Sounds like the web advertisers need to update their expectations to match reality, like the TV advertisers evidently have done.
[/quote]
You are using resources (bandwidth and copyright for content) and not giving anything back.
[/quote]
I never entered into an agreement to download or view the advertisements; the webmaster is being presumptuous if he/she thinks I will automatically or even download any content that is freely served up.
Now there’s a situation that isn’t directly comparable - a ticket is an item that must be explicitly purchased; the moviegoer and the ticket office enter into a contract.
Let’s see if we can imagine a more closely analogous situation using another medium.
Television: Suppose there’s a channel that is paid for by advertisements that are presented in the form of a ticker at the bottom of the screen; the broadcasters expect that everyone watching the channel will be exposed to the advertisements. Except myself, because I affixed a strip of duct tape to the screen, obscuring the ticker (or maybe I have a TV where the image can be resized so that the ticker is outside the visible area). Am I stealing the content?
What about if I reposition my web browser window so that, for the duration of viewing a specific site, the banners simply aren’t visible because they are in a portion of the page that is off the edge of the screen, making it impossible for me to see them (this is possible with some page designs) - am I stealing the content?
Speaking for myself, I use ad blocking software because I don’t buy stuff from banner or pop-up ads anyway. Why should I waste my bandwidth downloading increasingly obnoxious advertising material when I’m just going to ignore it? Ad blocking software saves me a little bit of bandwidth and a little bit of wear and tear on my scroll wheel. The more sound and size advertisers put into their ads, the more popular ad blockers will become.
No, I am serious, if you open a window on my computer w/o my authorization you are attacking my computer IMHO, as in taking control of my computer. As so I can/will counter attack with any method available to me this includes both defensive (popup blockers) and offensive (DoSA) methods.
Hmmm… the window isn’t opened on your computer by the webmaster; it’s opened by your own browser (albeit obeying a pre-scripted command built into the web page) - popups are no more an attack than a piece of junk mail is a letterbomb. In any case, I think attacking the server would be an illegal act - two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.
Like I told Declan before, I don’t get everyone clicking on the ads. Perhaps 1%. Which is enough. I’m sure that a number of my site’s visitors use ad blocking. I don’t know how many and I don’t care at this point, because 1% click, and that’s fine for me.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that every webmaster’s ad revenues decline, due to more ad blocking. What would those of you who block ads want to see happen?
Would you feel ill-used if webmasters started to turn away (block) those of you who block ads? What if a lot of websites did this, so that it was really impeding your ability to see the content that you wanted to see? For instance, let’s say that all the “biggie” sites—Yahoo, Google (which has “sponsored links”), every newspaper site, etc., started forbidding access to anyone who blocked ads? Would you feel that was wrong or unfair?
That’s kind of how I see it to.
I’m not speaking for myself here exactly, because I don’t think I’d block users. (Especially when there are still book sales to be made. ;)) However, I suspect that some webmasters might block visitors out of, well, anger, irritation or spite. Kind of like, “Screw you!” And while I don’t see myself doing that, I don’t think there’s anything all that wrong with blocking people who won’t, in essence, even consider helping out. (Of course, the angry webmaster’s case becomes weaker when he wants to inflict obnoxious, loud, poppy ads on his visitors, but if he’s just doing static unobtrusive ads, it’s a different matter.)
Some popups ARE the cyber equivalent of a letterbomb. At work (where my PC has no popup blocking software, because the IT Department won’t install it) I’ve had some hijack my browser and reset the homepage, others try to install unwanted code, and one especially memorable one hijacked my browser and caused the CD-ROM tray on my PC to open and close repeatedly while forcing the computer to make strange noises, all in an attempt to convince me that my machine was infested with spyware and I needed to download their anti-spyware software RIGHT NOW!
As long as crap like that is legal, people are going to install ad-blocking software, and Yosemite can have no reasonable complaints when they block her ads. Hell, if a site wouldn’t permit me to block ads, I’d assume it was because they were using especially sleazy ones that (left to their own devices) any sensible person would NEED to block, and there’s no way I would visit that webpage.
Except that you haven’t asked your visitors if they want to help out; you’ve asked them to view ads. The two things are not identical. There are other alternatives to ads: put a donations button on your site (linked to Paypal), charge a small fee to view content on your site, offer two levels of service (basic and premium), with premium offering more goodies, etc.
I am happy to pay money to help support websites I enjoy. I am NOT happy to be bombarded by advertising (especially the increasingly obnoxious forms that are innundating the web now). If a site tries to force me to view unwanted ads, I’ll simply take my business elsewhere.
That’s true. One site I can think of offers free access to those who are willing to view ads, and a no-ad alternative to those who buy a membership.
What would you think of a webmaster saying that either you view the ads (for free) or pay for an ad-free membership, but you can’t use ad-blockers on the free section because we’ll shut you out? Would you consider that acceptable?
