The Verge: The internet is dying a slow death because of ad blockers

Status
Not open for further replies.
RDreamer said:
Man, those fucking assholes. How dare they make us scroll and use up less than a second of our time!
Click to expand...

For one, it's not "less than a second" because it often takes several seconds simply to download these huge full-page animated banners over a mobile connection. And the fact that mobile sites are several MB's large now means you use up your tiny monthly data cap quickly. Then as you're trying to scroll past (or more often tap-to-dismiss an ad) it gets accidentally pressed and you have to close a new window. When you have to do this for every page it gets tedious quickly.

It's a horrible user experience that shouldn't be defended.
 
RDreamer said:
In my first comment in this thread I said that it seems like they were probably the worst.

My point throughout the thread was that if Apple were doing this for us consumers they would actually block those worst practices, like what you guys are saying The Verge is doing. They'd try and find a system that would flat out block those things in particular, not open up the floodgates to kill even the good ads.
Click to expand...

If you knew they were probably the worst, why the snark on the size of the ads on the site infamous for its horribly intrusive ads? You're not making any sense.

And what do you define by "worst practices", and how do you suggest Apple makes a concious effort to block only those? Ads come in an extremely wide variety of type, size, and content, and individual websites could use the same ad in two different ways.

All that would do is initiate a game of cat-and-mouse where ad companies keep trying to find ways to slip shitty ads through the cracks. Hell, it happens on GAF all the time. GAF admins have very clear rules of the types of ads that they don't allow, and ad companies still slip a few in every once in a while. That's just one site. How do you suggest Apple do the same thing but on the global scale?
 
Your Entertainer said:
"The majority of sites don't have obnoxious ads. I only find obnoxious ads when I'm clicking on gossip links or terrible porn links or something." is a hilariously untrue statement. Ever browsed neogaf on a phone? Just because you declare it, doesn't mean it's true.

You completely gloss over the point of advertising having gone too far, and that ad blockers are widespread mainly due to that. There's not some crusade against the principle itself.
Click to expand...

So don't visit those sites.

I somehow manage to browse the web nearly constantly without an ad blocker and enjoy it.

If you don't enjoy it, the fair reaction is to... not visit those sites. Respond to that point.. nobody will, talk about glossing over.
 
riotous said:
So don't visit those sites.

I somehow manage to browse the web nearly constantly without an ad blocker and enjoy it.

If you don't enjoy it, the fair reaction is to... not visit those sites. Respond to that point.. nobody will, talk about glossing over.
Click to expand...

So you didnt even read what the post entailed.

Or you just told the person not to ever visit Neogaf from his phone.
 
Fliesen said:
funnily, i don't mind youtube ads whatsoever.

watching the first 5 seconds of some ad video so i can watch a 30min video without interruptions. Sure, why not.
On Twitch, i went turbo, because hopping from streamer to streamer is super annoying because you get an unskippable ad every single time.
Click to expand...

Well I jump between videos and will get the same 20 second ad for something I have absolutely no interest in. I got really bad conscience a couple of weeks back and deactivated it on Youtube, but it became nearly unfeasible. I would've rather they had the ad a couple of minutes in, so you know you want to continue watching the content, or if you want to watch something else.
 
I stopped going to Kotaku because they have those annoying pop ups that cover the article and they start 1-3 seconds as you're starting to read it. Most often when there are videos and you have to wait a few seconds to click on "Skip".

Don't even dare go to gaming websites aside from GAF anymore due to the ads that cover the borders of the site and bog everything down. Even certain Wiki pages are getting bad with this. Had Chrome crash multiple times when visiting those sites.

There are sites that video or audio plays without any way to turn them off, which is bull so I jump off the site.

I get it that people want to be paid, but there's a big difference between having sponsors and slapping our faces with unskippable ads. Leave that crap for television commercials.
 
