep a site afloat are ok by me. I even employ them on my PCQandA.com website (though the vast majority of our funds come from user donations). That said, the ads should be minimal and not overly intrusive. Google's Adsense does this well. Any "punch the monkey" or video ads or "watch this ad to continue" are not ok in my book. | |
|
| |  Yes
I choose what I want to see on my pc, If I don't want to see an ad,then I don't have to. Perfect application.
--
The Maxx
max dn 22mbps / max up 4.7mbps | |
| | | Ads I don't mind ads. What I hate is Flash, which is why Flashblocker get's more of a workout for me then adblocker.
I don't mind the little google text ads, if they feel the need to show it to me, I'm fine with that. What I do mind is the giant ads that have sound, or fill up my screen. Or move. Those are the ones the piss me off. | |
| |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Ads I'm with you. I just installed an adblocker not because of the banner ads, which I don't mind either, but because of the proliferation of incredibly annoying animations, flow-overs, and pop-unders.
--
"It is a future in which globalization really does work ... and everybody winds up getting to be part of the third world." - William Gibson | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| Where are the Ad Defenders Today? Here's the rub.
When ads no longer deliver malware,
when ads no longer use lies, exaggerations or lite porn to sell their product,
when ads are no longer deceitful or dishonest(as trying to appear as part of the content),
when ads are no longer undermine the content of a page by making it unreadable through popups, clutter, load lag or other inappropriate means,
THEN I will consider the arguments against ad blockers.
Got it Big Marketing? Clean up your industry and maybe I wouldn't have to defend myself from you.
NV | |
| | MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Where are the Ad Defenders Today? Yes, it seems the more annoying the ad is, the more likely it is some kind of ripoff. I shudder to think about the number of people who've fallen for the mortgage refinance ones - and are now in trouble as a result.
--
"It is a future in which globalization really does work ... and everybody winds up getting to be part of the third world." - William Gibson | |
| | | | |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Where are the Ad Defenders Today? Heck, I don't even really mind too much the tracking aspect. The way I look at it, it puts more money into the business model that keeps the web free for the most part. Is that such a bad thing? | |
| | | |  rick752Premium
join:2006-01-27
New York
4 edits | Re: Where are the Ad Defenders Today? I myself and many others find the privacy invasion part beyond the scope of acceptable behavior. Even Neisen doesn't sneak a bug on your TV without your knowledge or permission.
I find tracking the equivalent of you going to the store and buying something and then discovering a month later that the store had somehow attached a tracking device and a wiretap on you. The tracker is to see where you go ... and the wiretap to find out as much about you as they can ... like who you are and what you are buying. And things like webpage 'heatmaps' are like you going into a store and having someone follow you around writing down everything that you look at and pick up.
It is not quite as bad if this info is only used by the domain (or store) that I am actually visiting. But third-party cookies, web bugs, and any other tracking or marketing analysis scripts have no right to extract any info from me ... nor ANY right for ANYTHING to be 'placed on' or 'extracted from' my computer without my explicit permission. Because that, my friend, IS privacy invasion!
3rd-party advertising and web-analysis sites usually go hand-in-hand ... and neither have ANY right to know ANYTHING about me! If you go into a store, do ALL the suppliers of that store's products' have the right put a tracking device and a wiretap on you without your permission? There is a lot deeper problem with this than it looks on the surface considering a third-party cookie can be loaded on your computer simply by just viewing one "1x1.gif" image served from another domain (in case no one knew that). That is why these types on things are blocked in my ABP Tracking Filter subscription.
The biggest problem is that the whole web-advertising business needs to change its business model. You can only keep forcing more and more junk in users faces before "enough" finally DOES become 'enough".
Some "food for thought":
If you sincerely believe that there is nothing wrong with 3rd-party stats and tracking sites and that people need to make money on the web .... then why do you think most of these services are offered to you for FREE?
--
EasyList, EasyElement, & ABP Tracking Filter Subscriptions for Adblock Plus | |
|
 Thrudd
join:2004-06-21
Mississauga, ON | RE:RE There is also the issue of who is paying for the bandwidth, what with caps and such from more and more ISPs .... unlimited, uh yeah, right...
It costs ME money to see THEIR ad so if they don't waste my money to look at their ad then I wont block them, else I will. Well it is either that or we start back charging BW usage to those ad houses that really hog our now more limited and costly BW.
