homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.11.45
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 ( [1] 2 > >     
Ever try blocking users who have JavaScript disabled?
Why waste resources on people who can't display AdSense?
beggers




msg:3098093
 7:55 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

It occurred to me that I'm probably wasting a lot of resources by allowing people who have Javascript disabled to access my sites.

If these people can't display AdSense ads, why not detect this and transfer them to a page that says "You must have Javascript enabled to use this site"? Customers that can't buy anything aren't really customers.

I know there is some simple code to check for Javascript but has anyone used it specifically for this purpose?

 

Chapman




msg:3098108
 8:04 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

With all due respect, but feeling the need to block visitors from your site (as they are wasting your resources) because they can't see your Adsense ads... is probably the purest definition of a "Made for AdSense" site I ever heard!

Chapman

jomaxx




msg:3098161
 8:41 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I can see many downsides to doing this but no real upside.

loganz




msg:3098164
 8:45 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

a lot of times i just close sites that block non-js and go on to the next

maybe think of a way to detect a non-js user and replace the ads with something else in place of adsense

LifeinAsia




msg:3098172
 8:48 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just post the following message on all your pages: Click on my ads or go away!

Marcia




msg:3098175
 8:51 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Aside from being an unpleasant option, it's a wasted opportunity. For those with JS disabled, you could display some kind of targeted affiliate link or banner and the potential to have a second source of revenue. That also provides an alternative choice even for those who have JS enabled.

OptiRex




msg:3098199
 9:10 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm probably wasting a lot of resources

Just how many millions of visitors do you have who are doing this?

Are you exceeding your monthly bandwidth allowances etc or just feeling a bit contrary today?

BigDave




msg:3098229
 9:23 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Let's see, if they have JS off, they have probaly done it for a reason ... such as blocking ads.

So you are going to try and force them to view your CPC ads, even though they hate them, and are therefore likely to not click on them no matter what?

The way I see it, you are trying to increase your impressions, without increasing your clicks.

In the process, you might alienate a visitor that you really want. I know someone that has a PR8 personal website, freely links to things that he finds interesting, and surfs with JS disabled. Would you like a link from his site?

Then there is the little issue of cloaking, and taking a chance that Google would not like what you are doing. You aren't likely to get caught, but are you willing to chance it?

Moosetick




msg:3098246
 9:37 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Don't forget that many people surf on multiple computers. Some of those may have js turned on, others off. You may be blocking a potential regular user.

ken_b




msg:3098249
 9:38 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Incredibill started a good related thread a year or so ago.....

How Best to Manage Visitors With Ad Blocking Turned On [webmasterworld.com]

Tropical Island




msg:3098251
 9:39 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

OP is also probably annoyed that we can also block pop-ups & pop-unders.

If your site has any value to the Internet why would you want to block potential users? One of them might actually give you a link which could help your SE performance.

smells so good




msg:3098258
 9:45 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I use my hosts file for blocking most ads. A single line in that file prevents AdSense from showing, now matter where I go and no matter what the state of my JavaScript settings. (Raises hand as one who is wasting your bandwidth :) ) I surf without JS because the web is not safe . If a site reguires JS, and it already has enough compelling interest, I will enable JS for that site (usually only for the current session).

I would NEVER consider blocking visitors who have JS disabled, even though it IS REQUIRED for some of my pages. It would be wise to remember that browsers now provide people more flexability, including enabling/disabling of JavaScript at will.

Why waste resources on people who can't display AdSense?

Because my sites are not MFA. I could extend this faulty logic to say, why waste resources on people who do not or will not purchase anything on my retail sites? What should I do? I know, I'll redirect them to my competition and let those bandwidth bloodsuckers have a field day over there.

Car_Guy




msg:3098311
 10:31 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Imagine walking into a store to see what was offered, and being asked if you needed any help, and replying, "Just looking around, thanks", and then being told, "Well, you'll have to leave."

jomaxx




msg:3098318
 10:45 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

If your main goal is to punish people you perceive to be "deadbeats", then doing what you suggest would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. It can cost you traffic, word of mouth, inbound links, etc. In fact I would seriously consider deleting links to a site that was deliberately blocking some proportion of my users.

OTOH, if you're mainly worried about bandwidth, then a better strategy would probably be to work on blocking rogue spiders. They can eat up a ton of bandwidth. Or simply get a better hosting plan, as bandwidth that would be sufficient for the vast majority of websites is dirt cheap.

