Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 100.26.176.182

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

Ad blocker popularity dictates noscript use does Google approve?

     
10:43 am on Apr 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sgt_kickaxe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 14, 2010
posts:3173
votes: 0


Ad blockers and no script plugins are being downloaded by many millions of internet users and these generaly disable advertising like adsense. Using noscript tags around static ads, when placed next to existing javascript based ads like adsense, ensures an advertisement will still be shown.

But how does Google handle the content within a noscript tag? For example, If I use 3 noscript tags on one page with two textual ads per tag to replace the disabled image ads do I run the risk of suffering from some sort of penalty?

Example: 3 regular ad units + 6 text units wrapped in noscript means 9 ads per page. Even if not all the ads can be seen by a person at the same time a crawler sees them in the code. Is content within noscript treated as if it wasn't hidden?
12:23 pm on Apr 29, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Mar 5, 2011
posts: 198
votes: 0


not to be an a**, but if a person goes out of their way to block ads, they are probably going to ignore your static ads.

Just my opinion.

I forget about people who use ad blockers, Some people believe the internet and everything on it is supposed to be Free "even when webmasters are spending over $1,000 a month in bandwidth to keep the site alive"

For fall back static ads, and put a paypal donation link LMAO.

Or if you want to to really be a d***.

use an adserver that use iframes.

it will detect non js and serve a static image ad "affiliate offer, etc", and if js is enabled it will serve adsense. Ad server also have plugins designed to get around adblockers.

openx can do this. I was shocked when i visited one of my sites from my old cell phone with js disable, and my adsense ad didn't show, but a affiliate ad i had rotating in that spot showed up.


but honestly, don't piss off the Freebie chaser, they will not click or buy anyway.

also if your hosting something using a lot of bandwidth "large videos, mp3 collections, large files" you can detect ad blockers and disable view/download for those users.

Like i had a self hosted video that was big, and ads pay for the bandwidth. The video is long, so as the video plays the ad iframes refresh "openx" so during the duration almost 120 different ads are shown "refreshed every minute" and they default to new window so the person can continue watching. If i detect a common ad blocker, browser that doesn't support js or attempt to hot link i disable it "and tell the visitor their browser can't play this". "this video cost me about $0.05 per viewing"

But for normal page request I wouldn't waste the time trying to force them to view an ads.
12:32 am on Apr 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

System Operator from US 

incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14664
votes: 99


Don't confuse ad blocking and javascript blocking, too different things.

Running ads in NOSCRIPT may result in more impressions for those disabling javascript for security purposes, but if they used AdBlock, those ads are probably blocked as well.

About the only way to force AdBlock users to see ads are to insert them into the page server-side, not using an ad server, and use non-traditional ad sizes as those scripts look for all standard ad sized images and disable them as well.
1:00 am on Apr 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lucy24 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 9, 2011
posts:15955
votes: 898


Speaking as a user:

Is your product so spectacularly attractive that you're positive I will run out and buy it after you've forced me to look at the ad in contravention of my clearly expressed wishes?
1:08 am on Apr 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

System Operator from US 

incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14664
votes: 99


contravention of my clearly expressed wishes


How can we tell your expressed wishes?

Is javascript off or just blocking ads?

Maybe we can tell with some HTML tricks which you intend, but from the casual glance it's clearly not clear.
2:09 am on Apr 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sgt_kickaxe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 14, 2010
posts:3173
votes: 0


Speaking as a user:

Is your product so spectacularly attractive that you're positive I will run out and buy it after you've forced me to look at the ad in contravention of my clearly expressed wishes?


My response to that (general, not directed at you) would be...

Speaking as a webmaster: absolutely. And if I'm wrong please respect MY wishes and MY site and leave it as I built it. It's not costing you, it's costing me and though I'd love to serve it up for free to everyone my kids would get hungry.

Besides, your clearly expressed wishes aren't whats available. I wish it was me who just married the future queen of England, but that's not going to happen. If only the world had noscript for that!
1:24 pm on Apr 30, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2011
posts:69
votes: 0


@Sgt-Kickaxe

I do what the New York Times does, I offer my main Direct Advertisers a <noscript> Ad alternative to show when (for whatever reason) javascript is turned off by the users browser ... but I only ever (like the New York Times) have 1 <noscript> ad running in the html code per page, and that one is normally (well actually 100% on my site) running in the Prime ATF location.

I would not run as many <noscript> ads on a page as you are proposing - and BTF <noscript> Ads, in my opinion, are a bit pointless for people looking at the site without javascript enabled - just use it in ATF locations where the initial impact is made.

If you intend to run the same <noscript> text ad(s) in the same ATF place, regardless of what JS Ad is running on the page (i.e. it is not a Direct Advertiser, it is like an Adsense block) I would mix it up a little ... it sounds like you have at least 6 text units you want to place, rotate 2 of them at a time (only) in your prime ATF location per page.

If you cannot automate the rotation, manually do it at least once every 7 days for any Search Crawlers to see external links, particularly Ads, are being mixed up in a more natural advertising way. If the same <noscript> Ads are staying on the page, for any length of time, and the same <noscript> Ad is on all pages on your site, then rel="nofollow" the text ad link.

However in my opinion it is better to have the JS Ad and the <noscript> Ad all pointing in the same place, easy to do for Direct Advertisers who run and mix up campaigns on your site. Although this might just be a 'non' issue if you go ahead and run JS and <noscript> ads out of sequence with different advertisers.

