homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.249.155
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?

 

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.

jetteroheller




msg:532415
 12:26 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

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

What government?

The government of Jesus land?

The government dreaming to turn Jesus land in a state like China?

zCat




msg:532416
 1:28 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

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

[us-cert.gov...]

Nitpick: it's not entirely clear from this advisory whether this affects all browsers on all operating systems, or just the one called "Internet Explorer".

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.

It's actually worse than that. My livelihood depends to a large extent on users of a certain program, which seems to be the continuing focus of all kinds of security advisories, to the extent I'm amazed the US security bigwigs haven't declared it a potential terrorist threat.

Fortunatly big operators like Google seem to be basing a large part of their technologies on JavaScript, which helps me sleep at night. (And I'd never have believed one day I'd be rooting for JavaScript...)

Erku




msg:532417
 1:30 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think we will be able to better answer to the question how best to manage visitors with ad blocking turned on, if we have an idea as to how many times the ads have been blocked.

ASA is there a possibility that Adsense will report as to how many times ads have been blocked?

If it is significant it's worth to come with with a solution, otherwise, not worth it.

crescenta




msg:532418
 2:54 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)


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.

I have to keep repeating—I'm not planning on blocking those who disable javascript anytime soon, and I hope I never have to contemplate the option.

But in all things there are choices. If a webmaster decides that they don't want visitors who refuse to view ads to use their bandwidth, then they (the webmaster) can do something about it. And if a visitor decides that they are unwilling to turn on javascript for a brief amount of time, so they can view a site with content that they wish to see, then they don't have to see the site. They can buy a book or go to the library instead. But they don't necessarily get to see the content they wish to see for "nothing," if the webmaster (the one who makes the content possible in the first place) decides not to allow it.

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

:shrug: I'm not really losing any sleep over this. If they want to view a site's content but don't intend to help support that site—help keep that site going—then they very well might be called "freeloaders" by the webmaster who is paying the bills. And that webmaster may boot them off. Them's the breaks. Wanting to enjoy something while feeling that you don't have to help support it will always be considered by some to be "freeloading," no matter how justified the "freeloader" may feel in refusing to offer support.

incrediBILL




msg:532419
 6:13 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

ASA is there a possibility that Adsense will report as to how many times ads have been blocked?

How could AdSense tell you this?

It's a chicken/egg problem, if javascript is disabled AdSense doesn't run, therefore Google has no clue how many times they didn't get loaded unless the webmaster gives them access to the weblogs. Read back in this thread as my logs and stats indicate javscript isn't running on a significant number of impressions.

The solution is server side technology to merge the ads into the web page seamlessly instead of leaving it as part of the client side technology. The downside to this approach is then the search engines will start indexing the ads as part of your content unless Google can flag that area of the page as non-indexed content.

incrediBILL




msg:532420
 6:25 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

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

So we're all supposed to abandon Javascript because Microsoft can't keep IIS servers secure?

Also note that most (if not all) of the MALICIOUS SCRIPTS that this CERT advisory references target Internet Explorer.

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

Why not? A smart government would put out an advisory to avoid IIS servers and Internet Explorer instead of JAVASCRIPT but we certainly wouldn't want to invoke the wrath of Redmond now would we?

Let's not advise people to use less vulnerable technologies, instead let's just advise them to disable the technology that most web masters use for site navigation and revenue generation, that makes way more sense.

Thanks for pointing out that MICROSOFT vulnerabilities on both the server and the browser are directly impacting our income, it's nice to know.

reli




msg:532421
 7:08 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

No one addressed my question on using PDA's, blackberries, web-enabled (not wap) cell phones, etc. Now the Sony PSP has a browser - don't know if it is JS-friendly.

Another category is pay-as-you-go kiosks. I have used ones that didn't show Adsense.

Jalinder




msg:532422
 7:59 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

How about this solution:
Just below your adsense code ad this code:

<noscript>
<a href="http://yoursite.com/enable-javascript-instructions/" target=_blank>
<img src="http://yoursite.com/enable-javascript-request.gif"
width=468 height=60 border=0 alt="Help Support us by enabling Javascript in your browser. Click here to learn more on how to enable Javascript in your browser"></a>
</noscript>

Href and image urls of course have to be changed. Image can have message similar as in Alt; height and width need to be changed as per your adsense block.