Fair enough. That’s a choice you make, just like the webmaster chooses to block you out.
What would you do if, however, the site had some one-of-a-kind information that you could not find on any other site? Would you think that the webmaster has a “right” to block the ad-blockers, if indeed he is not inclined to set up a donation or membership scheme?
1% is respectable. My site only gets a fraction of that.
If a lot of webmasters started blocking browsers that were blocking ads, the ad blockers would evolve to get around it. No question.
Any method the site might use to detect whether an ad is being blocked can be fooled. And IMO, there’s nothing wrong with that. I have just as much right to filter out ads from a page as to filter out blinking text, large fonts, swear words, or dirty images.
I’d consider it a bad move on their part, and a provocation, but not unfair.
They’re certainly within their rights to serve different content to different browsers, or not serve anything to certain browsers, but I’m also within my rights to make my browser present itself as Internet Explorer 7.0 With Irritating Ad Enhancements when it’s really Firefox 0.95 With Super Ad Blocker. They can choose not to serve me a page unless I load X number of images first, but I can also choose to load those images without actually showing them on screen.
That’s how I see it too. The folks at the other forum are speculating that it would create ill-will amongst the visitors, and I suspect this is true. I am definitely leaning against not doing it myself. But I think webmasters have a right to do it, because they are not obligated to present their visitors with ad-free sites, or to allow everyone on their site.
I also agree that it is (as Mangetout calls it) a “morally neutral” act. The webmaster isn’t harming or messing up the visitor’s browser or computer. They just aren’t allowing them access. They have every right to do this. And particularly if they happen to have a site with one-of-a-kind content, then the visitor can either choose to like it, or lump it.
Absolutely. The webmaster is under no obligation to provide free content to the world. I think that approach (which Salon.com uses) is an excellent solution to the problem. I get a choice: I can pay for the site’s content either with my attention (by viewing a few ads) or with my wallet (by paying for a membership). The webmaster gets money to run the site either way. Everybody wins.
Fortunately, there are no internet sites with one-of-a-kind information that’s of any real importance (despite the delusions of some techies). The Internet is like TV or radio; nice to have, but by no means essential. Important information I can get elsewhere if I have to; the fun but trivial stuff I can do without if need be.
Well, I have to admit, I don’t shed any tears if I cost webpages money. Unless the people who design webpages complete with ads and spyware in said ads are prepared to compensate me for the bandwidth the bugs have stolen, and all the time I’ve spent cleaning my computer. and the memorable day my entire Internet was down because of a few over-zealous advertisers. I had to pay for it whether or not my laptop was capable of connecting. I’m not moved by the arguments that building, maintaining, a hosting a website costs money and so I’m obligated to spend money, because nobody compels you to do so and nobody promised that it would be profitable. I’m not obligated to spend any money anywhere. I do so by necessity and desire, not because of some great cosmic scales. This is, after all, capitalism.
It seems to me that a few people on this thread are arguing that it’s unethical if we are not acting as consumers 24/7. I know people who are selling items and in marketing view the entire public as nothing but 24/7 consumers, however, that’s not how I view myself. I consider myself a consumer when I go to the store with specific purpose of buying something, or go to amazon or half or ebay with the specific intent of ordering something. I am not a consumer when I’m browing webpages and message boards. I refuse to feel guilty because when I’m on the internet, I don’t think of myself as “pepper, consumer of services and buyer of wares.” I do have Proximitron set as high as I can go, so I don’t see any banners or ads or even gifs. No animation, no music, no flash. I figured that if a webmaster or a company relies heavily on the income created by a webpage, they’ll either sell me something from their site I specifically need (ala amazon) or they’ll charge a fee so I can view the contents.
Ah, and if a site decided that if you had ad-blockers they wouldn’t let you see the free ad portion of their site? Would that be okay? It would still offer the visitor a choice—they could still pay the membership fee and see the site, with their ad-blocking on. But they couldn’t view the free ad-supported portion of the site, because they would be blocked.
I’m not talking about essential as in life-or-death, I’m talking about unique. For instance, almost all the work on my sites are unique. You won’t find the articles, artwork or photos anywhere else (unless on sites which are copyright violators).
I don’t flatter myself that the content on my site cannot be done without. However, some of it is unique enough that people want to see it, and specifically seek it out. There’s nothing quite like it (as with all unique content). And so, if I were inclined, I could decide to block the ad-blockers, and they flat-out could not see my unique content. (Until—as Mr2001 points out—someone does a workaround.)
But nobody is asking you to spend money. They are not even asking you to click on the ads. Only to be open to the option of clicking on them if you find something that interests you (which is how the “unobtrusive” ad programs like Google Adsense work).
I completely sympathize with your frustration over visiting overzealous sites with obnoxious ads—no doubt that these sites are souring visitors on all internet advertising. However, the fact remains that your visits do cost the webmaster money and you are using their resources. And if enough visitors block ads, sites will start to fold. (Sorry, I don’t believe that asking for donations or asking people to pay will work with many sites. Frankly, people are just too cheap.)
