homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.247.22
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: eljefe3 & skibum

Affiliates Forum

This 198 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 198 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 > >     
How Best to Manage Visitors With Ad Blocking Turned On
to stop or not to stop, that is the question
incrediBILL




msg:532294
 7:52 pm on Aug 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Web sites that depend on advertising for revenue, like AdSense, seem to be at odds with freeloading surfers that use all the latest technology that blocks AdSense, affiliates and other ad technologies.

Unlike other media such as radio, TV, etc. we can actively sense when ads aren't being displayed on the web page which means we could prevent the content from displaying if the ads aren't displaying. The technology isn't that complicated to stop visitors with ad blockers from viewing the site and a simple technique could even be employed to detect the lack of javascript running.

I envision this freeload stopper showing an alternate page with something like:

"This web site uses modern web technologies and requires javascript to be enabled and banner blocking technology to be disabled."

The immediate worse case scenario I can see is some visitors which currently are non-revenue producing (no CPM ads, no CPC ads, nothing) are no longer permitted on the web site unless they permit ads to be displayed. Banning them would obviously have an impact on total web statistics of visitors/pages that some of us use for selling advertising but in reality these visitors weren't seeing those ads anyway so it's sort of a moot point except for marketing (aka bragging rights).

What do you think the repercussions would be to implement technology on a web site that would block visitors from viewing content if the surfer has AdSense blocked?

Would this possibly call undue attention to AdSense and provoke a invalid clicks by initially "blocked" visitors?

If you had the technology to block "freeloaders", would you use it?

 

incrediBILL




msg:532384
 1:53 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

But I still think you're underestimating the number of weird unannounced and non-robots.txt-obeying bots that are prowling around.

You think that can account for as many as 700 instances of 36 pages being displayed in 2 days?

The only easy thing I can see to identify bots vs visitors is bots never download any images, unless it's indexing images. Typical bots only download pages and no graphics so perhaps that demographic will let me identify who's downloading what.

Back to log analysis.

crescenta




msg:532385
 2:38 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I completely understand where incrediBILL is coming from with this. Nobody should believe that the Internet is "free!" Those of us who toil to make worthwhile content may not feel like giving it away completely free.

I don't think I'll be blocking those who block ads anytime soon, though, for many reasons already given here. For one thing, I get a lot of links and recommendations from visitors, so the more people that see my sites, the better. Also, I have several affilates that are just straight links (not javascript) and I make enough from these affiliates to make keeping up the sites better than taking them down. Furthermore, I don't think it's worth it at this time to alienate visitors.

However, I do sympathize with other webmasters who are taking a hit from the "Freeloaders." And yes, that's what they are. If ad-blocking is seriously damaging someone's income, or costing them too much, then by all means, it's okay to do something.

And to the argument that if someone sees that they cannot visit a site without seeing the ads, they'll just go somewhere else—well, no, not always. There are a lot of "one of a kind" sites, and so far (knock on wood), at least one of my sites falls into that category. Sure, other sites (some of them ad-free) cover the same subject matter as my site, but none with the same exact content and attention to detail. So until someone comes up with something better, and is offering it AD-FREE (which could happen, but doesn't seem likely since such a site would require a certain measure of time and expertise, and few people are eager to do all of that for free) then there really isn't anything else to go see instead.

So, do the "freeloaders" want to kill the golden goose? Do they want to squeeze the creators of quality content off the web, because these webmasters don't feel inclined to do a whole lot of work and never get any compensation for it? If they do, they are being very short-sighted. There is no such thing as a free ride.

jomaxx




msg:532386
 3:24 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Back to log analysis.

If you want. I'm not trying to bicker about the number. I accept that there's SOME percentage of people blocking banners and/or AdSense with various types of software; I'm just pointing out how hard it is to determine what that number is.

25% or even 20% does actually seem too high to me, but whatever the actual number of ad-blockers turns out to be, I don't think that in itself will change either of our minds.

incrediBILL




msg:532387
 4:17 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK, I took a partial snapshot of todays log file for a specific page again.

I forgot I had something loading a javascript off my server so I decided to compare this script to actual image loads for a specific image loaded per page.

