Slashdot Mirror
Why Do You Block Ads?
flyingember asks: "With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? And with what? Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads? What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many? I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
1. Most ads are taking too long to download. Even if I have broadband, I would rather use it on somewhere useful.
2. Most ads are too big and intrusive.
3. Most ads are irrelevant.
See the trend? That explains why Googld Ads is so successful.
Because they're really annoying?
Eyesore. Waste of screen real estate. Invasion of privacy.
I block ads to protect my privacy. Why is it that advertisers always feel the need to use cookies? Because they want to track me from site-to-site. That offends me. Thus I refuse to cooperate with them. If they would just respect my privacy, I would have no problem with them.
What ads? I haven't seen one since I installed the Adblock extension and blocked "http://*/ad/*"
Oh, and maybe to speed up page loading.
And to stick it to the man.
And to save electrons.
First Post! Seriously though, I don't block inline ads in web pages, but I do block pop ups. I don't mind advertising if it isn't annoying, and in my book, pop up/under/click through advertising is very annoying. I go out of my way to avoid the products that are advertised that way as much as possible.
Linux is unix training wheels, while BSD *is* unix.
static ads don't bother me so much, but blinking, flashing, moving junk drives me nuts.
Flashblock for firefox solves 95% of this problem nicely.
If I could block ads in magazines, or stop them on TV I would.
flash, popup, anything to catch my attention, and I'll for sure try and block you, because I'm not an impulse shopper. I plan my purchases.
I hate how some companies feel that making sure you have 10 windows open on your desktop isa good way to do business. Get in the way of what I'm doing on the web, and I'll certainly have a negative image of your company.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
FlashBlock with Firefox. I didn't used to block anything but popups, but when they started to use sound in ds, I was fed up.
With a DVR you can skip TV ads, and I do. With pop-up blockers and user stylesheets you can remove internet ads. Gets quite a bit harder to get rid of magazine ads, but maybe that's why I hardly buy magazines anymore. I'd rather pay a small fee for quality content if ads were not generating enough revenue.
I block ads because I don't want to see them. They clutter up my viewing of the webpage and in the past 4 or 5 years on the Internet there is probably only 1 ad that's interested me, tops. They clutter the view of webpages and distract from my viewing.
:)
But hey, if you know of any magazines that let me disable ads, let me know. Magazine ads are some of the worst ones around.
Basically I used to see ads as part of life ie something you just had to deal with. Then the ad industry went nuts and decided to attempt to take over my computer and bombard me with ads. Now I block everything that I notice. So small picture ads I don't worry about but anything that pops up at me or moves in front of text I block. I suppose that means that I block some ads but pay attention to none.
I Block ads because they take too long to load on my 56k modem.
Whenever I run into an ad online, I'm compelled to view the source, close down my browser session, and tweak my userContent.css/hostperm.1 to block it.
I don't recall having this aversion to advertising before popups got huge, so I think the advertisers just pushed me enough that I said "you know what? fuck you guys, I'm not going to see a single damn one of your bullshit ads."
there's more than one way to do me.
Mozilla with bugmenot & flashback extensions. Gets just about every popup. Why don't I like pup-ups? Because they are annoying. Especially the ones that pop up multiple windows, each with an on-close javascript triger to open multiple more windows. That's not advertising... unless you run the company that makes pop up blocking software.
A popup is not the same thing as an ad in a magazine... ads in magazines don't cover what I'm trying to read.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I've found that a lot of the popups and advertisements I see on the web are on information based sites without subscriptions. These are usually places where I go to find information and then leave. Though giving it some thought brings me to the conclusion that these ads are important, I don't want to be obstructed by them when browsing for a fact or information. When I watch TV, I don't have a choice with ads, on the station, so I change channels and hope I come back for the beginning of the show.
Personally, I don't block them until they a) blink b) slow down the page.
Animated crap and poorly designed pages that make the ad-links (ohh, and that damned javascript highlight words BS) get insta-adblock.
Sure, that policy has led to my adblock filter catching damn near all graphical ads -- that ain't my fault.
I still see Google's.
The dept says it all,
They are annoying, and they waste bandwidth.
With TV ads I block them by changing the channel or muting the TV, with magazine ads I block them by ignoring them and turning the page, with web page ads I ignore them by preventing them from showing. There is no difference, the less ads the better.
Back when I was first getting into computers, I always used to buy the Computer Shopper magazine. It was huge (250-350) pages, but only about half of it was ads. The rest of it consisted of, mostly, hardware and software reviews. It was also fairly cheap at the time, at around $2.50 an issue.
Then it went to $2.95 an issue and consisted of 2/3 ads.
Then it went to $3.98 an issue and consisted of 3/4 ads, but dropped down to only about 200 pages.
At that point I never bought another copy.
(Yes, the numbers aren't exact, but it makes my point.)
Right now, I only block popups, though I'm considering blocking far more. I used to block all of doubleclick's stuff, but they aren't as common as they once were.
If I bought a magazine and all the articles were blocked by Ads, I'd be pretty pissed.
And if I had to pay extra $$$ to read the same magazine with the articles unblocked, I'd be even more pissed.
I leave plugins disabled on Safari except when I come across a page with some flash feature I want to see, which is pretty rare. On my PC at work I uninstalled flash entirely because I couldn't find a way to enable it selectively. There must be a Firefox plugin, but I haven't been bothered enough to look.
Oh, and I have doubleclick.net and a couple other sites in my hosts file at 127.0.0.1, from way back.
Most non-flash ads just don't bother me that much.
If you say, "now I'll be modded down because of X", I'll happily oblige.
Why actually; I don't buy magazines; for pretty much that reason. In 1994 I realised that most magazines on the shelf have very little substance to their articles, are 2/3rds filled with ads and cost (at the time) $3.50 to $5 each. Not to mention the fact that the usual story layouts around that point became really bad (this got worse a few years later when they started making ads which blended in with the story to deliberately cause confusion).
I don't mind some advertising, but the amount and intrusiveness of modern advertising is obnoxious enough that I do avoid buying magazines and I have had to take the time to figure out adblock and flashblock.
Recently in Barnes & Noble, I remarked to my friends, "I won't buy magazines because they're all full of ads. Why can't they make a magazine with no ads?", to which one friend responded, "What you want is a book."
I have a TiVo, so I don't watch TV ads either. Pop-ups are a big pain in the ass too.
If it slows my browser down. I hate ads that double my browser memory footprint. There are many doubleclick ads that do this.
If it is intrusive. I cannot stand within text ads. Never EVER put an ad in the middle of a paragraph. EVER. If you do, I won't look at it, and I'll block it if I can. So does my mother, the demographic the ad is targeted for. Any ad that takes over (pop-over).
All other ads, I respect. The advertisers must make money, and I do click on ads I find interesting. I feel it is important to support those who support things I like.
--sig fault--
Because I have never seen an internet ad that actually made me interested in a product.
I only block popups, which are evil in IE (work use only). They lock it up too much of the time. /. is an example of well-placed ads. The top and side aren't too intrusive, you can just scroll down or ignore them. If anything catches your eye, it will do so before you scroll, thus fulfilling the ads' purpose.
So who should pay for content if ads shouldn't? Would you "subscribe" to a website?
---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
Firstly, I'm not their target. I don't have a morgtage to refinance, I don't want a larger penis, or larger breasts...etc. I'm not who they're selling to. I don't buy things based on ads.
Secondly, if I could, I would remove all ads from every media I deal with. I do this with television already, and I'd go to the trouble to cut up magazines if it didn't ruin their structure. I remove ads on the web because technology allows me to do exactly what I'd want to do anyway.
... somebody is making money on these ads, and mad that people are blocking them.
I block every image that isn't part of the useful content. Ads, gone. Any large banners gone. Little navigation sidebars eliminated. All ugliness gets adblocked.
In my line of work, I understand that advertising still works, but for me, the real question is, when was the last time advertising did its job of convincing you to do something? Is advertising obsolete?
No, but it's working hard towards it.
I've found that lately, having Ad Block is a necessity because a lot of sites are adding those tv commercial flash ads that really annoy the hell out of me. Some of them are pretty tough to mute too. I don't mind text ads and find that I barely ever look at them anyways.
I dont care about the real-estate.. Ad servers are just too slow, they keep me from seeing the content I wanna see
I avoid all the ad's I can. There are certain telivision shows (read: The West Wing) that I watch religiously. But I never actually watch it when it's on. I tape it and then watch it later so I can fast foreward through the commercials.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
I think internet ads aren't that much different from TV ads or any other kind, some ads we like, some we don't, some are interesting, some are funny, the problem with some internet ads is that some of them are too intrusive, to the point of annoying some people, and thus giving a bad name to the rest of the ads, so i guess some people just preffer not to be bothered by that small minority of ads and just cancel them all. Advertisers should learn from past examples, good and bad, and try to inovate in the most productive directions and not just try to outsmart the adblocking software out there. =)
I don't use any popup blockers aside from the blocker built into Firefox. That + adblock means i don't have to view too many ads at all. I don't mind the ads like Google does, but when they started using Flash, creating a large distraction (taking up the whole page, or even crashing the browser), it just got annoying. I've always gone through magazines and ripped out the pages that were two sided ads, because it usualy slimmed the magazine in half. I just plain dont want to see them. I don't buy into marketing hype; I always do my research on products I purchase before hand, so ads are laregly useless to me.
Why not?
I really think the approach for magazines and internet vs. television is different. On TV you're pretty much gauranteed to lose 9 minutes of time for every 21 minutes of actual programming. Yeah, you can get up to get a drink or something during that time but for the most part you're stuck watching annoying ads. Online I can skip past ads for the most part, as I can in magazines. I think the key there is option: online I can skip the ads so I don't mind them but I have the option to view them. On TV I can't do that, which is why I don't watch TV anymore, I download. I used to use Yahoo for searching, then Google realized that no on wanted all of the extra ad crap Yahoo had for a simple search so the plain Google site run out. If online ads start becoming more mandatory and less optional I may start using adblockers or simply browsing different sites with less ads.
I block ads on the internet because they are usually completely useless to me. When I watch TV at least, the ads are for things I might buy at the grocery store, or they advertise a sale on at a local furniture store, or they advertise a car I might one day consider buying.
The vast majority of ads on the internet are either completely disinteresting to me - trying to sell me a server appliance, or telephone deals in another country. Or they are advertising online casinos that I would never visit. Or they are scams - you know, the "Your computer is not OPTIMIZED click HERE" crap. If interet advertising was actually relevant to my every day needs, and didn't all come across as a cheap scam, then I might be more tolerant.
In fact, I am. I'm quite happy to view the Google ad-words ads, because they have, sometimes, shown me something I might be interested in.
-"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
Interestingly, a recent study showed that over 40% of alternative browser users use some form of advert blocking software/plugin (other than popup blocking), which could have a significant impact on site revenues. Possibly this is one reason why some major sites are reluctant to support alternative browsers.
These sound like the kind of questions an advertiser would ask in order to make more effective (intrusive) ads.
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
Back in the early '90s, we used to buy Computer Shopper magazine *specifically* *because* of the ads. That thing was at least 2 inches thick; not like today's version.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
A lot of ads I can ignore. But animated ads that distract from the content of the page, I block as soon as I see them.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Yes, I don't buy magazines, I also don't watch commercial (including cable) TV, and I don't buy newspapers.
I also don't see billboards or public-transport ads on my way to/from work.
I do all these things because I choose not to consume advertising.
Now, having not watched or consumed ads for a long time, I find them embarrasing to watch, boring, irrelevant, numbing.
For the small amount of quality that exists, I resent having to fill my mind with oodles of irrelevant claptrap.
So naturally I block ads on the internet too.
I block adverts because I can.
It totally pisses me off that the Internet has turned into another marketing tool. Anybody else remember that is was created to share information?
'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc
I can ignore everything else but pop-ups have to be manualy closed and that is just a big irritation. I will not purchase products from anyone defeating my pop-up blocker.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
First I thought this question was absurd...ads can be annoying, intrusive, distracting, and so forth. But then I asked myself why I would want to expose myself to advertising, and I realized that viewing or listening to ads can be a useful academic exercise. In a sense, advertisers are trying to create a culture (or modify the existing one, if there is a difference) in which their product is more popular/well-known/frequently purchased than it is now. Ads give us good insight into how advertisers look at the demographics they are targeting, and how they predict they can successfully push the buttons of said demographics in order to stimulate the purchasing or brand-imprinting impulse. It also indirectly shows us what kind of stuff we, the public, fall for as consumers, and what our demands are as a society. It may be a twisted way to look at things and do sociological analysis, but it is such a large part of our lives that it certainly shouldn't always be ignored.
That said, I block pop-ups and mute commercial breaks, and I hope I'll always be able to (and that telepathic advertising isn't waiting for us in the future).
I block Web ads because it's easy to do. I block e-mail "ads" [aka spam] as well.
If I could somehow block ads from billboards and TV, I would do that too, but we lack the technology.
The only ads I don't mind are those in technical or computer publications, because I'm often interested in the products being advertised. Everything else, I just shut out.
So you want to tap into the thoughts of hundreds of internet users.. then what? Collate the information and sell it to online advertisers?
:)
Sure beats cold-calling or trying to trap people at shopping centres
"Don't break my arse, my bargey wargey arse, I don't think my pants would understand..."
Most ads on TV, web pages, bullboards and anywhere else they put them just annoy me. If I am looking for a product of some kind, I look online, and do research on whats available. That is why I block ads in pop up windows, and immediately close all windows which do make it through. That is why I don't watch live TV anymore, but TIVO everything and watch it later. I appreciate that those same ads subsidize much of my entertainment experience (oh but wait, I *pay* for Cable TV access, and I *pay* for Network access, and I *pay* for music, and I *pay* for movies). Maybe the prices are less than what I would pay otherwise, but I am certain that many of the products I purchase would be cheaper if the manufacturers didn't waste so much money advertising to a market full of people like me. I am just surprised that they havn't figured out the hint by now.
-=geoskd
www.geoskd.com
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
The other day I was writing some php that displayed random images from a local directory and linked them to different parts in my site. I thought my script was broken because I couldn't get the images to display. I checked the source of the html from the browser and the IMG tag wasn't even coming up. I was puzzled for a second and then double checked my code just to make sure everything was alright. A small voice suddenly whispered in my ear to disable norton internet security. Immediately after disabling Norton Internet Security my IMG tags came back. This really rubbed me the wrong way.
I don't mind static ads but animated, flashing ads are extremely irritating, specially when you're reading text (perhaps a news site). That's why I selectively block ads. If the ads are not too annoying I spare them but if the ad belongs to an annoying kind, I simply block all images from that ad server which is a built-in mozilla feature.
"With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads?"
Pop-ups blocked? Yes, of course. IE's been doing most of this.
Ad blocking getting more popular? Number of users blocking ads is definitely growing slower than the number of internet users overall. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
...dogs lick their balls?
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
There used to be a time when pages were designed so that ads were visible but not too obtrusive. Now webmasters are either getting greedier or being forced to put more ads because of the plunging revenue margins offered by advertisers. And what's more annoying is the flash technology and new techniques being employed by these ad designers - ever get the freaking talking ad ("what would you like me to say? type it in the box and i will say it!!!") when you're trying to discreetly browse in your office cubicle, or those ads which fly out over the page and obstruct half of your screen so that you have to actively dismiss it to keep browsing.
The only ones I don't block are google adsense ads, as they are sometimes somewhat relevant to the content that I'm browsing.
Firefox with adblock has really saved the day in this department. Thanks FF / adblock!
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
With magazines or television, I only notice one at a time really. Television is easy to change the channel if it's boring, and with magazines it's just a quick glance and a turn of the page. I have a slow computer, and those ads sometimes make browsing painfully slow. On top of that, there's often a plethora of ads on a single page in addition to the popup. There's no point in looking at the ads when there are too many to pay attention to. Waste of time when they can't possibly be entertaining too.
I use Firefox adblock, flashblock, and noscript.
If is different than Ads in newspapers and TV. On TV at most 80% percent or so is ads.
In newspapers you can easily skip ads. And yes if there is to many I will not buy the newspaper.
Ads on web pages are often much more annoying. Eg:
* They make sounds, newspapers don't do that.
* There are ads that pop up, slide down and covers the text that you are trying to read. Newspapers do not to that.
* They are usually just play ugly.
* Pages takes longer to load.
* It takes more toner/ink to print them (here I also use "remove this object").
And I do not want to see ads on web sites where I am a paying custumer, eg. my bank, phone company, or stores where I shop.
If all the other media that you mentioned had an option of being adfree free of cost, I would have picked that option
That would just be plain unfair.
The Mothership
Because I can, I do. The medium allows for it. Can't exactly rip out ads from a magazine, you'll likely lose some parts you'd like to read. Can't make teevee ads disappear, at least I can't. Can't tear down billboards, because I'm not the Incredible Hulk.
But it's easy to put the zap on ads on/from web pages.
I don't mind ads that are clever or funny. Heck, I've been known to sit through commercial breaks in hopes of catching something that's actually entertaining. If I can get a smile or a chuckle out of it, it was worth my time.
I have yet to see a web ad that I've enjoyed. Giant flash monstrosities that cover content, hideously garish banners with flashing colors, movie trailers that slow down the speed of content that I actually want to see...
If web ads stopped sucking so much, I'd be willing to let them go.
Goo goo g'joob.
Pretty much I use Adblock with the most up-to-date definition from pierceive.com.
What ads do I see? None, or very close to it.
What legitimate content gets blocked? None, or very close to it.
Why? Having IFRAMEs dissapear makes the page shorter. Less to download. Less crap in my way. And nothing is safe either (including Google textads). If I don't like something the definition does, I just change it.
We set up a list of about 20 acl url_regex deny lines for the largest ad hosting sites (doubleclick.net, etc). Make the error file white text on a white background. Only VERY rarely does this become a problem for users, and we treat those as one-offs, and we load that page/site for them on a different PC. This way users get EXTREMELY faster browsing, from the cache, and sans ads!
I block ads for the same reason I always have: they detract from my surfing experience. I don't view TV ads because I have a TiVo. I don't read magazines, I get my information from the Internet. I don't get ads at movies, since I don't go to movies. (I don't support the MPAA's stance on copyright lawsuits.)
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
I stopped subscribing to PC Mag when the ads overtook the content. Ok, so maybe that happened a long time ago but seriously, half the mag was an ad for I&I or some such crap. I don't like having to buy a magazine and then have to work to find the articles amongst the crap.
Cancel subscription - that was my ad blocker.
TV is just as bad. If not for tivo, I wouldn't be able to stomach it.
Just list to a broadcast radio station and you post the music to ad ratio.
As for browsing, the pop up killer in IE is good enough for my needs. I just really hate the added hyperlinks inserted into articles. I want more info on the subject and get kelkoo or some nonsense trying to sell me something they don't even have. If I could block those, that would be wonderful.
Advertisers....
It has to stop.
Because they're intrusive, that's why.
Magazines I mostly do not buy, but that's because I have little time to actually read them, not because of ads. I watch very little television, and I always flip when a commercial is on. Again, the TV ads are intrusive, the magazine ads aren't.
A comparison between magazine/newspaper ads, and webpage ads:
The print ad is silent. It is unmoving. It is generally set in a style or manner that blends in with the page as a whole. If I want to look at it, I do. If I want to ignore it, no problem.
The webpage ad is moving. It is sometimes not even silent. It does everything it can to force me to look at it instead of the content I got to the page to read in the first place. It has a graphical style that usually clashes horribly with the web page - and that especially includes flash or graphical ads that assume I sit on a Windows machine with all things set to defaults, so they use a font, color scheme and fake UI controls that look utterly and screechingly out of place on my desktop. Flash ads especially make the page loading stutter as it starts up, disrupting my reading.
Oh, I don't block Google AdSense ads or other still, unobtrusive text ads. Why should I - they're not intruding and sometimes there's something interesting there to see.
See them as salesmen in a store. A discreet person being available in the background in case I want assistance is far more likely to make a sale than a loud manic guy in a clown suit buttonholing me the entire visit, blasting a cherry-red hown in my ear every ten seconds and screeching at the top of his lungs about the great deal he can give me on something I'm not there to buy.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
What ads? Since I use Adblock I haven't seen one of those... Maybe I am missing something important and I should disable it... nah...
I block pop-ups because they interfere with my browsing, and Flash ads because they sometimes use ridiculous amounts of processor (or memory?). LowerMyBills.com ads especially cause real problems for me -- essentially freezing my browser (Firefox or IE, it doesn't matter) and making scrolling on the page painfully slow. I'm on a relatively old laptop (PII 366), but still, this should never happen. I don't block banner ads, because I appreciate free content and services and don't mind having to scroll past advertising if it helps pay for it. Or are all ads Pay Per-Click rather than Per-Impression these days? If it's Per-Click, then simply seeing the ads doesn't help the content provider any (assuming you don't click them, which most of us on /. probably do very rarely). In that case I guess blocking them doesn't make you a freeloader any more than just not clicking them does...
I typically only block ads if they cause problems with a page's layout. Many of the webcomics I read will have it set up so that the ads fit in nicely (and sometimes are even relevant to my interests!), but with a lot of sites, they'll have ads in the middle of the screen or will actually be causing me problems with reading the page due to layout issues.
Also: Sound in internet ads is completely unforgivable, due to the fact that I'm listening to music quite often while browsing webpages.
As for television ads, I find that most of them are completely abnoxious, and getting my DVR made television viewing far, far more enjoyable an experience.
I recommend to all of my friends who use Firefox (and, for those that don't use Firefox, I continue to recommend Firefox) to also use the AdBlock extension. Adblock allows you to filter out page elements based on pattern matched URLs.
With Adblock, comes Adblock Filterset.G Updater. From the info page of the updater: "This extension automatically downloads the latest version of Filterset.G every 4-7 days. Filterset.G is an excellent set of filters maintained by G for Adblock that blocks most ads on the internet."
With these two extensions, I rarely ever see any advertisements on any site.
To combat the annoying Flash-verts, I use Flashblock. This replaces Flash movies with a button that you can click on to view it.
Three wonderful extensions, things you don't have in Internet Explorer, that's for sure.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
I tend to be a rather cyclical thinker. I might cogitate an idea or concept over and over again. I also have a (perhaps) odd attention span where environmental distractions can siphon off my focus. Someone opening a door might knock me off track for fifteen seconds while I'm reading a PICmicro assembly book. A flickering light is often a constant distraction when it occurs. Banner ads like 'spank the money' or 'shoot the fish in the barrel' have motion and sometimes sound, which I can't stand. They're less static than the text. Some sites have a third of the screen at any given time taken up by ads. Some even have ads that stand on top of the text, and I won't even bother reading that site if I have to do so much as click 'close' to see the text.
It goes on further than that. If a person is exposed to ads repeatedly, he has been 'familiarized' with that product. I know this as it has worked on me. It takes too many of my brain's "CPU cycles" when I am distracted and think about the ad. I am annoyed by it, and I remember it. I don't want to be familiarized to a product whose markerters have already annoyed me with obnoxious flashy text!
It's these kinds of nuisances that really get me. Not only do I use the firefox adblock plugin, but I don't even watch television anymore because of the ads (and general stupidity/obscenity).
I do not watch television anymore because of the commercials.
They are annoying and repetitive.
For this same reason, I block ads.
Also, for this reason, I love google ads.
I can ignore them easily and they dont use as much bandwidth as picture ads.
If I am interested, and have time, I may view them. Easy enough.
Ads are also the money maker that gives Google the capital so they can bring you more Cool Stuff(tm).
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Why do I block ads? Simple. I'm after content, and ads are not part of that content. If I need an answer to a question, the purchase is a Widgit is far from my mind. It's a distraction, plain and simple. If I'm out to purchase a book from Amazon, I need that book: nothing else.
Above me now, there'a a Rackspace ad. Believe me, the *last* thing I need is rackspace. Even if I needed rackspace, which remember - I don't! - I'd ask a friend for his or her personal suggestion. It wouldn't occur to me to click on the ad because lo and behold, how do I know it's actually a trustworthy company? Oh -- their ad tells me so!
> why do you block ads?
Because I find them irritating.
> And with what?
Privoxy.
> Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Don't watch TV.
> What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has
> too many?
Yes (but I very rarely buy magazines anyway).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Same here. Ads are like spam; they waste my bandwidth, my computer resources and my time. The last is the most precious.
With magazine ads, I can skim at will; usually filtering them out mentally if I just want to read the article.
If I want to read ads, I will. Which makes me wonder about how much time the orginal submitter spends looking at ads rather than information.
Ads generally blink, move around, are annoying bright colors, and otherwise distracting. Ads on webpages are like spam email: annoying, convey no useful information, and waste time.
To block ads I use:
firefox extensions -
* adblocks
* customizegoogle (gets rid of a lot of google ads)
* greasemonkey (until I upgraded to the beta versions)
I realize that blocking ads may inevitably lead to paying for content which in my mind would be a good trade. I already pay for the NYTimes, but I'm still inundated by their ads, so I block them. Why should I look at ads on services I pay for? That is the most annoying ad of all.
if they could. That's why TiVo was so popular for a while. Print ads are easy to ignore. Even if they're huge, they're static and they don't make any noise. The small, unobtrusive google ads seem to be working rather well..so why are sites still using the annoying flash / popup things that make noise? Christ, I've stopped visiting sites that use those just because I find the ads so annoying.
Why do advertisers feel the need to advertise everywhere? Why do they need to advertise on the radio, on TV, on the side of the road, on cars on the road, on buildings, on people, on everything I read, in movie theatres (of all places, in a show you've paid to see), on personally owned copies of movies, in the sky, on the ground, and basically everywhere else they can think of? How is ignoring advertising any different than ignoring any other minor omnipresent annoyance?
Specifically, in the online world we have to fetch the advertisements to see them, which means it may cost us money or time to do so. There's no preexisting environment in which the ads reside, they are just hyperlinks from information we actually want to see. Selectively following hyperlinks based on semantic choices was the original purpose for the WWW, at least. Blocking ads is a fundamental expression of that semantic choice about what information we want.
Google adwords are an example of the unfortunate trend of integrating advertisements into everything in an almost undetectable and invisible way. So far, Google has not done this, but separates the ads from search results, but it would be easy to carefully integrate them as other search engines have done. It would make them even more money, so it will be difficult to explain their No Evil approach to shareholders. Hopefully they keep enough of the company in good hands.
Because I don't like them and because I can. If I had a DVR for TV, I would skip those ads too. I don't because it isn't cheap. With the exception of the Superbowl, I don't try to see ads in my media. In a magazine, it's easier to turn the page than tear it out, but fortunately my magazines either don't have ads or don't have too many. (Some magazines are just gratuitous, what with like 40 pages of ads before the table of contents!)
My browser is only equipped to block popups. I haven't made the effort to download a browser that blocks in-page ads probably because it's not worth the change for the pages I visit. If I found that my browsing experience were hampered by slower load times or really distracting ads, I would consider the browser or stop visiting that site.
Overall, I cannot recall a single instance I've intentionally clicked an ad. In-page ads are easy enough to ignore. Popups are definitely annoying, and if I could not block them, I would consider not visiting the site. Thankfully that's a moot point.
That's the shit that feds me up
I've had great success with Adblock Plus along with Filterset.G, a well-maintained, auto-updating set of filters that are designed to block ads and not content. With Adblock Plus, you can whitelist sites if you choose to view their ads. The point is, you're in control. And if you ask "why do you want to be in control of what you see?" the answer is that it's better than not being in control. Clear?
I use https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=722&application=firefox firefox add-on to block all javascript so no mystical ad pops up from anywhere. Yes it does block even non-ad content but i can judge from the general look of the page whether to enable it or not.
Great little add-on.
Coding projects blog - Code Slim
I block all ads I see because they waste screen space, I just don't want to see any ads, I use the program AdShield it's easy to use and it lets me block any ad on the internet for a better browsing experience.
Popup blockers *can* cause problems while using a site, however if you learn how to tweak it properly, it's worth its weight in gold. Personally I use firefox/adblock (built in?). Won't guy a magazine if it is chock full of large adverts and contains relatively little information.
Generally, when I'm on a site, I'm not there to view ads or be advertised to; usually I'm there to read the content and/or post there. If I want to find out about products, usually getting a personal recommendation from somebody (or at least from someone who's experienced with it) is much more effective than $random_google_ad. Also, it's obvious that the ads were bought (kinda hard to get ads without paying, eh?), so there's always that lack of real product advertising for a quality product. Google's the closest so far to making non-shitty advertising, but really, most advertisements are both shitty and for shit-quality products, usually in which I know of a better product along the same lines as the advertised one. Also, advertisements don't really help me find open source software or help regarding said OSS.
-Junx
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I have a twitchy clicking finger, and I used to accidentally click ads all the time. I don't want dumb websites with editors who don't do their jobs to get undeserved ad revenue because of my finger condition.
First off, it's very simple to block them, and if I can easily block them, then why not? I never use them, and without them, I get cleaner pages with only the content I'm interested in. By this point, I don't even look at ads anymore, and I definitely don't click them. I think it's been about 5 years since I've clicked on an ad. I have never seen a useful ad that makes me go "oh.. there's some nifty site that I haven't heard of before..." or "hey, I do need that product, and I don't know where to get it cheaper". If there is some product that an ad interests me in, I google around, read some reviews, see some alternatives, shop around, etc. The only ads I do click on are about me getting* a** free*** Xbox****, or some concerning dialog boxes about how my computer is infected...
I've been (not) missing pretty much all ads since I started using "adblock" with firefox. There may be one in a thousand that is interesting or interests me in some way. And that's probably optimistic. Death to the capitalist greedmongers!
Other than such instances where the ads are detrimental to my general computing experience, I'd feel guilty if I went out of my way to block all ads. I sympathize with (most) web site owners trying to scrape together some sort of money from their site.
I have my browser (Mozilla 1.7.5) set to block popups, but they still pop up... and under... and then there's those really annoying overlays that you have to wait for until you can read the content under them that you wanted in the first place.
Any plugins or suggestions?
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Because in the information, to control the input. There is so much input available that control becomes essential. I don't block all ads - I intentionally do not block ads from sites I feel deserve my support.
I block ads because I can.
Magazines have content. They sell ad space to support themselves. When I buy the magazine, I cannot have ads physically removed automatically, so I have to live with the mix of content and advertisement. Fortunately, most ads in magazines aren't overly disracting, and can be dismissed with a simple page turn.
Television also has this same mix of content. However, people tend to fast-forward through commercials on prerecorded shows. We only want to see the meat of it. Commercials are distracting, and when viewed live, cannot be skipped. This causes many people to simply not watch TV, and only watch movies.
I block *all* ads with Adblock and filterset.g because I can. It takes very little effort for me to have all the distractions removed automatically with little to no performance hit and lets me get right to the meat of the content. In fact, this saves processor time and often bandwidth (not sure if Adblock downloads images first or not).
At this point, I'm wondering why someone even bothered to ask this question. The answer seems to me to be obvious.
I block ads with adblock for several reasons.
When sites provide useful information and also offer me the option to subscribe and thereby get rid of ads, like Slashdot, I do so. And will continue to do so.
I don't pop up ads, I personally like to win free PSPs by shooting a teacher with a spitwad. =D
Flashblock would be what you're looking for. Whenever a flash animation is embedded in a page, it replaces it with the flash logo, and you can click on it if you want to play it. Otherwise, it's just a lovely flash-free stretch of internet. :)
If they blink I block.
If they animate, I anhilate.
Basically if an add distracts me from reading the page I'm reading I make it go away.
adBlock, what else is there?
* Inline ads always interfere with the page layout; especially on newspaper pages, when the column of text is only 10-15 words across anyway, and the size of a typical inline ad in this situation is about 5-7 words across.
* Popup and "Popunder" usually distract me from the article at hand, and are evil, so they get blocked out of hand.
* Finally, I'm just not interested in about 99% of the ads on the internet. I live in Australia, and so I have no interest in Newegg having a sale on PC cases or whatever. Besides, I just don't have the money anyway, and if/when I do, and want to buy something, then I'll go to whatever place I want to buy from of my own compunction.
If an ad IS interersting, I won't want to block it.
unfortunately, with the plethora of bad ads out there, pop ups will have to die. And that include those ads that may be even be good to watch.
Point : Internet Ads are BAD. That's why people block them. If they are interesting, people will watch them. Example : Superbowl ads are often more memorable than the game itself.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
For peace of mind.
This is really a silly question. People don't like ads, TV, Web, otherwise, because they are intrusive. On top of that most ads treat their prospective audience as if they are complete idiots. Do they really think people are so dumb they can't use a simple product unless it has {name of brand} printed on it? Both TV and Web ads seem to have a large majority of ads pushing viagra and similar types of products. Is it any wonder that a lot of people use ad blockers on line? And as soon as more people learn about things like mythtv which let you easily skip ads on TV those systems will become even more popular. With those tools in place I personally do not see many ads at all anymore. And for the past year or two the national do not call list has eliminated obnoxious phone solicitors.
/.'s web page.
Now I just need to figure out a tool to block the ads that pop up on
Thank goodness for ad blockers, mythtv, and the national do not call list. Now I can spend less of my time watching ads for stuff I do not need or want.
Is nothing pure anymore? The question shouldn't be why DO I block ads, it should be why SHOULDN'T I block them. All I want is a medium somewhere in my life that isn't tainted by advertising trying to tell me what I should/shouldn't consume. I, as well as every average American, sees 1200 ads a day. I'm trying to keep my quota down...besides, I don't really need dick pills or mail-away bachelors degrees.
Please allow me to hate the creator of the 120-character limit: *HATES*. Thank you.
I block image ads becaues typically they are invasive, distracting, and irrelevant. I don't mind google ads becaues typically they have at least SOME relevance to what I'm looking at, and they are discreet
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
If ads were not complete crap, didn't comprise > 50% of the page view, and did bog my machine down with some freaky flash animation, I might actually take a look at the product, if it had anything to do with the page view I mean.
The same here, I just can't concentrate on text with flashing animations and stupid
monkeys dancing about all over the page. I bet if you did even the most rudimentary cognitive
science experiment to test reading speed and comprehension with and without dancing monkeys you
would see an obvious impact. Anyone got any links to something like that? It's the flip side
of the 'how annoying can we make it to grab their attention' research that advertisers probably do.
Technology-based ad blocking is a violation of social contract. Those willing to transgress upon this higher contract do so with sociopathic disregard to the interests of networked society as a whole.
/. again?
Mental ad blockage, however, well, that is a topic unto itself which has been, and continues to be studied in great detail.
What was the point of this Ask
On the other hand, if a site has a lot of obnoxious shoot-the-monkey type ads or audio ads, I'll likely never return to it.
Additionally, I am very happy to pay a couple of bucks a month to sites like Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/ to have a streamlined and ad-free experience (in the case of Salon, I also want to support strong independent journalism).
I'll tell you what worries me, though: people (or, worse yet, applications by default) blocking text ads. IMHO that's pretty self-defeating long-term; if text ads cease to be significantly more effective than graphical and/or annoying pop-up ads, then companies will either revert back to more flashy ads (yuck!) or they'll start putting content behind subscription walls (bad for searching, bad for wallets), or -- worse yet -- may just decide to stop sharing or creating content at all.
Only the truly shameless shill their blog in a Slashdot sig
Adblock for firefox works nicely. Since most ads come from a few domains, it doesn't take long to blacklist enough URLs to make browsing oh so much cleaner and smoother.
If Microsoft were smart, they'd push the use of Firefox.
Not only should they do that, they should have an employee set up a website to provide automatic updates for Ad Block. They could have this person write filters for ALL advertisements--especially Google Adwords.
Since Microsoft doesn't make a lot from advertisements proportional to their other revenue streams, they could wait out Google by cutting off their air supply. The best part is that they'd elude any signs of impropriety because it'd be Firefox destroying Google's only revenue stream.
The thing I am particularly un-fond of is animation. Ick.
Text ads: love 'em. Click 'em. Buy stuff from 'em.
Static banners: They're fine. Occaaaaassionally click 'em. Might have even bought something from 'em.
Animation though. No thanks.
Funny thing: This is the same reason I traded in MSN's Messenger client for Trillian. The animated ads on screen. All. The. Time. Just too much.
For instance: When you're trying to do formulas in a spreadsheet and discuss things with colleagues over IM (or in person for that matter!) such animated ads are both ineffective and a genuine distraction.
Best antivirus software
If I could block ads elsewhere, I would.
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
using MythTV. Strips them out automatically. Sadly misses the odd one, but I have 'skip30' and 'back5' buttons on my remote to solve that - 7 or 8 quick clicks past the ads, then back to the start of the prog.
I haven't seen an ad in many months. TV has improved out of sight for me.
Animated and/or noisy ads are annoying. I AdBlock them with reckless abandon.
Depending on the site, many ads may be sexual in nature, which is not so work friendly, regardless of the main content of the page (joke sites with videos or images are a good example)
Many are aesthetically displeasing. If they don't blend well with the site, I generally block them to save my eyes the discomfort.
Many ads are done in Flash, which require more bandwidth to download and more resources to run. They can also be used to circumvent pop-up blockers. Because of the annoyance factor, I block these on general principle, even if a particular Flash ad isn't too intrusive.
And since the OP asked, I no longer watch live TV. By using TiVo and the 30-second skip feature, I never see more than a few seconds worth of commercials in a half-hour of television. Television commercials make me feel violent in ways that the GTA series never could.
The bottom line is that the more ads that I block, the more stable my system is and the less often it and the browser crashes. I wouldn't mind at all if ads were simple banner ads that didn't overly hog bandwidth or compromise system security. And there are some ads that I don't even want to block. But when an ad has flash animation, pop-ups, or other sources of problems that I recognize as contributing to issues that crash my browser or even my system, I have another canidate for my hosts file. Sure, I know that the browser should not be crashed or crash the system because of the content in things it downloads, but the sad truth is that this happens, and I need to block ads if I want my system to be more stable. The advertisers have brought this on themselves by using too agressive of techniques in their advertisements. And some URLs, such as all those that I can determine used by aureate and all of their other alliases, will forever be banned for the nasty problem that their spyware has caused me. It's called being defensive.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you can't fast forward through video/TV ads, mute the volume. Makes a huge difference!
I discovered the Junkbuster proxy back in about '96 or '97. It was a way to speed up my browsing on a slow computer on dialup. I later also used Proxomitron to filter lots of annoyances.
Today, I still block ads mainly because animations are too intrusive and irritating when I am trying to read an article. I can't stand any kind of animated images or Flash or sounds on a page. I don't mind text ads, but I pretty much ignore almost all forms of advertising and do research on my own when I am looking for something particular.
People do not (so far as I know) ever block Google ads. This says something about the ads that people do block.
I use Ad Muncher for blocking ads. It's really so much more than an ad blocker.. it's also a popup blocker and really allows you to trim down the unwanted stuff from a web page. The author responds to questions in a timely manner and updates come reasonly quick. The only downside is that it's not freeware but comparing it to other ad blocking tools Ive seen, including the much heralded AdBlock for Firefox, it's light years ahead of everything else. www.admuncher.com
1) Ads are too big to download even on broadband; how do you think dial-up users feel downloading a 500k flash file or what ever?
/. ; what post would not be complete without a car reference:
2) Ads typically are poorly placed. It will takes away from the content your reading. Do you go to a site to see ads or to view something else. Its mostly likely that you are their for something else. A non-obtrusive ad servers its purpose better than one that is obnoxios. Its like a car sales man from the 60's doing their hard sell tatics. Guess what; these are the 2000s(?); the hard sell attituded has died off in most other business, except the web.
3) The ads do not reflect the reason you came to a site. Yes, I am reading an article about Sun servers but for somereason I get an ad about this x10 camera. How about being relevent and target the market for that page. Perhaps something like a Sun ad or an HP-UX ad? Noooo, that would make sense...
Does anyone realize why Googles ads are sucessful? They target a market. Search by mini-itx and you get ads about people selling mini-itx. Guess what? I am going to click on those ads!!! They are not flashing/blinking; they are not obnoxious and they are freakin relevant. Gee.... I think that this could be a pattern for sucess.
Hard sales with irrelevant subjects are a disaster; no matter on how hard you try to sell your product, its not going to work. The reset of the sales people or at least the good ones do the consultative selling approache.
Final note; because this is
Ever go to a car dealer and have them try to sell you a suit case or a dust buster? I think not; web advertisers have to get a clue. This also goes along with popups. Doing something creative to bypass the ad blocking software/popup blocker is not going to get you a sale; it will get you negative feeling about the product and the company selling the product (to most users) and perhaps at one point some people will realize that its also the marketing company; this applies to Joe Sixpack user.
I hate ads. The vast majority irritate the hell out of me. They're like a salesman running up to your face and screaming "HI, WE HAVE A NEW CHEST OF DRAWS SET, HOW MANY CAN WE PUT YOU DOWN FOR?" I have had flashblock ever since I was surfing and came across some "Genius's" idea to make a really noisy commercial, which I ran into at 11 at night and worried that I woke the neighbors. Yes, thank you, blasting my speakers so loud that it wakes my neighbors really makes me want to buy.
When I'm watching TV, I usually mute the set during commercials and wish for it to hurry up and get back to the show. (I do not own a PVR.) When I come across two consecutive pages of ads in magazines I go, I excise the page. Literally tear it from the magazine and throw it away.
We've reached a definite oversaturation point with advertising, and the more gets put it, the less effective any of it is. The marketing companies seem to be responding to this with even more ads.
Whatever it is I may be interested in, it can be assumed that there is a community somewhere online to gather people who share that interest. I am significantly more interested in what other consumers like myself have to say about a product than what the company has to say about it. As soon as companies stop using annoying tactics (bandwagon / glittering generalities / dramatized comparisons) in their advertisements to put a falsely positive light on their products, perhaps I will stop using Adblock/Flashblock/popup blocking. Until then, it's easy and effective to utilize the internet to tap into the world of "word of mouth" advertising.
I use two very simple things: popup-blocking browsers (Safari or Firefox, depending on which platform I'm on) (which, by the way, prevent me from using exactly zero sites) and a custom /etc/hosts file. My favorite used to be really high on google but it doesn't seem to be any more, but here it is: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt">block spyware and ads with a custom /etc/hosts file. (Of course, you can search google for "block spyware ads /etc/hosts" and find lots of others, but I think this is the best. The number one match is usually a no-longer-maintained one from CSU, Chico, oddly.) Not only does it block hundreds of ad sites (like doubleclick) it also blocks lots of spyware carries and sites that host malicious dialers as well.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Really, anything else isn't too bad. However, if you play any such ad, your ad server gets blacklisted completely.
> why do you block ads?
Slows loads, clutters pages.
> And with what?
userContent.css
> Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Yes and no. In terms of presumed obligation to pay attention, no. In terms of annoyance, both are annoying but IMO Web ads more so.
> What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Most magazine editors don't try to make their adds as annoying as possible and don't clutter the page with them so that it's hard to read the content without distractions. Also, a magazine with more ads doesn't take me 30 seconds to turn a page.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I block ads using Adblock, a hosts file edit and the firefox popup blocker because:
* Waste of bandwidth - Even on dsl it takes time to download
* Takes up space on screen
* Waste of system resources (although this is minor)
* Not going to buy a product that very instant I see an ad.
* Rarely for things I'm interested in.
* Popups just are too annoying
* If the product is that great I will hear about it through other means
Those are some of the reasons I can think of.
The irritating seizure inducing ads, along with pop-ups and unders, exist for a reason. They work. Until that simple fact changes (ie, greater percentages of people have are more tech-savvy) those ads will persist, and will in fact proliferate. The online advertising market is only now getting truly smart as to its offerings, and new startups enter the field every month. Think about the proliferation of p2p nets post-Napster: the ad companies aren't just going to sit back and let Firefox's native-and-extension blocking put them out of business. I use an affiliate program on one of my sites that pays out as much as 5x on the popup ads and interstitials as they do on basic ads. Since I know most tech savvy people block them anyway, I go ahead and run them. (Of course, I set my pop up to pop only once per 24 hours per IP, and the interstitials to trigger once a half-hour...less than one percent of my visitors stay that long.) Another irritating feature of my program is that they'll administratively 'cancel' some of the more irritating ads, and then reinsert them as 'new' ads...thus putting them right back in your queue. My point: websites and bandwidth cost money, and getting that money often requires a dance with the devil in the pale moonlight. Your friendly neighborhood webmaster probably dislikes his ads as much as you do, but that's what keeps his server up. (Contrast this with Matt Drudge, who's constantly foisting new ads on his already saturated site that has mad traffic and low bandwidth overhead.) I'm certainly not going to be one of the ones moaning about the commercialization of the net...it's too late to worry about, and I personally welcome any opportunity to grab some of The Man's(TM) money any time I can....it's just unfortunate that so many lemmings make the "bad" ads so appealing to advertisers...
