homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.94.228
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?

 

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

crescenta




msg:532445
 4:00 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

The technical discussions are mostly over my head, but I get the impression (and I've gotten the impression from previous threads on this topic) that some of you would prefer that webmasters just suck it up and take increasing losses, because God forbid they actually try to make some money.

And there also seems to be a complaint about calling ad-blockers "freeloaders."

For one thing, someone (or a lot of people) who refuse to help support a resource that costs money and time to maintain are usually going to be regarded as "freeloaders." Don't like it? That's too bad. I think it pretty accurately describes the act of wanting to benefit from a site while taking steps to avoid helping the person (who makes that site possible) earn some money. Which, in turn, helps keep the site going. I personally don't think "freeloading" is the same as "stealing," though. I think it is what it is called—freeloading. Mooching. Taking more than your (moral) fair share of a resource that costs others money.

Also, just because some webmasters don't want to invest time and money (funding, maintaining and creating sites) for no compensation, it doesn't mean that they need to stay off of the public Internet. You don't get to tell someone else how much their efforts are worth.

Webmasters are the ones that make the Internet an appealing place (by creating content that people want to see). If they feel that there are too many "freeloaders," either they'll find a way to block them, go to a subscription service, or they'll stop creating and presenting content. The freeloaders will never get what they want in the end (unrestricted access to content). The freeloaders don't ultimately control the content, because they don't create it.

Iguana




msg:532446
 5:58 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I find myself getting quite incensed by these arguments. It just feels wrong to me that an Internet that was made popular (mainly) by free access to content is now being talked about in terms of no access unless you accept Adverts.

You can see this relentless thinking about money on WW where there are now always more topics in the recent posts list from the Adsense forum than the Google news forum. I think I'm most worried that the 'small webmaster' may have just forgotten that they would probably carry on with their websites even if only hosting costs were covered.

I don't really object to adverts - just ones that obscure the text, fill nearly all of the page, pop-ups, anything with flash. I find Google Adsense adverts quite acceptable - but I never click on them (I type the url in directly) because I run Adsense myself and I deliberately stay out of the habit of clicking in case I click on my own one day. So I'm a freeloader as well - perhaps people should ban Webmasters.

I can't believe that people aren't thinking about serving a different set of adverts/affiliate links (hosted on the sites own pages or using redirection scripts) rather than banning people.

I do like the thought of an advert-free Internet - I think it would be a nice place to be. All those scrapers and crappy affiliate sites would be gone. Imagine designing pages for people to read rather than trying to shove adverts into the 'red zone'. It wouldn't have as much information as now but it would be so much easier to find. Most of the sites I admire and use would still be on it (music and computer programming sites), I think.

cellularnews




msg:532447
 7:08 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

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.

That 20% figure I cited was not just off the top of my head.

It is based on a real comparesson between pages served and ads served.

I have also done some serious testing and I beleive that generic ad blocking is now used by as many as 20% of web users (mainly it seems via Norton and to a lesser degree Firefox) - and nearly 50% of users have a pop-up blocker.

Is that enough figures for you?

bird




msg:532448
 7:52 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I get the impression that some of you would prefer that webmasters just suck it up and take increasing losses, because God forbid they actually try to make some money.

Those "some of you" actually happen to be fellow webmasters who earn ad revenues in exactly the same way as you are (some more, some less). They just believe that in the long run, alienating potential future customers/link partners/etc. is not a sound business strategy.

If you are really certain that your visitors need you more than you need them, and if you don't mind that they will perceive you as greedy, then by all means block those who you think of as "freeloaders". If instead you prefer your visitors to feel welcome and at home on your site, then you might want to adopt a more reasonable approach.

richlowe




msg:532449
 8:30 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have followed this thread for several days and find it one of the most asinine discussions I've followed in a long time. What happened to the days when webmasterworld was concerned with all of the aspects of webmastering? It now seems as if 90% of the threads are (a) complaints from spammers about dmoz, (b) complaints from cheaters about being dropped from adsense, and (c) complaints from [take your pick] because [choose your fad of the day]. I miss the discussions about webmastering, html validation, standards, scripting and other topics of interest. When did the creation of a website boil down to "how much money can I milk from the public?" or "how dare google drop me - I didn't do anything wrong" or "dmoz is evil because they won't list my spammy site".

