Someone didn't ride in a car taking pictures of the world and routing it all for fun. Google Maps was very expensive. And the world is much better for it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pachter talks about AdBlock
- Thread starter DarkoMaledictus
- Start date
Someone didn't ride in a car taking pictures of the world and routing it all for fun. Google Maps was very expensive. And the world is much better for it.
Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me (unless you have ad-block).
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Then people who use Adblock on neogaf should say they do and see what happens.
It's a chilling effect either way whether it is policy or not. Why would anyone risk it?
LordBaztion
Member
Got to love Pach.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
I use ad block because of sites like IGN. He should be mad at them and the ad makers for being so utterly obnoxious. Maybe my ABP is out of date but it doesn't even really work for IGN. the ads are still irritating as all hell. And no I don't care if IGN goes away forever (not that I think they're about to). I am a leeching "scum" of their content and I don't care. Deal with it.
I have it turned off now for Neogaf and Gamespot and cheapassgamer are also on my allow list and it looks like that's it for gaming. Everything else is blocked.
I have it turned off now for Neogaf and Gamespot and cheapassgamer are also on my allow list and it looks like that's it for gaming. Everything else is blocked.
Beelzebufo
Banned
I don't use AdBlock, but I'll avoid a site if the ads are bad enough. IGNs shifting space to force you to click on the ads is probably the most annoying. I hate when the weekly as on Blip is something like the verizon one a while back. That one didn't load properly on my computer and I had to hit two slow loading exit buttons while an annoying jingle played in the background. I think that might have actually convinced me to never buy a verizon product.
OminoMichelin
Member
You mean when internet content providers had no busines model and thus tended to fail very easily? Yeah, those were the times.
I think that all that is needed is a solid customer protection policy on ads.
Browsing the internet while using windows is like walking on a minefield with a huge magnet strapped on your chest. Plus, it's annoying. I appreciate the effort to keep gaf clean of dangerous ads, and I wish every site did the same.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
There's no possible way to accept the fact that popup blockers are a normal, integrated, on-by-default, accepted, and liked part of web browsers while simultaneously not understanding what drives people to use Adblock.
Web advertising existed since the mid-90s. Pop-ups began to be a form of advertising. People put up with them. Circa 2000-2002, half the websites on the internet had pop-ups of the X-10 spy cam ("Spy on your babysitter!"). You don't believe me? "In 2001, X10 was receiving more hits than Amazon and eBay, due to its use of pop-under advertising." This is literally the reason why popup blockers exist, this one product. Pop-ups drove people nuts. Some browsers integrated pop-up blockers. Advertisers tried pop-unders and other methods to maintain the same level of intrusiveness while annoying the user a little less. Now all browsers have pop-up blockers. There's nothing magical about pop-ups that differentiate them from full-page ads that need to be closed to get to content; the fact that they're in another window is not a great moral transgression. They're just a particularly annoying form of ad. Browsers were right to integrate popup blockers. It's telling that we've moved to a post-popup society and no one is complaining. No one in this thread is talking about the tyranny of Mozilla, depriving legitimate business owners of the revenue they deserve by stealing from them in protest of the inevitable. Instead, people accept that popups were annoying and that they at some point got too annoying, and so we responded appropriately.
Circa the mid 2000s, advertising began using persistent forms of tracking to target ads across multiple sites and multiple sessions. In response to the privacy concerns associated with this, several browsers developed a standard called Do-Not-Track, which sends a command to servers asking them not to track. Some advertisers respect this, by far the majority do not. People are saying they're willing to see ads, but not be tracked. Advertisers don't care.
Ads now routinely use flash and javascript, often use sound, frequently steal focus, often take a mouseover as an invitation to expand over the site as a whole, are quite often longer than the content people are trying to see, are the #1 vector for malware, when they don't have malware frequently have NSFW or frankly disgusting content, promote sham medicine, fraudulently sell get-rich quick schemes. And this is in a world where most browsing is now done in bandwidth-limited contexts, in comparison to the bandwidth-unlimited contexts of the early 2000s. The kind of stuff you see on a typical site is much worse than the X-10 spy cam ever was. X-10, by the way, is bankrupt.
Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker out there, voluntarily allows non-intrusive ads by default and offers a set of standards for non-intrusive ads. Advertisers ignore it and are non-compliant, because they make more money maximizing annoyance and the "cost" of people using adblockers isn't felt by advertisers, but rather by content sites. It's the perfect zero-responsibility situation for advertisers. Consumers put up with garbage, content producers take the revenue hit if consumers won't put up with garbage, advertisers get to lower CPM and CPI year after year, and no one holds them accountable for their practices.
Reap the wind, sow the whirlwind.
