AdBlock vs AdSense solution proposal

looking for a solution against adblockers

[bbcbbc]

Looking how adblockers are hitting AdSense scene, there are two kinds of reactions:

- Site owners who let the thing going and try to adapt their sites to a new Internet Era.
- Site owners who does not want to let AdBlockers kill the Internet just like it is now, grown free and big thanks to ads.

I'm on the second group, so I would like to share what I think it could be a possible solution for the problem: the (already criticized) "Two Speed Internet", applied to AdBlockers world.

The only and one premise is:

- If people use AdBlockers because ads are annoying, then lets make AdBlockers annoying to users.


=======
Proposal
=======

What is needed:
1 A big number of webmasters all over the world who wants to enroll the movement.
2 One script, with this features:

- A set of static .js files is not sure, because they could be easily blocked like the ad's codes. Instead, a PHP code that dinamically generate and injects .js files with random file names and function names.
- The script should be able to detect AdBlockers and, if found, then slow the load speed of the page contents. Unannounced and with no alerts to the user. Instead of blocking the content.

Then let the (real) rumor grow viral ... that AdBlockers slow Internet connection.


If you want me to pay for you to see my site contents for free and with no ads, I can be ok with that, but then you will fall into slow Internet.


The goal:
Make people think that AdBlockers are slowing their Internet connection. Even when there's no anti AdBlock installed and their connections are slow by any other cause, they won't know, and many of them will consider AdBlockers as malware.


There would be more options, maybe injecting into the page functions that need to be checked by AdBlock, forcing the script to work more. Please, notice that I'm looking to open a discussion to bring a solution to the problem.

[wa desert rat]

I believe in ads but last week, for the first time ever, I installed an ad blocker. It's Google's BETA "Ad Review Toolbar" that gives me the choice of seeing the ads or - when they are egregious - getting rid of them.

Why did I do it? Because of so many ads that block the content until you click on the ad (no obvious way of getting past it) and because of the ads that bombard you with audio. When they make you look at the ads and there is no way to get to the content then they deserve ad blockers.

At least 90% of the ads on my site are pertinent to the content and are out of the way of the content. The only page with three Adsense ads is the entry page. All the rest have an ad at the top and an ad at the bottom. My feelings are that the users deserve some respect.

WDR

[bbcbbc]

sounds like you are asking for help in writing malware..

Deliberately slowing a users computer..is malware

So, blocking page contents is not malware?

I'm proposing a new strategy, not block content, but slow the page load, not the user computer.

[Leosghost]

Slowing the users computer,( where "the page load" actually happens, you do realise that .js actually runs on the user's computer and slows "the page load", it isn't running on your site and slowing "the page delivery" ) deliberately is malware..

And your site will likely be flagged as "malware" or "hacked" by search engines..

Curious..are you official BBC ? they ( BBC ) may not like it if you are not..

"page load" and "page delivery" are not the same thing..

[bbcbbc]

You can slow the page load serving contents locally, instead of .js files.

I'm not official BBC that you're thinking, because it has many meanings: [en.wikipedia.org...]

Some of them even not listed in wikipedia.

[bbcbbc]

Slow page load does not mean necessary render time, ie:

- You serve text from server, and then pics after some seconds.
- You serve content partially and paginate it several times instead all on one page.

[martinibuster]

The OP is not suggesting a malware that interferes with a user's computer.

The OP is suggesting a solution that detects an ad blocker and slows the pace at which the website is served or serve an alternate version of the page that necessitates clicking a more link to see the content.

There are several things problematic with that approach. In the case of serving an alternate version of the site that requires extra clicking, this could be construed as cloaking. Anytime you serve a version of a site that is different than what was served to the bots, it's called cloaking and that can lead to a penalization.

The second problem is the goal of this "solution" is delivering a poor user experience. That is never a good idea, ever. Before ad blockers existed, most site visitors never clicked the ads. The fact is that most site visitors do not click ads and most site visitors do not directly produce revenue for the publisher.

Indirectly many site visitors may play a role in your revenue. This is where user experience comes in. I will not publish a tutorial here on why giving all site visitors is good for the publisher. Suffice it to say that, apart from any indirect search algorithm benefit, a good user experience is a foundation of a site that grows traffic and revenue.

Delivering a poor user experience works against you. Nobody links to a poor user experience. Nobody recommends it. Nobody returns to it.

[IanCP]

What is needed:
1 A big number of webmasters all over the world who wants to enroll the movement.

What is needed is for advertisers and publishers to stop and think about the topic from the users perspective. A radical concept I know for some.

As "wa desert rat" quite correctly said above - this being only a small sample of a great many reasonable objections.

Because of so many ads that block the content until you click on the ad (no obvious way of getting past it) and because of the ads that bombard you with audio. When they make you look at the ads and there is no way to get to the content then they deserve ad blockers.

To my mind, railing at AdBlockers, and more particularly their users is really as stupid as it gets. Smart business money says "address your customer concerns".

For most of my adult life I ran businesses, successful businesses - my primary product I sold, over and above commodities?