I don't have anything against web advertising in general, but too many flashy and colorful ads detract from the content of a page that I'm viewing. Plus, on my older Linux box, loading a page into Firefox with a bunch of Flash-based ads can really cause the rendering time to drag, so as a matter of practice I just block anything with a .swf extension. I use the "Adblock" extension to Firefox.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
I use standard firefox pop up blocker and I find it works well. I also use the adblock extection to bloack the text ads that highlight words and make them adds some tech web pages have so many BUZZ words for these things every 3th word is a link and its makes it hard to read! Normal Banners and towers i have no problem with everyonce is a while I see an inetretsing one and click on it.
I block as many ads on the internet as possible. I find them intrusive and a waste of my time and bandwidth. It's my personal choice though. I *would* advertise using banners, so I don't think that they shouldn't exists, I just want to have a choice.
I avoid commercial television. If I want to watch a TV show I download it from BitTorrent, which cut out the commercials. The commercials are a waste of time and I don't want spend 20% of the time I spend watching television (which I avoid) watching commercials, specially on cable TV which I already paid for. If I want to watch specific news segments I look at crooks and liars. I like PBS, and do not mind the sponsors part in the beginning and ending of shows.
I never listen to commercial radio (does anyone?). I enjoy NPR and do not mind the sponsors being mentioned at the beginning and end of shows.
I never read magazines dense with ads. I enjoy Harpers and Economist. Both have ads but are not dominated by them. Magazine ads I sometimes interesting. They are usually extremely specialized and can sometimes actually be interesting.
I am not apposed to advertising. I think it's useful and important. What I do no like are TV Programs, radio programs, magazines, or websites that are *tools* for creating ad revenue for a company and content is secondary.
what is nailchipper?
Because ads are annoying. TV ads, even when they are funny interupt the reason I am watching TV. Internet ads aren't funny, are more annoying, and typicaly try to know me without caring. I don't do mag's, they are only ads, and well I get more content from the net.
I don't want your product. If I do want your product, I'll come to *you*. If not stop fucking bugging me.
Yes, I block ads on TV (via DVR). Yes, I have stopped buying magazines due to ads (I canceled a 10 year subscription to Mad Magazine when they went color and added ads). Yes, I pay for satellite radio so I don't get ads there. And if for some reason your ad does slip through, I won't buy your fucking product for months on principle.
Really- do I go to your house and annoy you? Do I interrupt you when you're trying to do something? No? Then give me the same basic fucking human courtesy.
Marketers and advertisers are the scum of the earth. If I ever decide to go postal, I swear to god I'll go to Madison avenue to do it.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It's too easy for web sites to get around the pop-up blocking. What browser should do is permanently block all pop-ups and only allow them for sites on a white list or have a button to enable pop-ups for current site only. The number of sites with legitimate pop ups is small so this shouldn't be a problem. Ditto for disabling Shockwave which is used to get around browser controls. Time to learn Greasemonkey I think.
So why? There are many reasons. Lets start with the net. While they take time to download and eat up CPU cycles (I've always wondered how much battery life Flash ads eat up when surfing the 'net on battery), there is a bigger reason.
What do ads look like on the 'net these days. Are they simple? Are they like google ads or the banner ads of yesterday? No, I see 3 things. I see large moving objects covered with names of states trying to sell me mortgages (peacocks, palm trees, all sorts of crud). I see 20 smiley faces dancing and bouncing like all those stupid pages people put up when animated GIFs first appeared. Last thing? Shoo the _____ to win a _____. DO IT NOW. NOW NOW NOW. TRY IT. WIN A ______. CLICK HERE.
Yeah, THOSE make me want to try/buy. Some companies ads are fine (the MS ads here on Slashdot are fine with me). But because people don't click them (see reasons above), they have decided to make things worse. Now they open BIG WINDOWS when you mouse over (or just enter a page). They bounce things around your browser window. They play sounds and songs and other crud. I keep my computer muted all the time (unless I'm listening to music) for precisely this reason. I got tired of surfing and randomly having some loud car-screech-peel-out or stupid music.
TV? I watch more ads than ever. Instead of being annoyed by most (BUY THIS CAR NOW AT JOE BOB FORD), I can skip all that. But when fast-forwarding if I see something that catches my eye I'll stop and watch it out of curiosity. No longer are am I just "watching" the ads (in the sense I'm in the room and theoretically watching TV), now I actually WATCH them. I don't tend to miss any commercials that I wish I'd seen (haven't heard about any good ones recently I didn't already know about). Interesting ads work, but it is only because of my TiVo I even bother.
As for radio, things have gotten worse also. That is one of the reasons (there are MANY others) that I've moved to listening to NPR so much (and my iPod even more).
My biggest complaint with mass media has to be how smutty it is. It used to be you could watch TV or listen to the radio. Now if I watch TV I get to see "male enhancement" ads, some of the most appalling and horrifying ads I've seen in my life (Tag body spray, Axe shower gel, some gum brand, and some others). Radio is the same. Everything I watch/listen to wants to sell me male enhancement drugs, recreational sex drugs (Viagra et al), some scan diet pill (that is probably causing millions of people kidney disease), 12 year olds dressed like hookers ('cause it's COOL), etc.
There are some fun commercials, and I've watched 'em. I enjoyed the iPod commercials, the Old Navy swing commercials from years ago, HP's recent printer campaign with the photos, and many others. The Toyota Prius commercial (from the Super Bowl) and many others have been great. But to watch those I get assaulted by tons of stuff that annoys me (car ads), sickens me (male enhancement), or just makes me want to cry that something like that would be broadcast (Tag body spray, Axe shower gel, etc).
But the biggest problem, the BIGGEST problem is seeing the same commercial 3 times per show. For every show. On every network. Non-stop play. Same thing over and Over and OVER and OVER.
I've heard rumblings of going back to "Kraft Foods presents: Medium on CBS". That's fine with me. I can't WAIT. It has GOT to be better than what we have now. And for those of you saying "Just give up on TV and watch the shows when they come out on DVD", I'm VERY close to that. VERY close.
Whether you agree with my stance on certain commercials being vulgar/etc; you have to admit... commercials seem to be trying to get louder and more annoying (like car dealership commercials are the best thing out there or something).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Imagine this: you are watching a good movie. Just as the movie reaches its climax, a large ad pops up covering the screen and playing obnoxious sound effects. If you press the wrong button on your remote, it takes you to commercials on another channel.
PithHelmet
note: some sites require fine tuning to the default settings -- but overall this works wonders!
Yes, I FF through comercials (via TiVo). I want to be in control of the information coming before my eyeballs! Don't plaster ads everywhere and in obnoxious ways -- that just turns me off the product!
I don't mind all ads. I understand that ads are what pays for a lot of the content I like to see.
What I object to is ads that block my "work flow". Your ad covers up what it is I'm trying to read. Or I have to watch your 30 second ad for a product I don't give a damn about in order to get to the content I want to see. Or your ad spawns 32 additional windows on my machine.
In the beginning, I didn't block ads. As I said above I understand that ads are what pays for a lot of content. But I finally started blocking because of what I consider to be a few bad apples in the barrel. It reached a point where ads became too obnoxious and too much of an interruption.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Web: I use Safari and block the popups, the other stuff i dont care about, i've never clicked on any web ads
TV: DishDVR through Dish Network, TiVo even pisses me off, all those beeps and now they are putting ads into it, I like my DishDVR so much more. Also with Spike TV having 5 hours of StarTrek every weekday, what geek would be without a DVR?
Mags: just flip past them or rip them out, if they dont give out free ciggs then i could care less
- All ads. period.
If I want something, I know how to look for it. If I can't find it, oh well...
If someone has to *tell me* that I need something, do I really need it?
mas
Ad's follow the AMERICAN pattern.. that is IN YOUR FACE, ALL THE TIME! and that as a EUROPEAN that's used to MUCH more restrictive laws on ads.. just really ticks me off.. really quickly..
I have no tolerance for ads whatsoever.. luckily YEARS of training as a cynic is enabling me to trash every lameass argument all ads use like "genuine coffee" (made in taiwan!)..and "proven effect on plaq" (yea right.. makes MORE of it grow) and "tested by british hairdressers" (who has no ethics and gets well paid to say its a good product) and other bullshit like that along with a very well developed "blind eye" that can zone out ads extremely effectively.. coupled with a shitload of ad-removing apps.... I now feel much better about myself.. and feel its possible to breathe again.
I think more ppl should pirate.. not just software.. but.. if you get mad at an ad for cable or sattelite or movies or whatever.. steal.. steal.. steal.. they steal your gray cells by packing them with bullshit.. piracy just evens the score (yeye lame argument but im so MAD about ads everywhere I'm desperate for a way to get some revenge and since theres hardly any product at ALL thats not advertised, you cant just very well stop buying anything that gets advertised!!)
'nuff said.
2. Most ads are too big and intrusive.
I'd like to add to this, loud. Some flash ads drive me nuts. I'll be here, computing late at night while my roomate is dozing, or perhaps from my cubicle at lunch, and suddenly this ad will pop up in flash with jets wooshing by or perhaps some woman in a sexy voice trying to get my to subscribe to 'retarded gamer's monthly.' They also put the volume as high as it can bloody go... so inevitable it ends up blasting my eardrums and/or disturbing those around me.
On the other hand, smaller in-page ads (such as those in google), particularly ones that are related to what I'm looking for, are sometimes not bad. Actually, the good ads etc I don't find obtrusive at all, and if I'm looking to purchase sometimes they're even helpful.
Dr. Freud to the front desk please...
I leave the ads up because people do make money off of those things and it doesn't really affect my surfing on broadband. If I ran a site and needed a little revenue to keep the thing a float I wouldn't want people blocking it either. (there is the outside I chance I might want to click it...not really) The main reason is I don't even notice them any more. My brain mentally blocks out most of the ads and only annoying flashing ones get even a glance. Now popups are another story, I use firefox because it is good at blocking those. You can show me ads just don't interfere with my surfing. That's also the reason I avoid websites that place ads in the MIDDLE of the dang article.
I block them for a number of reasons:
- They interfere with my browser, causing it to malfunction in some way. It may crash, it may eat up memory and/or CPU cycles, in the end it simply malfs when presented with the ad.
- The ad interferes with the page I'm trying to look at. This is a cardinal sin. I went to the page to see the page. An ad considering itself more important than the page it's on is the height of arrogance and I'm not inclined to put up with it. And as it turns out, I don't have to.
- It interferes with my system in some way, eg. opening additional windows (esp. full-screen ones that cover up everything else on my desktop), moving windows from where I put them or resizing them to sizes I didn't set them to.
- The ad attempts to do something anti-social, eg. downloading executable code. Sorry, not happening, and anyone who does it doesn't get a second chance.
- The ad is from someone with an established history of abusing information, eg. DoubleClick. I don't give proven problems even a first chance. I learn from other people's mistakes, thank you very much.
If advertisers don't like this, well, personal problems are down the hall, third door on the left.Comment removed based on user account deletion
I get seriously stressed by having moving/blink things i the peripheral part of sight. It goes up and down, so some days are annoying, some not at all. It is like I cant concentrate good, because I have to look at it to see what changed.
When I am at my mother, the computer is in a open room, and people are usually there, it becomes stressful to just have them walking around. Not all the time, and usually only when I need to concentrate.
I don't mind text ads like Google's. If one page has 9/10 non-animated ads, and one moving one, and it bothers me, they all suffer by being blocked.
I can't tell you how much I dislike flash-based sites.
I use FireFox with the AdBlock extension: http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Because we can! Alternatively because we want to. Thirdly, we are freeloaders, and possibly criminals.
I block ads with JunkBuster, but plan on moving to Privoxy soon. JunkBuster is showing its age (only support HTTP 1.0, etc.). I find adverts distracting and a waste of bandwidth. I've also started downloading TV shows that interest me so that I can watch them without the ads. Cuts down on viewing time by 20% or more.. and the quality is better than over-the-air analog.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Since I consider ads to be a form of (light) brainwashing, I don't buy magazines with too many ads and I physically rip out ads where possible. Where not possible, I'll fold the page over so that I don't have to look at them.
I avoid video games and movies with overt product placement. And I usually wait (exception: Serenity) until a movie has been out for a couple of weeks before I go see it (I can arrive as the movie, not trailers, is starting and still get a good seat).
I mute my television during commercial breaks and watch shows on DVD more than I watch them on the tube.
But the worst advertising of all is the web advertising. The ads often flash, move about the screen, disguise themselves as content (ever seen those double-underlined links?), and obscure the content (javascript overlay ads). In cases like Slate or IGN where they show an ad before you get to the page, the ad wastes my time. I don't visit those sites.
Also, web ads use my bandwidth, a resource I'm paying money for! In a sense web ads cost me money: if I didn't waste MBs downloading ads, my ISP would be able to charge less or I would be able to get by with a medium-speed connection.
Note: The CEO of Cereality (a fast-food cereal store) was on NPR a few months back. He found out an interesting fact about advertising. He was finding that certain cereals were popular at certain stores. The only link he could find was the average age of the customers. He asked a cereal company representative why, for example, 18-24 year olds were hooked on Golden Grahms. The response? When those 18-24 year olds were six years old was when Golden Grahms was doing the most television advertising. Nearly two decades later and the effect of these ads has not worn off!
The main reason I feel justified in blocking internet ads is because they are generally created to be even more obnoxious than those on television. It's so difficult to get your add noticed, that you decide to make it a flashing red and white gif, in desperation. Then so does everybody else. Most for-profit sites end up with a serious case of loglo. I don't think I'm alone when I say that "Punch the Monkey!!!!!" is not a valid commercial offer in any sense. Dirty tricks like these have destroyed whatever validity internet advertising ever hoped to have. Also, as a programmer, it kind of ticks me off that my program on my machine is working hard to render something that I really, really hate.
On the flip side, the advertisements on Google are a good indication of where the internet's advertising is likely to end up (IMHO). Instead of thriving off of the stupidity and ignorance of the internet, Google concentrates on the individual, and tries to show you something you might actually want to see. Also, their text only adds are no more obtrusive than the search results. Respectful, personalized, effective, and beneficial to everybody.
I block what annoys me and what is easy to block without affecting legitimate browsing. Thus I don't block Flash ads because some of the sites I frequent contain Flash content or navigational elements. I do block popups because they are the web equivalent of an unruly, screaming child jumping up and down in front of me in a movie theater. Not only do I not block Google and similar context ads but I actually look at them to see if there is anything relevant I may want to investigate. I consider them a part of the web page that I'm visiting.
Whatever the ulterior motive this guy has for asking, he can come away with one simple theory concerning ad-blocking: Relevant, non-intrusive ads are less likely to be blocked. Yes, some people hate even those; and yes, as ad-blocking becomes easier, more and more people will opt out of the whole commercial aspect of the web. But you can't please everyone.
Dark Icon
I block ads to save the space on the screen. Unlike a lot of users I don't like to run my screen at eye bendingly low resolutions. I use 19" flat panels at 1280x1024 and typically browse the web on the same but in portrait mode. You would be suprised how many sites will not even fit in 1024 pixels of width any more! You'd also be suprised how much vertical space is wasted at the top of most websites. Add an extra inch or so for a giant ad banner and you always have to do some serious scrolling. Also consider the format that many sites are in now.. two or three column indices with content interspersed with ads.. I don't want to read through fifteen blocks of google ads to get to the bottom of a page! Furthermore, you can't print a page without gobbling up about 50% too much paper from printing all the ads. It's stupid. Browsing "regular" web pages on a handheld or a phone? It's impossible due to ads. Browsing on dialup or GPRS? You can't even do it without blocking ads!
I also block them because I'm not going to click them anyway. Although I can't say that I'm immune to 'mindshare' that ads have built in me over the course of a billion repeated exposures (ie word association -- you say wireless camera; I will say "X-10 and don't ever buy one"), I can say that I have never clicked on a web ad and purchased something. I might as well save everyone the bandwidth and the bother of showing me something that won't result in a sale.
I am also happy to say that I work for a company with a very successful website that has a very stringent no-advertisements policy. Sometimes it's hard to refuse that money, but our users really appreciate it and if nothing else it's proof that a website does not necessarily have to resort to advertising to rake in the dough.
Magazines? I have a thin metal straightedge that I use to completely tear out any page that is a full page ad front and back or part of an advertorial before I read the magazine. De-ad'ing a typical monthly magazine takes about 30 seconds and saves a heck of a lot more time than that when you sit down to read the thing.
That's a hell of a lot of marketing information that is being trawled for, without permission from anyone.
Those who view HTML-based e-mail have similar problems - any spam you open with a blank, embedded image link (provided you view images) will result in the spammer instantly obtaining vast amounts of data about you.
To me, that is simply NOT acceptable. If you think that Big Brother is bad (and not just the show), then Big Ad Exec is far, far worse.
Besides which, I was born in the UK, grew up on advert-free television, and resent the hell out of having 20-30 minutes of adverts for every hour timeslot on American TV. If I wanted to watch promotional material, with clips of TV show included, I'd go to one of the home shopping channels, thank you very much. I do not choose to go to the lairs of thieves and I never invited those lairs to come to me.
As you might have gathered, I don't watch much TV in America.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I try. I'm more than willing to meet site operators halfway. I understand that they're selling content to generate clicks, and as long as they're fair, I'm willing to click a few banners here & there.
But I'm only willing to go halfway. If I see a blinking or highly animated image that distracts my attention away from the content I've actually come to see, I have no qualms about ad-blocking. I adblock only if the ads are so annoying that I can't ignore them anymore. I tried really hard at the Onion's AVCLUB site, for instance, because it's one of my favorites. But then they had to go and start serving interstitials, and animating the hell out of everything.
Gone.
Anandtech's obnoxious flash ads?
Gone.
Slashdot? Stays.
This does not apply to ads served by the major conglomerates. Doubleclick etc. are in my Adblock file and will stay there, no matter what.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
1. Bandwidth.
2. Vulnerability to flashing lights.
[o]_O
I don't block adds. I stop visiting offensive sites.
If an ad is intrusive, I seek to block it somehow - usually by not visiting that site as much as possible (IGN, I am looking at you [or rather I used to be]). Banner ads are flashy, but I realize that SOMEONE has to pay the bills for much of the free internet I enjoy so I live with that as much as I can.
I will say that sometimes ad servers are too damn slow serving ads - which again leads to me not much returning to a site that has much of a delay in loading due to ads.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am thouroughly disinclined to use my equipment, my internet connection, my bandwidth and my funds to enable ads.
I strongly object to any company that attempts to get me to partly fund their advertising campaigns in this manner.
I will actively put in place every measure I can in order to prevent any such abuse (or tresspass) of my property.
- Use Adblock and CustomizeGoogle (removes all Google ads) to block ads on Firefox
- Use the hosts file to block them on MSIE and Opera (a bit ugly but works)
AdBlock: www.mozilla.org > Products > Firefox > Extensions
CustomizeGoogle: http://www.customizegoogle.com/
The hosts file: http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
I block ads because they are extremely annoying. Television commercials aren't that bad and some I will watch just because they are funny or informative. Most of the ads I have ever seen on the web tend to be VERY distracting and annoying. I don't like it so I tend to block them. I wouldn't care as much if they were good and subtle.
The reason is that I removed "googlesyndication" from my filter list, so Google text ads come through. In addition to being more useful, I will also click on text ads whenever I've found an article that I support or found to be interesting. I often open three ads in backgrounded tabs and close them without ever laying eyes on them to throw them some support.
I disable many of the annoying graphical ads (Especially the flash ads) as they suck up a large amount of bandwidth, make the pages take longer to load, and the some of the flash ads have the annoying problem when they make sound randomly when they are loaded in a background tab. The only ads I let through are the google text ads as they are usually relevent to something I'm looking for and are non-invasive and don't treat the end-user like a 4 year old with a low attention span.
Why do I feel like someone's trying to get us to do their market-research for them?
As has been said before, the ads that are tossed about on web pages are obnoxious and get in the way of the real content. I never realized how distracting the ads were until I started using Adblock on Firefox...when I have to use IE, I am amazed at the prevalence of online advertising and glad I don't see it.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
I bought Computer Shopper back in the ages for the ads, reviews, and the BBS phone numbers they would list in the back.
It was a great publication for those of us out in the boonies with only a 2400 baud modem. I built my first computer entirely of parts ordered from ads in the CS, and then used CS to find a couple BBSes to dial into.
Ah, the good ol' days.
I skip television advertising (using my HDTV card and my two ReplayTVs) because it's loud, annoying, and completely irrelevant to my current purchasing needs.
Case in point: I am currently looking into getting a Vespa. My car was crushed in Hurricane Rita, and I have a 5-block commute that's just long enough in the hot Texas sun to eliminate human-powered locomotion. I've never seen a Vespa commercial. But if I watch the commercials tonight on television, I have no chance of hearing of it or of alternative bike brands. Instead, I will be inundated with 15 minutes of advertising for big Texas trucks, Viagra, diapers, feminine hygeine products, and television shows I don't watch. Give me 3 minutes per hour of targeted, privacy-protected advertising and I'll be all ears. Give it to me on BitTorrent in HD and I'll even pinky-swear that I won't skip the ads or take my copyright-infringing potty break.
On the web, I do not block Google-like advertising, or even graphic banner ads. I block Flash because of their secret non-cookie-cookies and other abuses. Magazine advertising does not magically follow you from one page to the next, making noises and throwing itself on top of the article print. It does not force me to fill out a form with my personal information before I can turn the page, and it does not send messages back to the mothership. If it did any of these things, I would forego buying magazines (or, alternatively, switch away from whatever brand of brownies might have accompanied the experience).
I am not opposed to advertising. Well-done, it answers a consumer need. Even poorly-done, it is a necessary evil until open-source, distributed P2P applications can take over many services (search, publishing, hosting, communication, etc.) that are currently centralized out of technological necessity and commercialized out of market necessity. Once a year, I even put my ReplayTV in the undocumented "Superbowl mode" so I can watch all of the burping frogs and sock puppets without the pesky football getting in the way of my party.
But advertising is not about eyeballs: it is about gaining the *respect* of the consumer, not simply their *attention*. Respect my privacy, respect my space, respect my computer, respect my bandwidth, and I might give you the Internet equivalent of an elevator pitch. Fail on these counts, and it doesn't matter whether I find a way to block you or not, I won't be purchasing your dancing monkeys or secret cameras or casino games.
Faster speed on dial-up even without images and Flash. Blocked ads speed this up. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I just dont goto sites that are ad-heavy. I just use sites that are not.
Some time ago the Toronto Star site had giant popups that took half the page and even walked around the page. Somewhere in the popup there was a "X close" button that was really hard to find, so I had to scan through the flashy casino ad to figure out how to close it and read the news behind it.
I sent a complaint and stopped reading the Star for some time, checking CP24, BBC etc. I dont watch CNN videos for the same reason.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
My Google popup blocker is saying 7051 ads blocked. If each popup wasted 3 seconds of my life... google has saved me around 6 hours of closing windows.
My Internet connection is via a modem that maxes out at 44kbps due to poor line quality, so I refuse to wait for large image/flash ads.
One thing I'd like to point out to advertisers is that ads with particularly intrusive animations seriously interfere with my ability to concentrate on the rest of the page. Of course that's the intent, but there's a threshold that ad designers can't cross without seriously irritating their audience. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to loop the animation only once, so as to get my attention, but not scurry around in my consciousness like a squirrel on amphetamines.
I have no problem with textual ads; it's fair for the content and service providers to make some ad revenue from my visit. In particular, well-targeted textual ads
I never blocked ads until they started employing pop-ups. Actually, I hardly ever block non-popup ads. I value free sites, and ads support free sites - but I hate pop-ups (and pop-unders and screen maximizers and all the other annoying crap). I make a personal effort to remember the names of products in pop-ups so I can be certain NOT to purchase them, even offline. The Pheonix University ads have absolutely ensured that I'll NEVER choose to take coursework from them, for example.
2. Screen economy. I can't stand to view webpages in super high resolution. While some sites have features that stand out more in bigger resolutions, most tend to either go toward the left, right, or center (obviously). Nothing screams pet peeve to me like having to read a forum, that's centered in a page, with like 400+ pixels of wasted space on each side. So I view stuff in a smaller resolution. Meaning, I don't need banners causing me to scroll horizontal, or ad's stretching my screen.
3. Do I even need to explain the Spyware/Malware/Virus reasons?
4. Princple. A good site, is one that doesn't need Ad paid fueling. If you can't afford bandwidth in this day and age, honestly, then you don't need to be running a website that gets a high number of hits. It may seem asshole-ish, but thems the breaks.
Oh and as for magazines with ad's, yea I don't buy or read ones with lots of ads. I paid $6.99 (over priced already) to read articles, reviews, etc not ya know see another ad for Fanta soda I'd never drink or those great Virgina Slim ads
Aw Frell this
Its interesting that - while the vast majority of internet users claim they do not like popup ads - consumer behavior, not opinion, is what drives marketers to continue using them.
I worked as IT director for an e-commerce site, so I was privy to statistics on this subject for our company. When the marketing department would run identical ads online, but run one as a banner and the other as a popup, the popup version of the ad would receive have activity in about a 50:1 ratio from the banner - that is, if the banner had 10 hits, the popup would have 500. Typical hit counts for our ads over a 30 day period would be in the tens of thousands for popups.
In addition to that, the product advertised in the popup would have sold more units per number of clicks vs. the banner - something around 55% higher sales rate than the banner.
From a marketer's perspective, it would be financial suicide to forgoe using popups, or what they refer to as "interstitials". Popups generate more click-through, and have a higher success rate in moving products.
Yes, they're annoying - but, unfortunately, they're also very, very effective.
I pay for bandwidth therefore I should be able to choose what uses the bandwidth I pay for. The model of ad delivery on the internet is different than a magazine. Before you buy the magazine you can, theoretically, determine how much space is taken up by advertisements and decide if it's a fair trade for your money. With internet ads, you pay first, and you find out how much bandwidth is taken up by an ad after you get it.
Time is limited, advertising isn't a fair trade for my time. I lose minutes of my life, what do I get out of it?
I use the adblock extension for Firefox. Before that, I used Ad-Shield for Internet Explorer.
I don't mean this to the advertisers, I mean to everyone else. As soon as web builders stop thinking it's a valid web design decision, then *complete* popup blockers can utterly kill the annoying popup ads' viability.
I have the "Popups Must Die" extension for Firefox and I currently have almost *70* exceptions in my prefs, after only a few months surfing.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
I do not purchase anything or base my decisions on advertisements as much as consciously possible. I base them on hands-on familiarity with the company or recommendations by review sites or magazines.
It's a waste of their time and mine to show me advertisements.
Also, I refuse to have cable television because the constant interruptions and 'ur stupid' attitude of most advertisements are not only insulting, they actually make me NOT want to buy those products.
Of course, I will watch sports over at friends houses but usually we're babbling at each other during commercial breaks so it's not as annoying.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
Just like newspapers and tv. That's the business model. The content is there only to get you to look at the ads.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I started using adzap to remove popups at the proxy stage, and has worked well. It also zapped ads, but that was a side effect.
I have continued to block ads because so many are dishonest. The ads that look like dialog boxes, JS application windows that masquerade as error messages and so forth. With more ad makers finding ways around pop-up blockers, there is really no alternative.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Unlike TV and Magazines - where I don't have necessary control.
Today, Ads are mainly used to trick someone into clicking them (and therefore showing a slew of popups, or installing nasty spyware).
:P
One of my earliest memories (when I was young, and AOL was somewhat useful) is going to a website and seeing an ad that was in the style of a message box and said "Warning: You have new email!". Being young and stupid, I would always click it and never figure out how to fix this "error". If ads were more upfront and said "Hey, we're gonna install this AWESOME toolbar for IE", maybe I'd have more respect for these companies.
I still wouldn't click the ads though
I hate popups, though I use a non-crappy browser so that problem is mostly delt with.
/. oh so long ago. I want to read these sites for free, so I am willing to view the ads that help pay for the content. I find that pop-up/unders violate this contract (breaking out of context) so I don't have an issue with blocking them.
I dislike flash based ads for two reasons, the constant animation is distracting, and if I am interested I can't middle click to open in a new tab. I just deal with it.
Some sites are using those crappy layer based ads where stuff floats over the content. I just don't go to those sites.
To be honest, I beleive in the "social contract" mentioned on
paul reinheimer
I don't block ads, because most ads aren't annoying, and I understand that they help support a lot of the otherwise free sites that I visit. But I have given myself the tools necessary to deal with the truly annoying ads:
1. I use Mozilla. Built-in popup/popunder blocking.
2. A Mozilla extension that prevents Flash applets from loading until I click on the box.
3. A Mozilla extension that lets me remove any element from the page, simply by right-clicking on it and selecting "Remove object" (or "Remove selection" if I have multiple things selected). If a really annoying, full-blinky animated GIF ad shows up, poof! I blow it away.
That's all I really need. I don't pay attention to ads (I'm mostly immune to advertising in general), but I let the page loads get counted because I know that the advertisers pay attention to it.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
It all started with animation. There is nothing worse than trying read some articles with dayglo green-on-pink spinning, flashing, !CLICK HERE! on top. I can't... think... with that there! Junkbuster fixed that.
Then there was cookie management. I only log into a handful of sites, why does every single one need cookies to the end of time? JB again to the rescue: it could convert cookies into session-only cookies, and leave the ones I need alone.
Then came the spam. Back then I was using Netscape 4, and it would dutifully load remote images off the web, with no way to stop it. Privoxy helped there by letting me blackmail IPs. Not great, but better than nothing.
Since it's a proxy, all this worked for the times I was also forced to use IE, which I tried to resist as long as possible. Since neither Netscape or IE had any of these features, it was a great add-on.
As everyone around here has said over and over, text ads don't bug me. I could go militant anti-ad and start filtering text ads with Privoxy, but I don't. Google got it right. God bless 'em.
These days, things have changed for the better. Mail clients can disable remote image loading, and actually prefer text over the HTML bullshit. Browsers have per-site cookie management and allow you to accept session cookies silently. Firefox has ad-block.
"Maybe ads aren't so bad anymore", I think, "maybe advertisers have learned their lesson, and I should stop blocking". Then I use my parents' computer without adblock on a Christmas break. The ads now are movies, overlay the entire screen, with swooshing rock soundtracks. Result: adblock not only stays on, but gets installed on permanently on their computer too. And anyone else's I work on.
At home, I picked up a ReplayTV 5040 (the geek PVR) -- two babies made following "24" impossible, and I was tired of swapping tapes. I dumped the stupid VCR the day we got it. Automatically skipping ads was just a pleasant bonus, and saves lots of time.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
I have attention deficit disorder. I could be wrong, but I suspect that constantly being inundated with advertising has a negative impact on my attention span and my short term memory. In my opinion, TV and especially Web advertising have been getting more and more agressive and distracting over the past ten years and I got fed up with it about 3 years ago.
I now wildcard block every online ad company I run across with the firefox adblock plugin. What little TV I do watch, I skip the commercials with my DVR. The only magazine I get is Make, and the content to ad ratio has been pretty good so far.
Again, I dont know if it is purely psycho-somatic, but I have noticed some improvement over the last few years since I started limiting my exposure to advertising. YMMV.
I find sound in flash adds highly annoying and intruding - they make me jump and at times the sound goes on, distracting and ruining the reader experience. So I block any addsite using flash sound - the whole domain.
I also block add-sites which deliver adds I find offensive - no mercy. Peeing dogs etc.
Other than that I don't really mind adds, if they keep still. I have animations set to play once only, because I find the continous flicker very distracting.
But the size of adds dlayout can actually be interesting. In a way they are a "natural" part of contemporary design. Some adds are even good, humorous, now and then I even have an interest in reading more about a product. So adds as such are fine with me. Just keep them in one place and muted and I'm fine.
Banners? I don't care - if its a free site, they need to raise money somehow.
Pop ups and pop unders though are just irritating, and interfere with my reading. Put it this way - i've bought stuff advertisied in a banner before (amazon i think), but I'll try to remember popups I see so that I can avoid giving the company my business if at all possible.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I would like to use Opera, as it seems to run faster than Firefox on OS X, but given that it doesn't offer something like adblock, as far as I'm concerned, the web is unusable with it. I'm a very easily distracted and hyperstimulated person (I suspect that I'm a high functioning person with Asperger's syndrome), and the nature of ads these days is so obnoxious (shaking banner ads, bright and flashing colours that can have no purpose other than to induce epileptic seizures) that unless I block these graphics, I feel physically sick after several hours of using the web and cannot focus on the content of the page I'm trying to read. Because of this, I've blocked all the ads I've come across, and for months now that I have adblock configured to my liking, I've seldom seen a single one.
I feel similarly about movies and television. The ads on both of these mediums are designed to grab attention and maintain it, but I find them too intensive; the constant movement, colour, etc. makes me dizzy and anxious to the point that I feel extremely unpleasant and need to retreat to my home to relax. I now download ad-free content using Bittorrent and watch all my TV shows sans ads and my movies in the comfort of my own home, free of charge. Is this stealing? Absolutely, but given the psychologically manipulative tactics used in advertising these days, I don't particularly care. I'm fully aware that two wrongs don't make a right, but I feel no inclination to behave with the slightest bit of decency towards industries that treat me in such a vile manner.
(On the other hand, I fully do support companies that I feel treat me well. I happily pay for their products. I go see my favourite musicians in concert and buy their albums and make a point of saving money beforehand so that I can buy their albums and merchandise there to show my appreciation for them.)
The whole point of advertising these days is to be as intrusive as possible. For example, in Toronto right now, a movie theatre along one of our major highways, the QEW, wants to erect a huge LCD screen to present highway drivers with movie previews. The problem is that their proposed screen surpasses the size limitations set by the city. They're fighting to change the bylaws. Opponents are claiming that the ad will distract drivers and increase the probability of accidents, while the movie company is stating that there is no evidence of such a thing. The sad thing is that the city is even considering it, from my understanding. The entire purpose of the screen, it seems to me, is to distract drivers as the screen is not visible to anyone other than people in cars on this highway, so I can't even fathom how the theatre's claim has any merit whatsoever. It boggles my mind.
I mean, we're constantly being bombarded by advertising. Now when I go to the gas station, I have LCD screens ON THE GAS MACHINES blaring loud advertisements in my face. Similarly for the subway stations, which have essentially become painted with ads for TV shows. The hubcaps of taxis are now advertisements for TV stations. It's rare that I have a day where I don't end up using a urinal that forces ads into my face. Often, these ads are so wasteful from a resource perspective that I can't wrap my mind around it; for example, we have a TV show up here in Canada called Canada's Worst Driver. One of their advertising mechanisms is for a tow-truck to pull around a severely decimated car with a huge advertisement for the show printed on the side of the car. This is permissible in an era where gas prices are soaring and smog is becoming a huge problem in Toronto?
How can I possibly show even the slightest hint of respect for an industry that gladly stomps on my toes at every possible opportunity it gets? As far as I'm concerned, there is no lifeform worth less on the face of this planet than those in advertising, who bring almost nothing beneficial or worthy to the table of humanity, only forcing more mental pollution upon us. I once met someone with whom I was quite compatible, but upon hearing that this person was in college studying marketing, I sent them packing as I could never date someone with those ambitions, regardless of how amazingly we got along.
I don't block ads. I don't mind them. Really, I don't.
I do, however, block flash, which just coincidentally catches a lot of ads. Flash annoys the hell out of me when it's used for anything other than a pseudo-application, like a game. Anyone that uses it for navigation, or even their whole site, should be taken behind a shack and beaten soundly.
i block adds because I don't like people trying to influence what I do. It's all way too intrusive, takes up bandwidth, and slows me down. As for adds in other mediums, if I had the choice of not getting them, I'd probably love that also. Other than the computer magazines (which I buy for quality of content - part of my choice is made based on volume of adds) where I like to see some of the adds, I generally just find adds an annoyance that should be terminated with much prejudice. One company that does adds well is google. I've got to admit that it's at least trying to target the advertisements so that you just don't get miles of junk you're not interested. They're also relatively unobtrusive...
I dislike Ad blocker. Occassionally there are ad I rather would do without, but ad like that will hurt them more then it hurt me. Sometime I do find really interesting ad that I want to know more about. I have no problem clicking on ads on website. Nor do I have a problem supporting ad based company. However when it get to become too many and too much. I will stop using them. For example. TV these day really have too many ad, so does Magazine.
Why the hell would you want to view ads? Especially when you are trying to read something. Do you not find it distracting to have some big flashing rectangle in the middle of the text you are actually interested in reading?
If a popup blocker is preventing you from using a site then the site is broken. Yes, that is right, the web site has broken a fundamental aspect of web site navigation and should therefore be shunned.
This post gets +5,000,000 points to flame (either the "story" or this actual post. You pick).
I call the city housing inspectors when I see an ad for snow plowing, tree removal or some such nonsense in people's front yards.
It's illegal to post a non real estate, political or garage sale sign in your own front yard.
I want to be able to drive in my own neighborhood without being assaulted by advertising, and I support my community ban on front-yard advertising.
I don't block ads. I block annoyances, such as popups. I don't mind the ads. I certainly prefer them to having to pay subscription fees. Then again, ads these days are far less annoying than they were 3 or 4 years ago. Heck, I even find the occasional thinkgeek ad interesting. I don't think advertising is automatically evil. I can understand being against the annoyance, but I've seen so many extreme views here that are really quite obnoxious. "Even though these ads are what is keeping this site I enjoy so much alive, I'm blocking them because of the principal of it." Yeah, right. If you were really operating on principals, you'd pay the fair price for viewing the site. Sadly, this sort of attitude doesn't earn as much karma around here.
.gif based ad instead of Google's text based ads. They had comics rotating through the ads. I found myself glancing up there regularly so I could catch the latest comic. I miss that. In that sense, it was more like TV. The ads became tolerable because I was being rewarded with content. Fair enough. I think some would-be cartoonists could make an interesting living, there. I think this is the right idea. Unfortunately, most sites try to play it as though the content they're providing is enough. Pity, really. Tripping over ads is not the way to keep your userbase. That's what drives people to block the ads. I can certainly understand that. Heck, even TV isn't immune to this. Lost is very hard to watch without a PVR. Tone it down, dudes.
For those of you that think all ads are evil, I have some random bits of info for you to read:
- I have my dream job right now because of a community site supported by ads. It is a massive site that is expensive to run simply because of the sheer number of users. I know others that can tell a similar story.
- Slashdot, an ad driven site, has provided me and LOTS of others many many hours of entertainment. (admittedly, it's the extreme twerps that provide the most entertainment for me.)
- Serenity, the movie trailer that lots of Slashdots tripped overthemselves to get, is an ad intended to get you to spend $8+ at the local theater.
- Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and even Futurama were made for the expressed purpose of tricking you into watching commercials.
- Any time you get excited by the latest processor or the newest video card or even the whoop-de-shit gaming system coming out, you're hearing about it because of advertising. Despite popular belief, there's really not that much difference between news and advertising.
Anyway, I'm done ranting. Moving on to a more constructive topic: I think advertising services are missing a critical component here. Opera had it right for a while. Way back in version 5, they actually used a
"Derp de derp."
My eyes gravitate towards whatever article/information I'm reading and completely ignores the peripheral ads. Once in a while, I see something that I like, and if I do, I click on it.
Many slashdotters think its really kewl to block ads, but ads pay for the sites you are viewing, ads pay for slashdot (not nearly enough of us subscribe to keep this site running).
On the other hand, we do have the right to block ads, its our computer and bandwidth. But if enough of us do, then most of the sites we know and love will cease to operate. As someone working in the ad-serving and tracking industry, ad blockers (not popup blockers -- popups are evil) are beginning to show up as a serious chunk in the stats. Advertisers and their agencies are now up in arms. Not being able to tell the ROI of an ad, means agencies can't tell if its worth showing or now.
By us not clicking on the crappy flash ads -- that sends a message. Blocking it does not.
Newsfollow.com
I try to support ad-based sites that I enjoy visiting, because it's either that or the more annoying subscription model. The purpose of using mainly a hosts file is that it takes a bit of work for me to put a site into the file (view source, fire up a text editor, add the line, etc). If I am annoyed by an ad so much that I would undertake all of these extra steps, then you really have been evil with your ad placement.
Pop-up blocker is always on, though. Pop-ups and unders are always evil. If you want to get my attention, work on having content that is appropriate to my interests, not annoying me during my browsing session.
I block ads because of popups. and those full page ads are just as bad as popups. If companys would stop using popups less people would block ads and they would make more money.
CyberCPU.net
There are two main reasons I block ads. The first is simply because I despise pop-ups with a passion. They are invasive and annoying. The other reason comes from Flash ads. My laptop is not a slouch by any means. Even so, many Flash ads noticably slow my system down. Scrolling through a webpage's contents becomes slow and jerky, multitasking suffers, and graphic-intensive programs such as Solidworks and World of Warcraft become almost unplayable. I have nothing against advertisements. But when they prevent me from performing other tasks, they're no better than spyware and virii.
...with my ability to jack off to pr0n! Can't have a whole bunch of popup ads in the way of a pr0n video/picture! It simply won't cut it. But seriously, I block ads because if I didn't, they would overwhelm my computer, literally. I used to get so many ads that it made any sort of web surfing impossible without seeing tons of ads interfering with my viewing of webpages, and having a ton of popup ads to boot, making it impossible to view a page without having to click the close button on a dozen ads, some of which, after closing, opened up even MORE ads. And this was with a spyware-free computer. Finally I got tired of it, started using a popup blocker. My web experience was improved 500% as a result. Not to go offtopic a whole lot here, but I really don't get the need for ads, and I'd even go so far as to say they're backfiring. If I need something, I will go and get it, so if a company has a good enough product, they shouldn't need to advertise, because I'll come to them. And as for backfiring, before I got the popup blocker, I absolutely refused to have anything to do with any products being advertised by internet ads/popup ads, just because the way they were being advertised was so intrusive, annoying, and insensitive. You aren't going to win over consumers by annoying them.
First and foremost, I see advertising as nothing but a giant, industry-supported lie-fest, due to the goal of advertising being to trick you into giving these companies your money. There is nothing positive about this. 90% of these things I see ads for I have no interest in, and those that I do have interest in suddenly becomes "the number one selling brand/movie/game/book that 9 out of 10 people agree outdoes the competition by 800%!"
I figure my friends and acquaintances will filter information to me on products I might want, and already know my interests and what I consider worth investing any time into.
While it's true that advertising originally existing as a valuable informative resource to notify consumer's of a particular products' existence, decade upon decade of cutthroat competition and over saturation of the market has trained marketing to do anything and everything to get your dollar, aside from kidnapping your family for the ransom of market share.
I nearly stopped reading webpages when I began to see more and more banners. Adblocking saved me, and I use Adblock, RIP, and several other tools for Firefox to do the trick.
As far as other media goes, I have not watched television in almost 10 years, specifically because I found the advertisements to be too frequent and irritating. I will download whatever I find to be appealing, because my first and foremost interest is in seeing the message and idea behind the creation.
Same goes for radio, though because we have other avenues of purchase for these I am able to buy CD's for any particular artist I happen to like. My cars MP3 player has assured me I'll never have to listen to radio commercials again.
I also refuse to watch movies at AMC because of their support for advertising at the beginning of their films, nor will I purchase games that advertise within them or during the intro splash screens. I will buy every brand of a product once and try it out before settling on what works.
We are very much headed directly for the horrific scenario described by the film Minority Report. Everyone I know jokes happily about this. No one does a thing. We are assaulted daily by billboards, commercials, flyers, and spam. What happens when this gets as bad as tele-marketers were pre-year-2000?