Oooo, higher speed but with CAPs we can use it up in less then a day? Geee, we really wanted that didn't we? | |
| | | | Re: RE:RE said by Thrudd:It costs ME money to see THEIR ad so if they don't waste my money to look at their ad then I wont block them, else I will. Not a good argument unless you are viewing someone's ads out of the blue. In the case of ads on a website, you are requesting a page from them. They are returning it and, in order to cover costs or perhaps even make a meager profit, are attaching an ad to the page.
Now, so long as this ad is minimal in size and intrusiveness (think Google's text ads), this arrangement is a pretty fair balance. It's only when the ads get very large (e.g. video ads) or very intrusive (either in the sense of spyware or in the sense of distracting flash animations) that the arrangement turns unfair. (In which case, I'd say that selective ad blocking would be a reasonable approach.)
In any case, it's not so much "they me money to view any ad so just block them all", but "their ads are annoyingly large/intrusive so I'll block those." | |
|
 milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:1 | "Backfired" is dead on! I've discovered Adblock Plus because of Jack Lewis' tirade. As a result, I now have it installed on all my computers.
Thanks Mr. Lewis for letting me know about this wonderful product!  | |
|  rloconeHonor Our Heros, Our Armed ForcesPremium
join:2002-04-10
Kokomo, IN |  Ads are only the beginning.
Once you click on the ad that is only the start. Then thats when malware, adware comes. I know some here have seen "Win-Anti-spyware" Click on the ad and your dead. Getting this adware out takes some doing.
People in general just click on anything and go to sites that contains all of this garbage. Later they are complaining. Surfing/browsing habits are the key. Using adblockers help.
--
Star Fleet HDQ / SFO
- Admiral Ross
»www.stb575.com
*** Never Forget 9/11 *** | |
| | | | Re: Ads are only the beginning. said by rlocone: The computer had to be there. All of these porn pop-ups were coming out. It wasn't my machine but it was embarrassing. She started Yelling at me, "Oh can you fix it." Sure, first your kids have to change their browsing habits. Took me 3 hrs to fix everything up. Next week it's all @$%^ again! Next time I told her "Nope" you'll have to pay me. Sorry, I don't have the time to clean up after her kids every single week. Had a friend whose kids put all kinds of crap on his computer. I told him I would have to reload it BUT that his kids needed to be severely restricted. He told me this wasn't fair to his kids.
After the reload. his kids got the severely restricted accounts because his system never went so fast before. | |
|
| | IMHO most people don't want ads or don't care for them... I think it's pretty logical to say that if so many people want to get rid of ads then they're not interested in seeing them anyway and the ads don't work ANYWAY. In my example - in particular the annoying Flash ads - have the opposite effect: I would not click on such and make a mental not what was advertised to make sure I avoid it. Also, before AdBlock I often stopped visiting certain sites or just closed a window being annoyed by ads. Now, I can actually READ stuff without getting distracted. I think we are oversaturated with ads (and products and services) to the point we either ignore them or actively avoid them. And these idiots are looking for even more ways to send ads our ways (in-game adds, etc). Get real: most people don't want ads or don't care for them.
A. | |
| | |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | Re: Ads? WTF are ads? What pic | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Ad-driven model is passive If you design and run a website, based on income from ad revenue, then you should expect to go the way of the magazine model: I don't have to read or look at the advertisements.
If I like your site, and the ads are not obnoxious, then I won't block.
Having choice is important. I use both host lists and AB+.
(I visit a site that uses nice, clean text-based ads. The site is responsible for its advertisers. That is something you DON'T get with magazines and other sites...farewell Banner ads. Farewell yahoo obnoxious mortage banners...) | |
| |  Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
2 edits | Re: Ad-driven model is passive said by cableties:If I like your site, and the ads are not obnoxious, then I won't block. Chances are, you have already blocked the ads somewhere else. Most adblockers don't block on a site basis, rather they do it on an advertisers site basis. That same advertiser could be on millions of other sites.
Enjoy blocking ads everyone, because basically you are going to find that the small publisher will just not bother any more. What is the point of publishing all of your works online, which is very time consuming and costly, to only have people completely destroy the one avenue to at the least, recoup their costs?