742 impressions of the key image on this page
582 impressions of the javascript

This would be consistent with the variance I saw between the banner ad tracker and AdSense in an earlier post. It's obvious to me a signifcant number of people may have javascript disabled, or there is something about the name of my file tripping an ad blocker.

jetteroheller




msg:532388
 5:51 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ad blocking is just self defence!

There are the good ads. AdSense belongs to the good ads, as all the other contextual ads.

But there are also the evil ads.

Flash where I want to read.

Animated Gifs or flash flashing terrible from black and white and inverse.

This ads are so annoying, that I put the companies using them on a black list. They are unpolite and I want not to do business with such unpolite people.

Just right now only one problem: suddenly also ONE, my mobile telphone provider in Austria uses the annoying flash in my face. All the other mobile phone providers are already on the black list for annoying advertising with flash.

So this stupid advertising agencies produce anti advertising. Advertising to hate the companies, they advertise.

So I think there should be a group of good advertising contacting all the creators of ad blocking software, that only the bad advertising is filtered out.

victor




msg:532389
 7:38 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

incrediBILL:
Let me qualify the term Freeloaders as that seems to be a sore spot....

Your clarification of the term really only applies to what we might call client freeloaders.

It does not apply to server freeloaders.

As far as I am concerned, a server freeloader is any publisher that wants to run scripts for free on a client machine.

That's anyone who wants to run their Javascript {Flash, Java etc] on my computer without first asking permission, and/or offering indemnity against loss or damage caused, and/or offering recompense for the CPU cycles used.

I'm sure we could negotiate a more nuanced definition of server freeloader; but while you ignore the problem (my earlier posting about running scripts without permission was ignored), it's the only definition we have.

My computer costs money to run, same as your website. The Internet is not free and either end. Time to acknowledge that and get some balance.

bird




msg:532390
 9:54 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

742 impressions of the key image on this page
582 impressions of the javascript

That means about 20% of the population surfs with JavaScript turned off. I've seen similar numbers before (usually around 15%), so it's probably not too far off.

The question now is why are they doing that.
Is it because 20% have decided to block ads? I doubt it, especially as I assume that your specific JavaScript file doesn't have anything to do with ads.
More likely, those people have been advised to turn off scripting in order to protect themselfes against browser vulnerabilities.

Now you can put a figure to the economical damage that a single corporation can do if it dominates a specific market (in this case the browser market).

Blaming your visitors probably means barking up the wrong tree.

John Carpenter




msg:532391
 10:29 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

That means about 20% of the population surfs with JavaScript turned off. I've seen similar numbers before (usually around 15%), so it's probably not too far off.

As for our site, this is far off. AWStats reports 4.5% of our visitors have JavaScript disabled. Our site is technology-related. If I'm not mistaken, AWStats excludes bots from these stats.

bbd2000




msg:532392
 10:39 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

4% of my visitors have java disabled. That average has been consistant.

larryhatch




msg:532393
 10:51 am on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have JS enabled because some sites I visit just won't render properly without it.
I wanted to see some Adsense ads in my niche, because I was considering that for my site.
When I asked about that, I was called a 'freeloader' (chuckle!) First time I saw that here.
Anyhow, the adsense ads elsewhere in my niche were highly unsuitable for my site.

Firefox WITH an adblocker plug-in installed does stop Adsense.
It probably depends on which adblocker, and how its set up.
Unless I specifically block them, really obnoxious ads come right on through
even though relatively tame Adsense ads are blocked!
Seems bass-ackwards to me. -Larry

Mr_Fern




msg:532394
 3:26 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Blocking users of adblocking software is bad publicity. Not only will that person find another site that won't block them, but negative word generally spreads a lot quicker than good word.

Like others said, if they're blocking the ads, even if they viewed the ads, would they really be clicking them? I mean after all, they did block ads for a reason. Unless you're making most of your money off of CPM campaigns as opposed to CPC campaign, which Adsense doesn't even specify the proportions of your earnings made from the two different campaigns, then you're not being affected greatly.

Consider the following: You get 1000 daily visitors who browse your site, and every one of them ignores the ads and doesn't click a single ad, and all the ads displayed are CPC. They are as much "freeloading" as 1000 daily visitors who have an adblocker set up to block the ads completely. You wouldn't block these people, so why the adblockers?

