Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Just make your HTML look like this:
<script>
... Google AdSense Code....
</script>
<noscript>
.... some affiliate code here like Commission Junction or Amazon....
</noscript>
Are you guys seriously trying to suggest that everyone on earth surf your site with your exact combination of hardware/os/software/settings?No. We are suggesting that a company that makes money by stealing our content and republishing it in a different format should not be allowed to do so.
Are you guys seriously trying to suggest that everyone on earth surf your site with your exact combination of hardware/os/software/settings?
No. We are suggesting that a company that makes money by stealing our content and republishing it in a different format should not be allowed to do so.
Not in this thread as far as I can see; no one's talking about scrapers and such here. If you're referring to Norton, then the quoted TOS:
..terms of use of my web site which is to 'not copy, modify or alter the content in any form'
...is still ridiculous because, Norton and other 'involuntary' ad blockers aside, I may have to alter the content via user stylesheet, browser settings or other devices just to be able to use it at all.
-B
some affiliate code here like Commission Junction or Amazon
Shouldn't we ask Adsense to come up with a program or to do something in their code that will not let any company not to show the ads?
May be Adsense will come up with a solution?
Don't a lot of ad-blocking scripts block these too?
Yes, but you're battling percentages at this point.
It appears about 3%-4% just disable javascript but don't block banners based on what I'm seeing.
Like I said, my ad strategy has a 4 component fallback strategy:
1) AdSense ads
2) AdSense alternate ads to monetize PSAs
3) Affiliate Ads in <noscript> to monetize javascript disabled
4) Direct embedded ads on 2nd page view when banner blocking is detected
The only problem with item #4 is you don't know the banners are being blocked until the visitor has looked at one web page so items 1-3 are in place to capture as much advertising opportunity as possibly on the FIRST page view if they aren't completely blocked.
However, how would Google know exactly how big the problem is when you can't measure what you cannot see without more intrusive techniques. Ad blocking does just that, blocks ads, so Google has no clue how many ads they've missed in the Content network, only how many they've actually displayed.
Matching it to Google Analytics?
Also, as to whether Google AdSense will come up with a solution ... I wouldn't hold my breath as people are currently also removing the ads from google.com searches.
...is still ridiculous because, Norton and other 'involuntary' ad blockers aside, I may have to alter the content via user stylesheet, browser settings or other devices just to be able to use it at all.Do you profit by then presenting the content to others?
UNtil then actio against viewers is merely throwing your toys out of the cot in a fit.
All you do is alienate viewers and potential customers.
Afterall what is the first extention every net savy user installs? Adblock, you can't fight the tide coming in.
But Google Analytics code will be blocked by the same people blocking the AdSense code.
Well, maybe I don't fully understand what Norton is doing. I was under the impression it worked in a different way.
Here is an example:
My site focuses on business issues and I have a section that deals with the topic of advertising within these issues. For years this category was labeled as "Advertising Issues in ...." and was linked from the site's front page. One day I looked at the site on my wife's computer, which has Norton with ad blocking installed, and the link was not showing. After figuring things out I renamed the area of the site and the link to another word that does not have Advertising in it. Turns out that Norton no longer blocked it.
So I guess I'm wonder what is the method used to block (e.g., look for keyword suggesting it is an ad, look for script suggesting it is delivering an ad). And why would it block Google Analytics if this is not a direct advertising script.
...is still ridiculous because, Norton and other 'involuntary' ad blockers aside, I may have to alter the content via user stylesheet, browser settings or other devices just to be able to use it at all.Do you profit by then presenting the content to others?
Why do you keep on assuming the content is presented to others?
Any decent browser has the option of using custom stylesheets, which means I can create my own stylesheets, apply them to the websites of my choice.
The content is presented customized to myself.
So visitors who are blocking ads will use less bandwidth, and have a less interesting experience of my sites. But I don't detect JS use, and I don't bother booting them altogether.
Comments please? Is anyone else doing something similar?
But Google Analytics code will be blocked by the same people blocking the AdSense code.Well, maybe I don't fully understand what Norton is doing. I was under the impression it worked in a different way.
Norton has two different ways of ad blocking.
