AdBlock sucks!

By crisp on Thursday 06 November 2008 00:30 - Comments (47)
Category: Internet, Views: 16.602

Not only does it deprive legitimate businesses from their primary source of income, it also puts a burden on development teams because of the number of false bug reports when some user was blocking a little too much.

But as with everything there is also a flip side: advertising campaigns on websites are getting more and more aggressive and obtrusive. Popups have been replaced by floating ads that obstruct the content or 'expandable' banners that fold-out when a user (accidentally) hovers over the banner. It also seems to be impossible to serve a 100KB+ flash file without at least another 50KB of javascript (preferably obfuscated, but uncompressed and served without cacheing headers).

Are advertisements getting more aggressive because more and more people are blocking them, or are people more and more blocking advertisements because they are getting more aggressive and obtrusive? Who knows?

In any case I'd say advertisers need to be more critical at themselves; in my opinion they are or will be crossing boundaries where their aggressive way of advertising will only become counter-productive because it only annoys people who want to read the content on the site they are visiting and do not want to go out of their way to make that banner go away first.

Advertisers still have a huge leverage over website owners, and especially when those owners see their advertising revenue decline partly because of the increased popularity of banner blockers they have no choice but to accept whatever advertising companies shove down their throats. Add to that the fact that 'sales'-people within big companies are only interested in fast revenue and don't care about or even contemplate the end-user's experience and the long-term effects aggressive advertisement methods may have on the site's loyal visitors.

As for me as a developer I can only say one thing: if you find a bug on a (or our) website, please make sure first that it isn't your adblocker that is causing it (or any other extension or plugin).

Volgende: Tweakers.net en Internet Explorer 8 compatibility 11-'08 Tweakers.net en Internet Explorer 8 compatibility
Volgende: Kredietcrisis: wie zijn er schuldig? 10-'08 Kredietcrisis: wie zijn er schuldig?

Comments


By Tweakers user Torched, Thursday 06 November 2008 00:40

I know.
Found out a week ago that noscript is a nice plugin for ff too but blocks everything at first shot.
Which you need to unblock youself. Which kept me wondering for a day or 3 why the rabobank site wasn't working :D

By Tweakers user Phyxion, Thursday 06 November 2008 07:16

I don't mind ads, but I do mind ads when I cant see any content anymore. Than AdBlock is just so nice :)

By Tweakers user Snake, Thursday 06 November 2008 08:30

I disagree.

When I look at the TV I choose weither to look at the commercials or not, preferably to skip it using time shift. (I record everything, and watch it afterwards).

For websites it's the same, I use AdBlock because I choose not to see the banners, it's my choice.

If you get payed per click: I would never (NEVER) click an add that is obtrusive.
And if you get payed per view: bad luck, AdBlock is set to remove adds, I don't know if it still does a request to the server that will grant you an extra view.

It's all about the complete package. If I go to the store and don't want something, I throw it away, block it, whatever. Same with websites.

Fyi: I've got an subscription to T.net.

By Tweakers user Simon Verhoeven, Thursday 06 November 2008 08:57

That's a nice mentality Snake...
You'll gladly use their bandwith and everything that's usefull for you but
according to you they're out of luck if they get their money from pay per view adds.
Really nice...
People do have to pay for their URL + hosting (if you want something decent).

By Tweakers user Sebazzz, Thursday 06 November 2008 08:57

Firefox does the webpage (so also downloads the banners and images) and then in the renderingprocess adblock simply does a 'display: none;' on them. No javascript that can detect that.

Fyi: I got a subscription too ;)

By Tweakers user MueR, Thursday 06 November 2008 09:14

AdBlock is not too bad, if used with some common sense. I will never block advertising like Google AdWords, because they are simply not obtrusive. You usually don't even notice them. However, brightly coloured banners, especially when animated, are high on not only my block list, but also on many others.

The success of Google Adwords should be a notice for other advertisers; stop the colourful and flashy annoyances. Less is more.

By Tweakers user Blasterxp, Thursday 06 November 2008 09:22

banner die geluid maken moeten ze verboden maken!

By Tweakers user Little Penguin, Thursday 06 November 2008 09:29

Actually I don't think any blocker capable of blocking Flash advertisments sucks. I don't like Flash advertisements and I'm using various plug ins blocking Flash content.

