5 ms·

I've no real objections to advertising online, so for a long time I didn't use an ad blocker. However, in the last two or three years some adverts on sites whi

by motters 17y ago

I've no real objections to advertising online, so for a long time I didn't use an ad blocker. However, in the last two or three years some adverts on sites which I visit often have been becoming increasingly offensive. Flashing animated images, pictures of the inside of people's mouths, and semi-pornographic ads are something which degrades my web viewing experience and if a technical solution to this problem exists then I have no hesitation about using it. For the foreseeable future it seems that ad blocking will remain necessary. Perhaps the solution is some sort of code of conduct for advertisers. If ads are discreet and respectful of the viewer then I'd certainly be prepared to stop blocking them.

nollidge 17y ago
Absolutely. I would not block ads if they did not degrade my reading experience.
- notauser 17y ago
  I deleted my AdBlock Plus easy list entry and started only manually blocking irritating ads. It turns out that only about 20 rules covered 99.5% of the _really_ annoying ads, whilst still leaving the OK ones. Adding those rules wasn't difficult, or annoying, or time consuming - just click and block when irritated. The nuclear option (easy list) gets everything - even ad words - despite the fact that I don't mind them very much. The ABP developers really shouldn't make that the default, because I don't think people realize what they are signing up to. I don't object to them having the option, but it shouldn't be the default.
  - nitrogen 17y ago
    Agreed. Text-based ads are fine with me, as are non-animated ads that roughly blend into a site's color scheme. If the ad animates, flashes, moves, makes sound, tracks me with cookies, etc. then I want it blocked. However, I don't have time to manually unblock all the unoffensive ads after installing EasyList, or block all the offensive ones instead of using EasyList. Another default subscription option that blocks the most offensive ads would be most welcome.
Batsu 17y ago
Prime example: the evolution of Evony's ads. http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of-evony-video-game-ads/ http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of-evony-...
- rmorrison 17y ago
  Yeah, I'm curious what the culture of Evony users are like, since it seems that they're attracting one sort of customer (horny men) and then providing a completely different product (fantasy computer game). Is the game world filled w/ a lot of adult role players or something? I'm not curious enough to go and try it, though.
natrius 17y ago
Blocking ads selectively is ethical. Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't.
- rythie 17y ago
  Is there actually a practical way to that though?
  - natrius 17y ago
    1) Install an ad blocker. 2) When an ad annoys you, enable your ad blocker for that site. 3) If you actually enjoy the content the site provides, you should let them know why you're blocking their ads so they can fix the problem. Otherwise, if everyone does what you do, the site will cease to exist.
    - rythie 17y ago
      2) I don't think AdBlockPlus lets you do that 3) You surely know that, that is a waste of time, 1. they already know, 2. they won't respond or do anything
      - notauser 17y ago
        2) Sure it does - just click on any add and blacklist the domain. Takes two seconds. (I'm actually surprised more sites haven't started responding by proxying ad content through their own servers to make it harder to block.)
        irons 17y ago
        Doubleclick doesn't allow proxied ad distribution, and I'm not sure a similar effect could be achieved through DNS. The Ars thread touches on this, where Kurt mentions that Doubleclick's ad deployment isn't smart enough to detect flash-blockers and serve a static ad, and Ars isn't permitted to replace Doubleclick's deployment code.
        17y ago
romland 17y ago
If ads are discreet and respectful of the viewer then I'd certainly be prepared to stop blocking them. I can only speak for myself but a solution does not seem that far off (at least not to get me to see your ads). While I agree that some sort of code of conduct may be a good idea, I don't really see it working out in the long run what with everyone always being willing to sacrifice good will for a quick buck. That said, I use NoScript in Firefox and I run it for other reasons than blocking advertisements and I don't have an ad-blocker installed. If I white list a website it means I made a deliberate choice to trust whatever it is going to throw at me. The most important thing here is that I did not allow any third party to serve me some random code (plain markup is fine). I have no way of telling whether the site I just white listed in fact knows what their external advertisers actually serve. And this is proven again and again by how site owners expect visitors to contact the site when they see an ad that is intrusive so that they can "nuke it". This to me makes it a no deal. To kill two birds with one stone: Serve your advertisements