I place ads on my sites, I do not consider them obnoxious, and for all except one, they basically barely pay the costs to host the information. Take that away, and I can no longer provide it.
I can agree with everyone that some ads go above and beyond annoying, akin to a commercial that raises your T.V.s volume by 50%, however, those are not the norm. Most ads are no louder than your average newspaper advertisement.
Your access to the Internet gives you a right to just that: access. From the way people talk in here, it appears they feel it is somehow their right to dictate business models to every site they visit. If you don't like the ads on a site, go to another site. Keep blocking ads, but be ready to eventually pay for content out of your pocket via subscriptions.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! | |
| | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Ad-driven model is passive With Ad-Block Plus, I can whitelist by advertiser-server, OR by website. Perhaps I wish to view the ads on this.example.web, I just whitelist the web address and now I have ads. All the ads by example.adserver will become viewable on this.example.web, but when I go to another site, other.example.web, the ads by example.adserver will be blocked again.
No one is dictating your business model. If you want ads on your site, have fun. Just keep in mind, that just as others can not dictate your choice in web design, you can not dictate how others view your site. The only way I'm going to download 150k of advertising for 1k of actual content is if the content is WORTH the bandwidth cost. And 99% of the net, isn't worth it. | |
| | | | Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: Ad-driven model is passive said by NightVisor:No one is dictating your business model. If you want ads on your site, have fun. Just keep in mind, that just as others can not dictate your choice in web design, you can not dictate how others view your site. Umm, yes I can. I could just block users who block ads. Would I? Probably not, I would just close the site if the revenue stopped coming in.
said by NightVisor:The only way I'm going to download 150k of advertising for 1k of actual content is if the content is WORTH the bandwidth cost. And 99% of the net, isn't worth it. You pay for your bandwidth per byte? If 99% of the net isn't worth it, why do you even bother?
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! | |
|
| | Ignoring ads!! OMG! I block ads ans spam, I skip TV commercials, and ads in the US mail are trashed, magazine card inserts are trashed, door to door salesmean's calls are not answered, I block telemarkerters (thanks to the govt do not call list) etc. So advertisers keep trying to get my attention and I keep fighting back and will continue to. When adblocker is blocked ill go to another website or use another browser. Its not like most are that unique. The more I block them the harder they try to get to me. But I have a feeling that I and savvy net users will win in the end.
--
Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ “LAAG” | »www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™
| |
| | Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: Ignoring ads!! OMG! said by VerizonCynic:But I have a feeling that I and savvy net users will win in the end. If you call having no content available, winning, well I guess your right. | |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | adblock plus running and working good for me.
On a side note i did pay for the membership here on BBR which removed the ad here, i didnt just use adblock. and i signed up to support the site too.
--
www.LakeSemaJ.com
Help me get free trades.3 free if you sign up, $7 after. PM Me | |
|  nipseyrusselNipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA | done looks like opinions are split: some people think blocking ads is a great thing....some think they should accept the ads as a way to finance the site. Thus, there is NO problem to solve. Those that want to see ads can, and can therefore support the site. Those that dont wants ads can block them and wouldn't not have clicked on them anyway so no love lost. Dont see any reason to continue the debate! | |
| | Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: done said by nipseyrussel: Those that dont wants ads can block them and wouldn't not have clicked on them anyway so no love lost. That is an assumption. Advertising affects everyone in some manner. Those who believe they are not influenced by it are just kidding themselves.
Example...
I see/hear ads all the time about say, reverse mortgages. I think we all do, sigh... What the hell am I going to do with one of those? I am nowhere near retirement, and probably will never have a need for such a service.
A few months down the road, some aunt/uncle/relative of mine who is retired is having trouble making ends meet. While talking with them, I ask if they have looked into a reverse mortgage. Now, had it not been for those ads, I probably would have never of heard of that type of mortgage. Second, I have heard those ads so many times, I could probably recommend lenders offering them, or at least lenders suppling information about it.
Now, I never clicked on an ad, nor did I ever respond to any other media ad on this topic, yet the ad was a success.
People who believe that users who block ads are those who are somehow resistant to advertising are in my opinion, dead wrong.
Ok, so now let us hear from the kooks out there who swear up and down they have never been affected by an ad.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! | |
| | | | | Re: done Actually Jafo,
If one breaks one's response down to its simple components,
either something affects you or it does not.
