ZeroGravity
Member
As soon as you start calling people who use AdBlock pirates and thieves, you've automatically thrown away any sympathy or understanding I may have had toward your viewpoint.
The Verge: The internet is dying a slow death because of ad blockers
- Thread starter Wreav
- Start date
- Status
You're kidding yourself if you think there's a better current revenue model than ads for the content of the internet. Name one person who'd be willing to pay for a subscription to any popular website. Anyone. Ads are annoying, but they make content on the internet free. No one is going to pay for content when there are so many other places you can get similar content from for absolutely free. And even if ads disappeared tomorrow they're be places on the internet where you'd still be able to get content for free that would drive those that try to monetize out of business. Are you willing to pay to read reddit? Or CNN? Or IGN? Or NeoGAF? Or pay for subscription to google search? I'm not
And yeah, if everyone started using adblock tomorrow a lot of websites would die. That's just how it is.
ok maybe neogaf
And yeah, if everyone started using adblock tomorrow a lot of websites would die. That's just how it is.
That's a lot of FUD. So you think websites are going to shut down and only be available via the iOS News app? What happens to the Android and PC visitors? They will be forced to buy iOS devices?
I like Marco Arment's justification for making Peace. The problem isn't that he hates advertising. It's all the terms we were never given a choice to agree to on how that advertising would affect us and our devices: killing performance, sucking battery life, and tracking us.
"And we shouldn’t feel guilty about this. The 'implied contract' theory that we’ve agreed to view ads in exchange for free content is void because we can’t review the terms first — as soon as we follow a link, our browsers load, execute, transfer, and track everything embedded by the publisher. Our data, battery life, time, and privacy are taken by a blank check with no recourse. It’s like ordering from a restaurant menu with no prices, then being forced to pay whatever the restaurant demands at the end of the meal."
I've whitelisted GAF (make sure you whitelist both neogaf.com and m.neogaf.com, in case your content blocker is subdomain-specific) and a couple other sites I visit most frequently. But the rest of the web can suck it until companies learn to stop using ads that actively work against us users.
"And we shouldn’t feel guilty about this. The 'implied contract' theory that we’ve agreed to view ads in exchange for free content is void because we can’t review the terms first — as soon as we follow a link, our browsers load, execute, transfer, and track everything embedded by the publisher. Our data, battery life, time, and privacy are taken by a blank check with no recourse. It’s like ordering from a restaurant menu with no prices, then being forced to pay whatever the restaurant demands at the end of the meal."
I've whitelisted GAF (make sure you whitelist both neogaf.com and m.neogaf.com, in case your content blocker is subdomain-specific) and a couple other sites I visit most frequently. But the rest of the web can suck it until companies learn to stop using ads that actively work against us users.
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.
Man, those fucking assholes. How dare they make us scroll and use up less than a second of our time!
Don't blame the users for protecting themselves; blame the advertisers for losing their damn minds.
Adblockers didn't come into being because people were pissed at looking at an out-of-the-way rectangle of advertising. They came into being because of popups and popunders and ads that spawn other ads, and animations, and ads that pretend to be the link you want, and ads that pretend to be part of the operating system, and ads that pretend you're infected to infect you with something else, and ads that expand or play sound when you accidentally mouse over them, and any number of other ridiculous bullshit ads that made simply reading a website equivalent to one of the labors of Hercules.
Adblockers didn't come into being because people were pissed at looking at an out-of-the-way rectangle of advertising. They came into being because of popups and popunders and ads that spawn other ads, and animations, and ads that pretend to be the link you want, and ads that pretend to be part of the operating system, and ads that pretend you're infected to infect you with something else, and ads that expand or play sound when you accidentally mouse over them, and any number of other ridiculous bullshit ads that made simply reading a website equivalent to one of the labors of Hercules.
entremet
Member
Sure, but you don't chide users.
