Jon Armdog
Member
I love this, and will totally steal it for use in later conversations.
The Verge: The internet is dying a slow death because of ad blockers
- Thread starter Wreav
- Start date
- Status
I love this, and will totally steal it for use in later conversations.
Frustrated_me
Member
I took this before-and-after screenshot of The Verge without adblock (left) and with adblock (right). Without adblock you can't even read the homepage at all.
I mean, wow.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Bingo!
I don't mind small ads like those in NeoGAF but The Verge, IGN many other sites use ads poorly that discourage anyone from visiting them again.
I did. And I bet I'm not the only one.
Although I do unblock some sites that I enjoy. However, other than those few sites, yes I would prefer to never see an ad.
The subscription model was already tried on the Internet for content and it failed. Salon.com use to be a good source of news when it had a subscription model but it didn't work and now it's a crap site with click bate pandering stories. Apple is just pushing people towards their sandbox app adds since they couldn't compete in the open with Google.
Kill Your Masters
Member
I whitelist pages i frequent.
Plus adblock has the option to allow unobtrusive ads like google ads etc which I enable.
Also advertisers can go fuck themselves for annoying full page mobile ads with a super tiny close button and pop ups that want to install apps that will clean my infected system and then install a bunch of crapware and malware.
If you are going to be an asshole about how you "advertise" to me, so will I with how I block you.
Plus adblock has the option to allow unobtrusive ads like google ads etc which I enable.
Also advertisers can go fuck themselves for annoying full page mobile ads with a super tiny close button and pop ups that want to install apps that will clean my infected system and then install a bunch of crapware and malware.
If you are going to be an asshole about how you "advertise" to me, so will I with how I block you.
Yep, as others have said already, Adblockers only exist because websites are plagued by intrusive, annoying ads that end up making it difficult to actually use the websites to consume content. I'll be reading an article and all of a sudden a shark busts through the webpage and covers the screen in garbage and I have to hunt around for their intentionally well hidden X button just so I can read the damn article. It's stupid and they still do it.
Banners on the tops and sides of the website are completely fine. I still see those and occasionally I will click them if there is something interesting there.
Banners on the tops and sides of the website are completely fine. I still see those and occasionally I will click them if there is something interesting there.
Already do. I pay for my news. (Both with an online subscription to a newspaper as well as my TV licence fee.) Journalism being free from advertising influence is incredibly important to me. If you believe that a new site offers good, unbiased reporting you should absolutely support them in order to keep their editorial decisions aimed to inform the readers (reporting) rather than please the advertisers (clickbait).
Well, I'm not sure about the figures. Part of the problem is that, just like mobile video games, there's so much content that the value has been driven to zero. if you can't find a niche and produce content that's valuable to someone then it's hard to argue that you should be paid, you know?
Of course, people who do produce good content will just have it stolen or whatnot, so I realise there's a huge problem there... I don't have the answers for smaller sites but I strongly dislike the concept of advertising being the dominant source of revenue for multiple reasons.
Actually that is somewhat how Google runs its content network. Advertisers have to follow guidelines to submit their ads to Google's network, and the ad publishers can control the type of ads that are displayed on their websites. Publishers can also block ads from appearing on their website from their Adsense manager, either by-ad individually or by the network publishing the ad. Not everyone is like that though, which is where the overlay ads, auto-playing videos, etc. run amok. I have only had one problem with Google's managed ad network, and that was last year when they let an ad through that redirected to another website.
The large websites that bombard their users with excessive advertisements, resulting in an increase of adblock users, which then just becomes more aggressive ad tactics from the website side, is affecting those who do play by the rules. On my own site, I have two banners, top and bottom, and that's all; it is to help compensate me for the time I spend every week, year after year, creating free content and information for others to enjoy. Unfortunately because of the terrible activities of other websites, many of my own users have opted to use adblocking options, which has decreased my own revenue. I can't really blame them, as I'd do the same thing if I had to deal with what is going on, so all I can do is move forward and hope that something changes.
Last year I had a user contact me and state that my site was really awesome and why I don't monitize it. I had to reply and tell her that I do, but she's blocking the ads. She responded with an "oh
". It may not seem fair, but I don't have the right to tell her how she can experience the internet. I counted 13 ads on one page on a site I was visiting last week, which is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. That's just a flat-out abuse of the internet and its userbase.Vincent Grayson
Member
The thing to take away from this is simple: many people can and will take the free option, regardless of ethical or legal implications. It's just a simple reality that if there's a way to get a thing free, people will take it.
