-
Website
http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/ -
Original page
http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2009/10/07/is-it-time-to-start-blocking-firefox-users/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Technology is also available for content providers to make a walled garden, if they so choose. Put your ever-so-valuable content behind lock doors and charge an entry fee. Or are you afraid that won't work out too well for you?
Of course, it won't. You need a new business model. And that's the point of my comment: rather than tirade about the need to control people's minds by forcing them to endure your ads, get your head out of your rear and figure out how to make a buck by HELPING people instead of HURTING people.
First of all, I'm a businessman, I understand your desire to make some money from your writing and expertise, so please recognise my sympathy. Also, let's not mince words - "monetisation" is a crap Americanism for "advertising"; let's not call the spade a manual earth moving implement.
However, the internet is not like broadcast media, and the TV adverts analogy is inaccurate. The end user of broadcast media has - at least at air time - no control over the presentation of the content and advertising.
In the online world, the end user has full control over content, advertising and presentation.
A certain Australian media magnate has discovered to his chagrin that old-world business does not mix well with new-media mechanisms, and has even pulled his (hopeless) freesheet from the streets of London.
The internet does not do "paid for" at all well, it is an open ended network with full control in the hands of the end user. It's just plain hard to do "paid for" without closed-model technology. Many people want Internet technologies to better support "paid for" but it never ever will.
That said, referring to the limited number of visitors who are likely to be running ad-blocking software (less than 25% based on current browser share stats) as "thieves" is liable to cause what's known as the Streisand Effect.
They are not "thieves", because they have not circumvented any legitimate control mechanism. You have no explicit, implicit, or contractual right to ensure your advertising is displayed. This IS the harsh reality of the open-technology Internet.
You say there is no option to ignore advertising in "the real world", as if advertising is somehow an inevitability. That is not true. It may be there, but our brains have in-built ad-blockers to allow us to filter most of it out. You think I know who sponsors football or Coronation Street or the back page of today's Times? I have no idea. When I want to know about a product, I will go find out.
"The real world" also is at least trustworthy and reliable, unlike the Acai berry quack witch-doctors currently displayed at the bottom of this page, or the rubbish peddled by "Speed Up My PC 2009". The Tailsweep ad at the top? It doesn't even display on a non-ad-blocked IE8. You might want to speak to your ad-broker.
In summary - the technology you're using isn't fit for the purposes of making money. That sucks, but insulting your viewers or railing against technologies isn't going to change that. Rise above the levels of the RIAA, you're bigger than that.
All the best
Darren
Blocking Flash/Silverlight is another story (check out ClickToFlash). Web developers can use HTML5 video, HTML5 canvas & SVG, to do many of the things that are done with Flash/Silverlight. Plus, these other solutions do not tax the CPU & battery, in the same way (important for mobile devices). For IE users, encourage them to install the Chrome Frame plug-in, which enables these new web technologies in IE.
Give me a break - As others have stated: me not clicking gets you the same result as me not seeing the ads.
FWIW - I came here from a RSS feed... which has no ads... just so I could comment on your rant.
In the 90's, my wife and I recorded *everything* to VHS in order to skip commercials.
When the first ReplayTVs came out, I got one of those, and manually skipped commercials, and was able watch while recording.
We switched to MythTV eventually, which automatically skips commercials.
I NEVER liked commercials, because they were broadcast at completely unreasonable volume ("****MOR! FURNITURE FOR LESS****!!!!1!!!!ONE!!1"), were frequently insipid, redundant, dishonest, copious, condescending, and let's face it--THEY DON'T MAKE ME BUY STUFF. Ad agencies have an amazingly inflated view of how well ads work (TV as well as grocery store floors, pre-movie hype shows, tattoos on strangers, product placement, mall "surveys" ("here, hold my warm beverage"), streakers at sporting events, my doctor, phony search results, THE MOON'S SURFACE, &c.). Try counting how many ads and logos you see in a day. ENOUGH for crissake! They don't work like you think they do, addies!
I use AdBlock because I get to have the last word what my son sees at age three, and because banner ads waste my time and energy and patience and bandwidth and will never motivate me to buy anything.
We're on the "Do Not Call" list for largely the same reasons, but now we just get endless push-polls, so no big help there.
I do have to say that we watch more commercials now that we watch most our stuff on Hulu/Boxee/Netflix.com. The Hulu ads aren't usually as bad, but they are deeply weird sometimes ("Cube mobile device"‽). If there are more Recession Aggression Bag-type ads, I may have to look elsewhere for content, though.
Don't think people despise ads? Try standing in front of a grocery store offering free steaks, and see how many people avoid you!
Personally I think if you don't like the product, vote with your feet and mouse, but you shouldn't be blocking ads.
However, if you can't stomach the price you have to pay to get something, do without. When I monetize a site I make sure the ads fit with the design of the page and display product that is appropriate for the content. Who's to say you wouldn't run across an ad on a hi-fi gear web site that wouldn't lead you to a purchase?
Is every web master taking the pains to make sure that the monetization is content-appropriate and flows with the design of the page? No, but they should. Monetization is as much a part of the page as the rest of the design.