I understand the gripe publishers have with users blocking ads, as I am an Adsense publisher myself, but I think if anything, use javascript to enhance the regular features of your site to entice users to enable it, not require that they use javascript or can't access the site period.

crescenta




msg:532395
 4:45 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Blocking users of adblocking software is bad publicity.

I think that in many cases you're right about this. However, if the problem eventually gets bad enough, then I think that a lot of publishers might resort to preventing ad blocking. If enough publishers band together and don't allow it, it will be hard to single out those who block ad-blockers—because everyone will be doing it.

Not only will that person find another site that won't block them, but negative word generally spreads a lot quicker than good word.

In a lot of cases, sure, visitors will find a site that won't block ads. However as I pointed out earlier, there are some sites that offer one-of-a-kind (or near one-of-a-kind) material. These might be sites that cover niche subjects with great competence and clarity, so much so that no one else has the expertise (or time) to compete—and do it for free. If a niche site covers something so well (so much so that no one else can compete on an ad-free basis), then where else is the "freeloading" visitor going to go?

Like others said, if they're blocking the ads, even if they viewed the ads, would they really be clicking them? I mean after all, they did block ads for a reason.

That reason might be unreasonable paranoia, or it might be a dogged determination to never see any ads (because the Internet should always be free!). A webmaster who is paying bandwidth bills may not feel like accomodating such visitors.

Of course, blocking ad-blockers has its perils, and at this time I don't see any reason for me to do it on my sites (and I hope that it never gets to the point where I'll have reason to do it). But I think that webmasters should "empower" themselves if they feel like freeloaders are getting out of hand, and so, (in theory), I have no problem with blocking the ad-blockers.

jetteroheller




msg:532396
 4:48 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Blocking users of adblocking software is bad publicity. Not only will that person find another site that won't block them, but negative word generally spreads a lot quicker than good word.
Like others said, if they're blocking the ads, even if they viewed the ads, would they really be clicking them? I mean after all, they did block ads for a reason

I think a good advertising bad advertising campaing should be good.

I think most users of ad blocling software are even not aware of AdSense ads. They block for annoying FLASH. They do not block for practicall AdWord ads.

Idea: I was 2000 part of the Web Standard Campaign and I have shown each visitor with a not standard compliant browser a banner, that he could view my site bette.

What's about a good advertising, bad advertising campaign?

With javascript turned off, or AdSense blocked
a picture with a link to a good advertising bad advertising campaign site.

What's bad advertsing?
Simple annoying FLASH where You can read only a page by puting Your hand over the annoying FLASH, because it changes so extrem and rapid the colors that it hurts in the eyes.

The coding would be very simple

<div style=position:absolute;top:50;left50>
<a href=good-adverising.com><img src=good-advertisng-300x250.png></a>
</div>

<div id=300x250 style=position:absolute;top:-5000;left50>
<script>move_box("300x250",50,50)</script>

Here comes the AdSense code
</div>

incrediBILL




msg:532397
 4:53 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Blocking users of adblocking software is bad publicity.

Depends on how you phrase it.

Many sites say "this site requires flash installed, please click to install"

I could simply say "this site requires javascript, please enable to continue"

That in itself would be a huge boost it appears.

Chndru




msg:532398
 4:57 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, I would like to chime in with just one thing. We all stand on the shoulders of the giants and others. Someone invented internet for free.

John Carpenter




msg:532399
 5:45 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Someone invented internet for free.

We are certainly grateful to those people who invented the Internet. However, they will not pay our hosting bills. Advertisers whose ads people click on our site pay them.

Excessive and intrusive ads deserve to be blocked. Otherwise, adblocking is a very "questionable" activity.

Mr_Fern




msg:532400
 5:52 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Depends on how you phrase it.

Many sites say "this site requires flash installed, please click to install"

I could simply say "this site requires javascript, please enable to continue"

That in itself would be a huge boost it appears.

