AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

[superboyac]

Wonder what "inducement" (or threat) was offered to the creators of AdBlock to "fix" how their product operated? Because I strongly doubt this decision was made purely after a philisophical discussion around the company cracker-barrel. The somewhat defensive tone in the announcement leads me to believe AdBlock is getting something in return for  making this change.

It's an annoying change in policy even though I permit ads from most sites I visit regulary for exactly the justifications given. But that's *MY* choice, and not one made for me by AdBlock.

In the last few months I've made a conscious effort to spend far less time on the web than I previously have. Mainly because I'm getting so sick of the commercialism (and juvenile crassness) I'm starting to see creeping in everywhere.

Maybe I'll just need to cut back a bit more going forward. 

-40hz (December 12, 2011, 07:23 PM)

I'm totally with you.  My web use has just naturally decreased a lot over the last couple of years.  It's not so easy to find things, too much clutter.  It's more of a headache than not.  The number of sites I visit has decreased quite dramatically.  the internet doesn't really feel all that fun or educational anymore.  It feels like it's become a thing to try to get people to click around as much as possible.  Facebook, youtube, google...they've all become increasingly more annoying to use.  So I stop using.  Now, I'll focus more on my ow personal projects and see how those go.

[app103]

Should an ad blocker perform as described and block ads? Should they treat all ads equally? Should they decide for me which ads I should or should not see?

If I install an ad blocker, it's because I want to block ads, not just block ads the developer finds objectionable.

You wouldn't put up with a word processing application that only saved some documents, not saving the ones that the developer finds objectionable.

You wouldn't put up with a media player that refuses to play your favorite mp3's because the developer hates your taste in music.

You wouldn't put up with a photo editor that wouldn't allow you to crop a photo of your cat because the developer hates cats.


A word processing application should save all documents without discriminating.
A media player should play all songs without discriminating.
A photo editor should edit all photos without discriminating.
An ad blocker should block all ads without discriminating.

If the AdBlock Plus developers do not feel good about blocking ads, all ads, they shouldn't be in the ad blocking business.

Also, here's some food for thought - If you block ads, then aren't you being immensely selfish? After-all it means you are leeching a service while happily off loading the cost of your usage onto your fellow netizens who don't block the ads. You are using them to subsidise your own gains.

-Eóin (December 13, 2011, 11:58 AM)

Is it unethical for a person that already knows they will not click a pay-per-click ad to block them? The site only gets paid if a person actually clicks the ads. Pay-per-action ads only pay out if someone not only clicks, but also buys. If I know in advance that I will not be interested in any ad that attempts to drag me to a site where they will try to sell me something, am I wrong for blocking them? The site will not get paid either way, whether I allow them or not.

No, I don't think it is unethical.

On the other hand, if I know of an ad network in which the ads are pay-per-day, and the amount the webmaster makes is based on their total traffic (in other words my eyeballs count), and that ad network actually carries ads in which I may be interested, ones that will not try to sell me something, ones that lead mainly to blogs and web comics, should I go out of my way to unblock them?

Yes, I should and I do. I do not block Project Wonderful or Entrecard ads, for example.

I also do not block Facebook ads. Even if I will not click them, I do often find them amusing. Plus Facebook does give you a way to opt out of specific ads for various reasons. Facebook allows me to click a little X on all religious ads and tell them that I do not want to see them because they are in opposition to my views. They also allow me to report misleading, repetitive, or irrelevant ads the same way. I don't have to be subjected to ads for Farmville, diploma mills, weight loss products, baby products, BP, Bank of America, Justin Bieber's latest album, or political propaganda for the GOP.

But that is my decision to make, not the decision of the developer of the ad blocker I use.

[rgdot]

The genesis of things like Adblock should be getting rid of bad stuff (ie popups or ads that carry malware). Using Adblock for visual improvement of sites is pointless in my opinion. If a site I like decided to carry, for example, 1 'clean' flash ad I am not going to stop going there.

