9 ms·

IMO, this is the biggest issue facing ad providers today. I get the anti-ad blocker complaints - there are a lot of sites that depend entirely upon advertising

by untog 11y ago

IMO, this is the biggest issue facing ad providers today. I get the anti-ad blocker complaints - there are a lot of sites that depend entirely upon advertising revenue for their continued existence. And this isn't just crappy blogmills - even a company like the New York Times doesn't make enough money from subscriptions alone to continue operating without advertising of some sort. Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has found it yet, and in the mean time I'm quite prepared to tolerate advertising on web sites in return for the content I get. I'll even tolerate a pre-roll ad or a full-screen takeover before I get to a page every now and then - but there's a line. The mild end of it (for me) is ads clearly intended to make you click by accident, and the severe end of it is malware like this. And in my experience it's on the rise. By all means implore your users to turn off their ad blockers. But clean house first and make sure you know what you're serving. The real problem is that it's borderline impossible for anyone to do so, given how many reseller networks exist out there these days. I often see people say that sites should arrange and sell their own advertising - but the reality is there's no money in it. Selling yourself out to the Google ad behemoth is often the only way out.

bduerst 11y ago
>Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has found it yet You could try Google Contributor. It shows you pictures of cats instead of ads, and let's you give a couple pennies to the website. It's not 100% but it's something different.
- untog 11y ago
  I actually do. It works very well, but still involves loading a lot of JS on the page. Still, a lot better than anything else.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
ArtDev 11y ago
Even Google ads contained malware recently.
- return0 11y ago
  Since adsense is automatic, malware does sneak in from time to time. Typically, within a few hours and after a few reports it's fixed. That said, it's a long time since i 've had any complaints about malware / popups using adsense so presumably they have improved.
cm2187 11y ago
If all ads were just jpeg, it would be hard to hide malwares or tracking systems in them
- untog 11y ago
  Sure. It would also be very difficult to make any money from them.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    That sounds an awful lot like a You* Problem, not a Me Problem. If the only way your business can stay afloat is by peddling malware to unsuspecting users, your business deserves to fail. *By "you," I mean the content publisher.
    - untog 11y ago
      I don't see where I suggested otherwise. It will be come a You problem when these sites cease to exist because they have no money. No, we're not anywhere near that stage yet, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        I didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with you, just continuing the discussion. > It will be come a You problem when these sites cease to exist because they have no money. Nah. Like I said, whatever value they provide is not greater than the cost of the malware they distribute. Them going out of business would be a net-good for the world.
        untog 11y ago
        > whatever value they provide is not greater than the cost of the malware they distribute. Them going out of business would be a net-good for the world That feels like a blanket statement. When we're talking about the free press going under because they aren't able to afford to keep running, that sounds a lot more like an Us problem than a You or Me problem. Yes, I realise that sounds hyperbolic, but...
uptown 11y ago
"Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has found it yet" Sure they have. Sites just need to host the ads natively instead of outsourcing that responsibility. But they don't want to do that, because they don't want to take on that responsibility.
- incongruity 11y ago
  IMHO, if content providers/content hosts are going so far, in some cases, as to threaten law suits about ad blocking, they're putting themselves on the hook for liability when ads served for them cause harm to visitors' systems. I have no idea if there's any legal precedent for that, but morally it seems like two sides to the same coin. You make money by putting me at risk? We share that money (and more) if you actually harm me.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  This is how my site works and it works well. In theory I might be able to make a bit more via an ad network, but I like treating my site like a magazine and have highly relevant and high-quality ads.
  - oaktowner 11y ago
    I just looked at http://officesnapshots.com/ http://officesnapshots.com/ and I agree -- that's what advertising should be. Congrats. Two questions: how much time do you spend selling/negotiating with advertisers? And you say you could earn more from a network: have you researched at all exactly how much more? Naively, it seems that maybe advertisers would pay you more because 100% of the visitors to your site are relevant to their products (but admittedly I'm out of my realm of expertise).
    - imtringued 11y ago
      >Naively, it seems that maybe advertisers would pay you more because 100% of the visitors to your site are relevant to their products The fact that a website is about interior design is already enough information for advertisers to show you relevant ads. I think all this tracking is pointless. They still show me ads about fridges weeks after I've bought one.
Aelinsaar 11y ago
For me, the breaking point were ads that expanded to fill the screen, or that autoplayed something loud. I hated searching a page for the little ad that was blasting me in the ears. Then, once you realize that seeing ads is actually a choice, why would you ever go back? "We need you!" or "We're better now!" is a hard sell after all of that brutal, personal experience.
ufmace 11y ago
I'm willing enough to tolerate a moderate amount of ads on the page. This malware issue is a real problem though - I wouldn't know if an ad infected me with malware until it's already a big problem to deal with, possibly even including a ransomware infection. The only safe option is to block 'em all everywhere.
malchow 11y ago
A company I founded, Publir, is working on a new model here -- well behaved ads for anonymous users, microsubscriptions via Stripe to eliminate ads client-side for devoted readers. Turns out that eliminating ads in the client upon payment is actually quite difficult to do with good hygeine; ad networks are very sensitive to "fraud." Now that we have a good solution, we're pretty excited about it.
- kaffeinecoma 11y ago
  For a while now I've been thinking about something like this: once a month I put some amount of money in my "browser account". Maybe it's $25, or $10, maybe sometimes it's nothing at all. This money gets automatically distributed to the sites I visit, potentially subject to a white/black list that I control. Payments automated, cryptographically secure. I never see an ad or run ad-related JS. And the sites that I support get my patronage as directly as possible. Edit: oh, and somehow my privacy is magically preserved. Small detail. :-) Maybe that's too close to the "public radio" model, and would never work at scale, but I'd pay for it.
  - trophycase 11y ago
    It's just like cable used to be! Before they started serving ads anyway...
    - tracker1 11y ago
      Most cable networks always showed ads, other than the premium channels (hbo, sho, etc)... They used to show fewer ads though... and the shows are now, mostly slotted to 44 minutes of show (give or take), closer to 36 for reality TV. So the rest gets filled with ads.. because money.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    I think you just described the basic concept of Brave, Brendan Eich's browser project. https://www.brave.com/about.html https://www.brave.com/about.html
  - 11y ago
wolfgke 11y ago
Simply make the ad networks liable for the damage caused by malware they distribute - this would solve the worst problems caused by ad networks.
alexyim 11y ago
There is. https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads
hexagonc 11y ago
I think most people, with a little education, are reasonable when it comes to ads. I know I was. Most of my computers didn't block ads or scripts. You can try to be nice but the ad makers have escalated things to the point that you have to respond. It's like content creators these days are so upset about ad-blocking that they feel they have to lash out with ads at the people that don't block. I went to some random Linux Q&A forum and had to force-quit my browser because the ads brought the browser to a standstill; all tabs were frozen. I consider ads that crash or force me to close my browser as an act of violence. Nobody in their right mind wants to subject themselves to that, regardless of their opinion of ad-blocking.

