Ad Blockers Should Be Illegal

Ad blockers deprive sites of needed income

[azlinda]

I'm very surprised that someone somewhere has not begun a class action suit against all those who provide ad blockers. Whatever happened to personal responsibility, both on webmasters' and the users' sides? When someone uses an ad blocker, they are, in reality, defacing (changing) someone's website and depriving them of potential income needed to continue to operate the site. Seeing ads is a small price to pay if the users are getting the information they want. It seems so simple to me that if you don't like seeing ads on someone's site, you have the right to leave. No one is holding you hostage. I have never used an ad blocker, and there are some sites (news sites) that I have left because the ads are overwhelming. There are those who will argue that people who use ad blockers never click on ads anyway. I feel that is not true, because somewhere along the line there will be that one ad that a person will not be able to resist.

[explorador]

Naive and possibly nonsense post ahead: There are two main issues in the air (1) Adblockers, people can't see the ads and (2) Low income due to #1 and other issues.

Been thinking about this for quite a while and been asking this myself, still undecided but wanted to post it and as you webmasters what do you think about it.

- So you write content (you have at least some skills)
- So you take pictures or you can get them elsewhere (buy them)
- Have some knowledge on web development, if not how did you build your site
- Some marketing development
- You have a website or more with decent traffic (or so we expect)

In short you are a webmaster (or so we think), if you built a website, can you built another?. I know the market is not what it used to be, but if you are earning pennies, would a website per month could equal the income? if so, how about posting your own ads (text or images) directly, that won't get blocked by Ad-Blockers? I understand residual income, I get it, I understand we want to work smarter not exactly harder, I know clients can be a pain but there is a point where pennies can be just pennies compared to what you can sell yourself (product or service).

How that sound?

[Leosghost]

- So you write content (you have at least some skills)

You are forgetting my friend that very many of those who hate adblockers are using ads( usually adsense ) on content that they either lifted verbatim from some other ( the original content producer's website ) site. Yes, I know many who have posted about how awful adblockers are who got their content like that, I have seen their sites..and the sites that the original content came from.
Then there are the "spinners", many threads here in the past from those who "re-write" the content that they take from others, without permission, or who use "spinners" to "re-write" the same.

- So you take pictures or you can get them elsewhere (buy them)

So many sites use pictures that do not belong to them it is ridiculous, used to be some "celebrity pictures" site owners here at WebmasterWorld who complained about falling adsense revenues etc, and especially about other people "stealing their images" ( my irony meter blew up when I saw those threads ) , except that those images didn't belong to them, they "found" them on the web ( on the websites who actually did own the copyrights ), or scanned them out of magazines and put them on their sites.Yes, I saw the sites in question,100% stolen images, but very successful they were too, for many years...they may even be still going..a while since I looked.
Nowadays they ( website owners who don't have images and who don't want to pay for them ) can "find" them on pinterest..

Have some knowledge on web development, if not how did you build your site

You are forgetting just how many sites which run ads ( especially adsense ) are are running wordpress ( point and click to install via hosting control panel..same for extensions and themes )..no web development or coding knowledge there.
There will be many reading here who have read the simple method(s) to block adblockers in the thread from 2015 I linked to earlier , and who will have no idea how to implement it, where to put it, how to work it with "no script" tags..how to make modals with CSS..Instead of learning the webmasters craft like some of us, they have just sat back and counted and spent the adsense money..Now they are hooked, addicted to "money for virtually nothing" "earn while you sleep"..like Google and the ad serving companies wanted all along...and are panicking and ranting at the thought of it diminishing or even going away.

Google already threw adsense (ab)using sites under the bus with the ad blocking in chrome, if GDPR looks to Google like it might give them corporate grief, they'll throw the rest of the adsense users under the same bus , maybe even shut down adsense, they already increased the charges ( many have commented on the changes to maps billing ) for using their maps to compensate for what they anticipate to be the immediate "fall off" in adsense earnings to them in Q3 and Q4 of this year..they didn't say it was for that reason, but it is obvious..If Google feel that due to GDPR that sites using adsense is making waves that might wash back against their "cash cow" of adwords..they will stop serving ads to the "content network" ( they already did to major French media websites.."major" being the equivalent of the NYT or LA times etc ) ..if that happens, adblockers are going to be the very least of very many websites worries.

