Ars Technica Inveighs Against Ad Blocking

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica recently conducted a 12-hour experiment in which story content was hidden from users of popular ad blocking tools. Explaining the experiment, Ken Fisher appealed to Ars's readership: 'My argument is simple: blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen. I am very proud of the fact that we routinely talk to you guys in our feedback forum about the quality of our ads. I have proven over 12 years that we will fight on the behalf of readers whenever we can. Does that mean that there are the occasional intrusive ads, expanding this way and that? Yes, sometimes we have to accept those ads. But any of you reading this site for any significant period of time know that these are few and far between. We turn down offers every month for advertising like that out of respect for you guys. We simply ask that you return the favor and not block ads.'"

Comments

It's the freeloaders time

[sopssa]

Somehow Internet has made people to forget that creating quality content costs money. Often a lot of money. Often with these kind of things I'm really surprised at how dumb nerdy people can be too. You know, us who should know better and not be those stupid sheeps who are happy have a "mindless" job and then watch tv for rest of the evening and still enjoy it, even if theres no mentally requiring tasks involved.

But all the while a lot of people, mostly us geeks, cannot grasp that immaterial products and content also costs to create and takes just the same manhours. This is usually the same thing on discussions about piracy too - there's always someone pointing out that "duplicating" that content to sell it to you doesn't cost anything. Really? Are we really that dumb? That may not cost much, but it's creating it that does and those costs are got back from selling it to people. A lot of times a lot later, with some forms of entertainment even years later.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[OffTheWallSoccer]

For me, it comes down to the annoyance factor. If the ads on a site are cleanly organized in a way that won't distract me while reading the article, then I'm okay with it. But lots of sites display those seizure-inducing, bright-blinking-scrolling ads. THEY get black-listed.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[wolffenrir]

Then figure out another way to make money. If you business model is based upon annoying the shit out everybody, ripping through cycles, and just peddling bullshit on your website, then just have the guts to fail instead of begging people to play along with your stupid business plan.

Half of the people out there with Windows machines infested with malware got that malware because they DID NOT use privacy and security extensions. So we are all supposed to pretend like this practice a good idea just so somebody can continue making money on a business model we have known is a failed concept for almost a decade?

It's a bad idea. If you want to sell something, then just write it out in your html. Don't play games with your customers' privacy and security. Let's not forget that these adservers also act as data collectors which threaten our privacy in rather serious circumstances.

When a newspaper runs ads, it is not jammed right in the middle of an article. It doesn't jump of the fucking page and flash in red letters. It doesn't create another newspaper filled with bullshit ads and malware and shoot it out at your face. But when we are talking about ads on the web, that is exactly what is happening. We are never talking about people just putting a sales pitch and graphic embedded in the html.

Just modify the scripts that generate your pages to insert the ads yourself. Don't use third parties. Don't fuck with your users. You might be surprised by the result.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[sopssa]

You may have over-saturation of content, but it's shitty content and a lot of times copied from other sites (now before someone jumps on it, I don't include slashdot with this - the comments and discussions here are sometimes great and unique). But quality content does cost. If they can't sustain making it with ads, they will start asking users to pay for the content. I know a few sites I would pay for, just because I find their content good and a few dollars a month wouldn't really be so much (price of one beer that you wouldn't even hesitate to think about?)

I'm getting so sick and tired of this dinosaurian party line that we should be expected to pay for content!

Heh.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. In the same way that one can create a model defining the fraction of folks exposed to a TV ad who watch it, you can create a model defining the fraction of folks with webblockers. The analogy is a good one, and Ars Technica, as usual, is full of shit.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Mr2001]

But [TV advertisers] really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such.

Yes, now take that one step further - on the internet, you can track clicks, not just views. I don't click on ads, period, so why should Ars or their advertisers care whether or not my browser displays them?

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[blincoln]

I was fine with advertising on websites when it was limited to (non-controversial) static images without sound.
I started using ad-blocking software when website advertising became animated, sound-producing, and often included content that wouldn't be appreciated where I work. I became more aggressive about it when it expanded to include things that cover up the content on the site I'm reading, or similar popup-style behaviour.
Having had it hidden from me for years now, I find unfiltered websites a mind-numbing barrage of distraction that teeters on the edge of unusability. I had a similar experience when I moved away from watching television. I love films and serials, but I no longer have any interest in watching them in broadcast/cable/satellite form due to the ADD-inducing advertising model.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[d3ac0n]

I'm with wolffenrir.

As an IT guy I spend far too much time cleaning up infected machines due to malware gotten from bad ads.

Frankly, I simply cannot trust ANYONE anymore. Understand that I have seen infections start after people visited CNN.com, Foxnews.com, MSNBC.com, ESPN.com, Facebook, Amazon, and MANY MANY MANY other major news/social/other sites that serve banner ads from 3rd party vendors. (or from a poorly secured internal ad server)

At this point I simply block all ads everywhere. I use Firefox with Adblock Plus and No Script and my surfing is safe.

I'm sorry Ars, but until you make a solemn and public oath (permanently posted to your front page) to only serve static image content using only html (no flash, no javascript, nothing but plaintext html) then frankly I can't trust you with my PC.

I understand that this is preventing you from making money, but you haven't earned my TRUST yet. You have to earn that BEFORE you get to earn money from me.

I'm sorry if that upsets your business model, but that's just too damn bad. You don't get to make money from me while putting my machine at risk.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Daengbo]

As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature.

Ars is full of crap on this issue. Annoying and questionable ads didn't come about because of ad blockers. Ad blockers came about to stop the animated "your computer is infected" GIFs and "punch the monkey" Flash ads. Many ad blocker lists specifically avoided blocking text ads because these weren't annoying and borderline illegal.

Ad blocker are a result of evil ads, just like popup blockers were invented to stop annoying pop ups, (not because someone in some tall tower thought that popup blocker might be useful at some future time). Wake up, Ars.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Machtyn]

I will have to agree on a point here. For me, besides getting rid of the annoyance factor, it is a security issue. I trust the sites I browse. I don't necessarily trust the third party sites that inject the advertising on to a page. Even reputable sites get bad adverts on their page.

My one disagreement on the above is the comment on newspaper ads. Many times the articles are split between two pages, the ads are in the middle of the article or are placed in a way that adjusts the flow of text so that you notice them.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[illumnatLA]

I agree... I don't have a problem with web page ads in general.