I understand that some will never see this issue from my perspective, and that's fine. I have a position, I expressed it reasonably, and like the ads on my web sites, you are free to use it or not.
What if I use a text-to-speech browser because I am blind?
What if I use a text browser or OperaMini or a lightweight browser I made myself? Am I a freeloader or a pirate or a criminal for not viewing the site using the exact same browser you used to test it?
Militant my-way-or-the-highway advertisers and designers don't understand that print is dead, and that the whole reason the web uses a markup language rather than a formatting language is because the experience *inherently varies*.
You are delusional if you think you can call your audience theives and consider that "reasonable". "Is It Time To Start Blocking Firefox Users?" I encourage you to do so.
Sadly, as long as they do work on other people (and they do), you are probably stuck in this world, just as I am. More power to you, and your ad blockers. Businesses should not be allowed to drive the few sane people in this world crazy.
And just so you know, according to the nice little add-ons I have for my Firefox... you other commenters here, are you aware of the sheer number of tracking bugs this guy has on his little web page? Or at least foreign requests, for this one page? Keep in mind, many of these may simply be logos and links on his page, but every foreign server that puts something on this page is able to track your usage. That's the way it works. Also, while certainly not all of these are known "tracking bugs", some of them definitely are, and in fact some of the worst "offenders" are in this list:
yahooapis.com
reddit.com
google.com
google-analytics.com
contextweb.com
wowzio.net
wowzio.com
facebook.com
seesmic.com
tailsweep.com
atdmt.com
33across.com
googlesyndication.com
piclens.com
kontera.com
doubleclick.net (a particularly nasty offender)
quantserve.com
dshepherd.com
disqus.com
digg.com
media6degrees.com
openx.net
scorecardresearch.com
mocrosorttranslator.com
googleapis.com
yieldmanager.com
afy11.net
collective-media.net
connectedinternet.co.uk
Is that enough for you? This guy is a regular feedhorn for web trackers. And he has the cajones to suggest that others are "stealing" from him?
Hahahahahahaha. What a tool.
It just took me 30136ms too load this page with dsl 6000 and just 4 little words in operas "urlfilter".
Without blocking anything this site displays with an incredible speed of just 62971ms!
Thats twice as much and by the way 1 minute of waiting with my new 6000 connection ... two weeks ago i had dsl 386, that sucked even more :(
your turn again
Too bad, like some of our hot headed commenters, they couldn't be bothered to read past the title of the article in question before coming to a conclusion about what the message was.
I think we know *exactly* what the message is.
"Look, regarding the sites with advertising so intrusive it drove you to run an ad blocker, boycott them."
I did that until the lowest common denominator became the norm. Some sites I do whitelist to show ads (though not many--I see advertising as inherently immoral), but not ones that threaten their audience, or call them childish names.
"why not click an ad link now and then?"
Because I don't need malware, and I don't intend to buy anything? You want us to lie about our intent, to pretend to be motivated by an ad, and *we're* the immoral ones?
Sorry.
Do you plan to chip in to my DSL costs?
I'm not obliged to look at any piece of your site, content or advert. Your bandwidth costs are your own concerns - I don't ask you to publish this magazine, and it is a compliment to you that I visit it at all.
This is a vanity publication, don't delude yourselves otherwise. Calling your visitors thieves for blocking your adverts is not only an obnoxious display of your wounded sense of entitlement, it's also a fast way to demolish a hard-won audience. I'm no more a thief for blocking your adverts than I'm a thief for walking past a busker.
Sorry Everton, but I'm another who won't be returning to this site. There are so many others in this identikit bracket I'll barely miss it.
Some of these responses are disappointing, and really make me question if the commenters read anything past the title of the article.
Finally, I only write for Connected Internet. The views and opinions I express represent Michael Lankton, not Connected Internet or it's proprietor.
If you want to be mad at someone don't read my articles, but don't take it out on Everton.
You set the tone by calling us "theives". Please don't be surprised if the level of discourse doesn't magically elevate on its own.
Yet another illustration of the idea that "intellectual property" can't exist except by violating REAL (i.e., tangible) property rights. IOW, intellectual property is theft.
I surfed here via the EFF link, BTW.
I have seen a couple of arguments here for ad blocking that do make sense; limited bandwidth and content restriction for minors. The rest of it is either people calling me an ass, or defending their right to do what they want with their computer, which would be the category your response falls in.
Since you don't believe in intellectual property, do you also advocate that we all go download copyrighted entertainment and software which is available on the various torrent sites, because your right to unrestricted access and electronic freedom circumvents copyright laws?
I am hearing a lot of chest thumping about computer rights, but nothing intelligent to back up the argument, so my mind remains unchanged.
Nor are we hearing any argument from you. You simply seem to assume your conclusion that we should not have control over our computers. That seems a pretty controversial position to accept without justification.
[torrent flamebait ignored]
The only regret I have is that none of the rabid electronic freedom crew seemed to actually read it before they left a comment. I would have loved to engage in a discussion of what I said in the article vs. your opinion on why I was incorrect, but instead we get this.