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.

Oh the gods be praised! Finally some sanity in an otherwise senseless and asinine thread!

since web surfers are all thieves

Seems that all spammers and scammers think this way.

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

You just need to come up with a better business model. Any ninny can create a wewbsite which uses adsense and makes a few bucks. The program was created that way intentionally.

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

Not ignorant. It's just that words are being thrown around with wild abandon. Words like "surfers are thieves" and "freeloaders" and such. Well, this is not true. Surfers are people, like you and me, who simply want to obtain content, products and services without being bombarded by thousands of pointless ads every day.

some of you would prefer that webmasters just suck it up and take increasing losses, because God forbid they actually try to make some money.

Well, actually, the internet was not created as a profit making enterprise. That came later, and you can thank the p**n scum for figuring that out first.

For one thing, someone (or a lot of people) who refuse to help support a resource that costs money and time to maintain are usually going to be regarded as "freeloaders."

The business model of depending upon advertising is notoriously flawed. A better business model is charging people directly for services or products. For example, I pay for my email service, and thus do not need to tolerate senseless advertising and frenzied display of banners that i will never click.

I find myself getting quite incensed by these arguments. It just feels wrong to me that an Internet that was made popular (mainly) by free access to content is now being talked about in terms of no access unless you accept Adverts.

I must agree with this statement. I am becoming very annoyed with the incessent, never-ceasing whining about this topic on this board and others.

I have also done some serious testing and I beleive that generic ad blocking is now used by as many as 20% of web users (mainly it seems via Norton and to a lesser degree Firefox) - and nearly 50% of users have a pop-up blocker.

Excellent. It will be a glorious day when the popup is completely eliminated, users can pick and choose the cookies they want, and ads can be stripped at will from any and all pages.

crescenta




msg:532450
 8:42 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Those "some of you" actually happen to be fellow webmasters who earn ad revenues in exactly the same way as you are (some more, some less). They just believe that in the long run, alienating potential future customers/link partners/etc. is not a sound business strategy.

It is understandable for you to not be able to keep track of who said what on this thread, but just for the record (once again), I'm one of the webmasters who has no immediate plans to block "freeloaders," and would only consider it as a last resort (and by that time, I think many more webmasters will be blocking ad blockers anyway).

In my current situation, blocking the "freeloaders" is a bad idea, and I would consider it a bad idea for many webmasters—unless there were so many freeloaders that it was seriously impeding their ability to afford to keep the site afloat, or justify them spending anymore time on it.

I only am trying to say that some webmasters (and perhaps, in time, most webmasters) may find ad-blocking more troublesome, and, based on the types of sites they have (and the investment they've put into them), they might feel completely justified in blocking "freeloaders." I personally would not dream of telling them that they shouldn't do it. Neither would I automatically assume that they are "greedy." Basically it boils down to: Their site. Their web hosting bills. Their content. THEY get to decide how much "freeloading" they are willing to tolerate. It's pretty cheeky to tell the webmaster that they are "greedy" simply because they don't feel like giving something away. Would a webmaster also be called "greedy" if they shut down their site, saying they couldn't afford to do it anymore?

If you are really certain that your visitors need you more than you need them,

I'm certainly not claiming this in my case, but yeah, there are sites that have such unique value (read my posts about "niche sites") and are created by people who really are doing their site visitors a great favor by taking the time to create the site. If such a webmaster decides that they won't tolerate "freeloaders," that's their decision. Would you prefer that they shut down their one-of-a-kind site instead?

if you don't mind that they will perceive you as greedy,

If someone wants to percieve a webmaster "greedy" because they don't want to give it all away for free, they can do that. I think that's pretty much what you'd expect from the "freeloading" mentality.

If instead you prefer your visitors to feel welcome and at home on your site, then you might want to adopt a more reasonable approach.

"Reasonable" works both ways. No, I don't think it's all that reasonable to overreact to the occasional "freeloader." I also don't think it's reasonable to deliberately avoid helping support the creators of a site that you enjoy and find useful.

DamonHD




msg:532451
 8:47 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I repeat that I have taken a different tack and allowed those who want to (eg because they have a slow connection or just hate ads!) to turn (almost all of) them off.

I end up using the "lite" mode quite a lot myself! It feels just like the good-ole non-commercial days of the Net. (I remember having to write (on paper) and ask the NSF for permission to send commercial packets across the "core" of the Net!)

This is like the arguments over the US 1st Amendment: your right to free speech is not a right for you to force a publisher to spend their money publishing your words.

Equally, your right to advertise on your site is NOT a right to force people to like or read those ads or to visit your site to do so. If you want to label your visitors with rude words then I suggest that you should be putting your money where your mouth is and having paid-only access; anything else is intellectually dishonest, IMHO. Everyone has "wastage"; it's part of the business model.

Rgds

Damon

crescenta




msg:532452
 9:00 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you want to label your visitors with rude words then I suggest that you should be putting your money where your mouth is and having paid-only access;

And what exactly do you think happens when a web site goes to pay-only access (especially after visitors have become accustomed to it being free)? The webmaster is called "greedy."

In fact, another online resource I frequent went to pay, and many people complained bitterly and said that they wished that the site had chosen advertising instead. You can't win for losing. The fact is, there will always be those who want it all their way—no ads, no money out of their pocket. When a site deviates from this (expects payment or puts ads up), you can bet that they will be called "greedy."

Iguana




msg:532453
 10:09 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

crescenta, I do think you have a case and you argue cogently. I don't think the webmasters who are thinking this way are talking about covering 'hosting costs' but more likely looking to cover more than their house mortgage from website earnings.

But, it has been mentioned earlier, why is this discussion taking place in the 'freeloaders' section of WebmasterWorld? Of all discussions, this should be subscription only so that no-one who might advocate blocking can be accused of hypocracy.

edacsac




msg:532454
 11:01 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)


since web surfers are all thieves

Seems that all spammers and scammers think this way.

Way to take something out of context, since this is the tail end of the rest of my phrase (that was semi-sarcastic) you quoted next. An I especially love how people grow the courage to call people names, like "scammers and spammers" from safely behind their computer screen, probably half a world away. If you had called me scammer or spammer to my face (unjustly and unprovoked I might add), it would be on....

Until recently, I had no interest in displaying ads on any of my websites. Now I have an application I would like to put out there, and was flabbergasted at the hosting price for my requirements. So now I'm taking an active interest in ads to get myself off the ground with a new venture.


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

You just need to come up with a better business model. Any ninny can create a wewbsite which uses adsense and makes a few bucks. The program was created that way intentionally.

I'm trying to, believe me I'm trying. But even in my own opinion, there isn't a single service on the web that's worth pulling out my wallet for besides of course hosting. But there are plenty worth putting up with ads.

And on top of that, there are pleny of threads here where people are cashing in thousands upon thousands a month with adsense. That makes me pretty excited to think that I might be able to grab $100 or so a month with relevant ads to pay for my hosting, and have my project realized.

some of you would prefer that webmasters just suck it up and take increasing losses, because God forbid they actually try to make some money.

Well, actually, the internet was not created as a profit making enterprise. That came later, and you can thank the p**n scum for figuring that out first.

I think the internet is just as good a place as any to make money if your honest and work hard. And if your providing a service that cost hundreds of dollars a month to host, if people want to use it, they should at least tolerate some ads.


The business model of depending upon advertising is notoriously flawed. A better business model is charging people directly for services or products. For example, I pay for my email service, and thus do not need to tolerate senseless advertising and frenzied display of banners that i will never click.

Tell me how this business model is flawed, when so many people are cashing in with adsense. Are you reading any of these posts where people are getting good months of 9k, 12k, etc?

I don't know, I'm going to stop now. I've never been so infuriated by participating in a converstation in my life. Screw it, the internet does need to be free. I'll get a second job to pay my hosting bill so people can use my site/application. And I encourage anyone else who has a rockin site, to strip all the ads off, get that second or third job, and make sure the web surfers get high quality content for free.

incrediBILL




msg:532455
 11:17 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I find myself getting quite incensed by these arguments. It just feels wrong to me that an Internet that was made popular (mainly) by free access to content is now being talked about in terms of no access unless you accept Adverts.

I must agree with this statement. I am becoming very annoyed with the incessent, never-ceasing whining about this topic on this board and others.

There is NO FREE INTERNET, never was, someone always pays for it.