[mahesh2k]

I run adsense and some other ads on my site and i don't mind if anyone uses ad blocker. As far as adsense ads and other non-target ad networks are concerned they have no clue what type of ads to show on a particular site. For example, my blog is on programming niche, but ads of belly dancer academy was bidding on tech keywords. WTF ?There are also some weird brands bidding on wrong keywords just to get more leads. Many ads like pharma and stuff leaks through adwords on regular basis, It's better to block those ads instead of thinking that you're helping publisher in anyway. Besides that most of the ad network shave publisher earning and advertiser earning with bad traffic and poor performance calculation.

Un-targeted, keyword troll advertisers bid low on keywords and these brands are displayed on many sites. Video and Flash ads are more annoying than contextual but text ads take long time to load in some cases. e.g. Kontera and infolinks take more time to load webpages, so yes blocking them does help especially if you're on low bandwidth plan or on slow internet.

[Carol Haynes]

I personally agree with April (app103) but I can also see the other side of the coin.

AdBlockers were originally developed because advertising became so intrusive.

Many useful websites are ad-supported and so by not seeing and occasionally clicking those ads we will loose those useful sites.

This for me is a real dilemma - I even object to all the text ads in GMail - which just irritate me - I won't click on one on principle. The only ads I click on are whether there is some value added to an advert such as a good quality review from a trusted source.

What is really insidious is that AdBlock Plus, by choosing to follow this path, will move from the trusted service they are now and become no longer a free ad-blocking service but a hostage-ware advertising service.

By following this approach they want you to see the ads they want you to see - and I am sure they are aiming for a revenue stream from the ads they let through.

At the moment they are allowing an ad-optout but how long before it becomes accepted practice and the opt-out disappears.

[40hz]

Also, here's some food for thought - If you block ads, then aren't you being immensely selfish? After-all it means you are leeching a service while happily off loading the cost of your usage onto your fellow netizens who don't block the ads. You are using them to subsidise your own gains.

-Eóin (December 13, 2011, 11:58 AM)

I'm a bit of an economic Darwinist when it comes to that.

You can find takers for virtually anything - as long as it's free to them.

But by the same token, it's fairly hard to make the arguement you've proven your offering's value by doing so. And in most cases, ad revenue merely allows things to continue that are of extremely marginal value to their consumers. Because advertising revenues are the ideal way to allow crappy products and services to continue. Look no further than broadcast television for 50+ years worth of examples.

I can respect soliciting donations and subscriptions.  I can respect crowd-sourcing. I can respect seeking underwriting grants. I can respect that most honest of all web revenue generators: the paywall.

But I don't have a great deal of respect for the self-righteous arguments in favor of ad supporting a website. Because that assumes the site is offering something people actually want and care about. And to be blunt, that's a very big assumption. To me, using ads to support a site amount to little more than panhandling by proxy. And I have never seen anything that was made significantly better for allowing ads. In most cases, the appearance of ads diminished it.

Charge for access, request viewers buy a membership or subscription, sell your own products or services - or run a free site. But please don't get overly self-righteous if your site can't stand on it's own two feet, and then bemoan how people are blocking 3rd party adverts when they visit.

Just my 2¢.  

[Ath]

Isn't this the same that 'happened' to Ad-Aware some years ago? Nearly everyone used to use that to remove ad- and spy-ware from their computers, until that 1 update where they decided that some type of ads where 'allowable' (iow: you could get on that 'exclusive' list by paying). Ad-Aware still sort of lives on, but it never recovered from the damage they did to themselves.

[mahesh2k]

I also see one more issue with adblockplus owners abusing some publishers. For example, what if they start to allow adsense ads on google search page but not on websites of individual publishers. I mean if you find it unethical to block ads on some small guys who survive on ad earning then surely you can't twist things this way to favor big corps. Ghostery is collecting data for Evidon and they're twisting the stuff this way. I don't see the reason why they came up with 'ad choices' opt-out feature, that seems to be leading corp lobby for ad displays.

