The Adblock Project Forum Index The Adblock Project
Pull up a seat ...stay a while.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why block ads?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bsc2003



Joined: 25 Jun 2004
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004    Post subject: Why block ads? Reply with quote

Sory to ask what may seem like a stupid question but I was just wondering, why might one wish to block all ads on a page?

Fair enough blocking pop up ads, they are highly annoying, but ads which are inline aren't as irritating and they provide the impetus for web developers to put up quality content for free.

Surely if we all start blocking ads by default, then the amount of exposure advertisers get will fall dramatically and so the money they provide to the sites will also fall?

Although it may sound like white-lists would solve this problem, in actual fact people would only turn on ads for sites they were really fond of. This would mean that for a site to be able to support itself it needs to somehow become big enough so that the proportion of people who do turn on the ads, is large enough for it to be worthwhile.

But to get to that sort of size would require them to provide good content, which in turn requires funding. So it's a chicken & egg situation surely?

If it becomes harder for smaller startup sites to become big, then surely it will be similar to the real world where innovate, fresh films/television programs etc. fail to make the public eye because the bigger corporations have a monoploy on the advertising revenue?

Or am I missing the point here? Is the aim of the project supposed to provide benefits to the us clued-up people who use Mozilla and AdBlock whilst the dumb masses pay for it? Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most people block ads because they are annoying.

Probably many ad blockers who are aware that they are underminig their favorite sites do so anyway because they assume that most everyone else faced with the same decision would block ads, so not blocking ads would not help very much.

If ad blocking becomes a big problem then all sites have to do is use similar URLs for ads and for content. For example, as it is now:

<img href="coolsite.com/graphics/niceimg.png"> <!-- Content -->

<img href="adserver.com/ads/advertisement.png"> <!-- Ad -->

If ad blocking becomes common:

<img href="coolsite.com/graphics/2431231.png"> <!-- Content -->

<img href="coolsite.com/graphics/1231328.png"> <!-- Ad -->

Those numbers can be generated randomly when the page is served, so they would be different on a reload. A countermeasure for his would be to block an image from a particular link on a page (as someone in this forum suggested), but that would only work for a particular page and would probably not survive a page re-design.

There are other ways around ad blockers, such as combining editorial and advertisement images.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
<snip> but ads which are inline aren't as irritating <snip>


I find many of the animated inline ads that flash bright colored objects to be very very irritating. I therefore welcome a tool like adblock to turn that trash off.

As for your point about advertising paying for websites...... The number of users that use a mozilla based browser and popup and adblocking technologies must be very small. IE has a 90% stranglehold on browsers out there. Many Mozilla users are clueless about popup blocking or extensions. I'd guess that we are a minority of 1-2% of the total internet population.

We can happily leave droves of users to use IE while we more selective folks can enjoy the internet without the clutter Smile

JP
Back to top
dzm
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would not bother blocking ads if the advertisers would not use obtrusive animation in them. When I'm trying to read several paragraphs of text I find it extremely distracting and annoying to have animation and/or bright flashing colors.

If they did static ads like in a newspaper or magazine then I would have absolutely no objection to them at all.
Back to top
Rural Guy
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

My dialup connects at 28.8k and I find loading all those useless adds to slow down my web browsing experience quite a lot. Thank god for adblock.
Back to top
Ziggy
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

--> http://maddox.xmission.com/banners.html <--
Back to top
wonkothesane
The Other Developer


Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 210

PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also note that it is possible to have Adblock download the images but not display them, which makes it look to the site owners like you looked at the images, even though you never see them.

The next version of Adblock will have finer-grained control over which content get blocked and which does not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

I block ads for one simple reason: I have never, and will never, purchase anything from an ad on a website.

So, since I'm not going to purchase anything anyway, why should I see them?
Back to top
kstahl
Support


Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1202
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because you expect free content from the web pages you visit, and they have to pay their hosting costs somehow?
_________________
Adblock 0.5.3.042
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.Cool Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) Annoyance
2) Bandwidth
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

kstahl wrote:
Because you expect free content from the web pages you visit, and they have to pay their hosting costs somehow?