When an advertisement is presented as text (Google AdWords et al) or an ordinary image I'm happy to read/look at it. Flash on the other hand is eating CPU power and is most of the time very, very intrusive.

So I've created a compromise, I've enabled all advertisements except for the Flash based ones. This way the site (maintainer) still gets the money and I'm not annoyed due to Flash advertisements :)

By Tweakers user Little Penguin, Thursday 06 November 2008 09:35

(well where is the edit button when you need it?)

One additional comment, I dislike Flash even for other content - so when a site is using to much Flash in its own content I try to avoid such sites totally.

The only exception might be the YouTube site, for which I have to enable Flash :-)

By Dopher, Thursday 06 November 2008 10:02

I'm pretty allergic to advertisement. And i'll do anything to avoid it. This means, no adware on my pc (when using linux this is easy, enough alternatives) , no advertisement in my browser (using addblock+ and flashblock), and so on. And no, i don't even want those little non-intrusive google addwords.

You make it sound this behavior is evil and not moral. I strongly disagree. I'm using the internet since 1995. Back then internet was fun, and you didn't had too much flashing banners, popups, flash commercial, etc. The more mainstream internet became, the more it followed the trend of society. Like more commercials on tv, radio, on billboards, in the bus, on the street, everywhere.

I'm pretty much surprised that some people choose to use the latest "free" software, with adds, over the old clean programs.

Well; let me be a non-conformist then. My pc is the only medium where i can choose not to see advertisements. We don't all have to agree with this buythis-buythat-produceandconsumemore society. I don't care about the fact that ceertain content is paid using advertisement.

I don't like it, i don't wanna see it, and i don't care. Therefore i disagree with you and think that adblock is great.

By arne, Thursday 06 November 2008 10:36

JE spreekt jezelf ene beetje tegen, geloof ik: http://crisp.tweakblogs.n...g-performance-impact.html

By Tweakers user bsbfx, Thursday 06 November 2008 11:36

I don't know if anyone remembers the early to mid 1990's when Unilever and Proctor & Gamble where facing off for dominance on the Dutch washing powder / cleaning agent market? Every commercial break was filled with ever more annoying washing powder commercials. These commercials were rated by the public as the most annoying commercials year after year yet they worked!

Although the commercials don't make you want to go out and buy the specific product, it's a product you will eventually need and when you are in the supermarket the names had stuck and the products sold and sold well.

This means that for certain types of products or for brand recognition annoying and pushy ads do work as by the time you are making the purchase decision you have forgotten the slight annoyance you felt over the ad but remember the product / brand name.

By Tweakers user crisp, Thursday 06 November 2008 12:19

arne: waar spreek ik mezelf tegen dan? Ik stel dat o.a. AdBlock zuigt vanuit een developers oogpunt (onnodige bugreports) en dat het gebruik van adblockers site-beheerders financieel benadeeld. Aan de andere kant ben en blijf ik juist kritisch met betrekking tot advertisements (en de manier waarop geadverteerd wordt) en stel ik dat adverteerders wat dat betreft ook de hand in eigen boezem zouden moeten steken.

Dat laat onverlet dat een site-beheerder redelijk machteloos staat...

By J. King, Thursday 06 November 2008 13:45

As an Opera user I've no idea what AdBlock is like, but Opera does allow URI-based filters, which I use to excise advertisements from my Web browsing. This, though, is not because I detest advertisements as such. Of course there are some which are very annoying, but many others are not, and I have often followed advertisements when they are well targetted.

However, I started to realise, especially on sites like Zap2It (for television listings) and IMDb, that the extra connections required, some of which would block further renderings for several seconds, were really slowing my navigation down, and my computer being largely constructed of components roughly five years old, Flash in large amount simply bogged things down.

I compared performance with advertising sites unfiltered to their being filtered, and I noticed a considerable impact on how long it takes me just to get around. In the end there was no question of whether I should or shouldn't.

