Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love - Polidicks

[QUOTE=subenji99;20623671] I don't even want to see your bloody ad, why delay me from seeing the content?[/QUOTE] I havn't seen any adverts that contain gore or blood? :confused:

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;20630823]Brilliant, so they blocked people from seeing content who blocked the ads. meaning that the people who though may not have been earning them revenue, are now not actually looking at their website at all, thus not spreading it through word of mouth or through other mediums. So instead of only losing revenue, they have now lost revenue AND a reader/viewer AND potential readers/viewers. fantastic. wonder if they thought that out, and I wonder if they would be willing to try it again.[/QUOTE] Anyone who gives a shit would just whitelist the site.

That's why I hide ads, and not block them.

[QUOTE=The_Lizard_Xing;20630907]I havn't seen any adverts that contain gore or blood? :confused:[/QUOTE] :hurr:

"HI, YOU'VE BEEN SELECTED FOR A FREE IPOD NANO." "OH MY GAWD NO WAY!" I block a website's ads if they use audio ads. You can finance yourself as much as you want, but don't be an insufferable prick about it.

The only ads I block are pop ups. [editline]07:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;20630823]Brilliant, so they blocked people from seeing content who blocked the ads. meaning that the people who though may not have been earning them revenue, are now not actually looking at their website at all, thus not spreading it through word of mouth or through other mediums. So instead of only losing revenue, they have now lost revenue AND a reader/viewer AND potential readers/viewers. fantastic. wonder if they thought that out, and I wonder if they would be willing to try it again.[/QUOTE] I didn't realise asking for you to support the website was that much of a big deal. The websites are giving you a free service, at the cost of a few ads. In my opinion it's worth it.

[QUOTE=BAZ;20632357]The only ads I block are pop ups. [editline]07:19PM[/editline] I didn't realise asking for you to support the website was that much of a big deal. The websites are giving you a free service, at the cost of a few ads. In my opinion it's worth it.[/QUOTE] It's not a big deal. But cutting people off from content because they have ABP is not going to solve the problem, it'll worsen it.

I wouldn't have to use adblockers if 90% of all non-googleads-ads were flashy "CLICK ME CLICK ME HURR SHOOT 4 GOALS TO WIN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HURRRR" ads or fucking layerads that pretend they're loading the image for the cross to close the windows 5 minutes long so I can't close it or similar shit.

Guys, don't use Ad Blocks, just stay off the porn sites.

[QUOTE=NotYou3;20629591]dont give a shit ads are annoying[/QUOTE] This 100 times.

[QUOTE=Sams Brume;20627797]It's more like fast forwarding through the commercials. No one cares except for gigantic pansies who want more money.[/QUOTE] Except this is a completely incongruent analogy because if you're viewing a medium where you're able to fast forward through the commercials they have already collected on those commercials, whereas if your browser plugin is completely blocking the ad you are not loading it at all and therefore not allowing the owners of the website to collect on that ad. The thing a lot of you don't seem to realize is that this doesn't just effect huge companies that run giant websites. There are a LOT of people out there that make their living solely from the ad revenue on smaller websites, and they produce the content for said websites because it allows them to pay their bills. If you consume their content you should at least have the decency to "pay" them for it by letting the ads load. Thinking "oh just one person blocking ads won't hurt this website, so I'll just do it anyways" is analogous to saying "oh just one person throwing their trash on the ground won't hurt, so I'll just do it anyways". It's not the actions of an individual that cause a problem, but the actions of a large group of individuals.

I only block popup ads and ones that hijack your screen and play some annoying fucking audio and make you get a hole in one fifty times in a row in order to leave. I could give two shits about banners.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20636631]Except this is a completely incongruent analogy because if you're viewing a medium where you're able to fast forward through the commercials they have already collected on those commercials, whereas if your browser plugin is completely blocking the ad you are not loading it at all and therefore not allowing the owners of the website to collect on that ad.[/QUOTE] Except commercials [I]are[/I] worth less for programs which are frequently recorded. As soon as it's aired once and somebody's done a survey, they have an idea of how much that commercial was really worth, and if it wasn't worth what the station was asking for, nobody will buy the time, and the price the station will charge will go down accordingly. See: Lost. The analogy is valid in the long term. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20636631]There are a LOT of people out there that make their living solely from the ad revenue on smaller websites, and they produce the content for said websites because it allows them to pay their bills. If you consume their content you should at least have the decency to "pay" them for it by letting the ads load.[/QUOTE] They should have the brains to provide content as part of a transaction rather than put it out for free and make money via an unrelated and unregulated means. There is no "I get X amount of content, you get Y amount of ad view" standard. People aren't providing content with an explicit understand that consumers will view so many ads in exchange for it, they provide content effectively for free, with the assumption that people will still see the ads. That's fine if it works. If it doesn't, you can't get pissy at the people not looking at the ads- they never made it a requirement in the first place!

