Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love. (from 2010)

Ads are a pain, but I don't think that I use add blocking software. I know that chrome does block pop ups, but ATS has never had those as far as I know.

But once that ATS has gotten rid of ads for us members over a certain level (thank you btw) I don't have any issues.

But I never had any problems on this site with ads. I figure whats good to keep the site going gives me the ability to be here.

Been thinking more about this, wondering what the real options are. Went back to the arstechnica article...

...blocking ads can be devastating to the sites you love. I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical, or makes someone the son of the devil. It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen. ...

If you read a site and care about its well being, then you should not block ads ...I think it is far better to vote with page views than to show up and consume resources without giving anything in return. I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website. People talk about how annoying advertisments are, but I'll tell you what: it's a lot more annoying and frustrating to have to cut staff and cut benefits because a huge portion of readers block ads. Yet I've seen that happen at dozens of great sites over the last few years, Ars included.

I really really like the Free Web. I don't want to pay for access anywhere. I hate it when documents and research I want to access require a subscription or pay-per-view - especially when I know tax money helped pay for the study...

Given a choice, I'd rather have pop-ups than pay for subscriptions - and no way do I want ATS' existence threatened in any way. That said, there are real issues on both sides here - and maybe some obvious solutions? Hate to promote hierarchies, but maybe tiered is the way to go?

1. Keep 3rd party advertising - with pop-ups and all - for casual visitors and those who prefer to support the site in this way

2. ATS already offers ad-free access to major contributors. (A big muah! and thank you!)... and

3. An ad-free subscription alternative?



...but we still have the big questions:

1. How do we keep the web free - when alternative sites rely on 3rd party advertising, and only mainstream sites can avoid that route?

2. How do we hang on to our personal freedoms if the web is NOT free - when the mainstream feeds us censored pap - and only the wealthy can access uncensored information?

Originally posted by gYvAgain

Again - we still have the big questions:

1. How do we keep the web free - when alternative sites rely on 3rd party advertising, and only mainstream sites can avoid that route?

2. How do we hang on to our personal freedoms if the web is NOT free - when the mainstream feeds us censored pap - and only the wealthy can access uncensored information?


Can anyone answer these question for me?





tinkered

[edit on 8-3-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by gYvAgain


All this is about is using ad blocking software, and the economic impact it has on websites you visit.

You aren't stealing per se, it's just kinda rude.

They make money off of advertising. You get the content for absolutely nothing.

Least you can do for them is not having some program that disables the sites ability to make enough money to keep the site going.

What a funny thread. There are terms and conditions for the site, one of which is that you won't block ads. How odd that the site doesn't allow people to cherry pick which terms to follow and which to ignore.


And even stranger, the site takes a dim view of people openly admitting to violating terms, and in some cases encouraging others to do the same. This particular term impacts the only source of revenue the site has.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that the ownership has the effrontery to expect people to not be jerks and even more appalling, takes a dim view of people announcing in a very obvious and public way that not only do they violate said term, they have no intention of ever complying with it.

My world view has been shattered.

I'm finding it hard to understand some folks' attitude towards ATS ...

We live in a world which charges you for everything and at an increasing rate whilst giving you less. Everything is getting more expensive and everyday companies find new ways to charge us for things we used to get for free. Be it airlines, credit cards, gas stations, cable/satellite .... Furthermore, if it were up to the Murdochs of this world all content would be charged.

On the other side we have a website like ATS, which charges nothing, zero, ziltch, for its service. They don't force you to receive emails, and if I remember correctly doesn't even make you check a box to opt out from them sharing your email with their advertising partners when we join. Their ONLY source of revenue to mitigate the costs of building and maintaining a massive site, which they are always working on improving is a few unobtrusive (no external or flash popups) ads.

How do you expect them to pay their bills and their Bill?

Seriously though, what's with the entitlement?

[edit on 8 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by whatukno


Is he not stealing? I think, in point of fact, he is...

Some of us, myself included, though not to the extent of some here; work their collective butts off to post informative/interesting stuff for others to read and comment upon...and at the same time follow the very simple rules ATS asks us to follow.

Then folks like this guy come along flouting some, if not all those rules, yet still have the effrontery to utilize that information?

No, he's not holding a gun to our heads...he's just picking our pockets.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
You guys are way to polite about this. I like simple.

No Ad's = No ATS

No us = no ATS. We are ATS.

If the stats that I found are correct, it would mean that our community provides more than $18,000 a month in ad revenue or more than $200,000 / year, I find it hard to believe that the operational costs would exceed that.

Once again, I have little knowledge about e-commerce and these stats might not be correct.

However, (no offense intended) I do wonder if this thread is about 'devastation' of our community or about the sake of profitability.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by gYvAgain
To put this in perspective I have lost around 20-30 hours in the last year dealing with malicious payloads which I believe originated not from this site but from ads from this site.

