Support NeoGAF

[duck_sauce]

While I do agree with Pachter on his opinion of free content and adblock. The kind of language he used was not very professional. I know it is a very emotional subject for people who need ads to pay their bills....some of what he said was uncalled for. You don't need to insult people like that.

Using adblock is not fair, but we all can talk about it in a civilised way.

 

[Brakke]

Holding up GAF as some shining example of a website doing ads right is a joke; the site doesn't have any staff and it goes down all the time.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Product placement will pay for Breaking Bad. It was already horrendous in the last season.

 

[Petrae]

I don't have a high opinion about most people who use adblock, at least on regular sites, but it's kind of like with piracy - you won't be able to stop it. Attempting to is just a waste of energy and resources that could be better spent on other things. The freeriders will still find a way to block the adds, so all you're doing is making life harder for people who actually support your content.

I understand the complaints about invasive ads and can empathize with those who use AdBlock to get around them. I don't judge, but I do wonder about what the future of gaming websites will be like once the ad revenue dries up. When sites start disappearing and content gets paywalled, will we be better off because the ads are gone?

Personally, I don't use AdBlock. I (sometimes begrudgingly) sit through 30-second video ads or search frantically for the red X when a full-screen ad appears over the article I was about to read... but that's the price I choose to pay instead of $X per month out of pocket. I feel that the creators deserve to get paid if they've chosen to monetize, and it's on me to pay them since I'm consuming their content.

But that's me. My belief system is different than others. I'm not in a position to judge right/wrong. I'm just curious about how our collective decision-making will affect gaming-related video and written content going forward. My instincts tell me that significantly lower ad revenue will put at least some content creators out of work and at least a few more websites out of business... and that would be unfortunate, in my view.

 

[Mononoke]

Product placement will pay for Breaking Bad. It was already horrendous in the last season.

None of the product placement bothered me. And hey, you do what you got to do. The reality is, making TV shows is very expensive. I would much rather have product placement, than no show at all. Ideally, I would much rather have more people watching the show I love, so that companies will pay more money for commercials. But it doesn't always work out that way.

EDIT:

I also wanted to say, I 100% agree with those saying that intrusive/unsafe ads are unacceptable. I also agree that adblock has use's beyond avoiding ads. All this said, I think the reality is, whether people want to admit it or not, some never want to deal with ads, even if the ads were implemented tastefully.

And I really don't get anyone arguing that they aren't hurting a site by doing this. A professional site puts out content, and has to pay its workers. Unless you are paying a subscription fee, you are paying for the site by allowing ads (your unique views + ads). If you block ads, you are essentially getting access to the site completely free.

What is there to argue? How else do you expect these sites to pay their workers and keep running. No one does a job for free. So at least on a moral level, I feel it's some what questionable to keep visiting these sites with adblock. If your response is "its the sites job to make money their own way, and it's not my fault"...well how do you propose they make money? I do get it if their ads are intrusive and unsafe. But i still get the sense that, this is a much larger issues (where a fair amount of people block all ads, regardless how the ads are implemented). And I don't really see how you can argue against that being an issue.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I have no sympathy for websites with intrusive advertising. I reward the ones that take the care and effort into making it as painless as can be.

 

[wicko]

I don't have a high opinion about most people who use adblock, at least on regular sites, but it's kind of like with piracy - you won't be able to stop it. Attempting to is just a waste of energy and resources that could be better spent on other things. The freeriders will still find a way to block the adds, so all you're doing is making life harder for people who actually support your content.

These so-called "free riders" can contribute to the website just fine and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Contributing to discussions that make this site interesting. Sending links to their friends, who may also register, and perhaps they don't use adblock. Increasing exposure is just as useful as not blocking ads.

 

[petran79]

i find ghostery more usefull than adblock. Blocking ads is one thing, but blocking tracking cookies should be mandatory.

Besides, instead of adblock you can find edited windows host files with all malicious sites blocked

 

[Wiktor]

These so-called "free riders" can contribute to the website just fine and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. Contributing to discussions that make this site interesting. Sending links to their friends, who may also register, and perhaps they don't use adblock. Increasing exposure is just as useful as not blocking ads.

Funny thing is, some people are defending piracy with exactly the same arguments.

