5 ms·

You have the right to prevent your browser from downloading certain content, or running certain scripts (in this case ads). The site also has the right to prev

You have the right to prevent your browser from downloading certain content, or running certain scripts (in this case ads). The site also has the right to prevent you from viewing their content without compensation (in this case, through ads). Of course it is probably not intentional on their part, they probably have never tested with an adblocker. Even if they were aware of the issue, I can't imagine it being very high priority.

IncRnd 9y ago
And?
- jaquers 9y ago
  > I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story. Then don't. What are you complaining about?
  - strathmeyer 9y ago
    Correctly making webpages is of concern here.
    - briandear 9y ago
      How do those who code the webpage for te Boston Globe get paid for correctly making webpages? Once an adblocker is involved, it seems to hardly be fair to complain about page quality. It’s like a stowaway complaining about the in flight movie.
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        You write that as if my comment was the only one from someone with difficulty loading the webpage.
        jaquers 9y ago
        I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers. So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        > I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers That's not true. Others can view it in safari with adblocker on, in lynx, in ff with noscript, etc. The problem isn't an adblocker but that the site doesn't work with commonly found browsers. > So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? That's a far better question. When I made my comment, the page was 100% comments about people not being able to read the webpage. There were about 10 comments at the time. So, the page that I posted to was a list of all the ways that people tried to read the webpage and couldn't. In that way, my comment, and every other comment on the hn page, were made to list how the web page didn't work in order for someone to find a way that the page could be viewed, without people having to change their browsing configurations. That continued until someone one person posted how to use textise and another used archive.is to view the page. Normally I use archive.org or google cache instead of archive.is, but this site wasn't in those caches at the time. > Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Except that nobody disputes the points in the post. It was a truism, which is why I responded, "And?" > Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work. The issue isn't the adblocker but a poorly coded site that doesn't work in all browsers. You are making assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm not hostile to a website making money. That's just a strawman.
khedoros1 9y ago
My work firewall prevents a lot of things from coming through. In this case, I can get to the content itself, but background images don't scroll properly, and such. Maybe they've got ads, maybe not. I can't tell. What I can tell is that they've stupidly over-complicated "display text and pictures on a scrolling page". As a work-around, I'm looking at their content through some kind of archive site that someone else in the thread posted. If they'd just hosted their own stuff, it would've come through, ads and all.
- cm2187 9y ago
  It's not just unecessarily complicated, it makes the page unpleasant and hard to read.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
You're assuming that the problem is caused by ad blockers, not by over-reliance on JavaScript, insufficient testing, or other poor web design. Anti-adblocker software usually announces itself, in my experience; the goal is to get people to turn off their ad blockers, not leave entirely.
- cm2187 9y ago
  I have seen many websites which core functionality is broken by adblockers. The Vodafone website in the U.K. is a good example, you can't login to the client area with an ad blocker on. Just plain bad design, not necessarily malice.

IncRnd 9y ago

And?

jaquers 9y ago
> I'm not willing to turn off ad blockers, debug this site, or use a different browser to read the story. Then don't. What are you complaining about?
- strathmeyer 9y ago
  Correctly making webpages is of concern here.
  - briandear 9y ago
    How do those who code the webpage for te Boston Globe get paid for correctly making webpages? Once an adblocker is involved, it seems to hardly be fair to complain about page quality. It’s like a stowaway complaining about the in flight movie.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      You write that as if my comment was the only one from someone with difficulty loading the webpage.
      - jaquers 9y ago
        I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers. So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work.
        IncRnd 9y ago
        > I'm not dismissing the fact that other people had problems, but all due to adblockers That's not true. Others can view it in safari with adblocker on, in lynx, in ff with noscript, etc. The problem isn't an adblocker but that the site doesn't work with commonly found browsers. > So if you want to read the article, but aren't willing to do anything about working around the fact that the page has problems with certain ones, how does that add to the discussion about the article? That's a far better question. When I made my comment, the page was 100% comments about people not being able to read the webpage. There were about 10 comments at the time. So, the page that I posted to was a list of all the ways that people tried to read the webpage and couldn't. In that way, my comment, and every other comment on the hn page, were made to list how the web page didn't work in order for someone to find a way that the page could be viewed, without people having to change their browsing configurations. That continued until someone one person posted how to use textise and another used archive.is to view the page. Normally I use archive.org or google cache instead of archive.is, but this site wasn't in those caches at the time. > Specifically the comment that you replied "And?" to, I think makes valid points. You have the right to block ads, but the BG also has the right to block people who block ads. Except that nobody disputes the points in the post. It was a truism, which is why I responded, "And?" > Finally, how can they be reasonably expected to test a custom page against many different adblockers, all of which alter the structure of the DOM; In addition to being actively hostile to their goal, which is to be compensated for their work. The issue isn't the adblocker but a poorly coded site that doesn't work in all browsers. You are making assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm not hostile to a website making money. That's just a strawman.

khedoros1 9y ago

My work firewall prevents a lot of things from coming through. In this case, I can get to the content itself, but background images don't scroll properly, and such. Maybe they've got ads, maybe not. I can't tell. What I can tell is that they've stupidly over-complicated "display text and pictures on a scrolling page". As a work-around, I'm looking at their content through some kind of archive site that someone else in the thread posted. If they'd just hosted their own stuff, it would've come through, ads and all.

cm2187 9y ago
It's not just unecessarily complicated, it makes the page unpleasant and hard to read.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

You're assuming that the problem is caused by ad blockers, not by over-reliance on JavaScript, insufficient testing, or other poor web design. Anti-adblocker software usually announces itself, in my experience; the goal is to get people to turn off their ad blockers, not leave entirely.

cm2187 9y ago
I have seen many websites which core functionality is broken by adblockers. The Vodafone website in the U.K. is a good example, you can't login to the client area with an ad blocker on. Just plain bad design, not necessarily malice.