And, once again, let me reiterate that you can set up adblock to download the ad images, but not display them, which is a win-win situation for people who don't click on ads anyway: the ad server sees the image get downloaded and credits the website serving the ad, but you don't have to punch the monkey.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

my reason to block/hide ads:
of the hundreds of messages we see each day more than 80% are advertising, i.e. lies.

life is short - i don't wanna waste a single sec on crap like ads if i can avoid it.
(sure, you can pretend to ignore them, but if that worked, the idea of having advertisements would have been abandoned long time ago ... ;)))

block n roll
l.

--
nothing will be good, but everything will be better
Back to top
kstahl
Support


Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1202
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
kstahl wrote:
Because you expect free content from the web pages you visit, and they have to pay their hosting costs somehow?


And, once again, let me reiterate that you can set up adblock to download the ad images, but not display them, which is a win-win situation for people who don't click on ads anyway: the ad server sees the image get downloaded and credits the website serving the ad, but you don't have to punch the monkey.


Yes, abosultely. This is certainly the best solution.
_________________
Adblock 0.5.3.042
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.Cool Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because you expect free content from the web pages you visit, and they have to pay their hosting costs somehow?

If the content is free, then why do I have to look at the ads? If I am expected to look at ads in exchange for viewing the content, then the content isn't really 'free', is it?
Back to top
kstahl
Support


Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1202
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, please. Don't play word games.

"Free" in this context means that you don't pay any membership fee or donate to site maintainer in some other way.
_________________
Adblock 0.5.3.042
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.Cool Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very quick reply for now as I'm at work.

Not going to reply back to all the points raised, just to say..

a) Yes I agree that ads are irritating and I can't imagine I doubt I'll ever click on one
b) I would probably find it more irritating if sites I visited had useless/crap/inaccurate content because there was no incentive for the webmaster to develop good content
c) I don't think all advertising is about selling a product. Sometimes they are just trying to generate brand recognition from you simply seeing their logo.
d) The bandwidth argument I guess will become invalid when more and more people get broadband connections.

d) "life is short - i don't wanna waste a single sec on crap like ads if i can avoid it. (sure, you can pretend to ignore them, but if that worked, the idea of having advertisements would have been abandoned long time ago ... Wink)) " - I didn't fully understand that arugment I'm afraid.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh btw that was me, Bsc2003 in that previous post! Surprised
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Free" in this context means that you don't pay any membership fee or donate to site maintainer in some other way.

Free in what context? If you're going to offer up content, either it's free to look at or it isn't. If you want to demand something in return (whether it be cash, personal info, looking at ads, or whatever), then it's not free, and it's deceptive to call it such. Just like programs with ads aren't freeware, they're adware.
Back to top
rue
Developer


Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to jump into this, because it's an interesting issue.
.
'Free', from the content-receiving side, is relevant to whether or not the content is paid-for by the receiving party. If it's subsidized, underwritten, or in any way funded by parties other than the content-receiving party, then the content is received -- by that party -- for free.
.
What we're being asked to consider is the content-provider's side. Unfortunately, they're gambling their content for free against the odds of serving an ad their reader will want to click on.
.
By working this model, they're putting faith in an uncertain outcome: namely, the reader cooperating with their design. And the reader is bound in no way to do so. The whole point of advertising is to entice. Meta to that, content-providers *must* grapple with the fact that their freely offered goods can be filtered for ad-removal. Thus, their gamble is: a.) ads wont be filtered, b.) an ad will be clicked.
.
That's a pretty big gamble, considering how easy and efficient ad-filtering software is... and how unpleasant the ads.
.
Having yet to see an online ad which "enticed" me in any way, I'd say they've failed with their model. I don't even feel neutral about the ads -- I completely dislike them. And, because their model handed me the content for free, I freely exclude the advertising. Welcome, Adblock.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
a.out
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because I pay for my ISP bills and I paid for the computer. My bandwidth and my disk cache are mine to control. Considering that I am not going to click them anyway, it would be a waste of resorces on both ends. Maybe if I save them the penny on the banner downloads, it will make up for the penny they might have gotten if I clicked one.

