| 2:32 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You should be a bit more specific.
| 2:46 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 2:52 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why? Probably because Norton Internet Security is known to make wholesale changes to your site, including removal of banner ads and adsense.
Unfortunate that they have chosen to use the blunt object approach, since NIS will also remove images that coincidentally use common banner ad dimensions, and will often break any JS routines that you might be using on your pages.
There have been many threads on this subject in the past, but without site search I can't say much more :(
| 3:05 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I started a topic along these lines a while back:
It's not trivial to stop Norton users as you really can't tell server side until the second paqe request.
If you didn't get the cookie just kick them to a "this site requires cookies" page, if you you got the cookie but Norton is disabling banners send them to the "Please disable Norton banner blocking to use this site".
Just be careful and don't penalize known web crawlers!
Of course you will have just ticked someone off that will never return, but c'est la vie.
| 6:30 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I read that thread that you started a while back Bill, and I couldn't agree more!
I am going to try something like this.
Another point that concerns me here is that I heard that some extensions for that Firefox browser actually load the ads, then hide them immediately, as it manipulates the DOM.
If this is true, then those users are artificially inflating your ad unit impressions, which would necessarily hurt publishers.
| 6:37 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, I should have been more descriptive, it is because Norton (Norton Internet Security - "NIS") blocks ads by default. I don't like the idea of this one bit.
| 7:21 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There are some downsides to this (yes you can do it). I had a norton user that I invited to look at my website get upset and report the email I sent inviting her as spam to spamcop. That is just one of the unintended side effects of redirecting those with adblockers.
| 7:34 am on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I guess there are drawbacks, such as some malicious minded people out there, but in the end why should we care about those who don't care to meet us halfway?
As was mentioned by Bill's in that recent thread on this subject, I fully agree that there is an entitlement mentality out there among folks who demand that everything be their's for the taking - all for free. (I just don't get how things would work if everyone thought like that?!)
| 1:36 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|As was mentioned by Bill's in that recent thread on this subject, I fully agree that there is an entitlement mentality out there among folks who demand that everything be their's for the taking - |
Yes, we see that here a lot, too. :-)
| 4:42 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I understood Norton blocked ads but was wondering why bother to block them as their are bunches of ways to block ads. I just leave them alone and hope they purchase from me..
| 5:33 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What you are blocking is the method, not the user agent, so it blocks most adblockers.
|why bother to block them as their are bunches of ways to block ads. |
| 5:42 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 7:07 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Do a search for "ad blocker blocker" with quotes on google.
| 8:07 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 8:09 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I just leave them alone and hope they purchase from me.. |
That is my whole problem, if I sold some goods I could still make some money. But my site is kind of tech info related, focusing on telephone accessory reviews, cel phone reviews etc., so without adverstising rev, I am pretty much screwed.
| 8:37 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 9:10 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 9:36 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What about building a menu, say, some sort of hierarchial js menu so they couldnt navigate the site without js enabled? (that could solve this problem)
I have to figure some sort of alt ad scheme, all of the advertisers I use are contextual (three of them)
That is an astonishing amount of alt ads served, it points out the potential for lost revenue over the course of time; it is kind of like re-insulating your home to keep the heat in -- it all adds up.
| 10:45 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What about building a menu, say, some sort of hierarchial js menu so they couldnt navigate the site without js enabled? (that could solve this problem) |
Could perhaps also create other unwanted problems e.g. SE's crawling.
| 11:56 pm on Dec 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|That is an astonishing amount of alt ads served |
Out of 1.5M page views last month 50K isn't so bad, it's better than it used to be.
|What about building a menu, say, some sort of hierarchial js menu so they couldnt navigate the site without js enabled? |
If you do that [and I did] you'll still need to provide a site map page for the search engine to crawl.
| 2:37 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'll go with incrediBILL's idea because I am a banner-blocker. I don't have the least bit of a problem with text ads, or even static image ads. But I find the 'dancing bologna'-type of ads utterly distracting; I cannot read a page with all that stuff jumping around, shaking, swaying, and quivering. I don't block ads using Norton though, I block the adservers at the firewall. I don't do it maliciously or to rip anyone off, I do it so that I can actually read and retain the info on the pages I find in search, and to limit the occasional excessively-large ad downloads.
I'll ask you to step into your visitors' shoes. They did not come to your site based on seeing your listing in Google that read, "Come here so we can throw a bunch of ads in your face, and also to find a few phone accessories and tech tips," they came for the advice and information that your site description undoubtedly offered in the search results. You are inviting me to your site to see your info, so don't get upset if that is the sole reason that I visit. If I like your site, and if you have some nice, quiet ads offering some of the gear you discuss in your articles, then I might click on one -- I didn't come to rip you off, after all, I came to read.
So, from the other side of the fence where I sit with almost all major animated-ad servers blocked, it looks like this: The banner industry has got to draw the line on ad file-size and distraction level a lot lower. Otherwise, people will seek to turn off all this annoying stuff. Don't run this stuff on your site unless you want folks like me to block it, or to just leave immediately (which may hurt your organic listing rank as well -- see this thread [webmasterworld.com]).
If you put up nice quiet text ads for those of us whose eyes are too old and tired for the assault they receive *at many but not all sites*, then maybe we'll actually click them. Smack the monkey? I'm a millionth-visitor winner? -- I'm outta there. So's my wallet.
Now to be fair, I think that Norton's approach is heavy-handed, especially when it modifies and breaks scripts and pages -- To me, as a webmaster and coder, that's inexcusable. But they're selling it because there is a demand for it. Advertisers need to find ways to reduce the demand for ad-blockers, and the most obvious way is to reject --as an industry-- the annoying and obnoxious ad formats.