Now to use previous examples:
I have a telephone I pay for. That does NOT give someone the
right to use the phone I pay for to solicit to me.
At my age, I believe I am quite capable of making a decision
as to whether I need something or want something or not.
Another example:
Mail: The postal service delivers mail to my address, this is
what postage stamps pay for. Anyone can send something to my
postal box as long as they pay for it. If I choose not to
read it, into the recycle bin it goes. I'm not forced to
read it regardless if they paid for it or not.
My computer and internet connection.
I've paid for both. It is my decision as to what I want to
see on my screen or have on my hard drive.
I don't pay for a postal box, so I get everything that is
sent to me.
There are millions of infected computers out there being
used without their owner's permission to send out millions
of pieces of spam, adware and viruses.
Now, can you explain to me, why I would want to buy something
from someone who uses spam, viruses and ad-ware to get my
attention?
I don't buy from people who spam me, and let the companies
know that they've lost a customer because of spam.
As far as sites sending me advertising, I look at it this
way, there are sites I support because I am a member of
those sites. Then, there are sites I don't support because
I am not a member. So, because I am not a member, this gives
you the right to place on my screen and hard drive anything
you want?
Sorry bub, but, I paid for the PC and the internet connection.
If you want to run a site, then find a way to finance it
without all the bullcrap or take it off the net.
My PC and internet connection are not there for you to
push advertising on me regardless of whether I visit your
site or not.
I choose not to view ads, flash animation or any other
form of advertising that seeks to divert my attention
away from the content I am seeking.
I was around before Yahoo, Google and all the advertising
bullcrap, and remember an internet before AOL.
No banners, no GIFS, no Flash and no Javascript.
All we had was text and it works quite well.
There WERE no ads and people still managed to run sites.
So you're going to sit there and tell me, that you can't
run a site without advertising?
As for your threat of blocking users, go ahead, why would
people want to visit a site where they've got ads jumping
out at them all over the place?
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49 | |
| | | | Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: done said by Deeply Shrouded :
Actually Jafo,
If one breaks one's response down to its simple components,
either something affects you or it does not.
Now to use previous examples:
I have a telephone I pay for. That does NOT give someone the
right to use the phone I pay for to solicit to me.
At my age, I believe I am quite capable of making a decision
as to whether I need something or want something or not.
No, and nobody is soliciting you when you view a website. But if you call an 800 number for information say, on baseball scores, that provider has every right to put an ad between scores, and deny you access if you somehow block that ad.
said by Deeply Shrouded :
Another example:
Mail: The postal service delivers mail to my address, this is what postage stamps pay for. Anyone can send something to my
postal box as long as they pay for it. If I choose not to
read it, into the recycle bin it goes. I'm not forced to
read it regardless if they paid for it or not.
This makes no sense. How does this equate even closely to you visiting a website. The website is not landing in your mailbox.
said by Deeply Shrouded :
My computer and internet connection.
I've paid for both. It is my decision as to what I want to
see on my screen or have on my hard drive.
True, it is your decision where you browse, however it is the owners decision how they wish to present their content. If they chose to place ads, your free to go elsewhere for the content. I mean, you paid for your car stereo, but that doesn't give you any right to listen to FM stations without listening to the ads.
said by Deeply Shrouded :
There are millions of infected computers out there being
used without their owner's permission to send out millions
of pieces of spam, adware and viruses.
We are talking about advertising on sites, not SPAM. Try to not muddy the issue with irrelevance.
said by Deeply Shrouded :
As far as sites sending me advertising, I look at it this
way, there are sites I support because I am a member of
those sites. Then, there are sites I don't support because
I am not a member. So, because I am not a member, this gives
you the right to place on my screen and hard drive anything
you want?
Sorry bub, but, I paid for the PC and the internet connection.
Sites are not placing anything on your screen. You are placing YOURSELF on their server and then somehow wish to get the content without any thought of compensating those who took the time to put that content there in the first place. If you do not like ad based content, then you should not visit sites that use advertising.
said by Deeply Shrouded :
If you want to run a site, then find a way to finance it
without all the bullcrap or take it off the net.