by untog 11y ago

bduerst 11y ago

>Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has found it yet You could try Google Contributor. It shows you pictures of cats instead of ads, and let's you give a couple pennies to the website. It's not 100% but it's something different.

untog 11y ago
I actually do. It works very well, but still involves loading a lot of JS on the page. Still, a lot better than anything else.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

ArtDev 11y ago

Even Google ads contained malware recently.

return0 11y ago
Since adsense is automatic, malware does sneak in from time to time. Typically, within a few hours and after a few reports it's fixed. That said, it's a long time since i 've had any complaints about malware / popups using adsense so presumably they have improved.

cm2187 11y ago

If all ads were just jpeg, it would be hard to hide malwares or tracking systems in them

untog 11y ago
Sure. It would also be very difficult to make any money from them.
- coldpie 11y ago
  That sounds an awful lot like a You* Problem, not a Me Problem. If the only way your business can stay afloat is by peddling malware to unsuspecting users, your business deserves to fail. *By "you," I mean the content publisher.
  - untog 11y ago
    I don't see where I suggested otherwise. It will be come a You problem when these sites cease to exist because they have no money. No, we're not anywhere near that stage yet, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      I didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with you, just continuing the discussion. > It will be come a You problem when these sites cease to exist because they have no money. Nah. Like I said, whatever value they provide is not greater than the cost of the malware they distribute. Them going out of business would be a net-good for the world.
      - untog 11y ago
        > whatever value they provide is not greater than the cost of the malware they distribute. Them going out of business would be a net-good for the world That feels like a blanket statement. When we're talking about the free press going under because they aren't able to afford to keep running, that sounds a lot more like an Us problem than a You or Me problem. Yes, I realise that sounds hyperbolic, but...