I believe you may be mistaken. I've surfed here for years without logging in, and daily for the past 10 months with this account as a member. Never, not one time have I ever picked up anything malicious from here and I don't use an ad block or popup blocker.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm highly confident if you've experienced problems of that frequency and magnitude, a belief that it all originated from ads here is erroneous.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I have both internet explorer and firefox on my computer.
When I log in, using firefox, the ads on the sides are gone.
When I log in, using internet explorer,the ads on the sides
are back.I will use internet explorer from now on to log-in.

Look...if I want to block ads, I will, if I want to allow ads, I will...but it's my choice, and I can say the only thing I don't like about ATS, is that there is a rule stating you can't use ad blockers. I didn't say anything when administration brought up this topic last time, but I feel it's a user choice, and if you aren't making the required profit, be innovative, find new ways of attracting users and creating income...but don't complain to the customers if they choose not to view the annoying advertisements on the shop wall...

I do in fact use an ad blocker, I use the NoScript and Adblock Plus add-ons for Firefox (not used on ATS, I know the rules) . This allows me to manage scripts, manage page elements, enable ads and page elements such as flash animations, at my discretion. It also enables me to filter external connections, and disable them at will, and this is important, because it allows me to stop any connections to ad servers, which means the ad content cannot be delivered to the page I'm viewing...and over time I can fine tune my settings to automatically disallow connections to any websites I find suspicious, and automatically allow connections to websites I know are safe...and I don't know about others, but I wont allow every website I view to stream advertisements from external sources behind the scenes...I only want the content I'm after, on the website I'm browsing, any other connections are unnecessary in my opinion. Advertisements only crap on the look of the website and make pages take longer to load, not to mention, we have internet bills to pay also, and I wont let 3rd party advertisements constantly drain my download usage.

Sorry if this post offended anybody, but I felt I had a right to express my opinion and provide some facts, and don't get me wrong, I want to see ATS survive just as much as the next guy...

[edit on 8/3/10 by CHA0S]

Originally posted by gYvAgain
To put this in perspective I have lost around 20-30 hours in the last year dealing with malicious payloads which I believe originated not from this site but from ads from this site.

You're either exaggerating for sensationalist effect, or outright lying.

Of the ads for which we've been able to find and confirm are a nuisance, none initiated -- automatically -- the download or install of malicious payloads.

The reason I think you're probably lying is that you've never informed me, the person who is constantly proactively discussing the issue and asking for help from our members in helping with any data that may find anything malicious.

Originally posted by CHA0S
I didn't say anything when administration brought up this topic last time, but I feel it's a user choice...

Then, when considering "choice," would it be fair of us to choose to deny content to users who are blocking our only source of revenue that pays the bills that delivers the content?

Alright, I have to admit, I am one of those users that does not really read too much of eula's or T&C's I have just found out that I am not supposed to block ads.

If I suggested to anyone sorry. Did not know.

Apology given, ABP refreshed to allow all on site.

Still a question though, is it alright to block annoying picts and gifs? Or does that add work to the servers?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Well, as far as I can see, ATS isn't too heavy on advertisements, and you offer removal of ads (I think) when you reach a certain post/star level or something like that...so I think you are being more than fair, but it's obvious it isn't as easy as denying content to members if they choose to block ads, because any member has a lot more to give to this website than viewing ads, which could also lead them off your website, this is a "user-generated content ecosystem" after all.

[edit on 8/3/10 by CHA0S]

On a teeny weeny side note.

Images and video here (with the exception of Google Video and YouTube) must be uploaded onto the media centre for viewing within the constraints of the site.

Couldn't you just start up your own ad agency and charge more for them (no middle man) and vet them as you see fit within the site's design brief?

Sure it's more time - but it'd bring in another wage (at least) which could cover that end of it.

-m0r

Originally posted by soficrow

3. An ad-free subscription alternative?

The problem with that approach sofi, so far as I can see it, is that charging subscriptions would mean opening a whole new can of worms.

Let's face it, a great deal of ATS members aren't allergic to drama.

As such, what is already an often challenging enforcement of the t&c would become an permanent exercise in dealing with "I paid my money I should be able to say what I want" or "hey why did I get banned when this guy said this" ... you know, basically what happens now but with members armed with an even greater sense of entitlement that they already possess. It would be messy to the point of unfeasible. Whereas now, participation being free, there really is no argument for not following site parameters.

If I remember correctly both Springer and SO have consistently and emphatically repeated that ATS will never charge for its content.

Hence why the only way to generate any needed revenue is through advertising.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by whatukno

 

Is he not stealing? I think, in point of fact, he is...

If we are going to start pointing fingers then perhaps one should point one back. Do the ATS mods work for free? All that time, and no monetary reimbursement?

The main issue for people who use ad blocking software is the ads are over the top, annoying, and can at times pose a security risk. Tell me, should we just ignore the safety of our computers and allow annoying flashing ads, and what not?