Good service, always good service, followed by even more good service. Most often personalised service. Creating niche businesses where no one else could see a need for good service. That is all too often the key to small business success.

As for the proposition of serving slow loading pages to users with AdBlockers? Really I had the read the comment several times before I believed what I had read. Do you honestly believe your site content is so valuable, so unique, that your visitors must bend to your will to read your pages? The words which immediately came to my mind were "How arrogant".

Your proposals are NOT solutions, they are sure fire, short circuit methods for visitors to back out in quick time - then bad mouth you across forums for your genre. Also known as scoring an own goal.

Advertisers and far too many publishers created the problem in the first place, the AdBlockers only provided a viable solution to a perceived consumer problem - one fuelled by misleading paranoia, and now many publishers want to blame the solution. If this becomes an epidemic, those most affected with big mega dollars at stake are going to have to finally address the solution, it's easy...

Don't unreasonably aggravate your customers, your bread and butter, listen to them and their concerns. Most consumers vote with their feet, and their wallets.

[bbcbbc]

a good user experience is a foundation of a site that grows traffic and revenue.

Agree with your post, martinibuster, but I think this is not true any longer.

Traffic grow and revenue grow were hand by hand until now, If you don't have earnings, you can't support the traffic grow, and you have to close the site, the future for a big number of sites if nothing is done ... and then, why should somebody want to browse Internet? to read wikipedia, facebook and a dozen more of sites? All the Internet contents in the hand of the big corporations like Facebook? I don't want that, even if I wasn't a (little) site owner.

The anti-AdBlock until now is based in a bad user experience (block content for AdBlock users). My "solution" solves this partially, because the content is still served, but at low speed.

[MrSavage]

When you can't convince fellow webmasters in an Adsense forum that adblockers are bad for business, putting forward any type of proposal is nothing short of a waste of time. However, I appreciate the call to action. I'm not sure if this solution is something along the same lines as what you're thinking, but I came across one website that censored out their article until you voted in the poll on their page. That's a Google thing. Now if adblockers can't cope with that, then aha. If search result, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 all had the same poll? But again you can't talk solutions or proposals when there is (in your own mind) nothing wrong and or nothing to worry about.

[edited by: MrSavage at 12:19 am (utc) on Sep 28, 2015]

[netmeg]

Search engines does not use AdBlock, so the pages would be served fast.

Which is called cloaking.

[support.google.com...]

because it provides our users with different results than they expected.

But apart from that - um, no. Not interested. You go ahead though, and see how it works out for you.

[IanCP]

What I got is a leosghost trying to hack the thread spamming it

.
Well "leosghost" might do many things, but "trying to hack the thread spamming it" sure isn't one of them.

You must learn to differentiate between constructive advice/criticism and spamming. Personally, I don't think you will find many experienced WebmasterWorld contributors here who would be supportive of your idea - several of us have individually outlined our respective reasons.

Frankly, some of us think your proposals are the antithesis of what we really believe in, stand for, and try to represent as "White Hat Webmasters".

We don't now your internet experience beyond the bare fact you have joined WebmasterWorld recently - apparently all your posts to date - have been on this particular topic, which you had started. Now it's fine to raise a topic, however it is then light years of difference to attack long experienced members by calling them spammers. Especially when they are only drawing attention to the failings and short comings in your proposal.

Just because you might find some answers disagreeable, doesn't make them wrong answers, just unpalatable truths.

[IanCP]

But apart from that - um, no. Not interested. You go ahead though, and see how it works out for you

Um also, what netmeg said is right.

I suspect it would only end in catastrophic tears. But then, what would I know?

[lucy24]

<fe>
For comparison purposes, you might study how television producers got manufacturers to eliminate the Mute button from remote controls, since its primary function was to suppress the advertising that makes the industry work.
</fe>

[MrSavage]

TV ads block the content. Adsense ads compliment and in no way impede the content. Apples and oranges. The proposal put forward by the OP is valiant. I always appreciate effort.

[trebuchet]

What I do is to redirect adblockers to a landing page that explains, very politely, that the ads served pay for the content they seek. If they wish to view the content, please whitelist in your adblocker. If not, have a nice day. The transaction is a simple one.

But using script to slow down page loading? I think that's both deceptive and dangerous. It will only annoy people. Be polite to your users and you might find they tolerate your ads. Well that's been my experience anyway.

FWIW, the "cloaking" claim gets thrown around a lot in relation to this issue. Advice I have received is that cloaking involves deceptive serving of alternative content, which does not apply here. Others should proceed on whatever sources or advice they are inclined to trust.

[tangor]

A solution should embrace both parties. Users have many valid points, as do webmasters reliant upon third party ad servicing. Find a middle ground and that's a real solution. Else, like happened in the USA, the government will step in with regulations (tv, radio) and no one will be happy with the results. A recent change of the net to Title II in the USA is sure to make that happen in the future .... regulations, that is!

[martinibuster]

Advice I have received is that cloaking involves deceptive serving of alternative content, which does not apply here.

Thanks for sharing that, it's an important point to bring up. :)

My statement was that it could be construed as cloaking. I didn't mean to imply that it was cloaking, so my apologies if I wasn't clear enough on that point.

