Who cares what The Verge has to say? Has anyone seen how sloppy and unorganized the main page is? And it's also really slow too.
I don't know about you guys but I'm getting a hipster douche vibe from it. Anyways I don't mind ads as long it don't slowdown my browser like The Verge does.
Yeah I mostly use adblock (not on NeoGAF!) due to safety concerns. I've gotten viruses from ads before. Websites should be more careful about what kind of ad programs they run. It's absolutely inexcusable to get a virus from visiting a website, that's literally the biggest site mistake you could make. Though I did get some virus warnings when we were able to host our own avatars. Some goofballs would always host them on some random ass Russian site for whatever reason.
IMO it's up to the website runners to find the solution, not me. If their ads are really so toxic, the "correct" thing to do is to forgo the content, not simply ignore their wishes and take the content anyway. Now, in terms of scale obviously it's different to pirating a film before it's out or downloading a game, but to the people who made the content it's lost revenue - someone's consumed their content without paying for it. In terms of right-and-wrong, I don't really see how it's different.
Its seriously this shitty sometimes. Respect my time, Bandwidth and don't try to disguise ads as site links for the clicks. Make them unobtrusive and SAFE. Ad blockers came AFTER the shit ads, not the other way around.
TLDR; They can kiss my ass. Its not even close to piracy. They continuously try to fuck me over, trick me, steal my Bandwidth, my time so why should I show them respect?
I feel like these sites are taking our time and their existence for granted. They aren't really entitled to exist until the end of time and aren't entitled to exist without changing either. They are the ones who have to change in response to the consumer's browsing habits. the onus is on them to find a way to survive and the public isn't obligated to support shitty practices and content. It seems they are content with just guilting people into changing their habits instead of improving their site and content.
Like others have mentioned, websites could simply use their own server to host ads on their site so that adblockers wouldn't work. I imagine if they were to do this, they would find intuitive ways to implement ads without them completely taking over the user experience.
I guess this would require a more intimate relationship with advertisers, though. Right now I imagine anyone who throws money at them can host practically any third party auto-play pop-up ad they want. Perhaps if they actually screened these ads and decided only to use what they felt was relevant to their particular website, things would improve.
If your content is good, advertisers will want you. And I trust non-intrusive first-party hosted relevant ads would go a long way.
Imagine a site with great content that people love to visit. They choose/screen their ads wisely, insuring they are relevant to the user, and host them on their own server. I would be more inclined to trust and even possibly click on an ad if this were the case. Now, we do everything we can to rid ourselves of the intrusion.
Maybe the web should die
Ads aren't the problem, the content is
I've been torn over ad-blockers for a long time. I know it would be hypocritical of me to run one, because ad supported websites like Engadget and The Verge have paid my bills in the past. But, also, ads are horrible and my least favorite thing in any medium.
But I finally figured out the Third Way: stop using all these garbage websites all the time.
I click Buzzfeed links and Verge links and Awl links and Polygon links for the same reason anybody does: there's a hole in my heart, and I hope 300-400 words of web content will fill it. If I want to learn anything of lasting importance, I read it in a book. If I want to be entertained, I watch a movie on Netflix. If I want to learn how to do something, I read it on some developer's self-hosted blog. If something is truly valuable it's usually free or paid-for. Ad-supported things are usually built not because they are necessary, but because they will generate more clicks and therefore more ad revenue.
Its seriously this shitty sometimes. Respect my time, Bandwidth and don't try to disguise ads as site links for the clicks. Make them unobtrusive and SAFE. Ad blockers came AFTER the shit ads, not the other way around.
TLDR; They can kiss my ass. Its not even close to piracy. They continuously try to fuck me over, trick me, steal my Bandwidth, my time so why should I show them respect?
I guess this would require a more intimate relationship with advertisers, though. Right now I imagine anyone who throws money at them can host practically any third party auto-play pop-up ad they want. Perhaps if they actually screened these ads and decided only to use what they felt was relevant to their particular website, things would improve.
