Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Please let's not get into the question of which browser is better. There's a separate forum where the Browser War can take place. I'm wondering about AdSense and whether...
1. Is forcing users to install Firefox in order to access your site within the AdSense TOS?
2. Could the adoption rate be high enough to make up for the large number of people who will just hit the Back button because they can't or won't switch? My gut feeling is that in the long run this would result in a net loss for the publisher.
I am sure visitors to a site would hate to be pressured into doing something they donot want to do ... unless the site is extraordinary and promises really big!....
forcing prospective customers or visitors to change their website software would surely spell doom for them anyway
i really don't think any reputable site or company would resort to tactics like that
Well then you would be wrong as many banks only support Explorer and punt all the others.
Turnabout is fair play IMO.
In fact I would say the opposite. If you run anything security critical on the client (using Java of ActiveX) you are almost inviting tampering.
On the other hand if you use HTML forms, SSL or TLS and rely on server side security you would be much safer.
Also it is probably a good idea to turn off ActiveX for security, encouraging people to turn it on so they can do their banking raises security risks.
Similarly, using IE for security reasons? With its track record?
I agree with incrediBILL: sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Is forcing users to install Firefox in order to access your site within the AdSense TOS?
Sounds more like they're forcing their users to leave.
Anyway, I'd have to know more about it, but ti doesn't seem like it's against TOS, unless the redirect page says, "hey, click this Google/FF ad before you download FF."
This could be a pretty good idea for some sites.
What Explorer Destroyer suggests is that you do any one of:
In each the download link is a Google Firefox referral button.
I would be very nervous about using the last option but I am seriously considering the other two.
Yes it would annoy some visitors but the same applies to ads, subscriber only content and any other way of monetising traffic. If the conversions are high enough its worth it.
If your site is one that visitors really want, even approach 3 might be worth it.
I am really impressed by the the ingeniousness of the ideas and the range of tools: they have a configurable Drupal module, a Squid configuration, and javascripts.
There's a semi-popular site (it's popular, but it's no cnn.com) that blocked everyone who used a popular ad-blocker in mozilla. It's a site with a pretty unique niche that's not filled well by other sites, so I succumbed (by installing a different version of said ad-blocker). I often have to open up IE just to view a site, then again us Mozilla users are used to that. IE-only users are not, so they may not react as well.
If you want to make money from this, probably not a good idea unless you just refuse to show any regular ads, in which case it's this or nothing. If you feel passionate enough about this, then go for it. It's your site after all, you can decide who can and cannot view it. Kinda goes against everything I personally believe in (I want to make my site MORE accessible, not less), but eh. I'd have no problem displaying something that stated "this site is optimized for Mozilla, click here to download." We all know what optimized for IE usually means (it probably works fine in Mozilla, but they don't care enough to make sure), might as well "optimize" for Mozilla instead.
I don't see how a message stating you must install FF in order to get on the site, can be related to the content of the site itself. My guess is that it's just an aggressive attempt to get users into going through the conversion process.
Could the adoption rate be high enough to make up for the large number of people who will just hit the Back button because they can't or won't switch? My gut feeling is that in the long run this would result in a net loss for the publisher.
No kidding. How many sites are so essential that users will install a new browser just to view them? This reminds me of MSN 10 years ago, when it was just moving from a proprietary Win95-based platform to the Web (except that MSN's content could at least be viewed in a non-MSN browser, albeit without the custom menus).
I think your word of force is malused. The user doesn't have to access your site, it is your site and you can do what you want. I would say as long as you don't have the ads on the page that requests you get FF then no big deal.
It is the same as having a site all in flash, if I don't have flash I can't see the site, are they forcing me to have flash? No. But if I want to see the site I have to use the technology specified by them. Same with if all the menus were javascript drop downs and I have my javascript turned off, again they aren't forcing it on me, just I can't view the site without it.
Your gut is right in #2 rather then install a new browers many users will look for a site that will aloow them access without jumping through hoops.
Also 'unsavy' users are wary of anything they don't know and many will be unwilling to switch. I like the idea but it won't be any of my sites that jump on board.