If you visit a website regularly you should at least whitlist it unless it really has ridiculously invasive adds. If you don't then it doesn't matter if you sending links, it's still not ok.

 

[Aquamarine]

Funny thing is, some people are defending piracy with exactly the same arguments.

If you visit a website regularly you should at least whitlist it unless it really has ridiculously invasive adds. If you don't then it doesn't matter if you sending links, it's still not ok.

So what? Piracy is a completely different can of worms and really isn't analogous to Adblock usage.

 

[PowerSmell]

Pachter acting like ads are the only way to monetize content. As if nobody would pay to watch a show like Breaking Bad or read a well-written review.

 

[border]

Pachter acting like ads are the only way to monetize content. As if nobody would pay to watch a show like Breaking Bad or read a well-written review.

People might pay for Breaking Bad. It's a big budget TV show with writers and directors making something that few YouTube channels can reproduce.

People are far less likely to pay for reviews or meta-commentary. Blog posts and opinion pieces are relatively cheap to make, so there are hundreds to choose from.

That's the point of the question really -- "Why should I contribute to this reviewer or editor's pocket book when there are so many other people offering similar commentary without ads?" If every TV show or web series was good as Breaking Bad, the people at AMC might face the same dilemma.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

It's kind of sad that most people who use adblock, install it to avoid the shitty ads on weirder websites but then it goes and affects every website.

I turned off adblock for a week and realized my experience was basically the same except on Youtube where there are just too many video ads.

It's sad that you install it to speed up performance and avoid shitty ads for emojis and such, but then NeoGaf and such has to take the shit.

Btw, I don't have adblock active at the moment, and yet all ads on Neogaf are just black bars with nothing in them. A common problem with Firefox?

 

[Speevy]

 

[Dr Dogg]

It is quite ironic that this discussion stems from a show on Gametrailers, who they themselves have some horrendeous ad implemtation on their site. Not content with having plugs inserted into their content they have in the past surrounded their video player with a massive advert that pretty much all the time clashes with the content.

I see YouTube being brought up a few times but in comparison they're pretty easy to deal with, most you can skip after 5 seconds and at least there's some variety. Try watching a series of videos on Gamtrailers and have the exact same unskipable advert play at the begining and see how long before it wears thin. Even if it's an attempt of force the message upon you half the time for viewers outside the US they're pointless to them as they're not products or services available regardless. Seeing an advert for foodstuffs, cars, restaurants, tv shows etc you have no access to only serves one party in all of this. It's been a while since I've actively watched any content on Gametrailers but if this is still carrying on I think I'm good for a while.

 

[rdrr gnr]

None of the product placement bothered me. And hey, you do what you got to do. The reality is, making TV shows is very expensive. I would much rather have product placement, than no show at all. Ideally, I would much rather have more people watching the show I love, so that companies will pay more money for commercials. But it doesn't always work out that way.

Well, I'm sure Breaking Bad had added costs due to shooting on film and a number of outdoor scenes. But AMC is a notoriously cheap network and I'm sure the inclusion of product placement was not integral to the show's existence. You had no problem with it, fine, but it came close to ruining the final season for me. It's distracting: conveniently placed logos in the background, weird close-up shots of brand-names.

 

[Terrified]

There's some amazingly flawed arguments in this thread.

DVR'ing something, choosing to skip ads via Tivo (or an equivalent service), or choosing simply not to look at an advertising billboard/train advertisement is nowhere near the same as using an adblocker service.

With all of the above, the content provider is paid regardless of whether you choose to view the ad. The advertiser pays a fee to place that ad in that show/location knowing that a very high percentage of people won't even see it. The value for them lies in the smaller percentage of people who will see it, purely in terms of increasing awareness for the product.

Unless my understanding of internet advertising is well off, if you choose to block ads on a site, that ad is never served. The advertiser doesn't serve the ad, you never even know it's there, and the content provider doesn't get paid.

If you choose to adblock sites, you're choosing to not pay the creator of the content whilst at the same time choosing to consume the content that the creator provides. If you're continuing to do that, that's when you should question whether adblock is right to use.

The only question here should be whether the content is of value to you. From reading this thread, there's generally three answers to that question:

- The content is of value to you - if so, visit the site and support them, either by watching the ads served, or by donating/subscribing if those options are available to you.

