Slashdot Mirror
Adblock Plus Maker Proposes Change To Help Sites
Dotnaught writes "Wladimir Palant, maker of the Firefox extension Adblock Plus, on Monday proposed a change in his software that would allow publishers, with the consent of Adblock Plus users, to prevent their ads from being blocked. Palant suggested altering his software to recognize a specific meta tag as a signal to bring up an in-line dialog box noting the site publisher's desire to prevent ad blocking. The user would then have to choose to respect that wish or not."
Nope - they're providing additional functionality to webmasters, so that they can go and say "Hey ABP user, you've been here a couple times, please consider allowing the ads to be displayed here"
NoScript's AdBlock-blocking trick was kinda dirty, but I don't see them as being hypocritical for allowing their own ads given the tremendous service(which increases safety while speeding up browsing) they provide for free.
Riiiiight. Because when it's other site's ad income you're negating it's about ideals and the rights of the users. But when it's your site's income it's because your service on your web site is automatically so much more beneficial than Google or Slashdot.
... you defend NoScript after attacking AdBlock for a lesser crime (merely asking you if you would consider viewing ads after visiting a site many times). What exactly is your angle? I think we may have the first case of Firefox extension fanboism on our hands here, folks.
Your position is interesting
My work here is dung.
In other (related) news, Slashdot today allowed me to disable all the ads on the site, simply for occasionally moderating an not posting stupid crap all the time. I was using adblock anyway but this removes the blank space and allows the content to expand into the areas the ads used to occupy.
Thank you Slashdot.
If they implement it like flash block so that the ad is replaced with a button to click to show the ad then I might consider turning the option on. If it pops up a dialog every time it blocks an ad then it goes in the bin!
Oh yeah, it will only show this pop up requesting the ad be displayed when there is a special meta-tag. I wonder how many seconds it will take for every ad service to include that tag.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
are TOO successful. You're a webmaster running a site that's partially (or completely) paid for by advertising. You see in your analytics report of hits that a significant percentage of viewers are running AdBlock. So not only are you NOT getting clicks, but your advertisers aren't even being seen to begin with. And let's assume you're honest (and that your advertisers are too), and that your ads aren't malicious and in fact serve a normal purpose: to advertise a legitimate product. Given this, I can see why AdBlock might be considering this option. If they've gotten enough complaints from legitimate companies/websites with legitimate ads saying essentially "hey, your product is costing me a substantial amount of revenue loss", then its understandable that AdBlock would consider this. Since AdBlock's an open source/freeware product(hi Stallman!/Stallman's acolytes! Please do ignore my semi-ignorant malapropism... there's plenty of room for you in my colon!), basically AdBlock (and NoScript) are allowing users to get something for nothing... for free! We are cheating the system in a way. So I say let AdBlock look at doing it. I'll admit, sometimes it's good to see advertising, especially if it's a product/service I'm interested in. I run AB/NS simply because I've been burned one too many time by a scriptkiddie, but I do allow websites I trust to show ads.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Your position is interesting ... you defend NoScript after attacking AdBlock for a lesser crime (merely asking you if you would consider viewing ads after visiting a site many times). What exactly is your angle? I think we may have the first case of Firefox extension fanboism on our hands here, folks.
Hmm, I didn't attack AdBlock. I did mean to say that it was redundant and pointless for AdBlock to prompt users as long as the same users also run NoScript. I did also say that I prefer NoScript over AdBlock, but I wouldn't call that an "attack".
As for NoScript's meddling with AdBlock, my personal belief is that is okay as long as the meddling involves only the showing of NoScript's as since I am using NoScript for free. I wouldn't mind if AdBlock meddled with NoScript to show AdBlock's, and only AdBlock's, own ads.
I am not a FF plugin fanboy. If NoScript and AdBlock accepted deals from advertisers and things gradually become worse (as they almost always do over time) then I'd ditch FF entirely and go the Chrome route.
So that's my angle.
Having been on the Internet before all the businesses realized they could make a buck with it, I realize that the "free Web" was actually better for not having ads on it. Most of the sites that support themselves through advertising could disappear tomorrow, and no one would miss them; the only exception that comes to mind is Google, whose ads are non-intrusive enough that even people who don't like ads can tolerate them.
What I have to wonder is, are the AdBlock Plus folks getting kickbacks in return for this new "functionality"?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I wouldn't mind spending some of my bandwidth to download the ads as long as they weren't displayed. This would help some websites that get revenue based on number of impressions.
I'll agree with all your requirements and add this: No ads served by advertising companies. I have no desire to allow companies like Doubleclick or Yahoo to track my movements across the web.
