Support NeoGAF

[jusufin]

Could be completely wrong, but speeding up browsing has more to do with how long it takes for the flash shit to load than the effect on system memory.


No I'm saying stop running intrusive ads and I'll stop blocking them. I have zero issue with simple banner ads so long as they are aren't nefarious. You can charge, if the content is solid enough. The problem is most content isn't solid or unique.

People have different threshold levels for what constitutes as intrusive. As an example, I would guess a substantial amount of neogaf users use adblock on neogaf even though its forbidden on the terms of service and could result in a ban. They don’t care so long as they can't be caught and they don’t have to stare at ads. How many really take the time to expressly allow ads on here, I would guess very little seeing as it brings them no direct benefit and is enabled by default if you have installed such a program.

People will pay for a good service if they think the content is worthwhile.Like Netflix in Australia. There are tens of thousands of Netflix subscribers - people who prefer to pay than to torrent.

And yet more people torrent then subscribe to services like netflix. The fact is that for every person that feels like there should be a paywall to content, there is another that feels like it should be offered up for free with no monetary gain to the content holder. Ad based monetization is aimed at people who don’t want to pay but want a legal way to access content. If you can justify not running ads and watching a movie for free then you probably have no problem justifying illegally watching movies in the first place, so you may as well go and do that. I just find it funny that some people find no problem watching terminator on hulu without ads running, but find it morally wrong to download terminator on a torrenting website.

 

[Bedlam]

I started my first real job last month and I have to work with a browser that doesn't have adblock. My takeaway from this is that the internet is essentially unusable without adblock. All these extremely intrusive ads that take forever to load etc. It's unbearable and I'm convinced that most people who openly condemn adblock users use ablock themselves. I'm looking at you, Pachter!

To put it in words Patcher can understand: Stop whining! Its a profit deal. Users pay with their time. They profit the most, when they don't have to endure the ads. Adblock maximizes the time spent on real content.So going with his 1+1 business logic it is completely understandable. It may hurt the wrong people, but so do day 1 dlcs, bad pay-to-win microtransactions etc. He's not complaining about them, so why now in this case? When buisnesses show no moral, how can we expect customers to do so?

Fine post. I like Pachter but he really is a hypocrite who defends big business more often than not.

edit: I do turn off adblock for sites that I frequent regularly and which I think have earned my clicks.

 

[DannyDanger]

Do you think that websites who survive off of ads should put this in their "About" section?

Definitely

 

[PsychBat!]

I just realized... what if some asshole advertiser starts using a link that isn't obviously an ad? Just a small, unobtrusive link that looks identical to the actual download?

Yeesh. I hate that shit. I use Adblock, and I'm glad I do. I just whitelist the sites I actually like, like message boards.

This actually does happen. It's damn annoying when advertisers are like that. Confused me sometimes and whenever I clicked on them by accident, various pop-ups or pop-unders came up with videos or annoying sounds. I'm glad for ad-block.

 

[Koren]

If Adblock is crippling sites, the government should change the rules to make it illegal.

I can't even start to imagine on what principles you could make this kind of stuff illegal (a law to enforce how a browser must display web content? Is links/lynx illegal too? Browsers for blind people also?) Or worse, how you could enforce such a law. A script of a couple of lines can replace an object in the DOM of a webpage by a blank space.

Would you make post-it illegal because you can stick them on your screen over the ads?

To be honest, those ads only show up on some... non-legit sites.

I keeps getting an ad about what seems to be an illegal sharing website for copyrighted movies on another video game forum (google ad, I think...) And I've never used or visited such a place. Not sure how it works sometimes.

I'm fine with ads as long as there're mostly static images, and clearly separated from content. But I tend to disable flash and javascript commands that will make use of the speakers or create pop-ups everywhere...

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Doesn't matter how "in your face" it is... It pays bills that YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY.

So if you want free sh**, suck it up

Or I can just use ABP or go to another site that doesn't use intrusive ads. You are a congenial fellow, I'm sure you will last long here.

 

[Hale-XF11]

Definitely

Sounds like a solid business plan.

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

[Devil]

Proudly watched with adblock enabled.

This.

 

[PsychBat!]

Definitely

the fuck is this shit?

 

[The_Lump]

I only used scumbag cause Pach did... I dont think fast forwarding ads is wrong, that's the equivalent to skipping ads that give you the option after 5 secs. Just dont understand the mentality of bragging that you use adblock?

Well it's an odd thing to 'brag' about, sure. I mean its hardly an impressive feat.

 

[PreyingShark]

Only reason I have adblock is because porn sites have the worst ads. I keep on forgetting to turn it off when viewing sites that have ads that are actually tolerable, though.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

People have different threshold levels for what constitutes as intrusive. As an example, I would guess a substantial amount of neogaf users use adblock on neogaf even though its forbidden on the terms of service and could result in a ban.

Really, where?

 

[kingdoug87]

Well it's an odd thing to 'brag' about, sure. I mean its hardly an impressive feat.

exactly, and yet look at the very first post.

 

[Zabant]

Pachter has said he's usually votes Democrat.

That's good to hear, though always take self reporting with a grain of salt.

 

[jusufin]

Really?

I don't know im just guessing since people say it will result in a ban, lol.

 

[Aquamarine]

People have different threshold levels for what constitutes as intrusive. As an example, I would guess a substantial amount of neogaf users use adblock on neogaf even though its forbidden on the terms of service and could result in a ban. They don’t care so long as they can't be caught and they don’t have to stare at ads. How many really take the time to expressly allow ads on here, I would guess very little seeing as it brings them no direct benefit and is enabled by default if you have installed such a program.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=390708

I don't see it. Please point it out to me.

 

[jgf]

To put it in words Patcher can understand: Stop whining! Its a profit deal. Users pay with their time. They profit the most, when they don't have to endure the ads. Adblock maximizes the time spent on real content.So going with his 1+1 business logic it is completely understandable. It may hurt the wrong people, but so do day 1 dlcs, bad pay-to-win microtransactions etc. He's not complaining about them, so why now in this case? When buisnesses show no moral, how can we expect customers to do so?

 

[The_Lump]

exactly, and yet look at the very first post.

.

Spoiler

I tend to automatically skim past the first few posts as they are usually jokes/sarcastic responses.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I don't know im just guessing since people say it will result in a ban, lol.

You shouldn't say stuff like that then. Cause it isn't in the ToS, nor will you get banned for using it. It is pretty crappy to use it and I wouldn't go around promoting users to use it.

 

[Roland1979]

The simple fact is that adblock would not be around if advertisers did not go way too far with the type of ads they feed, but it is clear that advertisers are too much of self entitled air heads to figure that out.

That's true, Ad Block was born out of necessity. I have it off at GAF, and off at any gaming site i respect and any site with ads that don't have sound on full volume, flashing or are in any other way aggressive. The social pressure is also only that, even though people might have valid points, don't forget it's completely a free choice to support or block ads. There are no laws forcing you to watch them so pretending it's one of the worst things you can do might not be the way to go about it. I really Like Sterling's approach, a calm and rational explanation and kindly asking his viewers not to use Ad Block on The Escapist. There's really no excuse for a grown man to behave like Pachter and insult people. Unlike what some people claim, there is no a excuse to insult or attack someone when debating something.

 

[jusufin]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=390708

I don't see it. Please point it out to me.

lets try this then, you publicly admit to using it on here and lets see what happens.

 

[TheD]

Anyone that thinks that targeted ads don't suck, you should take a look at what google thinks your interests are (to target ads at you) http://www.google.com/settings/ads

For me it thinks I like "Beauty & Fitness", "Pop Music", "Urban & Hip-Hop", "Country Music" and "TV Talk Shows", all things I hate and actively avoid!