As a side note it is interesting to see on Adsense Premium sites Google running <noscript> Ads alongside <javascript> enabled ones. Why are they doing this? Obvious isn't it? For this go and look at the New York Times source code, it gives you tips on what a first class publisher (who's site and content creation is paid for by advertising) does. The New York Times runs both Internal Served Ads and Google Adsense Ads, and the main Ad in the ATF place has a <noscript> alternative - they are running a 'Tommy H' campaign at the moment in the Style section which illustrates this perfectly in the code.

For further clarification I run two Adservers, one external, (DFP) which feeds into my Internal Adserver, so adding HTML coding (outside of the main Ad source code) before the Ad hits the page is simple, rotation is automatic and the complexity of the systems make it a easy to control everything - the page is cached before being served so no load lagging time is apparent to the User Experience (a small lag which could be there without caching because of the second Internal Adserver doing its thing after the External Adserver has served the code). Running both an Internal and a Third-Party External Ad Server has many more benefits than just the one above, but that is for another topic ...
3:40 am on May 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 12, 2005
posts: 262
votes: 0


I never bothered with users using Ad Blocker software. Mostly because most of my members are not very tech savvy and most of them don't use ad blocker.

However for whom it is interesting.
There is a German webmaster currently developing an ad blocking detection script which hides the content unless ad blocker software is disabled.

[antiblock.org...]

I don't use it, never thought about it and most likely never will use it but maybe some of you might find this an interesting option.
11:31 am on May 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2011
posts:69
votes: 0


DaStarBug,

I would totally have agreed with you, even just last year, and especially 18 months ago. But Ad blocking software is now moving beyond the 'Early Adopter' tech savvy stage. It is increasingly easy to add a plugin in to Browsers, and more people are doing it. Top publishers have already moved to act and are already ahead of the curve, they all run at least one <noscript> ad in the premium ad location.

The internet is heavily polluted by Advertising on very poor quality sites (and I am not just taking about MFA sites, an e.g. is the Daily Mail Newspaper, who run about 13 ads per page on fluff journalism pieces, its horrendous). I use an Ad blocker, and I'm a Publisher!

You have to look beyond what is 'now' to what is 'going to be' and going to be soon ... while the number of people blocking ads and javascript remains below 10% then all is well, and most people are not being affected, but when it moves above 10% then there is a problem. 1 in 10 people blocking your Ads is 10 in a 100, or 100 people in a 1,000 etc. And when you are having over 1,000 unique visitors a day (which is not a very big site) you can see the issue, 100 people are not seeing your Ads which pay for your content creation. In terms of the New York Times with 40 million unique's a month you can see the size of the problem.

Do you blame people for blocking Ads, no, there is so much 'cr@p' out there that it is inevitable that more people are going to find a way of filtering this annoyance out.

But I only run two ads on a page (sometimes three) and NEVER in the content, one ATF and one BTF, I do not annoy my visitors, as any good publisher should do, but I am suffering because of the idiotic actions of the majority.

So I fight back (without annoying my visitors, by keeping it discreet) My Direct Advertisers in the ATF spot run <javascript> ads from a third-party server, but I also provide a <noscript> alternative for them which is pulled from my URL structure on my site if it is needed (a static copy image of their ad, with an 'onclick' event) - just like the New York Times does. Now I only run one <noscript> ad in the code because less than 10% of the time it is shown - but how soon will it reach more than 10%? And my data shows these <noscript> ads do get clicked on and convert, which is the ultimate test.

Take a look at Google Ads on Premium Advertiser Sites - they are running their <javascript> ads but have a look they are also running a <noscript> alternative which gets shown. Most times it is a 1x1 tracking pixel ... now why are they running this? They are gathering data on a growing problem, because this problem is growing and they will need to switch to a different way of showing ads to not only combat the ad blocker but also devices and browsers with JScript turned off ... I could go into this but this would require at least 1000 words of explanation, basically <javascript> ads from a third-party server are dead men walking ... and google are working on alternative methods right now ...

But yes, no scare stories from me, as of right now, with this problem under 10% it is something you can put on the back burner if your target audience is not tech savvy ... and by the time it is a problem, if you are not running Direct Advertising, Google Adsense will roll out a fix for it ... whatever shape this may take.
10:50 am on May 4, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 11, 2006
posts:1492
votes: 0


Speaking as a user:

Is your product so spectacularly attractive that you're positive I will run out and buy it after you've forced me to look at the ad in contravention of my clearly expressed wishes?


With respect Lucy,
Hypothetically speaking, my response to that could well be in my TOS which would state that use of my website would be conditional on the visitor viewing the website as intended by it's owner. If it were the case that my website was solely funded by Adsense then I would not miss the visitor who subsequently decides to reject those conditions and leave.
4:32 pm on May 4, 2011 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:May 2, 2011
posts:16
votes: 0


CMidd,
I forget about people who use ad blockers

Adblock Plus (Firefox addon) is the most downloaded addon at this time.
ALMOST 995,218 weekly downloads!
52 weeks/year*1000000 downloads = 52000000 users blocking ads in one year.
Population of USA (50% of my traffic and most ad revenue) is about 312000000 people.

It's hard to forget about people who use ad blockers.
Maybe I should disable part of my content (very unique and high quality) for people using Adblock addon? I think that's fair. :)
5:00 pm on May 4, 2011 (gmt 0)

System Operator from US 

incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14664
votes: 99


The download #s aren't unique users, it's people updating new versions over and over and over
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members