[QUOTE=radioactive;20633523]Guys, don't use Ad Blocks, just stay off the porn sites.[/QUOTE] Or maybe I will use both adblock and porn sites?

[QUOTE=Suttles;20631608]:hurr:[/QUOTE] What?

The thing is, this is the Internet. Everywhere you look people are taking measures to get content free of inconveniences (pirating media, stealing passwords to subscription websites and now adblocking). This all has the side-effect of hurting someone on the other side. Whether or not it's wrong or bad is now largely irrelevant. It's inevitable, and sites shouldn't really be looking to make revenue solely from ads any more.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;20636960]Except commercials [I]are[/I] worth less for programs which are frequently recorded. As soon as it's aired once and somebody's done a survey, they have an idea of how much that commercial was really worth, and if it wasn't worth what the station was asking for, nobody will buy the time, and the price the station will charge will go down accordingly. See: Lost. The analogy is valid in the long term.[/QUOTE] You're essentially saying that commercials are worth more the first time a show airs (which is obvious) and not really saying a whole lot beyond that, so this has no impact what so ever on whether or not the analogy is valid or not. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;20636960]They should have the brains to provide content as part of a transaction rather than put it out for free and make money via an unrelated and unregulated means.[/QUOTE] Yes because every website on the face of the internet provides content that people are going to subscribe to view... Directly charging for content would hurt most websites exponentially more than adblocking users will. I don't see how you could possibly not understand that. It might not be the best business model, but for a lot of websites it's really the only viable option. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;20636960]There is no "I get X amount of content, you get Y amount of ad view" standard. People aren't providing content with an explicit understand that consumers will view so many ads in exchange for it, they provide content effectively for free, with the assumption that people will still see the ads. That's fine if it works. If it doesn't, you can't get pissy at the people not looking at the ads- they never made it a requirement in the first place![/QUOTE] What? How is there no standard? You view one page of my content you see my ads for that one page. That seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me, and it doesn't really get any more standard than that. The standard is implied by the delivery method. Obviously it's not explicitly stated that "YOU MUST VIEW X ADS TO READ THIS WEB PAGE!!!", but it's not unreasonable in the slightest for a website's owner to expect that someone viewing their content will also view their ads. It has nothing to do with getting pissy, it's more of a respect thing. A lot goes in to creating a good website with good content, and a lot of you guys don't seem to realize that. It's actually pretty sad how large a sense of self-entitlement a lot of the people posting in this thread have. Also, saying this might come across cocky even though I don't mean it to, but it's worth noting that I work in the web industry so I likely know a lot more about how all this works than the majority of the people posting in here.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;20636960] They should have the brains to provide content as part of a transaction rather than put it out for free and make money via an unrelated and unregulated means. [/QUOTE] Welcome to Facepunch Studios! 1$ for 100 page loads, only this june!

