3 ms·

That could actually be a novel technique against ad blocking. Make the website dysfunctional if the ads can't be displayed.

• ianlevesque 12y ago
  Yeah, having an option to pay for the site instead would just be crazy.
  • ferrari8608 12y ago
    Having to pay to visit all of the sites out there which are currently using ads would pretty much ruin the internet for most people. Having a big banner at the top asking for donations seems to work rather well, though. See gnu.org and wikipedia.org for examples (though Wikipedia's donation campaign this year is a bit excessive IMO).
    • w1ntermute 12y ago
      FYI, you can hide the Wikipedia donation campaign banners by putting this in a userscript that @matches http://*.wikipedia.org/* http://*.wikipedia.org/*: setTimeout(function() { fundraisingBanner.hide(); }, 1000);
      • 3pt14159 12y ago
        Or just sign into your wikipedia account.
      • fwn 12y ago
        This ublock custom rule worked for me: ||https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:bannerloader
    • tomjen3 12y ago
      I consider them ads and use adblock to block those as well.
  • fragmede 12y ago
    Google's actually testing this out - http://consumerist.com/2014/11/20/googles-new-contributor-feature-lets-you-pay-sites-in-exchange-for-no-ads/ http://consumerist.com/2014/11/20/googles-new-contributor-fe...
    • Omniusaspirer 12y ago
      Doomed to fail since Google takes a chunk and it still leaves all the content available to anyone with adblock. It'll get some small use I'm sure but not enough to be notable.
• icelancer 12y ago
  Many sites do this. Baseball-reference is one of them.