Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I'm using Firefox 1.0 and have most types of ads blocked.
You also might find that they are missing if javascript is disabled.
All right, you're forgiven.
Here are some troubleshooting questions to figure out why this is happening:
1. Is JavaScript enabled on your browser?
2. Are you running any ad-blocking or antivirus software?
3. Can you see ads using a different browser on the same computer? (i.e., is the problem Firefox specific)
5. Have you tried clearing your browser cache?
6. Have you tried deleting your browser cookies?
You might also want to visit [google.com ], which covers some of these issues in more detail.
Hope that helps!
-ASA
Thank you FOR NOTHING. What you are saying is that you want to use our services for free, but don't even want to make any impressions on our ads and our valued advertisers. Don't you know that Google PUBLISHERS also have to pay hosting fees, advertising fees, etc (plus rent, taxes, computer expenses etc)? And yet, people like you want our services for free, without any regard for our advertisers.
Sorry sir, I don't need such visitors on my website, because they steal my services without paying. I don't ask my visitors to click on my ads, BUT I do EXPECT them to have their javascript enabled.
I will look into this matter and try to block all visitors from my website who have javascript disabled.
Thank you for listening.
They come in and grab all their stuff, free links, advice etc and then whine about the presence of the ads ( it means they have to scroll down 10 cm to find posts) and say they are going to use firefox ad blockers!
They think they are so clever and so do the script kiddies who invent these extensions for firefox and ad blockers etc.....the same people will be crying when 99% of the internet closes due to lack of money to pay server bills.
I canīt get my head around their mentality or way of thinking....they say they love the sites and then actively complain and block the very thing that keeps those sites online!
As a publisher and an advertiser, I just have to say one thing:
The only thing that is keeping a website alive is its visitors!
You dont even have a chance to monetize your website without visitors. Bitching about them wont help.
If your business modell does not allow 90% *freeloaders* you may have to go somewhere else.
Dantol and others...
Just where do you folk get off, dictating what I can or can't do with my computer?! After all, I'm not telling you to not put advertising on your website. If you want to run ads on your site, that's cool - it's your prerogative. If I want to block ads on my computer, that's my prerogative - and I will do whatever I damn well please with my computer.
So you want to ban folk like me? Hey, go ahead - at the end of the day it's your loss, not mine. If I'm banned, you certainly can't get a donation from me now, can you? I couldn't become a valued member of your forum, could I? If your site is on the same subject as mine, what's the chance of getting a decent IBL from me? Don't expect any viral marketing from me, but do expect me to say a nasty thing or two about your site when I am inexplicably banned.
Are you so full of yourselves to think that your site is the only source on the subject? Sites are a-dime-a-dozen, or a-baht-a-bushel, if you prefer. And if it turns out that your site is the only site on the subject, your site is so niche that monetizing the content isn't worth the ROI. (But, should your tightly-focussed niche actually turn out to be worth something, that will be discovered and then... Well, sites are a-rand-a-ream.)
> the same people will be crying when 99% of the internet closes due to lack of money to pay server bills.
miguelito, do you sell what you smoke on your site?
(FWIW, if you're still here ASA, it was/is the asinine "Ads by Goooooooooooogle" that finally inspired me to ban all advertising. Yes, I've heard the rationale behind it, but c'mon!, if you can't spell your own company's name correctly, do you expect me to take you seriously?)
If they do, use server-side scripting to put the most annoying, nauseating animated gifs/seizure-inducing cartwheel of color in the place of JavaScript ads.
Hey, it's your server.. you can do whatever you want on it. If people have a problem with the headache of colors flying all around maybe they should turn on JavaScript...
I think the time now has come to Ban all the visitors who are blocking the ads especially on firefox.
> BALAM >" If I want to block ads on my computer, that's my prerogative - and I will do whatever I damn well please with my computer. "
Yes same is the case here, If we aren't benefiting from a visitor to our site, then its useless of us to allow that visitor to our site.
> BALAM > "So you want to ban folk like me? Hey, go ahead - at the end of the day it's your loss, not mine. If I'm banned, you certainly can't get a donation from me now, can you? "
I never begged visitors for donations, neither do i have any donate button on my websites. And most of us don't beg for donations. And i can bet that the percentage of donations compared to overall visitors will be very very less.
I expect see a OpenSource script soon which bans the visitors having Ad block enabled.