On my tech savy site from today here is the split
11668 41.62% Microsoft Internet Explorer
9855 35.15% Netscape
Almost up to 50/50 but I have seen IE come in second for some days in the past, just not today.
If they are going to force a browser on people, I would say only accepting FF is not good, they should just force a standards complient browser on them.
IE... IMHO is the only one that doesn't fit this requirement. But Seamonkey, Opera and others would be ok as well.
[edited by: Demaestro at 4:58 pm (utc) on April 26, 2006]
I don't see how a conventional website could hope to use this strategy profitably, though. Plus even if it's within Google's TOS, it occurs to me that it might generate a lot of complaints to the Google search engine people re "cloaking".
if I don't have flash I can't see the site, are they forcing me to have flash? No.
We're developing a certain type of interactive functionality for the site that we think a lot of visitors will want, and we're giving it away free (an initiative following Markus' million-dollar thread). Although we have a developer writing most of it in php, we are deliberately using javascript as part of the system. This means that if they want our free functionality, they'll have to turn javascript on (and therefore see the ads).
This is obviously different to the situation described by the OP. We're not preventing them from reading our site if they don't have javascript, but we are tying the additional functionality to displaying adsense.
Again I see no difference between requiring javascript or flash and requiring FF.
So it isn't different then what the OP is talking about because this would prevent me from reading the site. Same with javascript... Sure you as a good webmaster have work arounds on your site to account for me having javascript turned off, but not everyone does this, nor do they have to.
Forcing a technology on someone to view a site is nothing new. Javascript, flash, browser, they are all peices of software used to retreve content from the internet some are required some aren't, but again that is up to the webmaster.
I don't think it is a good idea. But I really don't think it violates the TOS.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about Flash and JS, although one obvious difference is that those technologies are supported by a substantial majority of human surfers, whereas Firefox is used by a small minority.
Again though I am not about abondoning users based on their brower preference and if your site is a source income then I would say doing it would be plain silly.
Your cloaking point is execellent and the more I digest it, the more I agree. It is too bad you can't define to Google the site requirements. For example a meta tag that says things like:
name="requirements" value="Javascript x.x"
name="requirements" value="Flash x.x"
This way Google and other SE could give info to the user that they will need flash or what have you to get the full experience of the site.
While we're walking down memory lane, I can remember when it could take a day or two for an email to reach its destination. I could only get about two emails in to some of my cyber friends in a school week. Send on Monday, they'd get it Wednesday, I get the response on Friday, and repeat. Yup, email was about as fast as Priority Mail, maybe Express Mail if you were lucky. Now I get upset when it takes more than a few seconds to get a confirmation email.
What were we talking about again?
From July 16 through July 22, 1994, pieces of an object designated as Comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with Jupiter
Someone at my institute pulled me away to see this in Mosaic. :)
There are only a handful of articles spidered to Google news about this, but the very first one in my search wrongly creditted Google with creation of this new script/campaign.
Most articles have the story correct, but the avg reader could still come out thinking that this script/drive/etc is actually endorsed by Google.
At least one author did just that, and then spread that mis-information in her article... she actually says the "Explorer Destroyer" campaign was launched by Google themselves.
Even though Google may have their eyes on MS, considering the tone these guys take towards MS, I can't imagine Google letting it continue as-is if it gets more attention.
They want people to switch to Firefox + Google Toolbar, this makes it happen, why should they have a problem with it.
There was some unclear reporting about who is created this script/campaign, with at least one source wrongly crediting Google for it. A visit to the sites presents the campaign as borderline hateful/malicious, and definitely unprofessional.
Even if it's exactly what Google wants, which it is.... it's not the best P.R. move to endorse publicly, or let people wrongfully credit your for something so polarizing.
I did preface my comment with it all depending on how much news coverage this received. Given the fact that it's already been around for nearly 6 months with little coverage, it's probably something that will go back to the world of the realtively unknown and Google will secretly applaud. However, if it continues to gain coverage and that coverage continues to wrongfully credit Google as it's creator... it's something that a lot of people will think negatively about considering the way the campaign is presented. I probably overreatced in stating that Google may ban such activity, but they would surely do what they could to limit what bad P.R. would come their way.... which could be as simple as issuing a press release clearing up any confusion about who it's creator is.