But here's a real question for you. You complained earlier about the fact that for every 5 minutes of television, it feels like you get 5 minutes of commercials. Do you believe that analogy should carry over to your website? If we apply that standard to your website, it seems that the screen space allocated to your written content and to advertisements are pretty even. By a quick count, you currently show almost one advertisement per paragraph of written text. If you want loyal readers who participate in honest and intellectual conversation, perhaps its best to do it without showing them large photos of people's teeth while trying to read your content.
Well integrated advertising isn't the problem here, it's the fact you're willing to show any type of advert that is.
I'm waiting...
"...the rabid electronic freedom crew..."
Now, unless you have proof that the crew at the EFF have rabies - I'd say that was name-calling, genius.
As for the pro-ad blocking commenters on this article, while I can't say whether or not they were actually rabid, about 90% of them were foaming at the mouth. Name calling, or calling a spade a spade?
Now please end your failed attempt at rationalizing your name-calling in order to justify your own misdeeds. Much like your failed attempt at producing a valid point with this article, you're failing miserably with your excuses - and I'm betting life in general.
You just seem to be further justifying the level of discourse you've been complaining about.
There, I made a sensible argument without personal attacks and with as little sarcasm as I could possibly manage to hold back. It's worth noting, however, that not all ideas are created equal and if people aren't giving your ideas the respect you feel they deserve, well, sometimes there's a reason for that.
And in fact I do not, in a literal sense, "visit" your website, any more than I "visit" a sitcom when I watch it on my TV. Your website, for me, is a stream of data that passes through my hard drive. And I have the right to alter anything, as it appears in my browser on my physical computer, in whatever way suits me. You have every right to block any traffic you choose to your site for whatever reason, but until you do I have no moral obligation to read your ads.
And as a matter of fact, I am fanatically supportive of the torrent download sites. Copyright has no moral legitimacy whatsoever--it's just a state-conferred monopoly.
I find that the flickering ads on the side of a page to be extremely distracting. It is very hard for me to concentrate on reading while they are active. It is a great relief to be able to read websites without them.
If you want me to read your work, I will do so in Firefox.
If you don't, fine, there are plenty of others.
Yes, yes I do. When an ad comes on a TV show I've recorded, I hit "fast forward". When I hear an ad come on the radio after a song, I change the station. You are correct that ads are everywhere now, but I can choose to ignore any of them that I want. That's the beauty of free will.
I'm not "stealing" anything from anyone. Your advertisers pay you for people who *click* on your ads... and I guarantee, adblock or not, I'm not clicking on ads. Period. So you are losing absolutely *squat* from me visiting with adblock enabled.
Do ad blockers cross that blurry line and enter into the realm of theft? No, but they are on the path toward it. From my perspective they are a deliberate attempt to circumvent a promise a publisher makes to an advertiser; that every reader who visits will see their ad.
I appreciate every reader who took the time to leave a considered comment, whether we agree or not.
There is some very odd rationalization here, because you want to be paid.
A recurring argument in this discussion has been that once property is yours, you are free to do whatever you damn well please with it. No argument here.
Now consider web content as a product, or "property". Since web content is freely available without you having to pay for it, excepting the minute number of premium sites on the web, web publishers monetize their content to get a return for their product. This is what pays for the time and effort devoted to the site, since the site isn't charging you a membership fee. So, you get all this great information and entertainment for free. Except it isn't free. People's time is worth something. I can work a single overtime at my day job and make more money than most moderately trafficked blogs make in a month.
So this content is being brought to you via these ads, whether you utilize the ads or not. The issue is that ad blockers subvert that, rendering the content free of ads. It's cheating the system the web publisher has put into place to bring you his content. Ad blocking users are utilizing the content without "paying" for it.
The technology exists that allows you to circumvent all these annoying ads. Does that make it right?
If you want to say "Hey, I gotta eat. If you like this content, you'll keep it going by whitelisting my site.", I'm cool with conspiring to defraud marketers by feigning interest. I also donate to sites that ask (to the tune of about $20/month, split among various content sources).
What makes me immediately defensive is when, instead of a PBS-style pledge drive approach, someone tries the Clockwork Orange approach of forcing or strong-arming an audience ("Ludwig vaaaaaan!"), or using moral arguments against any alteration of web content (I like your print CSS, BTW). Especially when so many ads are objectionable and occasionally contain security exploits (particularly from smaller sites).
This whole discussion came up a couple of years back when someone registered whyfirefoxisblocked.com (which ran from Aug 17, 2007 until Jun 25, 2008, according to Archive.org), and was much more serious about the notion of blocking Firefox with basically the same rationale. Firefox was young at the time, but was finally gaining traction with normal users, due to constant IE security issues. A movement like this, if it had been successful, may have prevented Microsoft from having to re-form the IE team and release IE7, thereby dooming the web to the dark ages for years longer. As a web engineer, this would have seriously impacted me professionally, and it would have crippled many of the more ambitious web apps we all use today. It's a good thing it didn't work then, and it has made many of us pretty touchy about it.