By Tweakers user Cyphax, Thursday 06 November 2008 13:50

Aan de andere kant ben en blijf ik juist kritisch met betrekking tot advertisements (en de manier waarop geadverteerd wordt) en stel ik dat adverteerders wat dat betreft ook de hand in eigen boezem zouden moeten steken.
Dat is een prima standpunt, ik ben het er ook mee eens, behalve dat ik die advertenties die over de content vallen niet wil zien. Ze zijn net zo irritant als popups (eerlijk gezegd misschien wel irritanter omdat je een nieuw venster met alt-f4 gelijk sluit, zo'n flashadvertentie dus niet) en het blokkeren van popups is maatschappelijk geaccepteerd. Wat mij betreft geldt dat ook voor die Flashadvertenties. Ik heb zelfs overigens geen AdBlock, nooit gehad, waarschijnlijk nooit nodig. :)

By Tweakers user Alex), Thursday 06 November 2008 13:54

Yes, I use AdBlock. I block all ads I can see, because they annoy me very much... whether it's a text ad, Flash, or even with a flying monkey or something. I also use AdBlock to block other things which annoy me, including lightbox.js and sifr.js... two 'features' which are used to make websites visually more attractive, but I hate them.

Sometimes I see that something isn't working, I then disable AdBlock. If it works, then I know the blocker is at fault and I add an exception for the website.

By Jan, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:03

Adblocking is niet verantwoordelijk voor deze spiraal, het zijn de adverteerders die steeds brutaler worden. Sinds kort wordt tijdens verschillende tv shows (waar geen adblocking mogelijk is) gebruik gemaakt van animerende beelden van 10-15 seconden die komende programma's promoten. Deze arrogantie was voorheen slechts mogelijk in gedownloade Amerikaanse tv shows.

Ik denk dat je Tweakers.net een beetje te zielig voorstelt. De website owner bepaalt wat voor reclame er op een website komt te staan. Door het plaatsen van deze intrusive reclame zorg je er enkel voor dat je gebruikers de Adblock hoek in drukt. Tweakers heeft heus wel de macht om de content vrij te houden en enkel reclame te laten plaatsen in de daarvoor bestemde vakken. Het geeft misschien niet maximale winst, maar zorgt wel voor het voortbestaan van tweakers.net.

Laat ik tot slot nog twee voorbeelden noemen die echt het bloed onder mijn nagels vandaan halen.
1. Een of andere hoer met het bordje 'updating management skills' --> geen idee waarvan.
2. Daarnaast de reclame van telfort (dacht ik). De reclame van telfort is daarnaast nog arroganter. Wanneer je op 'Close' drukt verdwijnt de reclame niet echt. Als je immers tekst uit een artikel selecteert dan kan je de content niet meer lezen omdat je de afdruk van de telfort reclame nog steeds kan zien.

Hou de content vrij van reclame en laat de reclame in de daarvoor bestemde vakken!!

By Jan, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:08

'expandable' banners that fold-out when a user (accidentally) hovers over the banner.
Ik vind het daarnaast wel apart dat je iets dat je heel erg irritant vindt als feature inbouwt in de tweakers.net site (uitklapbare tracker).

By Tweakers user MazeMouse, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:17

I started using adblock because of the agressive contentblocking banners.
(and even worse... intellitxt...)
Guess what, I've started to enjoy browsing more and it has become a lot faster because sites don't stop at every little useless bannerthingy.

By Tweakers user TerraGuy, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:37

Are advertisements getting more aggressive because more and more people are blocking them, or are people more and more blocking advertisements because they are getting more aggressive and obtrusive? Who knows?
The first one is just followed by the last one. If people don't mind ads, they leave it the way it is. If people *do* mind, and they obviously mind more because of the agression and obtrusiveness, they start complaining and then someone will point them to adblockers.

It's also just a point of 'because it's possible'. If it's possible to use ads that are innovative, huge, annoying to the bone, more people will notice (in a good or bad way). But the 'because it's possible' is also used by website viewers, in the case of installing an adblocker.

All in all I think it's best for ads to not get *too* noticable or innovative in a scripting/graphical way. Make simple ads and most people won't be annoyed --> not many people will install adblockers --> more people will see your ad --> you will make more money. Google Ads as a perfect example.

By Tweakers user ari, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:40

Ik vind het daarnaast wel apart dat je iets dat je heel erg irritant vindt als feature inbouwt in de tweakers.net site (uitklapbare tracker).
De tracker geeft de meest recente updates weer, en is compleet aan je eigen smaak aan te passen. Het is dan ook een onderdeel van T.net, en geen irritante reclame die zich opdringt.

De tracker klapt trouwens alleen (een klein beetje) uit bij een erg klein scherm. En dan klapt hij ook direct weer in zodra je je muis eraf haalt, geen kruisje of wat voor nodig.