from your own servers and if I want to read your content I have to make a choice whether to trust you and your webserver(s). If you violate my trust then I will go elsewhere and I am no longer a waste of your resources and you are not a waste of mine. If I have for some reason decided to not let you run dynamic content on whatever device I am currently on you simply have to respect that or I leave. You still have the opportunity to serve me static ads, surely that's got to be worth something. You don't know my reasons for not white listing you (as this article states as well). What surprised me about this link was that I did not see a single advertisement on the page. This means they are all using JavaScript or Flash. Sorry, your loss. And eventually my loss as well since the website might not live to see another day due to lack of income. Incidentally, easy white listing [of script execution] for sites is also the only thing stopping me from switching to Chrome today.
- wowus 17y ago
  +1 for mentioning the switch to Chrome. I'm in the exact same boat.
  - Willie_Dynamite 17y ago
    FWIW, they appear to be working on it. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=16932 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=16932
axod 17y ago
The solution, (IMHO) is don't visit those sites any more. Vote with your feet. Ad blocking means the market will never correct itself. You're cutting off the feedback loop. If an ad annoys you, just don't visit that website again! Simple. It's not like there's a shortage of websites to visit. edit: Yeah downmod me. It's a crazy idea! If you go into a shop, and the owner beats you with a bat, you'd resolve to wear full body armor when shopping from now on, and go right back there wouldn't you.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Ad blocking means the market will never correct itself. You're cutting off the feedback loop. If an ad annoys you, just don't visit that website again! Simple. It's not like there's a shortage of websites to visit." Doesn't this depend on how ad blockers work? If my browser fetches some HTML, and it includes an img ref to some ad site, my blocker might a) prevent the fetching of that resource, or b) allow it to be fetched, but block the rendering. I'm pretty sure blockers use the first technique. So, visiting a site with an ad blocker ups a site's hit count, but adds nothing to the eyeball count for the ads. Fro the ad-tracking POV, it's as if you never visited. It may very well be the sort of feedback that's needed. If you really want to be more active about this you're better off writing to the site owner with your concerns than simply not visiting the place. If my site gets no traffic, how will I know if it's because of the ads, or crappy content?
- jfager 17y ago
  The vast majority of sites that I visit, I visit from aggregators such as HN, from Google, or from 3rd-party links in my Twitter stream or RSS reader. I don't have any numbers, but I would imagine that nowadays that's how a large number of people consume their content. When you say "don't visit these sites anymore", how exactly am I supposed to keep track of who I can and can't visit for fear of offending?
  - axod 17y ago
    I do it with sites like nytimes. If there's an article on here from nytimes, I just don't bother with it any more. They have a paywall/subscription thingy and I just can't be bothered to google for login details. But it's fairly simple to just block sites that annoy you - firewall/hosts/etc
kristianp 17y ago
Advertisers are in an 'arms race' with users. Users become less likely to click on ads over time. Website owners have to increase the percentage of the first visible page over time to maintain the same income from ads. Adverts also become more visually distracting over time for the same reasons. Witness Adsense, which started off with text only, but now has full flash capabilities. What is the solution to the problem? I don't think there is one. Perhaps the rise of the paid app will provide a way to reduce ads, just like cable tv has done, but this will only be a niche. (I'm speculating there.)
hristov 17y ago
Well then don't go to the sites with ads you do not like. Just close your browser, or press the back button the moment you see an ad that disgusts you. And then don't go to that site again. The way I see it, there is an implied contract between a website and a viewer. The website says, "well you get to look at my content for free and you will not have to pay for all the work I have done creating the content and serving it to you, but in exchange you should see and consider the various advertisements and deals we are offering." Again you do not have to use the website, but if you do you should not block the ads.
michaelneale 17y ago
I won't use an ad-blocker as I think advertising is legitimate, and provides support for many great sites and potential for important startups. I do use flashblock/click to flash (which has the side effect of hiding the most offensive video ads). But any site that becomes unbearable with ads, I move on, and don't go there again. I would suggest it is time to avoid those sites.