It's the damn ads that

1. Pop up a graphic that covers most of the screen when you accidentally mouse over them
2. Little floaty windows that float over the content you're trying to look at until you close them
3. An overabundance of inline text-linked ads that also float something when you mouse over them
4. Ads that automatically start playing sound.
5. Seizure inducing blinky ads
6. Ads that disguise themselves as error messages
7. Ad servers that slow down the entire page load time

It seems that some webmasters/advertisers have gotten it into their heads that the more annoying they make their ads, the more likely we are to buy their product. In actuality, all they are doing is causing users to close the window and move on to someone else's less annoying site. If one of their stinking ads gets in the way and I accidentally click it, I don't look at the ad... I immediately close the page it opens in annoyance.

Stop trying to annoy the hell out of your readers with terrible ads and they'll be more likely to stop using ad blockers or at least whitelist your site.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[RocketScientist]

Do you use a DVR to skip commercials?

If so, please explain how that's different from using adblock.

Now I'll tell you how using a DVR is different from using adblock. I haven't seen a TV commercial that an infect my TV and make it quit working or invade my privacy or steal my identity. I have seen very widespread Flash advertisements on web pages that will do exactly that.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[mrclisdue]

From TFA:

... pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching...Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus.

Ok, so the author of the TFA has determined, all by himself, that we aren't allowed to use this comparison.

What if I want to use the comparison, despite his objections? His opinion(s) trump any of my arguments because he's said so....?

hmmm

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[ultranova]

Somehow Internet has made people to forget that creating quality content costs money. Often a lot of money. Often with these kind of things I'm really surprised at how dumb nerdy people can be too.

Dumb? Or just indifferent? This is a society which glorifies greed and selfishness, of watching out for number one and putting one's personal gain above all. Time and again do hear that the purpose of business is to generate profits for the owner, not care for the common good. Again and again do "libertarians" argue against public services because they require taxation. Should it really come as a surprise when the rest of us say "fine" and jump in on the bandwagon? And does that really make us dumb?

This is simply normal people emulating the aristocracy, doing what they're told is proper and good over and over again. "Not my problem", says a businessman who fires his employees; "not my problem", says a netizen who deprives a site of any source of revenue. Welcome to the next round of "Consequences of Capitalism"; the sound you heard is the society slowly crumbling around you since no one can be bothered to maintain it and often actively cursing any attempt to force them to.

You know, us who should know better and not be those stupid sheeps who are happy have a "mindless" job and then watch tv for rest of the evening and still enjoy it, even if theres no mentally requiring tasks involved.

I enjoy Jackass. It doesn't mean I'm dumb, it just means I enjoy Jackass.

You fail logic forever. But then again, most people who call others "sheep" do.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Tharsman]

What about you just don't visit the site? If they annoy you, don't waste their resources or your time.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Hittman]

Since most sites feature those annoying ads, it's easier to just block them all. Advertisers don't seem to realize that one flashing ad on one site will result in us turning off all ads, everywhere.

If there was no animation in ads I'd leave them on - sometimes they're useful, sometimes they're entertaining, and at the very least they may help the site make a buck. But that's not going to happen. We're constantly subjected to ads that get more and more annoying, so we just turn them all off. And when a site takes the time to carefully screen their ads it doesn't make much difference - we've already blocked them everywhere.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[mobby_6kl]

In other words, some advertisers have not yet realized that they can pay per click instead of per view? Shouldn't we be encouraging them to get with the times, instead of changing our behavior to suit their inefficient advertising model?

Or maybe they discovered that there is value in having your product/brand visible to people, and understand that almost no one would instantly rush out to buy their stuff. Instead, once people know their offering, once they need something in that category, they would be more likely to pay attention to the product that they saw on a banner a month ago.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[wilsone8]

And yet, your post seems to show that advertising was working on you:

- The majority of the ads are for GQ magazine. I didn't even know what the fuck that was before clicking on the link

. Perfect. The ad gave you knowledge of a product you were unaware of before. That's the whole point of advertising.

- I had 3 annoying Gilette ads about their Fusion razor.

If you can remembver the name of the product afterwards, then the ad is working. Also, and I know this may come as a shock, but not every ad is going to be perfectly relevent to you.

- I get a metric fuckton of ads for Wired magazine, already on their RSS feed, more irrelevant ads

You expect Ars to some how know that ahead of time? You whine that the ads aren't relevent, but they are for a product you already use. I would say that means the ad was at least targeted at the right demographic, even if its not relevent to you in particular.

- I got about 10 or so Microsoft ads about some 'Business Synergy Client Focused' gobbledygook

Another tech related ad on a tech site. Makes sense to me...

All this is missing the point of the article. Ars gets paid by the view. If you don't view ads, they don't get paid. That means they have to get rid of staff, reduce content, etc. If you like Ars, you should view the ads. If you don't want to view the ads, then either become a subscriber or don't view Ars.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Ifni]

Why can't I get ads I would be even remotely interested in?

Probably because you block ads, therefore preventing the ad hosting companies from developing a history of your browsing habits with which to create better targeted content. So when you do finally unblock ads you have to suffer whatever random ads their confused algorithm throws your way. It's a vicious cycle, I know, but if you are genuinely open to targeted advertising then you have to sacrifice a little of your privacy. If you want to continue to enjoy free content on the Internet, you (maybe not you personally, but a significant percentage of the population) have to accept some level of advertising. I hate the obnoxious ads just as much as the next person, but the problem also is that ads that stay conveniently and quietly out of the way are also easy to ignore, and thus ineffective. Obnoxious ads annoy users and so perform the opposite of their intended function, so there is a very fine balancing act where everybody (well, most everybody) has to make some sacrifice for the system to work.

Slow ad servers, however, are unforgivable. Or, more accurately, poorly designed websites that require ad content to be loaded before the page can be properly rendered that are then tied to slow ad servers, are unforgivable. If I could view the page content while the ads are being downloaded, then I could obviously care less if they ever finish loading. Waiting for 30 seconds to see the content I originally came to see while watching a commercial (like on TV) is one thing, waiting 30 seconds TO EVEN watch a commercial AND the content I originally came to see (as with a slow ad server) is quite another.

