5 ms·
F You Wired. "Here's the thing with ad blockers." I'm not using any ad blocker! I'm not letting you run scripts in my browser. Why do you need to run scripts
by kw71 10y ago
F You Wired.
"Here's the thing with ad blockers."
I'm not using any ad blocker! I'm not letting you run scripts in my browser. Why do you need to run scripts to show a static magazine article, with ads or not?
You aren't getting my dollar, but you would have gotten some impressions ($$$) and I would have read the article if you didn't act like a retard with your website.
- capote 10y agoThere's always been a delay in Wired blocking me, so I always just print the page to a PDF and read away.
- capote 10y agoMakes me feel like I'm sticking it to the man.
- spikej 10y agoSeriously, just stick this in front of most sites/articles: http://www.readability.com/m?url= http://www.readability.com/m?url= And here it is in bookmarklet form javascript:void(window.location.href='http://www.readability.com/m?url='+window.location.href http://www.readability.com/m?url='+window.location.href)
- pmarreck 10y agoExcellent tip
- enraged_camel 10y agoI get a "Readability was unable to parse this page" error when I plug in the submitted Wired article.
- x5n1 10y agoYeah felt the same thing. Turned off the adblocker, still won't load because it wants to load a ton of privacy invading scripts to track everything about you. Yeah it's fine, your article might be interesting, but it's not that interesting. Get a Google cached version if I really want to read it.
- gregmac 10y agoFunny enough, using uBlock Origin, I actually can read the article. * requests blocked on this page 10 or 23% * domains connected 13 out of 22
- fapjacks 10y agoYeah I'm using both Ghostery and uBlock Origin and can totally read the article. :P
- clumsysmurf 10y agoSame here, not using an Ad blocker - just using Ghostery.
- Jugurtha 10y agoYou can inspect a page. It might have a (div id="veil"). I wonder what would happen if you delete that element.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago> act like a retard Cut it out.
- DanBC 10y agoYou're always going to get heavily downvoted for stuff like this. It's probably better to silently downvote it.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoI'm not going to self-censor for fear of downvotes.
- eli 10y agoIf you're not running scripts then you are effectively blocking ads even if that wasn't your intent. So your impressions were not generating any direct revenue and were likely not even being measured by analytics and counted as a page view.
- taway2 10y agoIt is possible to have ads that require no js.
- ris 10y agoAnd even if you did require js (for e.g. registering impressions), loading it from the same domain would make a lot more of us ok with it.
- eli 10y agoSure but that rules out most kinds of ads. Even contracting directly with clients to show their ads, the client is often going to want to run the ads through a third party server so they can easily track all the different campaign they're running and check that the publisher is providing as many impressions as promised. I think basically you'd end up with a lot of sponsored content and "Brought to you by..." type sponsorships interwoven in the site so they cannot easily be blocked.
- mikegerwitz 10y agoI'm using NoScript with GNU IceCat and I don't see any message. I also use SpyBlock (which IceCat comes with) and Privacy Badger; I tried disabling both of the latter two, and still didn't receive the message.
- roywiggins 10y agoThe script detecting adblockers can't fire if you have scripts turned off :) They could just have the overlay default-on and use a script to remove it, or stick it in a noscript tag, but that's another order of dickishness I've never seen outside of local newspapers, who sometimes put a meta redirect in their noscript tags for this precise purpose...
- ComodoHacker 10y agoReading mode in Firefox saves the day.