So much this. The way the ad ecosystem is setup right now allows for maximum laziness and minimum responsibility. Site operators just sign up with whatever ad service(s) promises the most money. Just slap that code on your site and you're done. Watch the money start flowing in. Where does it come from? Who knows and who cares. Is the ad service operating legitimately? Who knows and who cares. The site operator doesn't screen the ads. The ad service people don't screen the ads either (and if they do, they're grossely incompetent at it considering the amount of drive-by malware that makes it through). Everyone just closes their eyes. No one is responsible. As long as the money flows in, everyone's happy. When site operators are confronted, they just wash their hands, shifting all blame to the third-party advertising providers which they signed up for and blindly do business with.
Imagine if McDonalds didn't do any sort of inspection/quality control on the goods provided by their third-parties. Imagine if Coca-Cola sometimes provided batches of coke with a poisonous substance in it, and McD just blindly, knowingly served it to its customers, closing their eyes on it. This kind of shit is just unthinkable in the real world. But on the internet? No one is checking. No one is enforcing. It's a free-for-all buffet. By all means, just help yourself to all that sweet dirty money!
and in one quote this thread is complete
When i use my unadd blocked work PC, some sites are a nightmare, pop ups, slow to load backgrounds and potential auto linking virus sites
It's about a third of the top of the page on mobile and 10% of the top of the page on desktop. After a few refreshes you can get one that's about 10% of the top of the page on mobile too.
Now, I realize there's some problems with The Verge and its crazy redirects, but quite honestly I don't find the amount or size of ads on that off-putting. On both mobile and desktop it fits fine within the layout. The ads take less than a second to scroll past.
That PC world screenshot going around, or the other silly shit going on under the hood of the Verge is a far larger thing to complain about.
The Verge posted a poll with hilariously loaded answers to the question:
"WILL YOU USE AN AD BLOCKER?"
A) YES, I WANT FREE CONTENT AND ILL PAY THE AD BLOCKERS
B) NO, I WANT FREE CONTENT AND ILL PAY THE PUBLISHER THROUGH ADS
The results are predictable. Also most people seem to be happy with B, but are forced onto A because the ads outweigh the content, ruin user experience, suck bandwith, crash browsers, track users, etc. etc.
The Verge posted a poll with hilariously loaded answers to the question:
"WILL YOU USE AN AD BLOCKER?"
A) YES, I WANT FREE CONTENT AND ILL PAY THE AD BLOCKERS
B) NO, I WANT FREE CONTENT AND ILL PAY THE PUBLISHER THROUGH ADS
The results are predictable. Also most people seem to be happy with B, but are forced onto A because the ads outweigh the content, ruin user experience, suck bandwith, crash browsers, track users, etc. etc.
More site should offer a subscription to remove ads. $2 a month, $20 a year, something like that.
That would only work for news sites and stuff like that though, the problem with a lot of sites is the content isn't particularly well-written or important and there's a ton of other sites publishing similar articles.
They are choosing to not put their content behind a paywall. If people want to access it without ads and that cost them then that's their own fault. If they want to guarantee revenue for their work and think it's good enough, then put up the paywall and key those that want to get it pay for it.
Opponents say publishers must "advertise or die" because paywalls dont work. Ad-supported media sites use the money generated by ads to pay staff to create so-called "free" content. And since nobody wants to see ads unrelated to their interests, sophisticated networks are required to serve more engaging ads. Its unethical for the makers of ad blockers to redirect a publishers revenue stream into their pockets, and for users of the ad blockers to effectively steal the content they crave.
I just remembered Adam Curry discussing this 3 years ago while on TWiT with Nilay Patel (episode #368).
Curry was in a bit of an argument with Nilay that banner ads are not effective and on the way out, and the audience-supported model will last longer. Nilay was naturally a bit defensive seeing as the Verge is supported by banner ads. Interesting to see him writing an article on it all this time later as he finally sees it happening.
They are choosing to not put their content behind a paywall. If people want to access it without ads and that cost them then that's their own fault. If they want to guarantee revenue for their work and think it's good enough, then put up the paywall and key those that want to get it pay for it.
I unblock certain websites, like GAF (or surr@20 for lol players) but the internet is not a safe place anymore without adblocker, sorry Verge, maybe put a patreon up if your content is so interesting?