They have it backwards. Maybe, just maybe make ads that don't suck? That don't block out the main pages, play annoying sounds, take up tons of bandwidth, and so on.
Internets ads are still relatively young, so they're going through growing pains.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I go out of my way to support unobtrusive advertising (though I have so many devices I use the internet on I'm sure I forgot to whitelist on some of them), but the verge has no leg to stand on here. The amount of crap their site is loading is insanity.
entremet
Member
It's terrible user experience.
Still, I think it's obtrusive and annoying. I'd block that as well if I could and I can. If the ad was small and non obtrusive, like not blocking an entire page, that would be fine for me and I'd whitelist the site on AdBlock.
Sure, but a lot of content wouldn't die and a lot more would fill the void left behind by sites like The Verge. The internet's main stream of revenue is Ads because it's the easiest way to generate revenue, not because it's the only effective way.
Ad blockers became popular because of the insane ads that got introduced in the last years. I don't want to browse a site and then see a huge ad pop which plays an extremely loud music and video without me asking for it. What happened to the subtle ads in the side that bothered nobody but noo they had to make them take the whole screen play loud music and show a video to cripple your internet to death to attract your attention, no shit people turned to ad blocker.
It is. I also can't wait until Companies stop using full-page interstitials to tell you they have an app. Like every single time I wanted to read a Yahoo NBA article, I'd get that screen. Or at least I did. Maybe they finally jettisoned it. I stopped reading Yahoo articles a while back, because it was so annoying (well, and because the NBA's out of season).
NullPointer
Member
Bingo. The crazy escalations started with the ads, not the blockers.
It's incredibly obnoxious and harms the user experience. I don't think it's that ridiculous to want ads that aren't insanely obtrusive.
Android and pc users can keep getting delivered content based on their platform while iOS users get redirected to the App Store. It's not a hard solution.
Let's take neogaf for example. If evilore notices that 25 % of his users use mobile safari and a significant number of them are adblocking, it would be in his best interest to redirect iOS users to an app. The app can't be blocked now and will never be blocked as long as iAds exists.
I don't even care about seeing ads it's all the other horrible background stuff that goes with it that's reason enough to block everything.
I wish someone would create an <advert> sandbox element or something people can use on their site and was configurable by the user. So I could opt-out of tracking and things like that but still see it.
I wish someone would create an <advert> sandbox element or something people can use on their site and was configurable by the user. So I could opt-out of tracking and things like that but still see it.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
Sites can keep ads, but they should do it like GAF and have one on the top and bottom and that's it, the second I get a pop up or some crap it's ad blocked forever.
Neff
Member
If an ad is in a discrete banner or border image on the same page as the 'content', then fine. It's when I have to take time out of whatever I'm doing to deal with the ad that it becomes a problem. There's a reason that ad-blockers have become so prevalent. It's not because people resent advertising in itself being directed their way (although some no doubt do), it's because the ads have gotten increasingly intrusive to the point of being intolerable. The people who make these kinds of ads have done this to themselves.
A subtle ad is tolerable and may even attract my notice if it's interesting. An ad which hijacks my internet experience is unacceptable and I'll take every step to ensure that it never receives my attention.
A subtle ad is tolerable and may even attract my notice if it's interesting. An ad which hijacks my internet experience is unacceptable and I'll take every step to ensure that it never receives my attention.
http://blog.lmorchard.com/2015/07/22/the-verge-web-sucks/
A Verge page will force you to download 9-12 mb and 250-300 http requests. It's a terrible experience, especially if you have a data cap.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I thought its possible? I opened up Play Store and I was able to find ad blocker apps (though I don't use them).
I didn't know ios9 allows you to block ads with app now so thanks The Verge there. I am more than happy to spend a bit of money, just so I can make my safari run faster and without any ads that's going to eat up my mobile data.
iOS has a native "load desktop site" feature, which doesn't even require you to install a third party ad blocker.
xDUMPWEEDx
Banned
This is exactly what caused it. Most people are fine with ads, but they took it too far.