I do appreciate your argument that an algorithm, knowing nothing else about you, and thus just beginning to build its database on you, should take note that you are browsing a tech site and provide tech targeted ads like video games and computer hardware. But then again, personal grooming products and magazines that frequently feature scantily clad females is not all that unexpected of an (stereotypical) interest for that demographic.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[Ifni]

I think that the point Ars is trying to make is that while yes, the ad blockers were created to block the truly hideous ads, they over-zealously also block the more acceptable ads, thus punishing the sites that refuse to run the obnoxious ads, even though they aren't contributing to the problem. His argument that sites are lured into running those such bad ads is a little more flimsy, however, as it seems to me that such a decision would only accelerate an already existing death spiral as more customers are either turned away or convinced to use ad blockers. I guess if the ad hosting companies that serve those ads pay more per click or view or something, then this might make some sense, but I don't have any experience with ad revenue structuring, so I don't know how much more financially tempting it is to run one ad over another.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[mundanetechnomancer]

- I had 3 annoying Gilette ads about their Fusion razor.

If you can remembver the name of the product afterwards, then the ad is working. Also, and I know this may come as a shock, but not every ad is going to be perfectly relevent to you.

this is based on the concept that anytime someone remembers the ad, the ad is a success. I have avoided products because i found their ads annoying, but marketing people don't think that happens

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[NickFortune]

And yet, your post seems to show that advertising was working on you:

Well then, I guess that's a win for the advertiser. As long as they're happy to define win as having one more consumer who hates and publically reviles their product. I know a lot of ad agencies think like that.

It's not a win for Ars, however, since the GP (disgusted with the annoyance factor of the ads in question) has gone back to blocking ads on the site.

Ars are a good site and I care what happens to them. I don't give a wet fart about GQ or Gillette. Ars had a chance to add an increment to their ad revenue and lost it, purely becuase of over aggressive advertising. You say they ads are working, but they're not working to the benefit of Ars Technica. Not in this instance, at least.

In TFA, Ken Fisher makes the point that websites advertising is not like TV advertising. I think maybe the ad agencies need to learn the same lesson: this isn't like broadcast TV where you can pump the most noxious crap into people's homes willy-nilly. On the Internet you advertise at a person largely by their consent. If you over tax the paitence of your target audience, you risk losing it, possibly forever.

There's are lessons for web sites here, too. Fisher says that Ars monitors its web content very carefully, but it seems to me that they dont set the bar high enough. If they forbade animated and flash based-ads from the site, they'd have a far stronger chance of persuading their readers to whitelist the site.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[wolffenrir]

But why does Ars not just manage the ads themselves? If ad revenue is so important to their bottom-line, then outsourcing the business represents poor business planning. I say that for the entire web industry. Don't buy into the Google and Doubleclick nonsense. Sell your ads directly. *You* know which products and services your readers would find most interesting. Become a businessman and make your sales pitch to them. Sell the ad space directly. Construct your own guidelines about the nature, content, and behavior of these ads. Embed them yourself in the pages you serve. Let's not pretend like this is difficult either. It's just a script that generates a page for each user. You have cookies to keep track of them. Most people don't block cookies from the sites they visit, but rather the third-party sites.

When the web began, this is EXACTLY how people did it. The entire .com boom was born from people doing EXACTLY what I just said. It is feasible, good business, *and* you can sleep at night.

Re:It's the freeloaders time

[mcgrew]

The majority of the ads are for GQ magazine. I didn't even know what the fuck that was before clicking on the link
Perfect. The ad gave you knowledge of a product you were unaware of before. That's the whole point of advertising.

No, the point of advertising is to increase sales. Serve me an ad for GQ and you're wasting your advertising budget, because I have no interest at all in magazines like GQ. Putting a Rolex ad in Boy's Life is just retarded; as retarded as an ad for GQ in a nerd rag.

I had 3 annoying Gilette ads about their Fusion razor.
If you can remembver the name of the product afterwards, then the ad is working

If your ad annoys me, I'll remember your ad all right, and avoid your product like the plague when I'm shopping.

If you like Ars, you should view the ads.

If Ars wants me to view the ads then shey shouldn't serve ads that annoy me, as they're more likely to lose my readership than to sell me their advertiser's product.

Sorry Ars, you are animated too

[markdavis]

We have been through all this stuff over and over again. People wouldn't have started blocking ads in the first place if they were reasonable ads. These are the reasons I use an ad-blocker:

* Animation- movement of any type
* Sound
* Popups
* Flyouts
* More ad space than content space
* Slow loading third-party sites

I am so anti-animation (I can't STAND movement on the screen while I am trying to read) that I have to block even non-Ad content (using "Flash Killer" and/or a manual Adblock addition for those sections with movement). Sometimes I even have to resort to killing Javascript ("JS Switch"). I don't want to deny sites revenue, but without being able to block the above types of Ad's, I wouldn't visit (or stay on) a site, anyway- so there is little difference.

Sorry Ars Technica... you can CLAIM your ads are non-intrusive and "quality", but I just visited your site with adblocking off and was immediately met with one highly annoying animated banner and a second, lower-animated, section. At least you only had two.

I am tired of companies trying to turn the Internet into Television.

Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too

[owlnation]

Could not possibly agree more!

I've never seen many animated ads on websites. In the days before adblock, I'd scroll the screen, put a piece of paper over that part of the monitor, or just leave the site -- never to return usually.

No-one has ever gotten any money from me by showing me an animated ad. No-one EVER will. If by chance I happen to catch the name of the company that produced the ad, I will do everything I can to avoid buying from them for the rest of my life. If your company doesn't respect my eyes, time and intelligence, then fuck you! I'm not giving you any money.

You want ads, fine. Google got it pretty much right. Discreet, contextual links. Those are quality ads. They can even have pictures in them, but if they move -- they die.

Arstechnica, if you aren't smart enough to understand this, and as the parent said; this is oft-discussed and well-known, then your site will eventually die. And it will be ENTIRELY your own fault. Quality ads do NOT intrude on the user -- they do NOT need to. It's just that simple.

Re:Sorry Ars, you are animated too

[Bit101]

I'm with that too. I'm perfectly fine with ads like the Google text ads. Hell, I even enjoy them sometimes. I went to a site that had these ads that constantly advertised for different MMOs, which I tried. I won't have found about these sites.

Ads suck

[mcelrath]

Ads are invasive, intrusive, annoying, and I don't want to see them. ever. There are laws against sending advertisements over the fax and cold-calling cell phones. The logic is that the recipient must pay for the unsolicited advertisement (in fax paper, toner, or cell phone minutes).

Internet ads are no different. I pay for bandwidth and connection time, so your ad directly costs me money, and it should be illegal for that reason. It costs me time too, making your page slower and more annoying. I don't want to have to hunt for the content among all the cleverly disguised ads. I don't want to have to examine the links to figure out which ones are ads and which ones are legitimate.