Anyway WW has a forum specifically on identifying and dealing with spiders:
[webmasterworld.com ]

TheDonster




msg:3098325
 10:54 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

You may also want to figure out exactly how many of your visitors have JS disabled before proceeding since it may not be worth the trouble. In my case my site stats show 98.9% have JS enabled (from over 500K unique visits) so I can live with the other 1.1%.

beggers




msg:3098329
 10:57 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Imagine walking into a store to see what was offered, and being asked if you needed any help, and replying, "Just looking around, thanks", and then being told, "Well, you'll have to leave."

Nice try but your example is flawed. Someone who "walked into a store" has already responded to advertising, otherwise they wouldn't know the store was there. Secondly, by looking around they are agreeing to be exposed to products and other promotional materials which might result in future sales.

But by blocking ads they are refusing to be exposed to all advertising which guarantees they will never buy anything. No real business can afford to spend time or resources on people who are determined not to buy anything.

I'd strongly urge everyone to read the link mentioned in a previous post before you get your panties in a bunch. There are about 14 pages of excellent discussion on this subject.

greedy player




msg:3098335
 11:02 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Help them by enabling javascript :)

Car_Guy




msg:3098337
 11:03 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

My site was born because it was needed. The products and advertising came much later.

Different preople do different things for different motives. You have made your motive very clear, as have the others who disagree with your reasoning.

gregbo




msg:3098348
 11:18 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nice try but your example is flawed. Someone who "walked into a store" has already responded to advertising, otherwise they wouldn't know the store was there. Secondly, by looking around they are agreeing to be exposed to products and other promotional materials which might result in future sales.

Actually, the person may have just discovered the store from walking past it. Ads may not even be a factor. As far as being exposed to products, they're still exposed to the content that doesn't require JS to view.

But by blocking ads they are refusing to be exposed to all advertising which guarantees they will never buy anything. No real business can afford to spend time or resources on people who are determined not to buy anything.

Also untrue that the person is refusing to be exposed to all advertising. Some people disable JS because they don't want to be exposed to annoying ads. A simple "JS is required to properly view this page" embedded in the content should suffice. As for your "no real business" point, perhaps, but it's not clear that someone who disables JS is determined not to buy anything. You have to take into account how the person got to your site in the first place, what their general surfing habits are, etc.

lammert




msg:3098359
 11:29 pm on Sep 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think your best visitors have JavaScript disabled by design. Ever thought of search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN? Redirect your traffic of visitors without JS capability to a "sorry we do not serve you page" is certainly the best way stop your organic traffic.

Chapman




msg:3098385
 12:11 am on Sep 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

We (and I expect Google as well) refer to "Content being King!"! If you do not allow your visitors access to your content then why bother?

Google is adamant that a page contain content before ads... preventing visitors from seeing your content, if they can't see your ads, is completely contrary to what Google is advocating.

Perhaps idealistic but Car_Guy nails it for me:

My site was born because it was needed. The products and advertising came much later.

Chapman

david_uk




msg:3098640
 6:01 am on Sep 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

To turn it on it's head, why waste YOUR time trying to block a small percentage of people that can't see the ads? Isn't there some way you can spend the time increasing profitability of your site instead?

These people that block may well feel that you are wasting THEIR resources with excess graphics, lots of java applets and all sorts of other crap they don't feel they need.

You might as well block people who don't have broadband on account that your page isn't seen as fast as it was intended and possible clickers might click out before the ads load.

I'd spend the time working on the content and how it displays on slow connections rather than this futile, pointless exercise.

danimal




msg:3099216
 4:19 pm on Sep 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>Imagine walking into a store to see what was offered, and being asked if you needed any help, and replying, "Just looking around, thanks", and then being told, "Well, you'll have to leave."<<<

it's still a flawed comparison, because the products being sold in the store can't be blocked from viewing... but disabling javascript can indeed block the the view of the products being sold on the website.

when the o.p. stated that "I'm probably wasting a lot of resources", a bunch of people in this thread immediately applied their business models to his website... but none of you know what kind of a site he has.

what if the o.p. deals in high bandwidth, rich media content only? or he has to pay licensing fees every time his content is viewed? he has every right to turn away peeps who refuse to abide by industry browser standards.

and in fact, peeps who are technically proficient enough to disable java are probably going to be less likely to click on the ads anyway.

that said, there is going to be overhead with a script that checks every browser for java, among other things, so it's not something that i would do.

gregbo




msg:3102608
 9:42 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

it's still a flawed comparison, because the products being sold in the store can't be blocked from viewing... but disabling javascript can indeed block the the view of the products being sold on the website.

