And they could detect that and deny you access to the site.
This is all going in circles; I'm gonna go browse the web.. where somehow I've managed to never get a virus from an advertisement.
The Verge: The internet is dying a slow death because of ad blockers
- Thread starter Wreav
- Start date
- Status
And they could detect that and deny you access to the site.
This is all going in circles; I'm gonna go browse the web.. where somehow I've managed to never get a virus from an advertisement.
If my store gave away free products and it was understood all revenue came via the screaming ad people?
Yeah, I'd say it was akin to piracy. Denying a known revenue stream while enjoying the content being provided...
It wasn't the greatest example I'll admit; but the point is.. no one is forcing you to consume all this "free" content on the web, nor are you actually entitled to it.
I mean has one person admitted in this thread they ad block mostly just because they can and it's a minor annoyance? As someone who browses with no ad blocker, I find the excuses kind of ludicrous personally. The fear of virii from ads is a new excuse a lot of people who have been blocking ad for ages are bandwagoning on.
I've started using Google Contributor to support NeoGaf and Android Police:
https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
These are two website I visit on a daily basis.
On Android Police the ads do slow down the website for me.
https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
These are two website I visit on a daily basis.
On Android Police the ads do slow down the website for me.
AtomicShroom
Member
Well The Verge seems to have started the arms race against content blockers on iOS... I'm getting the following error now when I try to reach the site:
"Safari cannot open the page because too many redirects occurred."
"Safari cannot open the page because too many redirects occurred."
Interfectum
Member
Resorting to fear-mongering?
Most aren't against ads in general, just ads as they currently are now. Blogs, advertisers, etc have pushed consumers of their content so far that we are now looking for ways to block it altogether. That's not on me, that's on them. If some blogs have to die before they better figure out how to monetize then so be it.
I haven't used adblockers since 2006 or so. Back then they were causing so much grief on certain sites. Ads don't bother me, in fact, I'm kinda fascinated by how ads are integrated into sites. The only ads that bother me are the ones that create new tabs or popups. So glad iOS blocks repeating pop-ups in iOS 9.
Haint
Member
Kroger (as in the grocery store) actually does this, and I'm not joking. They let infomercial-type products buy a booth space in their stores, then blast it over the PA every 5 minutes, herding people to the demo booth they've set up claiming there's a free gift or something. They will also announce clearance items over the PA every 5 minutes if they've got something they need to get rid off.
On the topic at hand, I actually think I'd be fine if "the content" sites (like The Verge) went away. I don't need a corporation of over paid journalist, sipping $12 Latte's in San Francisco, telling me they can't make ends meet if I don't download their malware. There is almost always better content and information on forums and social media, which is where the fluff/entertainment "content" sites get most of their stories anyway.
We need ads, or we'll be locked into paying for bundles of sites? What a weird claim.
I see where you're going in the sense that good content in some way will require funding, whether through ads or something else. But we don't have to accept the current status because the alternative will be worse, there are many possible outcomes which we can fight for. Even today subscription based sites making a profit are a thing, and creators are able to turn to Patreon or Kickstarter to create content.
More solutions will present themselves in time if the demand is there. Ads don't have to be a thing. It's all up to us, the users. (And I will say that I think more people should be prepared to support content they like directly, because it will make a difference)
EatinOlives
Member
They could detect it if they would, but they're not. Something tells me it's not quite as simple as you say it is.
You seem upset that sometimes people are empowered to control what is advertised to them. Sorry, but the reality is that ad-block is here to stay and people don't want to see horribly intrusive ads kill their battery, use up their mobile data, and be generally detrimental to the user experience. If a site can't figure out a way to stay afloat without being a parasite to the user, it doesn't deserve to stay afloat. Again, that's kind of how the world works.
You're free to never enable any ad-blocking in your own browsing experience. Maybe the next time you're waiting 5 seconds for the ad-page to redirect you to your article of choice you can use that time to get off your high horse.
I think one of the biggest issues for today's ad/marketing execs is that we all grew up on a 'free' internet and while the content we're reading today has definitely matured and improved they've yet to match up their advertisement technology.
Case and point - I'm a big fan of The Guardian. I visit there at least 5-7 times a week and browse their sports stories. Without an ad-blocker it's almost impossible for me to browse because of the amount of ads that block content, slow down the browser or intrude on what I'm actually trying to do.
Case and point - I'm a big fan of The Guardian. I visit there at least 5-7 times a week and browse their sports stories. Without an ad-blocker it's almost impossible for me to browse because of the amount of ads that block content, slow down the browser or intrude on what I'm actually trying to do.
You are saying what I didnt have time to say. Good stuff.
I also have a hard time believing that most are blocking ads due to much more than having the ability to do so. If people could block ads in magazines and all media....they would. Since they can on the internet, they do it as much as possible and act like they are entitled to that ability
And you can continue to act like these intrusive ads are not a symptom of the problem of people enabling ad block.
