Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Yesterday I received an email from a customer asking for the strange virus alert that appears on his screen everytime he vsits my site.
I explained him that is the anti-advertising feature of Norton Antivirus (against the Adsense cookies).
As my site is totally advertising supported, I think is dishonest browse the site while you block the adverts.
¿There's a way to catch users with these ad blockers? I'd like redirect them to a H1'ed page with only one paragraph: "This site is supported by advertising: be honest."
P.S. (I think there is some previous posts about this but I can't find them).
"I feel that if all webmasters were to adopt a single and effective solution it will really help. "
This would be a great PubCon topic
The difference between SPAM and ad blockers is that SPAM is shoved in our mailboxes. SPAM uses others' resources (others' servers, hosting, etc.). Spammers are leeches, foisting unwanted and unwarranted garbage on the unwilling.
Ads are served and use up bandwidth for ISPs as well as individuals. They take up screen real estate. Ads use others resources as well. I am using bandiwdth of my visitors to make money. I am taking up their screen space to make money.
I dont ask people if I can show them ads before they come to my site. Many times people may feel these ads are not wanted and unwarrented garbage. I actually have never heard of anyone asking for ads to be shoved in front of them.
Deal with it.
Ads are served and use up bandwidth for ISPs as well as individuals.
Everything uses up bandwidth on the Internet. Music and graphics and everything uses up bandwidth. If someone is so concerned about using up bandwidth, they'd better stay off of the Internet.
They take up screen real estate.
Uh, last I checked, the design of the "screen real estate" is up to the web designer. Choosing a large graphic instead of a small one is "taking up screen real estate" too. So what?
Ads use others resources as well.
So do HTML files and graphics files. All which are part of a web page.
I am using bandiwdth of my visitors to make money.
Not exactly. You create an attraction for them on the web. You pay to have this attraction put up on the web. The visitors then voluntarily go out of their way to visit your site. Their choice. They choose to do it. They decide to use their "resources" to see something that is of interest to them (your site). You are not "using" anything of theirs without their consent.
I mean, if you are so concerned about using their resources, don't show any graphics. They use up bandwidth. Write less text. Text sucks up bandwidth. It all sucks up bandwidth. But since you are the webmaster, you get to decide what exactly is on the page. You get to decide where it is placed.
They can alter their browser settings and their security settings if they want. They can also avoid visiting your site. But if they want to visit your site, they may have ads "foisted" upon them. And if you find a way to bump them off if they refuse to see the ads, you can do that. Because it's your site. No one is twisting their arm, forcing them to see it.
I am taking up their screen space to make money.
And of course, their computers are hijacked, against their wills, and are forced to view your site! They have no choice in the matter! ;-)
I dont ask people if I can show them ads before they come to my site
Do you ask them if they want to see graphics too? Or text too? None of us "ask" whether or not our visitors even want to see anything on our site. We assume that if they go out of their way to visit it, then it kind a means they, y'know, want to see it. If they didn't want to, they wouldn't be there. :)
Many times people may feel these ads are not wanted and unwarrented garbage.
And they can block them. Or not. And if they block the ads, you can block them. Because you don't owe them an ad-free surfing experience. Neither does Google, or Yahoo, or any other site.
I actually have never heard of anyone asking for ads to be shoved in front of them.
And I'll bet you've never heard anyone ask for a site to be shoved in front of them either. They need to go out of their way to type in the URL and visit the site. And if there are ads there too? Big whoop. They see ads. Hopefully, they'll make the connection between "ads" and "free" and they'll figure out that the reason there are so many free things on the Internet is because of the ads.
Adsense, like SPAM or unsolcited emails, is a way to make money. SPAM solicits traffic that can solicit ad impressions, clicks, whatever as well as sell products. It is very very effective, thats why it is around.
Having a tool that blocks ads is by no means "illegal" or immoral in any way, lots of people do not want to view the ads and have them all over a page. Adsense has even suggested making ads blend in as best as possible. Why is that? Hmm.....
Just like how outlook tosses spam in a folder, i can flip on norton to block ads on sites. I do not like seeing them all the time, and either does many other people (hence norton has a target population for this product). This tool filters out a lot of crap (Ads) that I do not want to see. My spam filter also filters out a lot of crap that i dont want to see. It is no coincidence that ways to make money (spam, adsense) are being blocked by programs. Many people (including myself) do not want to see ads plastered all over a page.
EFV (i think) said something along the lines of google will find ways around these programs if they become a problem. This is obviously a silly comment. Remember the back and forth betwen AOL and MSN in terms of the instant messaging compatibility accross both programs? One changed, then the other, then the other, etc etc.