Web advertising existed since the mid-90s. Pop-ups began to be a form of advertising. People put up with them. Circa 2000-2002, half the websites on the internet had pop-ups of the X-10 spy cam ("Spy on your babysitter!"). You don't believe me? "In 2001, X10 was receiving more hits than Amazon and eBay, due to its use of pop-under advertising." This is literally the reason why popup blockers exist, this one product. Pop-ups drove people nuts. Some browsers integrated pop-up blockers. Advertisers tried pop-unders and other methods to maintain the same level of intrusiveness while annoying the user a little less. Now all browsers have pop-up blockers. There's nothing magical about pop-ups that differentiate them from full-page ads that need to be closed to get to content; the fact that they're in another window is not a great moral transgression. They're just a particularly annoying form of ad. Browsers were right to integrate popup blockers. It's telling that we've moved to a post-popup society and no one is complaining. No one in this thread is talking about the tyranny of Mozilla, depriving legitimate business owners of the revenue they deserve by stealing from them in protest of the inevitable. Instead, people accept that popups were annoying and that they at some point got too annoying, and so we responded appropriately.
Circa the mid 2000s, advertising began using persistent forms of tracking to target ads across multiple sites and multiple sessions. In response to the privacy concerns associated with this, several browsers developed a standard called Do-Not-Track, which sends a command to servers asking them not to track. Some advertisers respect this, by far the majority do not. People are saying they're willing to see ads, but not be tracked. Advertisers don't care.
Ads now routinely use flash and javascript, often use sound, frequently steal focus, often take a mouseover as an invitation to expand over the site as a whole, are quite often longer than the content people are trying to see, are the #1 vector for malware, when they don't have malware frequently have NSFW or frankly disgusting content, promote sham medicine, fraudulently sell get-rich quick schemes. And this is in a world where most browsing is now done in bandwidth-limited contexts, in comparison to the bandwidth-unlimited contexts of the early 2000s. The kind of stuff you see on a typical site is much worse than the X-10 spy cam ever was. X-10, by the way, is bankrupt.
Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker out there, voluntarily allows non-intrusive ads by default and offers a set of standards for non-intrusive ads. Advertisers ignore it and are non-compliant, because they make more money maximizing annoyance and the "cost" of people using adblockers isn't felt by advertisers, but rather by content sites. It's the perfect zero-responsibility situation for advertisers. Consumers put up with garbage, content producers take the revenue hit if consumers won't put up with garbage, advertisers get to lower CPM and CPI year after year, and no one holds them accountable for their practices.
Reap the wind, sow the whirlwind.
That Banksy quote is full of win. It's about time people understand we don'owe anything to corporations, let alone marketers.
I whitelisted GAF because I chose to, it's not like they check every single user to see if they're using AdBlock or not, I could've kept it and lied about it. The effect would've been the same.
I don't use AdBlock on every site, I whitelist non-commercial sites which use ads to sustain themselves, especially if they ask kindly, for example: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Pachter though, with his arrogance and entitlement (oh look, it's fun to use the word when it's not unjustly referred to gamers), just assured that I never even try again to whitelist GT.
I whitelisted GAF because I chose to, it's not like they check every single user to see if they're using AdBlock or not, I could've kept it and lied about it. The effect would've been the same.
I don't use AdBlock on every site, I whitelist non-commercial sites which use ads to sustain themselves, especially if they ask kindly, for example: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Pachter though, with his arrogance and entitlement (oh look, it's fun to use the word when it's not unjustly referred to gamers), just assured that I never even try again to whitelist GT.
Alcoholikaust
Member
I don't want to waste time waiting for ad sites and analytics sites to send me their garbage before I can get my content.
If you're going to serve ads, make sure they are integrated fully with the page you're serving, and that they come from the same server, not a 3rd party one with potentially more lag. Yeah, I know. It's inconvenient. I don't care.
Furthermore, make sure the ads are static, small and unobtrusive and that they aren't dishonest or evil.
And then people won't feel the need for adblock. Evil and/or arrogant advertiseing companies are the ones ruining it for everybody else, NOT adblock users.
It's self-defense...
If you're going to serve ads, make sure they are integrated fully with the page you're serving, and that they come from the same server, not a 3rd party one with potentially more lag. Yeah, I know. It's inconvenient. I don't care.
Furthermore, make sure the ads are static, small and unobtrusive and that they aren't dishonest or evil.
And then people won't feel the need for adblock. Evil and/or arrogant advertiseing companies are the ones ruining it for everybody else, NOT adblock users.
It's self-defense...
I started doing that after watching that Jim Sterling video.
Don't Laugh
Banned
I never really visit IGN but I decided to this time to see what the ads were like:
Yeah, this is the exact sort of thing I normally try to block out.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
One should be proud to block shit like that... that's the sole reason ad blocker came into existence!
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
I did not know about it 3 months ago... thanks to Patchter a huge portion of their install base now does... really smart show...