When you stop and consider that all entertainment today exists simply to sell whatever is attached to it, and all products you buy have a hitch (things wear out quicker, you're looped into a buying scheme - thank you Gillette razors), it makes it hard to consume anything. Honesty and morals have no place in these areas either, but unless you reject this way of life actively eventually our children will be whores to this media on a level we don't even yet comprehend. Our parents thought we were bad when we were brainwashed by the Saturday morning cartoons to kick and scream for a specific breakfast cereal, just wait until RFID tags are utilized to report all info on what we buy so it can aim advertising directly at our children. Sadly, this is also why I am robbing myself of having children in the first place. As better off as we live today compared to some third world countries, I don't want to bring a life into this world that has to put up with things like a medical industry that won't save your life if you can't fill some rich-fucks pockets quickly enough.
Who I am and my ideas have no real place in this capitalistic world we've created for ourselves. Luckily I find a scant few who agree with me, and that makes it easier to survive. Otherwise I can only spout these ideas in your direction and hope you will see it too.
Seriously, I never buy anything based on an advertisement (well maybe viral advertising). I decide what I need. I research products that meet that need from reviews, consumer reports, user reviews, and reports from users on enthusiast forums. I research each product from vendors spec sheets and marketing materials.
Basically I seek out the product information based on requirements I define rather than responding to marketing ploys designed to "make me want something".
I find any advertising, TV, print, internet, pop-up, etc. totally irrelevent.
I will actively refuse to do business with anyone who calls me at home or sends direct materials to my email box or fax machine.
I ignore and will block all ads unless I'm actually looking to buy something. Then I use Google to find out as much information on the product I'm looking for as possible. Even then, this will rarely come directly from the manufacturer or their website (except maybe for tech specs).
Because our corporate environment is such that blocking ads is not an option (IE6 - I love you), I have managed to achieve finding the close box at such a base, autonomous, nervous process that I rarely even know what the ad is for. If it moves over what I am trying to read I try to look past it and don't focus on the ad. Indeed, if I actually do notice what the ad is for it is generally a bad sign because I am so pissed off that I want to find out who to direct my anger at.
Thus, I block all ads to the limit of my technological ability. If it's not technologically possible, I make use of the inherent mental abilities humans (and particularly males) have to focus on the actual content and block out all extraneous distractions (wife, child, annoying flash animation...)
I was never ever interested in anything offered via banners or pop-ups. No, really. Either I know exactly what I want to spend money on or I go and look for information actively (asking friends, visiting specific sites).
I never asked for ads. I am aware that these people try to make money from ads and that's ok. That's why individual adbockers are good - everyone can decide for himself. And I decide against ads.
I use the Adbock extension for Firefox and my policy is this:
Presenting garbage in bright colors is one thing - spying on me is another. Many online advertisers set cookies, collect data, use lots of JavaScript and at the same time are not trustworthy. At all. One more reason to filter all of their stuff out. What good should come from them anyway?
Banners and pop-ups are visual pollution. They do all they can to get your attention. But I like to be very selective with my attention. I even removed colorful labels from some products I have at home like shampoo. You have all seen Lord of the Rings. Isn't it relaxing to see a world with natural colors and without any annoying ads?
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
I block ads because I can block them (why would I want to see them?), obviously I can't do anything about ads in paper magazines.
.. no ads plz... ever.
I really could care less about ads on web pages, yet I block them all at the root domain of internet advertisers. Why, because before I blocked ads, I use to get about 50 data-miners a month on my computer, that I had to clean out with Adaware every few weeks. I started blocking ads at the root domain, and suddenly I have had no data-miners on my system for several months. I suppose I could put more work into my filtering and find a way to get the ads without the spyware, but why?
If online advertisers would just be happy to show me the ad and be done with it, I would never have blocked a single one. However, they want to track cookies telling them where I've been, where I saw the ad, how long I watched the ad, and all other sorts of stuff. Magazines don't do that, television doesn't do that, billboards don't do that, and thus I could care less about them. I understand that the online advertisers feel they need to do all this stuff to make sure they are paying appropriately for the ad space, but it is just too intrusive. If they want me to ever see their ad, then they need to do what every other advertiser in the world does, and just trust that they chose their venue properly, and hope I am interested in enough in the ad to check it out.
Their are a few ads that make it through my blocking, and I am fine with that because they have never loaded any data-mining cookies or other software on my computer. As long as it stays that way, I'm fine with the ad. The day I find a cookie from that domain, is the day it goes on my blocked list.
mainly because at the time I was on dial up and it slowed things down significantly. I maintained that habit after acquiring broadband, but then quit.
Why? The minute I realize something is an ad I don't even look at it. For sites I visit regularly I psychologically know where to expect ads, and subsequently don't look at them. For example, the banner ad on Slashdot is not there to me; I've only noticed it while writing this because it's specifically about advertising.
As for other forms of advertisement, I turn away from the TV and do something else whenever a commercial comes on; I never sit and watch it. I've never purchased anything on-line as a result of a banner ad and doubt I ever will.
Other advertisement methods, like Salon.com's forced flash movie simply deter me from reading the content. I generally read the article summary and decide if reading it in full is worth one minute of my time; usually it's not -- occasionally it is. In either case the advertisement usually wouldn't effect my purchasing habits. I don't buy things because I saw them on TV; I research them, find which is best and cheapest, and then purchase.
In reality, I'm probably a huge exception though.
1) I live in Australia and 90% of the sites I visit are flogging stuff to US-based internet users. I couldn't buy the stuff if I wanted to.
2) Most ads are large, very colourful and very distracting.
3) It's so easy to block them. Right-click the offending image, choose Adblock, shorten the url and stick a * on the end for a wildcard match.
4) My first broadband account had a 500mb month cap and 15c/meg over that. If I did a lot of web browsing I could literally end up paying to view ads.
5) When I'm in the market for a big-ticket item I read reviews and compare prices and features. No amount of advertising will influence my decision to purchase. If a manufacturer wants to influence me they need to make a product so good that it's a no-brainer. E.g. the Subaru WRX.
6) I usually buy small ticket items on impulse. I'm there in the shop, it's staring at me, I buy it. Online ads for small ticket items are pointless. (Freight + waiting time)
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
Well...I'm a 17-year-old male. I REALLY don't appreciate a scantily clad woman popping up on my screen, especially while I'm at school. It's embarrassing....it makes people think you to be some sort of perv.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I recently bought a book from the local used bookstore that is printed in 1975. ... stay for the taste." It is on that annoying magazine cover paper so they can get the full colour. The rest of the novel is standard issue paperback.
Right there on page 128 is an ad for Kent cigs that tell you to "Come for the filters
If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way. Well, one is free to read a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free, some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs. And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this.. Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or Firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done. Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal with. It is yours, it is your conten
Television ads basically are supplied to me free and don't impact my reception of programs. Same with magazines and newspapers; I can choose to just flip past them and keep reading.
Internet ads take time and bandwidth to download which could be better spent getting the actual content I want. If I'm on a metered connection, like a pay WiFi access point, then all of those kilobytes count. I've also run across sites where the ad server doesn't respond fast enough. Then I'm waiting for the browser to finish downloading the ad so it can layout the page and show it to me. I've run into sites that are literally unusable until I block the ads. Then the page loads quickly and lays out correctly. This is the major reason why I block out ads; they affect the user experience to a much greater degree than in other mediums.
I also have to agree with other posters here: most of the time, the ads aren't relevant to me or are scams. I also don't block Google Ad Words; partially because they are unintrusive text that can be ignore, partly because the blocking tools are mostly geared to images and Flash, and partly because the ads are sometimes relevant to what I am looking at.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
My number one reason is Macromedia Flash
(or anything similar, Java applets, JavaScript based emulation of similar functionality)
Although annoying, moderate levels of flashing and attention seeking (but not by pop-ups or resizes) are quite acceptable to me. Grabbing attention is one of important aspects of an advertisement.
I am not against advertisements on Webpages, because it funds those pages so that poor folks (I am one of those) can access a lot of content, that would otherwise be too expensive.
I also prefer books to magazines because of ads. Fuck ads, they're a drain on my time and energy. Some people like them, fine, sell ads to the people that like them. There are plenty of magazines that operate on precisely that principle. Leave the rest of us alone. And if I ever catch one of the fuckers that stuffs my mailbox with ads for cheap meat at the local grocery store or leaves fliers for chinese restaurants attached to my doorknob I'm going to pound the fucker and make him eat them.
I used to use the Proxomitron. That got rid of most. Unfortunately it's a bit out of date now, and not cross-platform. So now I use Privoxy. The web interface isn't bad, and the perl-style regular expressions are easier to use than Proxomitron's own language.
Why Privoxy? Because it works on _all_ browsers and platforms that I run. And it's dynamic. I can block anything close to 'ad' or 'banner' without having to add each ad server to my block list. Much easier.
I try to filter advertising out of everything I encounter. I use Firefox with the adbocker at home and work; before Firefox I used AdSubtract with IE and Netscape. I rarely watch 'live' TV - I prefer to watch DVDs (temporary copies with advertising removed). The TV shows I do watch I have recorded and then removed the commercials (with TMGEnc MPEG editor). I remove pages from magazines when both sides are ads. I want content without the crap. If reasonable, I will pay for content without advertising.
The whole idea of advertising, IMHO, is to bully your brain and thought processes into buying and/or doing whatever is being advertised. If there is a way into your brain, an advertiser will find it and exploit it. If I want to buy something I want to know that I need that thing and not an implanted desire to possess it. My brain is my playground, I don't need advertisers dumping their toxic wastes into it.
Coroprations shell out tons of money to try to get my attention to buy their product. However they assume one thing. I want to spend money. I don't have a steady income right now and thus have no reason to look at ads at all. They can try shoving them down my throat with commercials in shows, but a fast forwards button takes care of that easily. They're big business. So if they're going to try to get my attention, i'm just going to stick my tounge out at them and waste their money. (i'm even considering joining the team that attaches rocks to those business reply mail envelopes)
If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way.
Well, one is free to read a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free, some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs.
And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this..
Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or Firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done.
Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal wi
Ads in magazines aren't active, they don't make a mess in your living room just because you read them. If web ads didn't leave a bunch of pop-ups and malware, I probably wouldn't bother.
I hate playing whack-a-mole.
Then use a different adblocker, like SafariBlock.
I might stand animated GIF's... but those Flash Ads use up _MY_ CPU. As if wasting my bandwidth wasn't enough. It's as if some TV commercial made you run and dance while you were forced to watch it.
No, thank you, i'll skip that.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I guess the difference between the ads I like and don't like is that I like them if I'm looking for them.
But, yeah, I block most online ads. I'll "*" a whole domain if they're really annoying . I consider ads in the middle of a story to be annoying. And I only watch TV on my TiVo, so I skip commercials. These fall into the category of "ads I'm not looking for."
I am not a crackpot.
Most Television adverts don't change the channel I'm watching, so they are an annoyance for a minute or two then go away.
.... that's the problem.
Printed ads, sit calmly beside the content I am reading.
Internet ads that sit ON TOP of the content, or pop up a new website
That's the difference.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Aesthetically, there's simply too much clutter, noise, and garbage out there. Most times ads are crammed into a page layout, destroying what some quantity of effort attempted to make visually pleasing. Ads are garrish, they don't fit in, they disrupt the flow of a site. So, in part, I block ads because they're eyesores. Okay, that's most of the reason.
I'm not an impulse buyer. An ad isn't going to make me click through to purchase a product. Word of mouth from reputable sources is about the only thing that's going to make me favor one product over another apart from specifications. I could rationalize it by claiming I'm doing the advertiser a favor, not wasting their money to view an ad which won't affect me, but that's poor rationalization. Screw the advertisers. I don't care about their products and I don't care about their ads. I'm capable of looking at spec sheets provided on a slew of companies sites on my own and finding people I know who have some experience with the product I'm looking at.
Blocking ads may harm content providers, but I couldn't care less. How often do content providers cross the line from having ads to host content to hosting content to sell ads? How many sites start that way? I'm sorry if some sites are so popular they need to pay bandwidth bills, but if somebody wants to spread their message they can do it without ad revenue. Heck, they could write cleaner HTML without so many images to start. Heck, that might even improve the whole user experience. And while I enjoy some sites that survive on ad dollars, I wouldn't shed a tear if any of them went offline tomorrow and never came back. There will always be others.
It's a lot like public TV. When you get down to it, some people enjoy the crud that's broadcast, but there isn't an ad supported show that a person could not do without. While there are significant costs to broadcast television, the barrier to entry on the net is pretty low, mirroring of useful content is typically easy, and almost anybody can do it. Let the ads die, it won't hurt the net any.
If not now, when?
I run Adblock, and generally only block the annoying ads. I believe the content providers certainly have the right to place ads on their pages; but when they are animated in a way that makes it hard to read the page (e.g. those stupid mortgage ads with bears or babies or whatever), I block that iframe's entire domain.
It only takes a second for me to glance at an ad and decide if it's relevant to me or not. Trying to force me to look at in again and again isn't going to get you my business.
#DeleteChrome
adios ads, its been real.
I think the amount of advertising that the ordinary person is exposed to on a daily basis is obscene. Even if you don't follow the mass media there are more than enough billboards, flyers and other marketing paraphenalia that attempt to lodge themselves in your mind.
;-) ). Because the marketing people KNOW that we are ignoring the ads and their (naive IMHO) response is to make them bigger, louder and more obnoxious. And realistically it is these ads that annoy the most users and are therefore on most (sane) people's block list. And because of this the tools to block ads get easier to use, and we start applying them to smaller ads, or even ads that don't really annoy us. Why? Because we know that the ads ARE going to get bigger, and if we stop them now, we don't have to see the bigger ones.
To this end I believe that the current generation have developed, not only the tools to eliminate (or reduce) advertising (fast forwarding, adblock for firefox, popup blockers etc) but also the mental ability to ignore advertisements. I had a bit of a laugh when another poster said something complimentary about the ads on Slashdot. I laughed because I don't even see the ads any more. I am sure that this is a common occurence of regular internet users.
So why are we talking about this (again!
So what's the answer. I don't really know, but I do take umbrage at people who seem to think that the argument is purely ADs -v- Subscription/Pay-per-view. Why lock yourself into such a mindset? It isn't an either/or, there is a continuum through these two and others. Think outside this duality and find other ways of displaying your wares.
Ads that I DO like. User reviews and "People who bought this also liked...." from sites such as Amazon. Not just targeted, but very specialised to what I am purchasing, not me. Lets see more of, well, not exactly independant, but at least partially unbiased ads.
So I am a cynic. I do not believe any marketing spiel/guff/trash. None of it is true. What I do believe in is my own testing, the opinions of peers and friends and independant reviews, in that order. And because I don't believe ads, why should be subjected to them.
The only thing to take from ads is this. It is all about choice. Choose not to watch them.
I don't block ads while browsing the web. I understand that site owners need to have some income from the site. That said, if a site has obtrusive or excessive ads, I will not return.
There are adds on web pages?
As a hobbiest photographer I like to try and subscribe to magazines. However there are a few of them that are basically 75% ads. They don't even try and mix content among the ads, just about 1/4 the way through it's nothing but ads until the back cover, and then there is an ad on it as well.
It's pretty frustrating, there is a few (Popular Photo & Imaging) that while still heavily laden with ads at least it's about a 60/40 split vs. 25/75.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Yet, my computer at home blocks ads. Why? Because I'm on a dial-up connection. I live in a bedroom community that doesn't have any alternatives. At school I have all the bandwidth you could ever need, but when I'm surfing at home I don't have the time to wait to download advertisements.
But it doesn't stop there. I won't just rip out ads -- I'll rip out entire websites. I was getting frustrated with the load times for a popular local information website and discovered that browsing through a single page sent me upwards of 200kb. I wrote a simple script that took that exact same page, tore out the ads, tore of the JavaScript, tore out everything that wasn't pure content. The result is an average 10-20kb page, formatted with some nice CSS.
Maybe it's not totally ethical. But I just don't have the time to deal with it any other way. And things are not getting any better. I realized that we'd hit a new low when I started seeing ads with embedded movie trailers. Note to web designers: not everyone has high-speed internet, and it's not fair to force people to go high-speed when it's not always an option.
I'll echo what I'm hearing a lot: Google Ads got it right.
Those who view HTML-based e-mail have similar problems - any spam you open with a blank, embedded image link (provided you view images) will result in the spammer instantly obtaining vast amounts of data about you
HTML-based e-mails are the main reason I use a CLI (text-ui) e-mail reader. More exactly, Mutt. HTML messages get rendered using a CLI web browsers (w3m). I would love to be able to use Thunderbird. It is really neat, has some nice features, and is easy to use. But (mostly) because of the HTML based e-mails, I simply can't.
So, I end up having to use a plendora of different programs (fetchmail + procmail + mutt + w3m + spamassassin + exim) to be able to read e-mail.
I have considered simply filtering all html based e-mails directly on my mail server, but since I receive a lot of business related e-mails from people who simply think that adding their company logo on the body of the message is something important, I can't do that.
I really miss the time when I could simply sit in front of my AIX workstation and use elm to read my 20ish daily e-mails.
morcego
"That's a hell of a lot of marketing information that is being trawled for, without permission from anyone."*
Slashdot must be rich then. If you don't want to give slashdot (and those it does business with) "permission"? Then don't come here.
*I find this "don't have permission" argument laughable in the face of the general attitude "If it's on the Internet, it must be free" I see people using (Hey, bud! Your IP address wants to be free!). Especially when the NYT gets mentioned.
99% of my time using the web browser is spent on things not even vaguely commercially-related. To find what I'm after for the 1% that is I use search engines, not random ads. Doubly so since random ads tend to be targeted at USians, not Australians.
:)
I live a life, and have no obligation to allow it to be governed by the commercial interests of others. I'm a capitalist to the core, but my time and my property is *mine*. Just because some rich bastard wants to line his pockets with a little more gold doesn't mean I have to indulge him. Firefox and adblock FTW.
What? Websites survive on advertising revenue? Just as I care not for the profits of the RIAA that are based on an ineffective/outdated business model, I care not for the profits of xyz.com if it's business model is ineffective/outdated. There are plenty of websites out there that do not resort to advertising. I know because I run two. No, I'm not going to link to them
I block ads because I can. If I could block ads in TV I would. Same goes for ads at bus stations, building, magazines and anywhere else.
Too much online advertisement these days is more obstruction than advertisement. I strip off all gui ads but leave google style text ads in place. Too many flash animations are just too heavy. Advertisers don't seem to consider the impact their ads will have on the user. I have seen many pages that eat up several megs when you count all the ads. In addition, there should be some sort of style guidelines that can be applied to ads. People buy Mitsubishi tv's because you can guarantee the same volume when you turn the channels. If someone is obnoxious and yelling at the top of their lungs, the tv resets the volume to an acceptable level. Adblockers allow me to do the same thing. Loud is not necessarily sound, it can be an obnoxious color scheme, annoying flashing ads or animated gifs, punch the monkey flash ads that suffer from memory leaks. Ads should be unobstrusive, relevant, and blend in with the site.
I block ads because I don't feel they offer me anything. My mindset is that I would rather find out about new products through news/blogs/user comments because they have a much better chance of being unbiased than ads. And if I decide that I want something I will research which brand to buy myself rather than relying on the companies selling the product to compare different brands. That's not to say ads don't affect me as they probably do, but I try to minimize the chances of that happening.
I "block" ads on TV by switching to a different channel when an ad comes on (lots of people do this) and then flip back and forth with the last button. I ignore ads in printed media by not reading them.
For internet I use Proxomitron that blocks popups and turns image ads into white space.
Honestly we are so saturated with ads nowdays that a lot of people simply block them out mentally or hate them so much that they would rather not buy a producted with some flashy ad and instead buy a similar one that wasn't advertised.
Then you have those advertisements that are scams. Those "win a free iPod" advertisements, "win $500 dollars", "win a PS2!" Bullshit.
Web advertisements tend to be flashy, annoying, and wasteful in terms of rendering and download.
So I block them with Adblock.
That's exactly what scissors were made for... :)
I don't block popups so much as a I hold them.
When Firefox blocks a popup, it tells you - in a short margin at the top of the screen, or, depending on my settings, they pop under in a background tab.
The point is that in case I *do* want or need them, I know they're there, and I can bring them up selectively.
I use flashblock on flash ads for the same effect. if I want to play some flash, there's just one extra click. Very convenient.
I also have a javascript bookmarklet "page tamer" that I frankensteined out of several annoyance zapper bookmarklets. If animated gifs or oversealous embeds, colors, or plugins get my goat, one click takes them all out at once, leaving only the text I wanted to read. This gives me a chance to see how the page was intended to be viewed, so I don't miss anything, while giving me the power to focus on what I choose too, instantly.
When you buy a fashion magazine, it's full of ads...for clothes. Computer magazine...again, full of ads...for computer related stuff. Online? Casinos, asbestos and spyware.
And people ask why we block ads.
Most Internet Ads use some form of malware these days. Even something as innocent as an image file, will use an exploit in your browser to install malware on your system. Not just Internet Explorer, but they found a way to infect Mozilla Firefox as well.
I used Supertrick XG to block known hosts that are found to host malware infections. I use Adblock to nuke stupid and annoying ads that cause "ActiveX" errors in Mozilla Firefox, which are really malware infection attempts. Anything I cannot block, I just simply stop using and tell my friends about how that stupid web site infects people's machines with malware. I think we need to start making a list of malware advertisers on the Internet, and start filing class action lawsuits against them!
If there were no malware advertisements, I would not mind so much, and I wouldn't block any ad. I am trying to keep my system malware-free, thank you very much!
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I block every kind of advertising there is except billboards and I can't WAIT for augmented reality so I can block those annoying eyesores TOO.
:o)
I block internet ads (and any other image that's irrelevant and a waste of screen real estate) with Adblock and in a few extreme cases, Greasemonkey.
I don't listen to the radio. Period. That's why god made MP3s.
I use my TV mainly for movies and when I watch tv shows, I watch from a DVR specifically so I can fast-forward the commercials. If a show I want to watch is not pre-recorded, I let it run 15 minutes while I go do something else and then come back, rewind it to the beginning, and start catching up.
I actually like the ads that are in most of the magazines I read. The one exception is Wired (I already know what kinds of booze I like). The only way to read wired is to tear out all the ads that come before the table of contents. The table of contents lets me avoid most of the rest.
On a final note, I DO wish someone would invent a way to block the superbowl from getting in the way of all the ads
You should use a browser-independent proxy filter like Privoxy or Proxomitron (on Windows), with the JD5000 filter set, as it is a client-side HTTP proxy and will work well with any browser.
> Exactly. I can change the channel on TV when ads come on.
> I can flip the page in a magazine. But with many websites, they wrap the
> fucking text around an ad that will give you epilepsy if you look at it.
To be fair, I just flipped through current issues of several IT, business and finance magazines that I have on hand. Most magazine articles that are > a few parapraphs will force atleast one page flip somewhere, with the space of that page you flipped containing two full-page or several smaller ads that are either going to catch your eye (be effective) or not. And then you have those articles that have you traversing the entire issue to read two paragraphs here, three paragraphs continued ten pages further in, +10 pages forward for one paragraph plus illustration, etc.. And then I just love the final inner page articles that get continued on an EARLIER page in the magazine, so much for reading a magazine from the front to the back.
This is pretty much why I don't read magazines that I actually have to PAY for. Heck, I can't get some of them to STOP sending me the darn things.
However, there is still no excuse for ads that make any sort of sound or get in the way of normal reading of content and related navigational functions.
Because I don't watch TV anymore, I hardly qualify for answering this. But the fact is, I hate ads just as much as the next person, on every dimension. Newspaper ads in Sunday papers bring the average paper (Say, the Boston Globe) from .56 pounds (On a regular day) to 3.3 pounds (Measured this Sunday, yesterday). Radio ads ruin the listening pleasure in that driving down the road and hearing a "This SUNDAY SUNDAY SOMEDAY" bloke talking about the furniture sale is really a buzzkill. As for TV commercials, they're not as bad as they could be, and it really depends on the channel. Nickelodeon has kid-inspired and targeted commercials, so there's no real irritation because they're all mildly funny. Most other channels like USA, TNT, Lifetime (Ugh) and other suches have commercials all too often, and literally take up half of the viewing time.
As for internet ads though, there's nothing as filthy. People are constantly coming up with new phishing ways, new popup exploits and other such bullshitteries that make me want to disconnect forever. There's only one site that I frequent that has popup ads, and it's literally unbearable. I once had 20 popups blocked, and 3 got through because they were flash-conducted. Fileplanet is not nearly as bad as that, but it's definitely on its way.
I don't use Adblock because I understand that sites need to be paid for, which sometimes means using banner-ads (Looking at a Yahoo! hotjobs banner-ad at the top of this page in particular). The thing is, popups are insanity and unnecessary. You don't have to have a popup or one of those Java/Flash scrolling ads (You know what I'm talking about...) just to get your point across. Advertisements like those on Boingboing.net are just fine, and are completely managable because they're not in-your-face. I've actually found some pretty interesting and excellent reads through their ad system, and I'm glad that they do it the way they do. It's successful.
The point of this reply is simply to state that advertisements in every way are filthy, but necessary. The only thing that should be changed is the approach. It would make more sense to catch the eyes of the users, instead of bullying them.
I block ad sites!
Seriously, there are two types of ad I can't tolerate, the flash and java ads that with annoying animation and noise, and the ones that are stuck smack in the middle of the article I'm trying to read, pushing the bottom three quarters of the text off page.
In both cases, I don't block the ad, I just add http://www.annoying/ ass-site/* (you get the idea) to adblock and problem solved!
There's still lots of ads visible on the sites I frequent, in the borders and non-obtrusive, ready to view when I'm finished with the main stuff. Ad sites make note of this!!
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
I got noscript and adblock when I found a certain flash ad on SlashDot of all places eating 100% of my cpu.
You're making two assumptions-
1. That we're _not_ bothered by magazine ads, and the perpetual creep into the content-space of the magazine-- and worse, making its way _into_ the content. That is very bad news imo.
2. Magazines don't make you wait to turn the page until the ads get printed. You are free to ignore the ads if you like.
I already have a lifetime supply of Viagra, and I am just waiting for approval of my huge million dollar+ check from my old recently deceased Uncle from South Africa!
I set up adblocking on a number of my computer illiterate friend's machines. Too many ads pretend to look like genuine windows dialog boxes, tricking them into clicking and ultimately purchasing some kind of pseudo spyware "cleaner". It's totally irresponsible of the advertisers and I thought I remember reading that they were deemed illegal. However, they are still very much common.
This is apparently a very complex social issue as very few people seem to regonize that this treshhold exists. Certainly not those in power, it explains why our "leaders" are so often confused when we suddenly rebel against something we have quitely accepted before.
It happens in all sorts of places in our society, from important to trivial, the resistance against immigrants (muslims mostly) that "suddenly" came to a rise in europe. Has politicians totally baffled. The young male "suddenly" no longer watching tv (and more important tv commercials) has tv bosses claiming the world is coming to an end.
What has simply happened that a constant level of annoyance has grown to the point where people are no longer just content to let it lie.
When that "okay" radio starts cranking out ad-blocks of more then 5 minutes it perhaps becomes rewarding enough to simply switch the radio off and take the effort to bring in your own music. When that tv program you sorta watch is interrupted beyond the point where you can actually remember what you where watching then perhaps you don't switch back (is there any human out there who can watch a full dutch tv ad-block?). Perhaps you don't switch the tv on at all when all you ever watch are half of a tv-show.
So I block ads EVERYWHERE because they have grown to irritating. They reached my treshhold where I go from simply being irritated to taking action.
And just as the current backlash against muslims in europe went from tolerance to hatred in a flash I am now very extreme in my ad blocking. ALL image ads are blocked and screw even those sides where I can fully understand they need ad income to survive.
My current solution is getting a bit old but for now the ads that do slip through are not yet irritating enough to make me spend an hour or two finding a better solution and implementing it. When it does my browser will once again be totally ad free and many a free site will loose yet another tiny slice of income.
Then again who cares about sites like those game sites with bloody redirects to full page ads? Or slashdot with it showing a linux user MS ads? Geez talk about adding insult to injury.
Will I ever go back to unblocking ads? Perhaps. Someday I will buy a new computer and install a clean version of my OS on it and then I will probably be to lazy to install an ad blocker immidiatly (then again the blocker is part of squid so this is only when I replace my "server") and if I find that the ads then are not irritating enough I may not bother.
Lets face it, that is not very likely eh?
The response by marketing to the increasing resistance against ads is to make the ads bigger and more intrusive.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is the modern equivalent.
--Mike--
I only block popups. I hate when a site uses my browser when I haven't given permission, I give permission on a site by site basis. I don't block web adds because I just ignore them, the same with tv ads. I don't necessarily care if they have ads.
A warrior keeps death in the mind at all times from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.
I block ads simply because they divert my attention from the content. As a matter of fact, It's been awhile since I have seen a single banner now. To people that are as annoyed as myself, I strongly recommend the excellent Adblock and Filterset.G extensions for Firefox. Works like a charm.
If I am viewing a site, and there is an ad that annoys me, I will then tell adblock to block everything from that domain.
Popups get blocked. Ad's with any sort of sound get blocked. And ad's that take up too much screen space are blocked.
The rest I can tune out.
END COMMUNICATION
1) If it makes sound, I block it
2) If it has animation that distracts my eye from reading, I block it
3) If it is buggy and makes my cpu hit 100%, I block it
4) If it causes rendering issues in Firefox, I block it
5) If it makes me wait 5 seconds to click to the next page (or go to backwards), I block it
Any company whose ads annoy the hell out of me instantly go on my list of who not to do business with.
Any ad that is not intrusive or distracting, I leave be. I even occasionally click on if it is interesting. I also tend to remember them a few months later if I'm suddenly looking for such a product (similar to how magazine ads stick with me). Seems most companies are so stuck on "click-through" counts they ignore the value of ads that people remember. Hence their constant attempts to get in users faces. Magazine, tv and radio ads seem to work without requiring instant clicks. I think web ads do as well.
!!!!...Because my needs are simple and I've never heard of Wal-Mart !!!!
I'm using Firefox with the Adblock plugin on this computer. Granted, webserfing on a 500mHz PentIII is pretty decent, until you meet a page with a ton of Flash ads. When ads are slowing down my computer, invading my privacy, insulting my intelect, or flashing enough to make half the people in the room go into convulsions... they get blocked. And never unblocked.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
With posting stupid questions on Slashdot becoming ever more popular among users, why do you we bother reading anymore? Do you view Slashdot as different from say, another waste of time? What about another mind-boggling stupid waste of time? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many stupid questions? I'm specifically talking about the questions in this webpage, but any insipid blathering can cause problems with me using a site.
it sickens me the amount of bandwidth is wasted on ads spam and other garbage i pay way too much for my 6meg comcrap cable connection ($70 a month) and to top it off its still is slugish (not my pc the internet period) the point is i use firefox no more pop ups i disable the msg service in xp to also free up pop ups but i never read them i close them as fast as they pop up i skip pages bogged down by ads i fast foward thru tv commericals with dvr i listen to mp3's shoutcast or sirius for music i hate ads i hate commercials its really unfortunate how much extra i have to pay to avoid them but freedom isnt free boo to marketers and all their evil ways i hope you get cancer ads suck stop wasting bandwidth on them
Visit my Forums?
I intentionally buy nothing that is advertised to me, so if I viewed all those ads, I'd have nothing to buy.
Simply - I block ads because I can.
If I could block ads in other forms of media I would just as easily do that too. I don't go to great lengths to do it, I just have the AdBlock extension for Firefox. If I have to use Internet Explorer occasionally I notice how many ads I have been missing out on.
I usually block annoying, blinking, flashing ads whether they be Flash based or animated GIFs. Switching between browsers like that really rams home how much more I enjoy reading a web page without having all these crazy flashing things all over the shop trying to distract me.
I use Google & Gmail quite frequently and don't have a problem with the unobtrusive text based ads there. They can sit there off the side and let me get on with the job of reading what I am trying to read. My eyes do occasionally wander and I see these ads, so they are not totally inneffective.
I use Firefox with the Adblock plugin, and I enable automatic downloads of the latest precompiled block lists. On top of that, I block all files with the .swf extension. I block ads because:
1. They're annoying. Most ads are ugly, poorly-designed things vomited up by bad designers who use the most gharish ideas possible to attract attention. This is particularly the case of popups/unders and even worse, flash ads.
2. They try to hijack my browser. I finally started blocking ads because I got sick of javascripts exploiting browser flaws to popup even with popups disabled, or resize windows, or other such nonsense. The same goes for flash ads that would suddenly start blaring some awful noises at the loudest possible volume.
3. Image based internet advertising is 99.9% irrelevant. Unless looking at Slashdot or similar nerdy sites, I never saw ads for anything I gave a damn about. I can say the exact opposite about Google's text based advertising - in fact, I often buy things by searching for what I need to buy and picking out of the Google advertisements.
4. Privacy, privacy, privacy. Given that 99.9% of web advertising seems to be sent out with no thoughts of demographics, why the hell are so many companies trying to track me down and keep tabs on everything I do online?
5. Most web ads insult the intelligence of the viewer, and yes mister "Punch the Monkey and Win...," I'm talking about you, asshole. The same goes for all the people who assume that titties == sales.
Before I started using adblock, I made ONE positive buying decision based on one of the hundreds of thousands of ads I've seen - and it was a simple, non-annoying ad for a Google web search appliance I saw on Slashdot. In that time I have also made thousands of negative buying decisions, that is to say, I have not bought products and services specifically because of annoying advertising. I'm hoping that more adblocking software appears, and that the entire advertising-based revenue model crumbles, returning the internet to its glory days.
I am paying for intrenet access, and the adds are gobbling the bandwith that I am paying for. The more anoying and distracting the ads (flash, blinking images, video!) the more they cost me. Simle as that. I don't mind the ads that my (regular) mail box gets filled with everyday, but guess what, I am not paying postage charges for them. I don't block google ads, they are small, related to what I am looking for and don't get between me and the webpage that I am trying to read. And yes, i am not buying magasines and newspapers that are overloaded with ads. It doesn't make sense to spend 30 mins weeding ads to get to the news. And before you ask I also have a DVR because I am paying for cable, not for viagra ads. Go sue me.
With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? Because they are usually irrelevent, visually overloading, annoying, and frequently pointless.
And with what? Firefox, plus a variety of home brewed hacks.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads? No, I stopped watching TV and listening to radio a couple of years ago.
What about in a magazine? Stopped reading them too.
Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many? That, and the magazines got outpaced for relevence and speed to market by blogs.
Here is how I avoid ads:
No radio in the car.
Take routes to work with less businesses less ads on those routes.
No magazine subscriptions.
TiVo with 30 second skip enabled.
On the PC I use Firefox without Flash installed. If a site needs flash I find another site. Pop-up/under are blocked and flashy ads get removed with the Nuke Anything extension. The only ads I will ever click on will be at Google when I'm searching for something and the AD sounds like the right thing.
"I don't mind if advertisers want to finance Web sites. I just won't look at their ads. They shouldn't want me to anyway as there is no chance I'll buy their products."
Oh lovely. The same argument people use to justify pirating content makes an appearance. "I would have never bought it, but I will download it to use". The web version "I would have never bought anything, but I will download the content to use".
Face it, you guys are the poster child for cheap. You want others to finance content so you don't have to fork over any money. Then whine when they put all the good stuff behind the counter and make you show ID (NYT). Quite frankly the only thing that'll shut you all up is for capitalism to go bankrupt. You don't get anything and the rest of us who lost a good thing due to your cheapness put you on our hate list.
To the casual observer, anyway.
I block them becuase none of the sites I would be visiting at work are ad-driven.
No self-respecting science journal would be offering free ANYTHINGS in flashing colors.
I'm just making this up, but it is very much like this, you'll do a search for something like diarrhea remedies on google and see "Buy Diarrhea now on Ebay!" Ebay must have registered every word in the english language. I'm just waiting for someone to be doing history research on slavery and get an Ebay ad "Buy slaves now on Ebay!"
You can watch something else when ads come on TV.
If you ignore pop up ads, wasted memory accumulates, and so does desktop space. Even tried surfing with 200 ad windows open? If you go check out something else because a site has pop ups for a while, the ads will be right there when you return.
The fact is, internet pop-ups are probably the most intrusive form of advertisement that ever existed. _That_ is why I think that blocking pop-ups is such a big deal.
While the internet is free game for any kind of ads, no matter how intrusive or annoying they are. There's relatively little risk of massive financial loss for hosting an undesireable ad on a webpage.
But when you start dealing with magazines, newspapers and television networks that are trying to maintain a specific reputation, viewers can be quickly lost if the ads they allow in their offerings stray too far from the expectations of the viewer/reader. None of the big three networks would last long if they allowed things like those slimy Girls Gone Wild ads during saturday morning cartoons.
Your reputation is only as good as the company you hang around with.
8==8 Bones 8==8
I block adds because just like in a real world I ignore them. I am aware of adds to the point that I know they are a rip off. I know for a fact a company doesn't offer something unless they are getting something out of it.
I think this falls in line with stores marking prices at 4.99 instead of 5.00. I don't know about the rest of the world but I instantly round it up in my own head. Thus defeating the entire purpose of marking it down 1 cent.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
I would have no problems with ads on web pages as long as they stayed where they are supposed to. I understand that some websites rely upon ads to keep the site running. The ads i block or find particularly annoying are the flash animations that take up the entire screen and discretely hide the "close" button or the others that sit at the top of the screen and have sound to them. ESPN.com is notorious for these 2 types of ads. you can't look at scores or articles or message boards without flash animations restricting your view.
- They lack creativity. The recent trend is a bunch of "kill 10 grues and win a prize" variety.
- They are ugly.
- They are obnoxious. Popups, sound, distracting animation. Just obnoxious in a text orientated environment.
- They are mostly irrelavent to the content in the pages you are looking at.
I would say that the root problem is mostly money. And there are some examples where the advertising works and is a more pleasant experience: movie ads on IMDB, Xbox virial ads, the occasional odd flash advertising site, certain Google text ads, search engine advertising.Why? Because they are annoying as hell!
How? hosts file: Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts file
As it is right now, I've got 11 tabs open in Firefox. I've got Flashblock, because 11 pages of flash ads chew up computer resources like nobody's business.
And _everyone_ seems to have Flash ads these days.
Punch the monkey? Dude, if I met you in a bar, I'd ask you to step outside and we'll see who's monkey is going to get punched.
Screw the so-called "social contract" - In My Face advertisement meets "talk to the hand".
As for the overall question of whether e-commerce is a good idea, I _subscribe_ in my email to various vendors that advertise things I need/want. E-commerce is a good thing. Just don't be in my face about it, mmmkay?
--
BMO
I block ads because most ad servers are slow. Ever see an ad that will lock up loading a whole page because it just wont get the info from the ad servers.
There exists some positive integer N that you are the Nth person to read this signature.
Firstly, I do not subscribe to any magazines or newspapers. I have been considering a subscription to Paste mainly for the CD and/or DVD every other month.
Second, I pre-record all of my shows on my TiVo so I can skip all of the ads while watching the show. I find they are obtrusive, sometimes ruin the mood of the show, and generally are irrelevant to me.
Third, I use NoAdHOSTS to make sure I see very little advertisement on the web. I don't like things flashing while I'm reading, as it causes my eye to drift toward the thing that is flashing. The ads aren't relevant (even Google ads suck now). Even if they were relevant, I know exactly what I want when I want it/can afford it - no ads needed.
Essentially, they are useless to me and have far more cons than pros.
I don't block ads by default, except popups which are just annoying and most of the times MISLEADING.
.. yeah, I'd do that. but you're not going to give me 100$ even if I do that so why shouldn't I block it?
only time I block a normal flash banner is when it seems to me that it's bogging my computer down - and most of the time I'm right about that.. well, sometimes I block stuff that just looks plain annoying.
a lot of advertising on the web is just straight ILLEGALLY MISLEADING - if they would want me to watch something they don't plan even honoring(false promises etc) they can just go fuck themselfs.
punch the monkey for 100$
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Does this really have to be asked? What's your next pole:"Why do you avoid setting your hair on fire?"
I don't want to answer your question. Your phrasing is similar to marketing surveys.
I don't want to provide you with answers that might help you get around the ad-blockers. I'm not going to answer questions that seem posed to make more effective ads.
Actually, I don't actively block the less intrusive ads, but as the advertising techniques used become more aggressive and privacy intrusive, I do respond with increasing vigor. Of course the worst bastards are the jackasses that are trying to infest my computer with browser hijackers and various other forms of spyware, but they are only extremists on the same scale. Therefore I say the fundamental problem is the "free lunch" mentality created by "free" radio broadcasts. Radio broadcasts were not really free, but by having the advertisers sponsor them, the radio stations were able to build a profitable business model. However, the chickens always come home to roost, and the result of this kind of "free" was ultimately very bad, especially as applied to television, and now as it is invading the commercial Internet.
The interests of the advertisers are NOT the same as the interests of the public. The advertisers do not want people to be well educated and well informed, because in that terrible case (from their perspective) the best product value (in each product category) would be known, and that product would capture the bulk of the sales. Except for the sellers of the best product, the companies who are paying for the advertising want people to be as easily manipulated as possible, so that they can twist as many of them as possible into buying not-so-valuable products. Actually, from the perspective of the "purest" advertisers, selling nothing at the highest price possible is the ultimate goal.
In conclusion, take a close look at Dubya to see what they can sell. Your children and grandchildren (and more) will be paying for that "sale" for a long time.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I block every add on the Internet I see, because they distract me from what I want. I will NEVER click on one, nor even read it, so why do I have to see it? On television, I don't watch ads - I change the channel. Movies? - I actually like some of these, and there is a chance I'll buy a ticket, so I watch them Billboards? - Either I am driving, and keep my eyes on the road, or I am talking to somebody, or reading a book. I never look at them when given a choice. It really comes down to choice. I don't have any choice about billboards, commercials, or trailers. They will occur, and I will be forced to see them or physically look away. The Internet is different. Thanks to pop-up blocking, and the ad-block extention to firefox, I *do* have a choice about what ads I see on the Internet. Even on sites that I like, and would support, I'll donate direct before I click an ad, so I refuse to see them. In conclusion, people have a right to free speech, and to design a site with ads. They don't have the right to make me look at it, and there is no right to be heard.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
the talking ad on w3schools.com: a flash ad that when you mouse-over it (even if another non-browser window is on top) it will playback a Mac voice saying "PLEASE TYPE YOUR MESSAGE IN THE TEXT BOX AND LET ME SAY IT". Grrr.
a dpartner=oddcast . Enjoy
http://www.w3schools.com/banners/bannerframe.asp?
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
...closed captions.
1. Why don't people subscribe?
2. Please stop blocking Slashdot ads
3. It's not like we are making any profits as it is
If not more.
I block as many ads as I possibly can. I use SafariBlock. Reasons: 1. I HATE FLASH ADS. They hog processor time and grab my mouse! Magazines don't have those, nor does TV. 2. Flashy, moving, annoying, bandwidth wasting images, because if I block them, I don't have to load them, which means faster page loading! 3. I hate Microsoft ads :) I block every single one.
The only ads I don't block are from places that might have remotely interesting products/services.
If you want marketing data, pay up.
Until then I wouldn't really discuss it
in public. Thanks to the others for
giving them the run around same ol same ol.
Google Ads have to be the only ads that I have actually purposely clicked on to get to something I might be interested in. The rest are just random crap that floods the internet chewing up bandwith for no reason.
I really hate the flash ones that float across the screen because they are a lot like telemarketers. They are unwanted, but they still call you thinking that you might actually buy their product. Look at the do-not-call list. Telemarketing companies want to get rid of the do-not-call list as if the people who want to block them will actually buy their products after having the do-not-call list dismantled.
Similarly, most internet ads are to most people, unwanted. If you force it upon them, there is an even less chance that the person will be interested in whatever you are advertising for, since they will be pissed off that you forced it upon them. Having non-intrusive ads like the quiet text-links google puts in its search results are the way to go.