I will continue blocking ads until the end of time. If you can't figure out how to make money without annoying people, that's your problem. Get creative folks, and stop whining about how you wish people would just be more receptive to being annoyed.

Re:Ads suck

[Iyonesco]

If you don't want to see adverts don't visit any websites that have adverts on them. If you're repeatedly visiting websites that you know to have adverts then you're looking at the adverts voluntarily so it is no way an invasion or an intrusion.

Besides, without adverts the only way websites will be able to fund themselves is through fees. Would you rather pay a few dollars a month for every website you visit?

Re:Ads suck

[mcelrath]

If you don't want to see adverts don't visit any websites that have adverts on them.

That's supposed to work how? I'll just reprogram my browser to send a HTTP DOESTHISSITEHAVEADS request before following every link...

Besides, without adverts the only way websites will be able to fund themselves is through fees. Would you rather pay a few dollars a month for every website you visit?

Yes. But I don't want to juggle 50 different subscriptions at $50/year each. Get creative folks.

I do have a couple subscriptions, but I'm not going to buy a subscription for a one-off site I visit because the link appeared on slashdot (or google news, or twitter...). The threshold for buying a subscription is very high. e.g. I had one for lwn.net because I loved their excellent kernel traffic summaries, and I found myself reading it weekly for that.

Get creative.

Re:Ads suck

[MobyDisk]

I have that option too. I left the ads on. I didn't want to drain the site, and the ads are so unintrusive I don't even see them any longer.

Sometimes?

[Aladrin]

If sometimes you 'have to accept those ads' then I have to block your ads totally. Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?

Re:Sometimes?

[betterunixthanunix]

If Ars cannot make its payroll without intrusive ads, then Ars needs to go out of business. To be honest, their articles are not really worth paying for (at least not for me), so it would seem that basic economics should kick in...

Re:Sometimes?

[distantbody]

Maybe you should rethink that strategy, Ars?

Paywall here we come!!!

Block content and...

[Deorus]

You won't be indexed by search engines, so you lose more than if you don't block it. Furthermore I stay clear of any website forcing me to add exceptions to NoScript that would allow third party advertisers to run any kind of code on my browser.

Disable Adblock for the sites you like, simple

[Ziekheid]

Ads are fine with me as long as they aren't screenfilling/blocking content (like some flash ads that fill your entire screen with some shitty animation).
I have adblock enabled by default but add sites I visit regularly (like this one) in the allowed list so they can display ads.

How is this different than muting TV commercials?

[schwit1]

Or changing the channel when a commercial comes on?

The other side: Ad abuse and malware

[KingSkippus]

I posted this there, and I'll post it here, too.

I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker. Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks. This isn't just hypothetical; in the recent past, sites such as Wikia and a gaming site I visit injected malicious code and infected users' machines. The site hosts were completely unaware of it; the code was being injected through a third-party ad provider. Fortunately, I found out about this through someone else when they brought it to my attention, because the code never made it to my browser.

Ars raises a good point, but the simple truth is that given the choice between having less content available or putting my system's security at risk, I'll choose the first option any day. I'm sorry--I really am, because I know that it is devastating to sites such as theirs, and I'd gladly whitelist their site but for the risk. I don't blame reputable sites like Ars, I blame a decade and a half of abuse by ad companies. But such is the state of affairs.

Plus, please keep in mind that a lot of sites I visit are new to me, and they're sites that I don't know whether or not they're reputable. Many of them engage in what I consider an "ad assault" on me, barraging me with all sorts of annoyances for content that is of little to no value. When I'm just puttering around the Internet without visiting one of my usual haunts, most of the content means so little to me that until I have a chance to evaluate whether or not it's worth it and whether or not they advertise in some sane, responsible manner, I feel fully justified in not letting them force feed such annoyances to me.

For what it's worth, he is right, I'm glad they brought the issue up in a tactful manner, and I'm going to subscribe to Ars since I do indeed find its content of high value. When sites I value provide such an alternate business model for paying for their existence, I do try to do my part to support them.

Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate that you acknowledge what many others here don't...

Ad blockers = less revenue for ad-based content providers = less content

Some here want more content w/ less revenue and seem to expect that's their right somehow. You've made an informed decision understanding the consequences.

Re:The other side: Ad abuse and malware

[Stray7Xi]

I consider it irresponsible not to browse the web with a really good ad/Flash/javascript blocker. Not just because of the annoyance factor, but because it is a significant vector of malicious code attacks.

Exactly. I will gladly view the ads if they were served by Ars (yes I know this isn't how web advertising economics works). I have a relationship with ars, they provide me with content. I'm willing to reciprocate in some way but I'm not giving the keys to my computer to some stranger who writes Ars a check. I don't have a relationship with doubleclick, adsense or f7feghn.cn. I don't trust those sites, and even if they served me plain static images I don't want them tracking my web browsing. I'm a kindle subscriber to Ars and I adblock them on my PC.

Turn off Flash ads, and I'll turn off the ad block

[TodLiebeck]

If I open Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, with a few tabs active in each on popular sites, the entirety of both cores of my Intel E7500 CPU will be consumed by Flash advertisements.

I'm on a Linux machine with a lot of memory, which makes for the worst case scenario: First, Flash is horrible on Linux. Second, I use virtual desktops and leave browsers open for days at a time. Memory is not a problem.

Flash ads tend to be poorly written by a creative designer who could give a rat's rear end about your system resources.

The ads interfere with my ability to work, which costs me money. They also cause my computer to consume significantly more power. So in effect, your Flash ads are even bad for the environment.

They're also of course quite annoying, and if given only the options of browsing the internet with Flash ads or not browsing the internet at all, I'll choose the latter.

How about you try this experiment: Turn off Flash ads. Post a banner at the top of your site that says, "Hey, we've turned off Flash ads. Please exclude this site from your ad blocker so we can make money."

Re:I have ad block in because of facebook

[DarkOx]

Its the advertisers fault. I understand that advertising is all about making sure your message is heard above the noise but they are the ones who jumped the shark.

When it was just banners and the occasional frame with some adds in it, I never attempted to filter them out other than with my own mental powers. When they started doing pop-ups and float overs, I even tolerated it. When they started making adds that pretended to be system messages, virus scanner alerts, and other applications that really struck me as fraudulent and abusive and so I started blocking ads and helping others do the same.