By Tweakers user Patriot, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:46

Ik vind het daarnaast wel apart dat je iets dat je heel erg irritant vindt als feature inbouwt in de tweakers.net site (uitklapbare tracker).
Huh? Ik weet niet waar jij het over hebt hoor, volgens mij vereisen alle uitklappende onderdelen van T.net een muisklik van de gebruiker.

By Tweakers user Hazurr, Thursday 06 November 2008 15:55

Advertisements should be considered an income-source of oppertunity, if you live off the income from advertisers then you're doing bad bussiness by default.

(this user runs adblock plus for firefox)

By Jan, Thursday 06 November 2008 16:30

Huh? Ik weet niet waar jij het over hebt hoor, volgens mij vereisen alle uitklappende onderdelen van T.net een muisklik van de gebruiker.

>>>De tracker klapt in en uit als je window 'te klein' is om de site volledig weer te geven.

De tracker geeft de meest recente updates weer, en is compleet aan je eigen smaak aan te passen. Het is dan ook een onderdeel van T.net, en geen irritante reclame die zich opdringt.

De tracker klapt trouwens alleen (een klein beetje) uit bij een erg klein scherm. En dan klapt hij ook direct weer in zodra je je muis eraf haalt, geen kruisje of wat voor nodig.

>>>Daar gaat het niet om. Het is weer iets dat de content overschaduwd. Daarnaast is het uitklappen van de tracker zeer gemakkelijk te activeren door perongeluk je muis er over te bewegen. Het is bijna net zo irritant dat content geblockt wordt door de tracker dan door vervelende reclame (niet helemaal natuurlijk, maar hopelijk begrijp je wat ik bedoel). En wees aub niet zo arrogant om te stellen dat de tracker alleen uitklapt bij een erg klein scherm. Ik draai een perfect normale resolutie van 1024 wat al 'erg klein' zou zijn.

By Tweakers user Ruudjah, Thursday 06 November 2008 17:01

What about mobile web browsing? Although I have several 100Mbit connections available on work, school at home and other instituttions, my §10 mobile connection needs ages to download ads. Websites should check for known mobile adresses, automatically render the mobile version, and offer a link to the original page without ad, or low-profile google text ads.

By Tweakers user ari, Thursday 06 November 2008 18:13

>>>Daar gaat het niet om. Het is weer iets dat de content overschaduwd. Daarnaast is het uitklappen van de tracker zeer gemakkelijk te activeren door perongeluk je muis er over te bewegen. Het is bijna net zo irritant dat content geblockt wordt door de tracker dan door vervelende reclame (niet helemaal natuurlijk, maar hopelijk begrijp je wat ik bedoel). En wees aub niet zo arrogant om te stellen dat de tracker alleen uitklapt bij een erg klein scherm. Ik draai een perfect normale resolutie van 1024 wat al 'erg klein' zou zijn.
Daar gaat het wel om, we hebben het hier over reclame die zichzelf over de content heen zet. Niet over content die over andere content heen gaat bij een mouseover.

Jij had liever gezien dat de tracker niet inklapt en dat je een horizontale scrollbalk krijgt? Dan kun je voortaan bij elk artikel eerst naar rechts scrollen, ik weet niet of dat nou zo'n geweldige oplossing is.

De tracker die je per ongeluk activeert, deactiveer je weer door je muis er vanaf te halen. En dan is-ie direct weer weg. Je hoeft niet op kruisjes te klikken of wat dan ook, het lijkt me dan ook een gebruikersvriendelijke oplossing. Gewoon een kwestie van je muis daar weghouden als je er niet van houdt.

By Tweakers user Naatan, Thursday 06 November 2008 18:30

"Not only does it deprive legitimate businesses from their primary source of income"

That's bullshit, I use adblock because I am not interested in ads.. whether or not these ads actually show up on my screen does not make a difference.

Additionally I think you'd have to either work for an advertisement company or try really hard to be obstructed by adblock as a web developer. I've never had the least bit of trouble with it.

By Jan, Thursday 06 November 2008 19:19

Daar gaat het wel om, we hebben het hier over reclame die zichzelf over de content heen zet. Niet over content die over andere content heen gaat bij een mouseover.

Jij had liever gezien dat de tracker niet inklapt en dat je een horizontale scrollbalk krijgt? Dan kun je voortaan bij elk artikel eerst naar rechts scrollen, ik weet niet of dat nou zo'n geweldige oplossing is.