[explorador]

@Leosghost you are absolutely right on every single word and I agree. My post I believe approaches two separate circumstances and "webmasters".

(1) People who are not webmasters and can only deal with MS Word like interfaces to copy paste content. Those "webmasters" are not webmasters and won't be able to adapt. I wouldn't be complaining in their case, I would be frustrated that my paper crown couldn't take the rain (mad at myself).

(2) The other group: real webmasters. In such case I believe it's people with real skills, who might find interesting to contemplate the question: ads VS promoting their own skills. I know the market is not what it used to be, but when people are earning pennies, anything else producing at least a bit more should be a better option.

My intention is in some way to ask others (as I do to myself) "if you are so clever, then why can't you offer anything else that makes a bit more of pennies than what you are earning today?". I believe we are on the same page (after reading your post, that's exactly what I think). Just wondering, those webmasters who created a website, even if the market is too cheap today, would they make more money selling one website (or picture if they ever take picture themselves) rather than pennies for advertising? what if... in those cases those webmasters replace every ad (adsense) with their own? like "hey, I'm selling my fridge".

In that case, all the potential of the website, instead of diluting into hits and clicks on diff advertisers will be focused on your skills only. So just wondering. I still have Adsense, it makes a bit, but really considering putting my own ads, I'm creating my plan and then will try. From where I'm standing it looks fairly easy to exceed what Adsense is paying now.

[Marshall]

I still have Adsense, it makes a bit, but really considering putting my own ads,

I have been doing this for years on one of my sites, selling my own ads, but it is a niche site with a very targeted audience. Because of that, I can charge a lot more than I would make with Adsense. But you also have to be a skilled salesperson when selling ads. Bottom line, by selling my own ads, and marking every ad as an "advertisement" on the page, my site visitors know they will not get spam ads, too many ads, or ads that are not relevant to the industry this website targets. In that regard, I have an advantage. It helps that I am dealing with advertisers who think nothing of spending $2,00.00+ a month on print ads.

[csdude55]

if so, how about posting your own ads (text or images) directly, that won't get blocked by Ad-Blockers?

@explorador, I actually do this, too. I wrote an Ad Manager many years ago that lets the user create their own ad via image, text, or image + text, and I run this in addition to Adsense.

The problem is that, like @Marshall said, it requires a LOT of work. So instead of being the designer, programmer, and content creator, now my job also includes ad sales. Which is a full time job of its own. I can spend 8 hours a day doing ad sales and ignoring content, or I can work on content and ignore ad sales. It never quite balances.

This is where Adsense comes in... they do the sales for me, so I can focus on the content.

Plus, they can reach much, much larger advertisers than I could ever hope to approach. I mean, on my site, right now, I see an ad for Jiffy Lube, and another for Nordstrom... do you know how much time it would be for me to even get the marketing manager of Nordstrom on the phone? LOL

And you know what's crazy? Small businesses are held to an impossible standard, so where I might get $2 /click on Google, I have to beg and plead for $0.10 /click when I do my own sales. So I end up doing a lot more work for a lot less money.

[tangor]

This is getting beyond the scope of blocking the ad blockers, or finding some governmental office to make them illegal. One won't make a difference and the other is not likely to happen without provoking a pitchfork and torch campaign from users.

Roll your own ad sales will ALWAYS pay better than adsense. Adsense is microsales done at scale with the middle man making all the money. But if you can do your own CONSISTENTLY the concept of making a living on the web takes on a whole new meaning. Established sites with good content can undertake this path new kids on the block might be overwhelmed trying to be too many things all at once.

[iamlost]

I noted the quote back up the thread that less than 1% of the top 100,000 AdSense publishers break G's guidelines. Three questions, quite rhetorical:
* top 100,000? why not all?
* why would top earning sites aka top 100,000 aka top <10% need to break the rules?
* how many WebmasterWorld (substitute any webdev/SEO forum) members are in that top hundred thousand?

Back to subject in hand:
With the shifting fluctuating but not disappearing advertiser complaints and regulatory angst, especially over the past three or four years, Google may decide that it is best to, as others in this thread have mentioned, simply cancel AdSense. They've walked away from numerous services over the years, no reason to believe that AdSense is sacrosanct, the only question being: which straw is the one too many?