uptown 11y ago

"Maybe there's a different model out there but as far as I'm aware no-one has found it yet" Sure they have. Sites just need to host the ads natively instead of outsourcing that responsibility. But they don't want to do that, because they don't want to take on that responsibility.

incongruity 11y ago
IMHO, if content providers/content hosts are going so far, in some cases, as to threaten law suits about ad blocking, they're putting themselves on the hook for liability when ads served for them cause harm to visitors' systems. I have no idea if there's any legal precedent for that, but morally it seems like two sides to the same coin. You make money by putting me at risk? We share that money (and more) if you actually harm me.
stevesearer 11y ago
This is how my site works and it works well. In theory I might be able to make a bit more via an ad network, but I like treating my site like a magazine and have highly relevant and high-quality ads.
- oaktowner 11y ago
  I just looked at http://officesnapshots.com/ http://officesnapshots.com/ and I agree -- that's what advertising should be. Congrats. Two questions: how much time do you spend selling/negotiating with advertisers? And you say you could earn more from a network: have you researched at all exactly how much more? Naively, it seems that maybe advertisers would pay you more because 100% of the visitors to your site are relevant to their products (but admittedly I'm out of my realm of expertise).
  - imtringued 11y ago
    >Naively, it seems that maybe advertisers would pay you more because 100% of the visitors to your site are relevant to their products The fact that a website is about interior design is already enough information for advertisers to show you relevant ads. I think all this tracking is pointless. They still show me ads about fridges weeks after I've bought one.

Aelinsaar 11y ago

For me, the breaking point were ads that expanded to fill the screen, or that autoplayed something loud. I hated searching a page for the little ad that was blasting me in the ears. Then, once you realize that seeing ads is actually a choice, why would you ever go back? "We need you!" or "We're better now!" is a hard sell after all of that brutal, personal experience.

ufmace 11y ago

I'm willing enough to tolerate a moderate amount of ads on the page. This malware issue is a real problem though - I wouldn't know if an ad infected me with malware until it's already a big problem to deal with, possibly even including a ransomware infection. The only safe option is to block 'em all everywhere.

malchow 11y ago

A company I founded, Publir, is working on a new model here -- well behaved ads for anonymous users, microsubscriptions via Stripe to eliminate ads client-side for devoted readers. Turns out that eliminating ads in the client upon payment is actually quite difficult to do with good hygeine; ad networks are very sensitive to "fraud." Now that we have a good solution, we're pretty excited about it.

kaffeinecoma 11y ago
For a while now I've been thinking about something like this: once a month I put some amount of money in my "browser account". Maybe it's $25, or $10, maybe sometimes it's nothing at all. This money gets automatically distributed to the sites I visit, potentially subject to a white/black list that I control. Payments automated, cryptographically secure. I never see an ad or run ad-related JS. And the sites that I support get my patronage as directly as possible. Edit: oh, and somehow my privacy is magically preserved. Small detail. :-) Maybe that's too close to the "public radio" model, and would never work at scale, but I'd pay for it.
- trophycase 11y ago
  It's just like cable used to be! Before they started serving ads anyway...
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Most cable networks always showed ads, other than the premium channels (hbo, sho, etc)... They used to show fewer ads though... and the shows are now, mostly slotted to 44 minutes of show (give or take), closer to 36 for reality TV. So the rest gets filled with ads.. because money.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I think you just described the basic concept of Brave, Brendan Eich's browser project. https://www.brave.com/about.html https://www.brave.com/about.html
- 11y ago

wolfgke 11y ago

Simply make the ad networks liable for the damage caused by malware they distribute - this would solve the worst problems caused by ad networks.

alexyim 11y ago

There is. https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads

hexagonc 11y ago

I think most people, with a little education, are reasonable when it comes to ads. I know I was. Most of my computers didn't block ads or scripts. You can try to be nice but the ad makers have escalated things to the point that you have to respond. It's like content creators these days are so upset about ad-blocking that they feel they have to lash out with ads at the people that don't block. I went to some random Linux Q&A forum and had to force-quit my browser because the ads brought the browser to a standstill; all tabs were frozen. I consider ads that crash or force me to close my browser as an act of violence. Nobody in their right mind wants to subject themselves to that, regardless of their opinion of ad-blocking.