- The content isn't of value to you - if so, stop visiting the site. If the content isn't worth your time, don't give it your time. If you read the content, but use adblock, you're actively saying that you feel the content has value to you, but that you don't particularly care if the creators of that content don't get paid for it. If it has no value to you, don't view it. If you can get better content elsewhere, either paid for or for free, go and consume that content instead.

- The content is of value to you but you find the ads too intrusive - in this case, you should stop visiting the site. If you continue to visit, regardless of whether you watch the ads or not, you're continuing to support a business practice you disagree with. If those things offend you or inconvenience you so much, you shouldn't really visit the site. If enough people do it, either the site will die, or the ads will die. One way or another, the practice stops. Same deal as microtransactions/ads in games/DRM practices - if people vote with their metaphorical wallets (or browsers/eyeballs in this case), it'll stop.

Furthermore, engage with sites whose content you like but whose ads you don't. Email them. Tweet them. Don't just sit back and use adblock - the only solution that'll arise is more intrusive ads and poorer content. Tell them you what you don't like, and tell them what you as a consumer would be prepared to accept. It's a two way street.

TL;DR - if you genuinely use the content of a site, find a way of supporting them. If you don't, stop visiting the site. If you're somewhere inbetween, do something about it using the avenues available to you. It's really not that hard.

 

[jpax]

Because of adblock, some websites are just scraping by. These sites have to sell huge adspace per page because of adblock users. People are justifying their use of adblock with the very problem it creates.

Invasive ads were there long before any ad-block solution. So no, the problem got worse but was not created by ad-block. And even the getting worse part is debatable.

 

[Yagharek]

Invasive ads were there long before any ad-block solution. So no, the problem got worse but was not created by ad-block. And even the getting worse part is debatable.

Correct. Asserting that adblock created the problem is just revisionist history.

 

[Durante]

I haven't dealt with this much, but aren't most banner ads on the net these days paying per click, not per view? If so, it doesn't matter that I block ads, because I have never in my life clicked on one.

Anyway, I despise advertising, and I won't stop blocking it for the vast majority of the internet. If a site provides an expensive-to-run service I use repeatedly (e.g. abload.de) then I'll donate to them. It's actually very annoying to me that GAF doesn't provide an alternative venue to support it other than ads.

I also put my money where my mouth is: my blog has had over 6 million visits since I released DSfix, and people have told me I'm stupid not to put ads there, but I have never done that.

 

[UrbanRats]

A bit melodramatic there, with the anarchy talk.
But yeah, i usually whitelist as many sites as possible, but adblock can be useful in some occasions.
Plus my browser automatically block pop ups anyway.

 

[maxglute]

Ads suck. I'll be less ambivalent about inconveniencing myself to whitelist mainstream sites when they move away from being mostly glorified news tickers for prepackaged media campaigns and low effort editorial . They're completely fungible and doesn't provide enough novel value to me that they can't ultimately be replaced by crowd submitted content / enthusiast opinion. Most of my click throughs to them are from here or other forums anyway, I couldn't give a shit if it's from an established publication or a blog post written by a vetted hobbyist. Companies will find intermediaries for publicity anyway, hopefully through a system that is less beholden.

If commercial sites truly have content worth paying for and can figure out a monetization model that's sensible and convenient, then I will pay. Run a annual funding drive like wikipedia or NPR and let the strong survive. There isn't enough mind share to accommodate everyone who wants to be a gaming journalist. It's a high supply career. It's not that I don't empathize, it's just reality. Every site should have a flattr account or direct donation, give people the option to contribute and the ones that care, will.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

So what? Piracy is a completely different can of worms and really isn't analogous to Adblock usage.

An analogy I see is the pro-piracy argument "I pirated this not-so-great game because I wouldn't have bought it anyway for 60$, it's worth 5$ to me and until the price comes down to that I wouldn't bother anymore... so there is no monetary difference to the devs and publishers of said game whether I pirate it or not"
You could say the same thing for ad-sites "IGN is a not-so-great site which isn't worth my support especially not at this price (=with these obtrusive ads) so if I HAD no Adblock and COULDN't block their ads, I wouldn't even go there, so no money lost for them".

 

[samar11]

As long as ads don't interfere with user experience then I don't mind.

 

[samar11]

For example click to play is user friendly rather then roll over to play.I hate that shit.