If a site hosts their own ads and they don't blink or move, then I will consider turning ads on on their site.
Also, the ad should be text or a simple image, no scripts. unnecessary scripts slow the browser down too much
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
This is a well thought out reply, and I particularly appreciate the last paragraph - I think that is an actual thoughtful response - can we block types of ads? That would certainly solve my grievance with the things. However, I can't say I agree with your response - regardless of the amount of effort you put into it. You brought up the primary reason - the tag will get copied, and it will become a race between modifying the "law and the hacker" - and as always, the hacker will win. That means we've got a potentially useful tool (one I don't use - I don't think it's the best for the purpose) that is suddenly completely useless. Additionally - while I take your point regarding the "extra reminder" for those who forget to unblock ads at sites where they would be happy to fork over bandwidth in order to give the site some revenue - it still seems damn silly. In order to fix what is really a discipline problem, we now invalidate the purpose of the original program. I'd suggest that, again, your solution in the last paragraph of your response is massively more appropriate - and that other solutions can be arrived at that are better conceived as well. This one stinks.
> I expect to see this meta tags on most sites in the near future.
Duh. How many ad networks would continue to do business with a site that lacked that tag if it ever got popular enough to have a measurable impact on ad impressions? Exactly. Thus this is pointless. People really should THINK before putting their mouth in gear. Guy wants to make everybody happy, which is a good intent, but it can't be done. The tension between ads and people not wanting to see the crap can't be solved by any means anyone is willing to undertake.
Personally I could care less about normal ads. Heck, I used to buy Computer Shopper to read the ads. Most of the ads I see here on slashdot aren't even a problem. It is sites who sign up for ad networks that accept the sleezy animated crap that are the problem. And nobody has a plan to deal with that.
Democrat delenda est
Why haven't ad providers tried to go to war with adblock? The rules in the main ABP filterset are generally pretty simple, like ad1.* ad2.* etc.
Why not acquire random domains and dynamically create links to the ads on these servers? I could see ABP blocking the first japi1fas6df.com/273849.gif, but not the 1000th. Is there a technical reason why this would be infeasible?
++FlashBlock!
I'll allow just about anything else short of pop-ups (though i may visit ad-heavy sites considerably less...). But seeing my work machine bogged down by useless flash ads open on articles i'm using for reference really sets me off - kill 'em all!
I got offered the choice of blocking slashdot ads today due to my contributions to the site. I had to think long and hard about whether to accept since I knew I was denying a site I value a source of revenue.
I have decided yes at the moment but I will probably change my mind since I have realised that the adverts never really bothered me anyway. I was always very good at ignoring adverts anyway so they made no difference to me. We live in a capitalist work and advertising is a part of that.
I dont read
It could be worse. They could make it a subscription service for webmasters to participate in this or something like this.
That would definitely cross some moral, if not legal line.
Dual Opteron < $600
I use AdBlock Plus.
I don't subscribe to any filters list as I create my own one-by-one.
I don't block ads served up by the local site.
I do block 3rd-party ads.
My statistics show that I can block more than 50% of all ads with just 3 filters:
*doubleclick*
*adserver*
pagead*.googlesyndication.com/pagead/*
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
> don't most ad companies only pay the site whenever a user clicks on an ad?
It varies. But they almost always have to pay when you do click. So if you see an ad you hate, click on it and don't buy. Do your small part to lower their conversion ration (purchases over clicks) and their business case for paying money to waste your browser screen space will be reduced.
If just a few million people would spend just 10-20 clicks a day making crappy internet advertising unprofitable, it would decline a lot.
This was true a year or two ago, but I've seen a marked decrease in the number of ad-spam sites in my google search results - practically none these days. Either my search skills are somehow better than average (unlikely); or you're working off of outdated data.
When VALinux release a browser or a plugin that I use then I won't mind it displaying only its own ads.
Imagine MS put in ad blocking in a release of IE but it allowed ads to be shown on MS sites or through their ad network.
You don't mind because of who they are, not because of what they are doing. If you don't understand why that's wrong, I don't know what to say.
Regardless, the proposal sucks.
A good portion of ad revenue comes from non-regular visitors. People who land on the site read a page, then find an interesting ad to click off on.
Regular visitors tend to become ad blind. Giving regular visitors the option to see ads isn't a big plus for webmasters.
Dual Opteron < $600
A button in Adblock would be cool to show seldom in one corner of the website to say "Support this site".