What that means is that a site does not have to narrowly fit into the technical definition of cloaking in order to be penalized for cloaking. These are scaled and imperfect algorithms we're talking about, not manual actions. One can feel comfort in that their intentions are not deceptive but that's not going to help if the site attracts a penalty. I'm just being pragmatic. Intentions are not always clear. In my experience, it's not enough to be technically behind the line between spam and not-spam. That line is gray and fuzzy at a certain point.

(Note: We know that Google reads JS and you can try to hide it but that won't work because Google renders sites as a browser, too. )

Historically, and this is a statement of fact, some penalties happened to sites that had the appearance of spam. They weren't necessarily spam, they just had the appearance of it to a sufficient degree to be removed from the SERPs. Everyone has their own threshold of risk and they are free to walk up to the line as close as they wish. I'm just being pragmatic based on what I have seen and personally experienced, and sharing that caveat for consideration.

[MrSavage]

I think the censorship of words on a page (greyed out) unless you participate in a poll is on the same slippery slope. Except that the polls are Google's. Do the bots read the content? If not, then why was the article I clicked on ranked #2 or #3 position in Google SERPS?

[breeks]

Has anyone tried PageFair?

Our goal at PageFair is to protect the future of the free internet by re-establishing a fair deal between web users and the content creators who they want to support.

[MrSavage]

We pay Eyeo a small fee for this privilege.

Are you F kidding me?

[RedBar]

and then, why should somebody want to browse Internet?

That's a strange question, I could write an entire book about why people would browse and use the Internet other than for making advertising income ... maybe it's just me then, everyone else must be on FB?

[breeks]

Are you F kidding me?

Very helpful answer

[trebuchet]

Very helpful answer

I'm not sure he was answering your question. To be honest I feel the same way about adblocking companies who extort money from ad networks and publishers. If you set up a RL business tearing down billboard advertising then charging companies NOT to tear theirs down, you'd be arrested. In the online world it's seemingly OK.

To answer your question, I trialled Pagefair earlier in the year on a small niche site that doesn't get much traffic. I found it a waste of time. From 2,400 'adblocked' pageviews I made about 55 cents. Their RPM was low and their fill rate poor. There were more 'unreachable' adblock users (i.e. those who have blocked everything, even whitelisted ads) than 'reachables'. Also, Pagefair's cut from ad revenue is not clear: their website doesn't say and they don't tell. Short answer is that they're not the answer.

[MrSavage]

Thanks for the Pagefail reference. In their faq:

Why aren’t PageFair Ads blocked?-

We’ve done everything we can to conform to, and even exceed the Acceptable Ads standard, set out by Eyeo, the company that makes Adblock Plus (the most popular adblock plugin). Their community has judged our ads to conform to its standards, and therefore they allow ads from PageFair to display. We pay Eyeo a small fee for this privilege.

It helps me realize how corrupt this really is. Not sure if anyone else sees that, but I think it's quite clear who has who by the balls.

[trebuchet]

There's been a lot said about the display advertising business model being 'broken', which may well be true. But the fan boys are pretty quiet on the dubious nature of adblocker business models. As I've said before, they're little more than a protection racket.

[blend27]

Then let the (real) rumor grow viral ... that AdBlockers slow Internet connection.

Yep, lets do that exactly!...... as a matter of fact lets do it twice!

Who was that said the words: Bad publicity is a Good publicity...

- You serve text from server, and then pics after some seconds.
- You serve content partially and paginate it several times instead all on one page.

I've seen that done on several sites year or 2 ago, where content is sliced on to several "paginated" pages, I don't remember where but I don't see that in practice anymore. Either the practice did not work and has been thrown out or I stopped visiting the sites all together. I am pretty sure that it was done to show more Ads to the site`s visitors.

On the side note:

More than 650,000 Chinese smartphones have been unwittingly enrolled in a massive attack that overwhelmed a web server.

The huge attack saw the target site hit with about 4.5 billion separate requests for data in one day.
...
The tidal wave of data was traced to a pool of booby-trapped adverts that had been seeded with malicious code.

[bbc.com...]

[MrSavage]

Google ads. We're in a Google ads forum talking about Google ads. Topics relevant to Google ads. I think what this Page Fair reference brings up is the bigger picture. It's bordering on the conspiracy stuff as in the business forum though. Think of all the malware and virus launched from Windows machines. Trojans in software or downloads. Sure, let's block all software from installing on our PC, by default, to the quarantine it goes. Sort of like the ad blocking mentality.

[blend27]

Sure, let's block all software from installing on our PC, by default, to the quarantine it goes. Sort of like the ad blocking mentality.

Basic windows Group USERS: Users are prevented from making accidental or intentional system-wide changes and can run most applications.

I've setup at least over a quarter of million people on Windows machines to be in that group in my IT career. It helped a lot.

But back to AdSence solutions, I guess.

[breeks]

Thanks, trebuchet that is what I was looking for.

AdBlock vs AdSense solution proposal looking for a solution against adblockers

PageFair shows Adsense, they take a cut, Google takes a cut, the publisher gets leftovers.

Not a good solution.