If it wasn't for the advertising, the hundreds I spend a month for servers and bandwidth would come screeching to a halt and I'm sure so would many other sites. Besides, if I and everyone else in AdSense want to monetize our content that's our right as it's our content, not yours, and it's our right to restrict anyone from seeing that content if we so desire.

If you want to continue to spread free content go for it, but don't go parading your free content off topic nonsense on a thread discussing advertising issues as I get quite incensed at that lame information on the internet should be free garbage. Even the librarians get paid to run the library, someone donates the funds to buy the books which pay the printers and the authors, nothing is FREE.

You think just because the distribution medium is electronic instead of paper and ink that the authors don't deserve to earn a living? GROW UP!

Hint:
If you don't like the topic then stop reading the thread, it's obviously not for you.

crescenta




msg:532456
 1:14 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

IncrediBILL and edacsac made some great points. :thumbs up:

crescenta, I do think you have a case and you argue cogently.

Thank you! :)

I don't think the webmasters who are thinking this way are talking about covering 'hosting costs' but more likely looking to cover more than their house mortgage from website earnings.

Well, if they have content that gets so much traffic that the ad revenue is enough to pay the house mortgage, then very likely they had to put a lot into that site, and very likely have to spend a lot of time maintaining it. The more effort required to make the site + the popularity/bandwidth costs = more earnings back. Makes sense to me.

If someone put together a small site two years ago, hasn't done much with it, and it hardly gets any traffic, they'd be crazy to expect a lot of money from it. But for someone who invests a lot of time in the site, or even works full-time on it? Why in the world shouldn't they expect to earn a full-time living on something that requires full-time attention?

Another point (bringing up the niche sites again), my aforementioned friend who makes the purple polka dotted widgets spent years in training, study and practice to perfect the skill of making purple polka dotted widgets. Is that not worth something? If this person spends (let's say) two months toiling over the ultimate authoritative site on purple polka dotted widget making (which no other site will be likely to equal, since few people know how to make really good purple polka dotted widgets, and even fewer could effectively instruct others on the making of said widgets, let alone construct a web site), then why can't this person expect great rewards? The site is not really just a result of two months' worth of time—the content in that site is the result of decades of training and experimentation and the acquiring of knowledge. And I don't think anyone gets to tell the creator of the ultimate purple polka dotted widget tutorial site that they are "greedy" if they don't want to give away all their content for nothing.

A postscript: I'm not talking here about webmasters who are looking for every "informercial" type of scheme to scam visitors and milk them for all the money they can get. I'm talking about webmasters who create real content, of substance—content that visitors want to see and consider to be of value. When a webmaster creates real content, they add value to the Internet. On the other hand, nothing squelches the incentive to create more valuable content than being told that they're "greedy" because they had the audacity to expect rewards for their hard work.

ann




msg:532457
 1:35 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Computer----$#*$!x.xx
printer-------xxx.xx
copier--------xxx.xx
camera?-------xxx.xx
electricity-----x.xx
regular aps---xxx.xx or more
webbuilding aps--xxxx.'s
time for research--------priceless
time for writing----------at going rate
graphics aps for design work.---xxxx.xx
webhosting fees------------Varies
Broadband connection------xx.xx
Domain name cost--------xx.xx
Advertisin---in my case---0000
And so it goes, etc, etc, etc.

Free? Not from where I sit!

ann




msg:532458
 2:01 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

At one time it was easy to set up a site. all you needed was a little basic html and you got an ugly long page of writing with all white background. That's when the web WAS free. One still had a lot of other costs but a website was then more vanity and a labor of love bringing with it a wish to share it with the world. Like, "hey look at me, ain't I cool!"

Not so anymore, putting up a website that looks like that in this era of the web simply won't compete for attention, people would never get to read it or wouldn't stay long enough to read it.

More and more webmasters must become more savvy and that means long hours of learning new things and how to impliment them.

People today are not too interested in JUST reading, they want a site that is entertaining even if only in a small way, graphics, quizes, games, etc.

So No, the web is no longer free the same as samples now cost at least a dime and more in the stores. I remember when sample bottles of hot sauce, or whatever, was kept in bins at the cash registers and people were allowed to help themselves...free.

AHHHH the good old days! Not!

