Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Good reason to drive legit sites out of business, right?

This is my problem with it. Apple opening this up against everything is basically a scorched earth policy that will only lead content creators to their own platform where they can put up ads again.

If apple had laid out strict standards and blocked some of the shitty practices full scale on Safari, then that would be another story.


Then this:

adapt or perish

Would actually mean something better for the consumers.

With the policy and the full out ad blockers adapt or perish basically means "use apple's ecosystem instead or perish." I think that kind of sucks especially for smaller publishers that don't have the money that places like The Verge clearly does.

 

[legacyzero]

I won't block your site if you don't ruin my experience with intrusive, java-laden, computer killing ads.

Just look at CNN's website for an idea. Their own fucking videos will barely play because their banner ads choke them the fuck out.

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

This.

 

[borghe]

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.

I actually disagree with this. People pay a LOT of money for access to shows like Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, etc. Likewise people pay tons of money for comic books (which even have ads!!), music (all you can eat or albums), etc. I have GAF whitelisted in Peace.

The problem isn't that "I don't want ads". The problem is that I don't want 250-300 additional HTTP requests, nearly triple the time and data to load, occupying 40%+ of screen real estate )or those fucking 30 second interstitials). It's not that I don't want ads. I don't want them served in the purely consumer aggressive manner that the industry has srpung up as. It is at the point where you have to navigate AROUND the ads to even GET TO the content.. that is fucking backwards as shit.

Stories should not be more than one page long. Even if that page is 10,000 words.. having me click through to serve more ad impressions? Fuck you.

Ads should not take up massive amounts of screen space.. Where I have to double tap on a block on my phone just to see the text because there is so much ad data surrounding it? Unacceptable.

30 second "click through to the site" interstitals? Unacceptable.

So much more.

Good reason to drive legit sites out of business, right?

the smart ones will adapt. The stupid ones will die. Yes. It is evolution. If sites are truly generating content that people want to read, people will continue to visit, and these places will work/learn to generate revenue from it that won't cause people to block it. The actual high quality sites that will truly die off from this are more than likely in a VAST minority, and the editors/writers of those sites will almost GUARANTEED find work elsewhere almost immediately.

 

[SummitAve]

I use ad block to protect me from people trying to kill the Internet.

 

[werks]

This is my problem with it. Apple opening this up against everything is basically a scorched earth policy that will only lead content creators to their own platform where they can put up ads again.

If apple had laid out strict standards and blocked some of the shitty practices full scale on Safari, then that would be another story.


Then this:


Would actually mean something better for the consumers.

With the policy and the full out ad blockers adapt or perish basically means "use apple's ecosystem instead or perish." I think that kind of sucks especially for smaller publishers that don't have the money that places like The Verge clearly does.

Nah, Apple just cares about the user experience. Nothing to do with peddling iAds.

 

[EatinOlives]

My post isn't in response to this sentiment.

It's in response to this:



I think this is goofy.

Sure, but you didn't comment on the rest of the problems of the ads on Verge, you only quipped on the size of them for some odd reason, as if the backlash against the Verge ads is just how big they are.

 

[n0razi]

People are willing to pay for good and easily accessed content... Spotify and Netflix prove this

Unfortunately, 99% of the content on the web is shit, reddit rehashes, or shitty top 10 lists and thus people dont feel obligated to pay for it

 

[entremet]

My post isn't in response to this sentiment.

It's in response to this:



I think this is goofy.

Why is it goofy?

 

[RDreamer]

Sure, but you didn't comment on the rest of the problems of the ads on Verge, you only quipped on the size of them for some odd reason, as if the backlash against the Verge ads is just how big they are.

The person I responded to didn't comment on the rest of the problems of the ads on Verge. They only quipped on the size of them for some odd reason, as if the backlash against the Verge ads is just how big they are.

Why is is goofy?

Because you're getting content you (presumably) want to see, which will (presumably) take up far far more of your time than scrolling downward for literally 1 second.

 

[numble]

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.

I actually don't think a ton of site-specific forum apps exist.

I don't think Evilore would waste the time and money to develop a objective-c or swift coded app just for the small percentage of people that may be using a content blocker on iOS. It would be cheaper to intrusively track users and ban them as a warning and permaban for continued use. What do you do about the people who adblock on Chrome?

