3 ms·

Great answer to a related FAQ in a post[0] linked from this article, about why !SO doesn't care about ad blockers: > The truth is: we don’t care if our users u

Great answer to a related FAQ in a post[0] linked from this article, about why !SO doesn't care about ad blockers: > The truth is: we don’t care if our users use ad blockers on Stack Overflow. More accurately: we hope that they won’t, but we understand that some people just don’t like ads. Our belief is that if someone doesn’t like them, and they won’t click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won’t click on them harms campaign performance. [0] https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt-care-about-ad-blockers/#we-don%E2%80%99t-care https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt...!

Bartweiss 10y ago
And a great explanation in the piece of how SO works to serve only quality ads. Good enough, in fact, that I'm whitelisting Stack Overflow from my adblocker. I don't do it often, I don't even do it for sites I like; the reality is that anyone using an automated ad network is at significant risk of serving malware, and I don't approve even if I'm protected. I don't visit Forbes at all anymore, ever, because they broke their users basic faith in "see our ads, and we won't destroy your machine". But a promise to serve relevant, low-impact ads, chosen by actual humans? That's something I'm willing to support.
- arjie 10y ago
  Did you only do it today? 8 months after the announcement, because someone happened to mention it in a comments thread? Doesn't speak very much to that approach's effectiveness. Especially since you've got a strong opinion on it.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    The fun thing is that I think Reddit once used both types of ads. I don't think they do that anymore though.
- cerved 10y ago
  Just because an ad network is automated doesn't mean you can serve malware through ads. Just because an ad network uses manual bidding doesn't mean it's malware free.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Both true, but I think my point is clear? Specifically, this isn't about manual bidding, it's about manual review, and I trust the SO people to keep out likely malware candidates about as much as I trust any site. And yes, there are ad networks that haven't served Can't is a word I might reserve for text ads, but there are other automated networks that haven't at least. But I can't imagine its confusing why I might prefer manual review (malware policy: "Oh god, we missed it, never again") to automated distribution (malware policy: "Thanks for letting us know, we'll take that one piece of malware down in the next day or so.")
- scardine 10y ago
  There is also a nice feature: if you have enough reputation there (I'm among the top 1%) you will have an ad-free experience.
  - sah2ed 10y ago
    I'm guessing at your level of being among the top 1%, you'll likely not need to actively seek work; instead great employers will seek you out hence their conscious decision not to annoy you by showing you ads.
0xmohit 10y ago
But then you also have trackers [0]. [0] http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237062/does-stack-exchange-have-an-official-policy-on-honoring-do-not-track-browser-s http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237062/does-stack-ex...

Bartweiss 10y ago

And a great explanation in the piece of how SO works to serve only quality ads. Good enough, in fact, that I'm whitelisting Stack Overflow from my adblocker. I don't do it often, I don't even do it for sites I like; the reality is that anyone using an automated ad network is at significant risk of serving malware, and I don't approve even if I'm protected. I don't visit Forbes at all anymore, ever, because they broke their users basic faith in "see our ads, and we won't destroy your machine". But a promise to serve relevant, low-impact ads, chosen by actual humans? That's something I'm willing to support.

arjie 10y ago
Did you only do it today? 8 months after the announcement, because someone happened to mention it in a comments thread? Doesn't speak very much to that approach's effectiveness. Especially since you've got a strong opinion on it.
- yuhong 10y ago
  The fun thing is that I think Reddit once used both types of ads. I don't think they do that anymore though.
cerved 10y ago
Just because an ad network is automated doesn't mean you can serve malware through ads. Just because an ad network uses manual bidding doesn't mean it's malware free.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Both true, but I think my point is clear? Specifically, this isn't about manual bidding, it's about manual review, and I trust the SO people to keep out likely malware candidates about as much as I trust any site. And yes, there are ad networks that haven't served Can't is a word I might reserve for text ads, but there are other automated networks that haven't at least. But I can't imagine its confusing why I might prefer manual review (malware policy: "Oh god, we missed it, never again") to automated distribution (malware policy: "Thanks for letting us know, we'll take that one piece of malware down in the next day or so.")
scardine 10y ago
There is also a nice feature: if you have enough reputation there (I'm among the top 1%) you will have an ad-free experience.
- sah2ed 10y ago
  I'm guessing at your level of being among the top 1%, you'll likely not need to actively seek work; instead great employers will seek you out hence their conscious decision not to annoy you by showing you ads.

0xmohit 10y ago

But then you also have trackers [0]. [0] http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237062/does-stack-exchange-have-an-official-policy-on-honoring-do-not-track-browser-s http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237062/does-stack-ex...