SeventhSon
Member
This is the perfect rebuttal to Pachter. Thank you!
Chinbo37
Member
I swear by adblock. I didnt know it was against the rules on GAF and I just turned it off for this site only.
If sites want to stop people from using it then make it mandatory and inform people that when they sign up. I imagine that would stop a lot of people from going to some sites. GAF is an exception because it is hte best gaming forum so no biggie for me, but for other sites I would just stop going it I had to watch the ads.
What people dont understand it that advertisments and marketing will NEVER NEVER stop. As soon as you accept ads on webpages the ads get bigger and more intrusive, I cannot even imagine where it is heading but its not getting better, trust me.
Content creaters are free to monitze their product as they wish, just as I am free to use legal means to not subject myself to such monitization.
If sites want to stop people from using it then make it mandatory and inform people that when they sign up. I imagine that would stop a lot of people from going to some sites. GAF is an exception because it is hte best gaming forum so no biggie for me, but for other sites I would just stop going it I had to watch the ads.
What people dont understand it that advertisments and marketing will NEVER NEVER stop. As soon as you accept ads on webpages the ads get bigger and more intrusive, I cannot even imagine where it is heading but its not getting better, trust me.
Content creaters are free to monitze their product as they wish, just as I am free to use legal means to not subject myself to such monitization.
The BBC as a whole gets a lot of money from ads, directly and indirectly.
If an ad moves or sings then I pretty much never bother going to the site. I haven't seen IGN in years.
Also, those ads for mobile games and MMOs (Like this animated or not. I don't need that stuff popping up when I'm in the office pretending to work, thank you. If they used a more undertoned ad I would be more likely to visit the site they're advertising on.
I don't bother downloading ad block, I just go to sites I trust.
Also, those ads for mobile games and MMOs (Like this animated or not. I don't need that stuff popping up when I'm in the office pretending to work, thank you. If they used a more undertoned ad I would be more likely to visit the site they're advertising on.
I don't bother downloading ad block, I just go to sites I trust.
... The whole gaf gold thing is a joke
Stormwatch
Member
I think one big difference with GAF is that the ads on GAF don't ruin your experience with the website. If you go to IGN or CNN or Break.com and take a look at the page with ads on and then with ads off it is night and day. But GAF just has a banner at the top and bottom of the page. GAF didn't drive me to want to use adblock, hence I don't use it here. It was those other pages that essentially screamed "HEY...LOOK OVER HERE!!!!!!!!!" in every single corner of the webpage that made me want to use it. I've been tricked by certain websites into clicking ads as well. That feels to me like it is immoral. Way more immoral that blocking the ads on the website.
Huh? I was just addressing Pachter's point about needing professional reviews so one knows what to buy. He says we need professional reviews but I'd rather listen to the general consensus of GAF (in fact he snorted at the idea of listening to user reviews) so that bit of scaremongering by him basically washed over me. My point isn't really about the use of ad blocker or not.
Whose purpose just seems to be a self acknowledgement that their opinion is correct. Those interested in reviews tend to already be invested in the game so have already made up their mind that they are going to get it and just want that opinion justified. Thing is if the reviews are poor they will dismiss them as wrong and continue having their same opinion as before (see Uncharted 3 for an infamous example of this). Those lttp will often say they heard good things about it from GAF rather than reviews so it does seem the general GAF populace does put more weighting on GAF opinion than professional opinion.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Too bad such a fine post will never reach a majority of people compared to the rants of a Pachter and other pro-advertising and pro-companies people who don't give a damn about me and you.
Thanks for this.
Looking at that IGN page, I have absolutely no feeling of shame blocking such bullshit (I don't even visit IGN anymore as adblock can't block the shitty content), while also being more than happy to whitelist websites that use ads in a way neogaf does while also enabling the option of non intrusive ads.
Nobody has problems with normal ads. Everyone hates stuff thrown directly in your face all the time.
Just use googles way of displaying ads, I think they make more than a pretty 'decent' profit this way. Never have I seen anyone complain about Google ads.
Adblock is a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem. In a perfect world, people would use Ad-block as a discretionary tool. If they don't like the ads on a website, they'll block them after the fact, and hopefully the site will change their ad policy. In the real world, AdBlock stays on and few people bother to be inconvenienced by turning off their adblocker, checking to see if a site has ethical ads, then whitelists the site. If the problem is intrusive ads, the solution should be to address intrusive ads. Not all ads. Some sites do ethical advertising, and are punished just as much as intrusive-ad sites. How can a system of delivery of ethical ads flourish if it is being punished just the same?
Petrae
Member
We'll eventually see a culling of gaming press sites as ad revenue sinks. Some will try the subscription route, but ultimately we'll be left with a couple of pro sites. Aside from running advertorial content, there really aren't any other monetization options, and cost of running a site with paid staff and updated equipment will outrun these smaller revenue streams.