I have very expensive content on my website which took me days and night to do it and such kind of content is not found very easily. If i don't benefit from that, I will just ban the visitors with ad blocks, If it still don't work then its good to have subscription fees on all content.
Mind that advertising bring you more and more free stuff daily. Without advertising you need to pay subscription fees.
Then they will get interested in running a site, and learn that it doesn't happen for free. ROI, blah blah, the internet isn't about business it's about info: if someone runs a 'hobby' (aka anything short of a business plan) site you shouldn't be MOOCHING by hacking apart their site to fit your needs.
The little copyright footer on the bottom of the site means that the WHOLE SITE, code included, is a copyrighted work, i'm waiting for the day Norton and these other paranoid consumer bottomfeeders get slapped with a class action suit for making millions off of scraper software.
--
If you want to block users who are blocking adsense its not hard just do it and stop lamenting that your website is not a paperback book that is static and unalterable.
Advertisers and publishers should blame themselves for creating and publishing irritating, annoying, screaming ads. No wonder ad blockers have been created.
In some cases, yes, but I hardly see how that argument can be used to justify blocking contextual text advertisements.
I'm all for the ability to block pop-ups and animated advertisements, because they actively distract your eyes. That's their goal, and it's very annoying when you're trying to read.
Text advertisements may take up part of the screen, but if you don't want to look at them you simply don't look at them.
There is an ad running on one of the big portals right now that actually hurts my eyes. One of those "get a free something or other" scams. It has an alternating-color border that moves.
Firstly, you are creating a 'made for AdSense' site and secondly, you are drawing attention to the adverts (even if not on the same page).
Block these users at your own risk - you need to weigh up if those who cannot see the adverts are worth upsetting compared to those who can see the adverts and bring the money in. Upset the first group and you may lose all the money income on the site.
By blocking users who disable JavaScript or have a AdBlocking software program installed and redirecting them telling them how to show the adverts is a breach of AdSense TOS.Firstly, you are creating a 'made for AdSense' site and secondly, you are drawing attention to the adverts (even if not on the same page).
I don't see how requiring JavaScript = made for AdSense. There are plenty of sites out there that require some technology (flash, JavaScript, etc.) that also display AdSense. They do it because that's just how their site is designed.
Telling people "you can't view the site because you're blocking ads" may be thin ice, but blocking people because they lack a component required to view your site properly doesn't seem to be a violation of any rules.
"The only thing that is keeping a website alive is its visitors! You dont even have a chance to monetize your website without visitors."
....i disagree with that, visitors who see the ads, yes, granted but visitors who block the ads do nothing to help
"So you want to ban folk like me? Hey, go ahead - at the end of the day it's your loss, not mine. If I'm banned, you certainly can't get a donation from me now, can you?"
....thatīs a dumb comment...we already said we donīt ask for donations...i prefer to recover costs from big business than individual members, is that evil? therefore banning folks like you is no loss at all (no offence intended)
"Are you so full of yourselves to think that your site is the only source on the subject?"
.....who is saying that? i donīt give a damn about other sites, my interest is my own and what it costs to keep alive. so whatīs your point?
In general, i understand the arguments on BOTH sides and i also would block offensive ads or "inyerface" pop-ups with dodgy content but thatīs not what i am talking about here...I am talking about 3 or 4 small contextual ads at the top of a page in black and white....the people on my sites who #*$! about the mere presence of the ads are those who will be the first to complain when i close it due to lack of funds (and also the last to donate if i asked for them).... (please donīt tell me that people who use adblockers to block all contextual ads will be happy to dig into their pockets to make a donation)
Quite ironic, they all rant about the same thing "itīs my PC, itīs the internet, i can do what i want with my PC, ads are ugly" etc etc but meanwhile, they are quite happy for webmasters to work 8-10 hours a day maintaining sites, providing them with their info and more, paying server costs of $ 500 plus and recruiting a team of 30 people who work damn hard and voluntarily to supervise the boards....all of that is ok and fine with them but donīt dare to have the balls to try and show them an ad to meet costs!
and iīm sorry for my rant also, the majority of visitors arenīt like that but it is a real kick in the teeth when leechers and ad blocking obsessives begin to fill your site up with complaints about text ads or the presence of white spaces on their screen where their blocker has eliminated the google ads and then start threads informing everyone how to block the ads on the same site!
as for the "i can do what i want" attitude, hell no, you canīt...you are a vistor in someoneīs home, you have to respect the rules in that home and if you donīt like it then donīt come....easy!