That's true about how you phrase it. Regarding flash, in my personal experience most sites that require flash, still have HTML versions of their sites, with the exception of multimedia sites that display cartoons, movies sites, and the like.

cellularnews




msg:532401
 6:20 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Someone invented internet for free

I am quite sure that the boffins at ArpaNet were paid for their efforts (by the military), and Tim Berners-Lee developed html as an employee of CERN

reli




msg:532402
 7:21 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a side direction to discuss a few paragraphs down, and I don't think it was raised yet (I was a little sleepy as I read the first few pages). But first some other comments:

First of all, I agree with both sides (!)... there are people who have installed software to block ads so they can save their time, freeload off of sites, etc. But I contend that, same as pop-up blockers, many people are using this software as a reaction to the evils of *other-sites* (of course, none of us use annoying floating/chasing ads and Whack-A-Mole-for-a-free-car ads)! And since, um, adult content is a huge segment of the internet, along with the free-dancing-smiley and warez sites, veteran surfers of that virus-panhandling genre would put in a lot of filtering for their "normal" surfing, and your site is a casualty of their protective measures.

Secondly, what about surfers viewing Google-cache, other SE caches, and archive.org pulls? Those could generate anomalies for your logs.

Thirdly, I like the analogy of the museum, but I'd ad that the museum has a gift shop and kiosks sprinkled around. The bad museums have clowns that jump out of hidden spaces, try and block your path to the next gallery as they sell you on a lower rate mortgage.

Fourth, someone who is deliberating freeloading should be treated fairly, and you (webmaster) get to decide what is fair. But given the "sneezing" effect of one viral sneezer who tells the 5 people who can tell 50 people each, I personally don't have any bandwidth concerns serving them content.

Fifth, the internet was invented and expanded for free surfing by people who were working for institutions that could do this (having gotten their "free" money futher upstream than at the browser level). It was and is a great thing, and you can visit many sites without ads from those same types of places. I have other goals which require the stream of money to come to me so that I can direct it, some of which allows "free" internet. (I have mostly free content, with some paid content/services). [I wrote this before I saw Cellularnews' post... which I agree with]

--

Lastly,.. [Incr-Bill, Bird, John C, others]

Guys, Gals, lurkers... what about PDA's, blackberries, Sidekicks, etc.? I don't see JS ads or Flash content on my sites when using those devices - none that I know have javascript capability (I'm not looking to be educated on this right now, so no need to explain who does or doesn't display them).

Let's call them "handheld browsers" for discussion purposes, even though there are certainly many non-handhelds that don't play with JS.

It is frustrating to get to a site on a handheld browser and then get blocked from clicking a link... sometimes it is internal navigation, sometimes an article link that using JS to get you there, and sometimes it is an ad. The big job-seeker's site - Monster - can let you log in via a handheld browser, but you can't navigate after that to sub pages, including the all-important "renew" option (if you use the site, you know what I mean).

This trend is likely to grow, as more people browse using these devices. They DO want to navigate your site, and CAN'T make any changes to their browser settings to see your site... but then CAN come back again, and perhaps even send themselves a reminder if you let them. I've signed up for accounts on sites using a PDA that had no javascript capabilities.

The question is How can these users be tracked/identified to understand their numbers, trends, and how to help them like your site enough to come back later in full browser (Note: WW forums display well on many PDA's).

I've wanted to set up a "handheld browser"-friendly section for some of my sites, partially to help myself when I need to browse my own sites from the road. Each device, though, does it's own manglement of the pages, and even that could change with a subsequent release of the device. So, block these users at your own risk of losing someone who is not a "bad surfer".

Dantol




msg:532403
 8:27 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Blocking users of adblocking software is bad publicity.

Remember the old saying: "No publicity is bad publicity."

Someone invented internet for free

The internet is not for free dude. You have to pay internet connection to get to the internet; I have to pay both, internet connection + my website servers (+ advertising).

Remember the old saying: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

gregbo




msg:532404
 10:30 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

What makes the TV advertising industry "better" then us that they can force the turning "off" of a GIANT and popular ad-blocker?

I hadn't heard about that TiVo feature. In general, however, you can "require" that technology "not block" certain content; you cannot require that a human eye view that content, or more to the point, act on it in a favorable way to the content creator. As this pertains to ads, you can't force people to look at them, remember them, etc.

Eventually, Internet advertisers are going to wake up to the fact that an "impression" is not always a human impression, and they will take their advertising money elsewhere. They'll go to mediums where their ads convert more reliably.