Then it would download the ads but not show them (or optionally show them [or optionally click them]). Your favorite sites would get more income. My browser knows what sites I've been to often, no extra tag necessary.
As far as I know, most people don't use ad-blocking, so the ad companies won't get weird ideas to circumvent that.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Adverts don't have to be flashing, bouncing, animated AVIs with extra-embedded javascript.
There's a few sites I visit which have adverts done with this thing called 'text'. I can see them, which must mean that adblock isn't blocking them.
PS: Adblock is a tiny percentage of Internet users and they're all rabid anti-advert types so any revenue being 'lost' is just background noise.
No sig today...
I think this is a push for people that don't understand you can whitelist sites. I suggest Adblock Plus to a lot of my friends, some of which aren't the most computer literate people. I can understand the need behind this feature.
But I also understand bribery.
Its not what it is, its something else.
Actually, until ads quit infecting my computer, I'm going to be blocking everything I possibly can. My virus/malware infection per month ratio dropped dramatically with the addition of Adblock Plus.
Perhaps the advertisers should be going after the reason most people are blocking ads these days.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Mods, he may not be offtopic.
SigBlocking is not the cure for $600 promos.
Depends on how good his comment is,
Everyone mods it up.
Later, it goes to +5...
Like that's the seal of approval.
It's related to the Captcha problem.
No software can strip the ads out of this post.
Text is Static - there is no LetterItemVeto.
Embedding may be the bane of the future.
Like the caps, my friend?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It's pretty safe to assume that if a site has ads, they want you to see the ads. Every ad provider that knows about the tag will require its use on every site that uses their ads. They might as well just make it a one-time option to enable ads on sites you visit frequently.
Also, if people really care about encouraging "acceptable" ads, they should create a new subscription list that only bans the obnoxious ones. Then maybe you could use the strict list on one-off visits and the "acceptable" list for sites you visit regularly.
If the ads come from their own website, I'm perfectly okay with that too. It means it's 99.99% less likely that the ad is running javascript that will exploit a vulnerability in the browser, install code, and turn my pc into a zombie.
When the advertisers realize that we have legit reasons to be worried about code running on our boxes, and they do their ads securely, and they play by our rules, then I'll be happier about seeing ads on the net. But right now, any ad appearing in your browser window only means that you're probably already compromised.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Personally, I start with an empty list. If an ad annoys or offends me, then I add the ad-server's entire domain to my list of blocked sites. My list of blocks is around 30 long accumulated over ~2 years. It doesn't take much to eliminate the really bad ones out there.
It's perfect tit-for-tat. Evil ads get punished. Good ads get rewarded. (Then again maybe I only surf sites that use good ads, it's hard to tell.)
It's legal to creative derivative works without the consent of the copyright owner?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I don't recall the legal basis, but yes it went to trial. IIRC webmasters sued a spamware company that was replacing banner ads with their own, and lost.
I doubt something existing in temporary memory that isn't distributed is considered a 'derivative work', but I'll leave that up to the legal experts who aren't named Stallman.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Here's the question though: might it also be within your "rights" to selectively download parts of the site, as long as their server is happy to serve those parts? Even if one of those parts happens to be a block of text that says, "stop doing that"?
Frankly I think the word "right" doesn't fit, and though we all use it in this context, it can lead the conversation to confusing places. My view is that, if I send a GET request (provided that it isn't illegal to make the request), and the file gets served, I've done nothing wrong nor failed in any responsibility to the site owner.
This is not to say that I don't support sites and projects that I think are worthwhile, or remove sites from Adblock when asked. But it's my call. Hypothetically, were someone to demand patronage of me, my only option wouldn't be to stop visiting the site, I'd also have the option to just ignore the demands. As long as the server is also configured to ignore them, my relationship to the site owner has not changed.
Most of the useful content on slashdot.org is comments. Many of them were written by me. It says on the bottom of the home page, "Comments are owned by the Poster". If I were to send SourceForge a bill for all the content I've provided to this site, would they be on the hook for paying it? Would their only option be to respond to it by blocking my account?
I think that they'd probably ignore it, since we don't have the kind of relationship that prevents them from doing so.
My own personal mod troll strikes again. It must really burn you guys up to know that even with several of you, I can still keep ahead of you. My sincerest thanks go out to all of you out there moderating funny comments as "Insightful" or "Informative" as appropriate — you know who you are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The hell they don't. You're visiting their web site hosted on their hardware, at their expense, and maintained with their time/money.
Which they've put online in the Internet, which was developed with my tax money, is running on the telco lines put in the ground with my tax money, and which I'm accessing through my DSL line that I pay for.