[mahesh2k]

Just to add to my previous comment of untargeted ads and lower earning for publishers.

Check this ad

AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

and this.

AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

If these ads are shown on programming site then you're not helping publisher by clicking on these ads. These are unrelated and low cpc ads.

[JavaJones]

You wouldn't put up with a word processing application that only saved some documents, not saving the ones that the developer finds objectionable.

You wouldn't put up with a media player that refuses to play your favorite mp3's because the developer hates your taste in music.

-app103 (December 13, 2011, 01:19 PM)

Many people seem just fine with the default save formats of both MS Office and OpenOffice, both of which are *optional*. And many media players don't play or associate with all media formats by default. These don't seem that much different to me. That's the critical thing here, as far as I understand, it's going to be the default to not block some ads, but it will still be *able* to block all ads if desired. It's a preference, just like changing your default save format for MS Office or enabling loading of more media formats in your media player.

It's a change in functionality, which I think is causing the majority of the uproar, but imagine if it had been like this since the beginning. People would still love AdBlock, they would just know they have to configure it right to block everything. Heck that's *already* the case as it won't block all ads by default (through omission rather than design, thus far). This just makes it explicit and intended, but again still leaves the out. I don't think it's a great move, but it's hardly deplorable or unjustifiable in my view.

- Oshyan

[app103]

Many people seem just fine with the default save formats of both MS Office and OpenOffice, both of which are *optional*. And many media players don't play or associate with all media formats by default. These don't seem that much different to me. That's the critical thing here, as far as I understand, it's going to be the default to not block some ads, but it will still be *able* to block all ads if desired. It's a preference, just like changing your default save format for MS Office or enabling loading of more media formats in your media player.

It's a change in functionality, which I think is causing the majority of the uproar, but imagine if it had been like this since the beginning. People would still love AdBlock, they would just know they have to configure it right to block everything. Heck that's *already* the case as it won't block all ads by default (through omission rather than design, thus far). This just makes it explicit and intended, but again still leaves the out. I don't think it's a great move, but it's hardly deplorable or unjustifiable in my view.

- Oshyan

-JavaJones (December 13, 2011, 03:54 PM)

There is a big difference between supporting a format and discriminating based on content. I don't have an issue with a media player that doesn't support flac and therefore won't play any flac files. I would however have an issue with a media player that won't play Metallica songs, regardless of format, because the developer has ethical issues with Metallica and is on a personal life-long revenge kick for the attack on Napster. Or won't play any country music or jazz files because the developer can't stand country music and jazz. Or a media player that will only play Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga files because that's what the developer likes.

There is also a big difference between a default format in a word processing application and the application refusing to save your essay on global warming, in any format, unless it supports the developer's point of view.

As a developer, your opinion on those matters does not count.

As a developer your opinions on Adsense does not count. I don't care if you like Adsense and think I should see the ads because they don't look ugly or because Google made a big donation to support your project. I, the user, my opinions count...and I have valid reasons for blocking those ads. And blocking those ads is why I use an ad blocker.

I don't use an ad blocker because I want to subscribe to the personal views of the developer and be subjected to his whims of what ads he thinks I should see.

I have an ethical issue with using an ad blocker made by a developer that has ethical issues with blocking ads, all ads, without discrimination.

[IainB]

I have just learned something here.
I was puzzled by the comments in this thread that indicated that the Wikipedia header adverts were getting through AdBlock.
And then Carol Haynes suggested increasing subscriptions to AdBlock lists, and then gave us something we could directly input to block the ads:

If anyone wants to filter those notices the custom adblock filter is:
wikipedia.org##div#siteNotice
(at least today)
Actually they have been appearing on and off for years.

-Carol Haynes (December 13, 2011, 10:41 AM)

And I wondered why my installation of FF had always been blocking these things without any direct input from me (as far as I could recall).
So, I investigated and discovered that:

• in my FF installation, neither AdBlock Plus nor Element Hiding Helper referenced a block to Wikipedia that would block those particular adverts.
• it was NoScript that was blocking them.

