Cool. Keep blocking ads and soon only Time Warner and AOL will have websites. That'll be great!
Why do you have to be sarcasic like that? I don't want ads on my screen.. another reason why I use FIREFOX.. AdBlock is awesome!
If i want ads, I'll go watch tv or write them myself for magazines....
This thread obviously is not for you but for those who do not want the ads popping at them. Also another reason why i dont use Yahoo anymore.
OK, you do understand that ads are what makes it possible for people other than rich people and big corporations able to publish websites, right? What do you think would happen without ads? The only people who could afford to publish would be those who could afford to publish at a loss or those who are selling you something. Would that be better?
Not sure I follow your logic here HughMungus.
At one extreme limit, the web would return to how it was before adverts.....You may be too young to remember that. But, I promise you, it was more than two commercial organisations.
What is at stake here is who owns my browser. I can't stop servers sending stuff to my browser. But those servers can't force my browser to display things I've told it I don't wish to see.
A browser is a user agent. Not a webmaster's lackey.
I agree that you should be allowed to block popups and other things that take intrusive control of your browser.
But on-page ads are another story. IMO it is simply not right to block the ads and still use the service. I'm not sure how you would justify that.
If you don't want ads in your gmail account, fine - don't use gmail.
If you don't want to see Yahoo's ads - don't use Yahoo.
|At one extreme limit, the web would return to how it was before adverts.....You may be too young to remember that. But, I promise you, it was more than two commercial organisations. |
All text? No images or video because no one could afford to host them without doing so at a loss?
|What is at stake here is who owns my browser. I can't stop servers sending stuff to my browser. But those servers can't force my browser to display things I've told it I don't wish to see. |
I'm with you here. In fact, I block Flash ads and stop animated GIF's from being animated with a little utility, myself. One thing I do on the web is a service that is free because I *can* serve ads. My point is that an ad-free WWW is NOT a good thing and that having ads has made it possible for people to innovate and provide services they otherwise couldn't. If you want to block ads yourself, that's great. I just think it's misguided to say that the web would be better if it was "like the old days before ads".
As i said.. never had an ad in Gmail.... ever.
I chose to block them. And now anyone can :)
I mean do you NOT have Pop Up Blocker? Do you NOT have AdAware? Spybot?
Maybe we should just send all the ads to you since u love them so much LOL! ;-)
|I chose to block them. And now anyone can |
And if everyone did, there would no longer be free gmail.
|But on-page ads are another story. IMO it is simply not right to block the ads and still use the service. I'm not sure how you would justify that. |
Very well said. What difference do text ads make anyway? They don't flash, they don't take invasive control of your browser, and eliminating them normally doesn't even give you more screen space. They're rarely or never distracting. Sometimes they're even useful.
As far as I can tell, the only reason to block text ads, including AdSense, is if you just can't stand the principle of people making money. The idea of someone making money from me visiting their site isn't offensive to me, so I don't block ads. In fact, I refuse on principle to install AdBlock, though I do use FlashBlock (and consider it perfectly honest inasmuch that Flash advertisers know very well a certain percentage of users don't even have Flash installed).
Text ads are just another part of a site's text. No reason at all to block them, and lots of reasons to let them through.
Now I don't advocate using pop-ups, but I do think sites should be able to support themselves by serving ads. One of the simplest ways around ad-blocking is to disguise content as adverts, and adverts as content. This fools a lot of the ad-blocking software that's around now.
I'm sure Gmail will implement a solution once adblocking reaches a critical level, as will a lot of other sites that rely on ads.
Regardless of whether you chose to block the ads or not cool tool.
There's adds in Gmail?
I mean, come on, they are so unobtrusive, I haven't even noticed them sitting over on the side. It's a fair trade off - a decent email account that's not treated with the disdain that other freemail accounts are treated - like yahoo and hotmail - and for the small price of having those few links over on the side that are hardly noticeable.
I don't have a problem with people running their advertising - but I think there are proper ways of running it, and ways that are inappropriate. Sites that utilize pop-ups that look like system error messages, for example, is not the same as putting up text, or even graphic links on a site to make money. Sites that cause endless pop-ups to open - these are the tactics that cause people to not trust the advertising and become less tolerant of ANY advertising at all.
I have adblock installed. But I have, to date, to use it on any advertisment that has appeared within the confines of a page. If an advertisement is actually on a page, I leave it alone - even if it is a dreaded flash, as much as I hate those too - I use it on the pop-ups that have managed to get past the pop-up blocker that is built into Firefox.
|The real simon|
oh and gmail ads is probably not the way google is earning money. I guess datas they are collecting from the mails are far more valuable than this small hidden ads.
>Flash advertisers know very well a certain percentage of users don't even have Flash installed
Google knows that a small percentage will not see the ads. And look at what you have to do in order not to see those... You have to be quite tech savvy to do it (you already have to have firefox and then to bother enough to...)