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

He's just pissed because that way The Verge doesn't get ad revenue. Boo hoo.

Though I don't have problem not using Adblock if the ads aren't intrusive and annoying.

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

Yup you both have hit the core of the problem. I would stop using Adblock as well if I was guaranteed a more tv like experience with no worries about virus's, annoying sounds or popups, or hard to find close buttons.

 

[Cmagus]

Last week before the content blockers I couldn't even get onto the Verge with my iPhone...Safari timed out saying there were way too many redirects. I've never seen that before.

That website is the absolute worst when it came to ad serving and tracking. I can't believe how much better the internet is on my mobile iOS devices now with Crystal. This was a long time coming.

This is becoming a major problem. I find it very difficult to view many webpages on my phone without the browser crashing or giving me this page can't because of the ads. I actually downloaded an app that's a browser with ad block built in so I could access those sites and those pages run super smooth and I can access them but it's annoying switching to that app just to view those pages because it is a bit slow and I prefer safari over it for all other sites.

Thing is I don't use ad block on PC I honestly could care less about a banner ad at the top and bottom and even on the side it doesn't bother me but the intrusive ads are ridiculous. The worse are the flash ads that crash or give me a script is causing a problem error that if I don't shut off the page stops working and if I do shut it off flash anything stops working until I restart my computer.

Ads when you watch a video, ads on the site, ads that block the content you need to close and sometimes ads flying out the side of the screen it's too much at this point and the second the realize that the more money they will make.

 

[RDreamer]

Yup you both have hit the core of the problem. I would stop using Adblock as well if I was guaranteed a more tv like experience with no worries about virus's, annoying sounds or popups, or hard to find close buttons.

Which is why I think Apple should have cracked down on these practices and blocked them rather than releasing the kraken to devastate all ads, even the less obtrusive ones and push everyone to their own platform where no ads will be blocked.

 

[entremet]

The person I responded to didn't comment on the rest of the problems of the ads on Verge. They only quipped on the size of them for some odd reason, as if the backlash against the Verge ads is just how big they are.



Because you're getting content you (presumably) want to see, which will (presumably) take up far far more of your time than scrolling downward for literally 1 second.

But don't you see how terrible it is?

I don't mind ads, just don't block my screen. Is that too much to ask for?

You gotta remember that many have been trained to browse based on desktop habits. Full page ads on desktops are much rarer.

Do you work in the internet ad industry?

 

[Hylian7]

Honestly, there needs to be some kind of global standards and rules set for ads. When people see virus-ridden ads, ads that play sounds, ads that take over the screen and play a video, or ads that use something like Flash or Java and slow things to a crawl, things like that are EXACTLY the reason people use adblock. You don't want people to use adblock on your site? Stop letting that garbage on your site.

I use adblock and will only block a site if I see any of the above on it. GAF is an exception to that rule. I have seen ads on GAF that take over the entire screen and play a video, reported them and haven't seen another since then.

 

[RDreamer]

But don't you see how terrible it is?

I don't mind ads, just don't block my screen. Is that too much to ask for?

You gotta remember that many have been trained to browse based on desktop habits. Full page ads on desktops are much rarer.

Do you work in the internet ad industry?

If my choice is a full page ad that I have to scroll through for a second or a subscription I'd choose the full page ad every day of the week.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Just make your content worthwhile and people will pay for it. Nobody wants to pay for anything right now because there's five million other tech blogs that copy and paste the same press releases, go to the same events, and get the same review hardware/software. Get rid of the advertisers and you're not beholden to clicks and companies but your readers. Or you just shut down because the content wasn't that great anyway.

 

[MWS Natural]

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?

Depends if yo are using Adsense or selling them directly. Sometimes with adense yo would choose a standard sized ad but depending on the campaign they might have sound or a pop up with it. You would have to go in to adsense and specifically block certain categories/campaigns in order to stop that, so you have very little control. When you work directly with advertisers they will send you test ads so you can see exactly how it would look on your site.

 

[oti]

You know why I'm a Giant Bomb premium member? It's not because ads are disabled, it`s because I get premium content out of it. Good and regular premium content of consistent quality. That extra content has become an integral part of my weekly media consumption routine, I would miss it if I didn't have access to it and there's nothing it can be replaced with. That's what makes people pay for your content.

