Woo hoo! Look at all the hits on my name! 16 pages worth!
I have a web presence! 
The ads are so unobtrusive I’m not likely to be annnoyed.
I’m staying.
You’d damn well better. You haven’t finished your end of the spider man swap/.
Shit, guess Dopers never thunk of searching for shit on their own if they want to buy something, huh? No, us trogs need ads for that!
Upon reflection:
I really don’t mind the ads personally. They are about as unobtrusive as can be without being invisible; as ETF points out, lots if not most boards/blogs the size of the SDMB have ads that are far more visible.
And I don’t get the “either ads OR subscription” thinking. I pay to subscribe to National Geographic, and they run ads. I pay to subscribe to cable TV, and they run ads. It’s never occured to me that there was some sort of fundamental problem with that.
I can understand where some people do get annoyed, feeling like fessie that “This place is usually a refuge from the … commercial world,” and I sympathize, but I can’t agree.
Yes, the commercial world can be crass and mercenary, but ultimately, that’s just another form of expression: people want money, and other people want stuff, and so they talk. Since I enjoy so many of the benefits a free market creates, it seems rather absurd to want to drive it out of my life. Not that I want the marketplace in my personal space; but the SDMB isn’t my personal space. It’s a public forum, a place to talk with people, just like the coffeeshop or the corner bar; and I don’t get annoyed that the coffeeshop puts a doodad on the table inviting my to try their muffins.
So ISTM the people that are getting pissed are either those who have what is, IMO, a rather naive idea that the SDMB itself (as opposed to the people or relationships one might form there) is some sort of family or personal environment and not a public forum run by a business, or else people who have some sort of irrational or ideological aversion to advertising, as if honest commerce were somehow dirty and unclean.
To be blunt, I think we’ve slowly been gaining too many of both groups for a long time, to the detriment of the SD’s nominal purpose. If the ads cause a change to that trend, I not only don’t mind them, I welcome them with open arms.
You people do realize that the alternative to the ads is shutting down the SDMB, right?
Obviously the Chicago Reader isn’t making [enough of a?] profit from the subscription fees alone, so rather than close the board they’re going to try ads. If the ads don’t improve the board’s financial situation enough, perhaps because so many jerks have decided to use Adblock, then what do you think will happen?
I’ll give you a hint: they’re not going to say “Aww, shucks, that didn’t work. Let’s leave the board up anyway.”
I’m sorry, but anyone upset about this is just another one of the SDMB’s typical compulsive offendees, who consider melodramatic bitching and complaining a recreational activity.
How the fuck does using Adblock affect anything for a person that would never click the ad in the first place?
If anyone is keeping score, count me as NOT being in favor of the Google ads.
How do you know you’ll never click it?
Besides, it’s unethical. In any media that includes advertising, the implicit agreement between you and the publisher is that you get the media at a reduced rate in exchange for dealing with the ads. You don’t have to click them on websites, or buy the products advertised in print media - you just have to look at them, however briefly.
Blocking ads is violating that agreement - you’re taking the content without providing what’s expected to the publisher in return. You could consider it stealing, I guess. You’re taking up their bandwidth and putting load on their servers without paying your fair share.
It always cracks me up when people who proudly talk about their ad-blocking software bitch when a website goes belly-up, or starts charging for content. I wonder why that happened?
I usually go to the bathroom during the commercials, myself.
I think you may want to rephrase this; you’re agreeing that the publisher lets the advertisers attempt to reach you. You don’t think the reader/viewer has some sort of ethical *obligation * to watch ads, do you?
You have to take a piss every fifteen minutes? That must be irritating.
Nah. That’s the herpes.
And when since did website providers have the right to flood our browers with pop-ups?
No, not actively. But I think they do have an ethical obligation not to actively block them using anything but their brain.
For instance, if you’re reading the newspaper, usually there’s an ad somewhere on the page. Unless it catches your eye, the only effect it has on you is subliminal at best. There’s nothing ethically wrong with ignoring it. I’m certainly not suggesting you’re obligated to pay any specific attention to it.
What would be unethical is designing a machine to cut all the ads out of the paper before you read it (or perhaps print over them). Which is essentially what online ad-blocking software does.
The advertisers are paying for that subliminal glance out of the corner of your eye, and hoping that their ad is clever enough to turn it into something more. If you do anything that prevents you from seeing an ad, that’s unethical. But simply ignoring them is fine.
I use a remote control to change channels …
This is the ideal situation, but…
Ads in newspaper don’t have electronic voices screaming at you to buy their products, or have advertisements that jump up at you and grab you by the throat with their deadly killer karate moves. Ads on the web pops out at you and scream at you.
Ad blockers were there becauses ads are annoying. I am okay with non-obstructive ads, like the one the board currently have. In a newspaper or on a show, viewers have a choice as to not to read the ads. But pop-ups? Ads that we absolutely don’t want to look at? If publishers are saying, “We have a right to show ads” then viewers have the right to say, “We have the right not to see them.”
Beside, many people switched to a paid subscription. It is not like they are not willing to foot the bill. Besides, ads are not an effective way of getting revenue. That bubble pops around the 2000-20001 period.
Ads blockers are so prevalent now that anyone who wants to get revenue from ads shall bear them in mind.
Absolute, just be glad you’re not making that claim on Slashdot. You’d be eaten alive. Frankly, I’m surprised you haven’t been eaten alive already here.
I never click on web advertising links. Heck, if they were banner ads and not text ads, I wouldn’t even have to use AdBlock, because the Proxomitron would have already nuked them before the data even got to Firefox. I’ve been using software and hosts files to block advertising for a long, long time. Things like AdBlock and FlashBlock just make it easier than it was four or five years ago when I had to do more of it by hand to get around the problems with IE or really lock things down with the Proxomitron and set up a much larger bypass list than I have now.
You have the right to say: “Your [publication/website/tv show/whatever] runs such annoying ads, I am not going to [watch/read] it anymore.” You do not have the right to alter the content the publisher produced to remove the ads.
(Actually, you obviously have the right, but I think it’s unethical to do so. But let’s not get hung up on terminology)
That doesn’t mean it isn’t unethical. You’re still screwing someone either way. If the advertisers don’t adjust for this, you’re screwing them, because they’re paying for the content you’re enjoying, but you’re not looking at the ads. If they do adjust for this, you’re screwing the content producer, because the advertisers are paying him less money for the same amount of traffic.
The analog to ad-blocking software in the case of television would be a device that replaced all ads on TV with a black screen. Changing the channel on a TV is not the equivalent of blocking ads, it’s the equivalent of switching browser windows or turning the page in a newspaper.
I had a TV with a feature CALLED (IIRC) “ChannelSkip.” When a commercial came on, you pressed the button several times and it would increment a timer by 30 seconds each time. You then could channelsurf, and at the end of the timer the TV would automatically flip back to the channel you were originally on.
My VCR also has a feature where you can press a button and it will automatically fast-forward in increments of 30 seconds.