Well, in a sense, you are a consumer when you visit these sites. You are consuming their resources, and costing them money. Nothing on the Internet is free—it all costs money. We all comsume these resources, and often think nothing of it. But somebody is always footing the bill.
Anyway, I’ll ask you what I’ve asked others here: if you discovered that some of the “Big” sites or many of your favorite sites were suddenly not accessable to you with ad-blocking on (and let’s assume that you can’t find a workaround), would you consider yourself ill-used? Would you consider this “unfair”? (And let’s also assume that the ads on these favorite sites are not spyware or obnoxious in any way.)
Well, I already pay for two of the big sites (here and LJ), so I doubt they would have adblocking blockers. All the other sites I use with any frequency already takes my money quite happily (Amazon, etc). It would be infuriating if they behaved that way when they already make a profit from me. It would be like if HBO started interupting movies and Deadwood with commercials for Jaguar and Coke. You can damn well bet I wouldn’t subscribe to HBO any longer for the privlege of watching commercials. And I wouldn’t weaken my security settings and make my computer more suscepitable to bugs and spyware for a few choice websites. Even if the said sites didn’t have bugs themselves, that doesn’t mean you won’t get them. For a long time I never visited anything other than yahoo and the SDMB and I still had spyware. It took me a long time to get this computer clean…
Ultimately, I would just do what I did before, and somehow survive without those sites.
I run a website as well. So I have to pay for my domain and server space and everything else. I’m footing the bill every month, and I’ve had nearly 2 million hits in the past year, which I think is pretty respectable for my little site. But I chose to buy the domain and the server space. Nobody twisted my arm. I have a hobby and I wanted to share with like-minded individuals. I’m not going to begrudge people the bandwidth they use when visiting.
If other people can make a penny or two off their websites, I won’t begrudge them either, but I have to assume if they don’t charge an initial fee to view the content or they don’t take the site down entirely, then they’re not hurting for cash and can afford the cost of upkeep.
Actually, let’s exclude commerce sites (like Amazon) and stick with places like Google, Yahoo, and other ad-supported “free” sites.
Wow, the travails of owning a PC. (I have a PC too, but I don’t use it that much for web surfing.) I just cannot relate to such problems, but I don’t doubt that you are experiencing them. (You aren’t using Internet Explorer as your primary browser, I hope?)
Would you consider it “unfair” for the free sites to block you out?
More than a little respectable!
I’m in the same boat. I chose to make my sites, and I didn’t set out to make money with them. But if I insisted on making money, and I decided that I wasn’t going to allow people access unless they had ad-blocking off, I think I’m well within my rights.
Actually, some can afford the cost of upkeep only because of the ads. They don’t tell you that; they don’t tell you anything. But that’s what’s going on with them. And if ad revenues plummeted, they’d either have to fold up, or block the ad-blockers (to at least save on bandwidth), or start charging a fee (which could easily be a death knell to some sites).
It would be weird for Google to use adblocking blocking, since their adblocker is one of the most prominent and popular…but that’s just picking nits.
Perhaps instead of targetting the people who are forced into using adblocking software to protect their computers, webmasters and site owners could pressure the companies that make it such a risk. I just have the feeling that if savvy Internet users were forced to choose between visiting certain sites and keeping their computers clean by keeping up the current security settings, they’ll choose the latter nearly every tiime, and the webmasters may be shooting themselves in the foot regardless.
Not anymore. After the latest 24 hour binge, I wised up and DLed mozilla. Between that, proximitron, and regular sweeps, I haven’t have anymore problems.
It would depend on the site, how often I use it, and the risk/benefit analysis. I mean, I could just be very, very paranoid and over-cautious, but this is the only computer I’m going to have for a very long time and I’m just not interested in putting it at risk. In that regards, yeah, I’d think it was unfair. I didn’t ask for these potential risks.
No doubt. But I do think more people than not (unless you get mainly mac users or people who are already surfing around with 50,000 pieces of spyware on their computer) probably just wouldn’t risk it. Put it another way, some people may do a risk/benefit analysis and decide it’s worth it to weaken the security or to put up with an odd ad here or there. Other people may not think it’s worth it at all. Other people may not even know how to remove the adblockers. I know my grandfather’s in that boat. I established safeguards on his PC, told him how to run sweeps, but never told him how to turn the software off or disable it.
So do you think it would generate more revenue for you and more clicks for your ads if you A) Piss people off B) Force them to turn away because they don’t want to remove adblockers C) Push away unsavvy or ignorant users who don’t even know what you’re on about? And would there be a guarentee that even after all of this, more than 1% would click on the ads you’re trying to protect?
Such are the perils of having a web precense, I suppose. Again, why not target the people and businesses that make it necessary for adblockers to begin with? They’re not hard to find, I’m sure. They’re the ones ruining it for everybody.