And how much of the user base would download an app rather than try to use desktop neogaf ad free?
It is shitty that this happens in secret unless you look for it. You can't tell how much shit is actually downloading, so you can't even make the informed decision of stopping going to certain sites. And web developers know this and take advantage of it
My thoughts exactly. I have a few sites whitelisted, but for the most part I keep UBlock running at all times because the amount of data for a given page is usually like 75-80% ad's and the last chunk is the actual content you want.
I also wouldn't mind half as much if ad's were just static images and I wouldn't have to worry about infections, but it is a serious security concern.
0%? I don't even think the App Store allows you to publish apps that are simply reproducing a site.
Your Entertainer
Member
Horrible, myopic post
Yeah, and I didn't emphasize the crazy part--the content is less than 80 kb! You are downloading about 10 my more stuff to load ads and send information to ad trackers.
gaf user Juice made a gaf app once and it was banned for "objectionable content" so there's that to consider as well. You can't just put your website on the app store because Apple make the rules.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=361350
Just add a chat function so you can sell DANCING BISH STICKERS.
Please, show us a better way to deliver ads.
Shuggananas
Banned
Ads are terrible user experience.
Any ad at all "harms the user experience."
Ads are. Subscriptions are. Pretty much everything but completely free "harms the user experience."
But, we have to have some sort of trade off to get this content.
This is a good point. The point I responded to is not. There's a difference between "They have a large ad on their front page that I have to go through!" and the large amount of requests and downloads that you just stated.
EatinOlives
Member
Not the smartest thing to be snarky about
The Verge in particular has very excessive amounts of ads that is an active detriment to the user experience. Look at how much additional page load time there is on every Verge page devoted to loading intrusive ads. Not to mention they usually kill page performance, contribute to additional battery use, and use up more mobile data.
This article is very rich coming from them given that they're one of the worst offenders of mobile ads. It goes beyond "scrolling a little more" and well into the realm of actively being detrimental to the user in more ways than one.
basically the ad industry that popped up on the web was EXTREMELY user aggressive... and every publisher hooked their wagon to it because Google made it brain-dead easy to do so, and paid them. No one ever asked if it was right or wrong, good or bad. It was basically the $20 bill lying on the street. You could try to do the right thing, but why bother?
The problem is, after losing billions of $20 bills over the years, users are now being given brain-dead simple ways to... stop losing those $20s..
"So all advertising is like losing money? So everything should be free?" No. As has been popular the last day or so... serving content should be an agreement, contract, subscription, etc between the reader and the provider. "Hey, it costs us money to give you this content that you love and come back to every day!! Here are the multiple options you have for continuing to enjoy this content!" If the content is worth it, and the "payment" is not egregious, users and publishers will then enter into an agreement. Everyone wins.
Honestly, I don't even see the Verge being the biggest loser here. They will adapt. Life will go on.
The biggest losers in all of this will be the "me-too" aggregators, and rightfully so. Those sites where it's just a one paragraph "article" quoted and sourced from another article on the web. These sites will be hit EXTREMELY hard from ad blocking, and with little to no internally generated editorial content, there will be zero incentive for users to "pay" for these sites otherwise (whitelisting, subscription, etc)
The problem is, after losing billions of $20 bills over the years, users are now being given brain-dead simple ways to... stop losing those $20s..
"So all advertising is like losing money? So everything should be free?" No. As has been popular the last day or so... serving content should be an agreement, contract, subscription, etc between the reader and the provider. "Hey, it costs us money to give you this content that you love and come back to every day!! Here are the multiple options you have for continuing to enjoy this content!" If the content is worth it, and the "payment" is not egregious, users and publishers will then enter into an agreement. Everyone wins.
Honestly, I don't even see the Verge being the biggest loser here. They will adapt. Life will go on.
