5 ms·

I’d be quite happy for website load times to be increased by 50% if it meant no ads. Performance impact is a price absolutely worth paying.

by bb123 6y ago

ravenstine 6y ago
Or just have ads that are unobtrusive and non-deceptive. The problem when I turn off ad blocking is that, to this day, ads are still too often atrocious and distracting in ways that they never were for printed content.
- mrighele 6y ago
  When Google started with its ads they were both unobtrusive and non-deceptive.this, together with the fact that they were context sensitive, was one of the reason they were much more appreciated by the users (cannot quickly find examples right now) . Unfortunately , it seems that obtrusive and deceptive ads make more money
  - dazc 6y ago
    Exactly this, making money isn't good enough. You have to make more and more each quarter. Shame Google haven't found many more ways of doing this other than infesting the web with ever more aggressive and annoying ads. I don't run adsense on sites anymore but, the last time I did, I enabled 'auto ads' and the results were nothing short of atrocious. Literally, almost a wall of ads?
  - Bakary 6y ago
    That's the issue at the heart of it. Ads are annoying, but a certain type of lucrative person clicks on them. A YouTuber asking to hit that bell and like button is repetitive, but it works. Sometimes superfluous additions ruin products, but customers will purchase things that make them feel good. We have the internet we deserve.
dazc 6y ago
We have a network of local news sites in the UK which are almost totally unusable on mobile and desktop without javascript disabled and/or aggressive adblocking. That wouldn't be so bad if the actual news content was worth reading; it's mostlty click-bait at best. The owner's clear intent is to milk every last drop of ad revenue they can before the inevitable happens which is really sad since there is a clear need for local news coverage which isn't available elsewhere.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  DailyMail and The Sun readers deserve to have those 50 banners on a page+ 3 min load time.
black_puppydog 6y ago
Did you check the charts? Removing ads (in this case by blocking, but could be done by simply not having them) reduces the load time. There's not trade-off between load time and ad being shown...
- bb123 6y ago
  Yes, my point is that I don’t care about the performance impact. Positive or negative I’m prepared to eat it (whatever it is) to avoid ads.

I’d be quite happy for website load times to be increased by 50% if it meant no ads. Performance impact is a price absolutely worth paying.

by bb123 6y ago

I’d be quite happy for website load times to be increased by 50% if it meant no ads. Performance impact is a price absolutely worth paying.

ravenstine 6y ago

Or just have ads that are unobtrusive and non-deceptive. The problem when I turn off ad blocking is that, to this day, ads are still too often atrocious and distracting in ways that they never were for printed content.

mrighele 6y ago
When Google started with its ads they were both unobtrusive and non-deceptive.this, together with the fact that they were context sensitive, was one of the reason they were much more appreciated by the users (cannot quickly find examples right now) . Unfortunately , it seems that obtrusive and deceptive ads make more money
- dazc 6y ago
  Exactly this, making money isn't good enough. You have to make more and more each quarter. Shame Google haven't found many more ways of doing this other than infesting the web with ever more aggressive and annoying ads. I don't run adsense on sites anymore but, the last time I did, I enabled 'auto ads' and the results were nothing short of atrocious. Literally, almost a wall of ads?
- Bakary 6y ago
  That's the issue at the heart of it. Ads are annoying, but a certain type of lucrative person clicks on them. A YouTuber asking to hit that bell and like button is repetitive, but it works. Sometimes superfluous additions ruin products, but customers will purchase things that make them feel good. We have the internet we deserve.

dazc 6y ago

We have a network of local news sites in the UK which are almost totally unusable on mobile and desktop without javascript disabled and/or aggressive adblocking. That wouldn't be so bad if the actual news content was worth reading; it's mostlty click-bait at best. The owner's clear intent is to milk every last drop of ad revenue they can before the inevitable happens which is really sad since there is a clear need for local news coverage which isn't available elsewhere.

cosmodisk 6y ago
DailyMail and The Sun readers deserve to have those 50 banners on a page+ 3 min load time.

black_puppydog 6y ago

Did you check the charts? Removing ads (in this case by blocking, but could be done by simply not having them) reduces the load time. There's not trade-off between load time and ad being shown...

bb123 6y ago
Yes, my point is that I don’t care about the performance impact. Positive or negative I’m prepared to eat it (whatever it is) to avoid ads.