by motters 17y ago

nollidge 17y ago

Absolutely. I would not block ads if they did not degrade my reading experience.

notauser 17y ago
I deleted my AdBlock Plus easy list entry and started only manually blocking irritating ads. It turns out that only about 20 rules covered 99.5% of the _really_ annoying ads, whilst still leaving the OK ones. Adding those rules wasn't difficult, or annoying, or time consuming - just click and block when irritated. The nuclear option (easy list) gets everything - even ad words - despite the fact that I don't mind them very much. The ABP developers really shouldn't make that the default, because I don't think people realize what they are signing up to. I don't object to them having the option, but it shouldn't be the default.
- nitrogen 17y ago
  Agreed. Text-based ads are fine with me, as are non-animated ads that roughly blend into a site's color scheme. If the ad animates, flashes, moves, makes sound, tracks me with cookies, etc. then I want it blocked. However, I don't have time to manually unblock all the unoffensive ads after installing EasyList, or block all the offensive ones instead of using EasyList. Another default subscription option that blocks the most offensive ads would be most welcome.

Batsu 17y ago

Prime example: the evolution of Evony's ads. http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of-evony-video-game-ads/ http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of-evony-...

rmorrison 17y ago
Yeah, I'm curious what the culture of Evony users are like, since it seems that they're attracting one sort of customer (horny men) and then providing a completely different product (fantasy computer game). Is the game world filled w/ a lot of adult role players or something? I'm not curious enough to go and try it, though.

natrius 17y ago

Blocking ads selectively is ethical. Blocking ads indiscriminately by using a provided block list isn't.

rythie 17y ago
Is there actually a practical way to that though?
- natrius 17y ago
  1) Install an ad blocker. 2) When an ad annoys you, enable your ad blocker for that site. 3) If you actually enjoy the content the site provides, you should let them know why you're blocking their ads so they can fix the problem. Otherwise, if everyone does what you do, the site will cease to exist.
  - rythie 17y ago
    2) I don't think AdBlockPlus lets you do that 3) You surely know that, that is a waste of time, 1. they already know, 2. they won't respond or do anything
    - notauser 17y ago
      2) Sure it does - just click on any add and blacklist the domain. Takes two seconds. (I'm actually surprised more sites haven't started responding by proxying ad content through their own servers to make it harder to block.)
      - irons 17y ago
        Doubleclick doesn't allow proxied ad distribution, and I'm not sure a similar effect could be achieved through DNS. The Ars thread touches on this, where Kurt mentions that Doubleclick's ad deployment isn't smart enough to detect flash-blockers and serve a static ad, and Ars isn't permitted to replace Doubleclick's deployment code.
      - 17y ago

romland 17y ago

If ads are discreet and respectful of the viewer then I'd certainly be prepared to stop blocking them. I can only speak for myself but a solution does not seem that far off (at least not to get me to see your ads). While I agree that some sort of code of conduct may be a good idea, I don't really see it working out in the long run what with everyone always being willing to sacrifice good will for a quick buck. That said, I use NoScript in Firefox and I run it for other reasons than blocking advertisements and I don't have an ad-blocker installed. If I white list a website it means I made a deliberate choice to trust whatever it is going to throw at me. The most important thing here is that I did not allow any third party to serve me some random code (plain markup is fine). I have no way of telling whether the site I just white listed in fact knows what their external advertisers actually serve. And this is proven again and again by how site owners expect visitors to contact the site when they see an ad that is intrusive so that they can "nuke it". This to me makes it a no deal. To kill two birds with one stone: Serve your advertisements from your own servers and if I want to read your content I have to make a choice whether to trust you and your webserver(s). If you violate my trust then I will go elsewhere and I am no longer a waste of your resources and you are not a waste of mine. If I have for some reason decided to not let you run dynamic content on whatever device I am currently on you simply have to respect that or I leave. You still have the opportunity to serve me static ads, surely that's got to be worth something. You don't know my reasons for not white listing you (as this article states as well). What surprised me about this link was that I did not see a single advertisement on the page. This means they are all using JavaScript or Flash. Sorry, your loss. And eventually my loss as well since the website might not live to see another day due to lack of income. Incidentally, easy white listing [of script execution] for sites is also the only thing stopping me from switching to Chrome today.