I'm actually a big fan of Webkit. The Webkit browsers are a little preference-light when compared to the Mozilla family, but damn have they gotten fast. I also appreciate that they consume less CPU and memory than their Mozilla counterparts. Even on a fast box it's nice to have a browser that doesn't eat up unnecessary cycles. I've been using Webkit as my everyday browser for about one year, when I started using OmniWeb again. Since then I've gone to Safari, mostly because it's the only 64 bit browser for Mac right now, but they all work great and have really good compatibility. It's super rare I need to fire up Firefox for a site anymore. I always try to recommend Safari and Chrome to people, but look what an uphill battle Firefox had, and they still only have approximately 25% of the browser space.
Use whatever browser you like, just make my ads convert ;)
By browsing without ads on I am not taking anything from you as I wouldn't have clicked on the ads to begin with. There is no "lost sale".
"My computer, my rules" vs "My website, my rules" arguments are moot because overall you need your readers more than they need you (otherwise you wouldn't need advertising). I have signed no contract upon visiting your site to agree to view it in any form you wish or not at all nor would I if asked too.
If you believe that your time is truly worth something and you should be compensated for it, place a subscription or purchase per article system in place and let the free market prove your argument hilariously inadequate. Judging from the site though you would probably find more success with a simple paypal donation button or equivalent.
Regarding "The next logical step"; there is no person on earth who would not install "AdBlock PLUS PLUS" in their car's windshield if it removed billboards and radio commercials. There is nothing wrong with that as I should not be forced to view ads on my daily commute simply because someone has paid a local land owner a fixed sum of money per month to display ads along the highway. If I had in my power the ability to "filter" that without altering that persons property I would do so.
"That every publisher makes to an advertiser": It's not my fault you promise what you can't deliver, your content isn't fixed and so it can be altered as it hits my screen. I was not a party to your promise nor should I be bound by those terms.
I think that's enough points for now, I'll leave my email in the comment if you should choose to engage in further conversation.
Or is the point that I oppose copyright law and support measures like bittorrent that make it easier to evade? Because it seems to me that's a fairly obvious deduction; it's a bit like saying if I'm against copyright law, then I must be against copyright law. If I'm against slavery, then it stands to reason that I favor anything that makes it easier to evade the Fugitive Slave Law. And if I think copyright is morally illegitimate and extortionate, then it stands to reason I sympathize with those who break copyright law.
Do you ever make any points that DON'T evoke a reflexive response of "Yeah, duh"?
Those of us that understand they can reward a webmaster for their thoughts by clicking an advert every so often wouldn't bother using any kind of ad-blocking. Therefore I don't think this software would actually affect your ad revenue very much.
I didn't write this post! My views on this is that basically it's my site, so it's my rules. for instance if my site were a cable channel I would dictate how the content would be accessed - free, subscription or ad funded, so I don't see how this is any different.
I would never personally go as far as blocking firefox users as proposed by this post in an attempt to get a 'good' conversation going, but I would understand the logic behind a site owner displaying a message requiring users to turn off adblockers if they want to see the content. if they don't want to fine and they would be within their rights to do so, but I don't think it's right for consumers to change how the 'product' is consumed to suit them.
How products are used is always determined by the 'retailer'. These terms may put off certain customers (pricing too high, not available in right colour, anti-copying etc) but it's still their prerogative.
Dead, totally, completely, utterly, self-servingly wrong.
Retailers determine how products are *sold*, certainly never how they are *used*. The relatively new notion of enforced artificial scarcity aside, I can do whatever I want with something after I buy it. That's the very definition of ownership.
I actually thought that these type of ads would still generate you revenue as it is only the end user's PC that's blocking them from being displayed - surely the server end of the connection still thinks the ads are being served?
If this assumption is incorrect, then I guess that is the price you pay for publishing content on the net and as webmasters, that's just a loss we all have to accept.
Wow talk about bad publicity. First, pointing the finger at your users is never a good idea. Second, you have every right to TRY to make money from ads but thats no guarantee, sorry. Nobody is stealing from you. If you want to force ads down peoples throats, then by all means do it. Don't argue with them when your mind is obviously made up, but simply go to a subscription model and gain revenue that way. (Yeah I know you write, it's not your website, but you know what I mean.)
"...ad blockers... are a deliberate attempt to circumvent a promise a publisher makes to an advertiser; that every reader who visits will see their ad."
That is absurd. Now your readers are breaking the promise a publisher made? I hope nobody goes around breaking my promises.
I'm a reasonable guy however. I will concede that if you want to run an ad blocking add-on for your web browser you are absolutely within your rights to do so. I can't fault you for it, even if I disagree.
Some of you are against advertising in general, and there is nothing I could say to change your mind or get you to see the subject from my perspective. I used an inflammatory article title to entice you to read on in the hopes that I could illustrate a different perspective on internet advertising. It didn't result in the discussion that I had hoped for.