Peace required that all ads be treated the same — all-or-nothing enforcement for decisions that aren’t black and white. This approach is too blunt, and Ghostery and I have both decided that it doesn’t serve our goals or beliefs well enough. If we’re going to effect positive change overall, a more nuanced, complex approach is required than what I can bring in a simple iOS app.
I still believe that ad blockers are necessary today, and I still think Ghostery is the best one, but I’ve learned over the last few crazy days that I don’t feel good making one and being the arbiter of what’s blocked.
Ad-blocking is a kind of war — a first-world, low-stakes, both-sides-are-fortunate-to-have-this-kind-of-problem war, but a war nonetheless, with damage hitting both sides. I see war in the Tao Te Ching sense: it should be avoided when possible; when that isn’t possible, war should be entered solemnly, not celebrated.
The Verge posted a poll with hilariously loaded answers to the question:
"WILL YOU USE AN AD BLOCKER?"
A) YES, I WANT FREE CONTENT AND ILL PAY THE AD BLOCKERS
B) NO, I WANT FREE CONTENT AND ILL PAY THE PUBLISHER THROUGH ADS
The results are predictable. Also most people seem to be happy with B, but are forced onto A because the ads outweigh the content, ruin user experience, suck bandwith, crash browsers, track users, etc. etc.
1. I think it's completely reasonable to use an adblocker on (non-wifi) mobile, since you are literally paying to see them (via bandwidth).
2. Speaking of which, consumers ARE paying for free content in the form of bandwidth. Mobile carriers (ATT/Verizon/etc) might consider transferring some of that wealth to the creators.
3. Some mix of sponsored content (advertisers paying for on-topic written copy that ties into their product), well-maintained apps and an explosion of unblockable ads on video ("the future of the internet is TV") is the future.
4. I think a lot of people are reading the headline and missing the point of the article that this is all a very large battle between Apple, Google, and Facebook. He makes a lot of great points, nevermind ad blockers.
I never had any problem with banner ads. But when ads start doing fullscreen takeovers I'm going to start blocking ads. 10-15 years ago the same thing happened with pop-ups and we all blocked them.
I also don't want to be tracked. When a website makes 15 requests to tracking networks completely in the background without me having any knowledge of it happening and zero ways to opt out I'm also going to block ads. When I see an ad on the TV or in the street it doesn't need to track me and doesn't need to be targeted specifically for me so why does it on the internet other than because we can.
Then there's the problem with malware 3rd parties should not be adding script to pages. Browsing with Ublock installed is safer and it is also much safer for less sophisticated users who are more likely to click the fake "please update your flash to watch this video" ads.
Neogaf's ad banners tend to be pretty funny and oddly sometimes follow the pattern of threads I've been reading. More websites should do it like GAF does it
I only began using an Ad blocker because of the amount of invasive, loud and error ridden ads I began receiving. On sites like Gaf you just have a couple banner ads which are not invasive, but once I begin getting pop ups and SHOCKING DON'T LEAVE THIS PAGE sort of shit, I disable your ads.
Since I am aware that sites run on ad revenue, I keep it disabled when the site handles them well, but if you just let shit fly no matter what happens to my computer, fuck off.
I have noticed an improvement in performance as well, but my laptop is a bit old.
Amazon and online retailers will disappear because of ad block?
Netflix and streaming services will disappear because of ad block?
Banking websites will disappear because of ad block?
Wikipedia will disappear because of ad block?
Government, education, information websites will disappear because of ad block?
I can go on all day. Do you see how ridiculous this is?
The Internet is not going to die. It's a poorly written self-serving article. Par for the course for a website like the Verge.
This is true. The rest of the internet, the part that relies on ads and decides to make their site 50%+ ads, will either adapt or die. No big loss. The part of the internet that actually matters is not ad supported and will be fine. There's tons of news sites out there, Verge. You may be near the top of the pile now but that can change overnight. (Are they near the top of the pile? I don't even know.)