Anyways to solve this problem, I am using AdBlock Extension (in Firefox of course) with a filterset to block all those bastards like casalemedia. If you use Firefox, check this out and your ad problems will all be completely solved.
BROOKLYN RESPONDS
"flyingember asks: "With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? And with what?"
I block ads because I'm surfing the internet, not watching TV.
Ad-Aware
"Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?"
Yes, because the internet is not television.
"What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?"
A magazine ad can be avoided by simply flipping the page. When I'm on an internet site and I'm surfing, minding my own business, not flipping through any pages or scrolling down and an intrusive ad pops up in my face, in front of my browser, that's not advertising - that's intruding and interfering with my use of the internet.
Likewise, for television, if I'm watching a show, there's no ad that pops-up in the middle of the show or baseball game that blocks the screen entirely and prevents me from viewing the programming.
"I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
Pop up blockers don't cause me any problems. What site are you talking about?
And ads WITHIN a web page are different than the usual adveritising on the internet, which isn't simply an ad to the left, right, upper or lower portion of the screen. POP UPS are the ones that are most frequently used.
BROOKLYN
the NON cowardly ANONYMOUS user
In Internet Explorer, ads block YOU! (from seeing the article you came for)
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
I tell my customers (white box store) when they are coughing up $50 -$150 for a spyware, virus, trojan cleanup, that ALL pop-ups are EVIL, click on one and you WILL have spyware. ALL toolbars are evil, (I know, Yawhore, and googoo are supposidly safe, but they are just fluff with no purpose), go back to simplicity. Update and run the Ad-Aware and Spybot I put on at least weekly.
Because of a few morons all ads get tarred with the same brush.
I almost got a marketing degree before I realized that I wasn't qualified, I have a conscience.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
if i want something i'll go SHOP for it.
never has an ad showed me anything i ever wanted and didnt have and could afford.
they either show crap i dont want, already have, or cant afford anyways. So why waste any time, bandwidth, disk space or money looking at them?
on 64 ISDN, loading those huge fucking animated gifs is god damn annoying.
I started taking a razor blade and cutting them out before I returned the books. (Ads alone are bad enough, but they were usually tobacco ads. No way did I want MY taxes going to help circulate tobacco advertising.)
If you've read "Cryptonomicon" you may already have seen embedded advertising in a book.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I block ads whenever it's easy. I use my PVR, Firefox's Adblock, and a "No Advertising Material Please" sticker.
Internet ads are exactly like TV ads, except they cost me money to download. I don't like magazines where the ads are so prevalent, they genuinely get in the way of finding content. Content. Haha.
The REAL question is: why do you watch ads? Why do you download them? It's not like you need to be aware of ads these days to know what to buy when you want to buy something. When I want to buy something I look on the internet retail and review sites just like everybody else. Until that point, the only point of ads is to make me unhappy. Ever seen an ad whose message was "everything is great, you can be content and change nothing?" The answer is no. The point of an advert is to make you dissatisfied with soemthing in your life so that you take some action (each advertiser has a preferred action) to fix it.
These people are professionals, too. There is a serious amount of science put into figuring out ways to make people unhappy. I don't feel like subjecting myself to that needlessly, even though I am a happy little consumer.
I block ads because if I want to buy something, I source it and buy it myself.
To Advertising Droids : I don't care how great you think your product is and how eager you are to tell me about it - let me register to recieve your crap, don't shove it down my throat.
Unless its an ad for femme-bots, I don't wanna know about it. And if I click on a link, take me to the goddam page, don't hijack my session and make me click again to get where I'm going - that just pisses me off.
i hate blinkies. when i read a web page, I don't want distractions. i don't bother to block an ad until I notice it is distracting me.
The road through the Dallas airport used to have huge electronic departure/arrival boards until someone stopped to read them and was rear-ended. The airport was sued and lost a 100-million-dollar judgement. It might not happen in Canada, but perhaps Toronto is exposing itself to a large liability.
I block ads is because they don't entertain me. The ads that you find on the Internets are not ones that are designed to stimulate the mind and make you think or laugh. They're just there to hock some god-forsaken product and try to shove it in your face as hard as they can. I used to block via the hosts file, and now I go with Adblock plus for FF. It works just awesomely for me. The television goes the same way. I'll change channels to get away from stupid, overplayed commercials, and may never make it back to the program that I was watching. Who cares if it was good if I get bogged down and mad at the commercials that run between the breaks? Newspaper? I hardly ever read it, but when I do, I've learned to skim over all of it. It's part of how I learned to read the newspaper in the first place. If it really pops at me, I'll read, but I'll never fall for the same ad twice. Anywho, unless it's really great, it will be looked over one way or another, no matter the medium.
It's not that I'm asking the big questions, it's that I'm asking lots of small ones.
I find that I'm far less annoyed by TV ads than I am by web ads. When I'm surfing the web, I'm usually trying to get something done - whether it be doing research for work or trying to quickly find some driving directions, information on a product, etc.
Sites that pop up new windows or flash ads that block the entire page while I search for the elusive close button... these ads force me to stop what I'm doing and deal with them. They're never advertising something that I'd be interested in, and even if they are, they've succeeded in annoying me so much that I now have a negative opinion of the company and product being advertised. Not so much the site that allows the ads (although I'll avoid them in the future) but the product itself has now lost appeal.
When I'm watching TV, I'm not trying to get something accomplished... I'm just vegging out. Sometimes I even get a laugh out of a well-done TV ad, or am glad to have caught a great new movie trailer. Every once in a while, I'll actually see a TV ad that makes me want to buy something.
The less I feel the ad is interfering with my ability to get something accomplished, the less offended I am by it.
like Doubleclick, Advertising.com, and Bfast
I don't block Google ads (yet) and I don't block ads from local companies that I know.
But I have a hostfile and I also use a firewall and block entire IP ranges from other unethical companies.
Anyhow...I'm sure they'll find a way around that. Yahoo has created one with text only ads that are fed via a JavaScript.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Almost every PC-oriented magazine I read has about 30 pages (I exxagerate) of intarweb computer brand ads in the last pages of their magazine, before the "Rig of the month" or last editorial, and frankly I find it disgusting. I let several run out (Already paid for it), and the ones I still recieve are ones I am getting for free from a survey and what not.
Hey, Magazine editors, I don't care if you don't know what ads are being run right now, FIND OUT. Words cannot express how pissed off people get when they have to flip through that book-length for 1&1 web hosting.
Moving back to the main point, why do people block internet ads? Because physical ads don't cover the text of what you are reading, and they don't suddenly appear and give you a runny nose untill you're reincarnated.
I locked out ads so tightly with a noads host file and whatnot, that it blocked all google ads. I missed them, and edited the hosts file to allow them. Everything else? It's garbage that wastes my paltry 128k of ISDN goodness.
I only block ads that annoy me. High motion and blinking gets the block. Pop-ups are ALWAYS blocked if possible.
Static ads I don't care about and will happily let be. Unfortunatly for most websites, the static ads are served from the same location as the blinky junk.
Same goes for TV. I watch most TV live because I want to see it at 9pm, not 9:22 when the buffer is sufficiently full to skip ads, however on some stations they repeat ads so much or play ads so annoying that I 'block' them. There are a few that I won't even watch until my HTPC has filtered the ads automatically because they insist on showing the same ad 8 times in one hour.
Number of products/services purchased in the last 9 years due to seeing a
banner: 1
popup: 0
Google text ad: 8
Word of mouth (or keyboard) on the net: >25
I am getting a little tired of "Punch the Monkey".
Coderz 4 Life
I don't mind adds per se. The subtile ones (like the navigation bars on
It's those noisy flashy things on the screen that stay there while you are trying to read something. I used to put stickies on the screen to enable me to read without being distracted.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Q.E.D.
However, the browser I happen to use the most (Links, a test-based browser) isn't all that good at displaying graphics when used in text mode.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Dvorak had a writeup about that a while back. He entered the word slaves in google and back came an ebay add offering up a fine selection of slaves...for AUCTION no less!
The whole thing left me speechless.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
nasty and unassuming
why do you block ads?
;)
They never fit into the site. If the ad was tailored to the site, I might not have a problem. If the ad was a static image, I might not have a problem. If the ad looked reputable, I might not have a problem.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Absolutely. I'm actively working to remember to mute the TV nowadays, and one day I hope to set up a Linux-based TiVo equivalent, but TV ads fit into the content quite seamlessly because they are of the same material as the content. Just as flash-based internet ads detract from the textual content I'm after, a TV ad with only a logo and some text would interrupt and detract from my TV experience.
Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
No. I don't buy magazines because they don't have any content. Do you seriously expect me to pay to read Dvorak's insane opinions?
On my computers I block ads with a hosts file. I use http://www.everythingisnt.com/hosts.html/ and update it every few months.
I block ads for 3 reasons
1. I dislike clutter and junk. I visit a webpage for the content. Not the crap floating around trying to sell me something.
2. Spyware relief. This was a bigger issue when I was using IE, but I noticed all my spyware was coming from these banner ads. They either tried to install some ActiveX or exploited some hole to install it without asking. for example on my Father's compter. Every month he would have 30 new spyware apps installed. Once I install this hosts file, I see one or none installed.
3. I rarly is never buy anything because of an ad. If I want something I will go out and get it. I guess ads are only good for one thing... telling me of something that I never new existed. That might be fine for some closed off old grandma but I am pretty much in the know.
I also dislike Spam for obvious reasons, but hate junk mail and phone calls. I either throw junk mail on the floor in the post office or save it and return it in the pre paid envelopes. Since the post office got paid to give me the junk I figure they can pay someone to throw it in the trash. On TV I have TiVo so I can skip threw the commercials in a few seconds. No TiVo in the bedroom and we scream becasue our eyes bleed from the crappy commercials. I also do not answer my door. Anyone who knows me knows to call first. Evry time I opened the door when it was not expected it was someone selling or pushing something. They get the door slammed in their face.
Block ads? Why not? Blocking ads make the internet work better. Web site revenue - ha! There's a bazilion web sites out there, who cares if a web site closes, someone else will put up the content :) Anyone who argues that the interweb will run out of content because of a lack of ad dollars is a fool. No, really, your a fool.
peace out
I block any and all ads.
I use hosts. & eDexter (java on linux) on Linux and wimpsleze
I also use Peer Guardian to block sites using IP or whole parasite blocks for ads, virii, & spyware etc..
I also use SlimBrowser which has built in ad blocking and also has URL black list using partial URL's for when I can not block a site via hosts.
Why? "Wheres the money!" Wheres my cut? ? I viewed the ad that will be $0.05/view. Most of its not related to the content or its a scam are other reasons. I used MY bandwidth to view your ad so your need to PAY for it, otherwise >/dev/null/
I don't watch commercials, I don't listen to commercials on the radio, and I don't read newspapers
1311393600 - Back to Black
I block ads because I am free to do so.
I jump among TV channels during ads because I am free to do so.
I skip the ad pages in a magazin because I am free to do so.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I've had moderately severe attention deficit disorder since second grade. While the root cause seems to be genetic, I blame the severity of it on years of television with 3 or 4 blocks of a minute and a half of 15 to 30 second ads per half hour on children's programming. Ads, like this damn animated Yahoo ad at the top of my screen right now (I'm not on a machine with adblock) try as hard as possible to break my concentration on whatever I actually care about. Even as I type this it's slowing me down.
There. I just scrolled it off the screen. Much better. I'm installing adblock on this machine right now.
Every generation, despite and sometimes because of its best intentions, breaks its children in unprecedented ways.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
These things piss me off to no end. First of all they are everywhere, and secondly, they are annoying as hell, as they look fucking stupid. They look like some grade 10 student went trigger happy with the liquify function in photoshop, and to top it all off, have a tacky orange background that doesnt blend or fit into any websites i visit. Their service sucking is a tottally different story in itself....Firefox+adblock are lifesavers, reminds me of browsin g back in 1997.
I don't mind ads, but they had better follow my rules.
1) Thou shalt not use animation to distract me from the content of the page.
2) Thou shalt not use popups.
3) Thou shalt not use popunders.
4) Thou shalt not install spyware/adware on my computer.
Internet advertisers have gone completely INSANE. Before I switched to mozilla with flashblock it had gotten to the point where I had to literally put my hand over the ads on the screen in order to be able to concentrate enough to read the content!
When scumbags like tribalfusion learned to bypass the popup blocker built into mozilla/firefox, I installed adblock.
If these bastards hadn't gone insane, nobody would be bitching about ads. Now they are all whining about "our ads are being blocked boo hoo hoo we are going to have to go to a subscription model." To this I respond heartily: "FUCK YOU you lying sacks of shit! Make reasonable, static ads and they won't be blocked."
"ANY data mining of a UK citizen -or- of any citizen by a computer within the UK, without that person's explicit permission OR without registering as a site containing personal information is a criminal offense in the UK, under the Data Protection Act. Similar legislation exists across much of Europe, and it is actually illegal for European companies to export personal data to countries with fewer personal protections."
Funny you should be reading me chapter and verse of YOUR COUNTRIES LAWS. Especially when the attitude around here when it comes to what the US does, is "The US can't tell us what to do!", or "The US government isn't the world". In case you've forgotten the Internet is an international phenomenon. Your laws concerning the Internet are as meaningless as ours.
"I gave Slashdot permission to record my IP address a long time ago, by visiting, then posting, then registering, and so on."
Gee, sounds like how the Internet has always worked. You visit a site (giving them permission) and then view their content. Not visiting a site means that they don't have your permission to deliever ANYTHING to you. Your privacy preserved.
"Besides which, I was born in the UK, grew up on advert-free television, and resent the hell out of having 20-30 minutes of adverts for every hour timeslot on American TV."
Looks like we just found the missing connection between content and how it get's paid for. In the UK, you get taxed (can't say no to that). While in the US, we watch ADS in exchange for getting free programs (we can just say no to the content and by extension, the ads. no big brother taxing us)
Most magazines are funded by ads. The cover price covers paying contributors, artists, printers and distribution networks. The magazine's value is to link consumers with advertisers, hopefully by content relevant to both.
1) Its a pop up or a pop under, if its one of these it gets blocked using firefox or for the rare times when im in IE, by IE.
2) It is an ad that tries to "trick" you. Like ads that try and emulate error messages, depending on if it is trying to make a serious attempt at simulating an error message or not i might block the whole domain.
3) If its a flash ad that has lots of bling. This can mean a lot of motion and/or sound. I block these for two reasons. Ones that flash a lot are just annoying, and ill usually block the whole domain. And if the ad is flash and has lots of effects it will often times slow the browser down, in this case i just block that specific ad.
But other then that i dont block ads, this lets most ads from legitimate sites display and while i could get faster load times if i just blocked all ads i dont like to block ads unless it impairs me significantly, because after all...
Webmasters are people too.
I have bad karma....
Open source is heavenly, Microsoft is the devil, SCO is going to hell
See, if I see an ad on a web page (especially a large / moving / flashing / content-obscuring one), I think less of the advertised product. There's no chance I'll shop at Orbitz, and I don't even know what they are! I just know I dislike the company from their ads. So by blocking the ads, I'm doing the companies that placed the ads a big favor by increasing the likelihood I'll buy their products.
Besides that, the one time I browsed without Adblock recently I was amazed that so many news sites I liked to read were so crowded with ads I could barely read the text! No thanks - the website is much more pleasant without ads.
Vonage VoIP ads are why I block all ads now. Enough said.
/etc/hosts, and pasted that bitch in. No more Vonage, no more Flash sucking up my precious iBook's battery life.
While reading/trolling OSnews, at times I'd find myself being spammed by no less than 3-4 Vonage ads, all of them with the fucking annoying warped/retarded-looking people saying something stupid.
It was at that point that I broke out Safari, found an ad-blocked hosts file, broke out Terminal, vim
I used to think Linux was cool -- then I turned 14.
I just find that free capitolisim is intruding too much into my life. I realy dont care where I can get the best deal on this years hot swimware. It just erks me when I see a page load of advertisments loading before any of the content I am looking for even apears on my screen. If I realy wanted a new two pice swim sute I would google for it. And maby a woman to where it to. Oh well, maby I should just start going round nude to protest this crap.
The plan and simple fact is that forcing me to download a HUGE and INSANELY BLOATED multimedia advertisement is THEFT of my bandwidth.
I have no issue with "reasonable" levels of advertising (small top or bottom banner, google style text ads). But when some multibilliondollar corporation forces me to download half a terabyte of flash animation in order to let me read a news article I think the capitalist pigs have gone too far.
Evidence that they're all a pack of retarded scumbags is abundant - how on earth they decided that "the reason" they're not getting click-throughs is because we "didn't notice" their obnoxious advertising (and therefore they must overlay the entire page with a huge, animated, multimedia all-singing and all-dancing CPU and RAM annihilating ad) is absolutely beyond the vast majority of rational and thinking humanity.
AdBlockers are a valid and valuable tool for internet use, but that doesn't mean I block *all* advertising. Just obnoxious, bandwidth hogging, audio-visual multimedia resource guzzling, CPU stifling crapola.
The fact that it's actually "advertising" is almost irrelevant - I'm blocking "that content" because it's crap, it's irrelevant, it's bloated, and it's unnecessarily consuming MY resources.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I subscribe to and pay for two web sites both of which deserve my money. I used to subscribe to this one, but for some unknown reason /. suddenly refused to have anything to do with my Visa card. You ought to sort that out /., because you are missing out on revenue. As far as I am concerned Firefox copes with the problem for free so it is no longer a problem.
I block any ads i come across on the net. if i cant block the ads i dont visit. The ads i dont bothe with however are text based ads. firefox and the adblocking extensions work wonders for this. I block ads because i find them offensive. I find them offensive in the same manner that a 70 year old puritan prude religeous grandmother would find explicit examples of child pornography offensive. They also (especially on the net) dont apply to me as there is yet no easy fast and cheep(free) way of sending cash to them for a product even if i am interested in it. I also do the best i can to avoid ads in other areas of life and media. I watch very little tv and when ido i turn down the volume and pay more attention to my computer instead. I do not subscribe to paper or magazines because of ads and that im not willing to pay to be insulted. Same with cable tv. I dont listen to radio and only listen to mp3's because of ads. The main reason i support the movement to end corporate personhood is so that it would be easier to remove free speech from corporations and reduce the amount of trash they try to shove down our throats in the form of advertisments.
If you were american, you'd send a bill to accounts payable for consulting hours.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
I dont even know what an ad is about one second after i have closed a site. My head just filter everything not relevant out when im searching for or gathering information. I do use adblock, flashblock and every possible filter to stop wasting bandwidth. And about magazines, i dont buy the ones filled with ads. If i pay for a magazine i dont want half of it to be crammed with "bye me!" everywhere.
HTTP/1.1 400
someone to interupt whatever you wish to read to deliver someone elses opinion on what you like?
someone to write code that slows down page loading?
someone to distract you by flashing things wierd colors on your screen?
someone to play bad music when you want to read in quiet?
The answer to all these is no (unless you are a massochist in which case go stand on the freeway for a few hours)
Most of us PAY for our internet connections. If the ads werent annoying, intrusive and somewhat bordering on abusive, I'm sure we would all love to know about the latest deal on 'blah', or whatever.
Here's what I'm using to clean up my Internet experience on a daily basis:
1. A sizable, but not ridiculous HOSTS file (~23K) that redirects known ad domains to the loopback address.
2. Mozilla's image preferences set to allow images only from the same server as the site. Yes, it's something of a pain to have to set up exceptions, but it's a pain I'm willing to endure.
3. The Flashblock plugin for Mozilla/Firefox from Mozdev. Instead of Flash and Shockwave content, I only see placeholders with a small "Flash" logo in the middle...the browser doesn't load them. Nice speed boost. If I actually want to see the content, I just click the logo and it loads.
4*. And when I'm feeling particularly anti-establishment, I'll just turn on Protowall.
I block ads because they are animated, have sound/music, or otherwise take away from the web page I am trying to view. If there is a disruptive ad right in the middle of an article I am reading, especially an animated one (GIF, flash, you name it), I block that sucker immediately with Firefox's adblock. Advertisements that are irrelevant don't usually get immediately blocked by me, only if they are annoying. Again, ANYTHING animated or with sounds I did not chose to play get blacklisted, I'll go as far as to find the source of all the ads not just that single ad and wildcard block the whole ad directory on a server.
Ads I block:
1) Anything with background sounds. Those can be even more annoying that plain flashing ones. Especially when I'm trying to listen to my music.
2) Most ads that are external to the webpages own server, if their servers keep being unavailable or lagging to me. In theory, the rest of the page should render/download already, not wait for a banner ad that's about to time out, but it doesn't always work like this.
3) Anything that tries to look like a dialogue box/yes no thing. Exspecially if it's a link to an ad/spyware installer. Doubly especially if the flash/image is designed so that it's almost an auto-yes. Especially of all if it's an ad that claims to that your pc has malware and you need to download this software if you want to keep your computer safe. Generally find these in popups so they cloak themselves as dialogue boxes. That one should be illegal, as well as just being sneaky.
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
/. is ad supported, yahoo is ad supported, google is ad supported. it's simple game theory. what's best for you is to block the ads because it makes your experience more pleasurable, but what is best for the overall internet is for ads to be profitable so that producers of content and services can subsidize their content. You have a right to privacy, a right to freedom of speech, a right to practice the religion of your choice. You DO NOT have a *right* to good search results, free software, free music etc..etc... because SOMEBODY is paying for it, and if you're not willing to be a good community member by watching ads then visit only paid content sites. Grrrrr.
I block ads because advertising doesn't fit the sort of consumer I am. While I understand the desire for companies to advertise (and the desire for sites to provide free content in return for advertising), that only works for consumers who are sensitive to advertising. I am not like that, however. I am a different sort of consumer. I am the knowledge-empowered, researching sort of consumer. Not only will advertising not get you any points with me, but will probably work against you.
When I'm online reading stuff on a web page, I'm not in a frame of mind to be advertised to. I'm working on something else, thank you very much. Interrupt me and it's not much different than a salesman calling me while I'm trying to eat dinner or enjoy a good book. If I'm ready to purchase something, I will then do research and find reviews sites, discussion forums, and other such stuff. I could care less what the manufacturer says about its own products. Half of it tends to be lies anyway. So advertising gets a company absolutely nowhere with me. If you have a product worth buying, it's going to have to stand on its own due to its merits, and not because you spent $X million advertising it. Some of my best products I've ever purchased are well-known only to enthusiasts in the field, and usually never advertise. Because they don't need to.
Not every consumer is like me. So granted there is a market for advertising. I am not that market, however. So why should I waste my screen real-estate and bandwidth for material which will never obtain its desired purpose with me?
I use AdBlock with Firefox and block EVERYTHING with a ruthless passion.
However I don't deny the success of advertising and I do use it a tiny bit myself. Other consumers are passive and depend on advertising to proactively notify them about products, vs themselves doing the work.
Ads are almost never what I'm looking for. I'm also usually not interested in Slashdot posts that have been modded -1. I don't spend time and effort trying to figure out what a drunk on the street is muttering. I fast-forward through TV commercials.
It's all the same (almost). And my reactions to them all have the same purpose: to remove noise and waste, because those things make my life shorter and less enjoyable.
Well, like I said, almost the same. There's one difference between true noise and ads: Ads are "hostile" noise, noise with an agenda that is opposed to my own. It's communication from someone who wants something from me. An ad is like that guy on the street who tries to get your attention, just so he can ask you for "spare change."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Because they are products of evil and greedy corporations. Fuck the system!
Running 100% GNU/Linux! Windows-free zone!
I always use the Adblock Firefox extension. This is mostly due to the large flash ads that often are very obtrusive.
If the ads were slightly less obtrusive, say like the Google text ads, I would consider turning the blocker off.
For example, looking at the website for a Swedish magazine called Aftonbladet without blocking ads will easily distract me from the main content because of the large flash based obnoxious ads.
Seriously, I work for a company that does internet based market research (I'm the admin) and have thought about this a bit myself. I do block ads, I use any number of measures. I find them intrusive and distracting, and thats the well behaved ones.
I believe the biggest problems with ads is that they are generally totally off target. Googles been interesting in this way by pushing ads that are both less obtrusive and somewhat targeted. But their still are a lot of companies that don't seem to understand good manners.
I also think ads tend to be fairly useless most of the time, not taking advantage of even a quarter of the available technology (that might be the programmers talking, but we've got some interesting embedded survey technology).
I get the feeling that advertisers don't much respect their market, and with things like the pop-up fiascoes, browser hi-jackers, pop-unders, dhtml roll-in-front-of's, blinkers, javascript rollers I feel like their just begging for a fight their bound to lose.
You want to get your message across on the internet? DON'T SPELL IT OUT LIKE ITS ALL IN CAPS. People just won't listen.
Ya, I like googles approach the best so far (right, and my companies).
Quack, quack.
Because they're there.
I've tried out a lot of ad-blocking software, for windows, OS X and linux, for Opera, Firefox, Galleon, Camino, IE, Safari, Mozilla and so on. And the absolute best was pithhelmet. You install it, and you never touch it ever ever ever again. You never see an ad again. No wildcards, no right clicking and adding URLs to a list, no accidental blocking of e-mail composer window pop-ups, just an ad free internet.
Grab it at pimpmysafari.com.
And why do I block ads? Because unlike ads in print, flashing moving blinking siezure-inducing gif ads are not casual and latent, they annoy the living SHIT out of me. And unlike moving ads on TV/in the cinema, they almost seem to aim at being as crass and annoying as possible.
I don't see it as a bad thing that I block ads (denying the advertiser their investment), because I'm aware that 90% of the people on the net are cruising along with IE and Gator/Collwebsearch/Bonzi Buddy installed, watching a few dozen pop-ups every ten minutes, and so keep all those fantastic advertising companies in business. I don't see a future where anything but a huge minority are savvy enough to install ad-blocking software, so I don't worry about cutting off a source of the 'nets revenue.
That the epileptics out there would sue the people who put up the flashing ads.
Not only are they *painful* to look at, especially when they never stop flashing, but it occurs to me that they might well trigger epileptic seizures in some. Hell, an old episode of pokemon managed to do that in many children in Japan, and all video game makers put warnings about epilepsy in their instruction manuals (usually in the first page or two--read it sometime), so why not hold them at fault?
It's not like they can't make non blinking ads.
do i not buy magazines because of ads? not watch tv? of course i buy ad ridden magazines and watch hours of commercials to see my shows, but if i want to watch the shows and read the articles, i really have no choice. technology gives us the power to fight back, so we do where we can.
Because I find all internet adds anoying*, and have the means to block them. T.V. adds are occasionally entertaining, but I would skip them if I could. I haven't bought a magazine for over 6 years, and I sure as hell wouldn't buy books if they put adds in them the same way magazines do.
*This probably because they obstruct site content, and I don't care whether your site sends me to an add 'gateway' each time I click on a link, or whether it plasters each and every page with adds - they are all anoying.
Well, I quit buying _any_ American or UK computer magazine after Byte died because the rest is filled with ads (read: like 90% of pages in a darn magazine) of no relevance or interest - when I buy computer stuff I go online to find the best prise and order there. I couldn't care less for mail-order companies in obscure locations in the US or UK.
TV ads are different story - I've tried to play around with screen blanking detection to skip over ads (as at least in Finland they don't send any "ads begin" or "ads stop" PDC-signals to automate ad skipping) and unfortunately the best way of ignoring ads is to run off to the fridge when they begin and try not to miss too much of the show you're watching before getting back. And the worst thing is that the TV companies here raise the volume level with ads trying to make sure that you will _atleast_ hear them from the fridge... Argh!
Website ads I block because
a) I can
b) I don't _want_ to win anything by punching a monkey
c) I get migrane from those irritating blinking squares
d) I hate when Flash/JScript ads enlargen to cover half of the article I'm just reading and won't go away in Firefox
e) The relevance of ads lim -> 0
Cheers, Ray
To answer the question, I use FlashBlock, AdBlock and my firewalls built in ad blocker. Now to rant a bit. I block them because I am constantly bombarded by ads. I can't go the market and buy a banana without standing in a line with TV blaring ads at me. I ask the manager, "Can I turn these off?" "No, corporate has them set up." I reach over and hit the power button on the scree, nothing happens. I go to a movie. Previews are fine, but McD adverts before the movie? F that. F adverts, I wish I could install AdBlock into my eyes IRL!!! AkumAPRIME
...no images.
/. claim, web pages still work without javascript. Just a handful of pages really require it, and those pages are programmed into konqueror to automatically turn javascript on when visited. Otherwise, no javascript.
Why adblock? Not really ad"block". A custom hosts file sends most ad-related ips to 0.0.0.0, so during the rare times I decide to load images, nothing shows up in the spots where ads normally are placed, except for a text error message (or a partial one due to the size of the font requested). Saves a lot of bandwidth even though the connection is broadband.
No flash. Never installed it in the Debian installs, removed it from the computers booting from a knoppix cd. I might miss a flash page now and then, but its not a big deal. Any business using a flash-only website, or not having an alternative non-flash entry page doesn't get the opportunity to show me their content. Sometimes annoys other users, but makes me happy. No annoying moving ads, no flash web designers shoving their flash talent down my throat.
Mythtv removes most of the commercials fairly well, and 30 second skip and fast forward catches most of the rest. DVDs get ripped to Mythtv prior to playing just so we can fast forward when we want to, not when the studios allow us to.
No javascript. Amazingly, contrary to what others on
No images. As annoying as moving flash ads are, some extensions to html now enable moving ads. Just used someone else's computer, and while visiting a web page, 4 ads, two on each side of the page, one on top of the other on the left and right, all scrolling ads. How the fuck can you read the text in the middle of the page without the movement driving you to total distraction? Konqueror makes it easy to surf without viewing images. When "no images" is selected in the config, it puts a little icon on the top toolbar at the extreme right of the browser window. Any page I visit and want to view images, I simply click the red/blue/green icon with the little green plus on the lower right of the icon. Images load right away, and I get to see them when I want to. The custom hosts file prevents most ads from loading, so I get to see the images without the ads.
If the kde project would put a javascript icon on the toolbar like the image icon, I suspect a lot fewer people would surf with javascript turned on when it is as easy as clicking on an icon to turn it on instead of having to traverse a menu as easy as konqueror makes that as well.
No java. Won't accept a TOS from Sun, java didn't automatically load when I installed Sarge. Tried installing Kaffe in place of Java but either it doesn't work or I borked it. The only thing I miss about java is no speed tests at dslreports or speakeasy.
The only things I really see ads for now are something like car ads that come directly from a gm url like on yahoo's major league baseball stats pages. If it was a moving ad I'd put it in my hosts block list as well, but since the ad doesn't move and I scroll the page down away from the ad as soon as the page loads anyway, there's no reason to go through the effort.
Another reason? It drives the ad industry bonkers. When not using Mythtv, I have to put up with screaming ads (vonage, the woman parasailing with whatever she's selling while yelling, the uber-annoying geek squad ads, any other ads where the ad company is so devoid of ideas that they have to resort to screaming to get the audience's attention). They insist on driving me nuts with screaming ads, with ads that all are recorded at a higher volume/force/whatever than the main program, then I'll feel free to tune them out and edit them out whenever possible. Thanks to computing that task is getting easier and easier, and more automated on an almost daily basis.
And as for the ad execs spamming this topic, contrary to what you normally post on this subject, I'm not worried about the world falling in if everyone tunes out ads. Maybe the
1) I don't watch television on the TV anymore. I download shows that have become critical and/or popular successes so I can skip the 10 minutes of commercials between five minutes of show.
2) I can flip past and ignore magazine ads much faster and easier than I can web ads.
3) If someone has a great product, sell me on it. Get me to pay for it rather than trying to give it to me and make up the difference on shitty ads with mens' pubic hair showing over their jeans (as in the Esquire ad of a couple months back. I'm just glad I can close a magazine faster than I can close a browser window.).
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I hate being marketed to. I know, I know, we're not supposed to say that because "THEY PAY FOR EVERYTHING", whether it's the show on television or the content on the websites you visit.
I don't care a single bit. Sue me, belitle me, call me an onery marketing-hating communist, invoke Godwin, do your worst. I don't care. I despise all forms of marketing, I hate marketers, hell I even avoid supermarkets now because it contains the word "market" and I think that the modern state of marketing is to blame.
Ads have become intrusive on so many levels: Pop up, flashing, bouncing, blinking ads. Some marketers have turned to spamming, some use technology that avoids pop-up blocking. The mindset seems to say "we have the right to shove whatever we want in front of your face, whether you like it or not." They seem to act as though they're product, service, whatever is more important than your privacy or sanity.
So this is a kind of war, and I'm doing my part in this war to not consciously purchase brands which I can recognize were was used in any form of intrusive marketing. I admit I don't do very well but I try.
If I want something, I'll find it on google myself, I don't need crap finding me.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
However, if you Google for "JewS", there is no message, and there is indeed an eBay offering.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I dislike how they look, and how they reduce the space for the actual content I was looking for. I also don't intend to buy whatever product or service they're offering.
The overwhelming majority of them are distracting annoyances irrelevant to the purpose at hand.
One ad I keep seeing that I went out of my way to block is that fungus toenail ointment ad. That is the grossest ad, short of goatse kinds of things.
Ad companies got carried away and that is why people block them. Flashing, blinking, download wait jamming, or gross is usually the reason I block.
Table-ized A.I.
I already know that I'm not going to buy anything based on an online ad banner. I'm not even going to click through the ad banner. So an online ad is nothing more than an animated distraction. The flashing primary colors annoy me while I'm trying to read an article, so I almost reflexively adblock the server that the provided the ad.
Take any web site and remove all the ads - that web site just became a more pleasant experience to read. Remove the blinking crap, and you'll see the site the the designer created, not what Marketing agreed to.
Well, I'll have my cake and eat it too, thank you very much. I'll get the best of the design without the ads whenever possible
And no, I don't feel at all bad about my near-total ad blocking. I work for an online marketing firm that produces (some of) the ad banners that clutter up your browser. We're bad people. I hope we go out of business.
And yes, I do subscribe to several online sites, including (but not limited to) Salon, Nerve, and the Irish Times. I have no reservations about paying money for quality content. I don't require the entire web to be free. I do require the parts the I frequent to NOT annoy me.
The main reason I block ads or just do not click on them is because I am the type of user who is not traversing the web as a shopper. If I am on the web, it is most likely because I am researching a computer related issue, or I am reading my news and blogs, or I am just unwinding and wandering aimlessly through the ether. In addition to the above reasons, I do not like ads because they tend to lead towards wanting more information from me. I do not want to click on an ad to view something only to find out that I must register or provide my information for marketing purposes. I also do not like the fact when I click my ad, the advertiser is recording my click, and knows where I came from (due to the link I clicked containing a key of some sort so the web master gets paid etc...). I get that the web master needs to get paid, but the popups and banner ads sometimes get out of hand and are sometimes not in the context of what I am interested in.
...lick their balls (real or neuticles)? Because they can. Likewise, slashdotters block ads because they can.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads?
Because they are f***ing annoying. They play loud music, they steal focus and interrupt what I am doing. Some nasty flash and/or JavaScript ads consume my poor laptop's CPU and memory resources and make things run slow. Overall, they slow things down and get in my way.
They leave cookies and trackers and attempt to invade my privacy.
Now, I don't mind embedded jpg or gif ads too much, especially when they are unanimated. I've even clicked on one or two, and I don't go out of my way to block them. Though if they leave a cookie from the ad server, they are gone.
And with what?
I use pdsnd. I look through my cookie file and examine the source host of any obnoxious/popup ads. I then negative cache their domains.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Yes, if they are loud (audio-compresed), flashy, popup crap. I block TV ads, too, via my DVR.
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Magazine ads don't flash, suddenly spring up in front of the page, or make noise. I don't have to actively do something in order to ignore them. They are a completely different thing.
Of course, smelly cologne ads will keep my from buying a magazine.
I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site.
If I can't use a site because it doesn't work without the ads, then it's probably not a site worth visiting, anyway.
As an example of good internet advertising, Google ads.
As an example of relatively good advertising, Slashdot's ads.
As an example of completly aweful, wish-I-could-nuke-the-server's-building kind of ads, see x10.com or just about any pr0n site.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
If it moves, flashes, or makes a sound; KILL IT.
:)
Seizure inducing color changes, popups/under and recent DHTML tricks just serve
to piss me, and others off.
Having stuff moving (as mentioned before) near text is stupid, IMO, as if there
is content to be viewed/read, why the hell would you want to distract your
viewership?
Sheesh.
Maybe it is part my problem too, from playing too much Quake3 and being a railgun whore and picking off oponents 3 pixels high with open sights.
Hey, it moved, so I killed it/you.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
if you're not willing to be a good community member by watching ads then visit only paid content sites.
This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. The only idiot is the dipshit downloading ads. I guess that's you.
I block ads because...
.gifs and the like are just irritating when I'm trying to read.
1. They're often annoying. I use adblock and noscript to avoid most javascript and all flash. I don't like ads that screw with things. Talking ads are right out.
2. Flashy ads are distracting. Flashing
3. A lot of embedded ads also try and embed cookies, which I also block. I have it set to "ask" for cookies. This is really annoying when I visit new sites for the first time.
4. It's my damn computer and my damn bandwidth, and I don't want to load and store an ad and cookie on my hard drive. I don't mind gmail style text ads, and I don't mind regular banner style ads. But those Javascript-flash-bells-and-whistles numbers that slow down page loading just piss me off.
I don't know what it is, but some ads cause a temporary freeze-up in browsers -- both IE and the Mozilla browsers, so it's not just Mozilla. I don't like that and want no part of it. I mute TV commercials, too, especially those used car dealership ads that are REALLY LOUD AND EXCITED ABOUT THEIR CARS.
As far as magazines go, I just recently let my subscription to Official X-box Magazine go because it has too many ads. I let my subscription to Popular Photography go years ago because it was mostly ads. Now that I think about it, I don't get any magazines anymore. Yes internet advertising has become too obtrusive. If I am reading an article on the web and a flash ad comes up usually stop reading at that point. I block most with Firefox or Opera and those that make it through I will ignore or just bail on the site is something really obstructive comes into play. I realize ads and commercials pay for content but I don't see it really influencing me unless they are advertising something that is totally new. Sites like IGN and some other gaming related sites, come on, half of the page is ads and we have to click through a page of ads for every other paragraph of content. That is something I am not willing to do. Alot of sites I hold to the standard of their ads. Take slashdot for example, the ads here are at least related to what is being discussed. Therefore a quality site with quality ads. Compare that to Matt Drudge's site where his ads are often those phony 1 millionth click prize winner or the phony windows dialogs, crap ads make me think his site is on the same crap level when sadly it will have some occasionally interesting and worthwile stories. I miss alot of them because the stupid out of place ads drive me away. CNN vs Fox News is another example. Fox has some pretty cheap looking ads which cheapen the site for me so it is usually not a place I go unless a link takes me there. CNN's ads on the otherhand seem to fit better into the website.
'Same speed C but faster'
I filter my internet for the same reason I filter my tap water. Just because there's crap in it i don't want.
I only block Java, Flash, and popup ads, and limit the number of cycles for animated gifs. Advertisers can expect this much. If an ad is a popup, or it's flashing, or it slows my browser to a crawl, I make a mental note of the company behind the ad to avoid them in the future, and I never click them anyway (unless it says "Microsoft" and "Get the Facts"), so it's best that I just don't see them. I'm not an impulse buyer. Online I've bought a few computers and some web hosting, none of it influenced by advertising. Seeing a flashy online advertisement tells me that the product or service is of too poor quality to succeed by word of mouth, and that their website is too cheap to do well in search rankings. Reputable businesses have no interest in annoying types of advertisements.
On Slashdot, I pay the subscription fee to hide about half of the ads.
I don't mind ads that quietly sit on the page without being obnoxious, so I don't block them
This is a ridiculous argument, though one that contrarians seem to love. Since people don't like ads, people must be too shortsighted to realize that they are a necessary evil. Almost everyone who's bothered to put up a complete opinion here has said that they try to block ads that are: a) intrusive b) irrelevant c) deceptive d) loud (a major complaint of mine)
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
I started blocking ads when some greedy and stupid ad man started cascading pop-up ads. You know, closing one brings up another and takes over the PC.
I don't or at least shouldn't object to someone else paying for my internet, but there is not an ad blocker that prevents the kind of chain reaction bs I am talking about.
"The response by marketing to the increasing resistance against ads is to make the ads bigger and more intrusive."
And the response by geeks to the increased resistance by women is to make their penis bigger and more intrusive.
I simply cannot stand adds in any form.
If i buy magazine, before i read it, i would take time to rip out all adds possible. For web i use AdMuncher.
I rather pay and not get any, than get it for free.
I'm using Flashblock in FireFox, because I run an OS X box. The Flash plug-in for OS X is such a massive resource hog that if I have three or four windows w/ Flash ads in them, I'm likely to crash the browser (happens in Safari, too). If the plug-in worked better (and I've heard the forthcoming one is a huge improvement), I'd never have bothered w/ Flashblock - I'm perfectly capable of filtering out ads w/ what I laughingly refer to as my brain.
... which is to say: ads for items, or promotions, of dubious legality.
* "Get Windows XP and Office XP for only $80! Photoshop CS for $25!"
* "Punch the monkey/shoot the spaceship/answer our idiotic trivia question and get a free iPod/XBox360/PSP/blahblah!"
* "Download all the movies/TV shows your want for FREE!"
If the future of web advertising means an increasing amount of get-rich-quick schemes, scams, and "giveaways" that require me to surrender a major organ or yet-to-be-born offspring, then I expect to increase the usage of technologies that prevent me from being exposed to said advertising.
Jay (=
A few years back I was searching for something - a restaurant I think - on yahoo. My room was unexpectedly filled with full-volume screams of someone being tortured. It was an ad for some movie, I don't even remember which one. I have a spare surrroud reciever and reasonably good bookshelf speakers. The noise was painfully loud and completely unexpected.
It freaked me out enough that I downloaded a copy of web washer, learned how to restrict activeX, and realized that something had gone very wrong: A computer is a tool. I use it to get information, to play a game, to listen to music. It is useful ONLY when it does what I ask it to do, promptly and without surprises.
THEY broke the deal by being greedy. Until they broke the deal, I was willing to put up with a small number of ads.
52 minutes of an hour show was ads
30 magazine pages out of a hundred were ads
They often put effort into witty clever ads that made me laugh- so they were entertaining and had value to watch even if I was never going to buy a budwieser since I do not drink beer.
But now-- 22 minutes of an hour show is ads.
70 pages of a hundred are ads.
They make more money- the actors on friends made a BLOODY MILLION DOLLARS AN EPISODE.
I'm sure everyone else associated with the series made similarly bloated salaries.
On top of that, the entertainment industry has gotten it in their heads that they are bloody priceless when in reality- if you slashdot were to go down, I'd be over at zdnet or corrosion or etc. tomorrow.
Part of the reason bandwidth is expensive is because there is money to be made off of it. It's an artificial scarcity. Given all the willfully dark fiber, and given the availability and rates in japan and Korea, I would say we are easily paying 100 times what we should for bandwidth in America. At 1/100 the cost, it becomes almost too cheap to meter. Bandwidth is only going to get cheaper as we get fiber to the houses.
Likewise- I'm getting squeezed so I don't feel generous any more. Rich people run the big companies- lay off thousands of people while keeping salaries that would support several hundred employees and still let them be rich.
Every time I supress an ad, I feel like I stuck it in the eye of someone who was purposely hurting me.
We had a kinder, gentler ad time - with Uncola commercials- where everything was not so expensive and so intense. It's gone and now it's almost open warfare between people trying to push ads at us that we have NO INTEREST in and people trying to avoid even ads they might be interested in.
Personally, I don't need blocking software any more (except for the annoying popover layer ads) since I literally do not see the ads. I do not remember a single ad today on any web site that I browsed. I'm sure they were there- some bouncing- some raining, etc.
I only see ads when I am looking for a specific product and related ads pop up to the product I'm searching for. Even then- I look at the urls and skip certain sites by rules I don't comprehend.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I block all Javascript (using the NoScript extension for Firefox) except for a few sites, and I refuse to install Flash. The remaining ads aren't usually annoying enough to block.