Or they could make a structural change and deliver AdSense to publishers via API. While viable it would be a sea change in being a far more restrictive program, one that could see half of current publishers, if not more, dropped.

The funny thing about digital content is that publishers only control it up until they deliver it. Because one purpose of current ad blockers is to minimise mobile bandwidth (over 90% of some sites is third party 'stuff') such are simple to detect - they refuse the 'stuff'. However, as bandwidth costs decrease all that 'stuff' might well be 'accepted' to be filtered out at render. Another two rhetorical questions:
* is it better for a site to know for reasonable certain that the 'stuff' they serve is blocked, or not?
* do you think advertisers care?

1. there is no political will and extremely little legal justification for the ban of ad - or any other - client side blocker/filter software.

2. it is up to each site to set the technological requirement threshold required to view/interact (they may differ) with the site. If your business decision is that specific, define as you will, 'stuff' must be served and accepted by visitors then implement appropriate requirements. Whether this is the equivalent of ensuring dinner or of shooting yourself in the foot/head time will tell.

3. the entire digital ad network genre is a race to commodification aka lowest common denominator aka biggest pile of crap wins the pot. In this race publishers are increasingly having to accept/shift more for less as they are the bottom of the funnel. Take a look sometime at all the players between the advertiser and the publisher. Guess who is the least important easiest replaced component of this commodity discharge? Yup, another rhetorical question.

4. Things change with time. One either adapts (how is an individual business decision) appropriately or not.

5. what is required is not a ban on ad or whatever blocking but for advertisers and especially ad delivery networks to take responsibility for their product. To date they do the bare minimum required to silence whatever outrage is de rigueur du jour. Rather than

Ad Blockers Should Be Illegal
Ad blockers deprive sites of needed income

I suggest a more appropriate thread, if equally windmill tilting:
Ad Networks Need to Held Responsible
For their ads' quality, publishers' delivery, and associated UX
After all, they built it, they run it, they profit from it.
Target the disease not the symptom. Unless the symptom is terminal...

This said I'm done beating a dead horse.

[csdude55]

or finding some governmental office to make them illegal

Just because you might find this interesting...

One of my state's US Senators regularly use one of my sites, and we talk on a semi-regular basis (even though we are NOT of the same party, by any stretch). But she once told me that she had been tapped to serve on a technology committee. The reason why she was asked? She was one of the only Senators that knew how to check her own email!

So the odds of seeing any type of legislation happen that's related to technology in the near future is preeeeetty slim.

Roll your own ad sales will ALWAYS pay better than adsense. Adsense is microsales done at scale with the middle man making all the money. But if you can do your own CONSISTENTLY the concept of making a living on the web takes on a whole new meaning.

This has not been my experience, as I outlined before... I can either do ad sales, or development, but not both.

But to continue the discussion on ad blockers, I've found that many of them try to block my locally sold ads, too. I had to start putting the images in randomly-generated directory names so that they couldn't just block entire directories.

[riccarbi]

So, someone here advocate ad blockers as a legitimate solution because some users are annoyed by intrusive / excessive ads? Did such users remove the back button from their internet browser, perhaps? Do they cut off with scissors advertising pages from the paper magazines they find for free at the local barber's shop? This is ridicolous, I won't never provide free content that costs me time, money and labor to those disgusting leechers whatsoever, period.

Do I detect ad blockers? Paywall. Otherwise, access to my content for free.

[edited by: riccarbi at 8:54 pm (utc) on Jun 15, 2018]

[azlinda]

Amen, riccarbi!

[Leosghost]

Haven't used a barbers shop in more than 5 decades..and the magazine ads don't track you..

Used to use the back button a lot when arriving at sites with obtrusive ads..

So..do you ( or azlinda ) make sure that your snippet in search says your sites insist on ads ? so that people know before they click through to you ? ..if not..that is called "bait and switch"..

It is not some "some users" ..all users are annoyed by intrusive ads..

Whoever said I'll visit that site to see the ads on my smartphone or my tablet or PC, knowing that looking at the ads will cost me..no one said or thought that ..ever..

It isn't complicated to block adblock users..so..why are neither of you apparently doing so..

[riccarbi]

It isn't complicated to block adblock users..so..why are neither of you apparently doing so..

Are you a programmer? I am, and I know how to code that in minutes. Yet, I am trying to develop a code that complies with GDPR, and that's a different story. If you've found a solution, can you be so kind to share it with all of us, here?

[Leosghost]

Learned to program in 73/74..( btw..I don't count web stuff as "programming" ) ..
To use your own argument ..
Why would I give away something worth so much money..that would be encouraging "leechers".
Code that blocks adblock ( there are other names for add ons that do the same ) and "no script" users complies with GDPR isn't hard..( if you don't know how ? ) ..I don't say "if you are not sure"..because I hate that phrase..one either knows something..or one does not..Either way..there is a list of members for hire ( I don't work for hire ) at the bottom of each page via the appropriate links..I'm sure that someone will be available to write the code that complies with GDPR..but..if you are a programmer..a little thought ( open minded ) will enable you to find one of the many solutions.

Good luck :)

[Leosghost]

btw..I type ( and thus program slowly )..but "minutes" ( minute Ok..but more than one of them ) for "that"..Oy !

[riccarbi]

Oh, so you want other people giving up their content worthing money for free, but you wouldn't ever give away something yours when it is worth some money...Great!

Ps. The problem with GDPR is not related to coding properly or not. Since you claim to be a long-time programmer, you'd probably know that few lines in basic javascript can do the job. The real problem is that to execute even that basic, unobtrusive js code without the user consent is forbidden by GDPR.
It' a legal issue, not a technical one.

And....do ad blockers violate GDPR in some way? Do they collect some kind of personal, private data without a proper consent, for their purposes?

[MrSavage]

The only issue is lack of organization on this. Seems like the television industry didn't have much trouble squashing a device or devices that removed commercials from broadcasts. Same principle right? Circumventing monetization. Only difference is that a bunch of random webmasters couldn't or can't organize much of anything. Google can't risk the PR on it. Now if I want to watch shows without commercials I try to find it on YouTube these days...

[Leosghost]

Oh, so you want other people giving up their content worthing money for free, but you wouldn't ever give away something yours when it is worth some money...Great!

I give many things away that are worth money..( not restricted to, but including, via many websites I have..which do not run ads )..but not to someone who only joined here less than a month ( the day after GDPR came into force ) ago and who is not a friend, and whose posts since they joined demonstrate that they do not care for the privacy of others, nor do they currently respect the GDPR requirements ( you have said so in other threads, that you are still running personalised ads ) ..I do not "claim" to be a long time programmer..I began learning ( degree course ) programming in 73/ 74..you believe it ..or you don't..I really don't care ( that is me being polite )

you'd probably know that few lines in basic javascript can do the job.

Of course I already knew that..remember the thread that I linked to..the thread that was two years before you joined.

The real problem is that to execute even that basic, unobtrusive js code without the user consent is forbidden by GDPR.

Untrue..but as you have demonstrated in other threads..either you have chosen to not understand GDPR..or you genuinely don' understand it..( it is available in 27 languages, I have read it in 4 of them ) ..either way..I'm not explaining it to you, I have better things to do ..( you can ask a lawyer..you may have to pay them .. to explain it for you )..

Do they collect some kind of personal, private data for their purposes?

No they don't..they only collect data if you explictly agree to allow them to do so, and you can revoke that permission at any time..so ad blockers do not violate GDPR..again , I will not explain precisely why they don't..you can ask a lawyer why they don't..

But , as iamlost said earlier..
This said I'm done beating a dead horse.
I stopped here in posting in 2015..in large part due to people like yourself..
I kept up with friends here via "stickies" and "outside"..
The unthinking entitled ad driven webmaster noise level has not abated..but many other measured thoughtful voices have left..

A thought and comment for iamlost ( and any one else who is thinking along ," maybe G and other ad servers will use an api" lines.
I was one ( there were others here ) who had access to such an api..run by Yahoo ( when they began serving MS serps it was then run by MS ) ..It began as an "overture feed"..Then became a yahoo feed ( I took over a site when it was running a yahoo feed ) ..Criteria for being allowed to use the api.

Over 2 million "uniques" ( unique IP addresses connecting ..not "hits" ) to the site per month..were required to get an account..
api was available in perl, or php, or vb ( really ) or you could code your own interface to it..

