Blocking Users that disable JS

[wolfadeus]

I just went through my websites from a computer that disabled JS, which made me realise that it is actually rather unfair no "cut out" the advertisements that pay for the effort I invest into developing a good and useful source of information.

Is there any simple way to defer JS-disabled users from my website?

[londrum]

you might be giving up a load of future word-of-mouth traffic and potential new links, but if you really want to do it then it's easy enough.

just put something like

body{display:none}

in your css,
and then overwrite the style with javascript

[alephh]

Since most people who disable javascript are webmasters, you may be cutting the most important people (link makers) from accessing your website. Bye bye links, pagerank and visitors - and income.

[europeforvisitors]

Here's something else to think about:

Even if all AdSense publishers got together and organized a lockout of people with JS-disabled browsers, and even if that lockout persuaded the disablers to re-enable JavaScript, the kind of people who disable JavaScript wouldn't be clicking on AdSense ads. What's more, many people who aren't in the "disable JS" camp also don't click on AdSense ads.

Bandwidth is cheap, so "freeloaders" aren't worth worrying about.

[tim222]

Lately only 4% of users are blocking JavaScript

[edited by: engine at 11:42 am (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]
[edit reason] No urls, thanks. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]

[sun818]

There's plenty of people who enable JavaScript but block AdSense script with ad blockers. Adblock is one of the top addons for FireFox.

[tim222]

Well if someone is using an ad blocker then it's very likely they wouldn't click on ads anyway. If someone doesn't want to see ads then there's no point in trying to circumvent their ad blocker. Personally I hate those sites that are so desperate to display their ads. Popups, pop unders, and those floating things are really annoying. Yesterday I found a website that wouldn't let you click any links until their ad finished playing. In my mind those sites lose credibility because they become more of a commercial and less of a repository for information.

[FourDegreez]

if someone is using an ad blocker then it's very likely they wouldn't click on ads anyway

I don't really believe that. Yes, there are some who have made it their personal mission never to see an ad, but how many people just stumble across this plug-in or hear about it from a friend and decide to give it a try? Or, how many family computers may have one user who installs the plug-in, and now other users of the computer are blocking ads as well?

[Edge]

"Personally I hate those sites that are so desperate to display their ads. Popups, pop unders, and those floating things are really annoying."

Personally, I hate folks who want something for nothing. Viewing ads for a free read, tool, or solution is a small price to pay.

I don't and never have used popups, popunders or any other deceptive advertising method. Block on-page standard format ads is simply note fair to the mediun you are utilizing.

[edited by: Edge at 1:56 am (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]

[Jafo]

I guess you don't own or ever would own, a TIVO.

[Edge]

No I don't own Tivo. I pay Directv for access to tv satellite. This is called a "Subscription Model". I don't have a subscription model....

Over 15% of my visitors use Firefox. This roughly corresponds to the decrease in ads viewed on my site and GG and YPN revenue as well. I have nothing against Firefox, I even like the browser, however if I can prove positively that users are blocking ads, I will redirect and instruct my visitors to use a different browser.

Realy, I have bills to pay too...

[yolkman]

I wouldnt hesitate to implement it as well, if there is a feature to do so.

My daily impressions is down from 2.5 millions a year ago to 1.75 millions at the present time.

[GaryK]

and instruct my visitors to use a different browser.

Respectfully, what browser will you suggest to your visitors? There are ad blockers for IE and Opera too. ;)

There has to be a better solution to this problem. I don't know what it is though.

[tim222]

I did a little searching and found a javascript that detects ad blockers. It's not a mainstream site so i won't post the URL, but the Google search I used to find it is: javascript detect "ad blocker"

So the solution is simple, if ad blockers bother you. You can detect users who are using ad blockers, and rather than an ad, you could PayPal button and a message that says something like, "Hey free loader! I need to pay bills too!"

[tim222]

In reply to the OP's question, would this work?

<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
var vScriptOn = "Yes";
//-->
<noscript>
<META
http-equiv="refresh"
content="5;URL=http://www.go-to-H-E-double-toothpicks.com">
</noscript>
</script>

***********

BTW, here's a related thread with quite a bit of input

[webmasterworld.com...]

[edited by: tim222 at 5:37 am (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]

[amznVibe]

Remember that verbally drawing attention to the ads is against Adsense rules (and many other ad TOS)
By saying "don't block the ads, I need to get paid" you are specifically breaking their rules IMHO.

But those that would block the ads are not likely to click on them anyway, so why do you want your impressions to go up which affects how much Google will pay you?

There are many ways to block ads that are undetectable.

I can load the google iframe but block the inner content from loading via several personal firewalls available today - some are free. You'd never be able to detect it.

I suspect in a few years Google will finally release a non-javascript solution of some kind, at least for referral ads, but keep in mind if they use any kind of named element, that too is blockable.

[edited by: amznVibe at 5:38 am (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]

[europeforvisitors]

I will redirect and instruct my visitors to use a different browser.

Will they obey?

[biscuit]

Carrots rather than sticks ...

We use a system which allows basic usage with anything that can display HTML, but if people want to use the interactive features of the site they need Javascript.

When visitors arrive, they get a notice telling them that they need Javascript enabled to get the full benefit of the site(the notice is suppressed by javascript, so only those without js running see the thing).