By contrast, on a site like Maxboxing, going ten rounds with its ridiculous Flash layout is out of the question. A few lines in a CSS style sheet in Opera takes care of that. I modified the very good adblocker.css found here: http://members.chello.nl/b.kroonspecker/opera/
When visiting corporate media sites, I block all the ads. Not merely to reduce annoyance; out of principle, in fact. While it's important to keep tabs on corporate news, reading one set of lies is quite enough, thank you.
As for TV ads...heh, come on. HBO only features house ads.
I usually don't block ads. Nevertheless, I have PithHelmet installed and as soon as a page uses large intrusive flash ads or even popup or popunder windows, I activate it. I usually don't mind bannerads and I don't block them because they are the other side of the equation of free content.
What I really hate are intrusive ads on payfor sites or in online shops.
... and after I went from dialup to ADSL I stopped bothering. If anything ads seem to be getting less intrusive now.
Every time an ad flashes it grabs my eye and I loose my place or I have to actively ignore it, slowing down my reading speed. Thanks to working in a field that works for my head (3d animation), in general besides my shite spelling, slower reading my dyslexia isn't an issue. But I relay notice it when there is a flashing ad within my field of view.
All flashing (including all animated ads) must be removed from what ever I read!
All they'll have left are the bottom and strange quarks, and the bessel functions of the second kind. Good luck with those - can't even build a decent nuclear generator with that.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Like most people I am basically a lazy fat slob.
Most people aren't fat.
Oh, are you in America?
I block most of them, because I dont need to enlarge my penis or tits :)
I dont block book, game and movie ads!
sex is better than war!
Very soon, advertising is going to change in a big way.
On TV, I'm seeing sizable commercial blocks with advertisements that say, "Advertise here!". I heard the same thing on the radio before I turned it off for good. A lot of websites are the same way: they just can't move banner ad space. Now we have far more people wanting to sell advertising than advertisers who are interested in buying it. When was the last time a commercial or banner ad influenced you to purchase something? I'd say that less than 1% of my big-ticket purchases and less than 5% of small purchases are affected by commercials or banners. When I want to know about a product, I google it and find articles or reviews--and as more people become internet-savvy, they do the same. If you don't want ads, there's nothing wrong with blocking them or not reading them. Contrary to what they want you to think, you are not "a thief" if you don't pay attention to the commercials or banners. This represents a failure on the advertiser's part to present a product you are interested in.
Advertisers are clearly getting wise to this phenomenon: as the "big brother" advertisers gain the ability to get more information about consumers, they are also targeting individual purchasers more aggressively. I keep getting coupons (not the general kind, but printed specifically for me with products that they guess I'd like) for substantial discounts from an outfit that I often purchase electronics from. They send them like clockwork and are so good at knowing what I want to buy that I've received perhaps one that I didn't actually use and the savings typically amount to $30-$50. One of my friends has a collection of books sent to him by car companies from when he was shopping for a sports car. Still another friend received a substantial amount of, strangely, KY and a display box of chewing gum in the mail. No word on whether that's affected his purchases.
The point is, they're getting smart. They have figured out that spending a dime a person to inform 50 people doesn't work as well as spending 5 dollars to inform one probable buyer. This targeted advertising is both bad and good: we get more free stuff and fewer ads that we are actually interested in at the expense of a lot of privacy. I, for one... am cautiously optimistic about our new advertising overlords.
~Ben
>With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads?
They're annoying.
>And with what? Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
No, so far the TV adds doesn't interfer enough with the program I watching,
they're not scattered around but squeezed in sequence allowing one to switch channel.
Though It's annoying to have these breaks in the movies or series. Which
is why I'd rather go to thepiratebay.org and download it than watching it on TV.
>What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Indeed, I've no interrest in a magazine filled with ads.
The "value" of a magazine, in the business sense, is to link advertisers to consumers, period. The advertiser doesn't need to get anything out of the content of the magazine. All the advertiser is paying for is access to the magazine's audience, which is shaped and defined by its content.
That's why you don't see enterprise software vendors advertising in cooking magazines. The rate of return isn't very high; that audience isn't particularly valuable to them.
There are two ways that a magazine can increase the value of its audience to an advertiser. One, it can have a bigger audience. And two, it can have a more targeted audience. That is, it can approach the advertiser and say, "Yes, you could advertise in that other magazine but you'll only get five percent response. Our audience, on the other hand, is richer/smarter/better informed/etc."
Magazines "prove" these assertions about their audiences to their advertisers through various forms of market research. One way is simply by taking surveys or holding focus groups. The ultimate in that may be qualified subscriptions, where potential readers fill out a survey in order to get a free subscription. It seems counterintuitive to give subscriptions away for free, maybe, but the idea here is that the magazines are tweaking their market research. It's easy to keep the value of your audience high when nobody can even get your magazine without answering your market research questions the way you want them answered. Finally, another way magazines can generate revenue is through branding. They might be able to parlay their brand into other products, such as custom research or events. Those products will attract other kinds of sponsorship but it's still basically advertising.
Breakfast served all day!
The problem is, even with a Good Thing like Google (usually), people still use Ad Blockers because of OTHER types of ads. These Ad blockers tend to block Google ads too, and so even a website that uses what everyone considers nice and clean has to face the ad blocker music (albeit they usually arn't a large enough percent to even matter from my own experience with website advertisements).
But this could lead some websites to create even more intrusive, and trickier, ways of getting the advertisements around ad blockers causing even more problems for the typical end user.
I only really block animated ads, or ones that take up an inordinante amount of screen real estate. If smallish static ads get blocked due to the filter, then so be it, but my only objective is to make browsing tolerable.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Yes, 26.4 Kbps. With no chance of getting broadband. (Don't tell me to get satellite, the dialup is actually less painful.)
I figure at this rate I won't be able to do anything but send email within the next few years. Broadband expectancy is making the world wide web fucking inaccesible for people like me, and that is BEFORE the ads.
I will block all I can. If you want my money get me some broadband options, for that I will gladly hand out cash.
Because they try to take over your web browser, whether by popping up, or trying to hide under like some damned cockroach. I have my Mozilla set to not allow JavaSh^Hcript to raise or lower windows.
I stopped allowing Flash ads once I got one that made sound... of a truck honking its horn... when it was in another brower tab, no less. If I want sound, I'll play something in iTunes. Magazine ads also don't play jingles or crap MIDI. I eventually found a CSS trick that lets properly embedded Flash become a button. Some advertisers don't use the EMBED tag, but most do. I also use the same user CSS to block the most annoying advertisers, the doubleclicks and tribalfusions and so forth.
And last, but not least, because I don't freaking care about what they advertise. This is why I never blocked the OSDN ads on Slashdot. I'm perfectly fine with seeing ads for the latest ThinkGeek gadget. After a while they started letting in outside ad servers, and I see a blocked Flash at the top of my window right now.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
For the past 10 years I've written a daily internet colum (aardvark.co.nz) and have strongly resisted the temptation to load it up with advertising.
Instead of obtrusive ads I've gone the sponsorship route, something which I realise few sites can do but, if it can be done, is great for both publisher, sponsor (they get exclusivity) and readers alike.
My visitors aren't blasted with skyscrapers, Flash or even banners - just a little sponsor's spot-ad. Fortunately for me, quite a few of my regulars visit the sponsor's website by clicking on their spot, so we all win.
I wonder if more small bloggers and publishers might not look more closely at sponsorship as an option to the more common "load the page up with as many ads as will fit" option?
I'm Australian.
That means two things when it comes to ads: first, I pay to view them. Second, I usually can't buy the product being advertised anyway (or certainly wouldn't want to buy it and pay the cost of shipping).
Internet access in Australia is usually charged in terms of per-megabyte, or with a fixed quota (after which your speed is restricted to fast modem instead of broadband). Some sites I've been to serve me a 3k HTML page, a 1k CSS file, and a 10k Flash animation. By blocking those ads, I've effectively increased by ability to use the World Wide Web by a factor of 4 (I can load the whole page four times faster, and I can view four times as many pages in total).
More often than not, the spam ads are for offers which are only of use to people in the USA (eg: mobile phone, home shopping, cable TV subscription, magazine subscription, yadda yadda). Other times they're for a product which I'd save $10 on the price, but pay an extra $30 for shipping. Target audience folks, it's a key word in marketing. I am not your target audience, you can tell that from the ".au" on the end of the domain name of the IP address I'm connecting to you from.
I also find it really distracting when I'm reading an article on a famous Geek website (article might be abou the Microsoft anti-trust case, or Microsoft's latest buying out of some foreign government), and an ad for something like Visual Studio comes along. Get with the program - I don't even use an Intel box!
Perhaps if advertisers would acknowledge the basic facts available to them, I'd stop being so upset about advertising. Here are the basic facts: I'm in Australia, and I use Mac OS X. Don't advertise Windows-Only software to me, don't advertise export-restricted products to me, don't advertise services to me unless they're available for use in Australia.
"Why" is obvious, like someone up there said. Because I don't friggin' want to see them. Because they take up space on my desktop I'd rather use for, you know, actual productive stuff. Because I don't like the info harvesting and spyware installation attempts (not that they ever succeed, go Opera!).
So, I use Opera and Ad Muncher. They work very well together--Ad Muncher even has some special settings for Opera--and I haven't seen a non-Google ad in years, except when I've deliberately turned of Ad Muncher filtering. Even then, Opera's non-selected popup blocking means I never ever see a popup add.
And while we're at it, I read Consumer Reports (no ads), 2600 (no ads) and MAKE (few ads), and love my DirecTiVo (30-second commercial skip) and XM Radio (72 channels of commercial-free music)
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
Why not block ads? Everybody's gotta eat. Right? The people who annoy us are the same ones who help keep the economy going. But I HATE pop-ups too.
I don't watch TV. I don't listen to radio. I only pick up a magazine while waiting for a hair cut (and that usually doesn't last long before I put it down). Newspapers... haven't opened one in months. All in all, and quite intentionally, I see very little advertising. Web pages is about the only place left I see them, and then only when my cursory blocking doesn't cut it. I don't have flash, only select sites get javascript. Ad pushing sites of the IGN ilk get /etc/hosts redirects.
Oh yeah, there's also the staggering volume that gets stuffed into my mail box, but that gets dropped right into a patiently waiting recycle box. I can't even fathom the resources wasted on that stuff. As for my electronic mail box, challenge/response does wonders. I haven't seen a spam in... I don't even remember anymore. I got my phone number on the do-not-call list as soon as possible, and that has been another glorious wonder.
At some point I just got sick of it all, of seeing the deception and manipulation that became the norm, so I stopped receiving. What little I do get (billboards and other such public nuisance) sometimes even has a negative impact now, and I've stopped doing business with companies solely because I disliked their advertising. Maybe it's petty, but it's fun and certainly feels good. It's probably only possible given that I don't see most advertising, though. I'll never know...
Why not block them? 1. Some are valid business marketing tools. 2. Keep the internet going. Why block? 1. They suck
"Well then, my goal becomes clear, the broccoli must die." -Stewie
I use to agree with viewing ads. It pays the sites but I will still block anything that pop up. It doesn't matter if it's even something I like. Once it pops I block it. No questions asked.
Then one day I got really tired of the True ads that were nothing but soft porn. I just don't believe that by subscribing to their service a hot woman would automatically have sex with me. Of course if it's a prostitution service then someone correct me so I can join.
Blocking the True ads left this nice empty space and I started liking the look. Then from there my preference changed. Yahoo mail started looking better. Sites were cleaner.
I still view google ads now and then. They're data mining me with my unexpressed permission and I like the ads they give me.
Advertising below:
I can't wait for Firefox 1.5 to be released and Flashblock to work with it.
bah. start over
When I reinstalled Firefox a couple of months ago I decided I should be a nice guy and let most of the ads load around the web. That was until I 2 minutes later got a Jamba ad, and a bit after that got a different ad that screamed (not literally) at me when I accidentally put my mouse over it. I decided to not block ads because I expected that maybe all the popup-blocking and adblock-extensions had made the advertising-companies realize they should be more respectful.. But alas, Remove It Permanently and Adblock was installed within minutes.
Ad blocking for me is an abuse avoidance defense mechanism. I have no problem with basic webvertisements but popups, pop unders, page redirectors, animated gifs, flash, etc., often falls in my abuse category. When marketing becomes a parasite overriding the content value of a web page then anything you can do to reduce the abuse restores at least some comparative value to the effected content.
I started blocking ads while on a dialup connection (33.6k) modem and immediately noticed that things loaded faster. I've continued the practice to this day because it seems that every ad desires to set a cookie and I get damn tired of saying no. Another reason is health. I see absolutely no reason to subject myself to seizure inducing advertisements when I already suffer from epilepsy.
The sorry thing about it, is that I can't even use the computers at school because of the risk factor of running acrossed one of them seizure inducing ads and that is actually making school more difficult for me because one of the principle resources (school access to many journals) is denied me due to pop-up/unders and the various tricks they've started playing.
Not to mention that many of us pay by the KB on very slow connections. Any ad that filters through causes grief, especially those flash based ones. To minimize data transfer I use pdnsd to cache my DNS requests and squid set to offline mode to surf, and sometimes surf without images.
I used to block ads all the time, using a userContent.css file from http://www.gozer.org/mozilla/ad_blocking/ but now I don't bother so much. If I turn off GIF animation and block pop-ups then that's enough of the annoyances dealt with that I can put up with the rest. A static ad on a webpage doesn't bother me, just like a static ad in a magazine doesn't. Flash ads are dealt with by not having flash installed (which also means that any website that chooses to use flash for the main part of their site, for navigation, or for 'click to enter' pages loses my custom).
--Muzz
I block ads (at least the images and flash ads) because they're annoying and distracting. Bright images, flashing and moving and in case of flash sometimes even making noise are just disturbing when I want to read a website.
That's why I like google ads. At least the text ones. They aren't distracting from the content.
See my blog for my free opinions.
I have a broadband connection, 1Mbps, plenty fast enough. That means it gets me pretty riled up when a site refuses to load because of a sly bit of javascript that means I'm waiting to contact ads.annoying.crap.server.net where an ad is hosted. Staring at white space while waiting for some budget server to catch up so I can look at a site that would otherwise be instantaneous is no fun.
I use opera with js turned off unless I absolutely need it. Even then it's just a quick press of F12 to turn it on momentarily. Js would be my first proposal for room 101, closely followed by flash (I might add it's a blessing that the flash guys haven't pulled their heads out of their a***es and released a 64bit binary yet).
In summary: Let the damn page load at its own pace and if the ads don't appear in time it's the advertisers loss. Don't try to make me wait for them because I won't.
...I use the "ad-punishment system". In a nutshell:
/etc/hosts. My reasoning in greater detail at Slow browsing.
I understand that websites have to make money to stay afloat; I do understand that this is achieved via ads; I just do not like certain types of ads (pretty much like turning the volume down while watching TV when the ads "shout" at me).
The "ad-punishement system" is simple, annoy me once, get blocked in
just my 2 cents
It's spyware that's the problem. I can live with ads on a website. The second any advertising tries to ass-rape my windows - thats when I get pissed. If advertising triggers popups, pop-unders, homepage hijaaking, registry hacking, active X, buffer overflows or installing any program then it's caner - nobody wants it.
:D
Can I get a witness?
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
Because I can.
The Netflix ad CNN runs is a real CPU hog. So I only use Firefox to view it and I've got pretty much everything disabled. I don't mind pictures but when it starts to slow down my machine, I put the quietus on it.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Look, I work in the magazine business. The magazine I work for does not charge for subscriptions. Thus, we get all of our revenue from advertising or some other form of sponsorship. And so therefore, yes, pretty much every penny of my salary comes from ads. Many of those ads are sold on our Web site.
And you know what? I use Firefox and Filterset.G and I wouldn't have it any other way. I block all ads, even Google ads, because I don't want to see ads when I surf the Web, period.
Am I being shortsighted? Am I cutting my own throat? Is my telling you all of this only going to encourage you all to do the same and put my publication out of business that much faster? I'm sorry, but I just can't see it that way.
I don't work in sales and I don't work in marketing. My job is to create content and make it appealing enough that it finds its way out to an audience. As far as I'm concerned, if I've convinced you to read it/look at it/listen to it/whatever, my job is done. Who gives a damn who's going to pay for it? That's what I work for a great big corporation for. Let them figure it out.
Seriously, plenty of people go to school, get degrees, and devote their whole careers to worrying about the question of how content is going to get paid for. From where I sit, they do that so I don't have to.
I look at it this way: If what I do has any value at all, then there will always be a demand for it. That demand ought to be translatable into dollars somehow. For the salespeople out there who bemoan the fact that people want to get rid of ads, here's a little Glengarry Glen Ross moment for you: "Third prize is you're fired." If a given sales technique isn't working and you're not closing sales and you're not bringing in revenue, then you need to think up something else.
But I don't. I just don't like the ads, so I make them go away without even looking at them. Yes, somebody should be giving that some thought. Just not me.
Breakfast served all day!
I block them simply because they 1) take too much of the precious screen space and just clutter the browser window, making it difficult to read the actual web page, 2) Flash ones take too much CPU, which is very important when you're on a laptop, 3) slow down the whole web page loading. I wouldn't mind small, unobtrusive ads - sort of like google ads. I blocked ALL ads on weather.com after they started placing a overlay ads on top ot the web page - all WEB sites who run ads like that get ALL their ads blocked immediately. Personally I use PithHelmet for Safari.
I'm calling it a fad, because I'm pretty sure in 100 years advertising will be a bygone (what luck to live in the future!).
Modern advertizing methods remind me of cold-war era nuclear escalation doctrine:
Modern advertising is intrusive, annoying and creeps into every possible orifice of modern life. A hateful social phenomenon, if there ever was one.
<before>now</before>
However, I do block Flash. Most Flash takes too long to load, and is annoying. It seems to me that with few exceptions, Flash is mostly used for ads anyway, and isn't much used for useful content.
I tolerated most non-annoying forms of advertisement since they help to refinance fine content - until I got thrown out of the Google AdSense program for no apparent reason. They sent only standardized text, no hint what really went wrong.
No one answered my mails, my money gone, my "business model" more or less worthless without real competition to Google's programme over here.
So I decided that advertising stuff basically is crap and opted out of that - for the first time since I'm on the "IntarWeb" (~ 1994/95).
Advertisers and marketers are right down there with lawyers, politicians, and child molesters.
I block the annoying, in your face, sound/video, animated ads. They are the graphical equivlant of spam.
Don't whine because people are blocking these ads. Look at what Google is doing, evolve and move on.
Don't even get me started on those page stealing flash ads with the tiny fucking x AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I block ads because the web is a much more pleasant experience without them.
Fuller explanation:
The advertisers are in an arms race for your attention. As a result, ads are getting ever more annoying and more importantly ever more intrusive on the content. I don't browse the web to look at ads. I browse the web to look at content. If the ads are small, unobtrsusive, and don't marginizalize the content, fine. Otherwise, screw 'em.
...work fine for me. I got a feeling, that surfing this way is as twice as fast as with adds.
"I honestly don't understand why anyone would pay for something they can do for free."
You CAN NOT, or you WILL NOT? Everyone here calls themselves a geek, but seemingly even the simplest stuff escapes this group. Servers aren't free. Bandwith isn't free. Time to create something desirable may be donated? But there are still pressures against that. More realistically the amount of time and effort required precludes "giving it away". Maybe the real question everyone in this forum should ask is; why am I so resistent to paying* for the things that benefit me?
*Paying in this context encompasses any reciprocal agreement, including ads for content.
Because I don't need to enlarge my penis...
...Us geeks lack the ability to mate
Well, IMHO, the vast majority of these so-called 'Ads' are nothing more than attempts at sleazy ways to farm more information. Some do it explicitely, some implicitely. Some more annoyingly than others...
But if I were to say the one thing that annoys me the most is that these Ads, often hold up the page from being loaded itself. Mr. DoubleClick, atdmt.com, pointroll.com, mediaplex.com... the list is unending. Intrusive, like others have mentioned here is one thing. But if you down right get in the way, you're going to get blocked forever.
Wow, I never realised how bad things had got over there in the US. Here in the UK, apparently, we have it made. Most advertising on TV and radio is 5> minutes blocks every 15 minutes or so. There are some ads on billboards, mostly strategically placed for major bus stops etc, rather than road traffic hotspots. Though some taxis are starting to sport ads, it's apparently not as bad as the amount over there.
As a side note - Brazilian TV is some of the worst I've seen for advertising. There's an insane amount of that awful in-program advertising, where the presenter helps with the act. I understand that this originated in America, but Latin America seems not to be lagging behind in the advertising field.
I also know that the discussion, and therefore major moderation, is mostly over on this topic, but this is for all you hardcore readers like me who wait and then read every comment.
So focusing on the "And with what [do you block ads]," I'd like to mention Adsanity.
Using Firefox on Linux I follow the masses and use Adblock.
However, on my MAC, using any web browser, I use Adsanity http://www.ziggurat.ch/products/adsanity/. It is highly configurable, but as I use it, ads are blended into the background, faded if you will The ads are still there, but far less annoying. Best of all, it takes animated ads and stops the animation by just showing the last frame. Animation is what I find most annoying about ads.
Full disclosure: I know the one of the developers.
Ads are by definition made to take your attention away from whatever "content" you are trying to access. I detest visual noise with a passion. Thus, I filter ads.
Google's solution is something I can live with. So far. I have even found it useful a couple of times.
Just my $0.02 contribution to the Google stock price.
Dag B
if i could block tv, radio, and magazine ads i would.
I block Flash (actually, I keep the plugin not installed) and only let animations run once. As much as possible, I block anything that creates new windows or changes window size or decorations. If I could, I'd block anything that places anything over text. I'd also like to block mouseover.
In all of these cases, the worst abuses I've seen aren't ads, but the most common violations of my rules for web site behavior are ads.
They are bad economy for me because when I need something I research the options and then buy it, and I usually only buy what I really *need* (and do my best to avoid its marketting claims because I think it's BS, I only care about the reviews), not something I was persuaded into wanting by some ad. Even if I didn't block ads I would still not click on them.
I suspect that they are also bad economy for many content sites because for many the content is just a bait to drive traffic to the site and hence run the ads, and having heard from writers they say that many website owners don't really care much about the quality of content if they have the ads in mind, and usually don't pay the writers much either.
Why? That's easy. I loved to look at several sites, but now the adds on that site crash firefox on my linux workstation. When you have an add, have it usefull, don't pop-up, don't be annoying and especially, don't crash the browser...
Oh, I now also use the noscript plugin. Together with the adblock I finally can visit sites I couldn't before... It makes visiting the site possible. I personally think that the webmasters should check if adds disable the site, but when they don't, I'll block them and they'll mis revenue.
When the webmasters won't fix the problem, I'll make sure it's not my problem anymore. To bad for them that I will now do whatever I can to block those adds. When done correctly, I don't mind (even on TV the adds are better then the programs, but I almost never watch TV now), when things start to fail, I'll try to find a solution myself. It's found and it stays.
... Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
If there's such hosility out there for online advertising amongst users why is it still a growing industry? See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,392257 85,00.htm
Answer: Internet Explorer
Adds which are still images are ok, since they only need some amount of memory (which is fortunatly cheap) but many adds are either animated gifs or flash. Flash i block by default everywhere, if a website needs flash, ill not use it. A Company which chooses flash is a company less which i might intend to work with. Animated gifs are also blocked, because the just render you mad after a while, Iam working on a dual screen machine and some blinking Browser is exactly what you dont want to have. Additionally animated Gifs are using a lot of more memory, bandwith and cpu time (more expressed when you use tabs in browsers) since normal gifs. (Not talking over the flash crap ... the plugin on the mac really uses many recources !)
Why download new software when you can modify existing software? Linky linky:
http://www.macmerc.com/articles/Hacking_and_Tech_M ischief/83
cat /etc/squid/banners|wc -l
4132
In the ten years or so I used the net before adblock, I only ever clicked an advert once, and that was a mistake caused by a pop-up appearing as I was aiming for a real link. Sites do not lose any revenue because I block adverts, and now my time/bandwidth isn't wasted by distractions.
As for blocking adverts on TV and in magazines, as far as it's technically possible I already do. I watch mostly BBC channels which are advert free (apart from irritating trails for other BBC programmes), my digital box is set to hide advet-only chnnels (QVC, TV Travel Shop etc.) and I watch the few big American series I like via bittorrent. When I buy a magazine that has leaflets inserted into it, I shake them out before I leave the shop, and with newspapers, I use the adblocked websites instead.
Why are people not up in arms about TV content being damaged by adverts in the same way that we complain about ads obscuring web content? Often when watching an American series us Brits will see a sudden lurch when an advert break has been removed; something interesting is about to happen, then we have a cut to black, the music changes and we get a 2 or 3 second recap. We even get this on advert supported channels, since we allow a much lower percentage of each hour to be adverts over here.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Way way too many websites have annoying sound, in addition to ads with sound. As soon as I got machines with soundcards built in, I found I needed to keep them turned off except when I'm actively trying to listen to sounds (typically music, but sometimes other things.) It's bad enough to have extra noise in my office from the computer fans, but at least that's whitish noise that isn't jumping up and down trying to get my attention. For the most part, background sounds on web sites are as annoying as leaf-blowers outside and almost as annoying as blinking ads. (There are obvious exceptions - if you're going to some band's website, it's not totally inappropriate for their music to be playing there, but that's the kind of situation where I'd turn on the sound to listen to their music clips anyway.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I hate ads on TV, but I can't block them. When I see an ad interrupting my program, I'm annoyed at that company. I'll be encouraged to avoid their products and services. You know what I'd love? At the beginning and end of a show, an announcement is made "This program is brought to you uninterrupted without ads by company XYZ". Then I'd look at products and services from XYZ with great interest. So, when I block ads on the web, I'm doing the company that advertises a favour, by not letting them irritate me.
My reason(s) for blocking adds are:
1. If I want a product I will look for it myself.
2. Adds are a waste of disk space and bandwidth.
3. I ignore adds.
4. If an add is particular annoying I will certainly NOT buy the product or anything from that company.
5. Many adds treat you like a fool or a child (most often being the same thing).
Same reasons why I have blocked paper adds in my mail box, Don't watch TV adds and threaten call centers.
Never buy Sony CDs - they will open up your computer to anyone..
Banners aren't annoying. Banners are like the advertisements in magazines or on TV. They live in harmony next to the content and might even be topical (i.e. Google banners).
What IS annoying are those pop-up ads, flash ads which will the entire screen or cover the content. banners with audio and basically any ad which is obtrusive.
I would NOT buy a magazine if it had loud, audible advertising or every page required you to peel of a page of advertising every single time before you could read the content.
I would NOT watch television if it forced me to use my remote controle to remove it from the show that continues playing behind it.
Similarly, there are a number of websites I do NOT visit, simply because the advertising makes it unusable or atleast less usable than the competition.
The old-style advertising (simple banners) was mostly blocked because they became to big in filesize in an era where broadband was still only for ISP's. It was obtrusive to most users because they'd have to wait a lot longer for the content to load.
What online advertisers have not yet learned from the other advertising media is that there is a line which should not be crossed. People are willing to tolerate (and perhaps even appreciate or atleast understand) a certain level of advertising. But when the advertising makes it simpler to use another medium to get the information (or entertainment) they want, they will drop it in an instant.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I find it just as ennoying as normal ads when ever other word is an adlink/adsence.
I didn't block ads until the flash era. You know, those with unexpected (and annoying) sounds and repetitive animations, much like the Macarena-dancing-Christ in that Simpsons episode about the secret island.
:-P
Then I decided that they were way too intrussive for me so I started blocking them. And I ended blocking the other ads, too. This is my computer, my screen, my bandwidth, and by the way, these are my speakers... they aren't cheap, I've paid for them, so I use them exactly as I want, because they are _mine_.
Yeah... that attitude implies some DRM issues, too
Try Ubuntu GNU/Linux, it's great!!!
"There are magazines I do not buy because of the ads."
Mee too - but for different reasons.
I stopped reading a (Dutch) PC magazine once I reveiled the strong correlation between the review of the product and the size of its advertisement on the next page. For example when a 2x CD burner gets more points for "speed" than a 4x burner...
So actually, I "blocked" because the ads were actually related to the content.
Musicians don't die. They just decompose.
I block based on the type of ad. If it's a big intrusive flash I block just because it distracts me. If it's a completely non-targeted ad like for home-refinancing I block it (I don't own a home). But I've found and purchased things through well-targeted ads (i.e. Google "Sponsored Links").
I block ads on IP level and on browser level. IP level blocking is enough in most cases but sometimes sites incude ads into webserver scripts.
a prebuilt adblock list that even has an extension to auto-update.
Reading your comment reminded me of the late prophet Bill Hicks' spiel about advertising:
[Bill Hicks]:
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root, I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself.
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too. "Oh, you know what Bill's doing? He's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market. He's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that, you fucking evil scumbags.
"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet.
Amen.
Everyone seems to have technical or logistical reasons for blocking ads. These are the reasons I block them:
* Ads are often completely dishonest or just distortions of the truth. Advertisers are spinsters at best, and con artists at worst. Would you let a con artist into your home if they knocked on the door? Probably not, so why let thousands of their words enter your mind every day?
* They present a certain reality that I don't wish to participate in - that of the consumer. I am not a consumer, and by this I mean someone who buys compulsively. I know what I want and need, and I don't need anyone to tell me what I want and need. You may be different.
* Ads are frequently devoid of artistic merit. They are made ugly on purpose simply to catch your attention. This is analogous to nauseatingly cheesy ads on the radio, or the lack of audio volume normalization with TV ads. You know what they say - garbage in, garbage out, and I don't want this garbage in my brain.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
As a proxy admin i've noticed that some ad-delivery sites are always on the top of the bandwidth hog list.
Ads are becoming bigger and bigger.
- JFig http://jfig.net - http://del.icio.us/jfig/
why do you block ads?
Well:
And with what?
Firefox's adblocker, the AdBlock extension, and a list of the worst advertising offenders in a "block stuff from these" file.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Don't buy magazines very often. . . But when I do, I'm happy for them to have ads. They don't have "peel off this ad to view the actual content" ads stuck all over the pages, or ads with flashing lights or so-called humerous noises. They have well-designed, undemanding ads that are relevant to the rest of the content.
It all really boils down to: Most internet ads seem to have been designed for no other purpose than wasting my time and pissing me off. So I block those ads. If that makes life hard for a website I use, then they should either: Offer a "pay for ad-free pages" like Slashdot does; or find advertisers who aren't determined to push ads that will alienate the very users the site depends upon.
So.. it has come to this
... ads are obsolete.
With the advent of easy price comparisons on the net ads simply arent useful anymore, and instead they're just a drain on the market, increasing costs needlessly.
Since everyone - except for advertisers - agrees that popups are bad, and firefox do a pretty good job of blocking popups, new methods have come. Check this code I found at www.dooyoo.es:
if(typeof(adlink_randomnumber)=="undefined"){var adlink_randomnumber=Math.floor(Math.random()*1000They double hide a script with a document.write which writes the tag '<scr' and appends 'ipt' to obscure the script, the true script doing stuff is found at a different location including a random number to fool blacklists.
the reader already pays for reading, so ads are not necessary. internet access is not free.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
My habits have changed dramatically, especially since tv ads tipped more than 33% of time. 22 minutes of adds per hour. Bugger that. Rarely buy magazines anymore, websites often do it better. Watch tv on dvd instead of live. My schedule, my time. You don't get to dictate to me any more.
Yay me!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I block all ads online as I cannot stand web advertising. I'm perhaps overly picky as I recall an Internet that had no intrusive ads back in the day. The hijacking of the Internet by ambitious advertisers really irks me.<p>
I also no longer buy magazines due to the advertising:actual content ratio being all screwed up.<p>
I also no longer listen to the radio because of excess advertising (and the proliferation of entertainment marketed as 'music' though thats another discussion entirely)<p>
But hey, thats just me. I'm aware of the alledged justification for advertising and all that jazz. I'm just being honest with myself when I say outright that advertising pisses me off no end, irrespective of medium.
I'm using a shorter list (of my own) that is just as effective:
( e|s)|emediate|falkag|imrworldwide|instadia|related labs|tacoda|tribalfusion|yimg)(.|\/)/l nk|com|did-it|lygo).com\/(^gamespot)/x 125|channelintelligence|eniro|hitbox|netgravity|re klame|ru4|servedby|skyscraper|tracker(.|\/)// |\.|_|blog|php)ad(\/|\.|_|bar|bureau|cast|click|fa rm|form|juggler|marker|revolver|s|serv|vert|vt)/
/(casale|real|vibrant)media/i ndustry|instadia|trade|value)(click|doubler)/h ot|spy)log/n sor(ed)?/* .swf4 /portal/navshop/navshop.swfm /
N ote how they're grouped for maximum "regexing".
[Adblock]
/(.|\/)(2o7|atdmt|banner
/(.|\/)(be
/(.|\/)125
/(\
/(double|euro|fast|
/(
/(promo|syndica)(tion)?/
/(web)?spo
/click(through|thru)/
/ia.imdb.com/*/
/link(exchange)/
http://img.map24.com/map2
http://rcm.amazon.co
http://reviews.cnet.com/html/js/rev/cms.js
Line 1 targets single domain components,
line 2 targets ".com" components,
line 3 targets single in-url components,
line 4 targets "ad" components,
and so on.
"Good news, everyone!"
I understand and appreciate advertising. It leads me to a lot of cool stuff, and I like that it supports many kinds of sites that couldn't otherwise operate for free. What I don't like is when advertising pretentiously competes for my ability to use the site it's supporting. One animated or noise-producing ad, and a site loses all ad revenue from me -- click, off. I'm sure that these are the last straw that leads others to install global advertising blockers as well.
I block ads that are:
- moving
- in a different style from the web page it's on
- larger than their allocated space
- on a large bit of space
- enlarging the website, thereby lenghtening my time on it in terms of finding stuff to read
- completely irrelevant
- privacy invading
- confusing
- offensive
So that leaves mainly netstat buttons, since each possible way the advertiser can use to make stuff interesting directly conflicts with this.
In magazines, put something (arm, junk, drink) on the ad. If it's too annoying, skip the article or rip out the ad. If a magazine is mainly ads, it's going to be both cheaper and thicker, so most pages are pure ads. If a page only contains ads, I skip it entirely, don't mind that. They don't distract from text (since there isn't any).
One type of ads is still annoying, those that are on a separate page between the previous and the next just to annoy you.
One of the comments here talks (correctly) about the gradual build-up of annoyance at ads. With advertising being so prevalent and intrusive I personally have reached the end of my tolerance.
I now watch very little TV. I don't listen to radio because I can't handle the constant ads. I will block pretty much any web-ad. Before reading a magazine I will go through it and rip out all the adverts that I can (i.e. the 2-sided ones.) Unfortunately I have not yet figured out a way to block all the adverts in the street, although I am considering some.
It's pretty sad, I know, but I really have had enough. I'm sorry if deserving sites are making less money as a result, but my sanity comes first.
Just because.
Why do I block ads? Because I can. Given the choice, I would block ads on mags and TVs as well, because shiny as they may be, they do not interest me at all. The few that might are buried into an unbelievable pile of junk.
Ad revenue be damned. In spite of technology advance, most advertising companies still do it like in the fifties. The only thing they changed is the film or photo quality and the ammount of female skin they display next to their crappy product.
My time is precious to me, and I am unwilling to waste it on crap. Google seems to get it, but I'm willing to bet it will take a long while before the "traditional" media will get it as well.
Just
Firefox and Adblock.
Yes. Internet ads are more annoying, intrusive, and irrelevant than TV ads - yet easier to get rid of.
If any of the magazines I buy changed to having annoying, intrusive, and 99% irrelevant ads, you bet I'd stop buying it.
Yup. Gave up buying computer magazines about 15 years ago because of exactly this reason - that, the 4 month lag in stories, the paid product placement "reviews", and the 12-month story recycling.
Now that I've done your research for you, marketing weasel, fsck off back to whatever arsehole you crawled out of...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I block ads on websites for pretty much the reasons given by others. In real life it isn't that easy of course, but:
1.Magazines that consist of 50% ads and still cost a pretty penny, I don't buy! (Also it seems, these hardly treat any topics I'm interested in!)
2.The leaflets in the magazines usualy stay in the store. In the dustbin, if they have on, on the shelf if they don't.
3.TV - Well, I don't have a TV! Braindead commercials being one reason among many ;-)
TV is a push medium. You sit down, grab your beer and start to drool. Ads in this context are something I can live with. For me the fun ends with American style ads, where you get shouted at halfway through a 40 minute soap. But it is my understanding that lots of people can bear 3 to 4 interruptions. Whatever, it's still only an interruption when my brain is already half asleep.
The Internet is largely a pull medium. You sit down, grab a coke and start to actively look for things. Most people won't be looking for ads. So if they are too "in your face" they distract from your main task. That's why obtrusive ads are such a pain.
For me it's not a matter of principle. I have faith in my innate avoidance strategies. But there are types of advertising that give me such NEGATIVE feelings about the products/brands advertised that I'm astonished that marketeers dare to do this. I know, bad publicity is still publicity, but less sales is less income.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
I don't block ads because I see some difference between advertising on the web and advertising in print/other media. Bandwidth costs money, ads provide [some amount of] money. This is fine, when the ads aren't annoying, and is probably a good thing - it's why I don't use any ad-scrubbing proxy functionality. When advertisers try to aggressively grab your attention, however, is when they fuck up.
I figure that if the people that accepted that ad for circulation didn't bother to think that people would be annoyed by the flashing 2-frame gifs, or the cpu-munching flash-heavy punch-the-fucking-monkey ads, then I can use AdBlock to block _all_ ads from that particular host, without bothering to think about how many acceptable ads I may be blocking at the same time.
IMHO, it's pretty simple, working the same way as TV/etc - don't show me the retarded Six Flags commercials with the old guy, don't give me popups, don't give me useless flash ads, don't give me flashing gifs - in return, I won't change the channel, won't use aggressive pop-up blocking that disables your site's functionality and makes it look bad, and won't block _all_ of the ads from your particular ad host.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
A number of reasons:
And with what?
Privoxy
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Yes, because a) I pay for web ads (and spam) with a fraction of my bandwidth b) they're easily blocked
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
I generally skip over magazine ads, but I don't mind 'pure factual' ads that much (e.g. "We're selling widget W that does X, Y, and Z and costs you P GBP" as used by boxshifters). I have no desire to buy so-called 'lifestyle' magazines (e.g. GQ, Arena, Loaded, whatever) which are heavy on 'non-factual' ads.
I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site.
Privoxy doesn't cause me significant problems (indeed, it can help out some pages that otherwise have problems in non-IE browsers!), and for the few sites that it does break, you can selectively disable certain aspects of its blocking functionality.
THEY FUCKING PISS ME OFF YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!!! HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION:
1) WHY DO YOU BREATHE?
2) WHY DON'T YOU STOP DRINKING WATER?
3) WHY DO YOU EAT THINGS?
4) WHY DOESNT THE HUMAN RACE JUST STOP REPRODUCING?
I USED TO LIKE SLASHDOT.
Print ads can be flipped past.
Television ads can be avoided by Changing the Channel.
Recorded television ads can be avoided by skipping/fast-forward.
Web ads can be blocked or otherwise not requested.
All of these are methods of preserving mental bandwidth for content that we specifically requested.
And why don't you click on every Roland Pisspie story ?
The real question is, "Why would anybody *not* block ads?"
Possibly answers include a too-snappy internet connection, or tactile interface (where pr0n popups really shine)
$
if an ad is not that annoying, like, it doesnt hide page parts, does not pop up its own window, doesnt use my soundcard - then i do not even care anymore, sometimes i even look, when there is interesting stuff for me...
... when i am eager, i block them through localhost loop per /etc/hosts
but nowadays it often happens that some genious ad developer had the idea, that hiding the original content must be a big idea! yeah, guess what, you never see me faster hitting on the reload button, to get another ad
I block most of the ads because they are annoying; they are so colored and blinking that my eye get distracted often. Also, even if I choose to buy something, I will NOT follow any banner to go to the online shop.
So, ads are not for me, so I block them. Easy.
Most visiters wouldn't. Users of ad-blockers are undermining free content.
:)
In general i have no problem with ads, perticually not well designed and well placed ads. I still remember the Volvo ad that you could interact with without being sent to another website and the Sun ad where they point out that they don't rhyme on hell
Look, when I'm interested in a particular product, I Google for it. The various manufacturers thus gets my attention when I'm willing to give it to them rather than them annoying the hell out of me when I'm doing something else.
"With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? And with what? Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads? What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many? I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
I don't see ads at all.
And I do it in hardware.
Say again, what are you selling?
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
A search for Opera Adblock on google leads to this as the first result. Now was that so hard?
Well, about the magazine ads, specially the IT magazines, I have a pet peeve: the magazines that are almost 50% advertizing. You know, the ones that, when we open a random page, we get an add, or we get the catalog of some IT shop. Come on! Why should I have to comb a page for ads, just to find the column that I want to read? I think that in that particular segment, the ads are getting similar to web ads: anoying, obscuring the real content, and simply just getting in the way.
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
in France, indeed we have one (paper) weekly magazine with just no ad --a newspaper that only lives from customers buying it.
/., 99% of people consider ads as inescapable.
But it is a very special one, the "Canard enchainé" (a pun on words as 'canard' is slang for 'newspaper', and 'enchainé' stands for 'enslaved/censored'). It has a quite extreme reputation (there are people that would never want to be seen with it in hand...) and most of its contents is about news that elsewhere would have been auto-censored.
Needless to say it is not really fun to read (you almost always learn atrocious things), but generally it indeed is accurate, because when it is not people sue it (it is sued every month, but almost *always* wins in court). So, bad news but no junk, which is quite unusual.
If there was a newspaper for a french Watergate, it would be the Canard Enchainé (in fact they did oust a number of ministers, mayors and company execs, to an extend some consider a bit exagerated).
The fact that only this kind of newspaper manages to 'work without ads' is quite striking IMHO. It seems that, contrary to most of what I read here on
The trend in Europe is even to question end-user payment, as the only developing newstitles here seem to be "free newspapers": those that very exactly are *fully* paid by ads.There have been a number of such annoucements these years, and so many "ordinary" magazine managers declaring the "free papers" are killing them...
I don't know what will be the trend on internet. I have been using ad-blockers from day one, and to an extend few may reach (even my present RSS aggregator filters ads, in two different ways); I look for paying sites whenever this is associated with ad removal. While I agree that paying suppresses most of the information fluidity, I am still in search of other alternatives to advertisement. Maybe, in the future, the development of micropayments may ease this...
Hervé
Herve S.
...first are the "hit the bunny" and flashing/moving ads - they're irrelevent and annoying ...next are the ads which are just irrelevent (dating, mortgage, financial, women's stuff) ...then, there are the ads for which I'm not part of the target market (I live in the US, block ads on foreign websites)
It leaves very few. I do enthusiastically patronize online businesses, I would rather order something from Amazon or Overstock than travel to the big box store and find they are out of stock.
I do not get ads. I do not use flash (though I do have the installer and the uninstaller, for the times when I need to use a site that needs it (happens one every couple months or so). I do not enable Javascript except for a handful of sites I regularly use and need it (most do not, and will work just fine without it; usually if a link doesn't work because it uses JS, a quick glance at the source yields the full URL, or an easily reconstructed one). I do not load images (as a corollary, I do not view porn :))
Why all that ? I don't need them. I'm in for the text. The information. When I want to view an image, there's a right click button for this. I use it when I need to. Most of the time, images are useless anyway.
But, to the heart of your question: why do you need a reason to block ads ? You could say "for speed", or "to avoid distractions", or whatever. I say "wrong question". I would need to have a reason to *not* block ads. I haven't. If I want to buy, say, a game, I don't wait for random sites to tell me about games, trying to tell me to buy this one (no, this one! wait, have you thought about this one ?). *I* decide, then go to sites like gamerankings, etc.
I don't like ads not only because of the main reasons, but also because I know they are effective, and will, no matter what you think about being impervious, skew your mind. I can do without this.
I chose. At least as much as I think I can.