I get that comparing a video game site like Giant Bomb with the Verge is unfair but come on, get some personality in there. Make a Top Gear for tech journalism or something, not that soulless stuff that is usually associated with that field and that EVERY youtuber can do just as well.

 

[entremet]

If my choice is a full page ad that I have to scroll through for a second or a subscription I'd choose the full page ad every day of the week.

That's a false choice, though.

There are other options.

 

[Exile20]

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

This, this.

I had to use firefox with adblock or the adblock browser on android because sites would put ads that take up the whole screen.

 

[PeskyToaster]

You know why I'm a Giant Bomb premium member? It's not because ads are disabled, it`s because I get premium content out of it. Good and regular premium content of consistent quality. That extra content has become an integral part of my weekly media consumption routine, I would miss it if I didn't have access to it and there's nothing it can be replaced with. That's what makes people pay for your content.

I get that comparing a video game site like Giant Bomb with the Verge is unfair but come on, get some personality in there. Make a Top Gear for tech journalism or something, not that soulless stuff that is usually associated with that field anf that EVERY youtuber can do just as well.

This is what I'm talking about. They can't switch to a premium model because they have done nothing to justify spending money on their content. People are more than willing to pay but the content provider has to, you know, provide content to justify it.

 

[God Dayumm]

I would argue that ads neuter content. It's no coincidence my favorite sites have minimal to no ads

 

[Mechanized]

Adapt and make better advertising. Promote website subscriptions and compelling content. The old model doesn't work. Nobody wants viruses, spyware, or whatever horseshit the ad companies you deal with cook up. Get better at policing that stuff. Don't put it all on the user as being some selfish asshole. You're not solving the problem, you're laying blame and complaining. Fuck off.

 

[Jazz573]

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

I don't have GAF whitelisted. But it's not because I don't want to. I tried unblocking GAF but my shitty laptop nearly exploded from loading ads. I'm going to have a new computer soon, which should definitely be able to handle the ads, so of course then I will whitelist it.

 

[n3ss]

This is what I'm talking about. They can't switch to a premium model because they have done nothing to justify spending money on their content. People are more than willing to pay but the content provider has to, you know, provide content to justify it.

You think the average person is willing to pay? Really? I can see people on neogaf, but not my mom, dad or uncle... We are the small minority that would be willing to do so.

You'd also kill a lot of smaller, quality blog sites as well.

 

[Garrett 2U]

For the past couple months, I didn't use any ad blocker.
Obviously, my browser didn't allow pop ups, but besides that I saw everything.

The only ads that drove me crazy were the audio ones, absolutely ruined whatever experience they sponsored.

 

[werks]

Adapt and make better advertising. Promote website subscriptions and compelling content. The old model doesn't work. Nobody wants viruses, spyware, or whatever horseshit the ad companies you deal with cook up. Get better at policing that stuff. Don't put it all on the user as being some selfish asshole. You're not solving the problem, you're laying blame and complaining. Fuck off.

They are going to adapt by making an app and using iAds. You will still get the same shitty ads served by Apple instead of Google.

 

[lazygecko]

Starting to feel like advertisements are regarded as something of a sacred cow.

 

[Meier]

I don't go to The Verge. I don't go to a lot of sites. I use Twitter, Facebook and I visit about 5 websites plus a few other apps. People will change their browsing style if they need to. These sites will adapt or die.

 

[riotous]

The majority of sites don't have obnoxious ads. I only find obnoxious ads when I'm clicking on gossip links or terrible porn links or something.

A lot of entitled attitudes in this thread.

The OP is just flat out wrong with that weird list (TV ads are designed to be seen by people time shifting, not to mention anyone watching time-shifted video is in fact contributing less to ad revenue); and why should people trying to make money on the web be forced to try to charge people? That really what people wan?

In general, if you don't like the ads on a site.. don't visit it? Why is that not the "fair" consumer reaction?

"Well some sites give viruses sometimes" is the new "I try before I buy" piracy excuse.

 

[RedAssedApe]

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

.

 

[werks]

Starting to feel like advertisements are regarded as something of a sacred cow.

It isn't a scared cow. The cold hard reality is that if web ads are blocked, content will move from platform agnostic web to platform dependent ads. Same content, same ads. Apple gets to sell iAds, content creators get revenue, users lose the platform agnostic nature of the web.