De tracker die je per ongeluk activeert, deactiveer je weer door je muis er vanaf te halen. En dan is-ie direct weer weg. Je hoeft niet op kruisjes te klikken of wat dan ook, het lijkt me dan ook een gebruikersvriendelijke oplossing. Gewoon een kwestie van je muis daar weghouden als je er niet van houdt.

>>> De tracker is geen content. Content zijn de nieuwsartikelen, de reviews en de forum topics. De trackers is enkel een veredelde lijst links. Ik bekijk tweakers.net met een normale monitor die max 1024 kan draaien en heb daardoor permanent een uitklapbare tracker. De uitklapbare tracker is zeer irritant bij permanent gebruik. Ik heb het heel vaak dat ik een nieuwartikel aan het lezen ben en dat de tracker uitklapt door de muis.

Wat ik het liefst voor de tracker zou zien is deze rechts en dan met een knop bovenaan zodat je deze kan in en uitklappen ( zoals bij de oude forum layout ). In het geval dat iemand tweakers met genoeg breedte laadt kan de tracker dan standaard uitgeklapt zijn en als iemand de pagina in met te weinig breedte laat moet de tracker standaard ingeklapt zijn.

By Tweakers user pythagorasABC, Thursday 06 November 2008 19:28

Onderaan, rondje met pijltjes erin ;)

By Tweakers user ari, Thursday 06 November 2008 21:24

Wat ik het liefst voor de tracker zou zien is deze rechts en dan met een knop bovenaan zodat je deze kan in en uitklappen ( zoals bij de oude forum layout ).
Zoals ik al schreef, je kunt de tracker compleet aanpassen aan je eigen smaak. pythagorasABC gaf het al aan, d'r zit rechtsonderaan de tracker een knopje met pijltjes erin. Check it out. :P

By Jan, Thursday 06 November 2008 21:52

Ik weet dat je het kan aanpassen. Het was meer een rant tegen het default gedrag van de tracker. Maar goed ...

By Tweakers user crisp, Thursday 06 November 2008 22:52

Jan:
Ik denk dat je Tweakers.net een beetje te zielig voorstelt. De website owner bepaalt wat voor reclame er op een website komt te staan.
Dat ben ik niet met je eens. Om eerst even met het eerste te beginnen: ik praat hier niet sec over Tweakers.net, wij mogen denk ik niet klagen en kunnen in zekere mate wel eisen stellen aan reclame-uitingen. Het enige nadeel dat wij nu hebben is dat er sinds de overname door VNU een sales-afdeling tussen is gekomen en er dus constant gecommuniceerd en gecompromiseerd moet worden tussen partijen met tegenstrijdige belangen. Sommige compromissen zijn als gevolg minder optimaal dan wij graag als Tweakers.net zouden zien.

Kleinere sites hebben echter niet zoveel in te brengen bij adverteerders; dat is meestal "take it as it is or we'll take our business elsewhere". Als jij hoge eisen stelt als kleine partij (waarvan er veel meer zijn) krijg je simpelweg geen grote adverteerders over de vloer.

Overigens: als er technische issues zijn met reclame-uitingen kan je dat gewoon op ons forum melden. De floating-ad met het niet-werkende sluitknopje (was Vodafone) trouwens is vrij snel naar melding van dit probleem offline gehaald (hij had sowieso niet online mogen staan want de afspraak die wij hebben met de salesafdeling van VNU is dat dit soort dingen eerst door onszelf getest moeten worden).
Ik vind het daarnaast wel apart dat je iets dat je heel erg irritant vindt als feature inbouwt in de tweakers.net site (uitklapbare tracker).
Dat is een heel lastige afweging geweest tussen of een horizontale scrollbalk of deze oplossing bij kleinere schermen (1024px breedte is tegenwoordig een minderheid). Inmiddels is daar een optie bijgekomen om 'm rechts te zetten en overwegen we nog een extra optie om het 'versmallen' van de layout helemaal uit te zetten (dan heb je dus wel een horizontale scrollbalk bij lagere resoluties, maar niet de in/uitklap behaviour meer van de tracker).