Ad Blockers make the world of the web worse for every other aspect of the web; consumers who don't ad block, and people whose lives depend on the revenue from web sites.
But it's nice for the ad blockers.
And I find it patently ridiculous that I'm labeled as being on a high horse for expecting people to not deny individuals and businesses their revenue models... all I'm suggesting is you avoid those sites you dislike the ads on.. that's a high horse? Basic fair consumersm = high horse?
People have a terrible attitude about all things digital.
Patrick Bateman
Member
What is TheVerge? I only noticed it when I read about the possibility to use adblocker in iOS9 and that their site has a ton of ads.
family_guy
Member
Offer an ad-free subscription model for everything. I'd pay extra for Hulu not to have ads so it works like Netflix.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
The Verge has well over a million dollars in funding
The assumption is that Facebook, Apple and Google are working doing this to force people into their model.
And again, blockers are not installed or functional by default. You have to go download them. Apple isn't forcing anything here. The Verge signed up for Apple News before this whole blocker debate happened. And again, again, why is this an issue NOW when ad blockers and ways of stripping ads have been around for YEARS.
That exists now.
NickFire
Member
Nope. Websites can be engineered to prevent access to people using ad blockers. Movies, regardless of copy protection, can be easily copied one way or the other.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
Yes, and surprisingly there was enough content. That would be because we are not paying for huge media offices and loads of staff like we are today and listening to them cry about loosing revenue that keeps the boss in Ferrari's for the year.
Sinfamy
Member
If it invovles the death of 90% of web sites I'm good, they're nothing but trash anyways.
Ad revenue is an unsustainable revenue model, if they were at least simple static billboard style ad banners that just showed a product with a link like in neogaf or 4chan I'd be fine, but they're not.
They're bandwidth hogging, tracking piles of shit and if a site supports those kinds than it can 404 for all I care. Not to mention it has lead most sites to turn into clickbait circlejerks.
Adapt with the times, its my browser, I choose what code it displays.
If I don't want to enable JavaScript than you're gonna deal with it or lick my balls.
Ad revenue is an unsustainable revenue model, if they were at least simple static billboard style ad banners that just showed a product with a link like in neogaf or 4chan I'd be fine, but they're not.
They're bandwidth hogging, tracking piles of shit and if a site supports those kinds than it can 404 for all I care. Not to mention it has lead most sites to turn into clickbait circlejerks.
Adapt with the times, its my browser, I choose what code it displays.
If I don't want to enable JavaScript than you're gonna deal with it or lick my balls.
I could see a lot more people using blockers on mobile than on desktop, mostly because of the shitty anti-consumer policies that mobile phone plans have. If I have a shitty plan I'm paying out the ass for I'm going to block as much of that shit as I can. On a desktop? Why bother.
M0nochromatic
Member
Hey there Neogaf poster, have you heard of SquareSpace?
Podcast advertising is done well.
Podcast advertising is done well.
Honestly I have only recently began using an ad blocker. My fantasy football league is based on cbssports and every page is littered with video ads, audio ads that can't be muted, full page ads. It is ridiculous.
GAF and some other sites that use ads have been white listed because they are not intrusive to the user experience but fuck most sites.
GAF and some other sites that use ads have been white listed because they are not intrusive to the user experience but fuck most sites.
Your Entertainer
Member
I've blatantly stated its not a problem of ads, but how they're delivered. They're taxing on hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is saying they should get content for free. We're willing to support sites, as long as the advertising is non obtrusive and deliberately distracting.
You continue to not justify why ads becoming more and more intrusive is right. Again, that's not constructive. And are you seriously saying ads are more intrusive because of as blockers? Ad blockers becoming more prevalent is a direct result of ads making browsing into shit. You yourself admitted it improves the user experience. Why do you think that is? Why shouldn't people do it? You should advertise in a way that is non-detrimental to the user experience.
Make ads less intrusive and people won't block them.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Setup a neogaf patreon!
I already pay a few bucks a month to Matt chat and LGR
I already pay a few bucks a month to Matt chat and LGR
Ads crashing my browser, causing lag, autoplaying video, redirecting me to the app store, and using up bandwidth are not minor annoyances.
Do you think pop-up blockers are akin to piracy? If so, I hope you browse the web with it off.
Forgot to mention how some websites with non-pornographic content will display sex ads. That's always a good one.
If the vast majority of ads I see aren't hot garbage like "You'll never believe this one crazy trick to reduce your debt," "Kim Kardashian did WHAT?", or "This anti-aging trick is driving doctors CRAZY", maybe I wouldn't feel the need to block ads. In the meantime, I'll do whatever it takes to keep that shit from assaulting my eyeballs.
And I've run many sites with completely unobtrusive advertising, and seen the stats. A huge percentage of web users block all ads, not just the obtrusive ones.
You might personally only block intrusive ones; good for you I guess?