The Internet was founded as a means of distributing information, not commercials. Most of the websites I visit are not commercial projects and are paid for out of pocket by the webmasters. Many rely on donations instead of banners, and if thier content is worthwile, I will help fund them.

Putting a tacky ad in the middle of the page only reminds me that some people think of the net as just another way to make a buck. Much like my TV, I have a choice to listen, mute, or just turn it off.

If they can't handle viewers looking at thier content without obliging a banner, maybe they should consider another business strategy. Maybe a pay-per-view format, for which many TV shows are just commercials for anyway, and for which I still don't care to see. At least that way too, people wont just google in and ogle at content without paying the /tr?oll/.
Back to top
kstahl
Support


Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1202
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

I better preface my rant here with a disclaimer: I also filter out ads. I also use Adblock. I'm not trying to put myself onto some holier-than-thou pedestal or something.

But still...

a.out wrote:
Because I pay for my ISP bills and I paid for the computer. My bandwidth and my disk cache are mine to control. Considering that I am not going to click them anyway, it would be a waste of resorces on both ends. Maybe if I save them the penny on the banner downloads, it will make up for the penny they might have gotten if I clicked one.


Well, most of the ads are not hosted on the same servers as the web pages, but on dedicated ad servers so I doubt you save the web master any bandwidth. And they don't only get paid for the number of clicks on the banners, but also on the number of times the banners are downloaded.

(See: The difference between Adblocks "Remove" and "Hide" mode.)

a.out wrote:
The Internet was founded as a means of distributing information, not commercials. Most of the websites I visit are not commercial projects and are paid for out of pocket by the webmasters. Many rely on donations instead of banners, and if thier content is worthwile, I will help fund them.

Putting a tacky ad in the middle of the page only reminds me that some people think of the net as just another way to make a buck. Much like my TV, I have a choice to listen, mute, or just turn it off.


Who gives a stuff what the internet was founded for? "The Internet is what it _is_, it will never again be what is _was_", if I may borrow a cliché. Today the Net is not only an information repository, but so much more. Shopping, gaming, public service, politcal platform -- you name it. It's not going to change in the forseable future.

a.out wrote:
If they can't handle viewers looking at thier content without obliging a banner, maybe they should consider another business strategy. Maybe a pay-per-view format, for which many TV shows are just commercials for anyway, and for which I still don't care to see. At least that way too, people wont just google in and ogle at content without paying the /tr?oll/.


I'm actually not clear on exactly what you are advocating here. Are you saying that you'd rather see these web sites shutdown for lack of funds than turning to ads as a solution?

Personally, I prefer ads to having to pay a membership fee, and I think most people would agree with that. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Case in point: There's a reason the Mozillazine forums are often offline nowadays. They are paid for by donations and out of the pockets of the web master. And this is not enough for the load they have to handle right now. If you have a good business model you want to propose, this is the time to do it.

If it works you'll be a hero.
_________________
Adblock 0.5.3.042
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.Cool Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yusuf
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ziggy wrote:
--> http://maddox.xmission.com/banners.html <--


Code:

[Adblock]
...
*maddox*


Rolling Eyes
Back to top
X5-452



Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

I block the ads because as others have mentioned, they're quite annoying. Not to mention the spyware that comes with them! Blocking all 3rd party cookies & using AdBlock has been very effective Very Happy I'll NEVER use another browser simply because it doesn't support AdBlock! Hats off to the people who created this little gem!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell1527



Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do I block ads, hmmmm that is a tuff one.....