No, I will just find ways around adblocker, or in the end, block those who block me. This content is MY content, not yours. I know most on the net feel everything should be free, well, good luck with that.
said by Deeply Shrouded :
My PC and internet connection are not there for you to
push advertising on me regardless of whether I visit your
site or not.
There is nobody pushing anything on you. Don't visit if you do not want to see my ads. Stop stealing my content!
said by Deeply Shrouded :
I was around before Yahoo, Google and all the advertising
bullcrap, and remember an internet before AOL.
No banners, no GIFS, no Flash and no Javascript.
All we had was text and it works quite well.
Yeah, until you wanted to find anything useful. Have fun with Gopher did ya?
said by Deeply Shrouded :
There WERE no ads and people still managed to run sites.
So you're going to sit there and tell me, that you can't
run a site without advertising?
You mean back in the days when domain names did not cost anything right? Or 95% of all websites were hosted on university machines and not paid for by the webmaster? Yeah, the good ol days..
said by Deeply Shrouded :
As for your threat of blocking users, go ahead, why would
people want to visit a site where they've got ads jumping
out at them all over the place?
Your generalizing. My site does not have ads jumping all over the place. Sure, there are sites out there like that, and you know what I do? I don't visit those sites. I guess if I felt like a thief, I would do my best to block their ads to get at their content.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! | |
| | | | | | | Re: done >>No, and nobody is soliciting you when you view a website. But if you call an 800 number for information say, on baseball scores, that provider has every right to put an ad between scores, and deny you access if you somehow block that ad.
Of course they are, when you visit a site with ads, and you're
not blocking them, those ads are saying "Hey, look at me
and buy what I am offering."
If that's not soliciting my attention, then I don't know what is.
You're not actually blocking the site from serving ads,
you're blocking the ads they serve from getting to your PC.
I can still get the baseball scores from the 800 #, and
take the phone away from my ear so I don't have to hear
the advertising.
Was the ad served? Yes it was. Did the party listen?
Prove I didn't.
>>This makes no sense. How does this equate even closely to you visiting a website. The website is not landing in your mailbox.
The mailbox represents the other side of the conversation.
The telephone I pay for, the postal box is provided to me
free of charge. Those who pay to send me mail should have
that mail sent. The telephone on the other hand, I pay for
and is not for the use of others to solicit to me.
Those who pay to advertise through mail, often have the
ads they paid to send out thrown in the recycle bin without
even being read. That's the risk they take.
>>True, it is your decision where you browse, however it is the owners decision how they wish to present their content. If they chose to place ads, your free to go elsewhere for the content. I mean, you paid for your car stereo, but that doesn't give you any right to listen to FM stations without listening to the ads.
True, but trying to find a site without advertising other
that Google's front page is quite rare these days. But I
still stand by the fact that the computer and hard drive
are mine, and it is my decision as to what is displayed
and what goes on that drive.
Here's another example. I have the right to do anything
I want. Let's say for example, I have the right to walk
into your house, stand on your breakfast table, sing the
star spangled banner as loud as I want.
That is my right to do so.
My right to do so ends when it infringes on your right to
privacy, peace, and security. The point is, my right to
do something ends when it infringes on your rights.
You have a right to run a site that displays ads.
That is not in dispute, however, I have the right to not
view those ads. Regardless of whether I view them or not,
your site will still serve them.
>>We are talking about advertising on sites, not SPAM. Try to not muddy the issue with irrelevance.
And many of those sites out there use ADWARE (as previously
stated) to show ads on a site that may interest the person
doing the browsing. For instance. My interests lie in
amateur radio. There are pieces of adware out there that
can monitor the sites I go to, and present me with ads
for amateur radio equipment.
>>Sites are not placing anything on your screen. You are placing YOURSELF on their server and then somehow wish to get the content without any thought of compensating those who took the time to put that content there in the first place. If you do not like ad based content, then you should not visit sites that use advertising.
OK look at it this way. I walk into a Starbucks, because I
am in their store, I see their brand name, things they sell
and possibly advertising from other vendors.
I can choose to not directly look at all the logos.
Now, I visit a site, unless I am using Lynx or another text
only browser, that site is PLACING ON MY HARD DRIVE AND
SCREEN, content I do not want. I didn't ask for the GIF
banner saying "CONGRATULATIONS! YOU'RE THE ONE MILLIONTH
VISITOR TO THIS SITE CLICK HERE TO CLAIM YOUR PRIZE."