After getting the warning, and finding that some links don't work, or that some pages display in unconventional/unusable ways, most visitors seem to get the idea, and add us to the 'trusted sites' category where js is allowed.

For those that don't, they get a site with basic functionality, though we discreetly make sure that they know that their drive for ad-free purity is degrading their user experience. Again, after a few visits, hopefully they trust us enough for active content to be enabled.

[moTi]

just put something like
body{display:none}
in your css,
and then overwrite the style with javascript

not a good idea! you may want to get indexed by googlebot, don't you? googlebot reads pages like a non-javascript user. so all he gets is a blank page and you get thrown out of the index. believe me, i had the same idea few months ago and it cost me hundreds of dollars before i became aware of the mess..

i use the adblock-blocker mentioned here. it works quite well, but caution here as well! i just realized that it it not written well, because the code blocks safari users (about 3.5% of overall users) across the board. so you have to alter the code at a certain point.

my advise: throw in a few useful javascript navigation elements. make clear, that the user can only enjoy the full capabilities of your website by turning on javascript.

[Habtom]

my advise: throw in a few useful javascript navigation elements. make clear, that the user can only enjoy the full capabilities of your website by turning on javascript.

I agree.

[vincevincevince]

This topic has come up many times in the past.

If your hosting package is within your allocated bandwidth, then cutting the number of users by 5% will not give you any extra income. You won't gain ad-clicks from those 5% but you won't lose anything either.

Only if you are paying for you bandwidth on a metered basis is it even remotely logical to think of cutting back on those few users.

[Edge]

Firefox adblocker works by not loading anything from selected sources, such as http://example.com. So, one’s browser can be java enabled and still never see an ad. The JavaScript adblocker mentioned will not work with the adblocker feature on firefox, since firefox will still have java enabled. I am tempted to contact GG and YPN folks for an alternative solution.

Adblockers pose a complex challenge for advertising supported sites.

europeforvisitors, "Will they obey?" My answer respectfully is: Who cares? My site is useful, sought after, and if I loose a few visitors because they have to see a few ads then they can just go away. I don't mind not making money on a potential converting visitor, however, when I don't stand a chance of making anything? Again I say go away.

[edited by: Edge at 12:24 pm (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]

[edited by: martinibuster at 7:24 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2007]
[edit reason] Fixed URL. Example.com is for examples. ;) [/edit]

[moTi]

i don't know which adblock-blocker you mean, but mine works perfecly with firefox. it sends the user with adblock enabled to a page which asks him to turn off adblock.

i won't put the code in here though :P

note: all this is off-topic, since the original post refers to users who have javascript disabled.

[edited by: moTi at 2:35 pm (utc) on Aug. 20, 2007]

[europeforvisitors]

You might also want to consider adding revenue streams that don't require JavaScript (such as targeted affiliate links), so that you have the possibility of earning income from users who aren't seeing ads.

[nonni]

I agree with EFV - try putting some affiliate links in, or sell your own advertising and have the images load from your server - that means that 100% of the visitors will see the ads, unless they have turned off all images.

[Demaestro]

Remember that almost all search engine bots will not have JS enabled.. or cookies for that matter so if you are just testing to see if JS is enabled and then you are going to do something like not display the page contents.... then you will be alienating bots as well.

[fredw]

For a very long time I avoided adding features to my web sites which could only be seen by users with javascript enabled. Recently, however, I could see no way around it any longer. Just for my own piece of mind, I started tracking how many users of that site had javascript disabled. My personal experience shows that consistently less than 1% of users have javascript disabled. (YMMV.)

[loudspeaker]

I have a very simple question. If somebody is using an ad blocker, will you see an impression in AdSense reporting at all?

I've always thought that you won't, but recently I looked at the status bar of my (ad-blocked) browser (this was exactly the reason why I use it - to avoid triggering my own ads) and saw something being downloaded from Google's site, even though the ads were not shown.

So, do we get an impression counted if the ad was blocked?

[Jafo]

No I don't own Tivo. I pay Directv for access to tv satellite. This is called a "Subscription Model". I don't have a subscription model....

Over 15% of my visitors use Firefox. This roughly corresponds to the decrease in ads viewed on my site and GG and YPN revenue as well. I have nothing against Firefox, I even like the browser, however if I can prove positively that users are blocking ads, I will redirect and instruct my visitors to use a different browser.

Realy, I have bills to pay too...

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.

I use Firefox, no adblocker here.

[gibbergibber]

I think the adblocking question is pretty much irrelevant when it's an optional extra that only a tiny percentage of visitors use. They don't make much difference one way or the other, so there's no point worrying about them.

However... things could change in the future.

What would worry me is if a major browser such as firefox was distributed with adblocker installed and automatically excluding as many ads as possible. Firefox doesn't do this by default right now, I just installed Firefox 2 and all of my ads are totally visible.

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. I don't know how legal that would be considering the anti-trust issues, and it would certainly make MS hated by webmasters around the world, but if they did that it would completely tear apart most of the professional sites out there.

Some of these adblocking applications don't just exclude picture ads and text ads, they often also block affiliate links, so there's literally no way to make money from free-to-view content.