ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Ars Technica on the problem with adblocking

<< < (7/13) > >>

wraith808:
^ And it could also be the realization that you don't have the technical know-how to take on the task.  Linux is a technological achievement, and I don't think that most people say that it isn't.  However, something can be a technical achievement and a stepping stone, rather than a technical achievement and a final destination.  And truthfully, I don't think that Linux is a viable final destination, and most people don't take that into account when looking at it as a feasible wide-spread consumer level OS.  It's technically impressive, but it doesn't have to be a viable alternative...

rssapphire:
Do you selectively unblock sites that meet these requirements?  Or does *everyone* have to meet your requirements before you unblock anyone?-wraith808 (March 11, 2010, 08:33 AM)
--- End quote ---

I will unblock the few web sites with ads that actually meet these requirements. However, while I did not mention it in my original post, I leave a few third party (mainly text ad only) ad servers unblocked even though they do not meet all the requirements. Google Adsense, for example. So if a site uses third party ad servers I'm willing to put up with, I see the ads. If they don't they have to convince me that they are not annoying and will not become annoying in the future before I will unblock.

wraith808:
Well, you're better than like 90% of users out there (including me) :)

Dormouse:
If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue

--- End quote ---

This shows no sign of being bothered that their ads consume our bandwidth, distract our attention and give us nothing we want in return.

If you never click on the ads, even when you see them, there's absolutely no point in wasting bandwidth (both ways) by having them onscreen. So the argument isn't really about whether the ads are blocked but whether they produce enough revenue, and there's an assumption that adblockers will be clickers if only they could see the ads. I suppose the next stage, if there isn't enough ad revenue after eliminating adblockers, is to make bigger more intrusive ads or to ration pageviews to users who click often enough.

Stephen66515:
If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue

--- End quote ---

This shows no sign of being bothered that their ads consume our bandwidth, distract our attention and give us nothing we want in return.

If you never click on the ads, even when you see them, there's absolutely no point in wasting bandwidth (both ways) by having them onscreen. So the argument isn't really about whether the ads are blocked but whether they produce enough revenue, and there's an assumption that adblockers will be clickers if only they could see the ads. I suppose the next stage, if there isn't enough ad revenue after eliminating adblockers, is to make bigger more intrusive ads or to ration pageviews to users who click often enough.
-Dormouse (March 11, 2010, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

"Please click on 5 of the links below to get to the section you originally wanted to see"

I can see, and feel it coming...it's already a fundamental piece of some websites I have had the misfortune of stumbling across.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version