Is this a new thing? It seems that way to me , mostly on news sites.
Also I have noticed news sites with a lot more ads that my blocker is not blocking.
It seems fairly new to me, though Forbes annoyed me a while ago by forbidding access unless they were whitelisted.
Personally, I don’t see the point. If someone has an ad blocker, they are very unlikely to click on ads.
I see it a fair amount now (I only installed AdBlock a few months ago, solely due to intrusive ads on the Dope). There are additional sites that request I turn it off. I have at least temporarily “whitelisted” a handful of websites, but most of the AdBlock-blocking sites had just a single story I was interested in - but not interested enough to bother turning of AdBlock just for that one story.
It may be that sites intent on blocking ad block-enabled visitors want to be able to show advertisers that all their visitors can see the ads, whether or not it’s likely that they’d click on them. In other words, a potential advertiser won’t be impressed that the site counts 500,000 visitors a day unless there’s evidence that all or most of them are exposed to the ads.
You don’t like my ad blocker? Fuck you, with hundreds of other news sites, most with the same news feeds, I’ll just avoid yours and look at another.
Does that matter as much as the fact that the site can point to a larger audience for the ads they serve? (This is not a rhetorical question. I understand that click-throughs are important, but also just ads served is the first statistic that I have seen quoted.)
Yep, those pop-ups are showing up all the time now. If the damned ads weren’t so intrusive, I wouldn’t have installed the ad-blocker to begin with.
It’s definitely not new. I’ve been seeing it for a long time, mostly on news sites. It’s also getting common for sites (news or otherwise) to put up a nag notice somewhere asking you to turn off your ad blocker. Most of those sites are still functional even with ads blocked, though.
Adblock Plus also allows ads that it considers to be “non-intrusive”. There’s a checkbox to enable or disable this feature under your filter settings.
Personally, if a site doesn’t work with my ad blocker, I don’t use the site. I’m not putting my computer at risk for malware from sleazebag advertising.
This has happened to me too, but I’m trying to find a website that does this now, and I can’t. I’d like to test a way to block the detection so the adblocker doesn’t have to be paused or the site doesn’t have to be whitelisted. Does anyone have a link to a page that will ask me to turn off my adblocker?
I believe Business Insider and the Forbes site won’t let you read the article until you turn off your ad-blocker. My solution is to open the link in a Google Chrome incognito window, which doesn’t have the adblocker add-in enabled so I see the ads and the article.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. The audience is one. I do not click on ads. So whether ads appear is moot, other than that I don’t like to see them.
I recall those sites not allowing access with my adblocker on too, but they’re not doing it now.
Easier said than done. Too often the content is unique and can’t be found elsewhere.
It’s free, a small price to pay to read free content so stop the ad blocker, because websites will find another way around it soon enough anyway.
The ads aren’t always about click through’s, they are about impressions. If you see the ad, for some ad campaigns that is their goal to increase awareness.
Porn sites have started doing it.
And many of those set off my “site improperly secured/configured” warnings.
Rich joke, there.
The audience is far more than one. It makes negligible difference to the advertisers what one person named Johnny L.A. does. What matters to them is what the average user does.
That’s why I use uBlock Origin (not uBlock, uBlock Origin): That “acceptable ads” concept is Adblock Plus’ business model now, which puts them in much the same position as the ad distribution networks as far as spreading malware goes.
And this is the conversation nobody wants to have: In the ad world, nobody has an incentive to prevent malware from spreading except the people who are actually getting infected with it.
The ad networks, the companies which get paid to accept ads and then pay websites to show them, have negative incentive to reject advertising. Their whole business model is built on accepting advertising. What’s more, they have to accept ads quickly: Ads are placed on pages in real time, as it loads, so the ad network computer has to have an ad to put on the page in a fraction of a second. Being choosy about ads breaks the whole business model.
The people who have ad-laden websites have, again, negative incentive to not do business with ad networks who spread malware. Those ad networks give the website owners money. Besides, they couldn’t do much if they wanted to: Once they sell those regions of their website to the ad network, they no longer have meaningful control over any part of them. And if that means they lose control over their whole webpage, or spread malware, due to a malicious ad, their recourse is limited.
The person who makes Adblock Plus is, now, in the position of an ad network, in that he’s providing a conduit for ads to get to people for a fee. He now has the same incentives as an ad network, none of which align with stopping malware.
That’s why I switched to uBlock Origin when I heard about the “acceptable ads” business model. People follow incentives.
Just because those links are annoyingly far down the page I initially linked to.
My point is that if people are using an ad blocker, it is reasonable to presume they do not want to see ads. If they do not want to see ads, it is reasonable to presume that they will not click on an ad. So not having the popup still allows them to reach the ‘average’ user, and also not annoy people who use ad blockers.
I use uBlock Origin along with Disconnect.
Ad blockers block ads that work as ads without being clicked on.