I'd completely forgotten about NoScript. It just quietly sits there doing its thing.

So, in my installation, I have 3 tools which effectively and comprehensively block annoying adverts:

• AdBlock Plus.
• Element Hiding Helper.
• NoScript.

So I guess what this indicates is that, to have comprehensive ad-blocking, you need all three tools - they are complementary.
The degree of coverage in FF in this regard makes it a joy to use for people like me who just don't want the ads.
EDIT: Also learned today that, to get similar NoScript coverage (including removal of those Wikipedia header adverts) in Chrome/Chromium, install NotScripts
(That is "NOTscripts".)

[Tuxman]

While I see the point that users say "I want a blocker to block!", I can't see why it is so hard for them to just untick the checkbox and calm down ...

Actually, it is a good step into the right direction. The more users only allow static ads, the more ads will be static and less obtrusive and blinking and sounding and requiring Flash and crashing the browser, and one fine day no-one needs ad blockers anymore. Ever thought about it?

[JavaJones]

I see your points app, and you're right the comparison is not entirely apt. But let's look at this another way. Ad blocking is likely to have an inherently limited life span. Over a long enough period one of 3 things must happen. 1: The websites that rely on ads for revenue die due to lack of revenue. 2: They find an alternate revenue stream, one which people who use ad blockers may not like either. 3: The war between advertisers and ad blockers rages on with ever-escalating and sneaky methods on both sides, on the one to get around blocking measures, on the other to block sneaky content. None of those things sound good to me, maybe they do to you. To my mind the best outcome, short of figuring out a totally different way for sites to support themselves that is also not subscription-based, would be for ads to be "good" ads. Either that or we pay for content. Right now there aren't really any options if we want these sites to continue producing content we like.

So, given the situation as I've described it (which you may well disagree with, but that's how I see it), I think this is a potentially positive move which, while not ending the advertising/blocker war, at least provides some potential relief. Better that advertisers be given incentive to make less obtrusive ads than that they be given incentive to work around the blockers.

Ultimately as it's an option so it does seem to be a lot of noise about the philosophy while ignoring the far less significant and scandalous reality (uncheck the box, all is back to how it is now).

- Oshyan

[mahesh2k]

Google's answer to Adblockplus, sneaking static ads in between search results. lol I guess soon they'll mix the colors and it'll be hard to see if it's ad or not. I'm sure that advertisers are going to get ripped off if they get false clicks or bounced clicks, google is making damn money with this.

AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

[superboyac]

Yeah, they've been making that yellow-ish color lighter and lighter.  Very sneaky.

[app103]

You can make them stand out in Google a whole lot more if you are using Firefox or K-Meleon.

Just add this to your userContent.css file:

[Select]

 /* BEGIN Google ad tweaks */
 @-moz-document domain("google.com"){
 
     #tads{
         border:5px solid red !important;
     }
     .std{
         border:5px solid red !important;
     }
     #tadsb{
         border:5px solid red !important;
     }
 
 }
  /* END Google ad tweaks */

It will make it look like this:
AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

Adjust the thickness and color of the borders as desired. Now you won't be clicking ads by accident.

If you don't want to see the ads at all, an even better hack is to change all 3 of them to display:none !important;

[IainB]

Google's answer to Adblockplus, sneaking static ads in between search results. lol I guess soon they'll mix the colors and it'll be hard to see if it's ad or not. I'm sure that advertisers are going to get ripped off if they get false clicks or bounced clicks, google is making damn money with this.

AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads

-mahesh2k (December 17, 2011, 03:51 AM)

How so is this "Google's answer to Adblockplus"? I don't understand. It doesn't seem to affect ABP - ABP blocks that too (I just checked - if I disable ABP then I will see these ads, but when ABP is enabled, I don't).
What am I missing here?

@app103 That CSS mod is rather nifty, thankyou. I shall use that for when I disable ABP and want to have the ads displayed but avoid them seeming to be part of my search results.
The CSS (script) shouldn't create much overhead.