Mr_Fern




msg:532423
 11:44 pm on Aug 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

No one addressed my question on using PDA's, blackberries, web-enabled (not wap) cell phones, etc. Now the Sony PSP has a browser - don't know if it is JS-friendly.
Another category is pay-as-you-go kiosks. I have used ones that didn't show Adsense.

From the time I started my site (5 months ago) I've had complaints from users of sidekicks that they can't login to my site from their sidekick (my forms use javascript to disable the submit button to avoid multiple submissions). My friend who uses a Treo can use the site fine, and another user has a post of his PSP browsing the site as his forum signature.

javascript is enabled in some handheld devices.

gregbo




msg:532424
 6:53 am on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

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.

So just because you couldn't find any other free sites that covered the same topic you did means there aren't any such sites? Also, consider that some people might be willing to pay for access to some sites rather than use free sites that they don't think are as good as the sites requiring pay.

gregbo




msg:532425
 6:59 am on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

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.

Even in the unlikely event that such a thing would occur, open-source adblocking software would be created. There will be no movement that will eliminate all adblocking; the harder people try to force others to "see" ads, the more software will be written that will block ads.

The model that advertisers and publishers should emulate is the Super Bowl model, where the ads are compelling enough that substantial numbers of people care to look at them.

bedlam




msg:532426
 8:18 am on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

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."

Maybe they have, but such a license is ludicrous for a web publisher - not least because it takes no account whatsoever of the basic facts concerning the delivery and use of web content.

  • Have I altered your pages or content by disabling javascript? What if my useragent doesn't execute js?
  • Have I altered your pages or content by perhaps using a big-print or high-contrast stylesheet?
  • What kind of devices are you trying to insist that I access your content with? (Can I use a pda? How about a screenreader? Your content's sure not going to display like it does in a browser...)
  • Are you seriously trying to forbid me to print your content for offline reading?
  • What if I use an old, rare or experimental browser?
  • What if I resize the browser window to exclude the ads?

All of these things are going to drastically change the presentation of your content, and there is not much you or any other publisher can do about it if you're using marked up text as a means of content delivery.

Incidentally, the RIAA-style 'lost income' argument (e.g. msg 78) is laughably flimsy. You're simply assuming that, if they could only see your ads, the ad-blocker users would a) look at your ads, and b) click on them at just the same rate as your other visitors.

Given that at least a large portion of the 'ad-blocker' group have taken active steps to block internet advertising - and that this is almost the only information you have about them - I fail to see how it can be legitimate to just assume a) that they'd keep coming (or ever come) to your site if they couldn't avoid the ads, or b) that if they continued to come in spite of them, they could reasonably be expected to click on ads at the same rate as your other visitors.

-B

victor




msg:532427
 8:53 am on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

So we're all supposed to abandon Javascript because Microsoft can't keep IIS servers secure?

Well, I don't routinely had Javascript turned on because it isn't safe.

You want me to turn it on your for site, you got to do two things:

1. Prove to me your site is safe: A hypothetical quesion about what "we're all supposed to" do isn't even a start at providing proof. Get some software on your site that can prove to my browser that your site is not running insecure software, and that would be start.

2. Give me a user-benefit for running it: a salesman-feature ("my adverts need it") isn't even close to a start.

Javascript is an insecure product, and one that end users should think carefully about using routinely on untested sites. This is why Norton and other tools turn it off routinely. If you want Javascript to be accepted as safe,then you have a lot of industry initiatives to get onboard with to improve it and make the case.

"I make money from it" is not a useful argument. And (to repeat myself) labeling safe surfers as "freeloaders" suggests an inability to see the real problems.

crescenta




msg:532428
 5:13 pm on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

So just because you couldn't find any other free sites that covered the same topic you did means there aren't any such sites?

Like I said before, it's a niche topic. If there was a site as big as mine, covering the same topic, the message boards and other sites which link to my site would certainly link it as well. So far I'm not seeing it. I see other sites that cover related topics, but they're not quite the same. Of course it's possible that there are some equivalent, equally large sites out there, but they are there, they are buried so low in the search engine listings that they are a secret to most of us. :shrug: Of course, someone could come up with an equivalent to my site at any time, but most people with the knowledge and ability aren't eager to do it all for free, since it would be very time-consuming. But, it could happen.

