By: slacker (s.delete@this.lack.er), April 21, 2012 1:09 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
iz (i@z.x) on 4/21/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>So you watch all ads on the telly too? You never look or walk away, or skip channels
>when ads come up? You don't skip ads when watching recordings either I suppose.
Please see Paul Clayton's post. When you block ads, you categorically deny any chance of a website earning any income. That said, the television advertiser model is going to have to change, given the reduced number of people who watch commercials due to technologies like personal video records.
>If websites want me to see their ads they have to make them unobtrusive and fast
>enough. If they use javascript based random ad displays, it's usually too annoying
>and it gets blocked. If sites host quality ads on their own server then it's fine
>and I won't block it. But they almost never do.
Careful - you're almost falling in to a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. The only sites which can viably host ads on their own servers would probably fall under the top 1% of websites (by traffic). Unless you're serving millions of pageviews per day, sellers aren't going to directly deal with you. There's no option other than to go through advertising networks. So, if you block all non-self-hosted ads, that's probably 95% of ads being blocked.
I sympathize with you in regards to slow javascript. Many websites are coded poorly, and they use blocking javascript (which delays the loading of the primary page content). I agree, this is annoying. I block Flash content for similar reasons (eats too much memory when I have many browser windows open).
My initial comment in this thread was mainly directed towards people who use Ad-blockers 100% of the time on ~100% of websites.
>If websites want money from me then they have to offer a reasonable subscription.
I think it's very hard for the little guy to carve out a living in this way.
---------------------------
>So you watch all ads on the telly too? You never look or walk away, or skip channels
>when ads come up? You don't skip ads when watching recordings either I suppose.
Please see Paul Clayton's post. When you block ads, you categorically deny any chance of a website earning any income. That said, the television advertiser model is going to have to change, given the reduced number of people who watch commercials due to technologies like personal video records.
>If websites want me to see their ads they have to make them unobtrusive and fast
>enough. If they use javascript based random ad displays, it's usually too annoying
>and it gets blocked. If sites host quality ads on their own server then it's fine
>and I won't block it. But they almost never do.
Careful - you're almost falling in to a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. The only sites which can viably host ads on their own servers would probably fall under the top 1% of websites (by traffic). Unless you're serving millions of pageviews per day, sellers aren't going to directly deal with you. There's no option other than to go through advertising networks. So, if you block all non-self-hosted ads, that's probably 95% of ads being blocked.
I sympathize with you in regards to slow javascript. Many websites are coded poorly, and they use blocking javascript (which delays the loading of the primary page content). I agree, this is annoying. I block Flash content for similar reasons (eats too much memory when I have many browser windows open).
My initial comment in this thread was mainly directed towards people who use Ad-blockers 100% of the time on ~100% of websites.
>If websites want money from me then they have to offer a reasonable subscription.
I think it's very hard for the little guy to carve out a living in this way.