[Tuxman]

Hehe, yeah, let's make all web ads obtrusive by CSS so ABP will have to block them all!

[Deozaan]

If you're going to use a CSS mod, why not mod the CSS to make the ads tiny/invisible? 

[app103]

If you're going to use a CSS mod, why not mod the CSS to make the ads tiny/invisible? 

-Deozaan (December 17, 2011, 10:51 PM)

If you don't want to see the ads at all, an even better hack is to change all 3 of them to display:none !important;

-app103 (December 17, 2011, 06:55 PM)

Did that. 

The hack to make them more obvious was provided because of those that seem to think we all should be looking at the ads all the time. I figured they would be happier with that one than the one that removed them.

[Deozaan]

If you're going to use a CSS mod, why not mod the CSS to make the ads tiny/invisible? 

-Deozaan (December 17, 2011, 10:51 PM)

If you don't want to see the ads at all, an even better hack is to change all 3 of them to display:none !important;

-app103 (December 17, 2011, 06:55 PM)

Did that. 

-app103 (December 17, 2011, 10:55 PM)

Aha. That's what I get for skimming instead of reading.

[IainB]

Actually, it is a good step into the right direction. The more users only allow static ads, the more ads will be static and less obtrusive and blinking and sounding and requiring Flash and crashing the browser, and one fine day no-one needs ad blockers anymore.

-Tuxman (December 13, 2011, 07:48 PM)

I think your statement has a chance of being supported by events. It certainly seems like it could potentially be a good step in the right direction, at least - that is, assuming that a "step in the right direction" means:

"...towards advertisers changing their advertisement implementation and on-screen presentation practices and in a manner that does not detract from the user's ability to gather useful and meaningful content for his browsing purposes."

Always hoping for improvement in such things, I have already re-enabled updating for ABP, and the new version 2.0.1 has installed.
After reading the FAQ Allowing acceptable ads in Adblock Plus, I have disabled (set false in about.config) the special treatment for the "acceptable" ads switch, so that it appears as just another filter in the ABP Options, and which I can enable/disable at will. I dislike black box features on principle, and prefer to be able to see what's going on inside, so the ability to view the filters for this is an advantage in that regard.

Given my preceding and long experience of some/most advertisers' moronic communication methods, I am somewhat sceptical of the potential rate of take-up of this ABP feature by advertisers - i.e. will they be able to change and become collaborative/willing? - hmm. Time will tell. It's a new idea, a change to the way things are usually done, and apparently an improvement of potential benefit to all/most parties, with no apparent disadvantages that I can think of.
And it can (so far) be switched off it we don't like it or if advertisers continue to abuse their communications access to users.
It seems reasonable to give it a chance.

@app103 That CSS mod - I can't get it to work. I think did it all by the book, but no go. I've not fiddled with CSS directly before, so I could have made a mistuk somewhere.   

[app103]

@app103[/b] That CSS mod - I can't get it to work. I think did it all by the book, but no go. I've not fiddled with CSS directly before, so I could have made a mistuk somewhere.

-IainB (December 17, 2011, 11:12 PM)

It goes in your userContent.css file.

If you are using Firefox, follow these instructions: http://brugbart.com/.../custom-style-sheets

Then restart your browser.

[mahesh2k]

How so is this "Google's answer to Adblockplus"? I don't understand. It doesn't seem to affect ABP - ABP blocks that too (I just checked - if I disable ABP then I will see these ads, but when ABP is enabled, I don't).What am I missing here?

I've adblock plus enabled with fanboys list and ghostery enabled to filter all the ads. I'm adsense user so i can't afford to click on even any random websites ads so that's why i run adblock to block ads from the networks. As you can see from screenshot, this search engine placement ad escaped through the filters of adblockplus and ghostery. So that's googles attempt to deal with ABP users and to manipulate search engine results at the same time. I am not sure how you managed to escape from this update of google because it is rolled out globally and there is lot of criticism going on for this.