Also, consider that some people might be willing to pay for access to some sites rather than use free sites that they don't think are as good as the sites requiring pay.

Uh yeah. I've already indicated that there are several sites that offer pay services. Some are good, some aren't. If someone is willing to pay for some other service, more power to them. I just decided to go a different route—I wanted to prove to visitors that I could deliver good content, rather than showing them a few snippets of content and hoping they'd pay me to see the rest. So far it's working out okay.

I think I've done something else, too. I have offered a resource to those who are financially unable to pay for a subscription service (including those too young or from a poor country). I also think (and have been told repeatedly by visitors) that I offer a better service than some of the paid sites.

I feel the need to repeat, I don't intend to block those who disable javascript. Not unless things change in a huge way, anyway. I'm just saying that not every site has a completely free, ad-free competitor. Some sites cover niche topics, cover them in a unique way, and that there aren't any free alternatives. So to tell such webmasters that if they don't offer their content in a certain way, that "visitors will go somewhere else." Well, no, not really. There might not be anything else as good (I'm not claiming this in my case, but obviously in many niche topics this might be so). There might not be anything that is as good and is free. (And many visitors don't have credit cards and cannot afford to pay.) And so forth and so on.

incrediBILL




msg:532429
 7:33 pm on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

And (to repeat myself) labeling safe surfers as "freeloaders" suggests an inability to see the real problems.

Not all freeloaders are safe surfers and vice versa.

Just depends on the particular ad blocker used in many cases vs. disabling javascript.

If would seem that javascript, like some other internet technologies, needs a trusted source white list so you can 'trust' anything loaded from Google, Oracle, Microsoft, etc. and disable scripts loaded from anywhere else you don't white list.

crescenta




msg:532430
 11:13 pm on Aug 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

If would seem that javascript, like some other internet technologies, needs a trusted source white list so you can 'trust' anything loaded from Google, Oracle, Microsoft, etc. and disable scripts loaded from anywhere else you don't white list.

That sounds like a fantastic idea. And no one has come up with this yet? Let's hope they will soon.

Changing the subject, I wanted to further elaborate on the "not every site has a free replacement or competitor" concept, because it seems like I have to keep explaining it over and over.

There are plenty of "niche" subjects that are not covered all that well on the Internet. This is not to say that there's nothing anywhere, only that it's hard to find something really exceptional.

I'm going to use the example of someone I know, who is in the process of making a large, comprehensive tutorial site on, let's say, purple polka-dotted widgets (I'll just call them widgets from now on). People collect these widgets (some are very passionate about them, but these particular widgets have some popular appeal as well). However, few people know how to make them really well. My friend makes them exceedingly well, perhaps is one of the best widget makers in the world. (Yes, you read that right.)

So, my friend has:

#1. The talent to make really fantastic widgets.
#2. Abundant free time to devote to a large site on making widgets (this person is somewhat retired).
#3. The ability to teach and explain all the details of widget making in a simple and clear way.
#4. Enough web design and HTML ability to create a site.

There are only a few books on this particular type of widget (one which is in a foreign language), and my friend has long-term plans to write a book. There are no (as far as we know) subscription-type sites on widget making that are of good quality.

Frankly, I don't think my friend should be worried about tons of other expert widget makers competing with this site. There aren't that many good widget makers, and even fewer who want to take the time to make a site (or who would be good at it if they tried).

There are a lot of these kinds of niche sites out there, and so when someone tells the niche webmaster, "You'd better do such and such or your visitors will go find somewhere else to go," it doesn't really wash. There ain't nowhere else to go. Not anywhere decent, anyway.

incrediBILL




msg:532431
 5:54 am on Aug 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Incidentally, the RIAA-style 'lost income' argument (e.g. msg 78) is laughably flimsy.

What do you expect me to come up with after happy hour?

I mean, gee...

edacsac




msg:532432
 12:31 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

So after 14 pages on this topic, what's the conclusion? I'm new to this whole advertising gig, but I'm about to let loose a site thats going to cost me a couple $ a month for hosting, and I'm certainly not going to do it out of pocket for too long. If these adblockers are such a problem for bringing in a little bit of revenue, I may not launch the site at all.

I'm suprised that google, or anyone for that matter, would rely on a client side means of deploying ads on a website. Are there any advertizing establishments that let you display their ads at a lower level? Like give you a pool of links/banners based on your site content, and a readme so you can place the ads and some tracking/rotation code, so it appears as a static part of your site? I mean, being webmasters/developers, its not like the skills aren't available.

I also can't imagine that google isn't already addressing this issue.

bedlam




msg:532433
 1:15 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm suprised that google, or anyone for that matter, would rely on a client side means of deploying ads on a website.

What difference does the method of deployment make? All an adblocker needs to do is change how the useragent renders the page. Provided the method of displaying ads is reasonably standardized - and it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise - simply removing the ads from the document is trivial.

There's a plugin for Firefox [addons.mozilla.org] (for example) that allows "...you to customize the way a webpage displays using small bits of JavaScript [neotokyo.dnsalias.net]". It'd also be pretty easy to start and maintain a public stylesheet that set the 'display' property of elements containing ads to 'none'.

The point is that is makes no difference whether the ad-delivery mechanism is something server-side or client-side since ad display is limited to the client and advertisers have not way to control what gets run - or doesn't - on the client.

-B

incrediBILL




msg:532434
 1:26 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

The point is that is makes no difference whether the ad-delivery mechanism is something server-side or client-side since ad display is limited to the client and advertisers have not way to control what gets run - or doesn't - on the client.

That would be an untrue assumption.

Currently the majority of ads are delivered and blocked via links to download content from 3rd party web sites. When it's server sise integration the content is seamlessly integrated into the local server web pages and it's not so simple to purge as blocking 3rd party content downloads in the client.

edacsac




msg:532435
 2:13 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Exactly. The ads could be aquired from a local server copy, by opening a port to google and grabing advert content inside your .php, .asp script, c#/c++ executable, that a browser or ad blocker would never notice, an xml/rss feed, or even a mamoth database server where you queried your targeted content from your very own table on a google server during page creation. All these examples would render the ads as part of your webpage. I don't see how you could block the rendered html ads if there is no indication that it was from an outside source. Sure you could block keywords in links, but that would posibly block out site relative links as well, in the case of forums and such.

Alot of the problem seem to relate back to users having control of how they view content, and removing the control from the designer. It may be off topic, but I Can't wait for the day that I can make kick butt sites designed entirely of flash. But I don't bother, since users relate flash to obnoxious ads, and won't install the plugin. All the while missing out on the next generation of web content. And to cover the area of handheld devices, thats why we have user agents. We need to design versions of websites to cover these areas.

hutcheson




msg:532436
 2:38 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>users relate flash to obnoxious ads, and won't install the plugin.

Um, yes.

>All the while missing out on the next generation of web content.

Um, no. Just missing out on the trendy flashy ads. Flash has been around for years, it's still a technology looking for a need. So far, it's been nothing but splash screens and trash ads -- and, of course, missing out on the next generation of web surfer.

Until you have some actual must-see content that not only requires flash, but inspires users to tell each other they need to get flash to see your content -- you're not a generation, you're only a sterile mutant fad.

bedlam




msg:532437
 2:58 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

. When it's server sise integration the content is seamlessly integrated into the local server web pages and it's not so simple to purge as blocking 3rd party content downloads in the client

I don't see how you could block the rendered html ads if there is no indication that it was from an outside source.

Provided that there are NO commonalities, with respect to the markup inserted for ads, you're both right, but this doesn't sound like a very convenient situation: publishers need to have outside markup inserted on pages to be predictable (I suspect ads that break pages would perform poorly...), and they also need to separate ads from content somehow.

The markup doesn't even have to be exactly the same from ad to ad on a single network. Again, provided it's similar enough, it should be possible to pick them out of a page's html source with regular expressions.