Your site talked to the overture, later yahoo, later ms servers..when visitors searched on your site..via the api your site served results.you could choose a mix of paid ( ads ) results returned as answers to their searches and "organics" ..
"search results" shown on your pages could go on for page after page after page.
With Overture..almost no oversight re website quality..
with Yahoo..still almost no oversight re website quality..
When MS "partnered" with Yahoo, MS knew what they were getting into..so they insisted that website quality got tightened up..
But..the "website quality control" was still being run by Yahoo's people, who really didn't care about the quality, just the numbers..so MS gave up and pulled the plug on the deal..
The really big number sites that had the "feed" were being run by things like ISPs ( BT was one ) as their own search, no mention of Overture, Yahoo or MS..you just had to have "sponsored" ( in hard to read type was OK ) above the block of "results"..
A lot of domain parking sites had "feeds" too..some of them even sold them on ( sublet the "feed" ) Yahoo's teams didn't care..it was only advertisers money after all..MS did care ( or at least the advertisers made them "clean house" ) ..The house cleaning ( and shutting off of the feed ), meant some sites went from 6 figures a month to zero....in just 30 days..bang..

At the same time Google had a similar system ( I can't remember exactly the name, "partners" or some such, and it is late here, there are still some members here who have that "deal" with Google ) but back then when Yahoo wanted 2 million uniques..G required 10 million uniques per month..

How many here have 10 million unique IP addresses connecting to their site per month very month ?

Less than that..no special deals with G..no apis, no partner deals ( as far as I know ), maybe someone who has a G deal nowadays will step in with the current minimum number of "uniques" that G require, ( except that G always said ..you talk about it, and you are out..like "fight club" )..I can't really see G lowering the numbers so as to give everyone access to an api..and they already offer DFP to some people.

So..your choices are likely to be..

Code an adblock user interceptor..and let them in, or not, or ask them to take off the adblock.

Make your sites member only, via sign ups, and show members ads..everyone else..sees nothing, no content, no ads.

Give a mixture of the two previous options..let the see a little for free, then make them join..

Or let them see a little for free, then make them join, and make them pay to join..and still show them ads..or not.

Many newspaper sites use variations on the above..

Or..sell direct ad space..and see if integrating membership ( free or paid ) will work alongside directly sold ads served from your own domain ( there are ways around the kind of blocking of direct served ads that csdude55 has encountered, he has found one of them, couple of French guys working out of the USA were on here in 2014 or 15 offering a similar "solution", again easy enough to code something like that )..I know at least two specialist forums of which I'm a member ( not mine ) who run a mix of direct ads and membership ( extra privileges are for paying members )..they do very well.but they are both the "unique" "go to" resources for their individual niches.

Or move into ecom..or make things and sell them..or buy things and sell them..or retire..or..

Any of the above might work, some methods , choices have worked for many, so why not you, if your content is really so special, unique, surely people would pay to see it..or they'd accept to be shown ads..

Or..block no one,( wait for a solution , code , to be handed to you on a plate in a forum , by a stranger * ) do nothing, but complain about adblockers..

* you could also try stackoverflow..or ( if you are using wordpress ? ) maybe someone at envato has a module for sale..

[Leosghost]

Oh..btw..the site that I took over that had the "feed"..When I took it over it had been doing only a few thousand "uniques" per month for well over a year, yahoo had not noticed..when I took it over , I contacted them to change the account details,..they then looked at the past figures, they didn't like them, and I ( being an honest person ) knew ( and told them ) that I could not guarantee getting the numbers of uniques back up to two million with 12 months..We agreed to give it a couple of months, MS took over the feed, the quality of the ads served was never great and the serving went chaotic for a while..I had better things to do with my time( I had discovered in the meantime that the people I had bought the site from had sent their company, which in Yahoo's eyes actually owned the site into liquidation, was going to take much time and money from me to sort out the mess ) ..so we went our separate ways..Within 3 months the deal with MS and Yahoo was cancelled anyway..

[NickMNS]

Seems like the television industry didn't have much trouble squashing a device or devices that removed commercials from broadcasts

As I have mentioned before in this thread, there is a fundamental difference between TV and Web advertising. For TV the advertisers pay for the ads whether or not they are seen by the viewer. On the web advertisers only pay when the ads is shown to the users. So advertiser couldn't give a rat'sass if the user sees the ad or not. In fact they would probably be the first to promote the use of ad blockers as this would eliminate the need to pay for impressions for users that aren't likely to convert, so the value of each paid impression goes up at the expense of the publisher.

[Marshall]

This said I'm done beating a dead horse.

And this is what this thread has become.

[MrSavage]

@Nick, you can analyze it all you want. Your belief is just that. It's not fact. If this, then that. If that, then this. Says who? Anything that takes money out of the pockets of the television industry is going to get SQUASHED. It will get squashed because of a unified front. Nobody is going to roll them over. The music industry is very similar as well. They will crush anyone stepping on their toes over ANYTHING that takes money out of their pockets. The newspaper industry stood up and stopped a practice that affected their bottom line. Pick anything out there. The only difference on the web is that it's easy pick'ens. I'm sure with enough money and lawyers at the table, an argument could have been presented to deal with blocking or circumventing monetization like ads. We should talk YouTube as well right? I'm not enough into the technical aspects of ad blocking as it pertains to YouTube, but IF there was something going around, what are the chances that Google fights that like their life depended on it? Go ahead and create something that will parse out ads. As that creates momentum and reduces Google's profits, how well do you think that will go? Oh, but that's different? No. It's all about circumventing monetization that businesses depend on.

So to summarize, I'll just say to take that view on the "why" the television industry is "different", I'll call BS to that. It's all about threats to the bottom line. That's it. Anything that comes along that can threaten profits will be fought tooth and nail BEFORE it becomes a "thing".

@Marshall, there is a thing called freedom. If the thread is dead to you, move on. But don't tell people it's a dead horse because you've been in the conversation all along. Some people come across topics after you have called them a "dead horse". If you have nothing to say, then I don't imagine anyone will be wondering where you went.

[csdude55]

Speaking of the legal possibilities...

There's a bill in my state's Senate, right this very minute, trying to make it illegal to refer to any drink as "milk" unless it comes from a hooved animal.

Seriously. The milk industry paid enough politicians that they're actually pushing a law to make it illegal to sell soy milk, almond milk, cashew milk, etc, unless they change the name to something other than milk.

Keeping that in mind, we can do anything with the right lobbyists and enough money to grease the right palms.

Someone should create a business industry PAC that's specifically for webmasters. That's the only way we'll ever get any real protection, honestly, or for it to even be discussed on a legal stage.

[tangor]

That's the only way we'll ever get any real protection, honestly, or for it to even be discussed on a legal stage.

The UNION OF ADVERTISING WEBMASTERS (international or not?)

Now there's a novel solution!

Without something like that the average pie in the sky webmaster (entitled) has no protection and no recourse. Then again, never had it in the first place (think of all the barnyard algos from g, among other things).

Webmasters have had it too easy for too long. The MYTHS which have been created regarding income potentials has not been REVISED since the barnyard days. Few have the resources to PROTECT THEMSELVES from the scrapers, even though law does exist for that purpose. The vast majority are "creators" only in they created a domain name, paid the initial fee, took on a shared hosting (at least) and CMS'd their way via copied content and some cut and paste code.

The QUALITY of the web has gone south. A growing number of USERS recognize that and, in addition to their "plans" by which they access this "free web" find their dollars increasingly lost to mediocre copycat sites of low value siphoning off their plans with extraordinary third party advertising they never agreed to receive.

It is the THIRD PARTY part which ticks off most folks.

Serve your own, be a REAL PUBLISHER and make new friends and fewer enemies.

Ad blockers are an inoculation against the disease, much like a measles vaccine.

[QuaterPan]

Seriously. The milk industry paid enough politicians that they're actually pushing a law to make it illegal to sell soy milk, almond milk, cashew milk, etc, unless they change the name to something other than milk.

That is difference, the use of the world "milk" is misleading. Lot of people assume that Soy milk is "real" milk + soy and believe it has the same benefits as milk. But Soy Milk (for example), has a way less proteins and calcium than cow milk.

[tangor]

There's a bill in my state's Senate, right this very minute, trying to make it illegal to refer to any drink as "milk" unless it comes from a hooved animal.

And well they should. Milk is produced by lactating mammals, not plants.

That said, what does that have to do with ad blockers?

[explorador]

1. The thread title is clear to me, I want to stay on topic but the title doesn't quite fit the situation (Ad-blockers are unlikely to become illegal). As much as I agree with many things about it, I don't keep my hopes high, such thing is unlikely to happen. I have to move on.