 

[eot]

If they die, they die.

Seriously though, they're offering something people aren't interested in. Adblockers are only the symptom.

 

[Generalpsyduck]

they abused it so people have to block it

 

[Liamario]

I only use Adblock where the ads are intrusive. Absolutely no issue with adverts otherwise. YouTube is a prime example of intrusive adverts. The last two months I have had to suffer through Conor McGregor/ Game of War adverts. I'm not interested in the product and no matter how many times you show me it, I'm still not interested.
I think the best web ads are when the website background advertises the product, like a sponsorship. I get to see the content I want and the site gets their advert revenue. Everyone wins.

 

[Mael]

They are going to adapt by making an app and using iAds. You will still get the same shitty ads served by Apple instead of Google.

That sounds illegal and what MSFT would do in its "kill Netscape" days.

 

[nynt9]

The majority of sites don't have obnoxious ads. I only find obnoxious ads when I'm clicking on gossip links or terrible porn links or something.

A lot of entitled attitudes in this thread.

The OP is just flat out wrong with that weird list (TV ads are designed to be seen by people time shifting, not to mention anyone watching time-shifted video is in fact contributing less to ad revenue); and why should people trying to make money on the web be forced to try to charge people? That really what people wan?

In general, if you don't like the ads on a site.. don't visit it? Why is that not the "fair" consumer reaction?

"Well some sites give viruses sometimes" is the new "I try before I buy" piracy excuse.

Your statement is pretty amusing considering even GAF has app store redirect apps, and there are sites that are a lot worse. Trying to straw man people's legitimate issues into "it only happens when you're browsing horrible porn" is just poor form on your part.

There's also the article from a month or two ago that states The Verge's mobile site wasting way too much of your bandwidth with ads, which was hilarious because Nilay Patel was complaining about the mobile web being bad or something.

http://blog.lmorchard.com/2015/07/22/the-verge-web-sucks/

 

[EatinOlives]

The person I responded to didn't comment on the rest of the problems of the ads on Verge. They only quipped on the size of them for some odd reason, as if the backlash against the Verge ads is just how big they are.

Dude, it's OK to admit you didn't know the problems people have with the Verge ads. No need to double down on "well HE said...!" if it's not even an accurate representation of the overall problems of the ads.

 

[ArtHands]

You think the average person is willing to pay? Really? I can see people on neogaf, but not my mom, dad or uncle... We are the small minority that would be willing to do so.

You'd also kill a lot of smaller, quality blog sites as well.

Why should the ios users be the one who support them though? Google has been allowing ad blockers for years too, but when Apple does it, it gets spun into "Internet is dying a slow death, Apple is doing it because they want to push the companies to use iAds" etc.

 

[HariKari]

It isn't a scared cow. The cold hard reality is that if web ads are blocked, content will move from platform agnostic web to platform dependent ads. Same content, same ads. Apple gets to sell iAds, content creators get revenue, users lose the platform agnostic nature of the web.

Sure, if websites want to be fragmented like that across a hundred different miniature platforms. Really doubt that.

There will always be money and opportunity for sites worth sitting through ads for. Maybe the Verge isn't one of those sites as currently configured. If they don't want to be at the whim of ad blockers, they can charge a subscription. If the content isn't good enough to command a subscription, why should the public be up in arms about the struggles of a given website? There are a hundred others offering the same thing, and most of them aren't complaining or make due.

 

[ShowDog]

Sometimes I'm feeling a bit

Spoiler

reckless

and want to block ads on a tech blog website without thinking about the consequences. Deal with it. Fucking suit.

 

[PeskyToaster]

You think the average person is willing to pay? Really? I can see people on neogaf, but not my mom, dad or uncle... We are the small minority that would be willing to do so.

You'd also kill a lot of smaller, quality blog sites as well.

I doubt a small blog is getting enough from ad revenue to support themselves and maybe a staff solely on ad revenue. If they are good and have unique, compelling content I believe they will make enough to keep the site alive. If not, then you got some work to do. I think many of these sites take people's time and eyes for granted when they have ads and frankly, most sites don't deserve either.

 

[RDreamer]

Dude, it's OK to admit you didn't know the problems people have with the Verge ads. No need to double down on "well HE said...!" if it's not even an accurate representation of the overall problems of the ads.