 

[bitesnintendog]

Would someone be a "scumbag" if they told you they fast forwarded through adverts on a recorded show? I think scumbag might be taking it a little too far...

While I wouldn't say scumbag it's not the same based on how they receive payment from advertisers. TV stations get paid no matter what with rates based off viewership and demographics. Websites need to get impressions or clicks to get paid which Adblock disables. It's more akin to piracy but worse. The site still uses resources when you visit where Piracy only has an effect on potential purchasers who would probably never buy the item.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

lets try this then, you publicly admit to using it on here and lets see what happens.

So you want me to lie and say I use something that I don't use, just so you can see if I get banned? Classy guy.

 

[Immaculate]

okay serious question and no bullshit, who here actually disables ad block on certain sites? because I just leave it on and don't even notice because its become a part of my routine or procedure on the internet on laptops/desktops. on mobile devices its a completely different story since i have no way to stop them

Spoiler

that I know of

but they don't really bother me on those devices.

 

[Sub_Level]

I would pay for a Gaf Gold subscription for $5/year to not have ads. That way I can support the website while also not having to deal with ads. Users who use adblock circumvent this, but the kicker is that Gold members would have exclusive gold-colored usernames.\\

Gold. Colored.

 

[The_Lump]

Anyone who wants to use Adblock but doesn't because they feel they shouldn't (because it's bannable, they want to support a site, they feel bad etc) will likely not be looking at nor clicking through the adverts anyway. The ads are still there & Gaf still gets paid. People aren't wrong for using it imo, but it's probably wrong for them to publicise the fact as it might discourage would be advertisers.

While I wouldn't say scumbag it's not the same based on how they receive payment from advertisers. TV stations get paid no matter what with rates based off viewership and demographics. Websites need to get impressions or clicks to get paid which Adblock disables. It's more akin to piracy but worse. The site still uses resources when you visit where Piracy only has an effect on potential purchasers who would probably never buy the item.

I understand what you are saying. Won't post a separate reply as my above post pretty much covers my opinion on that I think.

 

[PreyingShark]

okay serious question and no bullshit, who here actually disables ad block on certain sites?

 

[Chaplain]

Pachter has the nerve to insult a viewer due to viewing things differently then he does: telling him he is morally superior to him (a subjective view if he is a relativist) because he believes a person that doesn't watch ads is stealing? On what moral framework is he basing this on?

 

[Principate]

Anyone that thinks that targeted ads don't suck, you should take a look at what google thinks your interests are (to target ads at you) http://www.google.com/settings/ads

For me it thinks I like "Beauty & Fitness", "Pop Music", "Urban & Hip-Hop", "Country Music" and "TV Talk Shows", all things I hate and actively avoid!

Aww shit.... mine is fairly accurate....

 

[gngf123]

Doesn't matter how "in your face" it is... It pays bills that YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY.

So if you want free sh**, suck it up

Okay, let's just assume for a second that adblock didn't exist.

I try to load up a site to read an article. Before I can read anything I get a nice big advert that flies across the page, entirely covering the content I want to read. I hunt around for a way to close it and find what looks like a cross icon, that should work.

I click it, great that's now gone. Unfortunately clicking on that cross opened up a popup window for some website I couldn't give less of a damn about. I try to close it and it gives me warning messages asking me to confirm that I really want to leave. Of course I do.

Okay, finally that's gone and I can get to the content. I manage to read maybe two or three lines before hearing some noise through my headphones... Something is wrong here. Turns out, at the bottom of the site they had a video advert out of sight. I need to look around for a way to mute it because I can't put up with it while trying to read what I want to read.




Or I can just say fuck this, the content isn't worth putting up with all this hassle, I'll look at something else. Alternatively I could turn on adblock and never need to deal with any of this to begin with.

Eventually the ads get so in your face that they destroy the content you originally wanted. Yes that does matter. No, it doesn't have any real link to just wanting free shit.