 

[the_champ]

There's some amazingly flawed arguments in this thread.

DVR'ing something, choosing to skip ads via Tivo (or an equivalent service), or choosing simply not to look at an advertising billboard/train advertisement is nowhere near the same as using an adblocker service.

With all of the above, the content provider is paid regardless of whether you choose to view the ad. The advertiser pays a fee to place that ad in that show/location knowing that a very high percentage of people won't even see it. The value for them lies in the smaller percentage of people who will see it, purely in terms of increasing awareness for the product.

Unless my understanding of internet advertising is well off, if you choose to block ads on a site, that ad is never served. The advertiser doesn't serve the ad, you never even know it's there, and the content provider doesn't get paid.

If you choose to adblock sites, you're choosing to not pay the creator of the content whilst at the same time choosing to consume the content that the creator provides. If you're continuing to do that, that's when you should question whether adblock is right to use.

The only question here should be whether the content is of value to you. From reading this thread, there's generally three answers to that question:

- The content is of value to you - if so, visit the site and support them, either by watching the ads served, or by donating/subscribing if those options are available to you.

- The content isn't of value to you - if so, stop visiting the site. If the content isn't worth your time, don't give it your time. If you read the content, but use adblock, you're actively saying that you feel the content has value to you, but that you don't particularly care if the creators of that content don't get paid for it. If it has no value to you, don't view it. If you can get better content elsewhere, either paid for or for free, go and consume that content instead.

- The content is of value to you but you find the ads too intrusive - in this case, you should stop visiting the site. If you continue to visit, regardless of whether you watch the ads or not, you're continuing to support a business practice you disagree with. If those things offend you or inconvenience you so much, you shouldn't really visit the site. If enough people do it, either the site will die, or the ads will die. One way or another, the practice stops. Same deal as microtransactions/ads in games/DRM practices - if people vote with their metaphorical wallets (or browsers/eyeballs in this case), it'll stop.

Furthermore, engage with sites whose content you like but whose ads you don't. Email them. Tweet them. Don't just sit back and use adblock - the only solution that'll arise is more intrusive ads and poorer content. Tell them you what you don't like, and tell them what you as a consumer would be prepared to accept. It's a two way street.

TL;DR - if you genuinely use the content of a site, find a way of supporting them. If you don't, stop visiting the site. If you're somewhere inbetween, do something about it using the avenues available to you. It's really not that hard.

EXACTLY.

 

[R0ckman]

What the fuck is with this guy? Is he actually codemning people for NOT wanting advertisements forced on their minds 24-7? It should be the other way around.

 

[Makai]

I use Adblock on Game Trailers becuse the videos are completely unwatchable. Ads will trigger and the video will end instead of returning to where I left off afterwards.

 

[Persona7]

What the fuck is with this guy? Is he actually codemning people for NOT wanting advertisements forced on their minds 24-7? It should be the other way around.

He is condemning people who bypass the way most websites earn money and still get to read/watch/use bandwidth the content anyway.

 

[Cheerilee]

There's some amazingly flawed arguments in this thread.

DVR'ing something, choosing to skip ads via Tivo (or an equivalent service), or choosing simply not to look at an advertising billboard/train advertisement is nowhere near the same as using an adblocker service.

With all of the above, the content provider is paid regardless of whether you choose to view the ad. The advertiser pays a fee to place that ad in that show/location knowing that a very high percentage of people won't even see it. The value for them lies in the smaller percentage of people who will see it, purely in terms of increasing awareness for the product.

Unless my understanding of internet advertising is well off, if you choose to block ads on a site, that ad is never served. The advertiser doesn't serve the ad, you never even know it's there, and the content provider doesn't get paid.

That's how it works now, but that's not how it worked before. It used to be that sites had a "hit counter" and advertisers paid by the site hits. They didn't know if you actually viewed the ads or not. After adblock came along, the ad industry got paranoid and started tracking actual ad viewership, and withheld money, making advertising backlash the website's problem.

Imagine if advertisers put something really obnoxious on the side of a bus, and then hired someone to sit on the bus and film people's reactions, and when people turned away and said "Eeewww", and refused to look at the next one, the advertisers decided to pay the bus company less money.

How is that the general public's problem? How about if the advertisers stop trying to be horrible pieces of shit and try making good advertisements for a change (it's possible), and then maybe the hatred will die down.