People will make choices as to which pro sites survive, and not everyone will make the cut. That doesn't mean that it all goes away, of course; it just means that choices will be more limited and some people will be finding new lines of work.
Perhaps, though, this culling is needed. After all, if viewers just want conduits to see content from the latest games (such as yourself), do we really need a ton of different websites that all pretty much say the same thing?
SyntheCypher
Member
The amount of times I've sat through an Ad on Gametrailers only for it to finish and the video I'm interested in fails to play because of their shitty player/site/everything. I've also stopped watching GT because of the decline in decent editorial material in favour of "I am random guy, watch me attempt to be funny, and spout my opinions about vidya games and stuff".
AdBlock Plus said:
Advertisers simply don't want to play by their rules.
Enter the Konami code with return as start
Yes, I'm aware of the similarities with piracy. Just like piracy, people blocking ads are unhappy with the current model and are doing what they can to say so. The difference is, one of these is against the law and generally considered unethical, whereas the other is neither.
s_mirage
Member
For the security conscious, even sites like GAF can be a problem for a reason that hasn't been mentioned so far. If a viewer is using something like NoScript as well as Adblock, it is insufficient to simply whitelist the site being visited. To even get the majority of the ads on GAF to appear, not only does it have to be whitelisted in Adblock but a whole chain of sites need to be allowed in NoScript. This has security implications for visiting all sites, not just the site you want to support. Some sites end up with Javascript code coming from two dozen or more external domains. Personally I find that a tad disturbing.
This whole thing would be less of a problem with greater oversight and therefore more trust of adhosts. I don't know, maybe if adhosts were fined something like $10000 for each individual malware infection, it would help restore trust in them.
This whole thing would be less of a problem with greater oversight and therefore more trust of adhosts. I don't know, maybe if adhosts were fined something like $10000 for each individual malware infection, it would help restore trust in them.
Well, that's a step in the right direction. According to downloads, most people use "Adblock" instead of "AdBlock Plus", though. But this is the way to go, for sure. I do wonder about sites that need video ads to pay for the tremendous amount of bandwidth for their service - like Twitch or Youtube, etc.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I wonder if I can talk to a programmer about making a paid "PachBlock" Chrome extension. We'd make bomb.
MesserWolf
Member
Nice summary.
DecoyOctopus
Member
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Not liking the ads on ign but still going to the web site is like some sick joke.
That's something I have noticed when whitelisting websites on Adblock. When I tried whitelisting The Escapist none of the ads loaded because I block advertising trackers. Targeted advertising based on my purchases and sites visited is something I will NEVER be comfortable with.
Ultimately to support websites you need to compromise your own computer security and privacy. There's really no easy solution for users and content providers alike.
Aquamarine
Member
Google does, and that is why Google is largely unaffected by Adblock Plus's 30+ million regular users.
Handy Fake
Member
Articulate and elegantly-crafted bitchslap, right here.
now i feel dumb
Worth repeating.
Are you serious? Do you think the British public want to be forced to pay more?
BBC do make money from ads too, by the way.
BolognaSoup
Member
Does he honestly expect us to believe he sits at home and watches all the commercials on his DVR? I listen to about 12 podcasts on a fairly regular basis and the ONLY one I ever listen to the ads for and don't hit the skip forward button in Downcast is GiantBomb because they actually make them funny and interesting.
Aquamarine
Member
According to Adblock Plus's survey, 21% of people uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" default box.
That's a massive amount of revenue that is given up by not complying with Adblock Plus's built-in whitelist guidelines.
That's a massive amount of revenue that is given up by not complying with Adblock Plus's built-in whitelist guidelines.
Arkage
Banned
While these are good explanations for why ad revenue is dropping, it doesn't negate the fact that people are still consuming the site content while intentionally refusing to give them revenue for the content. It's essentially the same argument made for piracy due to DRM: "DRM is too intrusive, if you get rid of it there'd be no piracy!" which as most people admit is hardly the case. The vast majority of pirates want free shit, plain and simple, regardless of any levels of "intrusiveness" a piece of software may have, and the same could be said for adblockers. The argument seems to be that piracy and adblockers are immoral except, of course, when you can somehow justify it; this is hardly a convincing argument, especially when it concerns such superfluous things as media/entertainment products. The moral choice for the consumer is still based upon whether or not to consume the content of a sight, and if they do, to abide by the site's methods for ad revenue. If you don't like the ads, the moral choice is to not go to the site. The huge website splash pages were arguably invented to bring in extra funds that the website needs, and that tiny ads just aren't paying enough unless you have tons of them on every page, which nobody wants either.
This whole "let's fight the man while consuming the man's content" mindset is ridiculous.