5 ms·

We wouldn't see ad blockers as a solution if ads hadn't become a problem. As obvious as it seems for the users, advertisers don't seem to grasp it. Anything fl

by gordaco 13y ago

We wouldn't see ad blockers as a solution if ads hadn't become a problem. As obvious as it seems for the users, advertisers don't seem to grasp it. Anything flashy and/or moving is BAD. Anything with actual javascript code is BAD. Especially, anything that tracks you is BAD. Anything that temporarily prevents you from watching the content is BAD (I'm thinking about splash screens you have to close and unskippable videos). Anything that modifies the behaviour of the web page you're visiting is BAD. Until (at least) those are solved, ad blockers are most definitely a solution.

rgbrgb 13y ago
Well those are a lot of opinions stated as facts. Care to back them up?
LocalPCGuy 13y ago
Yes, those things are BAD - for the USER. For the website, those things are quite lucrative, because users click on exactly those kinds of things. The ad industry's bad ADs are in response to 1 thing - clicks. If they didn't work, the industry would not do it. I run an AdBlocker myself, and do not like crazy ads, popups, etc. personally. But don't mistake OUR dislike for those things with the reason they exist, because they work.
- gress 13y ago
  They only work until people block them.
JohnTHaller 13y ago
As a publisher, you can't do an ad from any major 3rd party ad firms without Javascript. Even the text ads are all Javascript based.
- claudius 13y ago
  As a reader/content ‘consumer’, that’s your problem, not mine.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    And as someone who wants to read his content, him not making money is your problem too. Maybe the benefit of blocking adverts out-weighs the downside of denying the content creator revenue, and that's a fine choice to make. But don't pretend any of these issues are one-way only.
    - serge2k 13y ago
      Then we both lose until he finds a way I can accept. Then we both win. I'm fine with that. There isn't a site on the internet I couldn't do without, other than services like online banking.
  - blumkvist 13y ago
    What an ignorant, self-important thing to say. If publishers don't make money, they can't hire journalists, editors, designers, programmers, administrators, support and they can't produce content for you to 'consume'.
    - marcosdumay 13y ago
      Well, I can repeat that: What an ignorant, self-important thing to say. You (publishers) are the one trying to sell something, if your business plan does not work, take a look at the mirror, and you'll see who you can blame.
      - JohnTHaller 13y ago
        Not exactly. A publisher is selling something and offering it up for the price of ads. You're making the choice that you want that thing the publisher is offering but don't want to pay for it. If you went to the site, saw the ads and decided to move elsewhere, that's one choice. That's choosing that the item on offer is not worth the price. But you are choosing to visit the site without paying the price. I'm not making a moral judgement here as I use AdBlock Plus with specific whitelisting myself. Just pointing out that it would be a good idea for everyone to look in the mirror.

by gordaco 13y ago

rgbrgb 13y ago

Well those are a lot of opinions stated as facts. Care to back them up?

LocalPCGuy 13y ago

Yes, those things are BAD - for the USER. For the website, those things are quite lucrative, because users click on exactly those kinds of things. The ad industry's bad ADs are in response to 1 thing - clicks. If they didn't work, the industry would not do it. I run an AdBlocker myself, and do not like crazy ads, popups, etc. personally. But don't mistake OUR dislike for those things with the reason they exist, because they work.

gress 13y ago
They only work until people block them.

JohnTHaller 13y ago

As a publisher, you can't do an ad from any major 3rd party ad firms without Javascript. Even the text ads are all Javascript based.

claudius 13y ago
As a reader/content ‘consumer’, that’s your problem, not mine.
- corin_ 13y ago
  And as someone who wants to read his content, him not making money is your problem too. Maybe the benefit of blocking adverts out-weighs the downside of denying the content creator revenue, and that's a fine choice to make. But don't pretend any of these issues are one-way only.
  - serge2k 13y ago
    Then we both lose until he finds a way I can accept. Then we both win. I'm fine with that. There isn't a site on the internet I couldn't do without, other than services like online banking.
- blumkvist 13y ago
  What an ignorant, self-important thing to say. If publishers don't make money, they can't hire journalists, editors, designers, programmers, administrators, support and they can't produce content for you to 'consume'.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    Well, I can repeat that: What an ignorant, self-important thing to say. You (publishers) are the one trying to sell something, if your business plan does not work, take a look at the mirror, and you'll see who you can blame.
    - JohnTHaller 13y ago
      Not exactly. A publisher is selling something and offering it up for the price of ads. You're making the choice that you want that thing the publisher is offering but don't want to pay for it. If you went to the site, saw the ads and decided to move elsewhere, that's one choice. That's choosing that the item on offer is not worth the price. But you are choosing to visit the site without paying the price. I'm not making a moral judgement here as I use AdBlock Plus with specific whitelisting myself. Just pointing out that it would be a good idea for everyone to look in the mirror.