 

[Terrified]

That's how it works now, but that's not how it worked before. It used to be that sites had a "hit counter" and advertisers paid by the site hits. They didn't know if you actually viewed the ads or not. After adblock came along, the ad industry got paranoid and started tracking actual ad viewership, and withheld money, making advertising backlash the website's problem.

Imagine if advertisers put something really obnoxious on the side of a bus, and then hired someone to sit on the bus and film people's reactions, and when people turned away and said "Eeewww", and refused to look at the next one, the advertisers decided to pay the bus company less money.

How is that the general public's problem? How about if the advertisers stop trying to be horrible pieces of shit and try making good advertisements for a change (it's possible), and then maybe the hatred will die down.

That's not really a great analogy though. In this situation, the people viewing the ad on the bus have no real choice - it's passing through a public space. If it's big and obnoxious enough, they'll have little choice but to view it.

On the web, you're choosing to go to that website to consume that content. If you find the content so obnoxious and offensive, you have a few solutions:

- not visit the site
- visit the site, but make your disapproval of the ads known by actually engaging with the content creator/server
- visit the site and block the ads

You can choose the last one if you like, but if you enjoy the content and want more if it, you're choosing to hurt the creator of the content as opposed to the creator of the ad. Plus, the creator of the ad is just gonna go away and find more intrusive ways of advertising.

The call is 100% yours, but the debate clearly shows that a lot of the time it's the content creators that get hurt here, not the people who make the intrusive ads.

 

[R0ckman]

He is condemning people who bypass the way most websites earn money and still get to read/watch/use bandwidth the content anyway.

You don't have to watch the ads though. He says you are a scumbag for not watching the ads. You can let them run and mute them like my wife does. The dude is out of his damn mind.

 

[Derekloffin]

The biggest issues with the ads for me are these:
1. Completely paralyzing a site because of an ad. Had this happen a lot, the ad site for whatever reason isn't responding, so I sit there staring at a blank or near blank page because the ad must load in first before the rest of the page.
2. Slowing the site to a crawl because of an ad. Much like the previous one, but this time the ad works, but is so processing intensive that the whole browser slows down to the point it seems locked up.
3. Ads that use audio automatically. Have run into lots of these, many that will interfere with audio from the page's proper contents.
4. Downright malicious ads. The hackers are out there, and I've encountered corrupted ads on nearly every one of the sites I've been too that uses one of the general ad services.
5. Ads that insist on auto redirecting, or popping new windows with focus. The auto redirecting ones are the worst, but the window poppers are nearly as bad. I went to this page for a reason, and it wasn't to see your stupid ad. The moment you make your ad steal my control, I will remember you, but not in a good way. In fact, I will hate your product.

 

[WanderingWind]

The call is 100% yours, but the debate clearly shows that a lot of the time it's the content creators that get hurt here, not the people who make the intrusive ads.

The owners of the individual web sites have say over what type of ads are run on their site. It's directly their fault when they allow intrusive ads on their site. AdBlocker was created in response to real issues and if every site had unobtrusive ads to begin with, it likely would have remained a niche add on.

The public is basically using the only voice they have in saying they've had enough of ads being shoved into every crevice of their existence. NeoGAF doesn't have intrusive ads (any more), neither does Reddit or some of hobby sites I visit, so it's an issue that can be fixed by the site owners. I refuse to feel guilty over blocking ads from sites that throw incredibly obnoxious ads at you (NFL.com, SI.com, etc.).

 

[Yagharek]

EXACTLY.

No. Not exactly. If a site you enjoy uses intrusive ads, thats their fault. People can and should continue to use them and block intrusive ads. If the company running the site ignores complaints, thats their mistake and the end users shouldn't be obliged to suffer for it.

 

[Terrified]

The owners of the individual web sites have say over what type of ads are run on their site. It's directly their fault when they allow intrusive ads on their site. AdBlocker was created in response to real issues and if every site had unobtrusive ads to begin with, it likely would have remained a niche add on.

The public is basically using the only voice they have in saying they've had enough of ads being shoved into every crevice of their existence. NeoGAF doesn't have intrusive ads (any more), neither does Reddit or some of hobby sites I visit, so it's an issue that can be fixed by the site owners. I refuse to feel guilty over blocking ads from sites that throw incredibly obnoxious ads at you (NFL.com, SI.com, etc.).