Rodney




msg:532405
 10:34 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

and they will take their advertising money elsewhere. They'll go to mediums where their ads convert more reliably.

I think advertisers are pretty darn happy at how well web ads convert.

It's great for direct response advertising. Much easier to track than traditional *offline* media.

gregbo




msg:532406
 10:41 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I completely understand where incrediBILL is coming from with this. Nobody should believe that the Internet is "free!" Those of us who toil to make worthwhile content may not feel like giving it away completely free.

If you feel so strongly about this, you should charge directly for access to this content. Then you'll find out how much it's really valued.

However, I do sympathize with other webmasters who are taking a hit from the "Freeloaders." And yes, that's what they are. If ad-blocking is seriously damaging someone's income, or costing them too much, then by all means, it's okay to do something.

No one's said you have no right to block their access. Just be advised that they might never come back.

And to the argument that if someone sees that they cannot visit a site without seeing the ads, they'll just go somewhere else—well, no, not always. There are a lot of "one of a kind" sites, and so far (knock on wood), at least one of my sites falls into that category.

How did you determine that you had a one-of-a-kind site? Did you index every page in the web? Even those that require passwords, subscriptions, fees, etc?

Sure, other sites (some of them ad-free) cover the same subject matter as my site, but none with the same exact content and attention to detail. So until someone comes up with something better, and is offering it AD-FREE (which could happen, but doesn't seem likely since such a site would require a certain measure of time and expertise, and few people are eager to do all of that for free) then there really isn't anything else to go see instead.

If you have unique, highly sought after content, you should be able to charge directly for it.

gregbo




msg:532407
 10:45 pm on Aug 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think advertisers are pretty darn happy at how well web ads convert.

So what's the point of this discussion? If advertisers are happy, then they're getting what they want -- access to people provided by the publishers, who are getting paid enough to afford to attract said people. No need to complain.

jetteroheller




msg:532408
 4:17 am on Aug 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

When to many people would not see Adsense ads, there could be a solution from Google:

A picture stored in the own domain at the same position as the AdSense ad. This would be easy possible with
<DIV style=position:absolut>
___________________________________
Ads by Google

?
?
___________________________________

The picture with a special link to Google

Only somebody with javascript turned off or an ad blocker
can see this picture.

The link would lead to a special page

______________________________________________
You have turned Javascript off or
are using an ad blocking software

Otherwise, You would have seen the following
ads

Ads by Google

Here comes the ad
As far as the peron has not referer
blocking as an additional problem
______________________________________________

crescenta




msg:532409
 5:12 am on Aug 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you feel so strongly about this, you should charge directly for access to this content. Then you'll find out how much it's really valued.

You aren't paying attention. I want to keep access to my site free (ad-supported, but no blocking of those who block ads). And actually, I do sell some of additonal content via my site, and I do okay.

No one's said you have no right to block their access. Just be advised that they might never come back.

Once again, you aren't paying attention. I have stated that I have no current plans on blocking those who block my ads.

How did you determine that you had a one-of-a-kind site? Did you index every page in the web?

Is Stephen King "one of a kind"? Sure, there are other horror and suspense writers out there, but if someone wants to read Stephen King, they want to read Stephen King. Not that I am comparing myself to him. I'm just saying that not all content is easily interchangable. Sometimes there is no satisfactory substitute for what you are looking for.

Even those that require passwords, subscriptions, fees, etc?

Once again, I am talking about free (as in not paying) sites. As a matter of fact, the reason my sites have the (somewhat modest but nice) success that they do is because I did research, and found that I could not find any other free site that covered the same topic as I did. There are several of "Buy my e-book!" sites and subscription sites. Some of them are of dubious quality. I feel I offer good quality. And I decided to go a different route. The topic my sites cover cannot be done by just anyone. A certain amount of knowledge is required. Most people who have this knowledge aren't eager to make detailed, time-consuming, comprehensive sites for free. I've never seen one, at least. Not to say that it won't happen, but so far, I'm not seeing it. So yeah, as of now, I don't think that a visitor could find a free, (and ad-free) equivalant to my site.