If you grant me consistency of markup, AND that I can run arbitrary client-side scripts in my browser when viewing your pages - and as pointed out in my last post, I can - then there is nothing to stop me or anyone else writing a client-side script that simply rewrites that markup and turns off anything on the page that I don't want to see. For example, this little item:

<script type="text/javascript">
function removeAdsense() {
var adSenseFrame = document.getElementsByTagName('iframe');

for (j=0;j < adSenseFrame.length;j++) {
if (adSenseFrame[j].name == 'google_ads_frame') {
adSenseFrame[j].style.display = 'none';
alert("Got one!");
} else {
alert("Leave this one alone!");
}
}
}
</script>

...turns off adsense iframes perfectly well while leaving other iframes alone. It's crude and basic, but it works, and the principle applies to any portion of any xml or html document you can produce. It doesn't matter whether the markup is generated on the fly or at the server end - you cannot control what gets shown in the browser.

Don't misunderstand; I have no complaint at all with unobtrusive ads, but some of the things people are saying in this thread are breathtakingly ignorant about how web pages actually work.

-B

<on-topic>It's too easy for users to block ads; publishers (and I am a small-time publisher) would do better to try to make sure users don't want to block their ads...</on-topic>

edacsac




msg:532438
 3:37 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I see your point bedlam. There is really no way to effectivly obscure or remove the comminality of the ads, and still serve up ads and track impressions efficiently. And even if you did obscure the deployment of advertisments enough that the adblocking mechanisms missed them during the page render, there still has to be a final redirect that ultimatly points the browser to "google" to capture and impression when an ad is clicked, and at that point would get whacked. Blah...

cellularnews




msg:532439
 8:31 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

On the way home last night - I thought of an interesting "solution" to this issue.

Using text link adverts - convert all your navigation links into adlinks.

Anyone blocking ads will also lose all the site navigation.

An even better method - if your ad server permits is - would be to leave the navigation intact, but serve the page content itself as a massive text ad, with no hyperlink.

Hence, anyone blocking ads will see just a blank page.

A tad *evil* but then again so are ad-blockers.

victor




msg:532440
 9:09 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

So ad-blockers are evil. That makes, I guess, the people who deploy them evil freeloaders.

With that level of analysis bouncing around this thread, it doesn't look like many here really interested in how to make the Internet a safe and attractive way for publishers to earn some revenue.

Ad-blocking behavior tells you far more than any market research or wishful thinking about what is wrong with your revenue model, and how to modify the Internet so adaptions of your revenue models are long-term viable.

Insulting the ad blockers does nothing but let of steam.

cellularnews




msg:532441
 10:29 am on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ad-blocking behavior tells you far more than any market research or wishful thinking about what is wrong with your revenue model, and how to modify the Internet so adaptions of your revenue models are long-term viable.

Or to put it anohter way...

Shoplifters tell me more about what is wrong with the retail model than any market research could ever do.

I guess my local shop should give away its food each day to 20% of its shoppers?

Iguana




msg:532442
 12:10 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, ad blocking is as criminal as shoplifting.

It's not as if the web content is loaded onto publicly available servers and Search Engines allowed to crawl it and link to it in the Search Results, is it?

If content is private property then keep it behind a paid-subscription login and put some security in place. If you have a 'I'm only here for the money' site then get off the public Internet.

edacsac




msg:532443
 2:45 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

This thread has been a really frustrating read. For me, it pretty much comes down to not being able to launch a site that will require some ad revenue to keep it going, since web surfers are all thieves. And for all the others I read about here making 4 and 5 figures monthly, I guess the gravy train is stopping and you'll all have to get real jobs again. And of course, don't anyone try to be constructive, or think of solutions. Just be sure that when someone does try to offer constructive conversation, you tear into them, and call them ignorant.

bedlam




msg:532444
 3:09 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

it pretty much comes down to not being able to launch a site that will require some ad revenue to keep it going, since web surfers are all thieves.

Well, one thing this thread has absolutely failed to do, for all its length, is provide any kind of realistic indication of the extent of the problem. If I were you, I wouldn't change my plans until I had some solid indication of how widespread adblockers really are.

Just be sure that when someone does try to offer constructive conversation, you tear into them, and call them ignorant.

I guess that's directed at me. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting; the point I was trying to make is that this thread has been full of uninformed comments by panicked publishers with no information about how much of a problem the problem is, and often a pretty sketchy idea of how the core technologies of the business they're in actually work. As a result, some of the so-called solutions that've been suggested have been pretty absurd.

-B

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