Comments on: Why Blocking Ad Blockers Will Fail

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:56:06 +0000

I am sick of all you people who claim that because I block ads it makes me a freeloader. If you a website I use wants me to see an ad all that is needed is a plain text ad. No ad blocker I know of blocks plain text. All these websites need to do is check for java, flash, and all the other insane technologies they use and where these options are not available then deliver a plain text ad. If they can do this (and many sites do) to keep you off the site for refusing ads they can also provide a plain text alternative. The Internet is and will always be a text based media. All the sights and sounds in the world will not change that fact. So website owners If you want me to see an ad deliver it in the native format of the Internet “plain text”

By: Debiprasad

Debiprasad — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:17:25 +0000

The users who mostly click on the ads never want to use any adblocks. Also, the majority of people who click on the Google Link ads, think that those are normal site link. So blocking Adblocks are not going to increase your revenue.

By: brothercake

brothercake — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:23:32 +0000

I came up with a way of unblocking ads which are blocked with adblock, and nobody found a way to circumvent it … until I published one – because it was never my intention to unblock ads, only to get a conversation going — see http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/02/05/unblocking-adblock/ and the comments to that post are particualrly interesting.

I don’t accept for a second that blocking ads harms revenue; and if you feel it does, then your revenue model is broken. If you want to charge for content, then do so; if your content is free then make it free; but don’t make it apparently free while actually expecting to make revenue from it – which is exactly the attitude that those who complain about adblocking are taking.

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:09:20 +0000

@dgibson
I’m sorry you didn’t find the series of articles useful. I agree that server-side advert generation can get around many ad-blocking issues, but those solutions are in the minority (and it’s still possible to block them).

Understandably, the majority of ad agencies issue JavaScript or iframe-based advertisements. They’re easy to implement, dynamic, require minimal support, and work on any website – even free space without server-side facilities.

Of course, files can be blocked in a variety of ways. However, 50 million downloads of AdBlock Plus provides one of the most compelling reasons to be careful with file names. If you are aware of other mainstream blocking technologies, please post your experiences here – it could help other web developers avoid the issues.

By: dgibson

dgibson — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:56:40 +0000

This whole series has been filled with logical holes, fallacies, and missed points. I don’t even know where to start other than to disregard it and be annoyed with the low quality articles being allowed on Sitepoint (where I usually like the content). But the latest comment saying “you’d need to update your page every time an advert changed” really illustrates my point. In the day and age of database driven sites, how can someone even say this? I’ve run direct-sales ads on one site that are served up by an ad engine and inserted directly into my pages and they worked great. Having a server side process to serve your ads as part of the page generally works great and is not blocked by default unless your naming gets it blocked.

The issue of naming has actually been around for MANY years. Back in the day, there were lists of blacklisted terms to avoid thanks to overreaching “security” suites from Norton/Symantec, etc. that used brute force blocking out of the box for several versions. So overall, it’s a good practice to avoice certain terms. It’s a more compelling case when it’s not presented as an ad-block specific issue, however.

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:03:58 +0000

That’s conjecture. You don’t know that people with ad-blockers will click less ads. They might click more because they see fewer.

Well, if that’s the case, you still can’t win – you’re still hiding the page from them.

Realistically, though, people install ad blockers because they don’t want to view adverts and never click them. I suppose oniomaniacs might find them useful too!

By: koyama

koyama — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:54:49 +0000

It is also worth mentioning that users can add a custom style sheet which cannot be overridden by the site. If the ads can be targeted via CSS, then they can also be set to display: none !important. This may not prevent the ads from being downloaded and thus occupying band width, but it can hide them from display.

The Stylish add-on for Firefox has made it easier to share site specific style sheets. As one can see, style sheets that hide ads are popular. If this utility becomes more popular, the question is whether sites will now also try to make it harder to target ads with CSS?

By: mikemike

mikemike — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:41:18 +0000

That’s conjecture. You don’t know that people with ad-blockers will click less ads. They might click more because they see fewer.

By: Craig Buckler

Craig Buckler — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:16:54 +0000

@Tarh
Yep – that’s a good point. Greasemonkey or anything else that intercepts the HTML (proxy servers) can change the code and remove embedded ads. It’s a little tougher – especially if there’s no distinct pattern to the advert code – but it can be done.

Site owners should realise that anyone can remove or modify pages in any way they like. There’s no point fighting it.

By: Tarh

Tarh — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:49:29 +0000

Even adverts directly encoded into the HTML can be blocked by addons such as Greasemonkey. As you said, it’s fundamentally impossible to block ad blockers (in the same way that it’s fundamentally impossible to stop pirates).