If you have unique, highly sought after content, you should be able to charge directly for it.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO! I'm happy with the direction I took--it's working for me. Ad-supported (but free to the end user) content. It's been a big hit so far. People are thrilled that it's "free."

pocoloco




msg:532410
 5:37 am on Aug 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

"How big is the problem?@"
As we all know today the biggest business in the web is marketing ,that makes not only adsense but thousands of other marketing companies and web giants to make there profits,ie Yahoo ,MSN,CJ,Ebay,Amazon ech.Now what is the reason that one of those Giants just buy companies like Norton and all others that sale addblocking software and just delete the add blocking option in all new and old programs with a small update.They got the money and if those companies harm there revenues just buy them or make an agreement.

incrediBILL




msg:532411
 10:23 pm on Aug 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Excessive and intrusive ads deserve to be blocked.

In the case of POP UP ads, I agree 100%.

I the case of any other ads or banners, I'm of the opinion of you don't like them close the page and move on.

Technically, in theory anyone using technology to disable any part of the content on my site including ads is already in violation of the shrinkwrap site license agreement in my terms and conditions page that "...prohibits the alteration of any page or content in any way for any purpose... blah blah."

So then who do you blame, the creator of the ad blocker or the visitor to the site?

If publishers behaved like the RIAA we'd go after them both, but in this case the companies publishing ad blockers are the only reasonable target.

bonanza




msg:532412
 2:54 am on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

However as I pointed out earlier, there are some sites that offer one-of-a-kind (or near one-of-a-kind) material ... If a niche site covers something so well (so much so that no one else can compete on an ad-free basis), then where else is the "freeloading" visitor going to go?

They'll go elsewhere, find nothing, and never come back. I reach plenty of dead-ends on the net and go away empty-handed. What I'm looking for may very well be behind the protected area of fee or subscription-based websites but I don't know that unless I can get in there to see. Blocking the adblockers unless they take some action will have the same effect. A catch-22.

crescenta




msg:532413
 6:47 am on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

They'll go elsewhere, find nothing, and never come back.

Hey, that's fine. If, for instance, someone was so determined to only have "free" content that they refused to look at ads, then fine. Let them go away empty handed. If always having an ad-free environment is more important to them than valuable content that they cannot find elsewhere (not unless they want to pony up money for a book or something), then fine!

What I'm looking for may very well be behind the protected area of fee or subscription-based websites but I don't know that unless I can get in there to see. Blocking the adblockers unless they take some action will have the same effect. A catch-22.

Eh. I hardly think that enabling javascript (something that many people do just to see certain features of websites) is quite up there with registering with a site, getting out the credit card to pay a subscription, etc. etc. There are always going to be sites that have content that will require something be installed (Flash, Shockwave, etc.) and either someone decides that they want to go to the trouble, or they don't. If they decide that they'd rather pay money for a book (which might be the only way they'd find the equivalent of quality content) than enable javascript, then fine, fine, fine. Some people are always going to be funny like that.

I'll repeat here again, however, that I have no current plans of blocking ad-blockers and it would take something rather drastic to make me consider it. I'm just saying that I don't think that those webmasters who offer truly valuable content (content that is not easily found elsewhere in a completely ad-free format) should fret because some visitors are loath to see ads. I believe that most would still rather see ads than buy a book or pay a subscription. And the fact that some people are determined to be "freeloaders" will not change the fact that those who create valuable content (that is not easily found elsewhere) will not want to give it away for free. You get what you pay for.

So, these freeloaders can go back to buying content (in the form of books, etc.), just like they did before the Internet became what it is today. If that's what they prefer, that's fine. Everyone else will tolerate the ads.

victor




msg:532414
 8:46 am on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Eh. I hardly think that enabling javascript (something that many people do just to see certain features of websites) is quite up there with registering with a site, getting out the credit card to pay a subscription, etc. etc.

No. indeed. It is worse than that.

Javascript is a technology that US-CERT explicitly recommend users disable to avoid certain vulnerablilies, eg:

[us-cert.gov...]

That's the US Dept of Homeland Security saying it isn't safe.

If your livelihood depends on Javascript being safe, then I'd strongly suggest you review and deepen all the initaitives you contribute to to make it so.

Calling those who follow government security advice "freeloaders" is not the best possible initiative you could be engaged in.

This 198 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 198 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved