Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is there any simple way to defer JS-disabled users from my website?
But the most frightening scenario would be if Microsoft released Internet Explorer with adblocking as the default option, in order to destroy Google's main revenue source.
That's not likely. MSN and MSNBC have ads too. Even microsoft.com has ads for their own products.
Does your subscription model get rid of commercials for you? I mean using your argument, one could say visitors don't have to watch YOUR commercials because they pay a subscription every month to connect to the Internet.
Cable companies pay the shows for their content, but the ISP's don't pay websites for their content.
But that leads to an interesting thought... I wonder if 50 years from now, the internet will follow the television model. If so, ISP's would need to pay popular websites for the right to diplay them to their users.
OTOH, if TV eventually follows the internet model, any network could display any show, and the show would have the right to display as many commercials as it would like, then collect 100% of the advertising revenue.
The funny thing - he thought it was the sites he visited that were having layout problems - he never even considered that it might be his browser being funny.
Your log entries will reveal nothing different... Firefox is frightening effective at blocking ads and keeping java active.
[edited by: jatar_k at 8:58 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2007]
[edit reason] linked url [/edit]
Try it yourself, download the new Firefox install it and the adblock plus.
Hmmm... OK, I went to Mozilla.com to make sure I have the latest version of Firefox. I clicked on th knowledgebase to see if there is a quick link to the upgrade section. And what do I see at the bottom of the page? An AdSense ad! There's something very ironic about that.
The Firefox version is 2.0.0.6 (should be latest) and I installed the basic version of Ad Block.
Bandwidth is cheap, so "freeloaders" aren't worth worrying about.
Am I understanding you right? People who visit your information site but don't click on your ads are "freeloading"? What an interesting way of looking at it.
Bandwidth is cheap, so "freeloaders" aren't worth worrying about.
Am I understanding you right? People who visit your information site but don't click on your ads are "freeloading"? What an interesting way of looking at it.
That is SO out of context that it's actually amusing!
Since most people who disable javascript are webmasters, you may be cutting the most important people (link makers) from accessing your website
Another important "user" that doesn't do javascript is Googlebot.
[edited by: Edge at 10:59 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2007]
People who visit an ad-supported site and stop the ads even being shown are technically freeloading, because if everyone behaved the same way then the site would have no way of paying for itself.
No one has to click on any ads, but they should at least allow the ads to appear.
Blocking the ads on an ad-supported site is like sneaking into a theatre without paying for a ticket, if everyone did that the theatre would close down.
Freeloading only works when a small minority do it. As soon as it becomes the mainstream option, it destroys whatever product or service they're using.
No one is required to look at nor click on an advertisement. If you're so worried about making money, why not make users pay before viewing your content?
I can't believe you're asking this, sun818, especially considering your senior status on the board. No, seriously? Have you slept through the past 10 years?
Blocking the ads on an ad-supported site is like sneaking into a theatre without paying for a ticket, if everyone did that the theatre would close down.
No it is like showing up 15 minutes late to avoid having to see them at all... it is like leaving the room when watching TV when the commercials come on... or it is like muting the commercials when they come on.
What the OP wants to do is... check to see if you mute your tv when the ads come on so he can disable you viewing the program you tuned in for...... it is silly to me.
I will point out that I disable ads on almost every site I go to... not by turning off javascript but by not allowing my browser to load anything from doubleclick or from adwords or any other well known advertising domain.
I will point out that I disable ads on almost every site I go to...
Most of the time, people simply "disable" ads by not noticing them. I couldn't begin to tell you what the ads were on the home pages of NYTimes.com and Washingtonpost.com when I visited those news sites yesterday. As John Wanamaker is credited with saying, "I know half of my advertising doesn't work--I just don't know which half."
Cable companies pay the shows for their content, but the ISP's don't pay websites for their content.
Well, they pay the station/network for access. But tell me, how much do you think the station/network could charge if nobody viewed the ads they showed?
Imagine if they could tell how many ads you actually viewed and didn't mute.
What would the advertiser numbers look like?
Right now they assume if 20 million viewers see a TV program that this is the number that will see the ads... not really the case though is it?
No one is required to look at nor click on an advertisement. If you're so worried about making money, why not make users pay before viewing your content?
Wow, and I thought the everyone on the Adsense thread would be sympathetic to the ad view/blocking issue.
A subscription model for mine and everybodies website is a possible solution.
Sun818 how many web sites do you pay a membership fee too? all, most, some, or none? Would you pay Google or Yahoo a subscription fee to use their perspective services?
As a side note, I personnaly do not like the word "freeloader" for visitors whom block my advertisments when visiting.
[edited by: Edge at 5:49 pm (utc) on Aug. 22, 2007]
A subscription model for mine and everybodies website is a possible solution.{
Not really, because many (most?) Website visits are for the purpose of obtaining specific information at a given point of time. For example:
- The person who visits an Elbonian travel site while planning a vacation isn't likely to subscribe, because she's visiting Elbonian next month and may never visit it again.
- The person who looks up "Widgetco vacuum cleaner" in Google isn't going to subscribe to a home-appliance review site, because he may buy an appliance once every five or 10 years.
- The person who looks up "number of people at Last Supper" to settle a bet probably won't visit New-Testament-Statistics.com more than once or twice (unless he's a fan a Trivial Pursuit Bible edition).
- The person who sees a Google News item about a nudist riot in Munich isn't likely to visit Munich-English-Language-News.com on a regular basis (unless nudists are rioting in Munich regularly and the reader is fascinated with that subject).
It's too difficult to predict or control visitors' behavior, whether they are website visitors, TV viewers, or even radio listeners. So the best approach is to count on lost commissions, just like a retail store expects a certain amount of attrition. Build it into your business plan. The cliche is that "the proof is in the pudding." Whatever works the best, go with it. But trying to figure out how to force your viewers to look at ads is like the Whac-A-Mole game... as soon as you figure it out, some slick programmer will figure a way to defeat your solution.
I don't think there are too many alternatives to this outcome (the proposed "membership" solution will almost certainly not work for 99.9% of the sites, as EFV pointed out)
That is, unless somebody comes up with a new ethical yet evasive ad format that will:
a) Confuse algorithmic blockers to the point that they won't be able to distinguish ad content from real content
b) Not do the same to humans.
...the Web will slowly disintegrate into a vast ocean of pay-per-post garbage...
I think that's already well under way :)
Seriously, quality sites will find a way to survive.Maybe this will be the incentive for Google to give us an API that serves the ads from our own sites. That way ad blockers couldn't use the URL to block the ads.
It's simple. Adblockers take my copyrighted material and redistribute it a different format for profit at the expense of my potential revenue.