 

[jusufin]

So you want me to lie and say I use something that I don't use, just so you can see if I get banned? Classy guy.

Wow, did I offend you with my earlier comments or something? I was JOKING about the ad block thing, but if something I said has offended you, I apologize. I was expressing my opinion, it wasn't directly aimed at you, lol.

 

[Costia]

okay serious question and no bullshit, who here actually disables ad block on certain sites? because I just leave it on and don't even notice because its become a part of my routine or procedure on the internet on laptops/desktops. on mobile devices its a completely different story since i have no way to stop them

Spoiler

that I know of

but they don't really bother me on those devices.

I do. But I generally do it when someone/something reminds me of it. It is on for everything by default and i rarely even think about it. I think i whitelisted a few sites when Jim did a video about it.

 

[CyReN]

Really loved the video.

I run a community/news site, and we do take a hit in that department because of adblock but all you can really do is make the ads less intrusive and hope people enjoy the content to disable for us. I've seen sites like Twitch/MLG get around it, wonder what other sites will follow suit.

 

[Actionhank]

This reminds me of the early years of cable, when a subscription was justified for no more annoying ads, and many jumped right in. Now look at cable for every half hour show 12 mins are ads.

 

[breakfuss]

I think the way Rev3 incorporates them into videos is neat. "Sponsored by..." and that sort of thing.

 

[FirmBizBws]

GAF only exists on the revenue from ads on the site.

I only view neogaf from my tablet, I never see an ad, have no Adblock. So either way they aren't getting revenue from me I guess.

 

[PreyingShark]

Pachter has the nerve to insult a viewer due to viewing things differently then he does: telling him he is morally superior to him (a subjective view at best) because he believes a person that doesn't watch ads is stealing? On what moral framework is he basing this on?

The viewer he's calling a scumbag said that he did not give a single fuck if sites like GameTrailers, which is the site that hosts Pach-Attack, went out of business. This implies that the viewer also does not give a fuck if there was no more Pach-Attack, since no GT = no more Pach-Attack.

*That* is really fucking offensive. The viewer deserved to be blasted.

 

[Span]

I started my first real job last month and I have to work with a browser that doesn't have adblock. My takeaway from this is that the internet is essentially unusable without adblock.

http://youtu.be/snjCj0ntG8E What you reminded me of

 

[Haunted]

Anyone that thinks that targeted ads don't suck, you should take a look at what google thinks your interests are (to target ads at you) http://www.google.com/settings/ads

For me it thinks I like "Beauty & Fitness", "Pop Music", "Urban & Hip-Hop", "Country Music" and "TV Talk Shows", all things I hate and actively avoid!

Call me paranoid, but I think Google knows more about me than they're showing on that page (Male, 25-34, Interests Unknown).

 

[Hale-XF11]

I think the way Rev3 incorporates them into videos is neat. "Sponsored by..." and that sort of thing.

Rev3 is a prime example of how to do ads the right way. Not only do they avoid adblock, but their viewers don't have to worry about intrusive/malicious ads. Rev3 gets paid and the viewers get content. Win-win.

 

[gngf123]

Anyone that thinks that targeted ads don't suck, you should take a look at what google thinks your interests are (to target ads at you) http://www.google.com/settings/ads

For me it thinks I like "Beauty & Fitness", "Pop Music", "Urban & Hip-Hop", "Country Music" and "TV Talk Shows", all things I hate and actively avoid!

Google thinks I'm interested in Finance and Golf...

Come on Google, I'm not that boring.

 

[Costia]

Really loved the video.

I run a community/news site, and we do take a hit in that department because of adblock but all you can really do is make the ads less intrusive and hope people enjoy the content to disable for us. I've seen sites like Twitch/MLG get around it, wonder what other sites will follow suit.