Fine, if we can't have a productive discussion on the topic, let's move on. In addition, at the end of the day I would much rather have you read the content ad-free than to not read the content at all. It is about the content after all, and the advertising is just a means to pay for costs. For me. Some are a little more invested, and the owner of this site makes his living off his internet publishing, so while I know he doesn't want to do anything to alienate any of his readers, he also probably wants you all to load the ads, since his livelihood is based off them.
For those of you who aren't politically opposed to the idea of site monetization I would offer one suggestion. Instead of indiscriminately blocking all internet advertising, add offending sites to your block list. If the concept of the internet "tip jar" isn't unpalatable to you, think of advertising on the web sites you find value in as just that. You don't need to pay attention to them, you don't even need to voluntarily click one on occasion. Just tolerate them in the same way that you tolerate billboards and commercials.
Site owners are dependent on advertising revenue to offer you a product that you ARE interested in: their content. No one likes crass commercialism shoved down their throat, but we ignore it everywhere else, why not on the internet? It keeps the ball rolling and makes content that you find value in possible.
Your views on advertising as a means to defray costs are still out of date- The internet is not a passive medium like TV/print media. Users are in total control of their experience and well within their rights to decide what they will see or block. You will have to come up with a different business model than pure reliance on ads.
These days there are plenty of sites that offer differentiated free vs premium services or paid personalized services- something along those lines would help rather than stir up controversy with a post like this.
I agree, it is quite annoying to have to login to read something (as the NY Times website does, prompting the creation of services like BugMeNot.com)
Since this is a tech news/tips site- you could aggregate some of your popular articles or tips under categories, and offer them for sale as a downloadable ebook for quick reference. For example, an ebook on converting video formats, or troubleshooting Windows.
Or offer services like fixing people's PCs over the net.
The only people who can afford to put everything behind a paywall are those with an exclusive lock on content- a Gartner industry report, or some highly specialized whitepaper that can't be obtained anywhere else.
Since your site is little different from a million other tech news sites, your only option is to figure out a business model that works and does not annoy visitors.
if nobody is paying you for your work and you feel you deserve compensation, would recommend you stop blogging. if you felt you were entitled to make money simply by posting your opinions, you were deluded, simple minded, and childish.
people work hard to make ends meet. your bitching at me for blocking ads is miserable. what an unbelievably selfish act. how dare you treat people that thought you were worth reading in this manner.
i suggest you put your material behind a pay wall. what will you do if no one hits your site then? file suit?
now. you won't get your panties in a twist if i delete your bookmark (from my firefox browser). will you?
Does it really have to be straight in the middle of your page before AND after an article AND the whole visible right side of your screen filled with ads?
If you don't give people reason to block the ads (keep them non intrusive) they will most likely keep the ads on the site.
In your case, do you really think users will be patient to wait about 30 seconds so that your stuffed blog will start to show something on screen and about 2.4 minutes to have it loaded completely?
Have a look at this screenshot, of how your page was loaded by my browser on a 24 mbps Internet connection...
http://savedonthe.net/image/358/firebug_traffic...
Seriously, about 230 requests and 3 MB of bandwidth wasted of which more than half are ads? No wonder people resort to Adblock in your case.
seriously
fine. I want $1 USD for my time spent viewing your garbage ass page. paypal it to my email.
If the website is good, I donate to it when possible using PayPal or the equivalent, or at least visit it often, support it, and recommend it to my friends. When I use adblock, I tend to like the website more because it doesn't have those annoying ads and it loads faster for me. If a webpage is covered in ads, even if the content is good, I tend to scrap the entire website as stupid. And I'm sure I'm not the only internet user that does this.
With that said, I have to agree with whoever it was that stated that you should be GRATEFUL that people consume your content at all. I use Adblock Plus. If, for whatever reason, you chose to block me, I'd simply go somewhere else and spend my time there. You are merely one tiny drop in the Internet ocean. My question is this: when did content creators develop this attitude that "my content is amazing, and everyone has to do exactly as I say if they want to get at it"? Whatever happened to businesses finding ways to ENTICE customers into paying for something of value? You cannot put in place a business model that expects the consumers to behave a particular way (and then get mad when they don't).
If the site is profitable, stop complaining. Enjoy the revenue. If the site is not profitable, adjust your business model. You honestly think that sending visitors on a guilt trip is going to win support?
Even though the site title is merely meant to provoke, I defy you to follow it through to execution. Watch your reader base plummet into oblivion. Even if you find a way to block all Adblock users, people will learn to start blocking ads at the /etc/hosts level.
Regarding slow loading ads: Agreed. I have dumped more than one program that caused noticeable load delays. If the ad doesn't load as fast as my content, I'm not interested.
You guys have to remember too, if a guy is trying to make a living off of his monetized web sites, he is much more likely to have a more obvious ad presence on the page. It's his livelihood. Have I ever found inline ads annoying? Sure, but I know they're a necessary evil and I do my best to ignore them, just like most people do. Annoying, yes. Enough to make me froth at the mouth and engage in hostile, anti-social behavior in blog comments sections? No.
(IE6 attached this reply to this comment instead of the preceding comment, which it was intended for.)