The simple one is called "Ad Blocking" and is applied to every single website you visit. It is possible to customize for HTML strings to be blocked.
There is also the Internet Security Advanced Options tab.
Within this tab you may customize each domain from the default settings, which means if JavaScripts are disabled by default, you may enable them for certain domains.
But I assume the first option will not block Google Analytics and I assume this is the most likely option used. I do not think the average consumer using Norton would know how to customize or have the patience to block individual sites.
Well, I think your assumption is correct.
The first option is blocking HTML strings by default - and JavaScripts are not included in this option by default, but can be added if desired (i.e.: "/scripts/" or ".js").
The second option took me some time to figure out, so my guess is average-Joe will not know where to begin customizing this feature.
I don't think that Google Analytics is blocked by Adblockers.
My analytics always show about 1000 more pageviews per day and adsense page views. I run Adsnese basically on all of my pages.
Why do you keep on assuming the content is presented to others?I understand that, and that is my point. You have every right to do that. You are not profiting by rewriting my site's code. Norton is profiting at my expense by republishing my content in a different format. The sticky part is that they are not actually doing it, just providing the tools. I personally wouldn't have as much problem with it if it weren't on by default.Any decent browser has the option of using custom stylesheets, which means I can create my own stylesheets, apply them to the websites of my choice.
The content is presented customized to myself.
But I assume the first option will not block Google Analytics
Google Analytics (and AdSense) is disabled when JAVASCRIPT is off, about 4% of the visitors, has nothing to do with Norton.
That's why I put things in <noscript> tags to keep monetize and tabs on things the usual javascripts tools and advertising systems can't track with javascript turned off.
This leads me back to my question, since Norton (and other similar software like Agnitum)all leave a "blank referer" in the logs, maybe the best thing to do is use htaccess to block blank referers?
How about people typing your domain in the address bar of the browser? Or those that have bookmarked your site?
You might even end up blocking yourself since you probably wont have any refferers when you see your own site.
Norton only does what you ask it to do. It can be configured in many ways, so you wont necessarily block Norton users by blocking blank referrers.
blank referers
Can you say bookmarks?
So there really is no way to sniff out who is using a certain firewall and block them then?
Any thoughts on this?
So there really is no way to sniff out who is using a certain firewall and block them then?
I think you are watching the issue in the wrong perspective.
It is not about blocking "freeloaders" (and I disapprove the accusing tone of that word, since not all blocked ads are blocked intentionally by the person using the computer on his job, in an internet café or somewhere out of town).
It is about making the visitor feel so good about your website and it's content, that clicking your ads seems like the most natural thing in the world.
Making a website profitable via ads can be compared to a gas station. Very few makes money on selling gasoline alone. So, there is always loads of chips, chocolate, beverages, magazines etc. that you need to walk by to get to the cash register and pay for your gas. If the customer does not feel like a "freeloader", he might even buy some snacks for the road.
Sometimes a customer will come to the gas station in and buy a soda and nothing else. Sometimes a they'll buy a map, sometimes gas, and sometimes nothing. But the difference here is that the give themselves the option of purchasing something -- unlike the visitor who browses websites with all of the ads blocked. That would be like a customer who comes into the gas station never having a wallet. That would be more like a customer who comes into my gas station who, as a foregone certainty, will never buy anything. That is, (hence my harsh opinion of them), unfair to me, because it isn't even giving me a fair chance. Add to the problem of visitors who are already jaded (and rightfully so) of gratuitous and invasive advertising, is the problem that software such as Norton, further compounds this problem by effectively punishing good, diligent web publishers for the actions of others.
Sure there are lots of people who use advertising in such a manner that disrespects all visitors, but blocking all ads by default would be like punishing Harrods's for the actions of flea market vendors!
It is not really about who has the right or not, but moreso about fairness. Again, if they make an absolute decision to block all ads (as some in this thread already have stated that they themselves do) they are being unfair to me, and all the rest of us who do not necessarily deserve to profit, but rather just deserve a fair chance of doing so. So, why is it so offensive if I reciprocate their unfairness, by being unfair to them? Why is simply calling a spade a spade, such an anathema to some people?
You have convinced me maxgoldie, people should pay to enjoy the internet - what a great concept!