I only began using an Ad blocker because of the amount of invasive, loud and error ridden ads I began receiving. On sites like Gaf you just have a couple banner ads which are not invasive, but once I begin getting pop ups and SHOCKING DON'T LEAVE THIS PAGE sort of shit, I disable your ads.
Since I am aware that sites run on ad revenue, I keep it disabled when the site handles them well, but if you just let shit fly no matter what happens to my computer, fuck off.
I have noticed an improvement in performance as well, but my laptop is a bit old.
The really ridiculous thing about that poll is that I would be willing to pay to remove ads, but that's not an option. I don't read much content online, but I pay about $40 a month for various subscriptions on my iPad. If the content is good enough, people will pay for it. The reason so much content has to be free is it's essentially worthless, there's dozens of other articles that contain a regurgitated press release or half-baked think piece on the same topic.
Isn't the Verge home to the editor who threw a fit on Twitter when someone made fun of his spiky bracelet? I think a lot of internet writers aren't afraid of drawing attention to themselves.
I saw an ad for an ad the other day...it literally said "This ad is brought to you by so and so"...that's when I remembered why I use adblock and have zero pity on websites with intrusive ads.
It's not hard to solve. Make ads people don't object to being exposed to; or better, ads that people actually want to watch. Examples would be trailers, demos, podcast ads in which presenters get to riff on the copy, ironic ads like Subway on Community. I'm not an advertising executive, that's just off the top of my head.
People can coexist with ads. Stop being lazy and trying to force your garbage on people with a spoonful of sugar, and they'll stop trying to find ways to take the sugar without the garbage.
The problem with ads that they have a bad stigma; Its how viruses and malware get through? Correct? Not to mention those annoying, intrusive, flashy adverts with movies, animations and sound. Just leaching off your bandwidth and computer power. So unless ads are simple and safe they really have no future.
So unless I can make sure the ads are safe; I will not put them on my website.
Don't like the ads, don't use the site. The ads pay for the site, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.That's my personal stance, irrespective of how intrusive the ads are.
Don't like the ads, don't use the site. The ads pay for the site, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.That's my personal stance, irrespective of how intrusive the ads are.
I think that's the problem - most consumers lose respect for businesses that they feel are treating them disrespectfully. That creates an adversarial mindset in which the business wants to suck as much money as they can from consumers' pockets; and consumers have no qualms about giving the business nothing if they can still obtain the content they desire. It doesn't have to be like that. When people respect content providers, they seek out ways to compensate creators. That's why Patreon exists, and why the "pay what you like" model works.
The issue isn't one of ethics, it's one of social psychology. No one likes to feel fucked around: not content creators, not consumers. When we stop fucking each other around, everyone wins. Cynics can sneer all they want, but there are too many examples of people making money from content easily obtained for free to dismiss offhand as anomalous.
The problem with ads that they have a bad stigma; Its how viruses and malware get through? Correct? Not to mention those anoying flashy adverts with movies, animations and sound. Just leaching of your bandswith and computer power. So unless ads are simple and safe they really have no future.
Blocking ads is just common sense. They contribute nothing to my web experience and increase the likelihood of being exposed to something that can comprimise my computer. Pages load fast and things run smoother.
The current internet ad model is basically junk mail and unlike print publications websites seem to have no regard for what ad content they push on you. Maybe news aggregator apps are a better ideal, safer and more secure. Hopefully an advertising revolution will come, at least website should take responsibility to put the ads on their own servers rather than connecting me to some unknown server with possible javascript and xss vulnerabilities. Running them on flash is even worse which seems to be screwed every couple of months.
If large publishers want to keep thereselves out of the walled gardens of google, apple and facebook they need to be driving a better advertising paradigm because the way it currently works is detrimental.
Don't like the ads, don't use the site. The ads pay for the site, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.That's my personal stance, irrespective of how intrusive the ads are.
I don't really mind ads as long as they're silent and not resource-hogging, popups or covering half the screen.
Or trying to trick me as well as making annoying sounds on mouse hover, like the "You're visitor #, you won!" one I'm getting on this site right now. Evilore plz.
User tracking is also pretty naughty, it's pretty difficult to respect advertisers and the sites that carry them when they're trying to fuck you over.
