Ever try blocking users who have JavaScript disabled?

Why waste resources on people who can't display AdSense?

[beggers]

It occurred to me that I'm probably wasting a lot of resources by allowing people who have Javascript disabled to access my sites.

If these people can't display AdSense ads, why not detect this and transfer them to a page that says "You must have Javascript enabled to use this site"? Customers that can't buy anything aren't really customers.

I know there is some simple code to check for Javascript but has anyone used it specifically for this purpose?

[ronburk]

Why waste resources on people who can't display AdSense?

As though the question were not rhetorical, he said:

• They may find what they want on my site, not search further, and thus signal to Google that I should rank higher for that search term than I do currently.
  
• They may find something useful to share with others, thus generating the legendary "organic link", and thus signal to Google that I should rank higher than I do currently.
  
• Because sane AdSense publishers do not rely solely on AdSense for revenue, they may perform some other action that makes me revenue (such as clicking on an affiliate link).
  
• They may have Google toolbar installed, and thereby transmit information to Google that implies I should rank higher -- or that a given page that Googlebot has never crawled should get crawled.
  
• They may decide to go ahead and turn JavaScript on once they see that I am a reputable site -- and may be much less likely to do so if they simply get a "go away freeloader" page.
  
• They may be a vendor inspecting my site to see whether or not they should advertise there, and may have disabled Java/JavaScript/cookies/whatnot in order to perform their research in privacy. (Ever had to decide which sites to place an AdWords banner ad on? I sure as heck don't go down that list with ActiveX enabled, and if I think of it, I'll turn off JavaScript too until it looks safe. There are some icky sites in the list if you do much site-targeted advertising.)
  
• They could be a loyal customer who is temporarly having JavaScript clipped at the corporate firewall because of some zero-day exploit ravaging the virtual landscape. Refusing them content might turn them into a less loyal customer.
  
• They might be a content provider researching an article that could have resulted in a great link for me -- if only I hadn't blocked their research efforts.
  

Hard to imagine site with decent content for which none of those points apply.

[danimal]

>>>No, they don't have to, but why go looking elsewhere for something when there is a link right there?<<<

you are obviously referring to an impulse click, which is not how tech-savvy people obtain information.

for example, you mentioned colo services... believe me when i tell you that tech-savvy people seeking qualified opinions do not base their decisions on random advertising... do you really think that a network admin is going to base his job security, and the welfare of his company, perhaps with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake, on ads he stumbled across on the 'net?

there have been many threads on many forums about how tech-savvy users don't click on ads, so we are just re-hashing old info here.

>>>As far as your PC network users go, as compared with the entire population of web users, it's not statistically significant.<<<

it's a lot more statistically significant than a couple of people with unknown backgrounds posting opinions on a forum.

[BigDave]

you are obviously referring to an impulse click, which is not how tech-savvy people obtain information.

No, I am not only talking about an "impulse click", thogh those are also included.

Tech savvy people have impulses, just as other people do. For example, a friend and I were exchanging emails about our own modifications to the same recipe from the food network. A gmail ad showed up for real wasabi, as opposed to the adulterated horseradish that is normally sold in this country. On an impulse I clicked on the ad on an impulse rather than do a search on it. I mentioned the ad to my friend, and he had said that he saw the same one and clicked on it as well.

Is he tech savvy? The odds are somewhere above 95% that your computer ran some of his code to connect to the internet, and if it attaches through DHCP it is in the range of 100% that his code is either running on your machine or on the server.

But I am also talking about coming across an ad while researching your information. If I'm checking out reviews on what jacket to buy to go for a stroll up Everest, and I decide to buy a specific model, I will almost certainly do some searches as part of my shopping, but I will also click on ads on the review site to compare ALL my options, not just the ones offered by the search results.

for example, you mentioned colo services... believe me when i tell you that tech-savvy people seeking qualified opinions do not base their decisions on random advertising..

And I will tell you that they will check out the ad, then research that company BEFORE they buy. I never said that they would base their decisions to purchase on the ad, I just said that they would click the ad to get more information.

[gregbo]

>>>As far as your PC network users go, as compared with the entire population of web users, it's not statistically significant.<<<

it's a lot more statistically significant than a couple of people with unknown backgrounds posting opinions on a forum.

Your experience is at best, anecdotal. Anyone with even a basic understanding of statistics would understand that. I'm sure we'll be happy to see some (reputable) study that supports your claims.

[rbacal]

i worked with thousands of people, so it would be thousands of data points, not just one.

But only ONE set of eyes and a brain drawing conclusions which is what you are doing. The data points are worthless because they meanings are all filtered through your singular biases.

And no doubt your "sample" is terribly biased, because you are (we all are really which is why if one gets serious about this one doesn't pretend one's data is clean when it's not something that is public).

[danimal]

>>>The odds are somewhere above 95% that your computer ran some of his code to connect to the internet<<<

now i see the problem.

he didn't click on an ad for wasabi because he is or is not tech-savvy, o.k.? my specific words were "i do have a tech-related site that has demonstrated a lower ctr with tech-savvy web surfers"

your point about how often tech-savvy peeps in general click on non-technical ads could be more to the point, but i did not address that because it's difficult to prove.

>>>Your experience is at best, anecdotal.<<<

that's true, but since you apparently have no technical experience at all, you are in no position to judge the validity of my statements.

since you are not qualified to judge my claims, your only recourse is to show us proven data to the contrary... which you have of course failed to do.

[annej]

It doesn't make sense to block these people because most of them are clueless and what is happening is caused by their security software. That's what I resent, that this sort of blocking is being put in as default by some.

I don't see it as a problem yet but it could really hurt publishers in the long run.

[gregbo]

that's true, but since you apparently have no technical experience at all, you are in no position to judge the validity of my statements.

since you are not qualified to judge my claims, your only recourse is to show us proven data to the contrary... which you have of course failed to do.

Excuse me, I have not made any claims about the tech-savviness of computer users. When I make claims (about things like geotargeting, faking of clicks, etc.), I back them up with facts. So let's see some facts, rather than ad-hominem attacks ...