You say that ads are a "necessary evil". They aren't. If you have them, and they prove profitable, more power to ya. If not, that's where you start innovating and giving users a reason to pay.
I would pay attention to that comment earlier pointing out how dishonest it is for you or anyone else to say, "If you like the content, show your appreciation by clicking on an ad or two." That is far less honest than users enabling Adblock Plus. Forcing advertisers to pay for false leads is terrible, and you should rethink your position on that issue.
Contextual ads are another story. Google actually does a pretty good job if your content is specifically targetted. If your content is eclectic, you get some goofy ads.
Pointing out that I was essentially telling readers to mislead advertisers with "endorsement clicks" is absolutely correct, and it was a stupid example for me to use. Thanks for the heads up, I was in the wrong on that one.
If your work truly is valuable (and I think it is; you're a fantastic writer), I promise you there is a way to monetize it. Think outside the box. Connect with your fans more (you're doing great with direct feedback in the comments). You would be SURPRISED what fans are willing to pay for. Advertising is the popular path to riches online, but it is not the only way. Trust me. ;)
Another issue I also have, you say everything you do on the internet is done for the content, not the ads, yet your pages are fully 1/2 ads, and that isn't even taking into account the inline word ads you have. Somehow, your words don't match your actions.
I ignore billboards (really, I DON'T look at them), change the radio during commercials, block adds, mute (online & offline) tv commercials, etc. That makes me a pirate? No one has the right to FORCE me to pay attention to their content/add/etc.
Block firefox users! I dare you. @$$
If you don't like it, stop "adding value" to the web.
Bite Me.
The advertisers sign contracts to allocate time away from TV programs, viewing architecture, reading magazines/newspapers, and generally viewing your environment. Now, there's no end-user contract with the viewers except an implied contract stating something like "If you wish to look at something I have, recompensate me by viewing ads." For subscriptions, it's generally assumed that the subscription fee is a recompensation for the medium and the ads are recompensation for the content.
Now, online content is different. Some websites have no ads and some do. The range of ads are different as well, audio, video, text, images, interactive, aggressive, offensive, exploitive. legal, and illegal. There's no implied contract because the user has no idea if visiting a site with content is expecting recompensation for that visit. Also, the value of online content is dictated mostly by how many views it gets.
If a user is using AdBlock, and your content is viewable, there is an implied contract that your content is valueless to that user since the ads don't dictate the viewing of content. By somehow enforcing ads, you'd have an implied contract to any users that view your content that your content is worth the value of time the ads take from the user. To me, there's only three options: enforce ads, thereby dropping the amount of views of the content; don't enforce ads, keep the status quo; or charge for the content, probably not a good business model for just blarticles, since blarticles are a dime a dozen.
I'm of the opinion that blogs/blarticles aren't bringing anything of value to the table. They're parasites on real content, for the most part. If Google or Bing implemented a blog filter for their search results, I'd be happy, since I could actually find actual sources of information, instead of rehashed,rehashed introspectives on said information.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer)
Really, what you are saying comes close to this:
Sean "Puffy" Combs walks by me one cool Fall day wearing a Sean John T-shirt. Seeing as it's his clothing line and it's ADVERTISING, I should stand and let him reach in my purse, containing all my private information and take out a dollar because even if I have no intention of buying anything, he needs to make his money.
But I'm the thief...
I don't know about you, but I could watch the old Kari Wuhrer Doritos 3D commercial all day long.
Ultimately, advertising isn't going anywhere. Advertising can be both useful and annoying. Advertising is simply an inevitable part of the media-enamored world we live in.
I'll tell you what advertising isn't:
It's not something that deserves such an extreme, negative response. Of all the issues in life that someone could invest passion and emotion into, I can think of things a lot more deserving than aversion to ads. People have way too much time on their hands.
That's the point. Advertisement are a major annoyance 8 out 10 times unless it's what the person is searching for. If I want to know about the latest games, I have a game informer subscription and I'll read it and go look online for footage (real gameplay) and opinions, not have some stupid commercial force feed it to me. Mainstream/NameBrand is not everyone's cup of tea anyway. If I want to know about computer components, software and other sites, I read through websites like yours for information not click random Ads. Ads online are annoying and intrusive, especially ones that leave trackers or alert beacons.
And people may have too much time on their hands, but its their time and their dime and if they don't want to spend it with adverts then it's their choice. I do hope I didn't come of sounding pissy. I didn't mean to offend but I just wanted to offer up another viewpoint to your debate that you might not have considered and why your other commenter didn't feel your "thief" comparison was fair... because it's not. I can understand your view of "I'm doing something "great" and for "free" and all I ask is that you not block the ads so I can help pay for this place" I get it I really do. But with so many people still running around ignorantly using IE and without ad-blocking software, who don't work tirelessly to keep such an expensive item clutter/virus/malware/spyware free, why did you have to smack FF users across the face and anyone who doesn't agree with you because seriously some of your comments to me I'm finding a bit offensive but but that neither here nor there. The real question is: you really didn't expect a backlash?