1) They are extremely distracting and annoying.
2) I'll never buy anything by going through an adserver (I don't even have a credit card at the current time).
3) Web Beacons
4) Their ad-targeting IMO is rude and poorly targeted. (Certain companies I hate to death is the only ads I will get)
5) Their obscence numbers.

Last time I checked I think banner ads were going were going for something like $3 to $4 dollars per thousand. Most of the sites I go to display a good 10-20 ads per page. Now if you make an educated guess, for the # of people using these websites, most of them don't have an ad-filterer, so the $$$ is going to add up very,very quickly.

I am running adblock and filtergate. I am going to say together they block on average a good 4000-5000 ads a day(this is a shared computer). Come on, that is helluva lot of disk space and bandwidth. All so they can make a good $15-$20 dollars from me.

Hmmmm, sure they need $$$ to run, how about we pick any day of the month, and turn our adfilterers off, that sounds kinda reasonable, hmmm......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
time2read



Joined: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ziggy wrote:
--> http://maddox.xmission.com/banners.html <--


That's awesome!

maddox wrote:
How can I afford to keep this web page running for so long without any advertisements? Easy: I work.



bsc2003 wrote:
Fair enough blocking pop up ads, they are highly annoying, but ads which are inline aren't as irritating and they provide the impetus for web developers to put up quality content for free.


found this at another forum. it fits perfectly here:

-- start offsite quote --
Captain Obvious wrote:
thejake420 wrote:

I provide a public service


OBVIOUSLY not. This choice of phrase implicitly includes the notion of non-profit, so either you simply do not understand the language of the land or you are a liar. which is it?

Quote:

If you would prefer to pay an admission charge,


"If you would prefer that I change my defective business model to a functional for-pay usage system"

You would find nobody actually had that much interest in what you had to say. Sorry, Mr Liberalist, the world does not owe you a thing. If you think you can charge for your content have at. If not, then not. Don't come in here whining that people aren't thrilled to have YOU STEAL their bandwidth on a "free" site by tormenting them with your ads to compensate for YOUR DEFEFECTIVE business model.



Quote:
and I'm damn sure not paying YOUR bandwidth costs.


Kindly take your certainty and apply it to good use. Smile


-- end offsite quote --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
time2read



Joined: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

(new reply to reduce clutter)

found on afterdawn: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/2932.cfm

cluein wrote:
You have Defective Business Model syndrome.

You want to claim you are providing a "free" service, but are frustrated when people won't view your annoying ads. If you think you have valuable content charge for it. Why don't you? Because you fear no one will value what you offer.

Your offering is either free or it's not. Yes, it really is this simple. If it truly is free then you ought not complain about a users browser software or any other display by the user.

Free does not entitle you to compensation. If this is challenging I invite you to use one of the big word books on the internet: bartleby.com/61.

If, on the other hand you wish compensation for your product then you can neither call your product "free" nor can you expect compensation from your users in a form they will not condone. As the power is with the buyer ultimately, you'll shortly find that blinking, flashing objects are not desired.

Clue in. Ads and similar annoyances are insufferable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
I block ads for one simple reason: I have never, and will never, purchase anything from an ad on a website.

So, since I'm not going to purchase anything anyway, why should I see them?


You nailed it good brother, this is just the same way I feel. I am not clicking on any of those ads either.
Back to top
Block 'em all!
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, if you're feeling guilty, don't use Adblock. I know I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Anyway, there are plenty of clueless IE users to view ads, and they're not going away anytime soon.
Back to top
Androo
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote

I block ads because I can Very Happy

Ads are useless to me. I never click on them, I'm never interested in the products the majority of internet advertising has to offer, and they insult my intelligence and clutter page layouts. Being knowledgable with computers allows me to know about projects like AdBlock and I most certainly will use them as there's no law that says I have to look at those ads.

Frankly it's more of an issue of overexposure than anything. I am bombarded by advertisments everywhere I go (since I'm an American) and there's a breaking point where you just don't want to see any more. TiVo and AdBlock are my saviors! Cool
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group