5 ms·

It's strange too, since ads are mostly pictures (or text) you'd think they could just serve that and prohibit, like, JS, but nope!

iofj 11y ago
Well some can, and do. However the ad business has long since become a race to the bottom. Refusing customer demands is not a way to "win" a race to the bottom.
stevesearer 11y ago
Check out my site and let me know what you think? I serve only images that are self-hosted and have found that my readers really appreciate it.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  Doesn't make sense.
  - fiatjaf 11y ago
    http://officesnapshots.com/ http://officesnapshots.com/
- keithpeter 11y ago
  Looks like your editorial content is in the main left-hand column and the adverts are in the narrower right hand column when viewed on a laptop with a 1280px wide screen (linux/firefox). I have a hosts file that blocks most of the ad servers but do not have any plugins within Firefox that disable js or block adverts. Your page looks complete - i.e. nothing showing 'unable to load' signs as one might expect. Privacy Badger shows 4 trackers (amber)... cse.google.com www.google.com platform.twitter.com syndication.twitter.com The adverts appear to be smallish static images with links back to office furniture companies &c. I found the SpaceStor advert for their 'railway carriage' internal booth quite interesting so I clicked on it and was taken to a UK Web site - are you processing location information or did I just get lucky? Interesting example to pass round.
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    They are UK-based. Glad you found the experience a decent one, the more I hear about ad-blocking, the more I feel encouraged to just make ads more simple and it seems to be paying off.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Worked nice in mobile Firefox. Didn't do any technical check, only verified visually.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  Any site that served ads like that I'd be happy to white list. I'd go further and be happy for uBlock or adblock to never block those sort of ads (uBlock didn't btw). * Static images * tastefully integrated * Self hosted, so no networks tracking me worldwide * No JS I can still read in comfort. Much like newspapers and magazines used to be. I'd even be happy to click, and perhaps buy from ads like that. This comes from someone who goes elsewhere rather than turn off noscript or uBlock. :) Well done, you invented the future of online advertising. Oh, wait...
  - jimbobimbo 11y ago
    Speaking of "tastefully integrated"... I gave up and installed ad block for my parents after they've complained about lewd ads on the local news website. This is how its "above the fold" looks like without blocked ads (I put red outlines around parts that are content): http://imgur.com/7g5ZmcG http://imgur.com/7g5ZmcG Right now there're no porn ads, but usually it serves them too.
- rokhayakebe 11y ago
  This is why I love HN. You randomly find the people behind things you love. OS is great (Although I used to love it more when I knew the companies being listed).
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    I probably publish the same number of offices from household name type companies as before, but there are definitely many more others now. If you dial the office browse are in to show tech companies there are a good portion that the audience here will recognize: http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology
tyingq 11y ago
There are some reasonable reasons for the javascript, like a/b testing, seeing where in the ad you clicked, how long you waited before clicking, etc.
- mirimir 11y ago
  How is that not a CFAA violation?
  - dsjoerg 11y ago
    Why would it be?
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Unauthorized snooping? Maybe this seems silly. Because we're all so used to it. But think. If some kid gets access to foo.com, that's a crime, no? So how is it not a crime to access random users' devices without permission?
    - tyingq 11y ago
      At a high level, a plaintiff would claim that advertisers were using javascript to gain "unauthorized access" to "information from any protected computer". It's been tried before. Google "CFAA flash cookies" or "Halperin v Text Enhance". Didn't pan out. The plaintiffs typically fail to meet the $5k damage minimum within CFAA. I assume there are other strategies advertisers could use to defend it, but the $5k minimum is an easy path.
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Well, in class actions, individual class-member damages are often small. Like $50 or whatever. But there are millions of class members.
        tyingq 11y ago
        Also tried and failed. Something legal about failing a test for appropriate aggregation. Edit: A snippet of an article about the Halperin case... 'the court says that it can’t aggregate the harm to other putative class members to satisfy the damage threshold unless the damage arises out of a “single act.” And that poses a problem as the complaint is currently pled. The surreptitious install of the program by thousands of consumers (and putative class members) is not a “single act,” so Halperin can’t rely on this “act” when aggregating. Halperin argued that he shouldn’t be subject to the no-aggregation rule.'