Flash is my problem

[Lemming Mark]

I've never really bothered to block web content until recently. But I've now started using rekonq's Click-To-Flash mode having seen (far too many times) pointless Flash applets consuming 100% CPU when I just leave them. I'm currently using nspluginwrapper so at least I can hunt down the misbehaving Flash and kill it directly (a la Google Chrome), which is better than the old days where I had to guess which Firefox tab might contain an applet that's hammering performance. Unfortunately this means I don't see all the ads - I've never been that bothered by ads appearing, just one of those things that you get because people need to pay the bills. Occasionally ads are even amusing (e.g. the Plants vs Zombies parodies of the maddening Evony psuedo-porn adverts).

I don't block adverts specifically, though. Non-Flash ads are free to take up screen space and my attention and very rarely they're even interesting. Google's text-based ads are also fine, although some sites make it difficult to distinguish those from the actual articles. But these days it's a pretty hard sell to ask people to run resource-hungry software just to get adverts. Maybe Flash behaves better on other platforms - but OTOH, advertisers are going to lose revenue on iPad and iPhone customers if they don't move away from Flash at some point. For lots of these adverts I'd be tempted to say that an HTML5 video might even be more appropriate (!).

Linux Weekly News (http://lwn.net/) which is by far my favourite "serious" geek news site (mainly because of their kernel page) has a nice model involving some adverts + subscription. They do have some adverts. They also delay some of their best content by a week if you're not a paying subscriber. Subscribers can categorise themselves according to an "honour system" to choose how much they pay if they want to subscribe. Apparently it works OK for them. I suspect this only really works for them because they produce extremely high-quality, specialist articles - you plain can't get some of this stuff elsewhere, so it's worth supporting them. A general-consumption geek news site is going to find that sort of thing a lot harder.

It's *my* CPU you're using

[Colin Smith]

*My* RAM. *My* bandwidth.

I pay for it all, and I don't really care if your site folds (this includes you slashdot), you're just a momentary diversion, don't flatter yourself otherwise. There will be another along in 10 minutes.

So, i'm going to continue to block images, particularly moving ones. Javascript, flash, and pretty much anything else they come up with. I used to leave google ads alone, they were relevant, textual and just sat there inviting a click, but they blew it as well.
 

Re:It's *my* CPU you're using

[edumacator]

Wow.

What a parasitic way to think about the content on the internet...

Personally, I try to reward good content...yeah that's you slashdot...sometimes...by allowing their ads. But I accept your somewhat jaded perspective. Hopefully their are enough people like me out there, so good sites don't fail.

Re:It's *my* CPU you're using

[Pav]

I agree. I've been on the web since the beginning, and I can't remember clicking on a single ad... I can say with certainty that I've never made any purchases because of them. I actually hope banning ad blockers becomes the norm - I'm already inhabiting the non-commercial areas of the Internet more and more (eg. technical discussions on IRC after a LOOOONG hiatus after the 90's, mailing lists etc...). I strongly suspect forcing ads on people will precipitate out the more technically minded users with less patience for distraction to the non-commercial net. I'd be quite happy with that. If that makes me parasitic so be it.

Re:It's *my* CPU you're using

[KPU]

Slashdot gave me a checkbox to disable ads. They're not making money from showing me ads. They're making money from my comments which apparently draw people here who don't use AdBlock.

Re:It's *my* CPU you're using

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, about as parasitic, as taking stuff
that someone else throws out there for free, for everyone to see.

It doesn’t matter what you ask for AFTER you passed on the information. It’s too late. Passing on information equals splitting control with the destination. You can ask for something in exchange, before doing that. But afterwards it’s too late.

Besides: You seem to not even realize how browsing works:
Let’s use a snail mail analogy: When “going” to a page, thats’s like doing this:
You submit a letter to the site, containing a message that says: Could you please send me that page X?
Then the server of that site can decide whether to honor your request. And the thing is: They do. They send you that page X for free, just like that. They don’t say: “No, that’s valuable! Nobody else has it! I had much work with it! I want something for it!”.
So OK, you get that packet in mail, open it, and there is your page X. But in it, there are other things referenced. Images, scripts, etc.
Now you can submit additional request letters. But obviously there is no obligation to do that. Since there were no strings attached to that packet. It was specifically sent to you without any conditions.

Demanding that you now request a ton of large advertisement packets is the wrongdoing here. The server should have asked for something in return if he wanted something. Now it’s too late. So stop bitching and fix your imaginary business model!

Re:It's *my* CPU you're using

[martin-boundary]

Quite so. In fact, it's arguable that the huge costs of serving typical commercial content are entirely self-inflicted.

A properly peer to peer system (even just the old Usenet) can distribute content cheaply at practically zero cost to the creator. But of course, companies prefer to keep control over their content, and that is why they want centralized hosting and branded websites, and fall prey to ad networks. I do not pity them.

"not immoral" precedes moral argument

[FuckingNickName]

On a practical note, I make a point of never clicking on adverts. The only way I interact with an advert is to make a little mental note to reduce my opinion of the advertiser and to make it less likely for me to recommend them. It is more helpful for you if I block your adverts entirely.

On an Internet's note, if you don't want something rendered as I please, don't send it via unauthenticated HTTP. As a reasonably technically competent magazine, you should know better.

On a personal note, I owe you nothing. If you think your content is worth charging for, charge for it. If you provide your content, I will take it, just as I am happy with people taking the fruits of my labour as published on the Internet (and sharing it). Change your business model and try voluntary donations or subscriptions if you want, but don't ask me to be dishonest with your advertisers.

On a general note, paid advertising is not a good way of raising awareness, and I will take no part in the cycle -- enough essays have been written about this already.

Re:"not immoral" precedes moral argument

[lordandmaker]

On a personal note, I owe you nothing. If you think your content is worth charging for, charge for it. If you provide your content, I will take it, just as I am happy with people taking the fruits of my labour as published on the Internet (and sharing it). Change your business model and try voluntary donations or subscriptions if you want, but don't ask me to be dishonest with your advertisers.

On a personal note from me, I'd far rather all news sites be free to visit, and pay through ad revenue than have to subscribe to every news site I might want to view. Right now, wherever the 'good' news (or whatever) is, I can go and read it. If I had to subscribe to *every* news site in order to get it, I'd be restricted to a pretty limited set of sites. I'd much rather see well-placed and targeted ads than have to actually hand over money.

I honestly don't see the problem with advertising in general. I browse with no ad blocker, and if a site's got daft ads that annoy me, I leave - as I would if anything else about it was crap. If a site doesn't irritate me with its ads and has whatever I was after, I'll stay. I've also, on occasion, clicked through ads for products that interest me.
On slashdot, for example, I've never felt the need to check the 'disable advertising' box, since the ads just don't annoy me, and are occasionally useful.