And, please, no rants about how it's useless anyway because of TV (which I don't watch anyway) or billboard ads which touch you anyway. To those, I'd say: just because you inhale some toxic fumes when you drive means you shouldn't bother avoiding roads because you'll get on one anyway, so you'll get the toxic fumes ? Nope, I'd better be away from those when I'm not on the road. Same argument here.
So, I don't view ads, but I don't particularly have a reason for it.
Another rant: targeted ads.
Lots of people (well, lots of posts I've seen, I will, for the purposes of this post, assume that they're lots of people) seem to say that people do not want ads, but will want targeted ads. Why ? These people seem to assume people want to be drowned in information (if ads can be called that) about things they're more likely to buy. Personally, no. Targetted ads will probably be more effective. That could be better for the individual, but that could be worse. You get less irrelevant stuff dumped on you, but you could also be more easily swayed towards a bad choice.
rant over for this time...
The internet has advertising?
I use an altered hosts file to block some of the advertising related communication that goes on in the background when visiting many ordinary webpages. Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts File diverts known advertising related URLs to the 126.0.0.1 loopback address. I block the advertising related communication partially for privacy reasons but also because it make many of the webpages load more quickly on my 26.4K dial-up internet connection. The modified hosts keeps about 1/3 of the advertisements from appearing in most wepages. The missing advertisemnts appear as empty rectangles. The webpages download more quickly when not downloading the graphics intense advertisements. Broadband and DSL are not available are not yet available where I live and the local telephone lines are only good for 26.4K (even with a 56K modem). I use the modified hosts files on both my Windows computer and my Linux computer.
I also chose the option in my email prgram set to not automatically display the graphics in my email messages. Many of the graphics in the messages are downloaded from links to an IP address. So if I understand correctly, when someone views a piece of spam it is conceivably possible for the spammer to tell when the message has been received by the grapics being downloaded. He would then know that he had used a valid email address and should keep sending you more spam. I the the Linux version of the Thunderbird email program and it has the option of not displaying the graphics on some or all of my email. Most email programs for Windows or Linux have that option. I haven't heard if Outlook has that option or not.
I am not sure how up to ate this info is but, have you heard of webbugs? A Web bug is a graphic on a Web page or in an e-mail message designed to monitor who is reading the page or message. Have you heard of Bugnosis the webbug detector for Windows? I do not use Windows very much anymore so I haven't tried using the program in recent years so don't know much about Bugnosis (or webbugs).
If you go the the websites for DoubleClick or some of the other similar companines that monitor us you will also find that you can choose to have an opt-out cookie downloaded to your browser which stops them from moitoring you.
Why I block ads? They blink and move! It makes me nervous and uncomfortable! Ads that dont blink I usually just leave be unless they're getting in the way. And don't compare it to TV or newspapers. Everyone changes the channel when the commercials start. And in the papers the ads don't blink. There.
I am a subscriber to many sites. I do this all the more as this generally suppresses at least part of the ads.
The only negative side of such a behavior, and it is serious, is I won't subscribe instantly, for one given issue. While this may in the future be partly solved via micropayments (still to be implemented in an economically efficient way), I feel it a real problem, and I don't trust a 'pay-per-view' model will allow today's fluidity.
All I hope is, the cost of hosting will decrease. When both you and me will be able to host large news sites for a few cents, with only authors to be paid ads will be less necessary...
Hervé
Herve S.
because of ads. I felt betrayed by MAD. They turned a black end white plain paper funny magazine into a glossy colored piece of advertisement crap. And what's worse expected me to pay for it.
Now isn't that different from an ad on a free website? I find ads on things I pay for far more offensive than adds on free media. Which is why I'm puzzled that people tend NOT to protest ads in magazines but DO black ads from Internet.
For a long time, like others, I limited my ad-blocking to sites where the ads were intrusive. Specific example being flash ads that opened when I read news stories at Yahoo News and blocked the article I had specifically attempted to visit. Then, I realized that the generic ads at the top of My Yahoo page didn't pertain to me at all. I mean, a portal site with a variety of user specified input where cookies are tracking every headline/movie review/weather forecast/search term I click on and they still can't target ads for me? I still didn't too heavily block ads at other sites I visited which had very specific targets. For instance, a particular web site that provided information about World of Warcraft items and quests was one I thought I could stand to see ads at. But, when they decided the ads I needed to see were for Everquest II they got blocked as well. Thank you, but I didn't go to the Mustang convention to see an add for a Camaro. Now, the very few sites I allow ads from include those where I am even more specifically targetted: for instance, a forum community based around the car I drive has ads from a variety of companies that make or sell parts to fit my car. The other category of ads I allow is at the web-comics I visit where half the time they seem to be ads to sell that ad space, and the other half the time they're for a random product that MAY interest me and are done in the same style of art as the comic itself. Basically, I've raised the level of ad specifity to the same level that I get in magizines. Buying Maximum PC puts me in a pretty specific category of people. So, the fact that they contain ads for Falcon Northwest, Newegg, Monarch PC, etc. doesn't surprise me and is often quite informative. At the same time, Sports Illustrated is generally targetting a different set of people--no I don't need a pickup that gets 15 miles to the gallon--but they're doing so in a fairly unobtrusive way, and ocassionally they do land on something that might interest me--Campbell's soup makes chili now? So, specific and relevant ads = 2 thumbs up. Stylisticly cool ads = 1 thumb up. Completely random and interfering ads = 2 thumbs down. Thus, when it comes to TV I thank God, Al Gore, or whoever else invented it, for TiVo and the ability to buy cool shows like Arrested Development on DVD. Advertisers-you have by and large jumped the shark.
The main reason I started blocking ads is because they slowed down the loading of the website. I don't typically block unobtrusive ads that are hosted by the same site as I'm visiting.
I, did, however go out of my way to find out who was hosting and block that stupid fucking intellitext web stuff. Every article I've ever read that uses that was dog-ass slow in loading and froze my browser while it waited to load this huge ass remote javascript.
One thing I don't block? Google ads. They're unobtrusive and are typically pretty relevent*
*Except in cases where nextag want's to help me find the lowest prices on "linux kernel driver"
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Web ads works by having *my* computer request the picture and *my* computer displaying it with the power of *my* cpu. My browser is configured to just not do that.
Therefore, I'm not blocking ads that "come naturally" to my computer, I'm just not helping them to get there in the first place. Advertisers have no right to my computer, and language should reflect this fact.
So to ask the correct question: "Do you browse ads?" -- "No. Why should I?"
I block all kinds of advertisements.
I block TV advertisements -- when I'm not watching the Beeb, of course -- by getting up and taking a leak, or brewing a cuppa, or skinning a d00b, or doing anything else I can fit into five minutes. And muting the sound for good measure. {If I'm recording the show I'm watching, I'll stick a chapter marker after the break, so that whoever watches it later can just skip straight past the crap.}
I block magazine advertisements by skipping the pages with the adverts on. Though if the truth be told, I am highly selective with buying magazines. I generally prefer just to rotate myself through several newsagents, browsing without purchase though never for long enough to elicit unwanted attention -- it's a skill I taught myself many years ago. The publishers can't be too worried about it anyway; they are obviously losing less money through people like me than the couple of pence per copy it would take just to seal their magazines inside an envelope.
I block internet advertisements using Squid. It's probably overkill if the truth be told, but it's not hard to set up.
As for why I do it, that's easy. I am the sole judge of what I view. I have already decided that if you feel the need to shove your product in my face, then I will do my damnedest to avoid buying it. I do not owe advertisers anything.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
1. why do you block ads?
Because they are intrusive, obnoxious, and most of the time deceiving. Web ads in particular are very annoying.
2. And with what?
I use AdBlock/Flashblock in FireFox, what else?
3. Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
No. I view the advertising industry as a whole, not as a necessity as some people make it seem, but as a parasite, utilized as a cop-out when a business has no real way or reason to sustain itself by its own merits. Sure, sponsoring a product or service is not bad in itself, and I don't really mind an announcement or mention of a corporate sponsor here and there, such as PBS and NPR do. And you know what? it works: I tend to patronize those who support the shows I enjoy. But this is not what Advertising (tm) is in America anymore -- it is our culture of "Commercial Interruptions" and "Product Placements", designed to force-feed the consumer their stream of mindless drivel, in the guise of "content", that I feel so strongly against. For this, I primarily watch either DVDs or TV channels without commercial interruptions, especially those with old "classic" movies, such as TCM or Plex. Or, of course, read a book.
Note that this is primarily an American product. The rest of the world might be catching up, but they are still at a far enough distance. (I hear my German and Belgium friends complain of the 2 or 3 minute commercial breaks they get in the middle of their shows -- a single commercial break! and one that is "built-into" the show, i.e. the show was produced with a midway intermission -- we should be so lucky in America!).
Web ads, by interrupting the flow of text of an article -- and sometimes even interrupting your browsing experience -- and competing against the article itself for your attention, are moving towards the same end: Ads as content, where the latter is made to fit the former and not the other way around.
4. What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Exactly. I don't buy magazines any more because of the ads. I find the signal-to-noise ratio disturbing. I recently took a trip and forgot to bring a book, so I decided to buy a couple of magazines at the newstand in the airport. I barely could get through them -- I felt exhausted just trying to avoid so many ads! (On such occassions, I have a very vivid picture in my mind of my Grandfather, when I was 8 or 9 years old, perusing a Time Magazine, and annoyed, ripping out each ad-only page, cursing all the way. At the end, he was left with only a handful of pages to read. That day he called and cancelled his subscription. I must say that I understand exactly the frustration he felt.)
5. I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site.
I block pop-ups, banners, google-ads, superfluous flash ads, and all manners of advertising from web pages, wholesale. I have accrued a very comprehensive list of regular expressions that will block almost everything out there. When I first arrive at a strange site, its not uncommon for me to spend upwards to 15 minutes checking out the page source and attempting to train AdBlock to get rid of most of its extraneous content, particularly any javascript file that generates the banners, tracking cookies, etc. After I am comfortable with my surroundings, I will start concentrating on the content.
I want to point out that I have no qualms about paying for content. I pay for my software (even open source and free software!), and I pay to access certain sites which I deem worthy of my money. I am also subscribed to newspapers, postal newsletters, and magazines. But the biggest problem I have with paying for content online is the active tracking of your reading habits and the lack of anonymity. You see, once I pay for a newspaper, the company has no idea that I throw away the sports section, read the comics first, check out the finance se
Carol vs. Ghost
Well, since history every generation complained about the stupidity of the next generation. But there is some truth to it. With science, culture and power structures becoming more and more complex only few can derive some common sense that reflects those changes. This is supplemented by the fact that a good education relies heavily on the parent's wealth in many countries (especially USA and Germany) making it more difficult for most to get a clue about how things work. Some escape with alcohol, telenovelas or MMORPGs which make things temporarily easy for them.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Yes, there are many, many stupid people out there and whole branches of trade (if not all) concentrate on them, especially online advertisers.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
I don't like ads in a page, nor in a magazine, nor on tv. This is why I stopped watching tv, i switch to CD when they put one on the radio and yes, i can't stand ads in a magazine i payed for.
It's not only that I like to choose what to buy and when to buy it, the thing is that when I see an ad, I think the magazine is working for them, also the TV, and the radio, not for the listener, reader, etc.
I see the point in google ads, not intrusive and related to the thing, but also I like that google adapts his ads to the content, not the other way around.
DON'T PANIC
Ooops, I made a typographical error when should have said the 127.0.0.1 loopback adress. There were also several other typos, repeated words other gramatical errors. I suppose I should start taking the time to proof read what I write more carefully before I click "submit". I usually type this stuff up very quickly and carelessly. Obviously, I was not an English major.
I can block annoying ads and flickering screens. If I could erase them from the TV I would. Whenever TV goes to commercials I change the channel...
Message from god, Please logoff, rebooting the Universe
Many Internet ads are morally offensive. If I buy a Kiplinger's magazine (for example), I know there's little chance I will be exposed to paranoia ("everything you've ever done on your computer is still there, and you will never delete it without our software"), personal information trawling ("you've just won every device you can't afford at Best Buy if you give us your contact information"), gambling, etc. It's not the quantity of the ads as much as their content.
I quite like print ads, they're usually relevant to the content I'm reading about. They're usually full page, and you can skip past them easily. TV ads I ignore, (read a web page, get a drink, take a leak) unless they're particularly pretty, in which case I watch them wondering how they did it. Web ads, unlike TV and print ads, are rarely pretty, and do disrupt the reading process. They aslo occupy screen real estate that could contain content, and they frequently slow the page load and display process down. I wouldn't buy a magazine formatted like a web page for the simple reason that I find them too disruptive. Especially the annoying flashing ones, and the flashy noisy ones. Adblock is firefox's killer app, and with adblock plus and the filterset G auto-updater, I can just surf in peace. I realise this is a nightmare for marketters, but I'd rather pay for a website than be subjected to ads. I paid IGN, they didn't remove the ads, I simply avoid thier content now. I can get it elsewhere.. So yes, put me down in the "becuase I can" box,
I've blocked ads ever since the very first simple static banner ads. I use whatever utilities are available to do so, currently The Proxomitron, Privoxy and FireFox' AdBlock, in order to get a completely ad-free surfing experience.
:)
Why? - Because I'm an old enough Internet user (since 1988) to remember the good old days where the net held information and just that. No stupid sales pitches (especially no spam) and no irrelevant junk in newsgroups or webpages (when they began around 1992). I want that back and by blocking ads I can almost get there when we're talking about webpages.
I've heard many people whine that blocking ads deprive businesses of income. That's a load of bull! - It all comes down to chosing the right business model. Make your site a paysite or finance it through the real life business. Ads are never truly nessesary. I've run webpages since 1992 and they've all been completely ad-free. Donations or percentages of real life sales (site for downloading own shareware) was used and that was enough. It still is. I even host friends' sites for free because there's enough resources to do that. Yes, here information truly is free...
These days ads are everywhere and they intrude more and more. They've also become more and more stupid ("Your computer is at risk!" - no it isn't, because I patch and use antivirus and antispyware leaps and bounds better than the junk advertised). Drop that business model and get real! - Some of us have had enough a long time ago!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
>why do you block ads?
You are asking me why I block things I do not wish to see?
Advertisements are usually aimed at the lowest common denominator, i.e. idiots. While there certainly are exceptions, they are few and far between.
Most slashdotters will have grown up with TV and radio. And thus are used to being saturated with ads. I did not - no TV, no radio, no colorful magazines. Simply books and now the net.
Thus I am not as used to ads, and I see them as irritating and highly intrusive.
>And with what?
AdBlock works great. Together with my refusal to download Shockwave or Flash, I see hardly any of this garbage. And if I do, a few simple keypresses will assure that I never see it again.
>Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Both are massively irritating. TV ads disturb watching a movie (little experience, I'm afraid; as said, no TV - I watch DVDs on my 21" TFT), while online ads try to take my attention from the data I'm looking for.
Surprisingly, the Google ads don't bother me at all - simple text, and at times even useful.
>What about in a magazine?
Do yourself a favour: take a magazine, and cut all ads from it. See what's left? Nearly nothing. Now take out all articles with hidden ads or agendas in them. Anything left at all? Didn't think so.
If you want to find useful information, look through solid newspapers and the internet. You wish to enjoy some reading, find a good book. Magazines themselves are useless.
And I might add: ads before movies made sure that I hardly go to the cinema anymore (although I used to enjoy it). Paying the equivalent of two DVDs to see a single film with 40 minutes of ads at the begining is simply not worth it.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
I'm on the National and MO no call list. I use MythTV to "pre-watch" all of my TV shows so I can skip ads. I use Firefox adblock. I filter my email using PopMail. Junk mail doesn't even get a glance. The ONLY ads I can't block are the darn ads on the Wal-Mart Radio Network. I work in the cash office at my store and have to listen to that crap 8 hours a day. I think that's more than enough ads in a day. If only there was a way to hack the PA so that I can plug in a stereo and still get PA pages.
What are "ads"?
I began using the internet pretty early. This meant dial-up. The ads were static then, but increased my page loads so much, I often viewed pages without any graphics at all. If I could not use a page effectively without graphics, I didn't bother any further with that page.
Still on dial up, then these blasted animated gifs showed up. This was the last straw for me with ads. I continued to view without graphics.
Moving forward to broadband, i could load a page fast now. Even if it had lots of animated ads. The problem is that I am the type of person who is distracted VERY easily from what I would like to focus on by minor annoyances. This meant that I would read a few words, my eyes would flick over to that stupid animation that just changed. Then I lose where I am in the article. Repeat this a few times, and I'd just get pissed and go back to using pages without graphics -- on broadband!
Now today we have the wonderful adblock. Then I ran into the extension for adblock called Filterset.G. I *STRONGLY* reccommend this. In short, it is a large list of entries for adblock which is maintained and automatically updated on your side. You can also force updates.
I haven't seen it block something it should not have, ever.
How good is it? I can blow out my adblock list, force Filterset.G to update, immediately go to wunderground.com or some other spam-infested site is otherwise useful, and it is COMPLETELY FREE of that BS.
To sum up, I block advertising because it is FUCKING ANNOYING. Even if I am interested in your product, IF YOU ANNOY ME, I WILL DILIBERATELY *AVOID YOUR PRODUCT*. You guys get that through your THICK HEAD? Rephrase: You are pushing ANTI-ADVERTISING to me. Your irritating ad says "avoid this product".
Oh, and another note. Flash ads are the worst. I *NEVER* install any flash plugins SPECIFICALLY because of them. I also am against the concept of flash, so don't bother spewing to me the reasons why it's good. I'm not going to use it. If you can't present it in html, piss off.
The harder you work to get around tools I use to avoid you, the more I will be AGAINST your product.
So fuck off already.
I am not anti-business. I am against being irritated.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
When I was younger I used to buy Popular Science and Popular Mechanics as much for the ads (the small ones in the back) as for the content. The Whole Earth Catalog which I could not have lived without, replaced the need for those ad resources because it targeted a specific group (I was in that group). It opened discovery into companies and tools I would not have come into contact with otherwise. Some were good, some bad. But I had the choice.
Google Ads seem much the same (in spirit anyway) to me. I use them and like the added relevant information that I sometimes use.
What I do not like and refuse to respond to are the large popups or the obviouse advertising campaign by mass marketers. In that sense, I shy away from magazines that have nothing but large overblown ads such as many mens and womens type magazines. The New Yorker being a notable exception here where I like the small as well as the large ads and love the content. Wired has good large ads.
Web Pages with lots of ads are very distracting and usually too busy for me to spend much time in/on.
My wife bought every copy of Brides magazine before we were married. This is a magazine with recycled stories surrounded by thousands of ads. She was only interested in the ads. I think we are talking about information on vertical markets as opposed to blind mailing (spam, tv ads, etc). If I am a roofer and get Roofing Monthy Trade magagine then I want lots of ads. I want to see who has roofing supplies, new technology, etc. I don't want ads about breakfast cereal here. The ads are an important source of information in something I am interested in.
I guess it all boils down to some subjective decision on the individual. Some people I know love junk mail. It's all they ever get and they appreciate it. I would probably find it interesting to see if they have the same feelings about email ads and popups. Who knows....
Why do you think people change the TV channel as soon as the adverts come on? And throw away all the flyers and rubbish that falls out of the paper or magazine. If the adverts were good, which some are, they might work. But clicking on a singing stupid frog? Now THAT's something that will actually make me leave the page, even if it's a good page.
I don't watch TV, so I guess I block those ads too.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
The distracting flashing colors, the stupid musics, lots of flash objects on a page turning the computer slow, the pop-ups, the resizing windows, etc... That's why! Like some have alredy said, non intrusive add servers like google adds are ok, so I don't block them! Any add that I consider too intrusive for the said reasons I block the server from where it's coming.
1. I block ads that block me. If the ad gets in the way, it is an enemy and I kill it. Google Ads, for example, don't get in the way. Pop-ups do - heinously.
... like sending breast implant ads to a man, or viagra ads to a woman. Biggest bitch: my IP indicates that I am not American - so I am going to loathe with deep vengeance any exclusive ad for Americans: NO I don't want your "Mortgage, valid in US only!" etc etc etc. Why do you even BOTHER?????
2. Most ads are so irrelevant to my interests, hobbies, material needs
3. Ads make normal people feel powerless - so we hate them with deep bitter hatred. Ads are an assault on our privacy, our solitude, our personal space. Less is more (see comment about Google Ads).
4. Advertisers don't care about me. They just want to use me as a target audience. I don't care about them - they are assaulting me with their ad.
5. This is war. DEATH TO ADS!
What was the question again?
I am anarch of all I survey.
I block website ads with the build-in pop-up blocker in firefox.
I block website ads with the adblock extension for firefox.
When a TV channel shows ads I change the chanel and come back later.
If I ever recieve ads in the mail they are promptly thrown in the trash.
If a newspaper has too many ads I buy a different one next time.
When I go shopping I make a concious effort to try and *avoid* any products that I have seen ads for and only buy the ones that I have not seen any adverticing for.
I'm using the internet mostly to gather information, not to be entertained.
...." suggestions.
...
Any advertisements that get in the way or distract me from finding that information is counter-productive, so it gets blocked by me (by bye pop-ups, flash-ads and "pay attention to me NOW" -sounds, etc).
As a matter of standard I've disabled Javascript, as it might (stress "might") enhance my browsing experience (show additional information while hovering over a link or image), it's more often than not abused to show more (pop-up/under/etc.) advertisements and/or is used to try to grab info from my computer.
Even parts of simple Google's search-result pages are now on the block-list : I *do not want* to download that tool-bar, and I mostly get quite annoyed by those (more often wrong than right) "did you mean
But my decision to block *every* advertisement came when I heard some advertisement-seller claim that I was *obliged* to look at whatever he wanted to feed me, because it was my own choice to visit the web-page they where on. On my question if he than was not obliged to tell me so *before* I was ambushed by them he did a nice "lets evade that" dance
And lets face it : Most advertisements are not there for us, but are (largely) ment to amke us spend our money on things we do not need. And that's apart from the ones (many, *many* ones)that try to sell us bogus stuff (penile enhancements, evidence-erasers, you name it)
As a result I concluded that as long as a website-owner does not think he should be obliged to warn me that I will be ambushed by it's advertisements (sometimes in such an extend that I cannot even see or reach the sought-for information) I have no obligation to that site (and it's owner) in return.
My program-of-choice for all this blocking is Proxomitron, as I can (and do) create rules for individual sites and even pages (its a match-and-replace by regular expression -filter)
The only magazine I'll buy is adbusters, some might say it has ads in it, but i'd say it has calls to action.
Reason 1: because it's an inter-page ad. You know, the ones that use javascript to make it so that you don't go to the page you were expecting. If you're going to put an ad in there, you'd better be honest about the whole thing.
/etc/hosts to make my system think that the offending systems have IP addresses in the 127.*.*.* netblock.
Reason 2: because the ad server is so slow that loading the rest of the page is massively delayed even over your nice gigabit connection to the network backbone. Cooling my heels waiting for some silly random server to serve up content I don't want just so I can see the content I do want (and which is already downloaded, to add insult to injury) isn't my style.
My preferred method of blocking? Editing
(I also somehow managed to get my browser to not have any Flash support. That suits me just nicely!)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
People talk about download time, irritating animation and flash ads, etc. For me that's secondary. I simply dislike to have my web experience interrupted with distractions. A web page with ads is like having your interesting and involved conversation constantly broken into by a pushy host who keeps shoving food at you. Even if you're hungry, it gets to be annoying.
I think the problem with ads is that they are adversarial. You want one thing, the advertiser wants another, and they try to divert you from your goal. They can try, but with "adblock" I can stop them, so I do.
I suppose that this could be seen - from the perspective of the vendor - as a targeting issue. Advertising directed at people who don't want to buy is wasted. Is there some way to screen out all the non-buyers? This got me thinking: maybe the whole idea of advertising is ass-backward for the 21st century? Rather than struggling to sift out customers from looky-loos, perhaps you can just make it easy for them to find you? Advertising is a phenomenon of information scarcity. If you know who the vendors are - or can find out by searching froogle - then it becomes unnecessary. Could high-quality search make it obsolete?
Maybe with something like Tivo TV gets bearable. And anyway most of the content isn't interesting. They aim for Joe Average, and only Joe Average they get.
I've long advised clients, friends, family members, and anyone I can meet to never ever ever use Flash on their site UNLESS you need it for some very specific use (interactive game, media player) and then it should still be an option.
Recently I did some research and I found that about 20-30% of people don't have Flash installed. Further, as you've pointed out, over 50% of people cannot use Flash correctly to navigate a page. This means if you're a company, roughly two-thirds of your audience are not seeing your content. That makes no business sense whatsoever.
If Flash sites weren't (usually) garishly designed, searchable, easy to print, and had text that you could select and copy, then maybe I wouldn't be so against it.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Maybe the better question is 'does all advertising really work?' Do you buy based on prices, sales, availability, brand loyalty, or clever ads? I for one believe most marketing people don't have a clue. And I'm in marketing.
I block pop-ups, with FireFox, and that's it. I don't really mind the assorted in-page advertisements...except perhaps when they use far too much flash.
There really is not meatspace analogue to pop-up advertising... The assorted adds I run across in TV, radio, and print media are nowhere near that intrusive. I can page by them, completely ignoring them, and not be disturbed at all. Pop-ups, on the other hand, get in your way - that's what they're designed to do. They open up over what you're trying to view and force you to look at them at least long enough to close the window.
Imagine trying to watch TV, or read a magazine, and every few minutes some guy would run in with a poster and hang it in front of your television. I just do not find the delivery method of pop-ups to be acceptable.
If so, then maybe the comments will cause some advertisers (or their ad agency) to change their ways. Let us hope so.
Advertisements are an important part of an efficient marketplace. With out some (the useful ones) how would you know that one of the local grocery stores is having a sale on something that you plan to buy or that your price threashold has been met for item that you wanted but well unwilling to pay for at the old price.
Intrusive ads get blocked. Ads on Slashdot, except for pop-ups do not; someone has to pay.
Because I remember what the web was like without ads. And because I can.
Their insertion was (and still is) inconvenient. Ads on TV and in magazines, by the way, go away on their own. While taking up precious time and realestate, do not jump off the page in front of the content I'm trying to read, disrupt the television's function, or run off into the bathroom while I'm not looking so that I'll have to pay more attention to it later.
Ever see advertiser hunt? It goes like this: Bring tons of ammo, preferably something that scatters all over the place, like shotgun or machine gun. Put on a blindfold. Then shoot, shoot and shoot until you run out of ammo, and then take off the blindfold and see if you have hit something.
Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? I'm running a light-traffic website about cameras, and I (currently) only have Google AdSense, and am trying out Amazon ads. I tested some other adbroker, and they bombarded my audience with stupid loans and mortage ads, they got pulled within days. Google Ads pay for hosting and leave a few extra dollars each month, and that is enough for me, as a publisher.
I think the next step is even more focused ads, why can't I tell the adbrokers what I am interest in, right now I'm looking for a new computer, where are my super offers? I actually have to go out and compare prices and features myself! Advertising should be a service, not an annoyance.
...nothing more. Non-irritating ads I can live with. For me non-irritating means static, not interfering with the page layout, and not loading significantly more quickly than the content I'm actually interested in.
Unfortunately advertisers seem to think that ads have to be animated, take up 90% of the screen space, get in the way as much as possible, then worst of all to appear almost instantly while the actual content takes forever to arrive. If that's their attitude then my attitude is that they can all go and fsck themselves.
So I use Proximodo to filter out all sorts of crap by default, whitelisting good sites. Unfortunately Slashdot ads fail on three counts (animated, interfere with content, appear too quickly) so they stay blocked. As another poster said, Google ads are ok - for me they're mostly irrelevant because I only look at ads when I'm actually shopping for something, but they are static text and appear with the content without disrupting the screen.
And no, I don't buy magazines that are so stuffed with ads that the only way to get around is via the index. For some bizarre reason I prefer to read stuff cover to cover. If the mags were free then fair enough, but a 500 page magazine with about 20 pages of content *cough*computer shopper*cough* is just taking the p*ss.
Even TV ads irritate me, particularly on Sky, where you get 5 minutes of ads every 15 minutes at an elevated volume level, although that wouldn't be so bad if the ads were actually vaguely intelligent/amusing (cf cinema ads which are usually pretty good) and less repetitive*. Adverts are one reason I've completely canned telly. Now TV-free since August 2002!
* Top/tail ads. WTF's that about??? Look, if I didn't want it 30 seconds ago I'm not going to want it now, am I? And if I did it's still not going to make any difference, with the one possible exception of pi**ing me off so much that I buy from your competitor instead. And repetition within an ad that I'm going to see every 10 minutes anyway - that's a guaranteed way of getting onto my "never purchase from the advertiser" list. The only good thing about ads that are laid on really thickly is that it's expensive to do and can't last long.
I don't view them to be any different from TV, billboard, magazing, newspaper, or any other ads.
I don't buy any magazines other than the C/C++ User's Journal, and even that is starting to suck. All of your "popular" magazines are so crammed full of ads, it's just disgusting. One magazine my wife brought home was geared so heavily towards advertising that they put the Table of Contents on several pages, and the first one didn't start until page 20! You had to flip through all the ads to get to the Table of Contents, and then flip through more to continue reading it... and without the Table of Contents, trying to find what you were looking for was impossible given the number of pages that were just plain ads to begin with!
I watch my TV shows by downloading them off the net, commercial free.
I block all Web Ads.
I download music and movies instead of buying them (although more and more movies are simply advertisements with a bit of story around them), mainly because it's the laziest civil disobedience I can muster. Why is it illegal to download music and movies but it is perfectly legal to stage a systematic, heavily researched, concentrated attack on my brain, manipulating me, making me stupider and poorer with no way to get around it? I would have to stop watching TV, Movies, reading papers, opening my eyes while walking along the street, listening to the radio, talking to friends or anyone else that speaks english, etc... you can't get away from it. How on earth is that legal?
The above post appears to be a simple rant. And that's what it is.
This sig used to be really funny...
Simple, isn't it? I can't block ads from my TV, but I CAN block web page ads. I would block TV ads if I could...
At their best, some ads can be as educational and useful as an article in the magazine. Provided full disclosure to differentiate an ad and an article, good ads are welcome.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
It's the animation. I don't care about anything else whatsoever (as long as its decent). Sure, I don't care about the fact that if I was an American, and insane, I could get a credit card from some random company I've never heard of before. But I can live with some small part of my screen saying that, if it only just said it! But no! It goes on and says half a sentence. Then flashes, and says another half a sentence. Then flashes, and has another half-a-sentence. I just wanted to read the text that went around the ad!
Look out!
TV, radio, newspaper,magazine, internet - it doesn't matter the medium, all ads get in the way of what you are interested in in the first place - the content. Ads help pay for the content, but that doesn't mean I have to like them (or pay attention).
I block ads because they are annoying, simple as that. Repeating flashing colors and moving objects in an advertisement makes it extremely distracting when reading text.
One solution is use google popup blocker and for the annoying flash ads, zoom in to the point of obscurity.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I subscribed to Popular Science for a couple of years while I was in college (91-96), and I eventually cancelled the subscription because I tired of all the "blow-in" cards that inevitably came with the rag. To this day, the first thing I do with a new magazine is remove all the cardstock advertisements and recycle them - not unlike blocking the pop-up ads.
Fortunately, magazines have yet to implement flashing and sound in their regular page adverisements, and they typically don't use fluorescent inks for the ads, but if there's a big ad section in my way in a magazine, I still may pull it out. My web ad blocking habits are similar.
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
I block everything that moves, I leave alone everything that doesn't move, unless extremely big. Simple as that.
I block them because I can.
Moving to ADSL in the UK we now pay per gigabyte downloaded. My usage is quite small, and I think a lot of that is down to Adblock!
It was the ads that move over the text of the page just long enough after it having loaded for you to be reading it that cause me to install adblock. Now I've started blocking ads, I find it just makes the web a much nicer place.
The counter example - Google's ads are actually often useful and I quite frequently follow them as well as the search results. We're decorating at the moment, so companies offering the bits we need are just what we're after.
I block ads with firefox's adblock extension, and I stopped my subscription to popular science when in a 42 page magazine it had 27 full pages of ads. ... Not counting the back 5 pages or so that are dedicated to ad space, or half page ads. I also fired back a response to their mailings about giving me another year subscription at a reduced price. I wanted to make sure they knew I got the magazine for the science in it, not for more than half of it being ads.
I block adds because they take up large ammounts of screen real estate. I also block ads because I hate it when they blink or flash at me. It's distracting and I don't want it. I also usually don't want what they are selling most of the time. Google ads do not usually bother me because they aren't flashy and they are usually in a spot that would normally be dead space. If I had a smaller screen resolutioin it may bother me more but as it stands right now I don't mind them.
Because I can, that's why.
It's my computer, I pay (when at home) for the connection, and when I want to buy something, I'll go looking for it.
Before you ask, I don't have cable TV, don't watch broadcast TV (except for Yu-Gi-Oh with my son, and then I turn the sound off on ads), load DVDs with the monitor off and don't turn it on until past the advertising the effing film industry tries to force down my throat, and when I listen to commercial radio, it's generally to symphonies or operas where there's long stretches of music and little advertising.
Junk mail gets either returned to sender or thrown directly into the recycling bins unread, I make use of both federal (because the fines are bigger) and state (because they pay me a bounty) do-not-call lists, and don't wear clothing with manufacturer's brands on them (except for my windbreaker with the 6-color apple with the dent in it).
The aim of an ad is to make you unhappy. The idea is to create a want, to make you feel dissatisfied, to feel that you can't live without a certain product, are ugly without a certain product, are not cool without that product. At the end of the ad, you are supposed to feel worse than before. Now, why should you subject yourself to something that makes you unhappy? What do you think the cumulative effect is on your life? How do you think this effects your children?
Ads burn resources. On a personal and global level, ads destroy resources -- money, paper and especially time -- on a scale that is beyond comprehension. Think of what could be done with the billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and mountains of paper that now go into telling people they just have to get that new five bladed razor, that Brittny ring-tone, or (cough) Windows Vista. How do you think history is going to judge this except as insanity?
Almost all ads are for crap you don't need. "Fight Club" and "No Logo" have spent lots of time on this. Turn on your television and think about which of those things you really need. You can only eat so much food and wear so many clothes. The iPod, of course, is something you need, so that doesn't count, and you can never have read enough books, but for most everything else, we're talking about purely artificial needs. Which takes us back to the first point: You're being made unhappy. And for no reason.
Consumer capitalism is not the only possible form. What Americans consider the normal state of affairs, rampant consumer capitalism with about two-thirds of their GNP based on private consumption, is actually a rarity in the world. Germany, for example, depends on exports for two-thirds of its GNP. This does bring it own set of problems, but Germans are not bombarded with anywhere close to the same number of ads. There are alternatives.
Remember that consumer capitalism was consciously introduced to create artificial needs when the markets when everybody had enough "real" products. The government and industry decided that it was time to start brainwashing the public to buy and buy and buy mindlessly. What this has produced is simply churn, churn that is fueled by ads, sucks up precious resources and as a side effect produces a general feeling of dissatisfaction.
For three generations now, Americans have been told that consumer capitalism is the only viable form and that having 10,000 ads forced in your face everyday is the price everybody has to pay to bring any wealth to the people. Anything else, we are told, is communism. This is bullshit, but as you can see in this discussion, this is what the majority now believes. This majority will protect the very system that makes them unhappy (insert Matrix quote here). So, unless you are Neo, you and I are not going to wean the U.S. off consumer capitalism to a more sane form.
However, you can protect yourself from people whose job is to make you unhappy and dissatisfied. Blocking ads with your browser is a good step. Don't listen to radio (that's what you bought your iPod for, remember). Read books. If you feel you have to watch TV -- beats me why, but okay -- your remote control has a "mute" button. Hit it whenever and ads comes, and talk to the person you are watching TV with. Yes, this will feel strange at first, but you will get over it. And you never know, your partner or friend might turn out to be an interesting person.
I have a free webmail account, as do most people. You know, yahoo.com, hotmail.com, etc. I've given them some personal information, such as my marital status, specifically that I'm married. Probably the most common type of ad I get is for dating services. They come up so often, I've second-guessed myself several times and checked my profile on the site just to be sure they got it right. Yup, right there in front of me - married. What I can't determine is whether they just ignore that information (which would be just dumb) or if they are betting on the rate of infidelity in my demographic, whatever that number is (which would be morally objectionable). In either case, I'm very put off by it. I'd rather give them permission to see what mailing lists I'm on and show me ads relevant to those. J
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
I block ads because I simply don't want to see advertising. Advertising is, for the most part insulting.
I stopped getting a couple of magazines I used to subscribe to because the amount of ads increased to the point the articles were getting lost. I don't have sky television because it's full of ads which interrupt the programming.
Advertising simply pisses me off. If I'm interested in buying something I go out of my way to find out what's on the market, what looks a good buy etc. etc. and I only buy after weighing up what I really want.
And if you have any conception of the psychology being used you'll know it's plain evil with the majority of adverts being designed to prey on the emotional triggers of the gullible and con them into "consuming" crap they neither really want, need, or can afford in response to the false needs set up by the voodoo advert.
Evil, evil, evil voodoo.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
I attempt to block ads whenever or wherever I can!!!
... I haven't even touched on the email and snail-mail ads/spam that I get DAILY! Enough already. What happened to tasteful advertising??? I have absolutely no problem with regular ads on websites or in magazines. I have even been known to watch funny ads on TV. Just please quit making them so obnoxious (sp?).
...
I can't stands ads. I block them in my web browser. The first thing I do with a new magazine is rip out all of the stupid little "subscribe" or other inserts. Whenever a commercial comes on TV I mute it. If they weren't so annoying I would probably pay a little more attention but they are always so "in your face" about it. The internet ones use (BLAH) Flash, the TV ones (despite what people say) are louder than the actual show, the magazine ones fall out when you are on the potty. OH
Now back to your regularly scheduled program
It is, of course, the effect on you, but how it affects your children. Sorry.
Very simple - a lot of ads flash or blink. I have epilepsy, and while flashing doesn't immediately cause a seizure, it can cause vertigo, especially if it's not the thing I'm looking at directly, so a big flashing snake advertising refinancing of home loans is bad for me head.
That's also why I tend to turn the flourescent bulbs over my head off too when I work. A little bit of flicker from them can make me feel very ill.
Strangely enough, I can play most video games just fine.
Popup advertisements, blinking advertisements, attention-grabbing in-line advertisements ... they really really annoy me.
If some sites were to fall over, shrink, become pay-sites, or whatever because we block ads, then I'm prepared to accept that. If I'm then confronted with a pay-site, I will either pay up (if what they offer interests me enough), or I'll go elsewhere.
The only thing I don't want is to have tons of rubbishy adverts stuffed down my connection and up my browser, that I never ever asked for. So I routinely block popups, deny sites the ability to set cookies, and have learned to read around ads blocks.
And what if advertisers and site admins feel I shouldn't be allowed to do that? And find ways of enforcing their point of view? Bug me enough and I'll stop visiting sites that show ads altogether.
I have just about stopped watching television because of all the ads, preferring to get my news updates from the Internet instead. On the Internet however I get as many "channels" as there are sites. There are bound to be one or two that cater to my taste for uncharged add-free (or maybe even add scarce) content.
With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads?
I block ads because they are intrusive and interfere with my ability to read or enjoy websites.
And with what?
Firefox's popup blocker, and the almighty hosts file.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
I skip those, too, when I can, on things I have recorded on DVR. I used to see them as opportunities to use the restroom or grab a snack, but now I have a pause button. Often pausing to use the restroom or grab a drink enables me to skip some ads in the future. My time is controlled by me, and not by the television. This is a Good Thing.
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Yes. In fact, I've stopped reading magazines for the most part. 90% of the information they contain can be obtained through websites a month before that. And for the 10% that's "exclusive", it becomes accessible before the page even hits the stands, usually. If not almost immediately after.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a dead medium. I do read the newspaper occasionally.
I don't know whether it's the fault of nvidia, xorg, linux, fedora (e.g. it's fine on windows), gecko or firefox, but I do know that it is very annoying and is the only reason I went to the trouble of installing an adblocking extension.
This is an easy one. They're annoying. They're large, or blinking, or scrolling, etc. They take my eye away from the content of the page, which is what I'm really interested in. Some take up so much real estate on the page, it's funny to see the page without ads. Some pages look so bare with ads blocked, with only a paragraph or two with the actual content of the page.
It's essentially that same reason why I mute TV commercials, or switch to another channel when ads come on for 4 minutes or so.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
David de Groot Snr Systems Engineer
Oh, they aren't pretty compared to, say, a flower in a vase. But, bless their little hearts, they just sit there. They don't blink. They don't flash. They don't scroll by the top of the screen. They don't periodically hop in front of the content I'm trying to read. They don't even cycle through a handful of images, updating every couple seconds. They just sit there and get noticed when I feel like noticing them.
::blankfaced drool::" It could be golf of all things. My ability to filter out noisy moving sh*t has gone away. So, if I end up at a website with even just a couple animated ads around the edges, I have a supremely hard time reading the article of interest before I've nuked all the ads. That includes that scrolling headline marquee so many news sites seem to love. (I love the Nuke Anything extension to Firefox.)
And that, my friends, is beautiful.
I've actually clicked on some Google Ads purposefully. But I generally won't click on a banner except by accident. Sites that affront me visually like the Vegas Strip are less likely to get a return visit from me.
You see, I don't watch TV regularly. I haven't for a decade or so. Now, when I go to restaurants, when there's a TV on somewhere, my eyes will drift to it: "Moving picture box funny!
So maybe it's just super common among the handful of us that don't numb ourselves on the boob tube every night that really get annoyed by ads. Dunno.
I do know I usually don't bother with the newspaper or most magazines (and get annoyed playing "find the article" in the latter when I do), and I still don't turn on TV. (Who wants to see the same feminine hygene product commercial 3 times in a single commercial break? You do? Ok, I prescribe watching TBS and UPN for the rest of your days.) What magazines I do subscribe to (Mother Jones and Pontiac Enthusiast) have low ad content of high relevance. They get my renewals year upon year. (Heck, I would've never learned of ZZPerformance if it weren't for a tasteful ad in Pontiac Enthusiast, and they've gotten a few thousand $$ from me over the years.)
Ditto with websites. I return to the ones that don't assault me like a gaggle of epileptic clowns, and make my visit worth my while. Google text ads are a tool to enable that, and that my friends is beautiful.
--Joe
Program Intellivision!
I block all Flash ads via Firefox's Flashblock plugin, which only plays flash animations you click on, because Flash ads are extremely annoying, going so far as to include annoying video and sound, or dumb interactive 'games' in the ads.
I block anything from doubleclick.net because of their history of violating the privacy of internet users and trying to tie anonymous web usage back to actual human beings.
I also block a lot of stuff just because I can as a way to assert my right to view and not view whatever I want on my computer. The media companies would have you believe that you must view ads to view their content. The Internet is the first medium in which the ads a user sees can actually be recorded, and frankly advertisers aren't liking what they're finding, which is that most people just don't pay attention to most ads unless they're extremely targeted. Fortunately new technologies are making it easier to generate really targeted ads without violating anyone's privacy.
I also block many ads because they're simply ugly.
rooooar
I use both Firefox's Adblocker and Norton Internet Security. These are very effective together to the point that I am often surprised when I visit familiar sites from other computers and see all the ads that are usually left out on mine. I use these things because I feel I'm responsibile enough to research products that I want to buy and I don't need corporations screaming at me (in the literal and figurative senses) all day long. When I read magazines, I find myself placing my hands over the most prominent and annoying ads on the page. And if my wife woud let me, I'd put duct tape over the lower quarter of my TV screen so these companies couldn't advertise to me as I'm watching a show. But that's what I like about the internet. We, the users, have more control. I can choose to ads on websites if I want, just as I can choose to peruse my junk email folder if I want. I don't hate advertising altogether, I just hate being advertised at all day, every day.
I don't surf the web so that I can read ads and spend money. I surf to read news, tech tips, jokes, etc. I buy what I need when I need it, and when I need it I go to the store to get it, then get the hell out of the store. I'm a man, and shopping doesn't thrill me. No kind of ad will never be able to change that.