Ann

jomaxx




msg:532459
 2:21 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

This debate has been going around in circles for a week. For you people who insist on the right to block anybody who isn't looking at your ads, just do it already. You're willing to talk all night, but there's not one person here who has done it or will do it.

richlowe




msg:532460
 2:22 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Way to take something out of context, since this is the tail end of the rest of my phrase (that was semi-sarcastic) you quoted next

Apologies. Bad day and this thread ticked me off a bit.

off topic nonsense on a thread discussing advertising

Yeah sure. But what does this thread have to do with advertising? It's just a rant against the inevitable back-flash from too much advertising. I suspect the backlash has nothing to do with virtually everyone on this board - it's more against the huge scrappers creating garbage sites designed simply as money machines. If the problem were only 4 little adsense boxes on a page, who would care? But when you're searching for information on asthma medications that you need to help your wife survive, and all you find in the serps is adsense scrapper site after adsense scrapper site, before long you just want to kill all of the ads. That's what the backlash is against.

Tell me how this business model is flawed, when so many people are cashing in with adsense

Look at the history of the internet bubble that burst a few years ago. Look at the hundreds (thousands?) of companies that ramped up, received billions in investors money, then died when the advertising bubble collapsed.

Yeah, it works in the short term. You want some quick cash, it's cool. Heck, I even slapped adsense on some of my sites - pays the hosting bills.

But a business model implies running a business which will last through thick and thin.

With all of the scrapers and scammers and such, well how long before surfers get fed up and stop using search engines at all? I used to love Google - now I find it's serps full of junk and I've been moving more and more towards other engines (how long will they last?)

But I do agree with one point: now is the time to make some money from adsense. Just make sure you're ready for when the bubble explodes.

roldar




msg:532461
 2:42 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you don't want freeloads, don't let them in.

If you're a freeloader, don't whine like a baby when you aren't let in.

Nobody is owed anything.

edd1




msg:532462
 3:59 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm thinking it's a small issue, based on watching peoples random behaviour. Sure it's gaining momentum but people still sell get free newspapers delivered even though it seems every house has a sign on the mailbox saying 'no free newspapers'.

I think the powers that be have a huge incentive to get ads through and this gives me great comfort.

incrediBILL




msg:532463
 5:59 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's just a rant against the inevitable back-flash from too much advertising.

It's not a rant at all, the original post was very straightforward and concise about technologies being deployed that by default block ads, this blocking potential revenue. If you want to call it a back-lash, then the tide is about to turn the other direction IMO as people are sick of working to put out the content just to be taken advantage off with diminishing return.

If the trend continues as it is heading a large segment of the net being paid by sponsors will dry up and go POOF! That's what this was about and still is about between thread hijacking attempts.

The nice thing is at least AdSense has the technology to thwart some of this problem already but they only give it to the Premium Publishers because of support issues. I would suggest they try to package server side support in PHP and ASP, something most people would use fairly easily, and then let 3rd party developers create plug-ins for popular web development tools, CMS packages, etc.

Sure it's gaining momentum but people still sell get free newspapers delivered even though it seems every house has a sign on the mailbox saying 'no free newspapers'

And those are paid for by what..... the ADVERTISERS

Thanks for putting up something that's a decent analogy as most of the web is the 'free newspapers' but people aren't putting up the signs saying 'no free newspapers', they're just cutting out the ads which pays to keep those newspapers free in the first place!

I think the powers that be have a huge incentive to get ads through and this gives me great comfort.

I spent 15 minutes talking to one of the engineers tonight at Google's party and I don't get that feeling at all. They seem to be aware they are losing some money in the content network but it sounds like they're willing to make that trade-off vs. with the amount of support required to recapture that revenue at this time due to the technology requirements. May not be what's actually happening but that's the sense I walked away with after discussing the topic.

jetteroheller




msg:532464
 6:14 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Free? Not from where I sit!

I assume my expenses for AdSense in my tax declaration 2005 will be more than 18,000.--EUR

Server, domain names, internet connection, notebooks,
More than 50% of my car usage is AdSense related,
travel expenses
The wage for my wife translating pages to English
She startet to study English, all study related costs
like universit fee and all the books.

For luck, I was able to reduce some costs.
A press card was only 40.-EUR for application
and 40.-EUR per year. But for this, I need no more
to pay to visit fairs and parking is also most times free at fairs for owners of a press card.

