6 ms·

Well, which would we prefer? Seeing the ads, or having to pay for access to each site? Personally, as annoying as ads are, I still prefer them being there to

Well, which would we prefer? Seeing the ads, or having to pay for access to each site? Personally, as annoying as ads are, I still prefer them being there to the content not being available at all.

brigade 15y ago
The issue is not the existence of advertising. The issue is (primarily for me) the new wave of popup ads that don't let you view the content until you find the 30x30 pixel close area. And secondly the sites where ads have become more important than content (reflected in the design.) And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page. Non-horrid advertising should be possible for any respectable website. Advertising that abuses your users is only going to be tolerated for so long, and pushes more people to use adblock.
- tallanvor 15y ago
  I agree that the social media buttons are a pain, and I certainly advocate against adding them when designing a site, as well as refusing to use them when you're a consumer of the site. But unfortunately, while I agree that some of the advertising is annoying, I don't necessarily agree with the premise that there's a better option for these sites right now, or that I see examples of better options under development. Look at the two basic types of adds that you're upset with: First is the interstitial ad - something you have to view (or at least start to view until you cancel it) - before you can read what you want to read. I generally see these ads on newspaper or magazine sites - or at least a business that used to rely on dead trees to get their content out to people. These ads are more or less equivalent to the full page ads you used to see. Often they aren't really relevant to the content because they don't want to suggest that the contents of the article have been influenced by advertisers. The second form, where there are more advertisements than content on a page, is quite horrible, and let's be honest, part of the goal of this is to just get some sort of advertisement out there that users will click on. Those ads will possibly me more relevant to you (or at least be somewhat based on the content of the page). But unless you're seeing ads based on the most expensive keywords, the site isn't earning much money. There was a decent article published a while back about what keywords were worth the most money: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2011/07/18/most-expensive-google-adwords-keywords http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2011/07/18/most-expensive-... So in the end, I understand your annoyance, but it's also sort of hard for me to dislike companies for trying to make sure they can pay the authors of the site's content.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  I think your underestimating the effectiveness of evasive advertising.
  - brigade 15y ago
    Probably. At the very least, I think that if you have user-hostile advertising you instantly lose any right you had to complain about adblock.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  > And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page. You mean the "Like" / "+1" / "Tweet" buttons under articles? What's wrong with these? I personally want them to be on websites and I actively seek them after reading an article, because clicking on two or three buttons is so much easier and less distracting than having to copy the URL and paste it into every social website I use.
  - moheeb 15y ago
    I personally consider Facebook, etc. to be lame wastes of time and consider those buttons tacky and unneeded. It seems a simple browser plugin could still allow Facebookers and Diggers and whomever else the ability to poop back and forth as much as they like while not polluting the web for the rest of us. As it is now we have to pray that some of these sites don't make it...imagine how many buttons there will be in 50 years! EDIT: Just wanted to point out this was not a personal attack. I was just trying to raise awareness that not everyone has the same interests.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      > Just wanted to point out this was not a personal attack. I was just trying to raise awareness that not everyone has the same interests. Don't worry, it didn't sound like one :). Thanks for explaining your point of view. I just realized I didn't really stop and think about people who, like you, don't like Facebook et al. Personally, I think I'd be happy to use a browser plugin or whatever, just like I use e.g. Instapaper. Hell, in browser like Conkeror it would be even more convenient (for Instapaper I now just press "C-x i", it's even easier than pressing a button on the address bar).
      - moheeb 15y ago
        I think this method is inevitable. Either that or a protocol/standard to handle them all. As it is now we'll eventually run out of real estate on the screen for 'like' buttons.
DanBC 15y ago
I'm happy to pay for great content - avoid link-bait titles, avoid stupid tiresome "fanboy" flames, use long form content. I leave ads turned on. There are some ads that just make me close the tab even if I haven't got the content - almost anything with sound will cause an instant tab close.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Flashblock is a must for me. An unexpected sound from an ad is the equivalent of a coworker running up behind me and slapping the back of my head.
qjz 15y ago
Isn't that a false dichotomy? You left out completely free content, which is still abundant and could hold your attention each and every day. It seems most ad-driven sites are fueled by screen scraping or opining on external content without adding much value.
- TylerE 15y ago
  Not really. Decent writers cost money. Editors cost money. Fact checkers cost money. Are there people who will write about their hobby for free, and produce good quality content? Sure. At the same time, many things require feet (and equipment) on the ground, on location, and that, again, costs money.
  - narag 15y ago
    Poisoned candy, though still candid: Yours is an interesting quality comment that I can read for free in a site without advertisement. The same goes for the rest of my news readings online. The links lead me to other pages that Privoxy makes bearable. I read (paid) books, soon eBooks, for anything but news. I guess the question is what kind of content people consume.
TheFuture 15y ago
Ask a subscriber to Vogue magazine if they'd prefer a copy with or without ads, both the same price. 9 out of 10 will take the ads, because the ads are beautiful and part of the content, but they are still ads. That aspect of print advertising has not yet made the transition to digital. People love ads for stuff they like, are interesting, or/and funny. The solution will not be to remove ads, it will be to improve ads.
- Shorel 15y ago
  You are so right it hurts. The problem is measuring response. The tools for measuring response to printed ads lead to better printed ads. The tools for measuring response to online ads lead to intrusive and misleading ads. We should try to find better tools for measuring responses to online ads.