No. Not exactly. If a site you enjoy uses intrusive ads, thats their fault. People can and should continue to use them and block intrusive ads. If the company running the site ignores complaints, thats their mistake and the end users shouldn't be obliged to suffer for it.

Your other choice is to not use the site, or engage with the site creator. Using adblock is doing neither of those things. You're continuing to use the content and ensuring that the content creator doesn't get paid.

If you genuinely feel the content is tainted by the ads, or the ads make it not worth your time, don't consume the content. That's a really, really simple solution.

 

[WanderingWind]

Your other choice is to not use the site, or engage with the site creator. Using adblock is doing neither of those things. You're continuing to use the content and ensuring that the content creator doesn't get paid.

If you genuinely feel the content is tainted by the ads, or the ads make it not worth your time, don't consume the content. That's a really, really simple solution.

An equally simple solution is to use AdBlock.

 

[Yagharek]

Your other choice is to not use the site, or engage with the site creator. Using adblock is doing neither of those things. You're continuing to use the content and ensuring that the content creator doesn't get paid.

If you genuinely feel the content is tainted by the ads, or the ads make it not worth your time, don't consume the content. That's a really, really simple solution.

Eh, if a site is run by people who dont know how intrusive their ads are, that can only be down to wilful ignorance after a while.

 

[Terrified]

An equally simple solution is to use AdBlock.

Simple =/= Right.

As I said above, it's entirely the call of the person browsing. That person should just be aware that continuing to consume the content whilst ensuring the creator doesn't get paid for it isn't the best solution for both parties. It's a very insular, self serving solution.

Eh, if a site is run by people who dont know how intrusive their ads are, that can only be down to wilful ignorance after a while.

The same could be said of using adblock. If people continue to use it whilst knowing that they're denying content creators payment for content they're consuming, despite repeated attempts by people to explain that that's the case, that's also wilful ignorance.

 

[Realyn]

AdBlock talk aside "I guess you dvr every show, zip through it, you're a scumbag".

True class.

 

[WanderingWind]

Simple =/= Right.

As I said above, it's entirely the call of the person browsing. That person should just be aware that continuing to consume the content whilst ensuring the creator doesn't get paid for it isn't the best solution for both parties. It's a very insular, self serving solution.

The same could be said of using adblock. If people continue to use it whilst knowing that they're denying content creators payment for content they're consuming, despite repeated attempts by people to explain that that's the case, that's also wilful ignorance.

I think it absolutely ridiculous that you posted "simple=/=right." Nobody is confused by this and I think if you're honest with yourself, you already know that.

The self-serving behavior is a two-way street. Advertisers do not care, in fact they love it, when their ads steal focus. It's sort of the point. Content creators who allow intrusive ads do not care about their content being overridden with advertisements, despite there being other options. Users do not care to see advertisements that take away from their end experience. AdBlock is a tool that allows users freedom to create their own experience. I feel about as guilty as blocking pop-up ads as I feel guilty about turning down the radio when commericals play, or using commercial breaks as bathroom/snack gettin' time. Which is to say not in the slightest. Sites that have proven they can not force intrusive ads get unblocked.

 

[Kamina]

He really got dragged into the unprofessional there.

I personally dont use adblock because ads tend to develop faster than i could update.
most ads dont even disturb me, neither do 30 sec ads before videos. The only types of ads that annoy me are video-ads somewhere on the borders of a site, that randomly start playing on their own or when you accidentally hover over them with your mouse and scare the shit out of me when they suddenly make loud noises while i am reading something.

 

[Parakeetman]

Holding up GAF as some shining example of a website doing ads right is a joke; the site doesn't have any staff and it goes down all the time.

I do hope you are joking? Considering that EviLore and Gromph are on the watch a lot for any sort of technical related issues and generally quick to answer questions / provide updates on the situation if it indeed is a serious issue.

In the past it involved intrusive type of ads for one example related to the topic.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=694537

A more recent problem was folks getting 408 timeouts with the site which was also fixed by Gromph.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=801522

 

[Joe_Incognito]

Question:

Do you suppose that Pacther's rant about Adblock is some how connected to rumored financial troubles at Game Trailers?