DamonHD




msg:532465
 9:23 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Y'All!

I think we all need to cool off a bit.


If you don't want freeloads, don't let them in.

If you're a freeloader, don't whine like a baby when you aren't let in.

Nobody is owed anything.

This hits it on the head for me.

I DO NOT object to people making money from the Web at all; I've made a substantial portion of my living from it one way or another since it existed.

I don't object to the mix of "free" and paid-for content, and I don't want us going back to the long scrolling black-on-grey Mosaic pages with no SEs. Even I've had to buck my ideas up about presentation and performance, and I know diddly-squat about these things...

What I am objecting to is the name-calling... If you REALLY object to a class/group of users then you can (usually) shut them out. I know that MOST of my bandwidth has been going to hotlinkers (largely myspace and xanga!) and SPAMers' spiders, so I've been working to shut them out (another bogus 5% of scammer traffic shut out just today!). Name calling but not shutting them out is not a sustainable position.

No, no one can realistically shut out a determined hacker or a DDoS attack (or SlashDot!), but even these events should be allowed for in your "wastage" margin. That's why going concerns should try to take gross margins way above the break-even, so as to allow for the minor evils that happen.

Demonising your users does neither you nor them any good and just makes everyone angry. Most of them have no ulterior motives and are ordinary well-meaning people like you and I (I hope!).

I don't mean to be preachy, but concentrate your creative energies on the things that you CAN improve.

Rgds

Damon

DamonHD




msg:532466
 9:23 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

<dup deleted>

1Lit




msg:532467
 10:50 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

The internet never was and never will be "free," just as with almost everything in life. Even sex and love are usually not free - try telling your wife/girlfriend that, instead of taking her to restaurants for the next year, you'll donate the money to Africa and see how she how much love she feels for you.

The US government, educational establishment and other bodies poured millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours into building the infrastructure. It was all paid for through taxes.

If webmasters can't earn revenue from their content, they just won't bother. We had an award-winning literary ezine, every issue which took me about 50 hours to write. I would travel up and down England conducting exclusive interviews with authors etc.

It had discreet, targeted advertising - which nobody bothered with. I packed it in after a few years because I wasn't earning anything for my huge investment in time and money in the project. Still get emails three years later asking me when the next issue will come out. Never I say.

Whose loss? Mine, for sure, but certainly the subscribers. They're not getting the content they crave for.

As for me, I'll return to print journalism and writing books which will provide me with a living so that I could continue to research and write to the highest standard. And the perfectly-termed "freeloaders" will have to pay to buy the newspapers and books if they want them.

DamonHD




msg:532468
 6:56 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi 1Lit,

I'm sorry to hear about your discouraging experience.

It does point out the difference between a worthy/good idea and a (commercially) viable one. Better mousetraps do not make a business of themselves, and believing anything else is simply vanity publishing, IMHO.

I've stuck at my main idea for 8 years now, and maybe its starting to cover some of its marginal costs, but I have other reasons for doing it and will continue to have, regardless of AS or other income.

I note that, for example, since I started AS, I have received almost no donations to the site, whereas there used to be a steady trickle. So there are at least two apparently mutually-exclusive funding routes, both with good and bad points. Neither makes the venture a truely commercial stand-alone venture (yet).

Rgds

Damon

Edge




msg:532469
 7:11 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I havn't read this whole thread, however the last twenty or so posts do seem to have opened a personnal issue with me.

I see both points of view, small web operator just trying to share, as well as the commercial web operator whom is trying to pay the bills, and maybe eat occasionally.

As one on the commercial side, I have toyed with the idea of limiting page views of non-paying visitors. If they want to visit many pages often, then they should help to pay the way.

I'm sure there are many websites, which are of such value, that forcing an individual to see an advertisement would be a small price to pay.

Nothing, is free, particulary when it has significant value.

neveremail




msg:532470
 10:01 am on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is there a site on the web where you can see which ads would be blocked by different users using different ad blocking software and estimate a percentage of those users that don't see your ads.

Maybe then you could hedge your bets if you find gaps in some of the ad blockers and use an alternative to say adwords?

incrediBILL




msg:532471
 6:57 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

UNBLOCKING THE AD BLOCKERS, YOU'RE GONNA GET ADS LIKE IT OR NOT!

