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

There's an important article on ArsTechnica.com (one of my favorite technology sites) about ad-blocking, and how it can cause harm to the sites you love to visit. All of it applies to ATS, since we're also a high-trafficked site, the vast majority of our ads are paid based on views as well:

Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. Because we are a technology site, we have a very large base of ad blockers. Imagine running a restaurant where 40% of the people who came and ate didn't pay. In a way, that's what ad blocking is doing to us. Just like a restaurant, we have to pay to staff, we have to pay for resources, and we have to pay when people consume those resources. The difference, of course, is that our visitors don't pay us directly but indirectly by viewing advertising.

Read the article for more information.


If you use ad-blockers (although I personally feel you shouldn't, and it's the advertising industry's responsibility to deliver clean ads), please take the extra effort to white-list your favorite sites. Running a big, high-trafficked site is increasingly more expensive, and as traffic increases, those expenses rise exponentially. For example, when we factor-in the page-views of bots and search-spiders, our servers deliver nearly 1 million pages every day (more on busy days)... that's an average of nearly twelve pages-per-second... and the infrastructure to support that demand isn't cheap.

So be kind to your favorite sites.







If you're using Ad Block Plus in FireFox (the most popular), simply click on the down-arrow next to the "ABP" red stop-sign in the upper right of your browser, then select "Disabled on AboveTopSecret.com"



[edit on 8-3-2010 by SkepticOverlord]

I do love that website, and have read a few other articles that discussed the same thing.

It's really a shame that some people don't understand how much they are hurting sites like ATS just because they don't want to be annoyed with something flashing on the left or right side of the screen.

We've really become a complacent bunch haven't we?

Then again, you won't see many people declaring they use AddBlocker as it's one of the ways to have yourself shown the door here, and for good reason.

~Keeper

It's another conspiracy:

1. Marginalize websites offering conspiracy, alternative viewpoints and other public services.
2. Force alternative websites to use 3rd party advertising to support themselves and stay online.
3. Convince people that such ad exposure is irritating and infringes on personal privacy.
4. Get people to block ads and support Internet regulation.
5. Put the alternatives out of business, and so:

6. Force people into the mainstream or off the Internet in disgust.

[Not perfectly accurate I know, but the best I could do off the top of my head without breakfast and only one cup of java.]

reply to post by gYvMessanger


Not to nit pick or anything.

But if your a tech guru, then by all means you have the programs that alert you to these types of problems and should take care of them as they come along, with minimal effort and or damage even if one came through.

So what's the problem?

I've had the odd add attempt to install something, however my hardware and software are configured to fight anything that gets through and even if it does, as said it's easy to remove and easy to fix.

No need to completely block out all the adds for a few bad apples if you know what to do when you are targeted, don't you agree?

~Keeper

Well, if ads and commercials, especially commercials, werent so annoying, stupid, manipulative, insulting and to top it off, they play on peoples emotions, fear, pity, and sympathy, just to drive their product down your throat, a product that we probably dont need anyway

Also, there is nothing worse than clicking on a link to a site and being hit with an 80 db ad that flashes so bright that it should be on the Las Vegas strip.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by gYvMessanger

 

No need to completely block out all the adds for a few bad apples if you know what to do when you are targeted, don't you agree?

~Keeper

I don't. I think what you just wrote is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. One has an obligation to accept not only third-party software, but knowingly malicious third-party software because one is experienced enough to know that such software exists and may have protective measures installed on their computer? There's supporting a favorite web site and there's crazy.

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by gYvMessanger

 

No need to completely block out all the adds for a few bad apples if you know what to do when you are targeted, don't you agree?

~Keeper

I don't. I think what you just wrote is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. One has an obligation to accept not only third-party software, but knowingly malicious third-party software because one is experienced enough to know that such software exists and may have protective measures installed on their computer? There's supporting a favorite web site and there's crazy.

My point was that compared to other websites, something like getting malware or a rootkit on ATS if fairly rare, therefore I don't see the need to have a lazy addblock program to deal with things that normal users should know how to deal with in the first place.

I just think it's silly that somebody who claims to not be a computer noob would NEED addblock to protect themselves against one or two instances of aggresive adds on ATS.

I mean have adblock by all means, just add ATS to the ok list and deal with any problem that comes along.

Edit: If that's the most ridiculous thing you've ever read, I assume you don't read much? Especially not from our Skunk Works forum or the 9/11 conspiracies board?

~Keeper

[edit on 3/7/2010 by tothetenthpower]

I feel that we get a good deal here on ATS, no fee's to pay, no membership. I must admit i get pissed off when the CSI pop up ad keeps popping up!!! but ATS needs funds to keep the site running, as its pay per view for them here at ATS as far as advertising goes, I think the least we can do is put up with a few ads, a little thank-you to the owners, and if people dont like it, well really they should go open their own site!!!!

[edit on 7-3-2010 by cosmodromia tis parnasida]

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by gYvMessanger

 

No need to completely block out all the adds for a few bad apples if you know what to do when you are targeted, don't you agree?

~Keeper

I don't. ...There's supporting a favorite web site and there's crazy.

Will you help me out here please?

It's a conundrum:

a. If we don't support the site and accept 3rd party ads / pop-ups, then sites like ATS will go out of business; but

b. You say, if we don't use ad-blockers, we're vulnerable to viruses and trojans and the like.

...Seems to me there must be a third option.

I do NOT want ATS to be unsupported.