Well, which would we prefer? Seeing the ads, or having to pay for access to each site? Personally, as annoying as ads are, I still prefer them being there to the content not being available at all.

brigade 15y ago

The issue is not the existence of advertising. The issue is (primarily for me) the new wave of popup ads that don't let you view the content until you find the 30x30 pixel close area. And secondly the sites where ads have become more important than content (reflected in the design.) And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page. Non-horrid advertising should be possible for any respectable website. Advertising that abuses your users is only going to be tolerated for so long, and pushes more people to use adblock.

tallanvor 15y ago
I agree that the social media buttons are a pain, and I certainly advocate against adding them when designing a site, as well as refusing to use them when you're a consumer of the site. But unfortunately, while I agree that some of the advertising is annoying, I don't necessarily agree with the premise that there's a better option for these sites right now, or that I see examples of better options under development. Look at the two basic types of adds that you're upset with: First is the interstitial ad - something you have to view (or at least start to view until you cancel it) - before you can read what you want to read. I generally see these ads on newspaper or magazine sites - or at least a business that used to rely on dead trees to get their content out to people. These ads are more or less equivalent to the full page ads you used to see. Often they aren't really relevant to the content because they don't want to suggest that the contents of the article have been influenced by advertisers. The second form, where there are more advertisements than content on a page, is quite horrible, and let's be honest, part of the goal of this is to just get some sort of advertisement out there that users will click on. Those ads will possibly me more relevant to you (or at least be somewhat based on the content of the page). But unless you're seeing ads based on the most expensive keywords, the site isn't earning much money. There was a decent article published a while back about what keywords were worth the most money: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2011/07/18/most-expensive-google-adwords-keywords http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2011/07/18/most-expensive-... So in the end, I understand your annoyance, but it's also sort of hard for me to dislike companies for trying to make sure they can pay the authors of the site's content.
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I think your underestimating the effectiveness of evasive advertising.
- brigade 15y ago
  Probably. At the very least, I think that if you have user-hostile advertising you instantly lose any right you had to complain about adblock.
TeMPOraL 15y ago
> And thirdly the dozen social media buttons on every single page. You mean the "Like" / "+1" / "Tweet" buttons under articles? What's wrong with these? I personally want them to be on websites and I actively seek them after reading an article, because clicking on two or three buttons is so much easier and less distracting than having to copy the URL and paste it into every social website I use.
- moheeb 15y ago
  I personally consider Facebook, etc. to be lame wastes of time and consider those buttons tacky and unneeded. It seems a simple browser plugin could still allow Facebookers and Diggers and whomever else the ability to poop back and forth as much as they like while not polluting the web for the rest of us. As it is now we have to pray that some of these sites don't make it...imagine how many buttons there will be in 50 years! EDIT: Just wanted to point out this was not a personal attack. I was just trying to raise awareness that not everyone has the same interests.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    > Just wanted to point out this was not a personal attack. I was just trying to raise awareness that not everyone has the same interests. Don't worry, it didn't sound like one :). Thanks for explaining your point of view. I just realized I didn't really stop and think about people who, like you, don't like Facebook et al. Personally, I think I'd be happy to use a browser plugin or whatever, just like I use e.g. Instapaper. Hell, in browser like Conkeror it would be even more convenient (for Instapaper I now just press "C-x i", it's even easier than pressing a button on the address bar).
    - moheeb 15y ago
      I think this method is inevitable. Either that or a protocol/standard to handle them all. As it is now we'll eventually run out of real estate on the screen for 'like' buttons.

DanBC 15y ago

I'm happy to pay for great content - avoid link-bait titles, avoid stupid tiresome "fanboy" flames, use long form content. I leave ads turned on. There are some ads that just make me close the tab even if I haven't got the content - almost anything with sound will cause an instant tab close.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Flashblock is a must for me. An unexpected sound from an ad is the equivalent of a coworker running up behind me and slapping the back of my head.

qjz 15y ago

Isn't that a false dichotomy? You left out completely free content, which is still abundant and could hold your attention each and every day. It seems most ad-driven sites are fueled by screen scraping or opining on external content without adding much value.

TylerE 15y ago
Not really. Decent writers cost money. Editors cost money. Fact checkers cost money. Are there people who will write about their hobby for free, and produce good quality content? Sure. At the same time, many things require feet (and equipment) on the ground, on location, and that, again, costs money.
- narag 15y ago
  Poisoned candy, though still candid: Yours is an interesting quality comment that I can read for free in a site without advertisement. The same goes for the rest of my news readings online. The links lead me to other pages that Privoxy makes bearable. I read (paid) books, soon eBooks, for anything but news. I guess the question is what kind of content people consume.

TheFuture 15y ago

Ask a subscriber to Vogue magazine if they'd prefer a copy with or without ads, both the same price. 9 out of 10 will take the ads, because the ads are beautiful and part of the content, but they are still ads. That aspect of print advertising has not yet made the transition to digital. People love ads for stuff they like, are interesting, or/and funny. The solution will not be to remove ads, it will be to improve ads.

Shorel 15y ago
You are so right it hurts. The problem is measuring response. The tools for measuring response to printed ads lead to better printed ads. The tools for measuring response to online ads lead to intrusive and misleading ads. We should try to find better tools for measuring responses to online ads.