By Tweakers user crisp, Thursday 06 November 2008 23:09

Hazurr:
Advertisements should be considered an income-source of oppertunity, if you live off the income from advertisers then you're doing bad bussiness by default.
How many other viable 'good' business models do you know for the web? And do they apply to every kind of website? Apart from some models that specialized websites use (e.g. auction sites that can charge customers some sort of fee) the only generic model that comes to mind is the subscription model, and that just doesn't really work well on the web (maybe except for pornsites)

Naatan:
Additionally I think you'd have to either work for an advertisement company or try really hard to be obstructed by adblock as a web developer. I've never had the least bit of trouble with it.
The problem I have with adblockers as a developer is the fact that people who use them sometimes file bugreports for issues that are not bugs but are caused by their adblocker (or some other plugin or extension). I do have AdBlock installed but only for testing purposes. It is almost always disabled ;)

By Tweakers user Parabellum, Friday 07 November 2008 13:10

@ bsbsfx :

I remember those days too and indeed the majority were getting sick of those manny same commercials all the time. It had a positive side aswell, they sold lesser and lesser after every week of those commercials.

On-topic

I dont mind ads and even sometime I see verry good/nice ads or constructive ads of products where I am interested in. But nowadays you when you go to a site you see different ads at the same time, pop-ups in the base screen and if you are lucky, different video add style commercials on one page. What annoys me the most when you find a article to read you get whooped by ads popping up or videowise adverts and that does youe head in while your reading.

I also see a big change in the way company's behave about adblockers, it seems that they have teams working around to look what program blocks an ad and then within days work around. So yes, its getting more agressive and it doesnt help to make people surf the web, even better, when I look at my web behave lately I reckon that I spend less time more and more just because of it.

I allways used Norton Internet security, also because I didnt see even one add thru it while surfing with their build-in adblocker but since the option has been pulled out by Symantec since version 2008 ads really became annoying to me. Probally, as I emalied them about it Symantec cares more about the business industry then about their end users and I wouldnt be surprised if they got a lot of money for it to leave that option out.

Agressive ads imo only destroys good websites and is the next bubble on the net. Company's think they will gain more profit in this way but in the end the users/community from a site stays away, which will end up then in normal pages again in time :)

By btmonzo, Friday 07 November 2008 15:17

I use adblock+ and noscript.

It made my life a lot easier.
If you want to know how to advertise properly, check out www.dailywtf.com
This man has an active policy of checking each of his advertisers himself and sometimes puts a message between the other messages telling us why they are cool.

I have visited _every_ site to check the products and/or company.
Two things are now permanently on my attentionlist for future reference.

Advertising is a necessary evil nowadays, but doesn't give any website the authority to screenrape my monitor and put my CPU to work. I don't want flash, pictures, voices or any other intrusive way of advertising.

Advertising in articles is a much better way to go as far as I'm concerned. I love information about products. If Microsoft puts a sponsored article on a website, great! If Oracle puts a sponsored article on a website stating it is THE dbms that rules them all, even better! Not because it is necessarily true, but it gives other parties the opportunity to react in a similar manner with the reasons why Oracle is wrong. This can only give more information.

Civilized advertising or something. (maybe I should register "Civilized Advertising" as a trade mark :P ;) )

Oh, and from a developer's point of view: don't put too much faith in the client side of things.
less bit-transport and more CPU on the serverside is the only way to go (as far as I'm concerned) in this mobile age of lighter computers. If it doesn't work with adblock on, what the hell have you been doing??

By Tweakers user Danny, Friday 07 November 2008 22:25

Firefox does the webpage (so also downloads the banners and images) and then in the renderingprocess adblock simply does a 'display: none;' on them. No javascript that can detect that.
Sure it can. You can set a timer that after x/1000th of a second checks the element in which the banner is. If it has display set to none than you know the user is blocking your ads. You can then choose to have the javascript either set the display to normal again, you can block the users account, you can open an alertbox stating that he has to disable his adblocker etc.

And that's just one way of detecting adblockers. There are actually several ways of detecting adblockers, but usually they aren't really worth the hassle.

The 'I also don't watch ads on television' argument is complete bull. If you're going to compare a website to anything, compare it to a magazine or newspaper. Are you seriously going to make someone black out all the ads in a magazine you read?
Do you really block all the advertisements on tv? Including the end-credits, the 0900 voting promotions, the product placement etc?
I seriously doubt it. Frankly, people who block ads to sites they frequently visit and enjoy should support that site.