I don't view internet ads any differently from magazine ads or TV ads. Basically, ads don't make me go buy things and I find them annoying. With magazines, the first thing I do is hold it over the trash can and shake the hell out of it to get rid of the multiple subscription sign-up inserts. Then I just ignore the ads as I read. Some magazines are almost nothing but ads (EE Times comes to mind), so I don't bother with them at all. If it's too much hassle to differentiate the ads from the content they can kiss my ass. I occasionally read newspaper ads, but only because I'm looking for something specific. For instance, this weekend I bought a nice compound bow I saw advertised in the paper. It's not because the ad attracted me, it's because I was looking for ads with compound bows in them. If deer season (for bows)didn't start this month I wouldn't be looking.
I ignore TV ads as well. Commercial breaks are for visits to the toilet, channel surfing, refilling my drink, or just a good opportunity to turn off the TV. Marketeers stupidly think that they can sell anything if their ads are slick enough, but the fact is, if I'm not actively looking for a particular item I ignore or block their ads.
I will block any ad that moves, flashes, blinks, or is otherwise animated, unless it does its thing, then becomes static. Ads that delay page loads will also get blocked. I fairly frequently click through on relevant ads, if they don't get blocked. I even occasionally buy stuff, based on ads. If they make it hard for me to read the site I'm trying to read, they go bye-bye.
I look at web ads more or less the same way I look at TV and print ads: as long as they're not obnoxious, or completely unrelated to the content that got me there, I'm all in favor of them. TV ads are a virtual wasteland, and there are too many of them. The fact that TV ads can't really be targeted to individuals is one of the reasons that I think TV will die relatively quickly. Print ads are more self-targeting, since most magazines are fairly subject-specific.
Frankly, the only reason I still buy newspapers at all is that you can't get local ads any other way. That's right I buy newspapers FOR the ads. The content is largely irrelevant, especially when you consider the pathetic quality of reportage in the local rag.
Q: "..why do you block ads?" .. This way I only see commercials on sites where the content is good enough to warrant the extra download.
A: I make an evaluation after having read the page. If I think the page was good/worthwhile, I might reload the page to show some of the ads (non-flash). In 2 occasions (over some 10 years) I've actually clicked on a banner to give some support to the site. I wish micropayments were here. Anyhoo
I used to see tons of webpages (I work in research), where the content are the ads and a few paragraphs of text. I refuse to support that, and that's one of the reasons I now do it the other way around.
I do not block Google ads. I think it's the 'right idea': nonintrusive, mostly relevant, and could help support the site a bit.
Flash content is practically always blocked, the exception being on certain news sites (like BBC) where they sometimes use flash for interactive descriptions. I can then click the little 'flash' checkbox on and reload the page. Images are set to non-repeating etc (tweaked about:config) - when I see them.
On rare occasions I have left JS on, only to be annoyed by 'ads' later (cnet is a good example - their text is messed up (not wrapped properly around images), and they show a big black block in the middle, which I suppose should be an ad). I quickly disable JS again and reload the page in order to be able to read (most of) it.
Q: "And with what?"
A: Mostly using Firefox and PrefBar. I browse with only colors and images on, Javascript and flash disabled. IF a site requires JS, it might get it (or I might move on). ZoneAlarm Pro also takes care of referrers, ads and vbscripts etc. I also have AdBlock installed, but haven't used it in ages. Images are only loading from the original website (firefox setting).
I am prompted for cookies every time (by choice), and permanently allow them for my top sites. If I think it might be relevant to the site in question, I will allow them for this session only. Otherwise the default is to deny all cookies.
AdAware, Spybot, and a very short history takes care of any leftovers once a week. Although I run Windows, I've never had a problem with viruses (thanks AVG!), spyware or anything like that.
Q: "Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads? "
A: Yes, they're usually much more intrusive. In Europe, commercials are mostly between programs, although on some channels there's one commercial break within the program. That's when you refill your coffee/tea etc.
When I'm trying to read something the author wanted to show me (typically by submitting it to somewhere like diggs, cnet or slashdot), they should NOT interrupt me. Or even worse, like CNN (I do try to get 'other point of views', but mostly stay with good sources like the BBC). You click on a video link, and the result is an Ad for some US company or service. I did that twice before I stopped trying to see if their video feeds was worth anything.
Q: "What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many? "
A: I don't buy magazines or newspapers anymore, it's mostly junk and ads. I do read the free newspapers, but 'skip' the ads. I can tolerate the ads to get a printed medium that must've cost some money for free, but I still don't read them. I no longer care, nor do I find it immoral in any way.
There are some magazines that I do buy before I fly - like Scientific American. I'm sure there are some ads in it, but don't actually recall. There's certainly plenty of content for the price.
Q: "I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
A: I haven't seen an unwanted popup - on my own system - in years. I think the current generation of popupblockers is 'good enough' - they can get around it using Flash, but since that's mostly disabled on my system, I do not have that problem.
Sometimes I use other peoples systems, or watch TV with them, and I'm just a
After all, how do you know that he's gay or that he isn't a masochist? I question the assumptions that underly your suggested method of punishment.
Now coating various parts of his body in peanut butter and honey and strapping him to a fire ant hill and later letting a few dobermen loose, that could be interesting.
Program Intellivision!
Not only will I not click on ads I see on webpages, I will actively avoid a company so sleazy as to advertise in this fashion.
I block advertising when I can as a service to the companies which are doing the advertising. I also do it because advertising sticks out of a webpage like a cancer, and seeing a webpage the way the designer intended before revenue became an issue is aesthetically pleasing to me.
It's been a long time.
I quit watching TV somewhere around 1995 for the ads. I buy dvd's and use thepiratebay to watch stuff without ads.
:)
I don't install flash, and i rarely have the computerspeakers powered on.
And i block images for all websites, unless they are in my whitelist.
I also get annoyed by all those 'informational' magazines and leaflets that are dropped in my snailmail.
yes, even street ads annoy me.
In short, i wish there were no ads at all in this world, only correct information.
cheers,
pol
I block ads because I'm paying for the net connection. I see pushing ads in the same way I see telemarketing calls I'd receive over the phone. I don't want them.
I use Firefox and the AdBlock extension. In addition, I target most of the ad sites to 0.0.0.0 in my hosts file.
My problem with ads is twofold:
1. These bastards are using a channel that I pay for to send me garbage that I don't want. I don't pay for the net for their purposes, I pay for mine.
2. Intrusive ads, especially sound enabled ads or animated flash ads are infuriating. When there are two flash ads per page, my browser locks up. Sound-enabled ads will blare out at top volume with no warning, and you have to look for the controls to stop them. I don't want to keep my sound turned off. These damn things have tipped my wife off to the fact that I'm browsing instead of doing yard work way too often.
When it comes to web advertising, I don't generally mind the stuff that's similar to print - the non animated ads that don't cover up the actual content. Animated GIFs and flash ads, on the other hand, are destroyed with extreme prejudice by a combination of flashblock and nuke anything. I hate trying to read while something flickers on the edge of the screen.
OK, maybe that was 5c.
[javac] 100 errors
here. It starts playing sound effects whenever you hover over it.
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Hmmm, after scanning pages of comments, I didn't see Privoxy mentioned. One installation of Privoxy saves mutliple concurrent users from bleeding eyes.
1. too much in your face attidude 2. annoying, in the way 3. Some mazines I DO NOT buy because 3/4 of it is ads. Firefox's AdBLock is my savior
I only block the adds that are too distracting. The flashing ones are added to my blocked list (can't wait for flashBlock to become more mature - then watchout Mr. Blinking G.W. Bush Add). And I actually like the adds in most magazines, of course i have a choice which ones i spend time reading. Ads have actually helped me many times find a better product or retailer that i've never known about.
Could it be that many of them are obnoxious, popping up right in front of what I'm trying to read? Or have a bunch of whirling, blinking, flashing crap that's distracting as hell? Or perhaps it's the loud music? Or maybe the total lack of context? Or maybe just general bad taste. Gee; I just can't make up my mind. . . .
Regards;
Well, I guess it could be because of the animated ones that cover up the actual page I'm trying to look at, or flash at 30Hz giving me a headache, or make really loud noises out of my speakers, or make the pages take forever to load, or... I could go on, but what's the point? Simple, relevant, unobtrusive ads like Google uses don't get blocked. In fact, they even get CLICKED. Every now and then, they even result in a purchase. Unfortunately, since I do most of my ad-blocking via my HOSTS file, a lot of the acceptable ads have to get thrown out with the garbage. That's not my fault, though. The advertising companies (and their clients) have no one to blame but themselves.
Because I can.
I can't block TV ads, so I watch the BBC, or use Bitorrent for TV.
I can partially block telephone spam, so I do that, and I attempt to waste the time of phone-spammers who get through my phone-blocks. Then I report them.
I can fully block email spam using a challenge-response system so I do that.
I can partially block web-advertising using Firefox extensions, so I do that wherever possible.
I can't block advertising hoardings and posters, brandnames on clothes and products or the Goodyear blimp, so I just put up with those. (although I never wear any item of clothing with a visible brand-name myself).
See any theme here? - If I want a product, I will look for it.
I block ads because quite frankly they're a pain in the arse, insulting to my intelligence, and massively dishonest. On the web I find them highly offensive, as they tend to be flashing, beeping, or otherwise trying to divert my attention and give me ADD.
In magazines I just blank 'em out... skip right over them. Really, anyone who pays for ad space in a magazine just isn't getting through to me. I'm sure at some basic subconsious level it builds name or brand recognition in me, but I certainly couldn't tell you any specifics of what was being advertised, it's selling points, etc. It's just dead space to me. Also, no, I won't buy a magazine with too many adverts.
I tend to find, for example, that American magazines have a shocking amount of adverts in them (I'm a Brit).. I seem to remember Electronic Gamer Monthly having what appeared to be 5 adverts for every 1 page of content (doubtless exaggeration, but it felt that way)
Also, with the TV.. whenever adverts come on, I mute the sound.. and usually take that time as an opportunity to check the TV listings on teletext, or go make a cup of tea or something. Basically, whatever they're trying to tell me, I don't want to hear it.
So you might be wondering, why am I so hostile to adverts and advertising in general? after all, isn't it possible I'm shooting myself in the foot here? The point of advertising generally speaking is to inform me of products and services which might benefit me in some way.
Well, that would be all fine and good, if they were responsible and honest about it. But they aren't. The overwhelming majority of adverts are so completely full of crap as to be thoroughly insulting. Once in a while I'll watch one, just to remind myself why I don't.
The last time I did this - and this was one picked totally at random, just the first ad I happened to see - it went something like this:
Boy playing football at what was obviously a school game.. scores the winning goal. Woman - obviously his mother - comes over to him and gives him a piece of brandname chocolate. Nothing is said, but a subtitle appears: "You're a great son, son."
Boy then breaks off half of the piece he's been handed and gives it back to her. Subtitle: "You're a great dad, mum."
So there you have it. Single mum? Give your kid our chocolate and he'll love you more than that stinking ratbastard father of his. Plus, chocolate is a suitable substitute for conversation.
And don't even get me started on car insurance or home loans ads.....
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
I have a 500mhz G3 ibook. It works great for webbrowsing, X11, and pretty much everything else I care about. The only thing that brings it to its knees is flash. Flash ads are the spawn of the devil. That's why I block them.
I use Ad-Block to block ads because all they do is flash random retarded messages (such as "free smileys!!!!"). Not to mention that some flash so much, with some many colors that my eyes start twitching, so I block just about all ads I can find from their source so I don't have to deal with them. Also many ads deform web pages.
Most television or movie ads these days are designed to subltly influence your perspective on things. For example, there's a psychological princicple that if you have a neutral opinion about coke, then being exposed to more and more instances of coke will make you like it more. It's true. I know what internet ads usually aren't as subltly coercive as TV ads. For example, there's that stupid coca-cola ad where the guy's singing about buying the world a coke. As if coke would ever be in anyway connected to a youth-driven grassroots peace capmaign.
I guess what I'm saying is I hate the idea of being subtly manipulated. I something designed to sneak its way into my psyche or grab my attention and convince me to buy shit I never planned to. So I block ads on principle. You could say people need ad revenue to stay afloat, but I don't car. And you could say I'm being way too paranoid, and whereas thay may be true, I can't just turn that paranoia off.
They skip, and blink, and make noise! I'm trying to read here!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I am frankly bewildered that advertizers might object to this behavior. I ask for a carrot, you give me a potato chip and a carrot and object when I turn my nose up at the potato chip. If I had wanted a potato chip, I would have ASKED for one. If advertizers want to suceed on the internet, they need to learn to fill needs that users have, not continue to try to create needs users did not know they had.
-
Strange, but I find myself in a position to speak from the other perspective for the first time in my life. I hate advertising. Hate, hate, hate it. I have stopped watching TV because of those annoying banners along the bottom of the programs that they run now. I stopped buying magazines and stopped listening to radio years ago because of too many ads. Yet now I'm building up an interactive marketing division within one of the largest advertising agencies in the world.
What I am finding is that most of the people who work there hate the annoying ads as much as everyone replying to this post. They are constantly focused instead on creating something that's cool that they wouldn't mind watching, i.e. entertaining in some way. But we're slowly trying to train them, almost all of whom come from the traditional print, TV and radio world, that on the Internet in order to be successful an ad either has to be immediately entertaining or relevant/useful. People fled other media because they got to be too damn annoying. The options available to them on the Internet have multiplied exponentially, and if you don't stick to those two guidelines you've lost them, and more importantly, wasted your marketing budget.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I never see ads. Except Google's, since I have Gmail, which is also fine with me. It's pretty simple: - get Firefox - get the Adblock and Flashblock extensions. - use a hosts file too; just in case you ever need to fire up IE.
I too initially started blocking ads (at the time with a junkbuster proxy) because many of the ad servers were just too damned slow. This meant that my browser would block waiting for an ad to load, and the actual content of the page would be delayed in loading. Very, very annoying.
Of course any time I see an ad now, given I'm used to them being blocked (with AdBlock these days) I find them annoying to see at all, as they only distract (by design) from the main page, especially if animated in anyway.
And then there's the point that the chances of my actually ever clicking on any ad are so vanishingly small that I'm actually saving the ad servers some amount of bandwidth money that would have been wasted.
Mod article down, -1 Flamebait.
I find it increadibly hard to read an article when the ads floating in it are moving. I keep losing my place in the article. Either I block it, or leave.
Have you tried flipping through a magazine lately?
Many ads are on different heavier paper than the content. The magazine falls open to ads, not content, when you thumb through it. Trying to flip to content pages is slowed as you navigate the stiff paper ads that are constantly stopping your thumbing -- pop-ups by any other name are still pop-ups.
Page numbers are often obfuscated/left out to slow down your thumbing and get, you guessed it, more ad views as you search for content.
The subscription cards falling from the magazine force you to pay attention to them, and not the content. Clever, really, and even though it is the subject of lampoon and ridicule in many movies, mags STILL use this arcane practice. Another pop-up.
The ads are more and more trying to look like content so you stop and view them instead of actual content. Evilness from both sides.
Actual obscuring is occuring. A new ad trend I've seen is the "post-it" note ad. Literally a post-it note over prime content. All you have to do is peel it off, but that means you are now responsible for disposing of the ad -- again taking your attention away from the content. A pop-up yet again.
Tables of contents are often buried several ad pages in. Thats right, even the treasure map to the actual content is hard to find.
National Geographic has it right. I don't subscribe, but over the decades I have always been able to pick up an issue and know that the table of contents will be within the first 2 or 3 pages, the ads will follow, and the entire remainder of the publication will be content (except the back cover). I can skip ads if I want, or peruse them at my convenience, not the advertisers.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
To whatever marketing consultant posed this question - the parent gets it in a nutshell one you need to read. I block flashing/moving ads. I block large ads. I don't go quite so far as to block ads that don't fit the colour scheme, but I just might start.
/. for a year before I decided to check out one of those thinkgeek ads (and glad I finally did). If you get blocked, you won't have that chance, even if you get them to look over at "that damned flashy thing" the first time it loads. It's just another annoying ad of many. On sites like this especially - where viewers are coming day after day, month after month - you will want to design many different ads promoting different aspects of your business/product. Only after a proper gestation period will the viewers begin to consider the product.
For ad designers - many ads only make it to the viewer's brain after 20 or 30 page hits. I was on
For site owners - don't alienate customers with your ads. It doesn't even need to be said that the flying-across-the-screen-close- now-or-I-block-the-article ads are a disservice to your customers. I (and others here) have stopped going to entire websites specifically because of their ads that are designed to get around the blocker-of-the-day. Ad-blockers aren't the root of the problem - the sheer disrespect for the page viewers is.
Another quick note for advertisers - I *always* de-animate my gifs, so make sure all your info is on the first frame. Even better, don't animate - you risk blockage.
Last post!
First, I block ALL animated ads, period. When I'm reading, I do not need a moving ad to distract me, and annoying me or anyone is one fast way of loosing a customer.
#2 I dont' block all ads. On our local BBS, I keep all ads going, for 1, they arn't right in front of me, but on the top, and sides where they don't annoy me. But also I click on them, for I know the money is going locally. With the way companies are shipping all our jobs overseas, I won't support any big company anymore, unless I specifically know the jobs are giving to us, not some cheap labor overseas.
#3 What blocker do I use? Firefox's built in pop up/under blocker, and adblock to get rid of SWF ads. I block a lot of domains like doubleclick too. If too many pop up/under ads start getting though, then I'll get a 3rd party blocker for them. Aside from animated ads, Pop U/U ads are ones I refuse to click on, because they annoy me.
KNow ones I won't block? Text ads. Small, unobtrusive, and at times they do have soemthing I'm interested in.
So if your interested in selling to me, use text ads, and from companies that have their jobs *here*.
Kevin C. Redden
I only use a pop-up blocker and thats because most sites I visit throw an ad up in front of what I am reading. Its intrusive and annoying. I generally do not block ads on the page, nor do I even look at them. Those types of ads are completely ineffective to me as I am able to just ignore them completely. I'm not sure what method would be more effective, but it certainly is not pop-ups/unders or embedded ads. Trev
I support the right to arm bears.
I ignore other media ads as well. Magazine ads? I simply flip the page, I don't read the ads. Plus with most magazines I automatically flip 20 or 30 pages into the magazine to get to the 1st article - passing the ads in the front, the masthead of the magazine, and most of the time the letter from the editor. As far as TV I thank God for TiVo. I will usualy totaly time-shift an entire program so I can simply pass by the commercials. If the commercial looks amusing (or for a product I am interested in) I will rewind and watch the commercial, however 95% of commercials get skipped. I stopped listening to the radio because of ads. I got a 6-disk changer in my car and happily load up my CD collection instead of listening to the banter of morning DJs.
You fools! do not answer this question! Your answers will be used my the marketers to create more ads!
This is the last place on earth ANYONE should ask why advertising is blocked.
.......
I hope someday the technology will be created to barrage the twisted little minds of these marketing pimps, AND the media executives who enabled them, for eternity with their own tripe. That special room BEYOND "he double toothpicks"
Dear DoubleClick Survey Group,
I'd rather not respond to your marketing survey.
Love
-hkhito
[ Incidentally, it is amazing, simply amazing, that the entire population of slashdot was just duped into filling out, at great length and with surprising honesty and detail, a marketing habits survey that will immediately be devoured by whichever clever marketing company thought up this little experiment. Ok, well, maybe its not amazing, just sad, further proof of slashdot's decline. ]
If I want to buy something, I'll go looking for it. Granted advertisements sometimes give me a heads up, but most of the time, I'm not online to make a purchase. If I was, I might turn off ad blocking.
Why do you block ads on webistes?
So I don't have to see them.
Why do you filter out commercials on your DVR?
So I don't have to see them.
This really should have involved research grants.
Some settling may occur during posting.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
I have 4 computers at home (2 windows, 2 linux), the one I use as my internet sharing server is a little p166 (32mb ram) chugging happily away with a linux distro http://www.ipcop.org/ with a little bit of help in filling my /etc/hosts file in sites to block Mike Skallas' Ad blocking hosts file as well as my own little shortlist of unwanted websites.
having a seperate computer as a firewall helps prevent a lot of spyware crap from raping my net connection with unneccesary data and prevent infection from easy exploits.
Combined with the fact I use firefox http://www.mozilla.org/ I get a pretty good ad-reduced experience. And if I want to kill a lot of adverts off when going for a browse onto possibly dodgy websites (be it crappy homepages, dodgy services, and porn [for those of you who still don't have girlfriends!]) depending on what I'm doing I'll kill client side scripting (Java/Javascript) to take things one step further.
As well as running "Spybot" occasionally and doing the odd "free" virus scan from a couple of antivirus websites. my net experience has been reclaimed to an acceptable level on a low budget.
If I'm feeling really paranoid I'll boot up my normal windows machine with knoppix instead of windows so I can go carefree onto any website without fucking it up with windows-targeted spyware
Oh yeah, my homepage is colinnashonline.com for those who are bored
My dad installed a mute button in our television in 1964, just so we wouldn't have to listen to the commercials.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Yes. Food magazines are practically impossible to read. I have a huge collection of cookbooks, but I don't buy recipe magazines because the ads make it too time-consuming to determine if an issue is worth picking up.
I don't spend much time blocking ads on the web, though. If it isn't easy and obvious what I need to do to block the ad's server, I'll just stop reading that web site.
JerryI hate all forms of advertisements, I don;t watch Television, haven't for over a year, because I was just so sick of commercials. I cancel mag subscriptions because they are well over 35% (easily) ad space. I've never listened to the radio because of all the ads in all the forms of media, radio ads are the worst bit of obnoxious filth that only appeals to the lowest dregs of society.
The only ads that don't really bother me, are the ones in the newspaper, and google. The former arrive generally in catalog form, toward the middle of the paper, and are easily bypassed. And yes, I do look at them, as they often tip me off to cheap items I am in need of. Google ads are the digital equivelent, as they are very unobtrusive, and often useless. Unlike most web ads which are shotgunned out, hoping that 1 in 100 visitors finds it relevent to them, and that maybe 1/100 of those people actually click the fucker.
But one form of web ad needs to be fucking killed. Those flash ads that say "Kill Osama, get a laptop!" or "Throw a touchdown pass and get an XBOX!" For starters, they are frackin' huge. I did not buy a cable modem to spend all the bandwidth downloading needlessly huge ads that are never relevent that will spike the fuck out of my cpu usage, and bring my lsptop to a crawl anytime I am on battery power. Yes, my laptop steps down noticeably when I am not on AC power, and hey guess what? Those ads are not cpu friendly.
Fuck marketers and their belief that the world is their billboard. Sometimes, I just want to see trees.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
...I can say that DoubleClick *tried* to be what Google is doing, but on a more massive scale. Google only has to worry about Google...they scan the mail for certain words and put up unobtrusive ads on the side. Same with searches. All that works, and works well, because it's entirely Google's sandbox.
DoubleClick tried to do the same thing, but across any website that would carry a DoubleClick banner. People who used DART (the software for planning ads) could pick the target audience, down to something like "women in NYC who like dogs". The software was sophisticated enough to know what sites had something to do with dogs, or NYC, or even women, but the fact is that pretty much everything was out of context; there really wasn't any way to know that the woman had clicked on "Dog Show" taking place in Union Square from some NYC-based site. They tried using cookies, tracker gifs, etc., but ultimately it just wasn't very feasable.
The *real* problem was that particular targeted advertising was so damn expensive compared to just running a million impressions for 50 bucks. Sure your ad might show up in an inappropriate place, but so what..it was cheap. I think that is what turned a lot of people off (and me too) was that I was seeing inappropriate and more and more flashy stuff (I learned to *hate* animated gifs) just to try to grab your attention. It's no wonder that people block their sites all the time (including me)...I don't want to be bombared by ads that are irrelevant and increasingly more shrill trying to get my attention.
Plenty of others have covered reasons why one might block ads. Not all of the reasons are my reasons, but I don't feel the need to add another voice to that chorus. To cover the question of magazines, I avoid buying magazines because my life is plenty cluttered enough. It has nothing to do with advertising. Receiving a wad of paper on a regular basis increases, rather than decreases, clutter. How I block ads is probably more interesting. There are three major ways: 1) Firefox's popup prevention, 2) the flashblock Firefox extension, 3) the Platypus extension, which relies on the GreaseMonkey extension, and 4) privoxy. Of these, privoxy really does the most work. The following is my adblock.action file:
It isn't complete, but if I start being annoyed by a bunch of ads on some site then I'll Copy image location and add the site to my adblock.action so it's getting better every time. You'll also notice that Google ads are not blocked; this is because they haven't annoyed me (yet?).
But wait, there's more! I also filter at least one RSS feed with privoxy. It's mostly because of pagination annoyances, but it has the side effect of avoiding ads. I subscribe to a feed from my university newspaper, but I alter the links it provides to the "printer friendly" versions of the pages. These pages are, most importantly, the complete article in simply formatted text, but they are also free of ads.
I also use Platypus more to alleviate formatting annoyances than for ad-blocking, but it has the side effect of blocking a lot of ads. The Isolate and Relax commands are my friends. I don't like reading text in a long, skinny column. I have a lot of screen real estate, and I like to use it. I also like to read content in large fonts. Why would I want my text trapped between sidebars of non-content, especially when the width of the entire page, sidebars and all, does not stretch across my screen? Granted, the rough width limit for comfortable reading (as I remember from my days on the middle school newspaper) is 2.5 alphabets, but I'd rather increase the font size until my window width is roughly that than tolerate a narrow column of small text. A (very) few websites define their column widths in ems or exes so they change size with the font, and for those I have no need to strip away sidebars and the like.
As long as I've been conscious about the whole shittyness of business, I've not once bought a product based on advertisements. I believe that advertisements, in the very general case, is made for at least one of the following reasons:
For any useful thing selling at above ~$100, you can use the 'net to find dozens of reviews. Combined with a bit of common sense, those should be plenty to find out what you should buy.
When magazine ads start incorporating animation and ask me to punch out a monkey to win a playstation 3, then I'll worry about how to get Privoxy installed on a magazine.
GameSpy is one of the worst offeders of this tactic. Which is unfortunate since my online game of choice for years has been Descent 3 and PlanetDescent is hosted by GameSpy. Over the past year, I have noticed that more and more, when I visit PlanetDescent that my CPU gets maxed out and its always certain adds from GameSpy doing it. More over, GameSpy has taken to putting up a splash add when you visit PlanetDescents top page. And the splash add will not go away untill you let GameSpy set a cookie.
Well recently this behaviour made me blow my stack. Even though Ive chatted with the maintainer of PlanetDescent a couple times and kind of like the guy, I basically told them to SHOVE IT right on thier forums and told them to remove my account.
I disslike having to use add blockers and havent up until this point, but I have been pushed over my threshold as another /.er already put it.
All this is very unfortunate because Descent 3 is still to this day a great game and there are still quite a few who play it online. But that number is slowly but surely dwindling. And behaviour like this by a major clearinghouse website for all things Descent, only serves to excelerate that trend.
*sigh* I guess my favorite online game truely is dead or on its death bed, and it seems that no game developer is going to come out with another 6DOF any time soon.
But PlanetDescent and GameSpy can GTH for all I care.
Why, because they can get a good impression of the coming season's fashions after browsing those 93 pages of advertisements? There is more than one way to use a magazine, my far-too-sheltered geek friend.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Unfortunately, there is nothing like this for anything but Firefox, but Nuke Anything works wonders in cases like this. You can get rid of floating ads, too. (And quickly clean up pages for printing. Why waste ink on ads?)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
the ads that annoy me, and cause me to use a filter, are ads that have movement -- which of course is almost all of them. for the most part, i go to webpages wanting to read text, which i am absolutely unable to do if there is movement on the screen, drawing my eyes away from the point of text i am reading. i have little or no beef with ads don't blink, flash, or move.
for filtering i use ad_filter.css, which i find on the internet, and update from time to time. i wish i had something better. i tried Pith Helmet but that was a little too much, filtered a little too hard, and cost money, and was annoying. what i really want is the ability to right click on an image and choose "do not load any images from this location" which would mean from the directory of that image (didn't Mozilla used to do that?). also, even though it's only a three-step process to turn Flash on and off, i wish it were a one-step process, maybe one with a menu command.
and the answer to the other question is no, i don't think of internet ads as different from ads on tv and radio: i mute television commercials, and i only listen to radio from NPR, other than that i listen to music on my computer/stereo. in fact, i really wish that in addition to mute, that televisions had a feature to only update the image on the screen every, say, one second, so in addition to blocking the blaring noise, i could block the blaring, flashing television ads. (can i patent that idea? i bet i could.)
magazine ads are not the same because they don't move. it is far more difficut to make an annoying magazine ad. that said, i *do* refuse to pay for magazines which have too many ads -- above some difficult-to-define threshold. i figure that if there are THAT many ads, the 'zine should be free; but there must be so many ads that i have a hard time finding the actual content (you know, like all those three-hundred-page women's mags with two-hundred-fifty pages of ads), at which point they become like flashing webpage ads, keeping me from enjoyment of the content.
furthermore, and this wasn't in the question, i refuse to pay for clothing with brand names on it. well, for the most part. i don't beef clothes with brand names, but i figure those clothes should at LEAST be free, if not the companies should pay me to wear it. i mean, billboard companies don't pay advertisers to put up ads -- the money flows the other way; why would i pay to advertise someone else's product? that said, i love my Sambas, and all my concert t-shirts are advertisements, of a sort; and i don't anymore cut off the labels from my jeans, as i used to.
"With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? And with what?"
Because many of the ads are annoying, intrusive and irrelevant. I mainly use my browser's pop-up and ad-blocking tools.
"Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?"
Yes- I actively searched out the sites I read. And that's one of the key differences- I *read* a web site, I *watch* the TV. I have far more choices of what to read online than what I can watch on TV, as well as more control.
"What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?"
If the magazine is more advertising than content, yes, I will not purchase it. If I buy or subscribe to a magazine, I'm paying for interesting content, not to see mostly irrelevant advertising.
"I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
I have yet to have problems with using a pop-up blocker. There are a few sites that use pop-ups when logging in or other situations, but it's easy enough to set my browser to allow pop-ups from that specific site. I can't recall the last time I had to deal with pop-up ads.
The dry fish swims alone.
I wish more web pages were simple some what like good ole /. I can read all I want at work and it looks like I am busy. I have people drop by saying you work so hard take a break. Yeah but I read pleanty to keep Up to Date. If /. had an alternative viwer capablility like lynx I would use that. I am only reading text. Big banner images makes it look like I am (actually) goofing off. Therefore, the less adds people see me seeing the better off I am. I use google for the same reason, small text adds makes it look like I am reading real stuff.
I think the huge amount of immigrants were tolerated like that. Sure some of the so called intellectuals just LOVED it all. Although I am one of those cynical people who happens to note that none of these so called intellectuals happen to live in immigrant neighbourhoods. Or even travel there.
Same as with ads, only a tiny percentage of people enjoy ads. For most of us, certainly myself they were never more then a necesarry evil, something to be tolerated because there really wasn't an alternative.
Just as there was no way to vote against immigrants before Pim Fortuyn arrived there was no way to not watch commercials before the arrival of tv torrents. Or indeed before the internet gave an alternative way to vegetate in front of a glowtube.
I think in both cases the irritation was tolerated until a certain treshhold was reached. Then when that was broken it just all burst out.
As to you calling Pim Fortuyn a right wing extremist. Most right wing extremist are well known for their hatred of Jews, Homosexuals and Women rights. Pim does certainly not qualify for hating any of them. Muslims do. The new extreme right does not wear jack boots, they were head scarfs. Only a true racist would claim that only white people can be racist.
The only reason I linked the two was because I think both are clear examples of people mistakingly believing people liked them and suddenly hated them. I think these kind of things fester for a long time until they suddenly erupt and then all the powers that be stand around scratching their heads and wondering what caused it. 10-30yrs of not regonizing enough is enough.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Occasionally, I will click or read something instersting, but it has never urged me into buying it.
I block internet ads.
I spamblock email.
I change the television channel during commercials
I change the radio station during commercials
I rip out all the blown in cards from magazines.
gnf
I only read newsgroups, where there's no ads...
oh wait!
Not really -- TV ads I just skip over.
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Magazine ads don't usually animate like GIFs or Flash files, nor do they typically have sound attached or intentionally get in the way*, trying to be as disruptive as possible. As long as Internet ads try to be as obnoxious as they are, they all get blocked.
* I don't just mean popups here, I mean in-page ads that move about or use DHTML features to look like a popup window but technically aren't.
Liberty in your lifetime
The first thing that I do when I get a magazine is turn it over and knock out all of the "blown in inserts" and other crap. So, I don't just do this in the virtual realm.
Online ads aren't something I trust so I do my best to ignore them. Why don't I trust them? Because a good percentage of them are selling snake oil - like "spyware removers" that don't remove spyware, "memory cleaners" that do absolutly nothing and so on.
The ads that interfere with what I am trying to read are worst of all! Even if I was looking for something they were selling as a matter of principal, I would not buy because I hate that kind of interference advertising.
I find sites that are selling something that run ads amusing in a sick sort of way. I assume the ad placement is based on the product being advertised as having a higher profit margine than the one I am intentionally looking at. I have no idea this is true or not but that is the way that I think. It is the cyber equivalent of a high pressure salesman trying to sell you a product with a higher profit margin so he can pad his comission. Something else I don't fall for.
If you get ads which are irrelevant and/or fraudulent, complain to the Google spam department. http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html
Usually "misleading or repeated words" and "page does not match Google's description" applies to scam ads.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
My sister and I have long email chains going via gmail, and in them we attempt to salt the discussion with "red herring" words and phrases to see what pops up as contextual.
Usually, the ads we get are more or less relevant to the conversation (and in once case resulted in me purchasing a food dehydrator - fun with dessicating fruit!) and when they aren't, they tend to be very funny. For instance, at one point we were discussing a local political figure who had been taken out of office and jailed, and the ads that came up were for adult incontinence products. It seemed appropriate that talking about the legal problems of an asshole would trigger ads for a product designed to trap shit and keep it from being a problem.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Why do you block ads?
Because I hate them.
And with what?
Whatever works.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
No.
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
Of course.
I block ads in general because animated ads make it virtually impossible for me to read the content. The distractions of animated ads is too great for me.
I don't block ads--specifically.
I block obnoxious behavior.
Whether the obnoxious behavior is an ad or a "design feature" of the site doesn't matter to me. What matters is preventing web sites from causing my browser to do obnoxious things.
Any ads that don't behave obnoxiously won't get blocked. I have no problem with those.
The ads are annoying especially the flashing/animated ones that grow and block the page... They should pay you to watch those things.
:-)
I block using the following:
hosts file (now its 30k lines)(google hosts file for links)
proxomitron
Adblock extension
The hosts file and proxomitron have served me well. At times when I use somebody else's machine, I am totally shocked at how much ads people put up with. And because of these, my PC has been bug-free for a long time and my friends reinstall OS every few months
Well to answer your questions, yes I watch television ads, though I don't sit through them this is my time to get a snack, use the head, or get a drink, or wrestle with my child for a few minutes, play with my dog, whatever. I also don't read magazine ads, I flip through them. I block net ads for a few reasons, I'm on a webpage, I'm either interacting with the site or reading it's content, I don't need the distraction of a flashing puke green banner asking me to watch midget ghey jello wrestling (exagereted example), the main reason I block net ads is that "I CAN".
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I've had problems, at work, with ads that never download because their servers have been blocked by the Gods of Firewalldom. I have no influence over these Gods, so when I see that a page is not loading because, for instance, view.atdmt.com or ak.bluestreak.com is not responding, I just add that name to my /etc/hosts file as an alias for 127.0.0.1. Broken images on /. are better than no /. at all, and I'm not costing Slashdot anything because the ad wouldn't have been delivered anyway (sorry guys, I blame the Gods).
Privoxy goes on all my boxes and networks, and I try to pimp it out to everyone I know. Of course it can break a lot of stuff, but it's still worth running.
I think the ATHF episode 'Interfection' explains it all, really.. http://www.yzzerdd.com/
When you use a terminal-based browser more often than a graphical browser, there's no need to block ads. If I were more motivated to block ads, it'd be because they stand between me and the information I'm looking for -- wasting valuable time.
:P
TV ads, I just fast forward through -- I still have to watch them though, even if it is at 4x normal speed.
Magazine ads, flip the page.
Radio ads, change the station.
Billboards, continue driving.
Spam, SpamAssassin kills most of it.
Junk mail, recycle.
Phone solicitors, hang up.
Door to door salesmen, shut the door. (Though... with this stupid new law in Florida, I could legally point a gun at them and that'd probably keep them from coming back for a LONG time)
Video game ads are about the only form of advertising I am FORCED to view. Even so, I don't mind -- it's usually done so humorously and doesn't interfere with gameplay.
If advertisers are trying to sell me something, they're mostly going about it the wrong way
I have absolutely no use for commercials, so of course I block them when I can.
I have MythTV, and that way I don't have to watch commercials on TV either.
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
I'll tolerate ads as long as they aren't as "in your face". I like the good ol' 480x60 banner ads (static or low animation and small file sizes) and text ads.
The rest I hate are misleading ads (those that mae you think you're clicking onto useful content or closing what looks like a message window), VERY animated ads (hitting the monkey never gets me my $20), ads with sounds (very irritating especially when reading a long article), spyware and popup scripts built to force more ads into your face regardless of what you're doing (even when offline) and track what you do to make sure you get maximum exposure to viagra and dodgy finance deals.
one such example was the day I started seeing the crazyfrog flash ads, it never fucking stopped playing music! - thus a new line was added to the /etc/hosts file on my net server to block jamster.com from that day forward! DIE FROGGIE DIE!
My Homepage
I don't block web page advertisments, but I use Firefox's popup blocker. I have specifically purchased things through ads on web pages in order to help support the site (even if the product in a few bucks more than it is elsewhere).
I Tivo pretty much every show I watch, so I do skip TV comercials.
I do not subscribe to magazines specifically due to the number of ads. More specifically, the number of ads makes it nearly impossible to skim the magazine for interesting material.
I enjoy playing the ad game where you swat flies and squash roaches!
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
I don't remember ever agreeing to display ads on my screen.
I agree. Every time the tv is on, we have some many CAR commercials shoved down our throats. Now's the time to buy! Hurry sale ends Monday! Etc... Some Lincoln Navigator commercials actually 'brag' about the 13 miles per gallon that they get.
First it's a little irritating, then you hear it a few times, you hum it in the shower, by the third dates it's "By Mennen!"
- George Constanza
You ask if I would not buy a magazine with too many ads? Absolutely. There have been and continue to be magazines that I find generally interesting, but simply won't buy because of the way ads are placed - The articles are broken up by adspace, ads are cut from slightly different weight stock (when flipping through the magazine is more likely to fall open on an ad), and on and on. It's the same with many cable networks. Even if I love the movie some low-rate network like SpikeTV is playing, I simply won't watch when there's a commercial break every 10 minutes. It's not done out of some heavy moral objection, it's just a boring waste of time.
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
Absolutely. I have no interest in buying a magazine which is full of ads. I don't read the ads, and they just get in the way of trying to navigate my way around the actual content. I'll flip through a magazine, and if it looks like it's too hard to find the content, I won't bother.
Incidently, the last ad in a magazine that I paid any attention to was for a mail order computer parts company in early 1994, from whom I bought some RAM. The next time I needed anything, all those retailers had web sites.
If my tv is a tiny 13" model, tv commercials are never more than 13" large. My tv set doesn't project 'pop up' commercials onto the wall that distracts from the show i'm watching! Webbrowsers should follow at least that contraint -- I block pop-ups and nothing more.
Large in-place ads are still annoying, but like cheap magazines, full page ads can't always be avoided. If you don't like it, then throw away the rag and browse to a new site.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I object to too many adds.
There are TV channels that I avoid because they have (IMHO) just too many adds -- an example being TBS. They will make a 90 minute move last three hours. Worse, they will use adds sparingly during the beginning of a film, then increase the number and frequency as the movie progresses -- presumably thinking that the viewer is "hooked" and can be abused more.
Doesn't work with me. I will abandon a movie subject to this sort of abuse, and in many cases, abandon ever watching the channel that does it ever again.
Similarly there are (print) magazines that I refuse to buy, or even look at because its obvious that the articles are viewed just a filler material between the adds. The technique of splitting articles over several pages to expose you to more adds is HIGHLY objectionable. Leads to (me at least) not picking up those magazines again.
Websites are slightly better because you can block (most) of the crap. I don't mind a small amount, I can tune it out. Too much, or those evil adds that obscure the content until you acknowlege them are prime causes of my blacklisting sites and never visiting again.
I do acknowlege that adds finance free content, and will accept reasonable quantities (in all media), but most often, too many media outlets see adds as their primary reason for existence and the content that we all want as unwanted, but for some reason, unavoidable.
Noise, visual or auditory... It's just anoying and distracting from what I want to do. A suggestion from a website and a link will garner much more attention from me than some stupid flashing, bouncing, noisy ad. It's just like with television, when they turn the advertisements' volume up louder than the program you are trying to watch, damn that's annoying; I change channels until the commercials are over when they do that, or mute it and leave the room.
Advertisers need to try more "suggestions" instead of "commands" (ie: BUY ME NOW!).
1. I have a Tivo, I fast forward through commercials.
2. I listen to podcasts, I don't listen to 5 minute commercial breaks between music sets.
3. I have Adblock installed in Firefox, I don't need to see the ads that most of the time don't interest me.
As soon as a podcast has 5 minute breaks, it's out of the aggregator and if/when Tivo starts inline ads, MythTV. Time's to precious to waste it on advertisements.
Peace!
Highlights for Kids has no ads. Cook's Illustrated also has no ads. In fact, even though I don't cook (much), I highly recommend Cook's Illustrated -- it's sort of like Make magazine, only for food nerds. It's a really interesting read and has a fabulous editor.
Try Mike's Ad blocking hosts file.
It gets rid of 75% of remote hosted ads out of the box, and almost everything with a little tweaking:
http://www.everythingisnt.com/hosts.html
I've been using it for years. Works great!
If it misses anything, you can always add your own info to it to suit your needs.
The only ads I block are popups and Flash. Originally I only blocked popups, but eventually I started seeing popups caused by Flash, so I started blocking that, too. There are other benefits of this -- no sudden disrupting sounds coming from my computer, no giant flash ads blocking the rest of my screen.
But aside from that, I feel no need to block ads. I have no problem with ads on a site, and there have been ads that do catch my attention -- it's only when those ads intentionally get in the way of what I'm doing that I start looking for ways to block them.
That's it.
Wed September 14, 21:12
User Journal
Installed AdBlock on the last of my machines. For one, single reason. Slashdot ads.
No, I don't mind the ads themselves. I remember often clicking on the banners on Slashdot. Not once I pondered purchasing stuff from ThinkGeek. I got interested in the "airzooka" toy so much that I built one myself. I understand, source of revenue, subscriptions aren't enough etc.
But I'd at least expect keeping the ads servers working. Slashdot pages load for me in 2-5s on hosts with Adblock. But on this one, it was taking a minute or longer. Because the page would stop loading and wait for the ads server. I'd see "looking up a.as-us.falkag.net" indefinitely, while the black screen wouldn't contain any content.
The more intrusive the ads, the more probable the users will disable them. If the ads make the content proper completely unavailable, they will be disabled for sure. And screw you, Slashdot. Somehow I don't believe I'd re-enable Slashdot ads once you fix the ads server...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags!
Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?"
Obviously, given the many specific replies to your ill-informed claims, you are wrong.
But here's a more important point: In a capitalist society it is necessary for citizens to "vote with their wallets". Don't like the RIAA's policies? It won't suffice to just stop buying their products (although that's important too) you have to buy the products sold by those who reject those policies.
If you don't like advertising-supported magazines, you don't need to just stop reading them (that won't directly affect their income stream, after all) you have to pay for magazines supported by subscriptions.
If you don't like the way Detroit makes cars, you have to buy a car that you like. If you don't like the way Nike treats their employees, you have to buy from their competitors.
