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).
nah, people would just have to pony up for the newest version.
like spam blockers, spyware blockers, etc. )
The problem is that Google should not be using frames and javascript in this day and age.
I mean they are TEXT ads. That makes the data incredibly small and easy to serve.
They should be allowing PHP/ASP/SSI includes so they cannot be blocked based on the serving address. The data would become part of your page.
Sure it would cost you slightly more cpu power and time to render the page but that's the price to pay to make adsense profit.
(now that being said there are ways to still filter out included ads but it's incredibly harder - for example there is a way with mozilla/firefox to block the embeded ad's on Google's own search results, but it takes alot of setup)
The problem is not NIS, there are dozens of products that can do what it does.The problem is that Google should not be using frames and javascript in this day and age.
amznVibe, you hit the nail on the head!
amznVibe, you hit the nail on the head!
Not really. The success of Google Adsense is largely associated with its ease of use. Everyone can't do SSI,PHP, and all that technical stuff but almost anyone can add a few lines of javascript code to their pages.
Everyone can't do SSI,PHP, and all that technical stuff but almost anyone can add a few lines of javascript code to their pages.
Are we talking about Webmasters?...
Are we talking about Webmasters?...
I have been creating web sites for 6 years. I am not an expert in any sort of coding language. Basic HTML, that's it.
However, I do have some good (and somewhat large) "content" sites. I'll never be a member of the FedEx Club, but so far I'm doing okay on a modest scale. I think there are a lot of "webmasters" like me. Basic web creation skills only, but with good content. Good content is what Adword advertisers want. If this whole php code thing would be too scary or difficult for us to handle, (and obviously I have no clue because it's all over my head) then that would mean there would be a lot less content publishers for Adsense.
Targeted advertisers approach me all the time with these type of arrangements but I am sure that would violate Google's no compete clause and I would get banned for selling text links.
The working model is quickly moving away from advertising to memberships, and product and service sales. Exciting times and opportunities for us all who recognize this an be the ultimate winners.
I find it staggering that Webmasters in this forum are pointing the finger at users and software vendors for blocking the ads. I'm sorry, but screw that. Here's why. When I visit a site, say via a search engine, I don't agree that they can shove all kinds of ads at me just because I followed a link. There's no warning, no agreement I make - I don't know if a site will have ads before I arrive, so I get no choice. With an ad blocker, I do get a choice. If your site is good, I'll allow the ads and even click some. I always allow Adsense (manually configured it) because they are contextual, but don't flash, pop up, use tracking cookies or offer trick ads like 'Your are the 1 millionth visitor to this site' or 'You have spyware on your computer'.
As for NIS turning on ad blocking by default - big deal. It's a listed feature of the product. It's on the box, on the Norton site, it's everywhere in the material. When I buy any program, I expect the features to be on from the start. Those who say the ad blocking shouldn't be on are looking at their own interests rather than those of the user who buys it.
Those who say the ad blocking shouldn't be on are looking at their own interests rather than those of the user who buys it.Who else besides me will look out for my interests? Why should I care about how happy someone else is with their purchase of an adblocker.
With an ad blocker, I do get a choice.On my site your choice is to disable it, hit your back button, or close your browser.:)
Are you comfortable with censorship and vandalism in other contexts?
Nothing wrong with looking after your interests! It was more the fact that people were trying to justify that the ad feature should be off because it was somehow in the end user's best interest, which it's not.
BTW I do hit the back button as you suggest (it is very rare) and most times that will take me back to the Google search results where I go to the next result down. If the next result have only Adsense - there' no problem. Or sometimes I use Google's cache.
You are exaggarating the so called impact on the pages to promote your own interests. But distorting facts won't get you support. In fact it just proves that there isn't a problem.
[edited by: darkmage at 3:12 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2004]
Usually the effects are relatively small - a missing link, an absent graphic, a big white space in the middle of a page (which was probably an ad, but sometimes was content)....
***In effect, those users are stripped of their choices rather than given more choices they know and understand like the "Back" button or in the case of the Adsense ads, not clicking.... wow what a novel concept!
I'm sorry, but the average consumer is very ignorant (for the lack of a better word) in the use computers, the web, and all the technology that goes into it including how Norton Internet Security works.
I agree most people won't learn to change the setting. But let's see... if you bought a TV that magically removed all the ads, would you really turn off this feature? I wouldn't! And if it was of the features listed, it should be on.
The consumers aren't being stripped of their choices. What choice are we talking about here? The choice to see ads that on some ad networks have CTRs of 0.1-1%? On average 100-1000 ads are ignored and one is considered relevant to earn a click. 99+% is a compelling number to me. All I am doing is moving that up a notch to 100% and saving the distraction.
plus it is obvious when it happens
It is NOT necessarily obvious when text links are removed. Users just see a sentence or paragraph that doesn't quite make sense.
If you think "vandalism" and "censorship" are not appropriate words for this effect, I'm open to suggestions.
And if it was of the features listed, it should be on.Why? If you buy a six pack, should the cashier open them all for you at the counter? (BTW, that analogy makes more sense than the TV ad analogy that keeps appearing.)
The choice to see ads that on some ad networks have CTRs of 0.1-1%?We're not just talking third party ads. I create all my ads myself and have made sure they aren't standards banner sizes, but if I want to use phpadsNew to rotate them (and for reporting, etc) I have to rename every file and change every reference to every file and DB tables etc. just to be able to have my site show up as designed. Whilst I figure it out, those using adblockers simply won't be allowed access. So much for choice.
plus it is obvious when it happens
It is NOT necessarily obvious when text links are removed. Users just see a sentence or paragraph that doesn't quite make sense.
darkmage - NIS plays games with JS beyond simply disabling it. This breaks sites. NIS also arbitrarily blocks images of certain sizes, etc. This breaks sites.
None of this is obvious to the casual visitor.
While you may not want to see ads, I wonder if you really want to visit a broken site. And if you visit a broken site, do you blame your software, or do you see it as a reflection on the site owner?
NIS is a faulty piece of software that alters the work done by others. Because it can turn a perfectly functional site into a broken piece of junk it can directly impact the bottom line of on-line businesses. People spend big dollars to create functional, professional appearing sites in order to create a favorable impression on their visitors. NIS can destroy that.
And, IMHO, that is just not right.
WBF
I asked them to provide me a way to block visitors using their feature to access my sites.
I think that if a few of us do the same they will at least think about it for a couple of seconds.
Looks like a fight we already lost before starting it.
So we have to do something.
>>the majority don't realize they are even running it - ad blocking is turned on by default<<
I'm sure this is true and they probably wouldn't know how to change it if they wanted to. Google will just have to find ways to get around the ad blockers. It bugs me that this is even seen as a security issue. Blocking ads like adsense shouldn't be a part of a security system. I know. No use in dreaming about how things 'should' be.
I guess I could live with the fact that some people purposely block ads but what bugs me here is that the anti virus company is deciding for them that ads should be blocked. It's their putting it in as default that is so maddening.
It's their putting it in as default that is so maddening.
But this is just one of the reasons people buy it, they see it as a benefit. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong but it is a feature of NIS that people seem to like.
If nothing is done, and this trend continues, less of the Internet will be "free." People will complain and bellyache if that happens, won't they? But they'll have nobody to blame but themselves, since they wanted an "ad free" experience. Well, if that's what they want, that's what they'll get—at a price.