Your Entertainer said:
"The majority of sites don't have obnoxious ads. I only find obnoxious ads when I'm clicking on gossip links or terrible porn links or something." is a hilariously untrue statement. Ever browsed neogaf on a phone? Just because you declare it, doesn't mean it's true. The majority of mobile sites I visit feature obnoxious ads. Pop up, hide everything else, and make the "x" deliberately hidden. Then when I do click on a link, I get redirected to another website or the app store. That takes up a lot of time and data. I wouldn't mind a banner on the top/bottom of the page.

You completely gloss over the point of advertising having gone too far, and that ad blockers are widespread mainly due to that. There's not some crusade against the principle itself.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the new ad networks that now auto launch into the App Store page for you to download an app when browsing via mobile.
 
Armaros said:
So you didnt even read what the post entailed.

Or you just told the person not to ever visit Neogaf from his phone.
Click to expand...

I read it completely. My point covers all other points.. he thinks ads go "Too far".. so don't visit those sites. I addressed that directly by explaining that somehow none of these sites have gone "Too far" in my opinion.

It's that simple; I can't stand being sold magazines and replacement plans for my games so I don't go into Best Buy...
 
riotous said:
I read it completely. My point covers all over points.. he thinks ads go "Too far".. so don't visit those sites.

It's that simple; I can't stand being sold magazines and replacement plans for my games so I don't go into Best Buy...
Click to expand...

So you advice is not the go on the Internet and visit anything popular.

Amazing.
 
I don't block ads since they don't bother me. Sometimes it'll actually be something I'm interested in.
My PC is still virus free and I don't come across pop-ups or autoplays. Well pop-ups sometimes on porn sites, but I just click those away.
 
Armaros said:
So you advice is not the go on the Internet and visit anything popular.

Amazing.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you dislike the advertising that much.

Your advice is to pirate content by removing the advertising revenue they rely on.. and you feel entitled to do that. Amazing.

Or stop being such crybabies and get over the fact the sites have ads.. don't visit the worst offenders, etc.
 
Maninthemirror said:
Gruber didnt even say that in what Nilay meant. Gruber was talking about Apple's choice in not using webview in Apple TV and thus web browsing will not happen on Apple TV. it will be all apps.
Click to expand...
Yep. I don't know how he misconstrued that when he's a damn editor.
 
I would rather have a subscription model where I pay $10-20 a month to some service and each page I visit automatically takes whatever tiny % of that.

Ads are annoying, they are designed to speak to your emotional subconscious, and some even make you feel inadequate. Fuck ads.

There is no reason why we can't have both options.
 
TarpitCarnivore said:
Look up how ad networks work. Trying to single out the more intrusive ads (who defines intrusive?) is going to be extremely difficult. You would have to block the entire network from displaying. This would hurt sites that aren't using them as intrusively.
Click to expand...

This solution already hurts sites that aren't using them as intrusively, because it blocks everything. That's my point.

As for who defines intrusive, obviously Apple. You don't like that? Well, that's where this is headed because the only ads that could exist on iOS soon would be those that go through apple, ads on apps and such. But instead of allowing us to choose our platform of choice, we'll get a lot of content sequestered away to apps.
 
riotous said:
Yes, if you dislike the advertising that much.

Your advice is to pirate content by removing the advertising revenue they rely on.. and you feel entitled to do that. Amazing.

Or stop being such crybabies and get over the fact the sites have ads.. don't visit the worst offenders, etc.
Click to expand...

Resorting to calling the millions of ad-block users "crybabies" and "pirates" isn't doing anything at all to support your argument. Now you're just arm flailing.
 
EatinOlives said:
Resorting to calling the millions of ad-block users "crybabies" and "pirates" isn't doing anything at all to support your argument. Now you're just arm flailing.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion. How else do you deal with such pettiness?

Admit you do it because it's easy.. and I wouldn't call anyone a crybaby. People block ads because it's easy, they get away with it, and it improves their experience. They'd do the same if they could delete the ads off of their TV somehow.
 