I don't like air pollution, or government-sponsored terrorism, so I bought a Toyota Prius. Yes, it cost more, yes, I could have used that money for beer, but I did it anyway. At some point you have to put your money where your ideals are, or you may as well be seaweed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I find ads to be an annoying distraction, and this holds true regardless of the media.
So, to answer your question, I do not treat web advertisements any differently than any other form of advertisement.
With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads?
I don't block all ads. Mostly just graphical ones that pop up or under. I actually find useful things with targeted ads a la Google. The rest are annoying because 1) they cause the pages to load much more slowly, 2) they are often inappopriate (in my mind) for work viewing, even if the web page would otherwise not be (see Dilbert comic with True ads), 3) they are distracting. I mean, down here there are literally hundreds and thousands of blinking, beeping, and flashing lights, blinking and beeping and flashing - they're *flashing* and they're *beeping*. I can't stand it anymore! They're *blinking* and *beeping* and *flashing*! Why doesn't somebody pull the plug!
Ahem.. where was I? Oh yes, they are just plain annoying.
Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Not really. I'd block those too if ReplayTV's commercial skipping feature didn't get sued into oblivion. Now, pre-movie ads in the theater are really terrible. Movies are not supposed to be (blatently) ad supported without some sort of reduction in the ticket price.
What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
I'd much rather pay more for a smaller magazine with less ads. There are very few magazines I can stand to read any more. The advertising industry is a runaway propoganda machine. What's sad is that we are susceptible to the propoganda - otherwise it wouldn't be worth it for them.
I block ads for a couple of reasons:
1. Most ads are bullshit.
I'm not interested in any "free" iPods, "free" iBooks, "free" Xboxes, PS2's, PS3's or PSP's, red hot milf action, ringtones, pink phones, internet lovers, neutered napsters, mortgages, gambling, or meeting married women.
Nobody in their right mind with a half ounce of common sense would fall for any of these things, these aren't ads, they are the internet equivalent of someone opening their trenchcoat to reveal a bunch of fake rolexes. If these "businesses" go belly up, I'll consider it a good day.
2. I am an active consumer.
If I want to buy something, I actively seek it. The only ads that I heed anything to are the ones that actually inform me about a specific product. If they just tell me how "awesome" it is, that's not enough. I need whitesheets and specifications. I'm an informed consumer who puts some work into my shopping. The chances of me clicking on any sort of ad that I see on the internet are very, very small.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
I block only annoying animated ads, popups, and flash ads that throw themselves in a top layer on a page and get right in the way of the content. Why do advertisers do these things when they know they only piss people off and cause them to NOT buy from their clients?
Unobtrusive banner ads, "tasteful" animations (e.g., no strobing), etc. I don't block because a) they pay for content and b) they don't bother me
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
> With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads?
Ah, because ads suck. Who likes ads?
> And with what?
Adblock for Firefox ofcourse.
> Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?
Nope, they all suck no matter what the medium is. Though I don't mind little (relevant) text ads (google). I don't subscribe to any form of TV for that exact reason; Ads. Why should I pay for a service when the provider turns around and sells my time for even more money. I discovered bittorrent for shows I want (sans-commercials) and ofcourse satellite piracy for PPV.
> What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?
I don't buy magzines, the internet is an electronic magazine - and much better than it's paper brethren.
> I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site.
Really... Hrm, I have no problems with either (adblock, or pop-up blocker). They both enhance the web for me greatly... Making aimless surfing very enjoyable.
Not only is advertising annoying as hell, but because it creates a conflict of interest it also greatly deteriorates the quality of anything it touches with its greasy tentacles. I use Adblock relentlessly on the Internet (even on sites like Slashdot and for those "unobtrusive" Google ads), and I almost never watch live TV. Usually I use MythTV, which automatically skips the ads. If that deprives them of income, tough. Maybe they'll move to a better business model some day. I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is and pay for content I'm interested in.
Speaking of "not clearly expressed".
"Therefore I say the fundamental problem is the "free lunch" mentality created by "free" radio broadcasts. Radio broadcasts were not really free, but by having the advertisers sponsor them, the radio stations were able to build a profitable business model."
Funny how in the creation of this "mentality", no one objected. Free was fine when the consumer was getting "free" music. "Free" works because we all like something for nothing. It satisfies our inner greed. Free music, free samples, free tickets, free, free, free. Blaming others for catering to our inner desires is disingenous.*
*I don't hear any of the "let's legalize drugs" people blaming anyone in the drug chain for fulfilling their habits.
"The interests of the advertisers are NOT the same as the interests of the public. The advertisers do not want people to be well educated and well informed, because in that terrible case (from their perspective) the best product value (in each product category) would be known, and that product would capture the bulk of the sales."
In this day and age of Consumer Reports, Computer Shopper and other sources of information. The public has had plenty of opportunity to be informed, and make informed decisions. The fact that the majority don't make an effort, and more importantly blames others for their apathetic attitude is more telling about humanity than any sociology textbook.
"Actually, from the perspective of the "purest" advertisers, selling nothing at the highest price possible is the ultimate goal."
And from the persepective of the purest consumer, gaining the best while paying nothing is the ultimate goal. Gee what do you know? The world isn't as lopsided with the consumer playing their victum games. But extremists with everyone looking out for themselves, others be damned.
...advertisers will start finding ways around it.
I came across a site today where this is already happening.
Try Adblocking any of the images in the bottom left corner. The URLs look something like http://www.afcyhf.com/image-1181994-10294458, and since the domain name is throwaway, there's not much point blocking by that either.
It feels like this is just making the web spammier. Where is there to go next -- image recognition for ad banners?
The Cluetrain Manifesto says it best. Look, especially, at #74.
... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
Who says the advertising industry has the right to bombard me with ad's everywhere I go. From the moment I wake up and watch TV (TV ads), till I get on the train (billboards), till I get to work. (pop-up's) and all the way home again. Telling me what to drink, eat, what to wear, and what's sexy. So I got a Tivo (FF through ad's) and block as much advertising as I can on my computer.
People go online to pull information. Either search for information directly, browse discussions, etc. They don't "watch" the internet. Web marketeers have largely missed this, except from things like Google ads which are targeted towards things people are reading information on. When I see a big truck pop up in the middle of reading sports headlines on sportsline.com (once so good, but I stopped reading when popovers started), I get angry, frustrated, upset, and willing to invest time in either blocking the ads or avoiding the site in the future.
:) Seriously I picked a couple up in the barber shop lat week and I was like, WTF this thing is 80% ads. I understand they need the ad revenue to print the magazine, and I know they try to study who reads their magazine to match interests, but as someone who isn't easily classified, it's very frustrating to flip past crap to read content.
On television, I expect some ads, and sometimes am even entertained by them.
In magazines... wait, what is a magazine again?
I do not currently block web ads with the exception of pop-ups. I only tend to go where I want to on the web and am willing to accept advertisements to support those sites.
I view online ads differently from TV ads, in that very few of my sites spend 30% of my time in forcing me to look at ads. Compared to a conventional TV show where an hour-long episode is only 42 minutes of content. Frankly, I would rather pay to rent the show on DVD and see it 30% faster, uninterrupted and without having to wait until next week/season to see how a plot thread turns out.
I reject the notion of buying a magazine that has too many advertisements, particularly in the actual content of the magazine. If the advertisers are paying for the magazine, why should I be paying for the magazine as well? Look at an issue of Mental Floss. Use 10% more of the space on advertising instead of content. That's the point where I would cancel my subscription. (That's the point where I stopped subscribing to Wired.)
Motorcycle Consumer News. http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/editor_intro.asp It's completely ad-free. A nice change since you know they're not beholden to the manufacturers who advertise in other magazines. If you're into motorcycles, check it out.
Chris
There's countless other search engines out there. Sure, Google is awesome, but not like... 60 a year awesome. Drop that to 5 bucks a year and we're talking.
On my website, I refuse to post ads because I hate them oh so very much. Well... anything animated, or that uses javascript/whatever to move around.
But generally... if there's a site that I don't visit on a daily basis, I won't pay any kind off fee for it. The reason I'll pay for a magasine is because they have to ship it to you. No shipping costs online, except ISP costs, which I pay for anyway.
I just got a Grand Am GT (with SC/T) as a commuter-mobile because all of my other cars are V8-powered, fun to drive but thirsty cars. Hooray for finding someplace where I can modify that car's drivetrain beyond street practicality too! :)
Oh, and yeah, ads suck 'n stuff.
Cook's Illustrated, my favorite magazine.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I block ads because:
* I'm running an iBook at 1024x768 and I'd rather see more content that I'm trying to read than ads.
* I use a CSS file in my Safari settings to block all manners of ads.
* Most of the time the ads are not for Canadian products and I couldn't care less.
* I prefer not having things blinking and flashing at me while I try to read text.
The hosts file is good for ad blocking if you put the domain names of the advertising sites with the localhost IP and have netcat listen for connections from an IP other than local host with the capital "L" (nc -L -p 80 22.43.133.93) and then have a hosts file like this:
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 media.fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 cdn1.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 cdn5.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 itxt.vibrantmedia.com
127.0.0.1 geek.salary.com
127.0.0.1 spe.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 a.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 images.webattack.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 altfarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 a.as-us.falkag.net
127.0.0.1 adlog.com.com
127.0.0.1 www.layermedia.com
127.0.0.1 global.msads.net
127.0.0.1 ca.rd.yahoo.com
127.0.0.1 us.a1.yimg.com
127.0.0.1 us.i1.yimg.com
127.0.0.1 assets.bravenet.com
127.0.0.1 www.bravenetmedianetwork.com
127.0.0.1 accipiter.speedera.net
127.0.0.1 banner.oddcast.com
127.0.0.1 view.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 content.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.1 ipods.freepay.com
127.0.0.1 ad.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.1 adsfac.net
127.0.0.1 cdn.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 img-cdn.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 adfarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 links.industrybrains.com
127.0.0.1 a248.e.akamai.net
127.0.0.1 network.realmedia.com
127.0.0.1 nx-adv.bookclubservices.ca
127.0.0.1 www.burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 servedby.advertising.com
127.0.0.1 realbannerads.com
127.0.0.1 srs.targetpoint.com
More infomation on this system will be available on my site at some time
Http://S010600609736b3d7.cg.shawcable.net/tech
Let me pose the reverse: Why should I have to watch an ad? It's not solicited.
The hosts file is good for ad blocking if you put the domain names of the advertising sites with the localhost IP and have netcat listen for connections from an IP other than local host with the capital "L" (nc -L -p 80 22.43.133.93) and then have a hosts file like this:
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 media.fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 cdn1.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 cdn5.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 itxt.vibrantmedia.com
127.0.0.1 geek.salary.com
127.0.0.1 spe.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 a.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 images.webattack.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 altfarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 a.as-us.falkag.net
127.0.0.1 adlog.com.com
127.0.0.1 www.layermedia.com
127.0.0.1 global.msads.net
127.0.0.1 ca.rd.yahoo.com
127.0.0.1 us.a1.yimg.com
127.0.0.1 us.i1.yimg.com
127.0.0.1 assets.bravenet.com
127.0.0.1 www.bravenetmedianetwork.com
127.0.0.1 accipiter.speedera.net
127.0.0.1 banner.oddcast.com
127.0.0.1 view.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 content.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.1 ipods.freepay.com
127.0.0.1 ad.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.1 adsfac.net
127.0.0.1 cdn.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 img-cdn.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 adfarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 links.industrybrains.com
127.0.0.1 a248.e.akamai.net
127.0.0.1 network.realmedia.com
127.0.0.1 nx-adv.bookclubservices.ca
127.0.0.1 www.burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 servedby.advertising.com
127.0.0.1 realbannerads.com
127.0.0.1 srs.targetpoint.com
More infomation on this system will be available on my site sometime in the future
I will also release a beta version of a hosts file based ad blocking system
http://s010600609736b3d7.cg.shawcable.net/tech
I pay for my Internet. If the people who own the ads want to pay for my Internet, then maybe. Otherwise, web content simply isn't worth it. And I never minded them much until they became intrusive. Pasted over the article while I'm trying to read. No thanks. I can do without. Also, who wants ads when they can do without? Silly topic.
I only block the 'annoying'* ads with Adblock, by using a regex that will most likely block any similar ads. I also have FlashBlock installed, so I can control which flash animations start running and which don't.
*: With 'annoying', I mean anything that distracts me from trying to use a webpage normally. A flashing and moving ad will always annoy, but a large static image next to an article, causing the text to be squeezed into a narrow column, is just as annoying. Also annoying are ads which somehow cause the rendering of the webpage to be delayed until they are loaded. If the ad server doesn't respond, I have to wait eternally until such paged load. Annoying is an understatement in this case.
However, I recently discovered a new kind of ad which is both incredibly annoying and harder to block. I call them 'pop-in-between ads', and you can see them on www.dilbert.com (if you try to go to Past Strips). It's a dedicated ad webpage which is shoved in your face when you click a link. Instead of going to the linked page, you first have to wait 5 seconds for a stupid ad to load, and then 10 more seconds for a redirect to the real page, unless you can find and click the tiny 'skip' button first.
These stinkers are blockable with Adblock too, however. Just look at the address bar and add the domain name to Adblock. If you look in the Dilbert page source, you'll find a tiny script that tries to load a script from 'interclick.com' (the name says it all). The script uses a document.write with a pathetic attempt to mangle the written 'script' tag. But I assume Adblock just kills the entire script. Luckily the links don't break due to this, but just point you to the real page instantly.
with ad running everywhere
:o)
my fan has a tendency to start for cooling my powerbook
with AdBlock(Firefox) or PithHelmet(Safari)
no fan
more battery
Answer this one and you give more ammunition to the advertisers and more spam will follow - ignore this one!
I don't need that stuff in my brain. I have things I want to think about... why should I allow someone to stick their marketing in my head?
the ads lower the prices of the magazine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because I CAN. Is the same reason I fast forward through the ads using Tivo and turn the radio station when a commercial comes on. Mass marketing has reached a disgusting level of in-your-face offensive behavior. I get 3-5 credit card applications a DAY - and take the time to recycle everything but the reply envelope - which if postage is paid, I seal right up empty and return to the company. My last mass-return mailing contained a minimum of 20 empty envelopes from Capital One. What's in my envelope? NOTHING AT ALL. If more people would do this, we could crush these marketers of garbage in a day.
i now spend more time going through sourcecode, modifing host files, updating firefox prefs/extensions than what i would have done watching the lame ad :-)
the reason i block ads (for myself): waste of bandwidth, too much garbage, and #1 - i have no idea what the ad's are 99% of the time (same with tv etc). the ad might be showing something that i would think is the best product ever but i would have no idea what it is (think of the Simpsons ep "Mr Plow" where Homer gets a really fancy ad with an opera singer and stuff instead of using his own homemade one)
the reason i block ads (for family etc): the "i have spyware" calls to me have been cut down by about 99%
I block ads because they distract me from what I'm doing. Generally, if I'm reading an article, I'm thinking and trying to figure something out. Blinky-blinky buy now click on the froggie pretty much kills my concentration and takes value away from the information source. So I block those.
Intersticial ads aren't so bad. If I'm at an article, then I'm at an ad, then I'm at an article it doesn't break my concentration so much.
Text ads generally aren't that distracting. I don't block those. Not because I 'like' them per se, it's just that I do the adblock dance when an ad bothers or distracts me. If I'm not bothered by it... then I'm not motivated to go through the effort of blocking.
I use adblock in firefox for blocking. I also have images/content that's not from the originating server blocked (web bugs).
Whoa. Never accidentally transpose two letters in that "hostperm" part.
Yes, I have a sick mind.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
So, wait a sec. You are now willing to accept google ads because they don't do the nasty things that other ads do? Would you have always been willing to accept Google ads, or do you only accept them now (as you appear to imply) because you have seen the shit others throw at you?
I block every ad I've ever seen, and I have been doing so for quite a while. I started doing so with a hosts file several years ago (when I was still using IE). Then I switched to firefox and continued to use the host file. Sometime later I found adblock and now I have a large custom adblock plus filter combined with the host file (by now over 2 MB). I block almost every ad with the host file and I get rid of the resulting 404 pages and the rest of the ads with the adblock filter.
I run without a firewall, my ad-aware definitions are from march 2003 or so (and I haven't done a scan for a long time), and my computer is always online (I had an oc3 connection for the past 2 years and just got downgraded to cable in september).
I avoid offline ads as well, skipping them on television (with a pvr), on dvds (by ripping them), in magizines (by not reading any magazines), in newspapers (again by not reading them), on the radio (I don't listen to the radio), in movies (by making out with my girlfriend), at stores (I go into a store with a list of things to get, and walk out with the things on my list only), and etcetra.
The google ads are just as bad as any other advertisement online. Every single one is designed to divert your attention from somewhere that you want to look, to somewhere where someone wants to sell you something. If I want to buy something, I will look for that thing, not accept a calling to get it.
A Google ad is not a beautiful thing, it is something we have been beaten into the acceptance of (and I, for one, continue to refuse).
http://www.salon.com/news/cookie756.html
Basically, skip the sitepass ad every day.
If you want to support the site, feel free to keep paying, but I know how much /. loves free.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I understand that most web sites are making their money from the advertising found on their web site, and since I don't want to pay to view the content, I don't mind viewing some advertising. I could easily block most of it out, but I chose not to, because I wish to support the web sites I visit. That being said, I DO BLOCK pop up advertising, Flashing, and Animated advertising where I can, as in my view they go too far. Garish colors are okay :-) Sites which get on my nerves with too
much advertising, and pop ups I can't block, etc. are subject to
being ignored entirely.
I haven't read all of the responses so far, but I haven't come across
anyone commenting on advertising they DO accept, so I thought it
would be worth while for me to interject my comments...
This will be so far down the comments list that I'm sure no one will ever read it. Anyway...
I use the adblock FF extension w/Filterset.G specifically to block pop-ups and sliders. No other reason. And it took me a long time to do even that.
I don't agree with blocking web site ads, with exception of pop-ups and sliders. With most banners ads, even viewing them provides a tiny profit for the site. I don't mind the ads and if the site gets 1/10 of a cent for my one view, good. But with more and more sites finding ways to sneak pop-ups around Firefox's pop-up filter or using slider ads (which are just as bad), I have simply had ENOUGH.
Because of the pop-ups and sliders, I installed Adblock with filterset.g and now most ads are filtered out. Too bad an advertiser will never see this post, because this ought to be a good lesson for those people. They made the ads so annoying that someone who doesn't agree with blocking them started blocking them.
Only on
Cue "real men telnet into the webserver, issue GET, and parse with a neat perl script"
Why do I block online ads? Because I can.
Advertising is evil. It is an attempt to manipulate me so that some corporation can profit while making stuff that noone needs. I turn TV sound off every time there is a commercial break (I don't watch TV myself, but I am sometimes present in a room when others do), I don't listen to radio ads. I throw away any paper spam, filter my e-mail and block online ad. As soon as I can use my augmented reality display to block real life ads, I will.
I once saw a reference to an old study that found that about 30% Americans would be willing to accept a lower standard of living as a price for eliminating all advertising. I am not surprised.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I remember that some of my female friends would purchase (or recieve a subscription) a Cosmo or similar magazine, and the first thing they would do is go through the magazine and rip every advertisement out (that wasn't printed on the back of content). Then they'd start reading. The magazine was at least a third as thick.
No surprise that this trend easily sneaks it way onto the web. Furthermore with intelligent filters (e.g. adblock) it's a breeze to clean ads from the internet. Sure, those ads might pay for what I'm viewing, but if I can't read my content, I can't read my content. Ads are only so effective for revenue generation. I don't see this trend changing.
http://davedash.com/
I block all ads with proxomitron. Why? Well, for several reasons:
1. Its too much effort to bother allowing "good" ones through while blocking all the obnoxious ones.
2. I already know what I want. If I need more info I will look for it.
Yes, I am one of the few who researches and does price comparison before most purchases.
3. Business 101 class: "advertising is to create a desire for your product or address a perceived need".
Well, I'll figure out what my needs are on my own. I don't need brainwashing.
4. I don't care if your company can't make money off the internet or if your bankruptcy will mean that there is no free content on the internet. In fact I don't even care if you exist.
If all content must be paid for, then I'll shop for it like I do vegatables in a store. If there is free content I'll use it. Yes, I'm sure the "Value" word really hurts you some times. So what? "Free Market" cuts both ways. "Free Market" isn't just all about the content providers.
5-Easily 99.9999999% of all advertisements are not relevant to anything I am interested in and are targeted at morons.
So the whiney advertiser wants to invade my privacy so they can get enough info to make the ads relevant? Tough. I don't want that either. Like I said, I don't care if they even exist. Nothing gives them the *right* to make a living doing what they do. If advertising doesn't work, they can change jobs.
I know that some people are all flaming worried that they might have to pay for internet content if ads go away. So what? Free is nice, but you don't have the *right* to it.
6. Like some people have already mentioned, I too used to read Computer Shopper magazine for the advertisements.
Why? Because it was a form of research.
I haven't read a Computer Shopper magazine for years. Why? Because I don't need the info anymore. It no longer has value to me.
Did Computer Shopper go out of business? Not sure, but if yes, then a majority of people no longer need the info. Good riddance. I hope the advertisers have moved on to more productive jobs.
7. I dropped cable TV some years ago. Why? Lots of ads and no content I was interested in. Now I only bother with the nightly news reports, and even then not every day.
8. Radio? I listen to classical music. On local user donation supported stations. Very minimal amount of advertising.
9 Magazines? I stopped buying them years ago.
I could get the content for free on the internet. Oooh, that "value" word again. I know it must just gall you whenever its applied from the consumer side.
10. Newspapers. A nearly irrelevant form of media these days. Just like buggy whips and horse carriages.
Yeah, that damn Auto Trader magazine is 100% ads. And people pay money for it.
What?
My motivation for blocking ads is the distraction and annoyance factor, and the use of my resources and time for the advertisers (perceived) gain. I think what ads I think should be blocked might give some insight..
Ads that I wouldnt bother blocking:
- static nonmoving ads which are merely a plain image or text, which do not take more than a small portion of screen space as compared to the primary content and which load quickly without interfering with the primary content
Ads that I wish would go away, and which I consider good targets for blocking:
- anything in flash or any other code which wants to execute on *my* machine
- anything animated or moving
- anything that tries to resize or move my browser window, or alter its controls or appearance in any manner
- bloated image files which load slowly, delaying completion of the page load and wasting bandwidth on the connection *I* pay for
- ads inserted in such a manner as to obscure, delay, or otherwise make the actual content of a page more difficult to read or see. This would include images without an appropriate size attribute which are served by overloaded and slow servers.
- ads which use cookies on *my* drive for any purpose.
Sorry, Consumer Reports is full of ads. They're just ads for products [books and other publications] and services [car pricing] of the Consumers Union, who publish Consumer Reports.
My Heart Is A Flower
BTW, Lynx is the ultimate anti-ad browser. :-)
On Television: Avoid the channels that run an exceptionally high ration of ads to program, use PVR to skip ads, or more recently use NetFlix to watch an entire TV series all at once - sans ads.
Magazines: I have stopped buying as many magazines as I used to (30+ month), get the content online. It's too much trouble to wade through some magazines anymore with a 50% ad ratio.
Radio: Don't listen to commericial radio at all anymore, just streaming stations online (KEXP & BassDrive) and PodCasts (Public Radio, IT Conversations).
Internet: I absolutely use a pop-up blocker and some minor ad-filtering. Why should loading a page from a site require a dozen DNS lookups to other domains? To read a fairly simple web page (30K or so of real information) requires 200K to download with all of the ads nowadays.
Postal: 99.9% of ad-mail goes straight to the recycle bin.
Movie Theatre: Rarely go - Can't see the value in paying $9.00 to see 15 min. of ads before the movie in a crappy, sticky theatre.
Personal: I don't wear anything that sports any kind of blatant logo. You won't see me sporting Nike or Hilfiger ever.
I understand that many companies are complaining of decreasing margins (though I'm not sure I believe it) and that ads, sponsorships, product placements, etc. are ways to shore up their business models. The reality is that their incessant bombardment is driving me away as a customer. This has significantly impacted my buying decisions, which ultimately will impact their poor business models. Maybe if they spent a little less on advertising and just offered a decent product - their margins would be fine.
... a trick question? ;-)
Um.. yeah.. because you read it for the articles.
people must be too shortsighted to realize that they are a necessary evil.
Absolutely not! The is no special requirement somewhere that content *must* be subsidized by advertisements.
Plenty of posts have already mentoned one alternative to your *necessary evil* called "paying for the content".
Furthermore, there is no *requirement* somewhere that you deserve to have free content.
I block *all* advertisments. I'm getting excellent value from the internet right now because of it. If the internet generally switches to a "pay per click" type of market model, my value may not be so great but it won't matter. It will be about as important as deciding on which brands of food to buy in the grocery store.
If you abuse a right, it gets taken away.
:)
I was a quite happy believer in online advertsing, and would click on the nice little banners provided by companies, and even look at the sites advertised. But alas it wasn't always to be so happy. Adverts slowly became more flashy, larger, obstructive to content, popups became so common it was disgusting... and pretty soon I tared all adverts with the same brush and blocked them all.
Ok 2nd reason, I don't want 'punch the monkey' to be chewing up 50% cpu while I'm playing quake
If it's the commercial I think it is, I loathe it with a passion. If I hear another woohoo again, I swear I will bust every TV that plays them. That commercial is the root of all evil, possibly worse than Microsoft. I will not ever do business with Vonage if they are who I think they are....
Probably because at least a few people are aware that all of that content you enjoy "getting right to" actually costs people to produce and make available to you. Much of that cost is recouped through advertising. Thanks for doing your part to make it even more expensive to provide we content to you.
and in return:
To all of you who are providing me content: Thank You.
To all of you paying for it instead of me: Thank You Very Much.
To all of you upset that I'm not paying for it: ha ha!
I won't be renewing my subscription to rolling stone. Because over half of the bulk of the magazine is meaningless fashion adverts filled with frolicking teens still framed in the act of being cool. Cigarette and car adverts, basicly everything that has nothing to do with music, which is why I buy rolling stone. The last issue had 11 pages of ads at the begining of the magazine before you even hit the table of contents. More 2 page ads than two page articles. I don't watch television because of the repeated advertisements over and over playing the same shit, the same annoying voice, the same 5yr olds kids reading the script written by a 50yr old who doesn't even remember being 5yrs old. I can't stomach the ads anymore. When I do watch TV like LOST I mute the ads because I find it far less distastefull to see them without the music and the sales pitch. I see them for what they are, carefully crafted bullshit. I stopped watching the discovery channel for 5 months because of the goddamn "meet bob" commercials. They play them over and over and while many people just grin and bear it, I've had enough. Yes I filter ads on the internet and I will continue to do so. I'll filter them at my fucking router if I have to. I will not subject myself to annoying, distracting, distatefull, ads that have nothing to do with the place serving them. So take that running monkey, catch him, win the million dollars and then shove him right up your pie hole.
Yet another 'fine' abuse of /. anonymity. Still waiting for the day I see an actual need for anonymity here.
By the way, you (the latest coward) should probably mark me as your for, except that it takes more guts than you actually have.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Advertising is a form of psychological rape - gradually enfolding every aspect of human experience.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
When I watch TV, I watch it for the program, not for the ads. When I read a magazine, I read it for the articles, not for the ads. And when I visit a web page, I visit it for its contents, not for the ads.
Ads are noise. What's worse, they are often the only noise present. I look them up when I need them, I tolerate them when they are periferal, I block them when they get in the way.
You DO NOT have a *right* to good search results, free software, free music etc..etc... because SOMEBODY is paying for it, and if you're not willing to be a good community member by watching ads then visit only paid content sites.
Thank you for paying for my good search results, free software, etc. Next time you come by the house drop in and I'll treat you to ice cream and coffee.
"be a good community member"... of the internet? like, as in the whole world? You're so full of socialist garbage.
My main work computers for the last decade-plus have been laptops, and everything since the first or maybe second Pentium laptop generation has had a sound system and usually had tinny little speakers.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Ads in any medium seem invasive and damage the flow the product is attempting to generate. I prefer not to watch movies on television as commercials break this flow and take you out of the moment. If I'm reading a magazine, or a comic book, I do not want to flip the page on a story and be hit with a full page ad for the fact that it disrupts the experience. As for internet related ads, they are often designed to be "smack-dab-in-the-middle" of wherever the visitor is being sent, or in a location that will garner the most attention possible. The only real exception to this is any television product which is designed and arranged for scheduled interruptions. And even then I channel surf.
Though, for the most part, I block, ignore, reject and downright disavow most ads I encounter only because they are telling me that I need their product, when it would be far more effective (and subsequently, respectable) to show me the product and let me decide whether or not it is right for me.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I used to work as an editor and a publisher before I switched to web development. In my former occupation it is considered bad business if the magazine is not paid for by the advertisments. Money generated through the sales of a magazine is considered "found money", something that adds to the profits. Probably the only reason magazines charge money at all in some cases is because consumers regard free and cheap with distrust.
I'm sure most people aren't telling them things they don't already know.
There's nothing like a good gunfight to uplift the spirit--Calvin
google definitely had the right idea...small text adds that aren't annoying and are only noticed if you look for them but because they aren't annoying or aesthetically offensive i believe people actually are more apt to click on them (i know i have).
i currently use adblock as part of firefox and have been very happy with the way it works. if you understand directory structure and simple domains then it becomes a very powerful too blocking ads served from domains entirely...very cool.
i don't like ads. i never have. i flip the channel if i am watching television to make sure i don't have to sit through that annoying shit. i never watch the 20 at movie theaters (that is the biggest joke i have ever seen...i laugh instead of get mad at that) and i generally just rent from netflix or get dvd collections of television shows i enjoy. what could be great than sitting down and watching a 20 minute show in 20 minutes! beautiful. and now i block internet ads. i use open source gaim instead of msn and aim to avoid their ads...i utterly dislike being advertised too...if i need it i will seek it out and don't need to be reminded of stuff i don't want to buy and really don't need.
my final thought is of those television shows that used to do the 30 minutes of the worlds funniest commercials. those are such a joke...but...this is all not to say that i cannot deny that there are some very creative, funny, poignant, or otherwise all around good ads that have been thought up, my favorite is the canadian breast exam commerical with cam. google it, it is worth it. peace and love everyone.
I stopped watching broadcast/cable TV only three or four years ago, but apart from that (and different magazine subscriptions), I could have written that post word for word.
Actually, my ability to filter out moving TV images is starting to build up again due to TV playing at work. (Which I detest)
Politas
There are other reasons to despise them, but they are all secondary: they slow page loading (and in firefox/mozilla, that slows form-autofill too), they bugger the page width (often the banners are embedded in some table that encloses the article; this means that you _can't_ shrink the page to narrower than the banner - if you do you will need to scroll sideways to read the text), they spawn popups, and so on.
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 cs@cskk.id.au http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
FWIW, what little is worth watching isn't on snowy renditions of CBS, NBC or ABC. I prefer CNN, C-SPAN, and the occasional CNBC. My wife prefers (for what little she watches) the Learning Channel, History Channel, etc. I have basic cable, and I've debated getting rid of it. But, I make enough that I don't notice the cable bill. I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I felt it worth mentioning.
Program Intellivision!
Look. Heinlein put it best when he coined TANSTAAFL: Their Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I accept that unless micropayments become entirely painless and pervasive, our current system of information delivery simply wouldn't exist. In fact, without some huge, coordinated government "Content Subsidy," I don't think it'll ever get there. (And shudder to think what'll happen when the content of the Web is beholden to the electorate, as opposed to the people who actually use it.) Google's ad revenue generates $$ for Google, which in turn allows them to provide a valuable service that I find extremely useful. So preexisting obnoxious banners or no, I would find their take on Classifieds more than acceptable.
Not all Google ads are created equal, but more than most are actually relevant to what I'm looking for. I consider them more a service than a disservice. And when I consider that they provide me with something actually useful in the end, I find the balance acceptable. Google clearly points out the ads from the search results, and makes it a point to try to provide only relevant ads. What else could you ask for?
Most ads waste your time. They clutter your screen, they make the page load more slowly, and they often times are entirely irrelevant to you if they aren't simply outright misleading. They cause web designers to slice and dice long works into bite-sized slow-loading chunks just to get more page views (and thus more ad revenue). And, they still slow you down if you have an ad blocker, simply because you're making that many more database queries to get the content, drip by drip. Google Ads haven't done any of that yet to any appreciable extent, and yet they've funded probably the most useful web-based entity I interact with quite regularly. How is that not beautiful? It's successful capitalism, without being excessively tacky!
--Joe
Program Intellivision!
I can tell the advertisers and their agencies if their ads are worth showing or not: NO.
There. My consulting fee is $20,000. Where do I send the invoice?
Do these morons really need ROI data to tell them something's wrong with their product? If adblockers are starting to make a dent in their stats, then they should be asking why that is. Used to be that the worst thing in advertising was to be ignored. Now the advertising is so obnoxious, it's driving people to seek out methods to actively avoid advertising. If the advertisers and agencies really can't understand that irritating people into fleeing from their product may not be the best way to sell their product... well... then there's not much to be done to help those advertisers and agency people, is there? They've obviously overstepped the limits of their competency in this particular field, and perhaps should consider a slightly less intellectually rigorous career path, like pro bass fishing or something.
And I'm quite certain that blocking ads is sending a message. Like, um, when you said that's it's showing up as a serious chunk in the stats? That would be a message that goes something like this: STOP SUCKING OR DIE, YOU STUPID TWATS.
This message also says: the people sending this message probably weren't your target market for SUVs or downloadable emoticons anyway. So, the adblockers are conserving bandwidth and saving money for the advertisers, because we're the ones definitely not buying their idiotic crap no matter how much they spend trying to market to us. This message says: we - hate - you.
Are these same advertisers and agencies also wringing their hands because they want to buy some ad space in Adbusters magazine, and can't?
Firefox with Adblock Plus and autoupdating Filterset.G makes my life better. And all the people involved with producing and permitting the overlapping Flash ad or the fake Windows alert window, what if my adblocking decision helps make their lives just a little bit worse? Man, I hope it does. I really, really hope it does.
I remember NG having some really stunning wildlife photography on the top three-fourths of a page, and the rest would be an explanation of the shiny, shiny Canon equipment that took it. So they were relevant (and frequently really pretty), but they were ads. I think they said "Wildlife as Canon sees it" or something like that.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The whole point of Consumer Reports is that they pass judgment on products in a comparative fashion. Sometimes they approve of something; sometimes they don't. The whole point is that their endorsement is far, far more valuable than the endorsement of an advertisement, because it's honest. (At least, the whole point of Consumer Reports is to be unbiased and honest. If they're not, they're useless.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You're sure you're not thinking of "Consumers Digest"? I'm pretty sure that CR doesn't accept ads. They even purchase all of the reviewed products at retail.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Otherwise I might give Slashdot 'editors' revenue they don't deserve.
A surprising number of those DRM'd HDTV players do actually run some form of Linux. Unfortunately for you and I, there's no login and they're not easy to modify - sometimes using good encryption and key signing on the firmware to make sure you can't read or change it.
In my opinion it would be nice if GPLv3 made it a requirement that you can modify the firmware on such devices, for those that want to - but I don't think that's coming.
-- Jamie
Speaking of ads and not buying magazines, I hate magazines that push back the table of contents by one or more pages to make room for more ads up front. It's inconvenient, annoying, and shows me how much value that put on the actual magazine content (not much). Don't buy them (I don't).
Other websites ALSO do this, and it takes me some time to figure out why clicking their links don't work. Namely that:
1) It tries to open a popup for the link.
2) But my blocker blocked it
3) So it needs an exception to show me the page that I wanted, because for some stupid reason, it can't just show me the content in the current window.
Arrrghhhh, damn windows-centric IT people.
I simply don't notice them anymore.
I don't block all ads, just the ones that meet a few simple criteria. However, when an ad does meet the criteria, I use the wildcard fairly liberally.
Ads that bounce, flash annoyingly, or that fill up the whole page are right out. The burn up resources on my fairly old laptop, potentially cause headaches, and do their best to break my concentration. I despise salesmen who act like a chihuahua on speed, and that sort of ad is exactly the sort they would come up with.
Ads that attempt to look like a dialog box. Since I use Linux, and they assUme Windows, they're not even vaguely convincing, but nevertheless, they are attempting to use deception and trickery to lure people in. Since they do that, odds are good they're the sort of scum that will say ANYTHING to make a sale and leave me screwed, so I make them go away.
Flash is outta there. It eats considerable resources on my little laptop, and is mostly done in flash in an attempt to get around ad blocking anyway. If a salesman sticks his foot in my door, he gets a broken foot (at best), on the web I have to settle for flashblock. Ah, well!
Ads that significantly delay page rendering. If they can't be bothered to get their message to me quickly, I can't be bothered to glance over it.
I'm sure it's been mentioned previously, but I'll add my vote anyway.
The core problem is the ads are TOO INTRUSIVE. Without an ad blocker, my screen looks like a 900 ring circus of animations, flash, and whatever else some not-in-touch-with-reality marketer can manage to squeeze onto a webpage. I don't know about anyone else, but I multi-task with my computer and that means I have anywhere from 8-30 web pages open at any given time. If all of those pages contain 1 animation, my computer has to split it's processing between all of the animations *and* the work I'm trying to get done. It's just too slow to get anything done that way - period.
What's worse is that all that extra junk is just plain distracting which makes me less efficient at getting anything done. I don't have time to deal with useless nonsense when I'm at the computer. I don't use my computer to waste my life or kill time. I have other things outside of cyberspace that need attention, too.
If you're seriously asking this question, you aren't using your computer time to it's fullest benefit - personally or professionally.
Purely for that reason - trying to persuade me to buy stuff I do not want, never mind NEED - I revile all advertising, and think it is the cause of most malcontent and discontent in the general population. Imagine how much happier you would be if you weren't bombarded constantly with things you should/must buy. I hate all adverts in any medium, roadside, magazine, television, you name it. Leave me alone and I will buy what I desire, when I desire it, not what you think I should desire by which 'demographic group' I fit in. OK, rant over...
I personally do not block internet ads. I am running several ads, and to se other ads are informative for me. Besides e.g. adsense (googleads) are many times relevant to the site, and in case the site is good and i see an ad it does not hurt to make a few cents to the site owner (i only ckick the ad if it interests me not just to make $$ for the site).
Besides, on obviously spam sites (no content, linkfarm / etc) i refuse to click on ads, and better copy the url out from the ad, and remove referers.
Magazines:
Computer magazines are always behind news, and are not interesting for me, I do not want the free windows programs, nor am I interested in the newest printer reviews. If I need something I buy a book or read a manual, for buying I read review sites.
Now sports magazines: I tried Paintball, motocross, mountainbike, ATV, RC related, bicycle related mags and I gave it up.
Ads, are ads and those make the money for the mag, but nowadays most of the mags I saw were review over review, and very little articles about events, or action photos. Yes it is important to see 10 different review of the same bike in 2003, 2004, 2005 and then other 5 ones on other 50 pages issue after issue, but it just kills it for me.
I simply refuse to buy anymore, I do not want the ads, nor the reviews, because I am not a shopping junkie who needs a new paintball gun, motorbike, bicycle or helmet every month.
When they separate buyer's guides from magazines and fill their pages with content, I won't mind the ads on every 3rd page. Besides in action/extreme sports magazines the ads are cool looking - while in computer magazines they are mostly annoyingly stupid.
I recently cancelled my last mag subscription from Official Xbox Magazine too, just did not like the style, but ads from the Army somehow bothered me - don't flame on this please, they just should not be in a Game related magazine, not even next to the lates army shooter.
Americans are becoming more and more sollicited everyday. There used to be a day when the Internet was the only safe haven from this barrage of useless garbage that would probably only work on morons. Then companies noticed a need to advertise on the Internet as it grew in popularity, but the thing they didn't take into consideration was the idea that people on the Internet are no longer a captive audience. If you want to watch TV live, get used to advertisements. Commercials have you at their will. Sure you can get up and get a snack, but still, that advertisement is forced to be on your screen. The Internet is the beginning of a new age. The "On-Demand" age (Comcast has to now follow suit with TV I suppose). We now choose our own content on the Internet, if something is too irritating, we don't have to see it. Not only that, but the Internet allows us the ability to fight back. We may not have control of everything, but we can certainly manipulate what is taking up our screen. The fact of the matter is that most savvy computer users are too smart for the ads you use to target them. The ads become annoying, and when something on a smart user's computer becomes annoying, an entire website pops up to stick it to whatever the annoyance is. We may not be able to prevent the Fiesta Bowl from becoming the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or prevent networks from airing 10 minute shows and 20 minutes of commercials, but if we could we would, and on the Internet, we damn sure can. It's a race of innovation. The only problem is that as fast as advertisers think they are finding ways out of being blocked (making the ad take up the whole page or whatever), technology catches up just as fast. Because the people who know how to work a computer are more annoyed by the advertisement then a company is intent on them being seen. Simply put, if you want to advertise to consumers on the Internet, you should try to stop insulting their intelligence first. Try to blend into the wonder that is the web instead of sticking out and irritating people. People who don't want your product aren't going to be convinced by flashing red ads anyway. This is why Google Ads make sense.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I don't want your big French Fry
I don't want your car
I don't want to buy no soap
From no washed-up movie star
You are so much louder
Than the show I wanna hear
With your sugarless gum
Gee, but I'm dumb
Non-alcoholic beer
It's enough to make a grown man
Blow up his own TV
Quit hollerin' at me
Quit hollerin' at me
Ads are not signal.
This may sound a little odd, so I'll say it again.
Advertisements. Are. Not. Signal.
When I'm on the web, on Usenet, reading email, watching TV, or listening to the radio, there are two types of information in the world.
Stuff I want to experience (see, hear, anything). This is information I will seek out.
Stuff I don't. This is information which is forced on me.
The former is signal. The latter, noise.
I have a limited set of resources to pull down internet information. These resources include bandwidth, download caps, the amount of time I can spend in a block in front of the screen, the speed of my PC, and the number of hours of my life and dollars in my wallet I'm prepared to burn up seeking the information I want - the signal.
Noise is the stuff which makes my experience less enjoyable. It consumes my time, my money, my bandwidth, my disk cache, my screen real estate and my attention, and gives me nothing in return. It is a legion of parasites.
So I block it. I block this noise in many ways - spam filters, ad filters, turning off flash and images for many sites, blocking domains and entire IP ranges.
If a product falls into my areas of interest, rest assured that I will know of it. If a new product is invented, I will become aware of it through my own channels. If I want to buy something, I will seek out relevant information and comparisons at that time, and no sooner.
I don't buy newspapers any more, because I can learn more accurate information faster on more areas of personal interest from other channels. I watch TV perhaps once every couple of months. I mentally filter out the bloody stupid ads at cinemas, or just wait ten minutes after the start time to enter. I filter out the noise from my email, my news, my web surfing, and as much as I can in the real world.
Advertisers do not have a right to make money. They do not have a right to appropriate our time, our money, and our attention. They do not even have the right to exist as an industry. Questions like how are they supposed to reach me and how are they supposed to get me to buy their product are based on false pretences. They will not reach me. I will not give them a chance to sell me their product, because I see no reason to. There is no benefit to ME. I do not need 'knowledge of their product and/or industry'.
Seriously, I don't.
They're not signal. They are noise.
And I have better things to do than listen to it.
Christopher Locke puts it so much better than I can, but basically, they're my eyes, and I didn't sell them to you. I've already payed for my Internet connection and I'm not going to waste my time on one more soul-destroying, time-wasting piece of trash that has no purpose other than to steal my money, which I have earned with time from my life I will never get back. Ads steal my life, and they don't give anything in return.
Nathan's blog
I block ads, because they make a webpage ugly, and the dancing flashing beeping ..etc ones are making the sites unreadable, unusable, and a piece of shit at all. Besides, I don't think I'd buy a product just because it has been promoted/advertised on the net.. I'm not a fsckin' retard, that does what sees, or at least I like to think that ;]
It's the ones that jump, flash, go bang, and move around that I love to block. I also remove ones that disrupt the flow of a page (i.e. a quarter of the text area is removed for a large box ad).
I actually have fun blocking annoying ads!