iofj 11y ago

Well some can, and do. However the ad business has long since become a race to the bottom. Refusing customer demands is not a way to "win" a race to the bottom.

stevesearer 11y ago

Check out my site and let me know what you think? I serve only images that are self-hosted and have found that my readers really appreciate it.

fiatjaf 11y ago
Doesn't make sense.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  http://officesnapshots.com/ http://officesnapshots.com/
keithpeter 11y ago
Looks like your editorial content is in the main left-hand column and the adverts are in the narrower right hand column when viewed on a laptop with a 1280px wide screen (linux/firefox). I have a hosts file that blocks most of the ad servers but do not have any plugins within Firefox that disable js or block adverts. Your page looks complete - i.e. nothing showing 'unable to load' signs as one might expect. Privacy Badger shows 4 trackers (amber)... cse.google.com www.google.com platform.twitter.com syndication.twitter.com The adverts appear to be smallish static images with links back to office furniture companies &c. I found the SpaceStor advert for their 'railway carriage' internal booth quite interesting so I clicked on it and was taken to a UK Web site - are you processing location information or did I just get lucky? Interesting example to pass round.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  They are UK-based. Glad you found the experience a decent one, the more I hear about ad-blocking, the more I feel encouraged to just make ads more simple and it seems to be paying off.
reitanqild 11y ago
Worked nice in mobile Firefox. Didn't do any technical check, only verified visually.
anexprogrammer 11y ago
Any site that served ads like that I'd be happy to white list. I'd go further and be happy for uBlock or adblock to never block those sort of ads (uBlock didn't btw). * Static images * tastefully integrated * Self hosted, so no networks tracking me worldwide * No JS I can still read in comfort. Much like newspapers and magazines used to be. I'd even be happy to click, and perhaps buy from ads like that. This comes from someone who goes elsewhere rather than turn off noscript or uBlock. :) Well done, you invented the future of online advertising. Oh, wait...
- jimbobimbo 11y ago
  Speaking of "tastefully integrated"... I gave up and installed ad block for my parents after they've complained about lewd ads on the local news website. This is how its "above the fold" looks like without blocked ads (I put red outlines around parts that are content): http://imgur.com/7g5ZmcG http://imgur.com/7g5ZmcG Right now there're no porn ads, but usually it serves them too.
rokhayakebe 11y ago
This is why I love HN. You randomly find the people behind things you love. OS is great (Although I used to love it more when I knew the companies being listed).
- stevesearer 11y ago
  I probably publish the same number of offices from household name type companies as before, but there are definitely many more others now. If you dial the office browse are in to show tech companies there are a good portion that the audience here will recognize: http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology http://officesnapshots.com/offices/?fwp_industry=technology

tyingq 11y ago

There are some reasonable reasons for the javascript, like a/b testing, seeing where in the ad you clicked, how long you waited before clicking, etc.

mirimir 11y ago
How is that not a CFAA violation?
- dsjoerg 11y ago
  Why would it be?
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Unauthorized snooping? Maybe this seems silly. Because we're all so used to it. But think. If some kid gets access to foo.com, that's a crime, no? So how is it not a crime to access random users' devices without permission?
  - tyingq 11y ago
    At a high level, a plaintiff would claim that advertisers were using javascript to gain "unauthorized access" to "information from any protected computer". It's been tried before. Google "CFAA flash cookies" or "Halperin v Text Enhance". Didn't pan out. The plaintiffs typically fail to meet the $5k damage minimum within CFAA. I assume there are other strategies advertisers could use to defend it, but the $5k minimum is an easy path.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Well, in class actions, individual class-member damages are often small. Like $50 or whatever. But there are millions of class members.
      - tyingq 11y ago
        Also tried and failed. Something legal about failing a test for appropriate aggregation. Edit: A snippet of an article about the Halperin case... 'the court says that it can’t aggregate the harm to other putative class members to satisfy the damage threshold unless the damage arises out of a “single act.” And that poses a problem as the complaint is currently pled. The surreptitious install of the program by thousands of consumers (and putative class members) is not a “single act,” so Halperin can’t rely on this “act” when aggregating. Halperin argued that he shouldn’t be subject to the no-aggregation rule.'