Blocking ads is really nothing more than people acting out like twelve year olds, bragging about how they know how to block ads (and potentially help to bring that site down). It's not that they gain anything from blocking ads, they just do it because they can and they think it's cool to do it. Which is why you will see most of them brag about it or trying to explain how to do it to others without being asked to. Sortof like scriptkiddies and just slightly less pathetic :)

By Tweakers user Tyrian, Saturday 08 November 2008 00:22

AdBlock (en andere vergelijkbare tooltjes) zijn een zegen voor de internetter. Reclame leidt niet alleen af, het kan ook beveiligings en privacyrisico's met zich meebrengen. Banners kunnen exploits bevatten en vele reclameboeren proberen gebruikers te volgen met behulp van tracking cookies. Het is zeker zo dat het weren van reclame een webmaster inkomen kost, maar dit weegt naar mijn mening niet op tegen de nadelen van reclame.

Zelfs als de commerciŽle websites zouden moeten stoppen vanwege gebrek aan inkomsten zie ik een grote kans liggen voor de non-profit community. Al sinds het begin van het internet zijn er uitstekende sites die geen enkele winst maken. Ik weet zeker dat de internetgemeenschap zal zorgen voor goede websites zonder reclame. Misschien nog wel beter en onafhankelijker dan de huidige commerciŽle sites.

By Tweakers user Danny, Saturday 08 November 2008 09:07

En hoe denk je dat die sites bekostigd zullen worden? Een site zal altijd winst moeten maken of riskeren op ieder willekeurig moment de rekeningen niet meer te kunnen betalen.

By DaniŽl, Saturday 08 November 2008 11:35

Hahahaha, so you think I'm like a scriptkiddy?

Danny, let me explain myself:

Day in, day out, there's a bombardment of ads from companies trying to sell me stuff.
Some time ago, the point was reached that I got sick of it all, and I started working on a life as free from brainwashing errr... advertisements as possible.

- I've almost quit watching TV completely.
- I've bought a DVD recorder to watch those few programs that I like, skipping the ads.
- I quit listening to the radio because of the advertisements, and listen to CD's / MP3's only.
- When I see a billboard for a product that I used to buy, I try to change to a different brand.
- Since it is easy to block ads on the internet, I do so, and I don't care about the site.
If you're going to compare a website to anything, compare it to a magazine or newspaper. Are you seriously going to make someone black out all the ads in a magazine you read?
If there was a way to remove advertisements from magazines and newspapers, I would already be doing it...
people who block ads to sites they frequently visit and enjoy should support that site.
Well, if I am NEVER going to click on a website advertisement, why would it matter if it isn't shown to me? The result is the same...?
Blocking ads is really nothing more than people acting out like twelve year olds, bragging about how they know how to block ads (and potentially help to bring that site down).
Nope, I really am 28, acting like I am 28, I block ads because they are annoying, I don't brag about it, and I don't care about "bringing a site down". There will always be content for me to read, if a site doesn't survive, I don't care... It's called evolution.
It's not that they gain anything from blocking ads, they just do it because they can and they think it's cool to do it.
But I do gain something from blocking ads:
"The joy of not being sold anything - Banksy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6c87zplceQ
- I do it because I can.
- I am convinced that it's OK to do it.
- NOBODY except myself decides what I get to see, whether you like it or not.
Which is why you will see most of them brag about it or trying to explain how to do it to others without being asked to. Sortof like scriptkiddies and just slightly less pathetic :)
You really should talk less with children and more with grown-ups...

Have you ever tried browsing with an ad blocker? It's a relief! No more blinking, shaking, annoying and misleading banners, I really hate to browse the internet without an ad blocker!

By Tweakers user Tyrian, Saturday 08 November 2008 12:14

@Danny:
Een site hoeft helemaal niet perse winst te maken. Vele sites op het internet kosten alleen maar geld voor de eigenaar. Mijn eigen site bijvoorbeeld. Toch blijven vele van deze sites gewoon online omdat de eigenaar (en soms bezoekers) het waard vinden om er geld in te steken.

Bovendien wordt het steeds goedkoper om zelf een site aan te bieden. Ik zie in de toekemst grote kansen voor routers met (personal, small business) webservers icm een flash drive. Gewoon thuis op op de zaak hosten op de breedbandverbinding, zeker als we straks naar glasvezel toegaan. De router staat toch al aan, de internetverbinding betalen we toch al = bijna gratis hosting.