wowus 17y ago
+1 for mentioning the switch to Chrome. I'm in the exact same boat.
- Willie_Dynamite 17y ago
  FWIW, they appear to be working on it. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=16932 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=16932

axod 17y ago

The solution, (IMHO) is don't visit those sites any more. Vote with your feet. Ad blocking means the market will never correct itself. You're cutting off the feedback loop. If an ad annoys you, just don't visit that website again! Simple. It's not like there's a shortage of websites to visit. edit: Yeah downmod me. It's a crazy idea! If you go into a shop, and the owner beats you with a bat, you'd resolve to wear full body armor when shopping from now on, and go right back there wouldn't you.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"Ad blocking means the market will never correct itself. You're cutting off the feedback loop. If an ad annoys you, just don't visit that website again! Simple. It's not like there's a shortage of websites to visit." Doesn't this depend on how ad blockers work? If my browser fetches some HTML, and it includes an img ref to some ad site, my blocker might a) prevent the fetching of that resource, or b) allow it to be fetched, but block the rendering. I'm pretty sure blockers use the first technique. So, visiting a site with an ad blocker ups a site's hit count, but adds nothing to the eyeball count for the ads. Fro the ad-tracking POV, it's as if you never visited. It may very well be the sort of feedback that's needed. If you really want to be more active about this you're better off writing to the site owner with your concerns than simply not visiting the place. If my site gets no traffic, how will I know if it's because of the ads, or crappy content?
jfager 17y ago
The vast majority of sites that I visit, I visit from aggregators such as HN, from Google, or from 3rd-party links in my Twitter stream or RSS reader. I don't have any numbers, but I would imagine that nowadays that's how a large number of people consume their content. When you say "don't visit these sites anymore", how exactly am I supposed to keep track of who I can and can't visit for fear of offending?
- axod 17y ago
  I do it with sites like nytimes. If there's an article on here from nytimes, I just don't bother with it any more. They have a paywall/subscription thingy and I just can't be bothered to google for login details. But it's fairly simple to just block sites that annoy you - firewall/hosts/etc

kristianp 17y ago

Advertisers are in an 'arms race' with users. Users become less likely to click on ads over time. Website owners have to increase the percentage of the first visible page over time to maintain the same income from ads. Adverts also become more visually distracting over time for the same reasons. Witness Adsense, which started off with text only, but now has full flash capabilities. What is the solution to the problem? I don't think there is one. Perhaps the rise of the paid app will provide a way to reduce ads, just like cable tv has done, but this will only be a niche. (I'm speculating there.)

hristov 17y ago

Well then don't go to the sites with ads you do not like. Just close your browser, or press the back button the moment you see an ad that disgusts you. And then don't go to that site again. The way I see it, there is an implied contract between a website and a viewer. The website says, "well you get to look at my content for free and you will not have to pay for all the work I have done creating the content and serving it to you, but in exchange you should see and consider the various advertisements and deals we are offering." Again you do not have to use the website, but if you do you should not block the ads.

michaelneale 17y ago

I won't use an ad-blocker as I think advertising is legitimate, and provides support for many great sites and potential for important startups. I do use flashblock/click to flash (which has the side effect of hiding the most offensive video ads). But any site that becomes unbearable with ads, I move on, and don't go there again. I would suggest it is time to avoid those sites.