Not all people will, of course, so the question becomes: how do I get money from those people?
You can't change the nature of consumers to seek the best deal, so you've got to find a way to offer them a good enough deal or set of features that comes with some kind of payment, or you're fucked. Obviously ads all over the page are proving to not be that thing.
I don't know what that thing will end up being, but I can speak for myself and say that I'm one of those "if I can get it free, I will"-type people, and the web content I find myself willing to pay for is pretty much exclusively on sites that offer a ton of content I enjoy at the low, low cost of $0, but then also offer *more* content for a premium price. If that price is right, I'll happily pay it.
Case in point: GiantBomb. They put out a boatload of free content on a regular basis, including their podcast which is what got me hooked in the first place. They've also got fantastic premium content though, and I'm happy to shell out money for it both for the content itself and to support a site I like.
But that's just one site, and I certainly couldn't afford to and wouldn't be willing to pay that premium on every site I enjoy, regardless of content offered.
You are KILLING the web.Mobile ads have gotten ridiculous with all of the full-page takeovers, redirects, popups and whatnot. It's about time we're able to block them. The publishers did this to themselves.
I took this before-and-after screenshot of The Verge without adblock (left) and with adblock (right). Without adblock you can't even read the homepage at all.
So Apple is driving a knife into google's ad revenue, even though google chrome has supported ad blockers for years?
Ad platforms need to get their shit sorted out. Ads need to get lighter, and need to stop being 57 redirects to serve one banner ad. Maybe work with browser developers and come up with some way to do all that shit on your own backend and just serve up a light banner wih one or two calls.
Ad platforms need to get their shit sorted out. Ads need to get lighter, and need to stop being 57 redirects to serve one banner ad. Maybe work with browser developers and come up with some way to do all that shit on your own backend and just serve up a light banner wih one or two calls.
Not on mobile though, sadly.
jimbobsmells
Member
That article was so salty it's unbelievable. They did it to themselves with overly intrusive adverts. If they kept it subtle and didn't let get in the way of user experience then I'm sure many people would not bother blocking them.
I've installed an ad blocker on my phone now (of course neogaf is white listed) and the difference it makes is fantastic.
I've installed an ad blocker on my phone now (of course neogaf is white listed) and the difference it makes is fantastic.
Bluekaveli
Member
I don't feel sorry at all
mhayes86
Member
I don't mind them for the most part, either, especially the ones that allow you to skip after 5 seconds. However, it's unbearable to be forced to sit through an ad in HD while stuck in a 3G area on your phone, and more so when you're trying to watch a minute long video (trailer or such), but you're stuck loading a 30 second ad (longer with a bad connection). As a result, there's some channels
(IGN)
Even if ads didn't pop up or make sound or install malware, I'm pretty sure most people here would still block them if it was possible. I agree with all the good reasons why ads can be harmful, but I just don't believe the majority of you are that noble . Any ad that makes an effort to get your attention will get blocked by most in the know
That said we do need some ad regulation. The fact that an ad can take over my computer is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if it's the ad or the fact the browser actually supports this possibility, but it's ridiculous. Shit auto installing toolbars, super aggressive tracking, malware, pop ups that can be hard to regain control of the browser.... Just as insane as ad blocking to web owners
But you would still block them even if that was fixed, and you know it
. Any ad that makes an effort to get your attention will get blocked by most in the know That said we do need some ad regulation. The fact that an ad can take over my computer is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if it's the ad or the fact the browser actually supports this possibility, but it's ridiculous. Shit auto installing toolbars, super aggressive tracking, malware, pop ups that can be hard to regain control of the browser.... Just as insane as ad blocking to web owners
But you would still block them even if that was fixed, and you know it
UncleSporky
Member
Seriously though, I want to see the evidence.
I thought the average person was generally kind of dumb and unable to install ad blockers, or simply ignorant of them.
How much less money have major websites made this year compared to last?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Absolutely. And what sucks is they're often the last thing to load so by the time I'm on the second or third paragraph of the article I'm reading it finally pops up. (I'm talking about YOU Ars technica)
bingo - the ad industry poisoned the well with this garbage
People have proved willing to pay to subscribe to the more elaborate forms of media (i.e movies, music, tv shows) and advertisers are supporting short form video adequately (youtube and even vine!). Games have evolved back to their arcade roots to make money via F2P mechanisms with side support from advertisers.