Unless I clear my cache each time (which I do anyway, that
GIF file resides on my hard drive in the cache taking up
space. The GIF was added to my drive without my permission.
It takes up space, and a directory entry.
I've fixed computers that have had caches of over a GIG
yes, a GIG of information in the cache folder.
>>No, I will just find ways around adblocker, or in the end, block those who block me. This content is MY content, not yours. I know most on the net feel everything should be free, well, good luck with that.
I never said everything should be free. If there is a site
I like I WILL support it. Being my interests lie in amateur
radio, there are several sites I'm on where I am not
deluged by banners, flash animation and other things
to get my attention.
>>There is nobody pushing anything on you. Don't visit if you do not want to see my ads. Stop stealing my content!
You put up a site on the internet, give it a domain name,
publish that domain name, advertise that domain name
around, invite people to visit your site where banners
and other advertising appear unwanted on their screen,
unwanted copies of your GIF banners and flash animation
are stored unwanted on their hard drive, and you say
these people are stealing? If I put out a pitcher of
lemonade in a public place along with some flyers with
advertising for my business, and people drink the lemonade
without taking a flyer, then that is a business risk.
Unless there is a sign there saying they MUST take a flyer,
then they can choose not to. They're no more stealing my
lemonade than anyone using adblocker is stealing your content. You have the right to send the ads out from your
site, but as the previous example states above, that right
ends at my screen and hard drive.
>>Yeah, until you wanted to find anything useful. Have fun with Gopher did ya?
Yes, I sure did, Google works quite well in a text environment.
Look at adblocker this way, it's the graphical version
of Lynx. It filters out the graphics and flash people
aren't interested in anyway. If you block all the adblock
users, are you going to block all lynx users as well?
>>You mean back in the days when domain names did not cost anything right? Or 95% of all websites were hosted on university machines and not paid for by the webmaster? Yeah, the good ol days..
Have you looked at the price of domain names? They are
quite inexpensive these days.
If you can't run a site without having advertising and
that advertising is used to pay for something you cannot
afford otherwise, then why do it? Like the lemonade example.
I took a business risk putting that pitcher out, I paid for
the cost of the pitcher, the lemonade, the water to make it,
the ice cubes, the sugar, the plastic cups, the table, the
space FOR the table, the paper used in the flyers, the ink,
to make them all to get someone to notice my business.
That's the risk I took. Will everyone take a flyer? No,
of course not. People don't even have to look at it.
In the website, the ad is sent to a PC regardless of
whether a user wants it or not. That's the issue I have.
>>Your generalizing. My site does not have ads jumping all over the place. Sure, there are sites out there like that, and you know what I do? I don't visit those sites. I guess if I felt like a thief, I would do my best to block their ads to get at their content.
I don't see how blocking unwanted content from entering
my machine and displaying itself on my screen is being a
thief. Tell you what, why not post your phone number out
here on the forum and let anyone at random call you, using
your phone line, your time, your money, and minutes of
your life you'll never get back to try to sell stuff to you
that you have no interest in. Now you know why the government
has the DO NOT CALL list, and that telemarketers can be
fined for calling people on it.
Like I said earlier, you have the right to your banner ads
your flash ads, your javascript and all that fun, but that
right stops at my internet connected PC.
Ads on sites, spam, adware, viruses, it's all the same to
me. If it's not what I'm looking for, I don't want it on
my screen, or on my hard drive. That is my right.
When advertisers pay for my phone, they can call me till
hell freezes over. When they pay my electricity bill,
pay for the pc itself and its upkeep, and pay for the
internet connection, then they can advertise to me all they
want.
You want all the benefits of running a site with none of
the risks. People who don't want to view your ads will
find a way to block them. You have the right to block those
who block your ads. And it goes on, tit for tat....
Same thing happened with Caller ID and telemarketers.
Telemarketers tried to persuade the FTC that they had the
right to call people. Judge said, no way, they pay for the
phone line. You have the right to call, they have the
right to not answer.
So it boils down to this: MY pc, MY filters.
Don't like it? Sorry bub, but that's the business risk
you take when you pay to put a site online.
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49 | |
|
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
| YET... Is the key here. The fact is that the average Joe isn't bright enough to steer away from Internet Exploder, let alone use an ad-blocking plugin or software.