"Some sites you don’t dare move your mouse for fear of launching an inline ad link."
So says the guy using those very things on his site.
Here's some news, "value-adder", Firefox isn't the only browser with AdBlock, nor is AdBlock the only way to block ads.
Moreover, don't whine about the negative attention you're getting here... this is EXACTLY what you set out to do. You wanted attention, now you're getting it.
Unfortunately, you're getting PR, attention, and pageviews from people with AdBlock. Net gain: 0. And everyone thinks you're acting like a douche.
I can't tell you how flattered I am to finally get an audience with the person who speaks for everyone. There are a few things I'd like discuss...
Offered as an existence proof of people dying due to advertising.
However (and this is mostly aimed at James Breckenridge's comment above), comparing ad-blocking to piracy is just pure silly nonsense. James can't possibly believe what he wrote, much less think that anyone else (outside of a few MPAA/RIAA mobster-types), might actually agree with him.
Fortunately, there are hundreds of other sites that offer the same content, so we won't miss your site.
By the way, I absolutely love Adblock plus. It's quite easy to use.
1. It's practically like you are stealing from me
No, it isn't. You seem to believe there is an implied agreement between a website owner and the visitors to that site to view ads - there isn't. I didn't sign or click anything that said I agreed to view the ads in order to read the content. And even if there was, I doubt it would be enforceable in any way. Stealing is the unauthorized removal of property - nothing even close to what happens when a browser blocks your ads. Nothing was removed, the website just wasn't viewed the way you would prefer.
2. However, you don’t get the option to ignore monetization in the world.
Not true. The other mediums you cited - television, radio, print, etc, are nothing like the internet or a web page. A web page is essentially an openly editable text document that is interpreted on a visitor's computer. Ad blocking does nothing more than take advantage of the very nature of the internet, and simply modifies that text document before it is displayed. That being the case, it's perfectly possible to ignore an attempt to monetize something if there's a way around it. A flawed business model is not entitled to survival. And to answer a previous question from the comments, using Adblock Plus, the ads are never downloaded.
I understand the desire to make money from a web page. But your argument is essentially that technology is rendering your chosen business model obsolete, or at least less effective than you would like. And while blocking ads might not be in the best long term interests of a site's visitors, it's going to happen. Drawing attention to the fact might convince a few people to turn off adblocking on your site, but it also provides more publicity to plugins like AdBlock Plus, leading to more installs.
Trying to turn this into an argument over whether adblockers somehow immoral or not strikes me as particularly pointless. Morality doesn't enter into it - it's a financial issue. Advertisers are now in a cat and mouse game with adblocking software, which throws the long term sustainability of ad-supported web sites into question. That being the case, complaining that your business plan is ineffective is useless; it needs to be adapted. One such adaptation is, as you pointed out, blocking firefox (or at least adblocking) users, which might temporarily provide some amusement as people visit the site merely to see if they've managed to defeat your user-blocking measures, but will ultimately lead to a lower viewership.
Will some websites disappear if adblocking software becomes increasingly better and more widespread? Yep, definitely. Some sites will adapt, while others will refuse and die. Of course, sites disappear or become stagnant all the time anyway. But that's change for you - you don't have to like it, but you do have to deal with it. Adblocking won't be the death of free internet content. Complaining and insulting visitors (yes, telling adblock users to "pound sand" is slightly insulting, and calling them practically thieves definitely is) doesn't help anyone.
You've already said you won't block firefox users, and pleas to conscience over a financial issue probably won't convince many either. So beyond increasing viewership with the ludicrous notion of blocking a popular browser, I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across. No one ever said the ad supported website model would always work.
As for point 2, correct - we don't get to remove all monetization from the world. But we can remove some if not all of it from web pages, because of how web pages work. If you insist on drawing comparisons to other media, I would point out that it's possible (and legal) to autoskip commercials on a DVR recording as well. Simply put, there's nothing wrong with removing ads - we didn't agree to view them, you just assumed we would.
Complaining about adblocking is complaining about how web pages work - the browser interprets the web page, and the visitor controls the browser. Adblocking plugins just make what was always possible to do easier for more people. If you want more control, switch to something proprietary like flash.
I pay for the phone service, not them! It should be my choice what I allow through my phone and or computer.
Oh! I'm sorry! I didn't know I was messing up the arrangement of your shelves! Didn't know I had that power! So your site must be looking pretty different to your original design, now that I've made all these modifications. Hope you have a backup...
most of the individual elements of the page and in the sidebar are modifiable by the user via javascript
rearrange the shelves all you want!
What you keep saying is that you have the right to FORCE me to look at the items you specifically want to peddle.
Unsubscribe.
If you don't like ads when walking on the street, you IGNORE THEM
You're a retard
Blocking ad's is not even remotely close to Piracy you ignorant bastards.
I visited this post on a public computer and I couldn't even tell you what ads are running, nor will I scroll up to read them.
Am I a pirate for not clicking your ads or even reading them? or am I only a pirate when I set things up so I don't even have to see them?