Google can go ahead and make changes to try to dodge these programs, but you bet your ass they will come right back and make additional changes to block the ads again. This business of being able to monitize any website is not just cut and dry OK for the public. Some people do not want to see ads all over, and it is up to them to decide if they want to block them or not. In the early days of spam some tools existed to block it out, but was not very mainstream. We are seeing that same foundation here with ads. It is the early days of text based ads, and some programs are around to block them. In 1-3 years it will be the standard for internet security suites to have ad blockers in them. Sure some differences exist betwen SPAM and Adsense, i do think they are fundementaly the same and will be handled in the same way. You can argue you all you want, but right now any one of your sites i visit all i get is blocked adsense ads! You ain't getting any money from me!
Apparently, it's possible to defeat some of NIS's ad-blocking by cloaking the links using a script and using a proxy function to load them, but some here are too busy arguing to go look for that thread.
I'd like to suggest that all parties take a deep breath and stay on-topic. It might be profitable. Thanks.
Jim
i do think they are fundementaly the same and will be handled in the same way.
No, they aren't. One is a leech, the other funds something that people want.
You can argue you all you want, but right now any one of your sites i visit all i get is blocked adsense ads! You ain't getting any money from me!
And if enough people feel the way you do, you ain't getting any free sites from me! No free goodies that you enjoy, no free and useful information that you are seeking out, no nothin'. If enough people want their surfing experience ad-free, they're going to find that there will be slim pickins out there. No free IMDb.com, no free dictionary, no free recipes, no free nothin'.
That sounds so much better, doesn't it? ;-)
Edited to add: Google and the other big hitters will not allow things to escalate to the point where free content is compromised. I am not all that worried about it.
Also, I am still looking for a way to keep NIS from breaking pages using JS. NIS is too aggressive (my main gripe about it) and can actually break a prefectly fine page with no ads whatsoever!
It is bad enough to have to test against a variety of browsers without having to test against third party software like NIS. Seems like a valid page ought to load and go without so much hassle.
WBF
Damn - there goes the beach house...
Personally I'd prefer you just went and looked at one of the many other high quality sites available online that deliver the same original quality content as what my site does. There must be thousands of them and no doubt I'm the only sucker lame enough to think that some financial compensation is in order for the expenses incurred in creating the information I bring to the web.
No doubt all those other sites (the no adverts all free variety) deliver the content for free, as, well, you must know this, it costs absolutely nothing to create original high quality content - hell, I just put the adsense listings on the site to bug users like you.
I have no problem with Nortons turning off my adverts (without my permission) as long as they send all those users to a screen where they are redirected to either re-configure their Nortons to show the adverts on my site and browse for free or head off to a micropayments scheme to pay to be able to access the site...(lol, no doubt nortons would want a cut!)
Is that a situation so unrealistic? as a surfer I'd take the free option with adsense anyday - certainly the lesser of two evils. Chris you may find yourself surfing asteroids on an atari in no time - that's still advert-free I think...
EFV (i think) said something along the lines of google will find ways around these programs if they become a problem. This is obviously a silly comment.
Do you seriously think that Google, Yahoo/Overture, MSN, etc. will quietly accept corporate death if their revenues drop by hundreds of millions of dollars? They don't have to defeat ad blockers with technological workarounds: For the kind of money they stand to lose, they can afford to hire lawyers.
Another step that Google could (and should) take is to ensure that contextual ads don't attract the kind of hatred engendered by popup/popunder ads and e-mail spam. History has shown that users value advertising if the ads are relevant to their interests--something that's obvious to anyone who's ever looked at a magazine like VOGUE, GOURMET, QST AMATEUR RADIO, or WORKBOAT. If users aren't exposed to a constant barrage of junk ads on spam sites, they'll be less inclined to use ad blocking.
You can't sue users not to run ad blocking software...
No, but the implicit threat of an expensive legal defense could motivate a software company to rethink a policy of having ad blocking on by default.
You can't sue users not to run ad blocking software...i don't think anyone would sue the users. The users aren't the ones making money by restraining other peoples trade or interfering with other's contracts. Norton, adsubtract, and admuncher are.
No, but the implicit threat of an expensive legal defense could motivate a software company to rethink a policy of having ad blocking on by default.
Can YOU afford an expensive legal battle? Your lawsuit will certainly get thrown out of court and attempts to threaten on poor grounds could land you in big trouble, especially if you try to spread information about this lawsuit that may cause monetary damages of the company in question.
