5 ms·

I'm not nearly as anti-ad as many people I've interacted with on HN and Twitter. I like the idea of getting free-to-me content supported by ads. I resisted runn

I'm not nearly as anti-ad as many people I've interacted with on HN and Twitter. I like the idea of getting free-to-me content supported by ads. I resisted running ad blockers for a very, very long time. But. The ads just got bigger. And bigger. And more intrusive. They approached 50% of the visible content (and that's on the desktop, not mobile). They played more video. They played more music. They started blocking the content I was trying to read, all in an effort to get me to click. So I gave in. I run an ad-blocker, too. Your friend inadvertently pinned what I personally think is the original sin of online advertising: measuring an ad's success through the number of clicks it gets. Ads in other mediums aren't designed with the idea that the only successful ad is one that makes you go AAAAH MUST GO BUY RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW DROP EVERYTHING AAAAAAAA... but 20 years ago, some dingdong decided that because it was possible to measure "direct engagement" with ads on the web in a way you couldn't with TV or print, it was appropriate to measure ads that way. Think of how different the web might be if, instead, we'd just sold ads by the number of visits to an article the ad is on... or better yet, by the number of visits to the web site, period. "But that's not an exact measure! We can't tell if it's really worth what we're being charged!" You also have no way of knowing whether or not that full-page color ad in the New Yorker is "really worth" what you're being charged, but you know what? You got along fine that way for decades. You did. Your business was fine.

jedberg 7y ago
> So I gave in. I run an ad-blocker, too. Me too. I worked for a company that made almost all of it's revenue from advertising. It felt hypocritical to run an ad-blocker. But it just got so bad I had to do it. I'm just worried about what will happen to the web for all the people who don't run ad-blockers. I care about them too, especially since they are the customers in a lot of cases, and if they go away from the web completely because it's so bad, what then? > Think of how different the web might be if, instead, we'd just sold ads by the number of visits to an article the ad is on... or better yet, by the number of visits to the web site, period. That's actually how many ads are sold. By CPM (cost per thousand impressions).
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I've heard the ad industry has been moving toward that model rather than clicks, which seems good -- but it doesn't seem to be appreciably helping make the ads suck less. For years Daring Fireball paid its bills and then some with a simple, non-moving, square sidebar ad; obviously that wouldn't keep the lights on at Vox, let alone the NYT, but I can't help but think ads could have been... better. There are places that at least strike a balance that doesn't make me want to poke my eyes out -- The Outline, for instance, at least now that they've toned down the over-engineered JavaScript woo they launched with -- but it's depressing how uncommon that is.
whoopdedo 7y ago
You omitted the most important reason why blocking is necessary: malicious and deceptive ads. I want to check a story by my local newspaper. I don't have my phone handy so I borrow the nearest work computer that isn't typically used for web browsing. I open an incognito window and go to the website, click on the article, and read through it. I leave the page open while I go back to work. Sometime while I'm not paying attention one of the many ads on the page refreshed because when I turned back instead of the newspaper I see a full-screen message that my computer has been "hacked". There's an pseudo-unclosable alert box warning me not to turn off the computer and to call "Microsoft" at some phone number. This computer didn't have speakers attached, but if it did I suspect they would have been making noise or using text-to-speech to read the fake warning. This is a daily occurrence for thousands of unwitting computer users. You can't blame the victim by saying they were doing anything to make themselves vulnerable. I saw this happen on a continuously patched and vulnerability-scanned Windows 10, running the most up-to-date chrome. While visiting the website of a mainstream web site operated by a major newspaper syndicate. I put the responsibility to stop this on the ad networks, and the site operators who partner with them. Until you can guarantee that none of the ads you serve are malicious or deceptive, I'm blocking everything and denying your revenue stream.
dorgo 7y ago
> the original sin of online advertising: measuring an ad's success through the number of clicks it gets The measure is often the number (or even the value) of conversions an ad gets. I think it is a good measure for everybody. I wouldn't block ads if they were garanteed to have conversion-rates > 90%. This would mean that I only see ads which are highly relevant. What we have instead are conversion rates < 5% (or even < 1%) - which is basically noise or spam. >only successful ad is one that makes you go AAAAH MUST GO BUY RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW DROP EVERYTHING AAAAAAAA... Exactly. That would be a good ad. Instead we see useless distracting spam ads which bring no value to users nor businesses.

jedberg 7y ago

> So I gave in. I run an ad-blocker, too. Me too. I worked for a company that made almost all of it's revenue from advertising. It felt hypocritical to run an ad-blocker. But it just got so bad I had to do it. I'm just worried about what will happen to the web for all the people who don't run ad-blockers. I care about them too, especially since they are the customers in a lot of cases, and if they go away from the web completely because it's so bad, what then? > Think of how different the web might be if, instead, we'd just sold ads by the number of visits to an article the ad is on... or better yet, by the number of visits to the web site, period. That's actually how many ads are sold. By CPM (cost per thousand impressions).

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
I've heard the ad industry has been moving toward that model rather than clicks, which seems good -- but it doesn't seem to be appreciably helping make the ads suck less. For years Daring Fireball paid its bills and then some with a simple, non-moving, square sidebar ad; obviously that wouldn't keep the lights on at Vox, let alone the NYT, but I can't help but think ads could have been... better. There are places that at least strike a balance that doesn't make me want to poke my eyes out -- The Outline, for instance, at least now that they've toned down the over-engineered JavaScript woo they launched with -- but it's depressing how uncommon that is.

whoopdedo 7y ago

You omitted the most important reason why blocking is necessary: malicious and deceptive ads. I want to check a story by my local newspaper. I don't have my phone handy so I borrow the nearest work computer that isn't typically used for web browsing. I open an incognito window and go to the website, click on the article, and read through it. I leave the page open while I go back to work. Sometime while I'm not paying attention one of the many ads on the page refreshed because when I turned back instead of the newspaper I see a full-screen message that my computer has been "hacked". There's an pseudo-unclosable alert box warning me not to turn off the computer and to call "Microsoft" at some phone number. This computer didn't have speakers attached, but if it did I suspect they would have been making noise or using text-to-speech to read the fake warning. This is a daily occurrence for thousands of unwitting computer users. You can't blame the victim by saying they were doing anything to make themselves vulnerable. I saw this happen on a continuously patched and vulnerability-scanned Windows 10, running the most up-to-date chrome. While visiting the website of a mainstream web site operated by a major newspaper syndicate. I put the responsibility to stop this on the ad networks, and the site operators who partner with them. Until you can guarantee that none of the ads you serve are malicious or deceptive, I'm blocking everything and denying your revenue stream.

dorgo 7y ago

> the original sin of online advertising: measuring an ad's success through the number of clicks it gets The measure is often the number (or even the value) of conversions an ad gets. I think it is a good measure for everybody. I wouldn't block ads if they were garanteed to have conversion-rates > 90%. This would mean that I only see ads which are highly relevant. What we have instead are conversion rates < 5% (or even < 1%) - which is basically noise or spam. >only successful ad is one that makes you go AAAAH MUST GO BUY RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW DROP EVERYTHING AAAAAAAA... Exactly. That would be a good ad. Instead we see useless distracting spam ads which bring no value to users nor businesses.