Blech, got end of page'd. The simple point is you can have ads or you can have this:

what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.jpg
Click to expand...

But the latter doesn't help you very much if you're a site that can't afford to get bundled directly. Are ads badly designed/used? Absolutely, but that doesn't change the economic reality that they sustain most sites providing free content.
 
riotous said:
It's my opinion. How else do you deal with such pettiness?

Admit you do it because it's easy.. and I wouldn't call anyone a crybaby. People block ads because it's easy, they get away with it, and it improves their experience. They'd do the same if they could delete the ads off of their TV somehow.
Click to expand...

Really the only person who's being petty is you here.

People do it because it's doable and improves their user experience. People always do whatever they can do improve their user experience. It's really not that hard to understand. I find your wording of "because we can get away with it" really odd, as if ad companies are somehow entitled to bombard the senses of the population with their ads, and we're the ones in wrong to do something about it.
 
riotous said:
I read it completely. My point covers all other points.. he thinks ads go "Too far".. so don't visit those sites. I addressed that directly by explaining that somehow none of these sites have gone "Too far" in my opinion.

It's that simple; I can't stand being sold magazines and replacement plans for my games so I don't go into Best Buy...
Click to expand...

riotous said:
Yes, if you dislike the advertising that much.

Your advice is to pirate content by removing the advertising revenue they rely on.. and you feel entitled to do that. Amazing.

Or stop being such crybabies and get over the fact the sites have ads.. don't visit the worst offenders, etc.
Click to expand...

Again, lol at "well it doesn't happen to me!" as any form an argument.

Not visiting the sites is definitely a fair option - but one that chooses to completely side-step the entire argument at hand. And still hurts the sites in the end.

So ads can do whatever they want? There's no limit to how intrusive they can be? Lol at likening this to pirating. You have not offered any legitimate justification for this obtrusive advertising, and instead are saying we have to justify it not existing.

A more constructive discussion should center around how to better advertise - I like the idea of the global advertising standards that was brought up earlier.
 
riotous said:
Yes, if you dislike the advertising that much.

Your advice is to pirate content by removing the advertising revenue they rely on.. and you feel entitled to do that. Amazing.

Or stop being such crybabies and get over the fact the sites have ads.. don't visit the worst offenders, etc.
Click to expand...

What's amazing is the bullshit argument that making an illegal copy is the same as declining to read the whole page.
 
RDreamer said:
This solution already hurts sites that aren't using them as intrusively, because it blocks everything. That's my point.

As for who defines intrusive, obviously Apple. You don't like that? Well, that's where this is headed because the only ads that could exist on iOS soon would be those that go through apple, ads on apps and such. But instead of allowing us to choose our platform of choice, we'll get a lot of content sequestered away to apps.
Click to expand...

Content blockers are not a default feature. You have to go and download one, then enable it.

Why now are you suddenly so upset over this? RSS has been around for years and it's stripped ads out of websites. Read later services strip ads out of sites. Android has supported adblockers for the last few years. Is it just because it's Apple?
 
RDreamer said:
In my first comment in this thread I said that it seems like they were probably the worst.

My point throughout the thread was that if Apple were doing this for us consumers they would actually block those worst practices, like what you guys are saying The Verge is doing. They'd try and find a system that would flat out block those things in particular, not open up the floodgates to kill even the good ads.



Ads can't support business, but if they've got compelling content they'll make enough to keep the site alive... make enough from what?
Click to expand...

People paying? Donations? Subscriptions? Selling products? How do you think others do it? Ads are the only source of revenue, in fact, they are probably the worst one. Ads are the easy and lazy way.
 
Your Entertainer said:
So ads can do whatever they want?
Click to expand...

Of course they can; that's kind of how the world works.

I can make a retail store where employees scream advertisements all day every day.. my retail store would likely fail.

