If there was no malware I'd still want an ad-blocker.

I only block the most heavy handed and most obnoxious ads. Pop overs, blinking, flashing crap and those that interfere with the content are doomed. The most effective ads are those that catch your eye because they are relevant to you or look interesting. The biggest failures are the obnoxious ones that make you want them to go away.

Next thing you know they'll be complaining about the MUTE option for TV's. 😉 oh wait...Funny Onion news incoming!

Some sites are much more "readable" when ad-blocked. Webmasters don't seem to care about placement/origin anymore. Too bad there are some sneaky ones that even get past ABE.

Surely there are people that do but I've never bought anything based on a web ad.

Something doesn't add up here. If they're losing revenue that implies they were making money with web advertising at some point. How?

I hate ads. I hate slow websites because of ads. I want ad-free internet. I use ad-blocker. They don't pay for my Internet connection.
Well... Not hard to figure out is it then?

It's faster to browse the web without ads, especially with a Dial up connection, which I use once in a while.

Once I get to trust a website, I whitelist it.

The first time, and I mean the VERY FIRST time an ad autoplays audio, they are off the whitelist for good.

awgamer wrote:

Surely there are people that do but I've never bought anything based on a web ad.

Neither have I. If I need anything I just look for it on my own, not at any ads thrown my way.

SKARDAVNELNATE wrote:

Something doesn't add up here. If they're losing revenue that implies they were making money with web advertising at some point. How?

I would like to know about this myself as well - and it's also one of the reasons why I don't buy their so-called claims of lost revenue.

The main sales job of ads is by the ad creators to the product company and the web sites that host them. The product creators pay per hit. If the ad hits are significantly lower than the site's traffic they assume that is lost revenue.

I don't block ads exactly, but I do block scripts. This has the same effect in many cases but I don't feel bad about it. I hate script based ads, just like I hate all unnecessary scripting.
I've never objected to simple rectangular banner ads, and make no effort to block those. But if they feel the need to throw movies, audio, or other scripting at me, that's something I won't put up with.
Sometimes I use other people's computers which don't block any of this stuff, and I don't know how they can stand it. The modern internet is obnoxious when you don't filter anything. It wasn't always this way.

shamino wrote:

The modern internet is obnoxious when you don't filter anything.

Amen to that. Every time I browse with another browser than my main one or on someone else's PC I am reminded just how bad it is.

collector wrote:

The main sales job of ads is by the ad creators to the product company and the web sites that host them. The product creators pay per hit. If the ad hits are significantly lower than the site's traffic they assume that is lost revenue.

So it's not actual losses but assumed ones. Great, just great 🙄

I really wish this kind of thinking would stop. I'm not business-minded, but the way I understand it projected revenue is not the same as actual revenue (unless I'm overlooking something else 😐 ).

In this case though if no one was blocking ads every visit minus bots would be a "sale". It would be tracked by a hit on an image in the ad. One page hit by a browser using Adblock means that there will be no hit in the ad. A page hit by a browser without blocking will yield a hit on the ad tracker (image, script or whatever). So it can be a fairly accurate measure of lost revenue. Mind you that this has nothing to do with revenue from sales of the actual product that the ad is trying to sell. But that is the problem with advertising in general, web or not.

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

How do you all propose sites get funded? Would you pay a per-visit/monthly/yearly fee to access your favourite web sites?

Do you seriously think that all sites should just be run on donations, or even just the good will of individuals wanting to run sites?

I agree that advertising sucks. Not just on the web, but on radio and TV as well. But people want to access these services free of charge. Something has to give.

And I agree with the main issue that a lot of people have with web advertising, i.e. tracking cookies, malicious scripts, etc. I think something should be done about this.

I don't know what the solution to any of this is, though.

SquallStrife wrote:

I agree that advertising sucks. Not just on the web, but on radio and TV as well. But people want to access these services free of charge. Something has to give.

Keep in mind that advertisers give, only to take more from YOU, a little later. They are not donators to charity... 😉

I use an ad blocker for at least 6-7 years. When an ad escapes, I do everything to block it. I've even started watching my favorite tv programs with delay (just to skip the ad parts) or a couple of days later, for the same reason. I don't want to spend 30 seconds to watch a youtube ad. I know it's bearable, but 30 seconds 50 times a day, plus TV ads, plus plus plus, it stacks up really well. 😜

I don't mind ads. As a content creator, I know how much work it is to create content, and on most channels that I subscribe, I let the ad run, walk away and do something else. Then come back and rewind. It supports them and without monetizing we would have a lot of poor quality content. It's something you don't think about until you start creating your own content 😀

AidanExamineer wrote:

Once I get to trust a website, I whitelist it.

The first time, and I mean the VERY FIRST time an ad autoplays audio, they are off the whitelist for good.

That's pretty reasonable.

SquallStrife wrote:

To play devil's advocate for a moment... […]
Show full quote

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

How do you all propose sites get funded? Would you pay a per-visit/monthly/yearly fee to access your favourite web sites?

Do you seriously think that all sites should just be run on donations, or even just the good will of individuals wanting to run sites?

I agree that advertising sucks. Not just on the web, but on radio and TV as well. But people want to access these services free of charge. Something has to give.

And I agree with the main issue that a lot of people have with web advertising, i.e. tracking cookies, malicious scripts, etc. I think something should be done about this.

I don't know what the solution to any of this is, though.

Yeah, keep in mind that the bigger websites are FUCKING EXPENSIVE to run. I.e., millions in development, tens of thousands of dollars per month to run (10+ people on a monthly salary, offices, business expenses...). The money has to come from somewhere. So I don't mind seeing ads, it keeps people like me from losing their jobs.

I don't like obnoxious ads, though (taking up half the scree, auto-playing video and/or audio, popups....). I think banner ads would work just fine.

philscomputerlab wrote:

I don't mind ads. As a content creator, I know how much work it is to create content, and on most channels that I subscribe, I let the ad run, walk away and do something else. Then come back and rewind. It supports them and without monetizing we would have a lot of poor quality content. It's something you don't think about until you start creating your own content 😀

Yep, it's a lot of work and if you have to pay someone to do it, it's expensive. I think a lot of people don't realize how expensive it is to run websites. That's not your run-of-the-mill 10$/month hosting. Ads are a necessary evil in today's web. I'd rather have ads than pay for every website I visit.