Advertises seem not able to support text (articles, reviews, editorials) or text+pictures (comic strips) though. Are people willing to pay for that stuff? Maybe not?
Advertises seem not able to support text (articles, reviews, editorials) or text+pictures (comic strips) though. Are people willing to pay for that stuff? Maybe not?
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
I installed ad blockers out of necessity as my older systems are choking under all that computational workload it takes to even display ads these days.
If I needed any more evidence that I shouldn't trust those processes running, it was the marked increase in their computational overhead.
WTF are you doing? Blocked.
If I needed any more evidence that I shouldn't trust those processes running, it was the marked increase in their computational overhead.
WTF are you doing? Blocked.
Yeah but when Apple does it for you and the consumers don't even have to do anything, you've removed the threshold that kept the ignorant away from ad blockers.
Warm Machine
Member
I'd guess sites like The Verge or Engadget or Gizmodo or the vast majority of PC game sites have a much higher clientele who use ad blockers due to the tech savvy of who they are serving.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
A million times this. If ads are this intrusive and damaging to my PC, then I'd prefer to not see them, thanks.
How much control does a website have over what ads, or at least what type of ads show up?
Christoff Yurievich
Member
Went to The Washington Post web page the other day and it said you can only read this article if you turn off adblock. Ha, guess it's not that important of an article to me after all.
I was just thinking about how part of why I dislike current subscription models is because it ends up being $5 here, $10 there, $7 there, etc. I wonder why no one has come up with some kind of universal subscription site, where you can manage/pay all your subscriptions in one place (and just charge like 2% of the fee or something). Something like that would encourage me to subscribe to more places, knowing I could see all my subscriptions and payments in one place.
hobblygobbly
Member
It's not just the amount of ads. They put so many ads on the site that it slows it down and results in megabytes being downloaded when you load the site. Cache helps a lot with it but it's often that it only minimises half the amount.
Ads make very little money so they need to bombard as much as they can. I'd way prefer an affordable subscription model on the Internet - it would make it a lot more competitive as well. A lot of sites that simply rely on page hits will struggle to cope with sites that have a strong sense of followship/community (i.e regular visitors). Youtube is also very annoying with ads, it's not uncommon to get minutes long ads. I've heard even twitch streamers say that a single $5 subscription for 1 month provides them with more money than if you had to see an ad every daily cast they did a year. So if you had to sub only once a year you'll be benefitting them more than seeing an ad when you open the stream each time for a year. I personally don't mind subbing to regular sites I visit, I do/have done it for sites/forums to keep them running in the past and not relying on ads.
Fortunately consumer protection laws in most countries allow anyone to not be marketed/advertised to if they so wish.
Ads make very little money so they need to bombard as much as they can. I'd way prefer an affordable subscription model on the Internet - it would make it a lot more competitive as well. A lot of sites that simply rely on page hits will struggle to cope with sites that have a strong sense of followship/community (i.e regular visitors). Youtube is also very annoying with ads, it's not uncommon to get minutes long ads. I've heard even twitch streamers say that a single $5 subscription for 1 month provides them with more money than if you had to see an ad every daily cast they did a year. So if you had to sub only once a year you'll be benefitting them more than seeing an ad when you open the stream each time for a year. I personally don't mind subbing to regular sites I visit, I do/have done it for sites/forums to keep them running in the past and not relying on ads.
Fortunately consumer protection laws in most countries allow anyone to not be marketed/advertised to if they so wish.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Pretty much. Emphasis on bolded part.
This kinda like saying it's ok that you illegally streamed music of movies because ... how much money was really lost when most people buy it? Not a good argument
He even mentions this in the article, then proceeds to ignore it. What a douche.
Interfectum
Member
Ads are out of control and it was only a matter of time before it came to a head. iOS9 has just shined a massive light on the issue because everyday people can see what the web is like without intrusive, bullshit ads.
ldcommando
Banned
only gaffers dont use adblock
It really is as simple as this. I'm also looking for an addon that disables those annoying "SUBSCRIBE TO OUR EMAIL" popups that happen everytime. It's fucking annoying.