I figure it equals out. If they don't want people visiting their site they don't have to put it online, you know?
There are laws in most civilized countries preventing commercial entities from certain filtering mechanisms with respect to their customers. For example, it would be illegal for any US store to put up a sign that says "no niggers allowed inside", or to enforce such a door policy, with or without the sign.
Commercial interests are a part of the bigger whole, which is society and culture. They should stop pretending that they are the big picture and everything else has to run according to their rules.
One of the rules of the Internet is: You are the server, you don't control the client. You decide what information you send, the client decides how to process it. If for some reason the client turns all your tags into tags before displaying them, that's how it is, like it or not. If he doesn't want to display pictures, or titles, or navigation bars, or advertisement, then that's how it is. You don't control the client. Like it or leave it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm not sure what you mean by roll-over ads, but if I'm correct, you're talking about the CSS display:block and possibly similar "animated" stuff, usually using a scripted timer to deactivate (and possibly to activate in the first place, thus rollover, tho I've never seen that since I seldom have scripting actually on, except on sites where it has been demonstrated not to give me problems or annoyances).
Such things, and really, any CSS element, can be disabled by simply rewriting any display option to display:none, or adding it to the element if not already there. I don't happen to run a browser based adblock of any sort as I was doing something similar using privoxy (on Linux, and the Proxomitron before that, on MSWormOS) before those sorts of browser-based features arrived, and they're more powerful and flexible anyway, but certainly, with the personal proxies, it's normally easy enough to setup a filter to do that rewrite dynamically, which is what I've done.
In fact, it was only a few days ago that I came across a site using display:block, and setup the generic display:none rewrite, because that site had the block set to apply for 15-20 seconds (the text said 15, the code said 20) using javascript, which, not being enabled, didn't unblock. Making things worse, while the site /had/ coded a click here to continue button, that was scripted as well, so it wasn't working either! Well, any site that's doing that sort of thing is a site not worth trusting with scripting in the first place in my book, so no, I was NOT going to turn it on for them. But a few minutes and one privoxy filter addition later, viola! No more display:block! That filterset is set to apply globally unless I've setup an exception, but I don't expect I'll be setting up many exceptions to display:block rewriting!
A couple days later, I noted I'd followed another RSS feed (courtesy of another site) link to the site, and sure enough, no more trouble! If I hadn't known about the filter I'd put in place a couple days earlier, I'd have been none-the-wiser that they were even doing it at all!
But as mentioned, the display:none trick can be used for any sort of CSS element, or at least I've used it on several now, before this, more site-specific, and never had a problem. It's great to be able to disable whole elements, poof, without screwing up the formatting, and unlike trying to filter certain other undesired (non-CSS) elements (such as various table tags, where auto-parsing to find the appropriate /tag can be troublesome), the CSS namespace is specific enough and the attributes engineered well enough, one can usually do it without disabling anything actually desired on the page at the same time.
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
Even for people with fast connections and fast computers - I lost count of the times I've had to wait 30+ seconds for a page to load purely because of some overloaded ad server sometime back in 2002.
Note to site admins: if people routinely have to wait stupidly long times whilst browsing your site purely due to mandatory ad placement, they'll eventually stop coming. It was this sort of behaviour that led me to using ad blocking tools in the first place.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
I disagree. If I wanted to see ads I wouldn't have installed ABP in the first place.
I don't want to click no on every site I visit for the first time. It's a PITA. As much so as seeing the ads themselves.
This idea is stupid.
But nobody is saying you'll have to click no, as we are talking about an opt in not an opt out. And that sounds fair. It makes it easy for those that don't really know how to add stuff to the ABP whitelist (like my 67 year old dad who loves his ABP and thinks a PC is "broken" if he doesn't have it) while at the same time leaving the default adblocking behavior alone. So really, what's not fair or right about this?
You will simply have a small block of text with a button at the top or bottom of the webpage, placed there by the webadmin. It won't be like a toolbar on your browser or a pop up, but more like a bit of text on the page you are viewing. It will simply say something like "please support my site if you like it by pressing this button to add my site to your ABP whitelist" and then you are free to ignore it or press it...your call. It still leaves the default behavior in your hands and gives you a butt simple button to push if you actually like a site and want to support it.
It seems completely fair to me and will give a chance for honest web admins to make their case directly to the viewer while at the same time giving the choice to us, the web surfer to allow or deny their request. Don't worry, if you want to never see an ad again nobody says you will have to opt out or push the button. Just ignore the text on the website and everything is just as it is now.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.