Mozilla has now got blocking and source code is widely available, there is no way you can stop it from spreading it. Mark my words - just wait till someone implements simple todo feature in Mozilla, which would allow users automatically exchange block-lists so that they can all benefit from automatic blocking of ads without having to right-click each one of them on their own.
Can YOU afford an expensive legal battle?
Umm,no - but Google can
Your lawsuit will certainly get thrown out of court
Why?
Mark my words - just wait till someone implements simple todo feature in Mozilla, which would allow users automatically exchange block-lists so that they can all benefit from automatic blocking of ads
Yes it's always a handy feature to allow others to advise what you should and shouldn't see...
"Content" is slowly but inevitably transforming into "paidcontent" (add the domain suffix for an excellent source on this topic) - mark my words that is where it is headed
Can YOU afford an expensive legal battle? Your lawsuit will certainly get thrown out of court and attempts to threaten on poor grounds could land you in big trouble
First, no one is suggesting that we should be suing makers of ad-blocker software. (See Stuartmacdonald's reply.)
Second, look up "implicit" in the dictionary. :-)
Yes it's always a handy feature to allow others to advise what you should and shouldn't see...
Its the law of big numbers - if lots of people are running in one direction then there is probably a good reason for that. Opinion of one person on what ad is could be a lie, but opinion of millions of people is a trend. Statistically it can be made work pretty neatly.
Why?
Because it has no merit. And even if it had (anything can happen in USA) you won't win because technology is simple and lots of open source not-controlled-by-single-entity browsers around. The best you can achieve is to force Microsoft not do that, and I'd like to see you winning this one ;)
Bigger guns like RIAA can't beat P2P software that some argue is mainly used to facilitate breaking laws, yet software is out there and it runs regardless of lawsuits, which I hasten to add were ruled in favour of P2P companies.
Second, look up "implicit" in the dictionary
It will have to be pretty explicit as this is the only way threats work, otherwise they will get ignored and you might get sued for what I think is referred to as "torturous interference".
Paid content - thats fine by me. The sooner people learn that they have to pay for everything (its just the matter of when and how), the better.
It's the law of big numbers - if lots of people are running in one direction then there is probably a good reason for that.
Sorry, and I don't mean to be offensive, but that statement is utter and absolute rubbish! ;-) just because the lemmings are throwing themselves over the cliff doesn't indicate a particularly hot idea!
Opinion of one person on what ad is could be a lie, but opinion of millions of people is a trend. Statistically it can be made work pretty neatly.
Yeah sure, trends are trends but when my grandma is a part of a trend that she doesn't even know exists ("Sorry Stuart, what is this adblock thing -- it was on by default?") it loses its validity as an informed trend.
and lots of open source not-controlled-by-single-entity browsers around
Yes sure - but they are not CHARGING MONEY to remove my adverts - though they still bug me (only a little as i'm, a firefox user - for what that's worth)
The sooner people learn that they have to pay for everything
Well no, I'd rather pay for nothing -- except for the adverts I click on! wouldn't you?!
talking about being pedantic - EFV - It's Mc not Mac ;-)
Goodnight all - good thread!
just because the lemmings are throwing themselves over the cliff doesn't indicate a particularly hot idea!
You don't have to throw over the cliff yourself, but if you see all those lemmings rushing somewhere then you could have reasonably deduced that is it likely a cliff there (another story that lemmings over cliff is myth).
but when my grandma is a part of a trend that she doesn't even know exists
If she won't fit into trend (blocking userful images) then her results will be rejected. There are 10s of millions of people browsing at any given time, many visiting same websites so stream of user blocks should be pretty reliable, and you need only a handful of people to do that - the filter will be on and off prompting user to "play the game" and contribute by blocking ads, if they don't play then they lose priviledge of access to block-lists.
Yes it will be "going with the crowd" thing, but if crowd mainly hates ads then its pretty safe to trust crowd and block ads. Add safeguards in the system (clients that report correct ads gain better trust, verify ad blocks by trusted people etc). Anyway, don't push me or I will go and implement it just to prove that it works ;)
Not long ago Pop-ups were not blocked, they were annoying, etc. Now thousands of programs, including Internet Explorer (with SP2) as well as THE GOOGLE BAR block pop ups. Pop ups were an effective (sure they can be annoying) way of advertising.
Now we have in page ads. Right now they are 99% unblocked and appear on pages. What would be the logical next step in this sequence? They are now starting to be blocked by programs such as Norton.
Sure this may be "death" to all these companies, but it is the consistant course of nature for advertising practices. I had a good marketing teacher once that talked all about the cycles of advertising from a medium being invented to it going on to be either ignored or blocked, just like what has happened with countless other forms of internet advertising.
