Comments on: How to Block the Advert Blockers

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:17:17 +0000

IMHO not a good approach for three reasons:
1. Most website owners use some kind of CMS, hacking around in it is usually not a good idea (think: updates).
2. If someone uses an adblocker, s/he effectively makes the statement: I won’t click anyway. Trying to force those people to see banners is a vain attempt for PPC ads.
3. Someone, who does not click on ads may still give backlinks.

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:26:19 +0000

@AutisticCuckoo
Ok, but corporate and public environments tend to have locked-down PCs. Those users won’t be able to enable JS or disable a blocker, so detailed instructions would be useless … you might as well keep the “rude” message!

Joking aside, this all leads us to the same conclusion: blocking the blockers is not clever.

By: AutisticCuckoo

AutisticCuckoo — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:38:52 +0000

But what makes you think ad-blocking users are non-savvy?

I didn’t say ad-blocking users are non-savvy. But it’s not impossible that non-savvy people use ad blocking. Perhaps a more savvy friend or relative installed it for them? Perhaps the company IT department did?

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:24:17 +0000

@AutisticCuckoo

You are not providing alternate content, you’re just providing a rude message which many non-savvy users wouldn’t even understand.

Hold on there! Website owners can use whatever text they like … they could provide highly detailed instructions, or even a summary of the premium content the user’s missing. The example above is brief – because it’s an example!

But what makes you think ad-blocking users are non-savvy? Could a novice install Firefox and AdBlock then add regex rules? It also takes a little knowledge to disable JavaScript and doing so blocks many adverts too.

My point is: yes you can block the blockers, but you will cause accessibility issues and harm your business…

By: Shady Aidy

Shady Aidy — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:16:26 +0000

I would in this situation produce ‘premium content’ in such a way that e.g. premium images get blocked. The user can still read the article I’ve produced but won’t get the really nice high res piccys – maybe modify this approach so that they only get a grainy low-res image instead?
I stand on both sides of the fence here – I don’t use adblockers directly because I don’t agree with them, but I do add an entry to my hosts file in order to block ads that either give me Javascript pop-up errors (in IE – poorly coded JS powered adverts popping up debug alerts all over the place p!$$ me off more than annoying adverts – and don’t tell me to use FF, browser zealots – it’s MY choice, I’m comfortable with it and like it. I use FF for testing and development only) or induce migraines.
I know that adblockers have ‘exceptions’, but, not having any imperative data at hand to go on, I would rely on the good old human psyche to tell me that the average user who uses an adblocker will rarely, if ever, grant an exception.

By: AutisticCuckoo

AutisticCuckoo — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:37:36 +0000

You are not providing alternate content, you’re just providing a rude message which many non-savvy users wouldn’t even understand.

And you’re not telling the user how to fix the problem, if that user is unable to enable JavaScript. For instance, using a public computer in a library, or in a corporate environment where scripting is disabled centrally or blocked by a firewall.

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:00:25 +0000

@SpacePhoenix

Could the technique described be classed as cloaking…

That’s an interesting thought. IMHO, I wouldn’t have thought so – most people and search engines will see the page as you intended. Only those modifying the page themselves – via AdBlock or disabling JS – would have a different experience.

Strictly speaking, I doubt it’s breaking accessibility laws either (they’re not that specific). You’re only preventing access for “unsupported” browsers and providing alternative content telling the user how to fix the problem.

That said, it goes against the spirit of accessibility. If you want to hide premium content, then make people register or pay for it. That’s a far better overall solution than content blocking.

By: SpacePhoenix

SpacePhoenix — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:56:13 +0000

Could the technique described be classed as cloaking, which if I remember correctly will get a site banned from search engines. If a site gets banned from search engines, it won’t get found very much and the sites revenue would then drop a lot more.

Also anyone who uses the noscript FireFox add-on would not see the content. If the technique breaks accessibility then the site could perhaps fall foul of accessability laws.

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:16:15 +0000

You could have made them by integrating it into this one but you didn't!?

It was originally, but it became far too long and had too many points. Anyway, it's now available - read Why Blocking Ad Blockers Will Fail...

By: NetNerd85

NetNerd85 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:07:58 +0000

Hopefully they’ll also read the next post…

You could have made them by integrating it into this one but you didn’t!?