By Tweakers user crisp, Saturday 08 November 2008 22:25

Een site hoeft helemaal niet perse winst te maken. Vele sites op het internet kosten alleen maar geld voor de eigenaar. Mijn eigen site bijvoorbeeld. Toch blijven vele van deze sites gewoon online omdat de eigenaar (en soms bezoekers) het waard vinden om er geld in te steken.
Da's leuk en aardig voor een hobby-site, maar op het moment dat het dusdanig veel tijd gaat kosten dat je er eigenlijk zelf geen vaste baan meer naast kan hebben dan is het toch wel prettig als je site je brood op de plank kan bezorgen...

By Tweakers user 108886, Sunday 09 November 2008 15:57

@ Daniel...

So true. Browsing web without ads is heaven. In Belgium, with Telenet I have limits to my connection (20Gb/month with 5 people/computers on one connection... = 4Gb/month each... Which is just sad if you spill a few hundred precious megabytes only to these fancy shmancy ads with embedded video or flash-games... I am happy with Adblock-Plus + my own written filters. And yes i recommend this to everybody i know, because 90% of ads are a hazard to your computer as soon as you click on one.

So if you like helping jerks like those developers of malware like "antivirus 2009" bogus software, asking you 50$ as soon as it installs itself automagically, after clicking a wonderful ad/fake pop-up, on your computer... Be my guest, But don't call us scriptkiddies. We're saving the internet with our filters, showing the web as it should be. Open, free, non-irritating.

This will force advertisers to get more creative and ingenious. And there's nothing wrong with a creative ad or product website, if it's really good these ads will get respect and appear on blogs as art, causing u to like the product/company so much more than when u just see a flashing irritating banner.

By slindenau, Wednesday 21 January 2009 15:19

Ads zijn kut, je moet niet zo zeiken.

Wil je geld verdienen aan je website moet je dat maar op een andere manier doen.

By Tweakers user crisp, Thursday 22 January 2009 15:11

slindenau: heb je dan ook suggesties op welke manier sites dan hun geld zouden kunnen verdienen? Ik denk dat er niet veel mogelijkheden zijn en dat het web een stuk leger zou zijn zonder de mogelijkheid om met behulp van advertenties een site rendabel te maken en houden.

[Comment edited on Thursday 22 January 2009 15:11]


By Tweakers user Snajo, Monday 26 January 2009 23:56

I am also a happy Adblock user, and I agree with DaniŽl. I don't think the websites I visit have a disadvantage of that I block their ads. Before I used Adblock I never clicked ANY ad (except when being fooled :@ ), they only annoyed me (more or less). I had a certain "specific blindness" to ads. I don't see any reason to not block ALL ads, as long as your web surfing behaviour does not change by doing so (while your web surfing experience does, in a positive way!).

Traditional ads annoy the majority of the viewers, and only a tiny percentage of the ads make people actually click them. Out of that tiny percentage, an even smaller amount of people will eventually buy something. They are evil to the majority of the browsing people.

Web sites can earn money by making people want to support the site. They can add the possibility to donate money to the site. One of the most popular websites of the world work according to this principle, and they also manage to pay the bills.

For smaller websites with not so much traffic this way of earning money could be harder, but I'm not even sure.

And of course there are many more alternatives to traditional ads, but as long as it is easy to place ads and there are enough people clicking them there will be no signficant change of strategy to earn money. There are dozens of experts on advertising/money making terrain, and they will not think about methods that are (initially) harder than traditional advertising as long as it works.

By Nathan Resick, Wednesday 10 March 2010 02:51

I am a web designer in Seattle Washington and am growing increasingly worried about Ad Block software.

It makes me think of those hand sanitizer dispensers they have at banks and hospitals.

Yes - you are killing germs, but the germs that stayed alive are now totally immune to hand sanitizers. Guess which germs are going to reproduce? You guessed it.

Ad block software just weeds out the weak ad technology and makes way for something worse... much worse.

Great Article!

By bob, Tuesday 02 November 2010 05:10

AdBlock only sucks in comparison to a hosts file. Advertising is a legitimate means of income if you are providing something else worthwhile. Having someone visit your website does not mean much other than that someone found a link to it. The whole system of search engines and advertising is like how Barry got elected. Lemmings in action.

Comments are closed