For a simple analogy, try a gas station/convenience store. Sometimes I go inside for the free cold drink offered in the middle of summer. Sometimes I buy more (in addition to the gas I purchased). Sometimes I don't. However, the owner never yells at me or lectures me about ripping him off. If he did, as an experienced businessman, he knows I'd never come back, and I'd tell my friends and family and others why (blog), and he'd lose a lot of the goodwill he gained by offering the free drinks.
I'm old enough to not be bothered at all by flames, so take the above for what it's worth if you want to sell to folks in my demographic.
| 3:25 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually, I agree with you that there are some ads that are responsible for all of this ad blocking to begin with. For eg, those blinking gifs, those annoying flash smilies, those irritating DHTML layers that block the content, the list goes on.
I totally empathize with visitors who are annoyed with all of this nonsense. This is where Google's ads and other similar ads are a good thing. I even read that Jacob Nielsen at some point said that text ads were the future of Internet advertising. (and there isn't a lot of things that he seems to like...)
The thing that gets me is that the folks who block the ads are likely blocking them all in one fell swoop, out of sheer frustration with ads in general. This is where the Norton thing comes in.
Bill made a good point about that in that older thread he started, where he said that his mother was using Norton and had no idea that there were even ads being blocked.
So, I am not too sure what the end result of trying to block all the "ad blockers" would be. On one hand, one likely would never make any money from someone who blocks all ads by default, and on the other, one definitely would make no money from someone who is annoyed and will never return. The bigger thing that worries me more, is containing the spread of this sort of thing. What if everyone used something like Norton, and blocked all ads by default? (then...I guess the halcyon days of ad revenues are over for all of us...)
| 11:42 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Another thing I found is looking through my logs and AdSense tracking stats since August, not one visitor with a "blocked referrer" or behind a proxy has exited my site via an Adsense ad.
That tells me everything I need to know right there.
| 11:50 am on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I guess there are drawbacks, such as some malicious minded people out there, but in the end why should we care about those who don't care to meet us halfway? |
How halfway is halfway?
What reasons are you offering to users to turn off their protection in order to view your sites?
So, if your sites have that extra something special that might entice me to revisit with JS enabled, you need to meet me halfway: what are your guarantees of my safety on your site?
| 1:49 pm on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you're not going to make money off them, you don't need them in the store. You're not obliged.
Plenty of web sites out there they can take their 'custom' to.
| 4:45 pm on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Since when does the government give out good advice? Do you hear them telling people not to use IE? My site will appear broken to those with js off. Not terribly broken, but they will likely get a .css file designed for a different screen resolution. That doesn't bother me, they made their choice. The majority of Norton users DID NOT make the choice to surf without ads. They don't even know they are doing it. Very few of those that do use it knowingly appreciate what they are doing.
|I'd be a fool to turn it on as government advice says not to use it. |
I hate adblockers and what they stand for. But if you block those with adblockers, you will eventually block people you wish you hadn't
| 5:32 pm on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just spent all last night re-re-re-configuring an eMachine (bought for $150 at Best Buy on Black Friday :) ) for my 80 year old dad.
It came with a bunch of products pre-installed, "Norton Internet Security", Macafee and others. My dad chose Norton.
I enabled it's firewall with it's defaults, it then could not contact it's own servers to check on subscription, and IE couldn't get out the door either. I had no idea that there may be ad filters in place, though I did turn off the "SPAM filter" if that is doing the blocking.
I visited the home page of my own site from his home, but I didn't look at any page that had an ad :( . Well, he's only 40 miles away, perhaps I'll go back in a day or two and check on this aspect.
I'm not blocking any ad blockers, I didn't know that they were in such a prominent mainstream product like Norton. It's something I'll keep in mind.
On the other hand, why bother? If they don't trigger the AdSense code, they aren't deflating my CTR.... right (he asks hopefully)?
| 6:11 pm on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|... my site is kind of tech info related, focusing on telephone accessory reviews, cel phone reviews etc., so without adverstising rev, I am pretty much screwed. |
Why not find affiliates who sell those telephone accessories, cell phones, and other products you review at your site and provide readers with affiliate links to buy those products? It seems to me like you are missing a huge opportunity here to supplement your Adsense income and diversity your revenue sources.
| 6:50 pm on Dec 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Halfway is I create a content-rich page with original content and show some advertising judiciously. The visitor comes to my pages and sees them exactly as I created them, without hiding the ads, thereby giving me a fair chance. That, to me, is halfway. I am not out there to gouge anyone, scam anyone, spam anyone with ads, so why do they just assume my site is a danger. If they perceive every site out there to be a danger, like I said before, those of us who rely on advertising as a profit model are all in trouble.
|On the other hand, why bother? If they don't trigger the AdSense code, they aren't deflating my CTR.... right (he asks hopefully)? |
From what I read, there are some ad blocking measures that could inflate CTR. That greasemonkey script that Firefox uses, apparently loads the ads, then hides them. This would trigger a page impression, as far as G's stats are concerned, for a viewer who isn't even able to see the ads. I am not sure what the effect on CTR registering is from each and every ad blocker, but I would hate for them to screw me once by blocking the ads, and then screw me twice by adding to my impressions on top of it.
Add to that, is the fact that not one person who has visited my site in the last four months who visited as a "blocked referrer" or hid behind a proxy (or used an ad blocker) has exited my site via Adsense. So, in other words, thousands of dollars were earned, and not a penny from those folks. So, it doesn't even matter if 10% of my visitors block ads, or use Norton, because 100% of them are, essentially freeloaders.
| This 125 message thread spans 5 pages: 125 (  2 3 4 5 ) > > |