Google has only added to the problem. By blocking pop ups with the google bar they have made another step in the wrong direction for them. If you want to deny these cycles of previously successful internet marketing methods than you have another thing coming, and it certainly is not any kind of marketing degree.
Google can fight and fight all they want, but all that fighting is going to cost a lot of money. It will certainly take a huge chunk out of margins if they are spending millions of dollars re-writting code weekly to combat the newest forms of ad blocking technology that threaten to put them out of business.
The glory days of text based ads being a quick, effective, and easy way of monitizing any site/page are starting to end. Norton, with the inclusion of ad blocking software has taken the first step towords the downfall of this method of advertising. If you do not want to agree with this than just wait around. Look what happened to SPAM and Pop Ups, how can you honostly sit around and think "oh, well this is different"?
talking about being pedantic - EFV - It's Mc not Mac ;-)
Sorry. I must have been dreaming about two patties on a sesame-seed bun. :-)
slightly off topic but,
Has anybody seen that website/company that sells movies with the 'naughty' parts removed? lol
There is a slight difference in the analogy to a TV commercial - you pay for a TV license, and for cable - therefore you have the right to pick and choose at your leisure as to what you want to watch - that is what you actually paid for, so turn off the TV if you like when an AD comes.
Websites are free though - webmasters find a way in order to compensate for the cost of running the site. If you want to view my site, OK, but ADS are a part of my site, and if you agree to viewing the site, you should see the whole package, without my site being affected by a 3rd party software.
Moreover, TV spots are paid for IN ADVANCE, based on the audience - and that audience is not based on the amount of people that view the commercials, it is based on the number of people that actually watch the main program where the commercial is going to be featured, and that number will most likely remain unaffected whether people turn off the TV or change channels when the commercials come on.
Here's the proper TV analogy of what Norton is doing..
It would be like you paying a 3rd party to receive a TV station, filter out the advertisements, then send you everything except the commercials. And yes, that would be illegal.
And for radio it would be the same, like if someone else turned on a radio transmitter over the radio station every time there were commerials just to block them - and yes - that also would be illegal.
If people coming to my site think there are too many ads, they are free to go elsewhere (turn off the channel)... but in order for them to make that decision they have to at least see the damn ads first.
EDIT: -> disappear, that's what I meant.
[edited by: Bluepixel at 8:28 am (utc) on Aug. 31, 2004]
Norton is rewriting our content and making a profit off of it.
I think you may find that recording movie with VCR off TV, then editing it and watching it privately constitutes fair use. VCRs and PVRs that allow to skip ads are perfectly legal, there are real world precedents of products that are acceptable, and Symantec is no different from Sony/Betamax in this respect.
If people ripped your site off, removed ads and re-published for everyone to see, then fair play - its copyright infringement, however viewing the site in any way the end user deems appropriate is fair use.
People who want to sue companies for adblocking have no legal legs to stand on.
I think you may find that recording movie with VCR off TV, then editing it and watching it privately constitutes fair use. VCRs and PVRs that allow to skip ads are perfectly legal, there are real world precedents of products that are acceptable, and Symantec is no different from Sony/Betamax in this respect.If someone wants to save my site offline, remove the ads, and then view it, I would be perfectly fine with that. In fact I would encourage it. But when Norton serves them an altered version of my site I have a big problem.
If people ripped your site off, removed ads and re-published for everyone to see, then fair play - its copyright infringement, however viewing the site in any way the end user deems appropriate is fair use.That is exactly what is happening here! Okay, it's true, they aren't republishing it for everyone, only for those that pay them.
People who want to sue companies for adblocking have no legal legs to stand on.We'll see.
Bigger guns like RIAA can't beat P2P software that some argue is mainly used to facilitate breaking laws, yet software is out there and it runs regardless of lawsuits, which I hasten to add were ruled in favour of P2P companies.You know there is a very significant flip side to that story. Napster was shut down. Members of the downloading general public were fined severely.
Napster was shut down
Because they had central server and therefore were in position to do something, however blocks based on browsers are distributed and there are substantial non-infringing uses to browsers apart from blocking ads, which is certainly not infringing from legal (and mine) points of view. There are legal precedents that can be used to throw lawsuit out of court, you have zero chance to sue company, and even if you can and win , then someone anonimous posts something that users want and they can use it in Mozilla. You will lose either way.
Personally I block popups and some of the most annoying animated banners. I am ok with AdSense and particularly AdWords as in my view the latter can be relevant, hence I keep it. The balance is shifting towards end user who will increasingly be in control of what they see, how they see it and when they see it. You can fight just like RIAA does but the result will be the same - you will lose .