Cart before the horse again....

[macraig]

Here we have yet another politician trying to manipulate us into seeing things his way with a fallacious argument. Why does anyone decide to use ad-blocking software in the first place? Do people set out with the express goal that "Heh, I'm gonna teach these fuckers a lesson"? I certainly didn't. Nope... I employed ad-blocking techniques because the ads became a truly hard-sell nightmare. Does anyone recall the meatspace jokes about car salesmen and "hard sell" tactics? That's what we're talking about here: digital ads that take a hard-sell approach.

NOBODY likes the hard-sell tactics. That's why I, and most other people, employ RECIPROCAL tactics to block ads, because far too many are insanely hard-sell. Has it been simple greed and lack of self-restraint, no scruples, or did their business model just suck vacuum from the start? Is either cause my fault, my problem? Honestly... and they blame *us* for starting the whole contest? Ya got it ass backwards there, chum. Ad-blocking is here to stay BECAUSE your foolish greed arrived first.

Honestly, it's already just too damned late; this ship had already sailed. Advertisers proved themselves to be consistently untrustworthy and self-centered, and we responded in kind. How do they intend to win back our trust? Oh, that's right: by blaming the bad behavior on *us* and claiming they always had our best interests at heart.

Bullshit.

Ya know what? I do believe I could survive well enough without their "content" if it just dried up and blew away. So find yourselves a revenue model, guys, one that actually works and that we can actually afford, or just go away. Ad-blocking is here to stay.

Love this comment by Ars

[s.d.]

"If you're not willing to unblock our ads, we're fairly happy for you to not read the content we work very hard on, or to just stop visiting the site altogether." (in comment thread here)

Ok, your terms are acceptable. See ya.

Re:Love this comment by Ars

[Somebody Is Using My]

This reminds of when Salon decided to put all their content behind a paywall; it seemed to make economic sense to them at the time. Unfortunately when the users hit the paywall, many of them decided the content wasn't worth their money and left for greener (and freer pastures). Not only did they stop visiting the website directly, but whenever they saw a Salon link, they did not click it because they knew there was an intervening paywall.

Some time later, Salon decided to revist the issue of paywalls and decided making their content only available to paying customers was not the best way of doing things after all. Down came the paywall. But the people they lost *still* avoided the site because -as far as they knew- the content was still only available for a fee and therefore they continued to avoid Salon entirely.

Although the paywall arguably was necessary for Salon to survive an economic rough spot, it took them years to recover (in terms of numbers of readership) from that decision. I wonder if Ars Technica may suffer the same fate; users with ad-blockers will not be able to see the content, and decide to write off the site entirely. Should Ars Technica revisit their policy, those users will have no way of knowing, since they aren't going to the website and won't hear about the change.

And let's face it: most readers of Ars Technica are more technically-inclined than the rest of the Internet, and are thus more likely to be using ad-blockers. If they follow through with this policy, this could have some severe blowback.

Re:Love this comment by Ars

[Angst Badger]

Ok, your terms are acceptable. See ya.

Pretty much. Ars Technica's approach here is to ask people to do something they dislike so Ars can make money. What they're finding out is that a substantial number of people dislike the ads more than they like the content, and if push comes to shove, they're willing to give up the content along with the ads. If your business model consists of haranguing your users and telling them that if they don't do something unpleasant, they'll be sorry, you have become rather embarrassingly detached from reality and should probably look for something else to do. It's 2010, fer chrissakes. You'd think that by now people would have figured out that, at least on the web, popular does not equal profitable, and any business "plan" that involves attracting lots of non-paying spectators and making money from their mere presence is likely to crater.

My counter argument

[erroneus]

Not blocking ads can be devastating to users' computers.

Blocking ads is more than just a means to cut down on the annoying clutter on the screen. It is a security measure. And the fact is, "respect" is and should be a two-way street. Advertisers do not respect the audience. They will place as many ads "...as the market can bear" or will tolerate. They want attention and will use seizure-inducing colors and flashing to get it. Further, hidden among the many redirects, there are scripts and other exploits designed to turn a user's computer into a bot or worse.

If advertisers used only the most respectful methods, the need for ad blockers would not exist and neither would the ad blockers themselves.

As things stand, even on the most legitimate of sites, users are at risk due to the methods advertisers use when enlisting and deploying advertising campaigns.

Lower my defenses so you can earn money from my eyes? Burn in hell!

1. Pay respect to your audience
2. Use methods that do not require "web client cooperation" and trust the sites hosting your ads. (Use scripts to inject text based ads into the articles originating from the site being read, not from external sites! There is a problem of trust that everyone needs to overcome.)

I don't leave my windows and doors open to allow advertisers to walk into my home because OTHER people will enter as well.

Content Creators Just Can't Win

[GospelHead821]

This sort of argument, as it pertains to piracy, is pretty darned common over at TechDirt, which I also read. I have a lot of sympathy for the creators of "boring" content, like news sites. At least a musician can do live performances and sell merchandise; an author can do lectures and book signings. People used to pay for content so we blame the content creators for having a bad business model and challenge them to come up with something that we'll buy. But we still want the content and we want the money-making good/service to be related to the content too. What is a news site supposed to do? How many people are going to buy an Ars Technica t-shirt? So they make money by selling ads to third parties but people find ways to avoid looking at the ads. Some people would argue that this is Ars Technica's problem and that if they can't find a service that people will buy, they "deserve" to go out of business. How can people have this kind of attitude and then wonder why the content that remains is spineless and pandering? It's because we've driven the real content creators away and all that's left are marketers with delusions of creativity.

Re:Content Creators Just Can't Win

[carcosa30]

This is just the way the world is. I'm sure the makers of horse troughs felt the same way. It's a bitch. It's only just gotten started.

Ad blockers are just a business risk.

[TermV]

Look, if you're running a web site that makes its money from ads, you have to understand the problems with your own business model. You have to understand that people can and will block ads, and factor that in as a risk to your business. If ad revenues are dropping and you have to lay off staff then let me get out my little violin because that happens for a multitude of reasons across the entire business world. Simply find a way to make it work -- find a different way to make money, cut costs, make it difficult to block your ads, etc. The customer/reader is not beholden in any way to keep you in business by behaving the way that you expect them to. If your web site fails, it's because you're a poor business person and not because of the world around you.

Subscriptions means the end of links

[drewhk]

One serious problem with subscriptions and paywalls is that they effectively prevent linking content -- the most important feature of the web.