Yes because it's true. Ad blocking is a huge issue for revenue based web sites; and it has caused many to look at how to make more and more money from the dwindling amount of users who actually allow ads to be displayed.
Samsung pays more for the half-page ads on The Verge than Google does for the tiny banners on NeoGAF.
It's highly possible we'd see less ridiculous ads if nobody used ad block.
It's also possible some sites would still have done it; we'll never really know.. growing use of Firefox and Chrome caused a massive upswing in ad-blocking way before sites like the Verge had half-page ads. So we'll never really know what "would have been."
edit: Anyways my responses are dominating the thread and I really do have work to do.
NullPointer
Member
And I'd go for the subscription, as I have on multiple sites when given the choice.
Intrusive ads aren't the only way.
We only have to look at the relatively recent birth of the world wide web to know for certain that would not be the case.
NickFire
Member
It is not a similarity. The websites that don't prohibit ad blocking are making a choice to allow people to read their stuff for free, and those that use their sites with ad blocker on are accepting that option. The movie industry is not making the choice of letting people make a copy when someone pirates the films.
This is pretty much it. I block ads for two reasons. One - performance issues . Two - they are displayed in an annoying manner. If it was just a simple banner saying "Drink more ovaltine", then I wouldn't care so much. Nowadays, my entire screen is filled with some dumb ass advertisement that I have to search in order to find the "x" to make it go away. And don't get me started on video/audio ads.
Bullshit. Before we had ad blockers we had massive amounts of pop ups, banners that play sound--all sorts of shit. So if nobody used popup blockers, content developers would be going "Hm, we could make a lot more money doing this, but we won't because nobody uses ad blockers"..?
daninthemix
Member
The issue has literally nothing to do with morality and everything to do with the free market.
Does your business model require ad revenue, and are you unwilling for those without ad-blockers to fund the content for everyone? If not, do ad-block detection and blocking.
Does your business model require ad revenue, and are you unwilling for those without ad-blockers to fund the content for everyone? If not, do ad-block detection and blocking.
And hardly anyone was making money on the web back then... companies like Google saved the web in a lot of ways by providing decent paying simple advertising, targeted advertising, etc. (and things like tracking cookies.. those all exist to better target ads.. the better targeted the ads are ,the more money per view or click sites like NeoGAF earn)
The web had a HUGE crash.. a HUGE one. does nobody remember the dot com bubble bursting?
100's of millions of dollars were being lost.. it was a different era.
Now that it is and has been possible for sites to make good money with unobtrusive advertising.. things are different. Bandwidth is also far cheaper, etc.
Pop ups are awful, I agree.. but so would not having any web sites to visit.. and during the .com bust it was possible we were heading that direction.
edit: And I"m truly done.. only saying that if people expect a reply, I won't be able to.
Thanks for the discussion though.
Pyramid head
Banned
"Some people can't see our ads, let's really fuck with those who still can."
Not sure spite is the best business model.
iNvid02
Member
this is a good point, when you opt out of interest based ads and minimise tracking, what you're served is the utter horseshit you posted above. i dont want to see that, and allowing companies to build a profile and track me shouldn't be the only avenue to avoid seeing that garbage.
there have been some more egregious ones than that, some bring up a threatening dialog demanding cash payment and you have to resort to airplane mode, exiting safari and clearing history to get around them. they need to die
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
iPhone 3G launched in 2008-ish. Since then, there has been no mechanism to AdBlock for 99.9% of iPhone users. That's 1 billion devices and hundreds of millions of users for 7 years. No one can say this is Apple "getting out in front" of advertising, driving a stake through the heart of advertising. So presumably, given that Apple is allowing ad blockers on mobile now, it's in reaction to something. What could it be a reaction to? They don't make money on ad blockers so it's not a business thing. Hmm...
Quoting from another thread:
People can deal with a reasonable amount of ads. We're accustomed to accepting the practice in all other forms of media and life. Most aren't naive enough to desire everything for free, no strings attached.
Ad sellers and buyers are to blame with increasingly intrusive eye blasters, pre-rolls, rollovers, pop ups and everything else they've come up with to chip away at an acceptable user experience. As mentioned, the entire model is outdated. Create new ways to bring in revenue from your audience on the internet instead of lamenting that the way it's done currently can no longer sustain itself long term.
Ad sellers and buyers are to blame with increasingly intrusive eye blasters, pre-rolls, rollovers, pop ups and everything else they've come up with to chip away at an acceptable user experience. As mentioned, the entire model is outdated. Create new ways to bring in revenue from your audience on the internet instead of lamenting that the way it's done currently can no longer sustain itself long term.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I would say that is an interesting view, and one that can only be held by someone losing money as a result. For those not losing money from advert revenue, ad blockers actually save the internet, not kill it. The absolute proliferation of insane volumes of adverts pushes it more in that direction, and it isn't because of people using ad blockers, it's because there is space to sell. If ad blockers didn't exist, there would not be less adverts, just wealthier web site owners.
- Status