2. Coding for years = there is always an alternate way. This can also imply learning another coding language as much as you hate such thing. Same for advertising income.

3. I clearly understand the topic, but I don't see here what I believe is "the core of the soul of a programmer", and that's deconstructing the issue in many parts to later play with all of them to find solutions. I see the issue moving to the corner of "someone should do something" and that's not how successful sites were built.

4. Asperger doesn't equal software development. I mean, we don't always have to apply hard logic, but the way many users who claim to be programmers/coders are breaking the logic of valid statements here... introduces heavy doubts if they are able to understand conditioning and logic comparisons, and stick to those limits in order to understand the next step. I believe the limits here are very clear (adblockers, reach, not serving content, visitors not seeing your ads, you are not getting paid what you used to, we can't force people to see our ads and specially you can't force people to pay for your content).

5. Keep it cool, heat? not working. Sure your content is awesome you spent hours creating it and yes it's 100% original so you can force your visitors to read your ads while blocking anyone who has an Ad-Blocker, yes, that's it. No content is so awesome to keep such logic working, many in the web already built something as cool as your content or even better. Most people reach your site via Search looking for one answer or wanting to read one page, expecting someone to pay instead only increases the number of times people hit the back button. Any/every comment and opinion is valid but this one... I wouldn't waste time on it.


The policy in this forum is we can't discuss specifics (certain specifics) but I get the feeling reading many comments it would make some things easier. In fact being specific could mean many "webmasters" would make their own statements invalid. Think about it.. I posted a while ago and I rewrite it: if your ad income is too slow perhaps you have to consider WHEN such income can be matched by one or two product sales. There is no impossible logic there, that's quite easy to analyze. If your answer is a rant, rather than a logical post, you just lost my interest (no that you care), I easily see a calm answer as "not yet, my ad income still doesn't reach my one-person-efforts selling a product").

Again I understand the topic, it just doesn't take look to understand the affirmations posted here, that advertising made many webmasters lazy (me included). Careful, we as software developers have it easy to see the logic in there (if such thing applies to you).

[MrSavage]

Facts are facts. If you try introducing ANYTHING that finds a way to circumvent profits (the reason people make and do things) you can be assured that the real industries will squash it. Whoever started ad blocking? Be assured that the threat of financial demise would have been enough to squash it. Maybe they could have tried fighting it in the courts but guess what? Industries typically can outlast anyone when it comes to courts and costs. Some tech startup that is set on creating a technology that circumvents ads? If it was anyone other than a bunch of random webmasters, be assured this type of movement wouldn't have become mainstream so easily. Do people hate ads? Of course. Do people like free music? Of course. If you could get an ad free YouTube without paying a penny more, who would come out saying it's bad. Only Google of course!

The issue at hand is that the collective webmaster is not a collective at all. It's not an industry. It's nothing. It's a bottom of the barrel existence because you have zero say in anything that happens which can affect your income. The only one who could have gone to bat for publishers would be Google, but the horse left the barn and now they keep everyone on Google properties and they created their own self-interest sweetheart deals with the blockers so they can still have their cake. Us? Back to the bottom of the bird.

Sorry to say this but the only one who could and should have squashed this from day one was Google. They could have protected the publisher early on, but they didn't. So they adapted and in my opinion, they have written off the Adsense program. Not entirely of course, because those news brand sites can bring in big ad revenue. Everyone else? Meh.

But this is exactly why industries unite. They have to protect their assets. The people complaining about ad blockers now need look no further than that. Certain models and structures are in place over time because of errors in the past. Right now Google relies on what? 5% or 10% of the web? That's what I see in search. So long as those sites can push ads and can fill up the upper portion of the SERPS, Google really doesn't care about the other 90%.

People talk about alternatives? So like those sponsored posts? Like things Google has told us that are a no-no or should be limited because it's misleading and a bad user experience? Oh yes, we can just sell direct advertising. Maybe that makes sense for 1-5% of people out there. I'm not fretting over this issue because the bigger issue is the growing decline of organic traffic in the Google SERPS. Regardless of ad blockers, if the organic hole keeps on shrinking, then who really gives a S about this issue?