Privacy

[digitalhermit]

Here's the main problem I have with enabling ads..

Load NoScript in your browser.. Then load some random sites. Some of them are advertiser sites that are being blocked. Some of these advertiser sites (maybe disguised as a social networking site) can then set/read cookies from your browser. In their databases they can aggregate your browsing patterns.

Here's where it's a problem...

On one social networking site that I use I have many of my co-workers and business associates. In the past I've already had ads start showing up on non-related sites after browsing new products. For example, I don't have a pet but someone asked me to research some flea medication. Within moments after researching on one site, I started noticing flea powders being advertised on another site. Coincidence? What would you think?

I don't want my personal life to start spilling into my public/work life. The problem with these ad sites is that I do not know what information they are storing about me. I don't know if their revenues one day start to decline so they start opening up my records to seedy advertisers. What if Facebook modifies their policy or some seedy advertiser exploits a bug in the Facebook API and starts posting on my home page? What if my co-workers start seeing "Holley 4-Barrel Carbs and the Men Who Love Them" on my page and get the wrong impression? What if LinuxJournal posts "Finger, mount, fsck and sleep" on my wall (and say I work at Microsoft)?

Re:How is this different than muting TV commercial

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is wrong. Ars claims that there is a difference because TV ads are "potential" based ads, where the advertiser has a stochastic model which tells them how many viewers will actually watch the ad, whereas web-ads don't use a stochastic model because the ad server can simply count the impressions. But of course web advertisers also know that quite a lot of ads are never viewed. They might be below the fold and the user never scrolls. They might be loaded in tabs that are never viewed. The user might have another window blocking his view of that particular part of the browser window. The idea that web advertising has a reliable way of counting impressions is bullshit. What if ad blockers started downloading ads without showing them? Would that satisfy Ars? Following their argument it should, but of course advertisers would simply discount the impression count by the percentage of visitors with ad blockers, just like they discount reach to account for channel hoppers and ad muters in the TV world.

It's like with the music industry: There was a short time when they profited immensely from the technology which made music creation cheaper while the market price of music had not started to decrease. Publishers have for quite a while profited from the advancements in desktop publishing and online distribution. They've churned out so much bad journalism at pre-online prices just because they could that some of them have forgotten what good journalism looks like. Now literally everybody can reach millions of readers with practically no up-front cost, and this reduces the value of the usual advertising-as-content or two-before-breakfast opinion pieces. Unless they have information which is valuable in and of itself (i.e. not just opinion pieces, press release relays and unboxing stories), they compete against millions of other publishers. No matter how they fight the fight: Their revenue will go down. It's simple market economics. IMHO the quality of information that could support subscription models just isn't there, and of course that is reflected in ad revenue too.

Sales, not views, are what generates revenue

[grimJester]

Perhaps the site would get paid, but that's really not important in the long run. The actual profit is only made when a customer buys something from the advertiser. Making uninterested people listen to a sales pitch is a waste of time. Generating ad views that have no chance of generating a sale is doing a disservice to both the advertiser and the viewer.

How would you feel about an ad blocker that loads the ads in the background without showing them to the reader? That's fine, because Ars Technica gets paid?

Re:And NoScript?

[metamatic]

In particular, NoScript seems to prevent 100% of Ars's ads. I don't have AdBlock installed, but I have NoScript, and I see no ads on that page.

If they are saying they demand that I run all the scripts on their site if I'm going to look at the content, well sorry, no way.

Make ads worth seeing rather than obnoxious

[unity100]

its like tv ads. remember how the ad agencies in europe started to make funny/interesting ads so that viewers would at least watch them once, and tell them to other people ? its supposed to be like that. when an ad is funny, even if you havent seen it, you HEAR it from someone else. eventually you end up checking out the ads if the thing will come up or not, if you cant find it directly online. and then you watch it and laugh. you laugh, and the ad agency delivers their message. give and take, everyone is happy.

the situation of online advertising is more like american advertising of old times - obnoxious, intrusive, repetitive, stupid (or at least takes viewers as stupid) and makeshift. noone wants that.

Re:Adblock Plus proposal

[dzfoo]

But that argument itself is based on a misconception: that advertisers are just nice rich guys that will throw money at you for just displaying ads, and that the mere fact of exposing the ads is value in and of itself.

Advertising is an investment. The expectation of the advertiser is to recoup that investment by increased sales or market share. If site visitors ultimately do not care about the ads and do not click on them, or somehow the impressions are not translated into a return on that investment; then they do nothing for the advertiser. Eventually, the value of those ads will decrease to the advertiser, to the point that it will pay less for them, or it may decide not to advertise at all on your site.

In the end, it is not just merely displaying the ads that makes money, but the complex dynamics of the market, its interaction with potential customers, and the ability to influence their behaviour. Sure, the nice rich guys will throw money at you for the short term, with the promise that all those eyes on your site will eventually turn into gold, but counting on this a priori is a flawed business model.

This is not to say that advertising does not work. Obviously it makes a lot of money to a lot of people. However, it means that a site cannot monetize every single viewer, at least not realistically for the long term. It also means that those who refuse to view your ads will only inflate your page view count artificially, if somehow you manage to force them into exposing them to the ads. And ultimately, this will result in diluting the value of your site to advertisers.

        -dZ.

Internet advertisers made a choice:

[Burz]

They could more closely emulate the ads of printed media, which drew only rare complaints from readers... or they could emulate the ads of TV, which cause a lot of people to recoil.

What we got on the web are TV-like ads without sound but which:

still flicker, shake and gyrate;
actively obstruct the UI;
imitate system warnings to mislead;
peg the CPU to near 100% on slower systems;
act as a programmable vector for malware and surveillance.

Yikes.

In order to keep infection rates of my naive Windows customers down, I have to not only educate them about trojans and phishing (teaching them to hover over links before clicking works wonders)... I also have to install Adblock as an absolute necessity. Otherwise they WILL get infected in short order, often in an attempt to rid themselves of an "infection" that a popup ad "found".

What's more, this is not television. People come to the Internet to find what they want, not to have "Hey we know what you want!!" pushed in their faces twice as often as with ye olde media.

I now believe that ads should be limited to GIFs and JPEGs on the website's main page. The advertisers crossed over into unethical territory before ad-blocking users, about the same time that actual content on websites became heavily dependent on Javascript. That leaves me with the following questions: What are journalists and advertisers doing about this problem? Do advertisers even care that their delivery infrastructure is poisonous?