If nobody used ad block, we'd be way more likely to not have to scroll past giant Galaxy ads to see the content on The Verge.

As it stands; it's a minor annoyance.. if it annoys you that much, don't visit.

I just visited The Verge.. scrolled past the ads and scanned the headlines.. read an article...the ads make me laugh a bit as they are ridiculous but I put up with them.
 
Your Entertainer said:
And we don't mind ads as a principle - I think the vast majority doesn't. It's that they've over-stepped their bounds.
Click to expand...

I made a little edit talking about that, but even if ads could be completely unintrusive people would still use adblockers. People can get games DRM free from GOG but that doesn't mean people stopped pirating games. Free/No Ads is always better than Cost/Ads, and the majority of people are not going to opt in to receiving ads regardless of the quality. This is without addressing the issue of how the hell you regulate and enforce ad standards across the internet in the first place. Even if you could, you would still have sites that violate the rule and that would provide rationalization to keep using adblocker ("might as well be careful, you never know, etc").

I'm not saying ads are the best answer, but the alternative may be just as bad in a different way.
 
NickFire said:
What's amazing is the bullshit argument that making an illegal copy is the same as declining to read the whole page.
Click to expand...

Never said it is the same; it's similar. Both actions you are consuming content while denying the content creators revenue. The end result is essentially the same.. people create something that costs them money to create and provide, and you take the content while denying them their revenue. The use of the word piracy is fair IMO... I mean.. it doesn't exactly mean "making a copy of software" either.. the root of the word is just about taking what isn't yours to take.
 
Fiction said:
If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.
Click to expand...

BigFwoosh said:
Only reason I started using an ad blocker was because of the super annoying ads that cover up what you're trying to read, take up the entire screen, play videos, etc. I don't mind normal banner or text link ads, but since most sites seem to use the shitty ads that worsen my experience then I'm going to keep on blocking.
Click to expand...

Ding ding.

And lol at Nilay "threatening" people on Twitter with a paywall on The Verge. Fuck that noise.
 
Places with stupid intrusive , bandwith stealing , performance ruining, data collecting , virus-having ads is what is causing the "death", not the adblockers.
 
Ads on Safari were getting out of control. They'd launch a different web page, take you to the app store, block out all the content...I don't know if it's fair to say content blockers in Safari is purely an Apple vs Google knife fight.

Finally, advertising methods need to evolve. More advertorial content, perhaps. Less flash and more static ads in the corner of a site. Quality stuff that I don't realize or mind reading. But yes, when your website gives me a roadblock page for 30 seconds, or out of nowhere blocks what I'm reading, or kills my battery with your flash ads, yes. I will block those ads. I wasn't clicking on them anyway, and those methods are obnoxious.
 
riotous said:
It's my opinion. How else do you deal with such pettiness?

Admit you do it because it's easy.. and I wouldn't call anyone a crybaby. People block ads because it's easy, they get away with it, and it improves their experience. They'd do the same if they could delete the ads off of their TV somehow.
Click to expand...

Except you're skipping the part where multiple posters have well articulated reasons why they block ads. It's not just because it's easy. It's because ads are extremely intrusive and a serious vector for malware.

If my TV could get a virus from a commercial I'd tivo shit and skip the ads.

If watching an ad on my TV brought up a pop-up to order a pay per view event I'd skip ads.

If watching an ad on my TV changed the fucking channel I'd skip those ads.
 
riotous said:
Of course they can; that's kind of how the world works.

I can make a retail store where employees scream advertisements all day every day.. my retail store would likely fail.

If nobody used ad block, we'd be way more likely to not have to scroll past giant Galaxy ads to see the content on The Verge.

As it stands; it's a minor annoyance.. if it annoys you that much, don't visit.

I just visited The Verge.. scrolled past the ads and scanned the headlines.. read an article...the ads make me laugh a bit as they are ridiculous but I put up with them.
Click to expand...