Actually, there are types of stores that will allow one to browse the externally-facing displays, but won't let you in without some type of membership.

what if the o.p. deals in high bandwidth, rich media content only? or he has to pay licensing fees every time his content is viewed? he has every right to turn away peeps who refuse to abide by industry browser standards.

Sure, the OP has every right to turn people away. However, there are no industry requirements that any browser support or enable javascript. This is something that is negotiated on a per-website basis.

and in fact, peeps who are technically proficient enough to disable java are probably going to be less likely to click on the ads anyway.

I've never heard of any studies that have confirmed this.

danimal




msg:3102694
 10:58 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

the o.p. did not indicate that his website required a membership to gain access, but that is a possibility.

javascript is an industry standard because the vast majority of websites and browsers use it... i don't understand your "industry requirements" phrase in the overall context of the internet, although i guess that you could have been referring to the online publisher business that we are in.

>>>I've never heard of any studies that have confirmed this.<<<

and you haven't provided any studies to the contrary, either... but i do have a tech-related site that has demonstrated a lower ctr with tech-savvy web surfers, and i was a pc network admin for 10 years... so i have a pretty good idea of how people interact with computers.

BigDave




msg:3102833
 12:36 am on Sep 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

and you haven't provided any studies to the contrary, either... but i do have a tech-related site that has demonstrated a lower ctr with tech-savvy web surfers, and i was a pc network admin for 10 years... so i have a pretty good idea of how people interact with computers.

Well, here is a quick personal study. Mozilla users click on my ads at about 3 times the rate of IE users. Over the range of my websites they slightly less than 20% of the users, and they are over 50% of my clicks.

When I was operating an online store, there were similar rates with purchases.

Here is the difference, I think that tech-savvy web surfers aren't tricked into clicking where they don't want to. They are more likely to read your ad and decide that they actually want to go there.

If anything, tech-savvy people are going to be MORE comfortable with buying online, and sometimes ads are the easiest way to find what you are looking for.

gregbo




msg:3103946
 2:02 am on Oct 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

javascript is an industry standard because the vast majority of websites and browsers use it... i don't understand your "industry requirements" phrase in the overall context of the internet, although i guess that you could have been referring to the online publisher business that we are in.

What I meant is that no browser is required to support or enable javascript, period. There are plenty of web sites that don't require the use of it. If the OP's site requires it, the OP may decide to restrict usage to only those browsers that support and enable it, but there is no industry requirement that the OP do so.

>>>I've never heard of any studies that have confirmed this.<<<

and you haven't provided any studies to the contrary, either...

I have not asserted that the tech savvy are less likely to click on ads ...

but i do have a tech-related site that has demonstrated a lower ctr with tech-savvy web surfers, and i was a pc network admin for 10 years... so i have a pretty good idea of how people interact with computers.

That is one data point not necessarily indicative of the entire web-using population.

danimal




msg:3105921
 9:58 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

dave, those store stats are interesting... i wish that adsense provided platform stats with their clicks.

i would counter your well-reasoned argument by saying that tech-savvy people don't need to click on ads to find what they want.

>>>That is one data point not necessarily indicative of the entire web-using population.<<<

i worked with thousands of people, so it would be thousands of data points, not just one.

gregbo




msg:3105936
 10:12 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

i worked with thousands of people, so it would be thousands of data points, not just one.

I was referring to your tech-related site, actually. As far as your PC network users go, as compared with the entire population of web users, it's not statistically significant.

BigDave




msg:3105947
 10:27 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

i would counter your well-reasoned argument by saying that tech-savvy people don't need to click on ads to find what they want.

No, they don't have to, but why go looking elsewhere for something when there is a link right there?

The people I'm talking about were on the internet long before there was a web, and many of them were on the internet before it was the internet (darpanet).

We aren't likely to be tricked into clicking on an ad jst because it is blended, but we are very likely to click on an ad for inexpensive unmanaged colo services. Sure, there is a cchance that we could find the same place by searching, but we will probably click the ad to check it out anyway.

If you have a technically oriented website and you aren't getting clicks, then you have a problem with targeting or ad blindness.

i worked with thousands of people, so it would be thousands of data points, not just one.

You sat and watched all those thousands of tech savvy people all the time? And none of them ever clicked on ads?

I've actually talked about AdSense with a lot of my tech-savvy friends, even before I started using it, and most of them admit that when AdSense came out was when they stopped blocking all ads and started clicking on them again.

I certainly would not say that tech-savvy people are "less likely to click on the ads anyway.", but I would definitley agree that if they turned off JS to block ads, that they are unlikely to click on those ads. I just don't think that you can expand that to the tech-savvy people who don't block the ads.

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
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