I just use it to block pictures I don't like.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20638010]You're essentially saying that commercials are worth more the first time a show airs (which is obvious) and not really saying a whole lot beyond that, so this has no impact what so ever on whether or not the analogy is valid or not.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the advent of the DVR proved that any show, regardless of how long it had been running (Lost isn't the only example), had this drop after surveys and the like proved they were recorded more often than not, which completely validates the analogy. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20638010]Yes because every website on the face of the internet provides content that people are going to subscribe to view... Directly charging for content would hurt most websites exponentially more than adblocking users will. I don't see how you could possibly not understand that. It might not be the best business model, but for a lot of websites it's really the only viable option.[/QUOTE] So rather than come up with a better business model, the appropriate course of action is to beg? You're advocating stagnation because it's the status quo. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20638010]What? How is there no standard? You view one page of my content you see my ads for that one page. That seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me, and it doesn't really get any more standard than that. The standard is implied by the delivery method.[/QUOTE] It's not enforced, it's not explained, it isn't a standard, and that people have made such monumental steps to circumvent it proves it is [I]not[/I] implied by the delivery method. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20638010]Obviously it's not explicitly stated that "YOU MUST VIEW X ADS TO READ THIS WEB PAGE!!!", but it's not unreasonable in the slightest for a website's owner to expect that someone viewing their content will also view their ads.[/QUOTE] The fact that not everyone does so proves it's an unreasonable assumption! [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20638010]It has nothing to do with getting pissy, it's more of a respect thing.[/QUOTE] I'm not calling [I]you[/I] pissy, I'm calling a website that has the gall to beg for money pissy.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;20638010]You're essentially saying that commercials are worth more the first time a show airs (which is obvious) and not really saying a whole lot beyond that, so this has no impact what so ever on whether or not the analogy is valid or not. Yes because every website on the face of the internet provides content that people are going to subscribe to view... Directly charging for content would hurt most websites exponentially more than adblocking users will. I don't see how you could possibly not understand that. It might not be the best business model, but for a lot of websites it's really the only viable option. What? How is there no standard? You view one page of my content you see my ads for that one page. That seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me, and it doesn't really get any more standard than that. The standard is implied by the delivery method. Obviously it's not explicitly stated that "YOU MUST VIEW X ADS TO READ THIS WEB PAGE!!!", but it's not unreasonable in the slightest for a website's owner to expect that someone viewing their content will also view their ads. It has nothing to do with getting pissy, it's more of a respect thing. A lot goes in to creating a good website with good content, and a lot of you guys don't seem to realize that. It's actually pretty sad how large a sense of self-entitlement a lot of the people posting in this thread have. Also, saying this might come across cocky even though I don't mean it to, but it's worth noting that I work in the web industry so I likely know a lot more about how all this works than the majority of the people posting in here.[/QUOTE] You're spot on mate.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;20630823]Brilliant, so they blocked people from seeing content who blocked the ads. meaning that the people who though may not have been earning them revenue, are now not actually looking at their website at all, thus not spreading it through word of mouth or through other mediums. So instead of only losing revenue, they have now lost revenue AND a reader/viewer AND potential readers/viewers. fantastic. wonder if they thought that out, and I wonder if they would be willing to try it again.[/QUOTE] The point -> o You -> o

This thread convinced me to whitelist trusted sites. Facepunch ads aren't the slightest bit intrusive. I didn't even notice them at first.

If you don't have the money to run a website then don't run a website.

[QUOTE=layla;20640803]If you don't have the money to run a website then don't run a website.[/QUOTE] If you want good websites, unblock ads. Then ignore them, like we all did years ago.

[QUOTE=layla;20640803]If you don't have the money to run a website then don't run a website.[/QUOTE] If you can't run a TV station without advertisements, then don't run a TV station. :downs:

[QUOTE=Mingebox;20640878]If you can't run a TV station without advertisements, then don't run a TV station. :downs:[/QUOTE] Except TV stations have to pay for content, where as a lot of websites have the content made by the admins or have the community submit content. For that reason the only operating costs are the actual server and internet costs, and maybe some IT.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;20640895]Except TV stations have to pay for content, where as a lot of websites have the content made by the admins or have the community submit content. For that reason the only operating costs are the actual server and internet costs, and maybe some IT.[/QUOTE] High-traffic websites can cost over $7,000 a month to run. I suppose their admins should just shut their sites down, since they obviously can't pay for it with their own pocket money?

I have Adblock installed for two main sites, then I just don't bother to whitelist everything else or judge it's obtrusiveness. The only thing I don't mind are Google Ads, because they just aren't obtrusive that much. It's ads like Youtube's that make me block ads. When I see a shit commercial for a shit company before I watch a 2 minute video, it's a waste of time. Oh yeah, let's not forget these: [img]http://youtubesecretweapon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/youtube-ads.png[/img]

I only adblock specific ads Like the annoying smiley one that yells "HEEELLLLLLLLOOOO!!!" at full volume, and the "You have been selected to win a FREE* Ipod Nano"