1. Does it produce a pop-up or a CSS type (not a new window but a block that covers the content) pop-up?
2. Does the ad produce any sound (even if it only does so when my cursor crosses it)?
3. Is the ad completely in appropriate or possibly illegal?
If ads on your site answer NO to any of the questions then they are safe and I don't block them, so no need to worry about my Firefox AdBlock. So blocking permission to visit your site because I use Firefox is a bit presumptuous.
Now it's time for you to pay for your lousy web design. Get rid of the pop up ads, side bar ads, pop under ads. You don't deserve anything from us visiting your site, other than the specific reason someone visits it – and it is not for the ads!
Maybe try reading everything next time before you fly off the handle. Ultimately, you're here reading the article no matter what your opinion on the topic, so excuse me for not being sympathetic to a hostile reader. Thanks for stopping by and keep reading Connected Internet!
People use ad blocking technology b/c they hate ads. You hate ads too, Michael. Admit it. Do you sit through every ad on TV? Do you fast forward through them using your Tivo/DVR? You do, don't you? Of course you do, b/c you're a normal human being.
A major reason why people use DVRs, rent movies from Netflix/Blockbuster (instead of watching them on TV), download serials from the Web, etc., is b/c they hate ads and try to avoid them whenever possible.
If you're annoyed with people blocking ads, you ain't seen nothin' yet. This is just the beginning. Google is going to see its revenue from Internet ads collapse once add-ons like Adblocker go mainstream. Then it, and every other entity that earns money from advertising, is going to have to do what companies have done since the dawn of commerce: find another way to make a buck.
Shoving your product into people's faces -- most of whom aren't interested -- just won't cut it anymore.
While I probably have the same ad filter in my brain that everyone else does, I don't hate them. I am not above being influenced by an ad. I appreciate when an ad steers me toward something I may be interested in. I love the new Brutal Legend/Dethklok commercial. I have seen loudspeaker ads on hi fi sites that led me to look into a company. I ate Black Jack Tacos at Taco Bell two weeks ago, because I saw an ad.
People who don't want to see ads aren't going to see ads, anymore than people who don't want to pay for music and movies are going to pay for them when they can download them free of charge. I respect that people are trying to make a living or a buck off whatever it is they are monetizing. If I like their content, it's a small price to pay to have a couple of AdSense units on the page. If I don't like their content it has nothing to do with the ads.
It's not like spam. Spam ends up in your mailbox, and you didn't ask for it. Blocking ads is subverting a means of income someone has in place in lieu of not providing the content at all.
Which internet do you want? The internet that is full of crap, but that also has a lot more good content because people are successful at generating some income from an ad based model, or the internet with less of everything because of people who value their own comfort over the efforts of the people who provide a product they are interested in, the content?
People use ad blocking technology b/c they hate ads. You hate ads too, Michael. Admit it. Do you sit through every ad on TV? Do you fast forward through them using your Tivo/DVR? You do, don't you? Of course you do, b/c you're a normal human being.
A major reason why people use DVRs, rent movies from Netflix/Blockbuster (instead of watching them on TV), download serials from the Web, etc., is b/c they hate ads and try to avoid them whenever possible.
If you're annoyed with people blocking ads, you ain't seen nothin' yet. This is just the beginning. Google is going to see its revenue from Internet ads collapse once add-ons like Adblocker go mainstream. Then it, and every other entity that earns money from advertising, is going to have to do what companies have done since the dawn of commerce: find another way to make a buck.
Shoving your product into people's faces -- most of whom aren't interested -- just won't cut it anymore.
your'e wasting my time by showing ads.
i should sue you for wasting my time.
or i can block your ads so that would not wasting my time
which one?
That said there are sites which I whitelist. The ads have to be unobtrusive and the site has to provide content I really want. I sometimes even click on the ads... just because I feel sorry for them.
Adblock is the moral equivalent of a labor union. If the controlling class pushes too far, the subjugated class pushes back, they often try in turn to subjugate the controlling class, stripping it of power and punish it's supporters. One way of punishing a supporter is to ensure they get no income - boycott. For the particularly spiteful, there is also resource wasting - sit-in. When the public trust is abused, the public gets the idea that is ok to abuse the abusers; what goes around, comes around.
Now only if there were more folks who were moderate in the ads they displayed. Recently I was at MSN (I haven't bothered to change the homepage for IE, I rarely use it) where there was an ad on the front page for a service that after digging through the promotional material and website became plain that it was a scam, bait and switch, it wasn't evenly cleverly disguised but you could fall for it if you weren't really really through and read between the lines. That sort of thing really irritates me. The law may absolve M$ of any responsibility but in the court of the common man they are complicit. Rarely do those who profit from ads try to make amends for the damages those ads do, they just brush it off.
Its not enough to promise to be good, any child can do that, they have to be held accountable, their have to be repercussions. Until the industry can protect users from their unethical clients, the industry will have to live with ad blocking.
P.S. Firefox isn't the only browser with adblocking, all the major browsers via hook or crook can do it. Even those that can't internally can access the internet through a manipulation proxy like Proxomitron.