Twitch doesn't get around it. And in this case i don't understand why they even try. I have heard 2 streamers talk about how playing ads barely generates any income and that their main source of income are the subscribers. I hope that at some point twitch will drop showing ads altogether.

 

[Principate]

Okay, let's just assume for a second that adblock didn't exist.

I try to load up a site to read an article. Before I can read anything I get a nice big advert that flies across the page, entirely covering the content I want to read. I hunt around for a way to close it and find what looks like a cross icon, that should work.

I click it, great that's now gone. Unfortunately clicking on that cross opened up a popup window for some website I couldn't give less of a damn about. I try to close it and it gives me warning messages asking me to confirm that I really want to leave. Of course I do.

Okay, finally that's gone and I can get to the content. I manage to read maybe two or three lines before hearing some noise through my headphones... Something is wrong here. Turns out, at the bottom of the site they had a video advert out of sight, I need to look around for a way to mute it because I can't put up with it while trying to read what I want to read.




Or I can just say fuck this, the content isn't worth putting up with all this hassle, I'll look at something else. Alternatively I could turn on adblock and never need to deal with any of this to begin with.

Eventually the ads get so in your face that they destroy the content you originally wanted. Yes that does matter.

Ultimately the crux of the matter is ads don't exists for the sake of existing. If they don't eventually sell you a product or service or lead to a sale it's wasted money. So just like changing channels you can avoid adds that you honestly weren't going to do anything about in the first place. The core issue is that if you choose to go that path the website in question gets punished despite the fact you probably weren't going to sign up for the service in the first place.

If ad blocker still registered you has having seen the add I doubt the website in question would actually care. The company would care but it's not like similar things don't happen in other industries.

 

[BennyBlanco]

What kind of monster doesn't use the dark theme?

 

[EmiPrime]

Until web ads stop being sources of malware and advertising trackers stop being a thing I won't be guilt tripped. Get your house in order instead of ranting at people who want to avoid nuisances and what is effectively spyware in order to protect their computer.

Also everybody fast forwards the ads on their DVR. Way to go insulting people for normal behaviour.

 

[Chaplain]

The viewer he's calling a scumbag said that he did not give a single fuck if sites like GameTrailers, which is the site that hosts Pach-Attack, went out of business. This implies that the viewer also does not give a fuck if there was no more Pach-Attack, since no GT = no more Pach-Attack.

*That* is really fucking offensive. The viewer deserved to be blasted.

I disagree. All he can say is that he doesn't agree with the writers point of view due to his opinion being subjective opinion. That is how he should have responded. He has no moral basis to show that his point of view is superior to the writers. Also, he represents gametrailers. Insulting someone is not what you do in Pachter's position.

 

[Costia]

Anyone that thinks that targeted ads don't suck, you should take a look at what google thinks your interests are (to target ads at you) http://www.google.com/settings/ads

For me it thinks I like "Beauty & Fitness", "Pop Music", "Urban & Hip-Hop", "Country Music" and "TV Talk Shows", all things I hate and actively avoid!

You can opt out of it if you want to. I think it is on the bottom of the screen.

 

[Chaplain]

The viewer he's calling a scumbag said that he did not give a single fuck if sites like GameTrailers, which is the site that hosts Pach-Attack, went out of business. This implies that the viewer also does not give a fuck if there was no more Pach-Attack, since no GT = no more Pach-Attack.

*That* is really fucking offensive. The viewer deserved to be blasted.

I disagree. All he can say is that he doesn't agree with the writers point of view due to his opinion being a subjective opinion. That is how he should have responded. He has no moral basis to show that his point of view is superior to the writers. Also, he represents gametrailers. Insulting someone is not what you do in Pachter's position.

Also everybody fast forwards the ads on their DVR. Way to go calling insulting people for normal behaviour.

Ya. He just insulted millions of people without taking into consideration that some people do not see things the same was that he does.

 

[Principate]

What kind of monster doesn't use the dark theme?

People with professional classier taste .