Do you want to see pop ups, do you want to see pop unders, do you want delayed pop ups on other sites. What do you mean you block them?
So what makes adsense any different to any other form of advertising. Google bring out the google bar and it cuts of soem advertisers income by blocking certisn types of ad. Now google finds it's own ads being blocked by user choice. So is it wrong to block pop ups? no less so than to block Adsense.
Many choose not to see any ads. In a previous post someone commented they dont want to draw attemtion to the ads, they just want them to be seen.
I compare that to me building a site with background music, but i will block you if you turn your speakers down.
If you build a site for users then let users in. If you build a site for adsense, well that says it all.
Mack.
I guess this would scale up and vary depending on your site type + CTR, hosting requirements, etc, but I've got to say I've never considered the small amount of people who block ads to be a problem.
Is it more principle for you guys than earnings?
Re: TV advertising (and any other types of advertising), yes it supports the service (free service in some cases) offered, but I think you'll find that the fact some people will ignore adverts (ie leave the room, skip the page, etc) is factored into costings - I would think some of you need to do the same.
Another thing to consider is, well, all this. You start forcing adverts onto people then you face this response - is this negative feeling (towards you / your site) worth the principle or a few more bucks?
MG
Under Tools > Privacy:
I DO allow cookies, but from originating site only.
Most likely, it is an ad-blocking extension I installed thats doing the heavy lifting.
This feature removes only those banners and skyscapers etc.
which I specifically right-click on.
I brought this up to answer a simple question or three, not to start a rant.
As more and more people transition to Firefox, publishers should
be aware that a lot of Adsense ads are simply not going to be seen.
If all I did was to point this up, I think I did some people a favor.
If I cannot get into a site because of an ad-blocker, that's my loss. -Larry
Jon
You only have a right to see what the person paying the bills says you can see, while you're on his/her server. Just because Google spiders a site that doesn't mean it's a public facility.
Would it be correct to assume the same people who block adverts are not likely to click them even if they did see them?
The job of advertisers is to convince people they need something they don't really need (otherwise they'd already have it or they simply cannot afford it) or don't know they need yet.
The only time people watch TV for the ads is during the Super Bowl. If advertisers followed the logic that people only respond to ads if they already want the products being advertised, then there'd be no such thing as network TV.
But I run with Javascript turned off 99+% of the time.
That's simply good security -- I haven't verified that the program you want to run on my machine is not in any way malicious, so it's prudent not to run it.
If you want to run a program on my computer you first need to give me some real reassurance that it is safe.
For example, if your site can show me it has insurance covering loss and damage caused on and from my computer by scripts supplied by you, then I might give you a chance.
That's the sort of world we live in today. I have no reason to trust your code unless you and your professional associations take decisive action to establish reasons why your code is non-malicious.
If you decide to ban me, then it is your loss and makes it look far more like you are hiding something.
> they steal my services without paying
I am officially sick and tired of being called a thief because I prefer to not have advertising displayed on my computer. If "you" (a general "you") feel so strongly and are accusing me of being a criminal, then I suggest you do one of two things: 1) Go call a cop, or 2) Go cry to yo' mama. Whining about us hardened larcenists on WebmasterWorld is neither going to generate revenue, nor is it going to recoup your losses. (I imagine speaking to the police or your parents will prove just as fruitless.)
Dantol, in your case specifically - since that is your quote, above - why not drop by the Vancouver Police or local RCMP detachment and tell them about me? Tell them you know of an evil pilferer, currently located in Canada. I promise I won't skip town. Please let us know if the police tell you to lay off the BC Bud before they toss you into The Chuck for wasting their time.
pawas & miguelito point out that...
> we donīt ask for donations [miguelito]
I ask that you forgive me for not listing a reason that fits your site to a 'T' as to why banning myself & those like like me could be detrimental to you. I did not - and still don't - think it necessary to list every possible reason. Perhaps I did cover your sites when I mentioned forums? (miguelito's aside about "over 3000 online most times" leads me to believe your referring to a forum.) I know I covered your sites when I talk about viral marketing [wilsonweb.com].