That said, I think the proliferation of java and FLASH ads will negate it all in the end. Of course, you can block that too, but pretty soon this becomes frustrating for the user. It is kind of like using NoScript. You get tired of having to enable each particular site, as the 'net is nearly useless without scripting.
Obviously ABP and similar solutions aren't putting enough of a dent in Google's profits...YET...for them to notice. | |
| | | Ad blockers really useful? If I understand this correctly, the ad blocker will: a) not reduce the time to download the page, since they are still being served to the client. b) leave a white space where the ad would have gone. I don't see any joy out of this. I don't mind the ads so much as the added time to download them, often from ad servers that are much slower than the web site's own. Solve that problem and I will have no need for ad blockers. | |
| | rick752Premium
join:2006-01-27
New York | Re: Ad blockers really useful? Incorrect:
Most ads are not downloaded .... many spaces are removed (depending on your subscription choices)  | |
| | | | Actually it does reduce the time to load the page: the ads are not loaded as many are blocked by domain the images are coming from. Actually one problem I was having is that many sites would not load completely because the browser was waiting for some ad related data - you could tell it by looking in the web browser status bar, something like "waiting for images.doubleckick.net..." One prime example was ArsTechnica that frequently would not load because of some stupid add related junk was timing out.
I'd rather take an empty white box over irrelevant, distracting ad any time though.
A. | |
|
| | Back up! QUICK! Back up the program! Before the ad companies try to sue it out of existence!! | |
| rick752Premium
join:2006-01-27
New York | Is there some kind of internet law? ... ... that says:
1) All images must be enabled in the browser? No?
2) Javascript must be enabled in the browser? No?
2) Flash must be enabled in the browser? No?
3) Java must be enabled in the browser? No?
4) Video must be enabled in the browser? No?
If these are not 'lawful' requirements of being on the internet, then so be it! There is no written or unwritten law that says these things have to be turned on to see anything a user doesn't want to see. If I can run these things disabled, then why can't I "selectively" enabled them? I have every right to do what I want with the content served. Is it bad for me to turn these options off? Tough! My computer .. my choice!
When a site becomes responsible for the content it serves, I will THEN even remotely entertain the idea of HAVING to view ads. Stores have to be responsible for the products THEY sell for 30 days ... maybe it should be fair that sites should take full responsibility for THEIR served products, fraud, malware, spyware, & privacy invasion on THEIR sites for the content that they serve. But they usually just leave YOU holding the bag if something bad is displayed. You just get a hearty, "Sorry about that!" from them. 
... and why does it seem that is it usually only bloggers that complain about ads being blocked? Is it because they feel that they deserve the ad revenue on their 'free' sites? I guess giving your opinion for the good of the internet is not enough? Do you share your ad earnings will the people who add comments ... because without THEM, your blog is totally worthless ... it's just another unnoticed paragraph in cyberspace. One more opinionated bigmouth gone is just another victory for the internet as a whole as there are already TOO MANY worthless bloggers out there now. Opinions are like a**holes .... if you want everyone to hear your (sometimes worthless) voices heard, then PAY for it!
This is not to says that there are not some good bloggers ... but I figure only about 5% are.
rick752- EasyList author for Adblock Plus
--
EasyList, EasyElement, & ABP Tracking Filter Subscriptions for Adblock Plus | |
| | Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: Is there some kind of internet law? ... Great, you arbitrarily set some percentage of worth on the net. All bow to rick.. | |
| | | | | Re: Is there some kind of internet law? ... Let me explain to you the concept of my computer, my choice.
All websites that I visit is downloaded to my web browser, therefore all the content of the website is downloaded on to my computer. Because of this I can choose what content I want have on my computer, local or otherwise because I own my machine. Your website, nor any other website, dictates what my computer does. Websites provide the content but it is my choice to control the content of the website that is transmitted to my computer's web browser.
Capitalism is such a wonderful thing and advertisements are a part of capitalism. But there is also another part to capitalism and that is called choice. I can choose to view ads or to not view ads. Using ad blocking software gives me the choice to do so and control the content that is transmitted to my computer. Because after all it is my computer and no one else's.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
| |
|
|
Seeing how many ads this s/w gets rid of ....