I have no mind to disable ad block on non-intrusive sites. Hell sometimes I hear about games via certain web banner ads, not very often but it has happened and can be a reminder to games near release or already released.
There are some sites I avoid entirely because adblock doesn't work and they play video with audio on. How fucking dumb.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
This will never happen because ad makers think they're creating art or some shit (also the value of ads comes from the way they work as software, not the old fashioned "deliver a message to people's eyeballs" way), but if you just went back to static banners, or even text blurbs, I'd stop blocking ads. Put them in the middle of the fucking article I'm reading, I don't care. Just don't cover up what I'm doing, don't try to take a single second of my time away of from me with video bullshit.
I don't even mind all the stupid clickbait ads interspersed with a web site's content because I can easily ignore it and filter it with my brain. No software needed.
I don't even mind all the stupid clickbait ads interspersed with a web site's content because I can easily ignore it and filter it with my brain. No software needed.
QuantumZebra
Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maninthemirror
Banned
Gaffers whitelist Gaf because I dont see a full page on here of intel ads.
I want to see the Content and notice the Ad rather than See the Ad and notice the content
UncleSporky
Member
No, it's like saying that music piracy is killing the music industry, and then failing to demonstrate that the music industry is actually dying.
It's not about me, it's about the article. If you make a claim you back it up with evidence. if the internet is dying because sites are slowly losing more and more revenue to ad blockers, then prove it.
Yeah, it's an uncomfortable situation for users. I don't block ads since I want to contribute to the revenue of a site I like, but ads have been evolving into something I'm not very comfortable with. Not only am I being tracked, ads also play sound or movies when hovering over them (which easily happens while scrolling), or appear in a pop-out window that has to be closed, or are designed to look like the actual editorial content of the site. They actively make reading articles uncomfortable. One site I get my daily news from probably thought that an ad they were running – a video that made noise when hovering – was a bit too much, gave it a timer to disappear after 15 seconds or something. When it disappeared, it folded like a curtain and dragged the rest of the page content along with it.
I mean, fuck. I don't blame anyone for wanting to focus on reading the content instead of being sidetracked by all that visual noise, even if they block the ads to do so. At the same time, there needs to be some way for content creators to get paid so I understand the dilemma. And thus we get to ...
This is a great point, and I'll add Twitch/general streaming subscriptions to this. I'm not sure how sustainable it is for all content to be created through Patreon or whatnot, but it really shows that there are ways to make Internet users pay for content that they like.
If ad revenue is drying up (and apparently it isn't? I dunno) that's clearly not the way to go, though, and no amount of complaining about the blockers will change that tide.
PS! The Shape of Design is a fantastic example of a book, funded through Kickstarter and made available for everyone. Great content, great design, no ads, just pure and wonderful reading. Free for everyone.
Matthew Butterick also has a web book experiment running, and talks about his experience with paying users after year one, and year two.
RPG_Fanatic
Member
This is all that needs to be said.
Randomizer123454444
Member
When I open Neogaf (front page of this thread), Ghostery sees 66 (!!!!) different trackers. NyTimes.com sees 11, and those are some of the sites I trust. When I open a web page, video ad starts playing automatically. I move my mouse to select a different part of the page, my mouse moves over an ad that expands to 10x the size. I start a Youtube video and several minute unskippable ad starts playing. Then there is the malware that spreads through ads. I never got those myself though (that I know of).
It got so bad that I had to start using Adblock. I will disable Adblock when ads start respecting my browsing experience. I do whitelist sites I visit often for both Adblock & Ghostery.
It got so bad that I had to start using Adblock. I will disable Adblock when ads start respecting my browsing experience. I do whitelist sites I visit often for both Adblock & Ghostery.
VanquishUK
Member
The worst ads are the invisible links that open a popup ad if you click anywhere on the page. They're unavoidable unless you use adblock. I can't believe they aren't illegal or some shit it's so ridiculous.
The only thing iOS 9 shined a massive light on is apple's iAds which won't be blocked.
This is Apple trying to kill the revenue stream of online content creators so they are forced to move to iOS apps and Apple news, then their user based can be served by the same ads but be provided by Apple instead of Google.
I personally would rather have platform agnostic web be the default choice for online instead if proprietary apps and "news" service.
Palette Swap
Member
- Status