And miguelito? Just because my hypothetical question does not apply to your specific situation, does not mean the question is then devalued to a "dumb comment."
pawas also noted:
> If you ban the advertisments on our websites, then it is just like watching TV without ads [...]
I must admit, I am guilty as charged. And while it's no defense, I accuse the Toshiba Corporation of being complicit. If they hadn't installed a "Commercial Skip" button on the remote, I'd actually have to do the fast-forwarding myself.
> how noble of you.
They would seem to be The Righteous, vabtz. ;)
In my first post, I said...
> Are you so full of yourselves to think that your site is the only source on the subject?
...to which miguelito asked:
> who is saying that? [...]
No one is. I'm asking a question, as indicated by the question mark at the end of the sentence.
> [...] so whatīs your point?
My point is that when I have searched for something and the SERPs have led me to, for example, an abstract for something that is available by subscription only, I have always been able to find what I want somewhere else for "free." What I'm trying to say is that we are all little fish in a big ocean, and few - if any of us - are truly unique.
> as for the "i can do what i want" attitude, hell no, you canīt...
miguelito's quote seems to be as good as any to point out the fact that publishers aren't the only ones with bills to pay. Some of "your" (the general "your") visitors have electricity bills to pay. Modem rental fees, access fees. If I'm on the 'Net, it's costing me money, whether I'm looking at "free" pr0n, posting here at WebmasterWorld or keeping tabs on the Space Shuttle. If I can do something that reduces my costs, I will. In this instance, it means that I'm reducing the amount of data that I am downloading, making my online ventures faster & shorter, meaning the computer gets turned off sooner, and therefore my electricity bill is smaller than it would have been.
Perhaps I'm not a thief, but am an eco-terrorist? ;)
Ad-blocker blocking
Full disclosure: I use IE6, have Java & JavaScript enabled, block pop-ups via the Google toolbar, might let you run an ActiveX control if I trust you, block all cookies except those I allow via the "Privacy" tab, and have NO ad-blocking software installed. Yet I see very little advertising online - what gives?
For those who are investigating methods to ban miscreants like me from their website, I'll tell you how I'm blocking the ads on your site...
It's a simple text-only file(!), older than advertising on the 'Net, and it works like a charm with the browser of your choice, and with no additional downloads. It's called "hosts" and, in Windows 2000, lives in /root/windows_dir/system32/drivers/etc. For some talk about this file, see the active thread Preventing Adsense Clicks by Home Network Users [webmasterworld.com]. To find this file on your machine, just search for it - you may find it faster if you search for "hosts.sam" ("sam" standing for "sample").
To wrap up - for the moment ;) - ...
> If you're worried about visitors blocking ads: make your site a subscription-only site and stop whining.
It's nice how someone - RonPK - can express in one sentence a thought that takes me half-a-meg to blurt out. :)
#2 If you have popups or popunders there are nifty little scripts that use javascript to make windows open in front of the page the visitor is viewing IF a popup blocker is detected.
Just put the following message in the window "You have popup blocking enabled some portions of this site use popups for function and to generate income for the site to function Click Here to allow popups".
In addition you add a close link to the window. If the person clicks allow then the popup/popunder pops.
The script originally just closes the window if they click close but can be easily modified so if they click close the popup/popunder pops as well. If they click close they don't care if you can afford to run your site or if it functions properly anyway so who cares if they get pissed off by the popunder which you just got paid for anyway.
I've used that script on one page of my site for a good 6 months and the complaints have been minimal.
To everyone else:
I'm surprised nobody in here suggested adding javascript features into the site which enhance it and letting users who have Javascript disabled know that an enhanced version is available for those with javascript enabled.
If you utilize javascript to enhance the appearance/content/etc. of your website and make that fact known, then users will be more inclined to turn javascript on to access these features. As a bonus to you, your Google Ads will display.
As for the adblocking software, it's an issue some of us will have to deal with. TiVo allows users to record shows and skip through commercials. Banning people isn't the solution. Maybe they might not click the ads, but they add to your user base. If they like your site they may refer others to it, who may or may not have adblocking software. In the end I think if you're content is right you'll do okay. And if you're starting to lose money or not make any from your site, then you let users know that due to decline in ad revenue the expenses are getting difficult to maintain. If they really care for the site they'll disable the adblocking software and help keep the site up.
if you're starting to lose money or not make any from your site, then you let users know that due to decline in ad revenue the expenses are getting difficult to maintain.