On the subject of Adblock I never use it on sites I support. Great content doesn't grow on trees. If the sites we enjoy cannot produce revenue all we will have left are soulless, evil corporate sites staffed by brainless shills. A lack of an independent voice would actually harm the industry and the quality of gaming as a whole.

 

[UrbanRats]

The biggest issues with the ads for me are these:
1. Completely paralyzing a site because of an ad. Had this happen a lot, the ad site for whatever reason isn't responding, so I sit there staring at a blank or near blank page because the ad must load in first before the rest of the page.
2. Slowing the site to a crawl because of an ad. Much like the previous one, but this time the ad works, but is so processing intensive that the whole browser slows down to the point it seems locked up.
3. Ads that use audio automatically. Have run into lots of these, many that will interfere with audio from the page's proper contents.
4. Downright malicious ads. The hackers are out there, and I've encountered corrupted ads on nearly every one of the sites I've been too that uses one of the general ad services.
5. Ads that insist on auto redirecting, or popping new windows with focus. The auto redirecting ones are the worst, but the window poppers are nearly as bad. I went to this page for a reason, and it wasn't to see your stupid ad. The moment you make your ad steal my control, I will remember you, but not in a good way. In fact, I will hate your product.

These are all true in my experience, aswell.

Matter of fact there's an ad with audio on GAF lately that is a bit annoying, but luckily can be paused and muted.

 

[Auto-Reply]

I've always found it to be very risky to base an ecconomy/your income on something that is so easily blocked out (internet ads). It may be true that 'if everyone uses adblock a lot of stuff wont be around anymore' but turning this into a question of morals is going way too far imo.

 

[Terrified]

I think it absolutely ridiculous that you posted "simple=/=right." Nobody is confused by this and I think if you're honest with yourself, you already know that.

The self-serving behavior is a two-way street. Advertisers do not care, in fact they love it, when their ads steal focus. It's sort of the point. Content creators who allow intrusive ads do not care about their content being overridden with advertisements, despite there being other options. Users do not care to see advertisements that take away from their end experience. AdBlock is a tool that allows users freedom to create their own experience. I feel about as guilty as blocking pop-up ads as I feel guilty about turning down the radio when commericals play, or using commercial breaks as bathroom/snack gettin' time. Which is to say not in the slightest. Sites that have proven they can not force intrusive ads get unblocked.

I don't think it's that clear cut. There's two, really easy solutions being provided to the "ads are too intrusive" problem:

1 - Don't visit the site.
2 - Download and install adblocker, and set it up to stop those ads.

2 is more complex and more work for the end user, but it's the one that several people in this thread alone are suggesting it's the simple solution. It boils down to the fact that one way or another, they want the content being provided. If they didn't, they just wouldn't visit the site. You're right in that there's no confusion - there's just a lot of really odd justification being used that 2 is as simple and as correct as 1.

Again - if you want the content, there has to be a way for it to be paid for. If you disagree with that way, don't view the content. The "end experience" isn't the consumer's to own - it's the creator's. If you disagree with the way it's presented to you, don't use it, or make your position clear to the creator. Whilst adblock definitely achieves the latter, it does so in a very harmful way.

I've already covered your second point - those ads work in very different ways. It's not the same.

 

[Yagharek]

The same could be said of using adblock. If people continue to use it whilst knowing that they're denying content creators payment for content they're consuming, despite repeated attempts by people to explain that that's the case, that's also wilful ignorance.

Nice blanket statement. People could be using adblock for a variety of reasons: computer performance, security issues, privacy issues.

A compromise version of adblock might be to instead install it and then have it ask you individually confirm if you want to enable it on each site as you visit them. That way every site has to be manually added and must be on their 'best behaviour' if they want that ad revenue.

But as it stands, it is and always has been the advertisers leading the charge of obnoxiousness, so I feel no sympathy if sites use intrusive ads then cry foul when their revenue from it falls off a cliff.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Call me again when ads are not intrusive or can contain malware, until then you cant bitch about people who use ad block.

 

[Parakeetman]

These are all true in my experience, aswell.

Matter of fact there's an ad with audio on GAF lately that is a bit annoying, but luckily can be paused and muted.

You should make a thread on it with info or just PM EviLore with a write up on the ad + issue.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=694537

EviLore's response in that thread.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85486843&postcount=16