Long thread, lots of heated debate, but it looks like localized server side ad feed technology as a fallback strategy is the only solution to this problem.

After pondering the problem and the couple of actual useful comments, I'm going to try implementing something along the lines of encyclo's suggestion in msg #41 and install ads in <noscript> so people disabling javascript will still get ads, just not AdSense or the usual affiliate ads.

However, to avoid the banner blockers I'll be using server side product and ad feeds and locally redirected URLs so that things like Norton Firewall will be unable to detect the usual banner ad systems, links and similar technology as it will appear to be all locally integrated content and not 3rd party.

I'm going to add something like:

<noscript>
<p>Here's some widget you might like... blah blah blah"
<a href="http://mydomain.com/my_redirect_page_to_affiliate/pid=#*$!" target=_blank>Widget</a>
</noscript>

If done properly this should fly under the radar of all the current ad blocking firewalls and I'll test them out one at a time to make sure. I'm also contemplating random URLs for the redirect page so that nobody can block a single ad mechanism I deploy.

To further thwart banner ad blocking, if Javascript is enabled I can detect if other affiliate ads are being loaded or not and alter the page behavior (since the site is dynamic) so that on subsequent page loads I'll replace the normal affiliates with server side feeds instead as well.

Alternatively, I can just wrap all the ads in Javascript and if that's disabled show alternative advertising for everything but that would increase the overall bandwidth, although not too dramatically.

Final implementation may take a week to wrap up but at least now I have a clear idea what needs to be done to maximize ad impressions, whether it results in click thrus remains to be seen.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 7:16 pm (utc) on Aug. 11, 2005]

bedlam




msg:532472
 7:16 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

UNBLOCKING THE ADS BLOCKERS, YOU'RE GONNA GET ADS LIKE IT OR NOT!

While your solution is a good one for users who can't view your regular js enabled ads, it's even simpler to circumvent than (for example) AdSense ads for users who want to block your ads. As many others have suggested, there's not a good technical solution to advertisers' problems with adblockers.

All that's needed is for the client - and, I remind you again that a browser/user can run scripts on your pages after they have been downloaded to the browser - to switch off <noscript> elements:

<script type="text/javascript">
function removeNoscript() {
var noScriptElements = document.getElementsByTagName('noscript');

for (j=0;j < noScriptElements.length;j++) {
adSenseFrame[j].style.display = 'none';
}

}
</script>

But, you could reasonably argue that, a user seeing noscript elements has js switched off.* In this case, all a user needs to do is add

noscript {display:none!important;}

...to a user stylesheet and your ads will just be gone.** I repeat: if this is a big problem, it'd probably be way better to start with a simple appeal to your users (something not against the adsense TOS; perhaps along the lines of 'This site is supported by advertising. If you value this service, please disable adblockers.') than try to escalate the situation...

-B

* There is also a Firefox extension that allows javascript to be whitelisted [addons.mozilla.org], so it's possible for someone to run theirs, but not yours...
** Incidentally, there would be no point in trying to overcome this setting in your site's stylesheet, as user stylesheets are given greater specificity by useragents...

incrediBILL




msg:532473
 7:25 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bedlam,

You are correct except that will only apply on the first page as my implementation included a "bug" in the page which will tell me if the page is loading ads via scripts or noscripts and if both come up negative then I'll just do 100% server side ads on subsequent page loads. With everything integrated server side there will be nothing to detect when there are no scripts or uniquely identifiable iframes involved and it all looks like content.

If I wanted to ditch AdSense then I could just display the first page with all locally integrated advertising and your script would be completely useless.

I'm not escalating the situation with this approach, I'm doing an automatic scale back replacing technologies that are being disabled with other technologies to render similar results ;)

edacsac




msg:532474
 7:35 pm on Aug 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree with bedlam, that if a user is really on a warpath against ads, they will ultimatly win. But I also believe incrediBills plan could recover a good percentage of ad impressions from the users that just install an ad blocker and leave it at that, or those that are blocking ads by default through a norton type product. Even if you only recover 50% of the impressions you've lost to adblockers with this method, and even if the revenue isn't as great as adsense ads, its still something to say.

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