Would you claim people are stealing from your store if they wear earplugs?
 
I'd be cool with ads if they didn't detract from my internet using experience. Places like GAF are fine (though getting redirected to the Google Play store while browsing on mobile is terrible) because the ads are passive and non-intrustive, but when you start moving the page around and auto playing videos with sound and shit like that, it's intolerable and I will block that website. There are also very few websites where I would put up with bad ads in order to view that content. There are very few brands on the internet that I would put up with intrusive advertising in order to view their specific brand of content.
 
All Verge does nowadays is repackage news from other sites and press releases anyways. Not like you can't get that from a million other places.
 
PeskyToaster said:
People paying? Donations? Subscriptions? Selling products? How do you think others do it? Ads are the only source of revenue, in fact, they are probably the worst one. Ads are the easy and lazy way.
Click to expand...

game. set. match.

Ads are "we have no fucking idea how to monetize our product... so let's run ads!!!!"

the problem is you're making an agreement to monetize your product with a group/company/businesses that couldn't give a steaming shit what your readers think, care, or how annoying any of the content they are showing is.

Basically "we can get you money, as long as you don't care how we do it."

And publishers have the audacity to cry because as users, we kind of feel screwed by this proposition!? Really!?
 
PeskyToaster said:
People paying? Donations? Subscriptions? Selling products? How do you think others do it? Ads are the only source of revenue, in fact, they are probably the worst one. Ads are the easy and lazy way.
Click to expand...

They also have a low barrier to entry for new startups, though, and scale up to larger companies. Not many can start out with the ability to command subscription fees.

Look, I don't have a problem trying to sort out some of the bad ad practices. Hell if 90% of us have a really huge problem with the full page ad that I was snarky about earlier, then we can call that a really bad ad practice too and get rid of it. What I don't like is getting rid of all ads on the web and just saying "deal with it!"

I especially don't like it when I know a large part of the reason for doing it was to lead people to Apple's ad platform instead. Wouldn't it be better if Apple helped companies make their apps a user experience people loved and people wanted to go there instead because the ads were nice and unobtrusive and still funded their favorite sites. Then the web versions would have to go back to the drawing board and give us what they want.

This solution, however, just nukes the web versions and tries to force us to Apple's platform. What if their ads are the sort of shit we all dislike? We won't be able to go back to web versions of some of these things because, again, we've nuked their ad platforms there. Content will be sequestered behind paywalls and apple's app platform.
 
Fuck this noise.

Ads in 2015 on regular browsers will auto play audio, take up a third of the screen, auto direct you to another page, sticks fake download buttons everywhere, auto plays video, injects adware, and bogs down the initial load of the site. A site could load for 2 minutes because it's having trouble calling an ad from a shitty server.

Ads in 2015 on mobile is worse. On the iphone, random ads take you to the App Store. Some sites do it after every page click. How is that an enjoyable experience for someone who wants to simply read an article? Not to mention the ad bars that never go away, the incorrect resizing of ads, and ads that have fake exit buttons.

Fuck ads. Make them less intrusive and I won't have to block them. Thank you NeoGaf for not putting ads on every white plane on the page.
 
daninthemix said:
I don't understand how advertising is even supposed to work. I've never bought anything because of a web or TV ad.
Click to expand...

You haven't, but advertising prints a brand/product's name in people's minds. Just tell yourself this: If advertising didn't work, they wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What happens when the majority of content on the internet is AI generated?
2
86
957
YCoCg replied
The Death of Snow White - Exclusive Trailer (2025)
20
523
Major Insano replied
The internet is mature enough now, but streaming companies still are broken
33
715
Nydius replied
  • Poll
The pull-down ad bar thing
Community 
44
524
AgatonSax replied
Katy Perry Says She’s Been ‘Battered and Bruised’ by Backlash: The Internet Is a ‘Dumping Ground for Unhinged and Unhealed’
2
80
744
RoboFu replied
Top Bottom