What do you recommend, as a techie? ...How do we protect ourselves AND support ATS at the same time?

Without having to cough up cash we don't have for "subscriptions" to everything that interests us? ...which is what the mainstream is trying to force us into...

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
No need to completely block out all the adds for a few bad apples if you know what to do when you are targeted, don't you agree?

Hear hear!

As for the illiterate we should hang them each morning at dawn for being so stupid and as a warning to anyone who thinks they can get by without the rudimentary computing knowledge of a 4 year old.

Alternatively

You guys can match me off with stopping the idiotic, and potentially dangerous, posts being allowed to continue whilst shutting down anything fueled by critical thinking and I'll continue to look at your ads (The black kid in the right hand side panel b[]really adds to this site).

So you've come begging and I've said I'm already looking but will consider stopping now that you've asked thateweverymuch!

-m0r

reply to post by tothetenthpower


No I dont agree.

As I have said many times I would happily pay a membership fee. I wont leave myself open to malicious software though.

NVM... I don't wanna convolute the thread and derail it.

To each his own my friend...

~Keeper

[edit on 3/7/2010 by tothetenthpower]

I've been here on ATS since late 2005, and I spend what some might consider an inordinate amount of time here...meaning lot's and lot's...and I've never had anything malicious, other than that irritating mosquito ad, come at me from here, or from the ads...

I don't think SO is asking all that much really...

[edited 4:17 pm, Sunday 03-07-10]

Demographics.
People on the whole probably won't donate as much to sites that on the short time scale, result in both increased cognitive dissonance and less trust. The cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of running a great site that attempts to anchor colossal contributors to a common ground. The provocative thought attracts the curious. Flame wars will be had. Personalities will collide. But trust is something that requires more active understanding.

Approaching the User.
Appropriate quality and quantity of energy in connecting with individuals is very important in business and in life. To that end the Louisianians have Lagniappe, that little something extra, so when you get good Louisiana service you know it and remember it. In that spirit, I appreciate all the little things that the moderators and contributors have done to make ATS that much more appealing.

My One Complaint.
As far as forum do-hickies and thing-a-ma-bobs are concerned... I'm rather content, with one exception, as a programmer. In response to the complaint of ad-click revenue lost due to adblocking, the problem isn't the adblockers themselves, but you are really dealing with a fundamental trust issue.

I type into the search field my previous post entitled:
"Mass sterilization campaign Exposed! This Includes You ... 20 posts - 10 authors - Last post: Apr 5, 2009."
The title is correct. The post count is 20 posts if you only count the first page out of five. Besides myself I counted 37 usernames posting: Aeons, SemperParatusRJCC, andy1033, FunSized, Iamonlyhuman, magickmaster, Neo_Serf, Indianapolis, Michelle129, rival, Amaterasu, nunya13, dizziedame, Truth4hire, secretagent woooman, chiron613, anonamousantichrist, John_Q_Llama, MaMaa, VelmaLu, reugen, LostNemesis, T0by, george_gaz, RubberBaron, Flighty, korath, mysterybee, Equinox99, cliffjumper68, Twisted Pair, ron.johnson, OhZone, jprophet420, Flux8, DerelictJ, Pellevoisin. The last post date shown in the search results is April 5, 2009. The actual first post was on May 4, 2009, the actual last post was February 3, 2010. For reference many European countries write their numbered dates as DD/MM/YEAR in contrast to the American date format MM/DD/YEAR. If the problem is in that context, the search engine results may just be giving the "first post date" read incorrectly as the european date format. That's just my example, out of all of the threads with this problem.

And I'm aware that the TAN TOS Disclaimer of Warranties Heading IV frees management from being required to do anything about such an across the board error. But it would do your readership some good if someone doing the board's code would assuage this concern, if even by explaining how I am misunderstanding the way or reason those post/author count date tags end up on the search results. My point is that if management is concerned with pay-per-click revenue, it would do them some good to label what is fresh as fresh. As it is currently set up, the fresh can appear old in search results, and that is a nontrivial loss of revenue and as such a management concern and I bring it to your attention. I pulled the plug on a coffee machine that cost 180 bucks a month in electricity to run for one coffee drinker...boiled water all day...felt good to pull the plug. Now it's your turn. Get to work. and good luck


[edit on 7-3-2010 by elusive1]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


If doing whats necessary to prevent something malicious from ever reaching you PC is lazy, then the same could be said for the people running Mcafee or any other program that intercepts a virus before it has a chance to execute.

And i guess that configuring my router to filter out certain scripts is being lazy too?
by the way its called being proactive, not lazy.
Didnt your grandma every tell you that "an ounce of preventions is worth a pound of cure?"

I believe in it enough, and have experienced it enough that I was willing to take a warning on my account because I think this is a very two sided story.

The staff will love to tell you they dont get anything malicious from here, but there are plenty of regular community members who will tell you a very different story.

Nice site rundown chief, a good article to keep us informed that most of the internet sites revenue is done by ads! If ads weren't so damn annoying people wouldn't have to use ad blockers.

I surf the net (along with the adult oriented sites ) and i can't stand it when you click on something that leads to a redirect page or spams popup windows! That's the problem.

reply to post by gYvMessanger


Believe or not, as you choose... Calling us, or me, a liar doesn't change the fact any...

I have ad-block but allow everything on this site.

One of the few sites I trust.

Furthermore, when there is an issue with an ad, ATS is pretty quick to respond.