Adblock might compromise by letting GIF and JPEG through as a default. But these questions still need to be dealt with.

The Problem is Third-Party Ads

[Prototerm]

Ok, here's a really radical idea: Maybe the problem isn't the ads, but that the ads are provided by third party hosting sites that are out of the control of the web site *using* those ads. If the web site hosted the ad file, then *they* would be held responsible for the singing, dancing gophers trying to sell you the latest in prophylactics, and ad-blockers would be less effective.

But in general, the reason ad blocking exists, and will continue to exist is:
1) animation (any kind)
2) sound and/or music
3) popups, pupunders, and any other sort of ad that *demands* your immediate attention like a little kid jumping up and down, waving his hands because he has to go to the bathroom.

Advertisers need to understand: we *tolerate* you. But make yourself too annoying, and we *will* cut you off at the knees. This is true of Television (Tivo), Radio (iPod), Newspapers (yeah, just flip the page here), and now the Internet. Push us too far, and someone *will* develop ad blocking software that happily tells you we are viewing your ad, while at the same time dropping the whole thing in the trash. Please don't turn this into a war. It's one you can't win.

Re:well then

[sohp]

I forgot one: if your page loads are EVER hurt because the ad server is slow, FIX IT.

Advertising is not selling!

[Gonoff]

There was a TV programme in the UK recently where some US 'expert' bemoaned how the internet is constantly selling us stuff and invading our privacy.

I don't know if this is some difference in language between the USA and the UK, but advertising is not selling! Advertising is trying to start the process of me thinking about buying something.

Bad, invasive and annoying browser advertising is actually a very useful guide about what not to buy.

Here's an answer: Arstechnica adbanners & viru

[Anonymous Coward]

Virus on the Man Page of Ars Technica -> Philip

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008

Submitted by Philip on Wednesday January 02 2008, @03:00PM
internet

Philip writes "It looks like an add server that Ars Technica is using has a virus on it. When I go to Ars Technica my corporate antivirus MCafee reports that the site has a virus. Here is a copy of my log. I just wanted to get a waring out to all the tech sites. 1/2/2008 2:27:15 PM Script execution blocked iexplore.exe(http://arstechnica.com/index.ars) Script executed by iexplore.exe JS/Exploit-BO (Trojan)"

Link to Original Source

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=447008

----

Americans Don't want targetted ads:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214

Especially when arstechnica ads apparently are truly targetting them, for termination. See that 1st url below on that account.

----

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml

We hate being served up viruses first though.

----

How Much Are Ad Servers Slowing the Web?

http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/08/17/1617259.shtml

A lot, and arstechnica appears to be "doing their part" in the URL above too (albeit by actually slowing others' machines at a local leve, not just online after arstechnica is done with their systems apparently).

How about it CmdrTaco?

[nixkuroi]

I think people are intentionally missing the point.

Someone makes a website.
The time it took to make the site costs them money either directly or indirectly (they made it, or they paid someone to make it).
Someone is paying to keep the web server online in bandwidth, hardware, content upkeep or software costs.

The only way most people can make money from a website is to show ads. Ad companies can tell if their ads are displaying and pay less if their ads are blocked. The only way for people using this model to pay for content managers, bandwidth costs, faster servers, etc is through ad revenue. If site owners don't get paid, they can't pay for these things, so one or many of the things running the site don't work as well.

If you can't afford reliable content managers (or you yourself have to work a real job because you don't get paid enough), the content suffers. If you can't afford a lot of bandwidth, the site gets slow from throttling it. If you can't afford up to date anti-virus (or a good ops guy to manage your firewall), your site is easier to hack and take down. If you can't afford a new nic card (or F5 for large sites with server farms), your site goes offline with hardware issues.

If a large business owns a site and it doesn't make money, it simply takes it offline or invests less in the above mentioned maintenance costs until the value of the site is diminished to the point that it's better to read another site - or a magazine for that matter.

The thing the guy is trying to say is that if you like the current state of the site, it takes money to maintain. If it doesn't make enough money, he doesn't have to work for free. If you don't care if the site goes down or degrades in some way, go ahead and block the ads. If you take a "I wasn't going to pay for it anyway, but will if it's free and those ads are like a tax on my sanity so I block them" stance, what he's saying is that you're reducing his ability to make money from his site and by extension, lowering the overall experience for everyone.

I worked for a news site that made money with a per-view ad model and can tell you that it takes several million dollars a month to maintain a world class news site. The AP must be paid for content. Editors to moderate the AP must be paid. Production Operations guys, Test Operations guys, Developers, Release Engineers, Project Managers, Ad Operations, Managers for PM/Dev/Editorial/Test, Marketing, Sales...all have to be paid.

It's always a delicate balancing act with your corporate overlords who want to make a lot of money (to pay the bills, and appease THEIR corporate overlords) - while trying not to alienate your user. Big invasive ads make more money per impression than little ones that few people see. That you don't see giant ads on a given site all the time is a testament to their restraint or ability to ward off the bottom-lining execs.

I love free sites like Slashdot, but they're probably has high quality as they are because the majority of people let ads display. Sure, Slashdot would probably still be on the web if nobody viewed the ads, but it's unlikely to have a lot of the features that ad revenue paid to have developed.

I'd be interested to hear what Slashdot would be like if they made no ad revenue from CmdrTaco. Would they have been bought up by their corporate overlords? What would that have meant if they hadn't?

Re:Adblock Plus proposal

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But that argument itself is based on a misconception: that advertisers are just nice rich guys that will throw money at you for just displaying ads, and that the mere fact of exposing the ads is value in and of itself.

Advertising is an investment. The expectation of the advertiser is to recoup that investment by increased sales or market share. If site visitors ultimately do not care about the ads and do not click on them, or somehow the impressions are not translated into a return on that investment; then they do nothing for the advertiser. Eventually, the value of those ads will decrease to the advertiser, to the point that it will pay less for them, or it may decide not to advertise at all on your site.

So how do you explain advertising in traditional print media, television, or radio? There's no inherent means of tracking purchases, or even interest, generated by advertisements placed in those mediums. And I don't think anyone considers McDonald's to be "nice, rich guys" for paying large sums of cash to have their latest burger repeatedly displayed on a television screen.

Companies will pay good money to simply get their product in front of a lot of people, with no guarantee that any of those viewers will actually purchase the advertised product (immediately or... ever).

I'm not here to defend advertsing (I use NoScript, which blocks the vast majority of ads on websites), but your view seems completely wrong-headed.