Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love @ Ars Technica
Read the whole story
ad-blocking is very devastating and I totally with that article and most of everyone over @ digg
http://digg.com/d31KokQ if you haven't been doing this, like I have been doing is disable ABP on the websites you visit the most like techspot, askvg, digg for example just a few of my favorite sites Also I like what some websites are doing now like localhostr.com http://imgur.com/eogPD.png and all these are sites that have a limit amount of ads. I like those addon PC World wrote about but they did forget one of the best http://BetterFacebook.net
I don't mind ads as long as they are not pop ups that interfere with me trying to read an article.
I hate ads period. In the past advertisers have 'abused' the browser. Well no more!
Why don't these companies follow Google's method of advertising? I find google's ads rather unobtrusive, and I actually don't mind them most times. I say, the more RELEVANT ads are, the less people will mind them. If a company can tastefully serve me ads, in a way that actually helps me use the web, well, that would be great.
I really do enjoy Ars Technica. I will turn of adblock plus when I visit their site if they agree to have ads that are rigorously tested to contain no malware. This is the reason I use adblock plus. It takes an hour to scan my brother's computer of 20 gig of used space. On my computer, I have 3 terabytes of storage. Theoretically, it would take 5 days to scan my computer PER SCANNER if it ran at the same speed. Multiply that by 5 scanners and you can easily say it could take about a month to get rid of adware caused by one bad ad if the computer were only devoted to scanning. If they want us to play fair, they should play fair and scrutinize their ads. Let's not be ridiculous.
I haven't used an adblocker (other than popup blockers) since i left my 56k days behind. But when i had dialup i definitely saw the need to use one, without considering what it was doing to the sites i visited.
Sorry, all this did was remind me how much I hate ads.
I personally don't mind ads on websites as I understand that they are what allows a lot of websites to remain free. Also, I don't use adblocking software because I'm always afraid it will block something that's not really an ad and might have been important. For the same reason, I don't use popup blockers. I prefer to just close an extra window rather than miss something important.
Ads are OK as long as they don't pop-up and take minimal space on the page that I'm viewing. The problem lies with the obnoxious ones which drives people to block them. This kills the market for all advertisers.
I also do not also use adblocker and the same with some of you guys, i believe there's nothing wrong with ads as long as they not interfere my computer activities and they do not contain any viruses.
As long as the ad isn't in the form of annoying popups or blocks your screen and you spend ages trying to find the close button, then that's fine. For example I find the ads on Google and Gmail are unobtrusive and I might even click on a few once in a while.
I tied it without ad-block and it sucked...there was moving ads all over the place. I guess if they still used small non animated static ads or just text... you know something describing a product before an article ..would be bearable.. but these new flashy ads and the ones that blow up are out of control. I went ad block and will never go back. The same way I never watch commercials.Except on Hulu...thats ok...1 commercial is bearable. I also tell others who are always getting viruses to ditch IE and get Firefox with ad-block or learn to live with viruses. I understand these people need to pay bills but I see Google able to pay the bills without that garbage.MSNBC was one of the first to irk me (Big Blow Up Audio Ads) and sent me looking for a way to block ads and I will never go back to viewing the web in it's ad infested glory...sorry!
if you'd like they have a Flashblock addon for FF https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433 remeber to turn it off on sites you visit the most another example newgrounds.com great site! Always support them.
well, Google has the right paradigm; free 'image' or display to the client, but charges to the site for every click.
under that scenario, blocking add displays costs no one anything
As many hosted ads only delays the http GET /originalRequest completion,
I've loaded a ton of domain names to drivers\etc\hosts and I get very nice response times.
If you lose revenue because your hosted ads are too slow -- caveat emptor -- get a better add service
Like I care. I get alot of popups when I don't remove them. sheesh. I don't care what they're selling unless im already looking for it.
Never used an ad blocker, but I always have a pop-up blocker because those are truly nasty.
i have never used an ad blocker! the reason is that whenever i visit a site i pay attention only to the sites and not ads! simple! lol!
I just removed my adblockers after reading this. I would not want to do anything that hurt TS, or any other good sites!
I like ads as long as they don't cover up the articles that I love to read. Pop-ups I could do without. Ads are spontaneous, like me. If they are found along the edges of a website then they are basically out of the way and non-interruptive of my reading. But I understand that is how companies make money through their amount of ads on their web pages. Maybe if there could be some type of scrolling ad bar that runs along the top and bottom of pages then more people would be less distracted by ads.
I have tried adblockers , but havent used them in a long time. Somehow the browsers were often crashing when they were on. Maybe were not setup right; just using popup blocker now.Agreed ads are a means of revenue but they need to be checked and are fine when unobtrusive.
A big reason so many people run adblockers is to avoid malicious ads, sure most sites don't have them, but even good sites occasionally get a bad ad in there and it only takes once or twice before people get fed up with it and just get an adblocker. Whitelisting sites you like is a good idea, but the fact is most people are pretty content with not seeing any ads and won't take the trouble to whitelist even after reading about how it hurts sites, and then you put all the trust in that site's admin to 100% keep malicious ads away - thats probably unreasonable to expect.
As I have only a mediocre income I struggle to pay the bills I do have, this is an expensive new world by the way. I don't understand why I should be willing to pay advertising that I have to download (pay for as content). I do understand the reasons for Advertising as my father earned 'all his lot' directly out of the Advertising PIE. But with mobile phones being used more commonly as internet viewing tools and Netbooks becoming more prevalent why don't sites have "Flash content" and "non-flash content" buttons so that I can choose what clogs my 3G mobile dongle?
In 3G and not being "the one who would know" but since I dispute having to download content (pay per byte due in part to monetary constraints) flash versions of Advertising and the like, which lead me to, install some sort of 'program blocking program' my responses to buttons with-in web page content has quickened.
is this what you do if your see a user post thread wrong abusive or believe it would be better suited to another topic or both / other?
I appreciate the income sites get from having advertising up so I try not to block their ads. However, some sites go WAY too far and I have had no choice other then to block them. Revenue and income are crucial especially in todays economy and I for one try to support my favourite sites however I can.