[Leosghost]

facts are facts

Except that what you keep quoting as "facts" in various threads, are not facts at all they are just your limited experience ,just what you know about, in your "world", "country" whatever.
In the rest of the world TV ads get blocked ( by boxes sold by cable companies or ISPs that remove the ads by time shifting etc )..
I have one right here..had it now for 5 years from my ISP ( who has nearly 15 million subscribers ) other ISPs where I live have similar "boxes"..The box allows me to "time shift" around all TV ads if I want to with a simple mouse click on the interface ( I don't block TV ads although most of them are crap, because they do not slow down the TV programas, nor to they have the potential to inject code that would hijack my TVs..but I, and any other client of my ISP can do so ), it also allows me ( if I want ) to block all ads ( including adwords ) with another simple click on the interface ( I don't block ads via the box )..I block ads via my browser, I also block all scripts , because the ads and the scripts slow the internet, and they track..take away the tracking in ads, and I might, allow ads, I also block ( and will never use on any of my sites ) ganalytics..because of the tracking it does.

You apparently don't have access to this type of blocking with your ISP or cable company, so you say it doesn't exist, ..well it does, and has done for years, that is a fact.

All the ISPs in this country offer this type of service..or similar..

btw..I also have unlimited download..truly unlimited, multiple terra bytes per month..and ( with the exception of a few countries ) can call world wide ( unlimited time )to fixed lines and mobiles from our fixed lines and cell phones..with unlimited 4G data..and all for less that $60.00 per month...via the same ISP..fact.

There are many "talking versions" ( for the blind ) of newspapers and magazines available in the world..they don't leave the ads in..
Many browsers have a similar system to the "pocket" in Firefox, which strips out all ads from webpages and then "saves "them so that someone can read them later.

In many countries ( including yours ) one can now watch movies legally without having to watch the ads that are run before them in cinemas..the service is called Netflix..I can get it here..and our TV stations just joined together to offer their own version for less than $7.00 per month..all the movies and TV programs you can watch..with no ads..and like our ISPs ..No contract..No long sign up..no commitment..cancel any time ..

None of this got "squashed"..fact.

Oh..and "free music"..one of the ISPs here offers unlimited music streaming ( via I think spotify ), with no ads with their cell phone deal..fact.

It didn't get "squashed".

Please stop jumping into threads with ideas and statements based upon your limited experiences and claiming that they are "facts"..they are not. There is a whole world outside of what you know and where you live..that is a fact.

@explorador
re "selling things"..
That is in fact what I moved over to doing as my primary business, the writing was on the wall years ago re 3rd party ad sponsored websites, and direct ads works, but as the advertisers do not always survive ( due to their own businesses failing ) there is "churn"..Dealing with that churn ( selling ad space ) is not something that I find particularly appealing, so ( as I only got into websites initially to make portfolio sites for my artwork ), moved a large part of it into making and selling luxury goods and artwork.
Much more satisfying :)
Still have some "informational sites", ( which carry direct ads ) primarily promote to the country and the region where we live to non French speakers..and some informational sites that are "advisory" connected with my wife's work with Alzhiemers sufferers and their families..a few around our other interests..and our son ( artist sculptor animator cartoonist ) has his self coded sites, with no ads.

Large amount of topic drift there, but if it helps people to realise that there are other things one can do on the web than just be a platform for 3rd party ads, if you have talent, or are good at business, or buying and selling, can make stuff, can identify a niche..or even niches, can think laterally..and are prepared to work at it to get it running, you don't need to worry about ad blockers at all.

[Leosghost]

btw..the talking books and talking newspapers that don't have the ads left in..you can get them for free, from public libraries.

[NickMNS]

@MrSavage

The issue at hand is that the collective webmaster is not a collective at all. It's not an industry. It's nothing. It's a bottom of the barrel existence because you have zero say in anything that happens which can affect your income.

I don't really get your general confrontational attitude, but other than that I think we are, to some extent, saying similar things. I don't really understand why you are denigrating independent webmasters or how that really helps your argument. But lets just set that aside. The web publishing market, is fractured with a very large number of small (independent) players. Individually no one player has any power to change anything and that is exactly why we are being exploited by every end (AdSense/Google, Advertisers, Users). TV, Radio, Print are industries that are largely controlled by a few large players as such have a lot more clout.

So yes, maybe the time has come for an association of independent web-publishers.