The biggest losers in all of this will be the "me-too" aggregators, and rightfully so. Those sites where it's just a one paragraph "article" quoted and sourced from another article on the web. These sites will be hit EXTREMELY hard from ad blocking, and with little to no internally generated editorial content, there will be zero incentive for users to "pay" for these sites otherwise (whitelisting, subscription, etc)
I wouldn't block ads on non-NeoGAF sites if they didn't pop things up, cover things I want to see or click, start playing unwanted sound, or just be intrusive in general. I get wanting to get our attention, but imagine if you were driving and a billboard suddenly projected onto your windshield or took control of the car until you took it back. There's something to be said for subtlety.
shiftplusone
Member
I was looking at a build for a diablo 3 character on a separate monitor (on icy veins), and everytime I'd get halfway down the page it would autoscroll back to the top because of a fucking flash ad that was "active" and keeping my window scroller locked at that position
also 3 or 4 windows open, and then all of a sudden im being told to buy lemon pledge or some shit and I can't find out where its coming from so I just kill the browser entirely.
Fuck you, ad companies.
edit: this is also the same site that got mad at the "saved you a click" twitter account for "you aren't providing information, you're robbing people of an experience" which is the most farty non comment ever.
ok what of the legendary gems should i be using lets find out FUCK YOU LOOK AT OUR AD WITH A BLURRED OUT NAKED LADY ABOUT SOME PRODUCT
also 3 or 4 windows open, and then all of a sudden im being told to buy lemon pledge or some shit and I can't find out where its coming from so I just kill the browser entirely.
Fuck you, ad companies.
edit: this is also the same site that got mad at the "saved you a click" twitter account for "you aren't providing information, you're robbing people of an experience" which is the most farty non comment ever.
entremet
Member
Don't take up my whole screen. You already do it for desktop operating systems, repeat the same for mobile.
Is it that big of a request to ask not take the entire screen of my mobile device?
Good reason to drive legit sites out of business, right?
……forgetit
Member
So the time effort and money people invest in the work they do is worthless? Really shitty thing to say dude.
Your Entertainer
Member
Why don't we start with, oh, I don't know, the numerous suggestions out forth in this very thread? Like no auto playing videos, no sound, no taking up the entire page and making the x deliberately hard to find, no radical bandwidth increases, no viruses etc.
Holy shit - it's not that hard. A non intrusive banner at the bottom of the page would be a start.
You're missing the point. A banner ad or a side ad doesn't actively interrupt your experience like that ad does. I'm pretty sure the majority of the people in this thread having been saying that the main reason anyone uses ad block is for ads that actually get in the way of what you want to do, and that ads on the side don't really bother anyone.
Not the smartest thing to be snarky about
The Verge in particular has very excessive amounts of ads that is an active detriment to the user experience. Look at how much additional page load time there is on every Verge page devoted to loading intrusive ads. Not to mention they usually kill page performance, contribute to additional battery use, and use up more mobile data.
This article is very rich coming from them given that they're one of the worst offenders of mobile ads. It goes beyond "scrolling a little more" and well into the realm of actively being detrimental to the user in more ways than one.
My post isn't in response to this sentiment.
It's in response to this:
I think this is goofy.
adapt or perish
Economically, it wouldn't work, unless you're diving a high amount of impression per visit. Galleries anyone?
Really... Is it that big of a deal to scroll down?
A ton of forum apps exist.
No one is telling your to put your html site on an app. Facebook app delivers the same content as the Facebook mobile site. I'm not sure what the problem with neogaf app would be.
Jacksinthe
Banned
If there was only some way to make ads not absolute shit, non-disruptive, virus free, not autoplay, etc. Some way...
Your Entertainer
Member
The extent of advertising is out of hand, period. No two ways about it. Many of us have happily said we'd not use as blockers if ads weren't terrible for the myriad of reasons stated in this thread.
Ad blockers would not be nearly as widespread if ads didn't make the web horrible.
- Status