In my first comment in this thread I said that it seems like they were probably the worst.

My point throughout the thread was that if Apple were doing this for us consumers they would actually block those worst practices, like what you guys are saying The Verge is doing. They'd try and find a system that would flat out block those things in particular, not open up the floodgates to kill even the good ads.

I doubt a small blog is getting enough from ad revenue to support themselves and maybe a staff solely on ad revenue. If they are good and have unique, compelling content I believe they will make enough to keep the site alive. If not, then you got some work to do. I think many of these sites take people's time and eyes for granted when they have ads and frankly, most sites don't deserve either.

Ads can't support business, but if they've got compelling content they'll make enough to keep the site alive... make enough from what?

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

If my choice is a full page ad that I have to scroll through for a second or a subscription I'd choose the full page ad every day of the week.

This isn't the only solution and it's also not the solution people defending blockers are looking for.

In my first comment in this thread I said that it seems like they were probably the worst.

My point throughout the thread was that if Apple were doing this for us consumers they would actually block those worst practices, like what you guys are saying The Verge is doing. They'd try and find a system that would flat out block those things in particular, not open up the floodgates to kill even the good ads.

Look up how ad networks work. Trying to single out the more intrusive ads (who defines intrusive?) is going to be extremely difficult. You would have to block the entire network from displaying. This would hurt sites that aren't using them as intrusively.

 

[inky]

The internet will live on, don't you worry.

Spoiler

Your particular site might not

 

[Snaku]

If they make ads 100% virus free, not annoying popups that block out part or the screen or autoplay audio, then I would never use adblock again.

Boom.

 

[riotous]

Your statement is pretty amusing considering even GAF has app store redirect apps, and there are sites that are a lot worse. Trying to straw man people's legitimate issues into "it only happens when you're browsing horrible porn" is just poor form on your part.

There's also the article from a month or two ago that states The Verge's mobile site wasting way too much of your bandwidth with ads, which was hilarious because Nilay Patel was complaining about the mobile web being bad or something.

http://blog.lmorchard.com/2015/07/22/the-verge-web-sucks/

Yeah I get the occasional redirect to the app store.

The solution isn't to deny GAF advertising revenue IMO; if the redirects bothered me enough I'd stop browsing GAF.

They don't.

I find your post incredibly amusing; "I get redirected to the app store occasionally, deny them any revenue!" How is that not entitlement? You feel entitled to use GAF without them earning much of anything out of it because of an occasional minor annoyance?

I haven't been redirected to the app store in weeks, maybe months.. and I am normally using safari on iOS.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

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

Spoiler

ok maybe neogaf

And yeah, if everyone started using adblock tomorrow a lot of websites would die. That's just how it is.

Agreed. Yes, internet ad design/use is terrible, but that doesn't change the reality of the economic landscape. Last time I checked, people didn't post this image because they liked the idea of it:

And even if people did pay for these major sites, that still kills off everything that's not mainstream.

 

[Your Entertainer]

The majority of sites don't have obnoxious ads. I only find obnoxious ads when I'm clicking on gossip links or terrible porn links or something.

A lot of entitled attitudes in this thread.

The OP is just flat out wrong with that weird list (TV ads are designed to be seen by people time shifting, not to mention anyone watching time-shifted video is in fact contributing less to ad revenue); and why should people trying to make money on the web be forced to try to charge people? That really what people wan?

In general, if you don't like the ads on a site.. don't visit it? Why is that not the "fair" consumer reaction?

"Well some sites give viruses sometimes" is the new "I try before I buy" piracy excuse.

"The majority of sites don't have obnoxious ads. I only find obnoxious ads when I'm clicking on gossip links or terrible porn links or something." is a hilariously untrue statement. Ever browsed neogaf on a phone? Just because you declare it, doesn't mean it's true. The majority of mobile sites I visit feature obnoxious ads. Pop up, hide everything else, and make the "x" deliberately hidden. Then when I do click on a link, I get redirected to another website or the app store. That takes up a lot of time and data. I wouldn't mind a banner on the top/bottom of the page.

You completely gloss over the point of advertising having gone too far, and that ad blockers are widespread mainly due to that. There's not some crusade against the principle itself.