Adblockers killing websites

Wow, pretty intresting.

if all sites did it and they couldn’t go anywhere, how many people would still use adblockers?

Brilliant. The answer is easy: the same number of “them” that should ever dare to even consider looking at a site run by someone who use expressions like “they couldn’t go anywhere” and thinks Internet is his property.

“They” are people, customers, decent people. What kind of business treats people like that: “they couldn’t go anywhere”…? We all know the answer, no need to spell it.

Oh, and “they” are just… " in a study conducted by PageFair/Adobe … 41% worldwide between 2014 and 2015, with 98% of those users on computers." Just peanuts.

Did anyone catch this? Opera has a built in ad-blocker now…
http://gizmodo.com/opera-now-has-built-in-ad-blockers-claimed-to-be-45-f-1763998274

Thanks cpradio. Here is a direct link:

Just to quote a few words from there:
[ads]…" turned out to be one of the major annoyances of web browsing. Today, bloated online ads use more download bandwidth than ever, causing webpages to load more slowly, at times covering the content that you’re trying to see or trying to trick you into clicking fake download buttons. Another rising concern is privacy and tracking of your online behavior."

It’s not only Apple, Samsung and Opera.

According to this article in The Register:

CK Hutchison’s Three network will become the first UK mobile operator to block ads (…) Apple and Samsung raised the stakes by helping users and developers to do this. But Three’s action is significantly different: it’s network-level blocking.

Hutch explains that (…) it’s implementing ad blocking "because customers should not pay data charges to receive adverts. These should be costs borne by the advertiser.” It added that “some advertisers use mobile ads to extract and exploit data about customers without their knowledge or consent”, and the overall experience is degraded by “excessive, intrusive, unwanted or irrelevant” advertising. Shine’s network-level blocking is more effective than app-by-app blockers, Three helpfully explains, “as it reaches a broader range of mobile advertising.”


It’s becoming absolutely clear that change has to happen. Why? It’s simple: people (the market) want a change; and as in any business -and History demonstrates that-, those who understand that before the others, have the lead. Staying in denial and stubbornly remaining attached to an anachronistic, failing model of abusive, bulling behaviour towards customers (yes, that’s what “they” are: customers, not dumb people), doesn’t seem to be the most intelligent move nowadays.

1 Like

I signed up for this site about although the updated forum says 2014. I was jumping back on to post a question about adblockers. I have lost 30% i would say over the last year alone.

There needs to be a fix it’s killing the basic way of life for 90% of content managers our there.

1 Like

Thank You for this interesting topic…
Appreciated… Will check again

If the site is really annoying I just scrape it and avoid even seeing the site. I decide what I want in my browser. I would be totally cool with adds that don’t nag me or squawk really loud at me.

I think the real tragedy is the print newspapers and magazines that are trying to wrench every penny out of their websites. They are so ugly. Some people in their organization are probably trying in earnest to produce content that is delightful to look at or maybe their article is compelling, unfortunately the ads are driving people away.

I wonder if the people that defend a wall of advertisements on their own site complain when they visit other websites… and THEY get the face full of ads.

I’m returning a bit late to this party:

That’s all well and good - so would I. The fact of the matter is, though, that I can flat guarantee you that every person using ad blockers is not “wanting to see advertising that isn’t invasive or disruptive”. I personally know quite a few people who could not care less what the purpose of your ads are, or their UX effects, they just want them blocked on principle. Period. And that’s a hugely popular attitude currently.

To be honest, this strikes me as silly. Most (most, not all, I know) malware that comes from ads is because people click the wrong ones. Most of the time, this is due to other bad practices - sites that don’t monitor what ads their networks show on their site, or try and limit it. Sites that make deals with the wrong kind of ad organizations. Users that don’t know how to operate the Internet safely. But it’s not the bleak picture you’re painting of ads stepping off the screen and punching people, or maliciously infecting computers just by being seen (again, most of the time, not saying never). That’s just sensational argument.


I feel like the argument of “use subscriptions” can be countered by the huge number of people who hate subscription models. What will you do when all content online requires subscriptions? Bet that won’t be a scenario that most anti-ad people will enjoy.

Affiliates and placed ads? Congratulations. Still ads. Still fall into the same category of blocking, or user anger when not blocked/blockable. Users don’t care where your ads come from or why, if they want all ads blocked - they will just want them blocked.

And again, a disclaimer - I hate ads as much as the next guy, especially intrusive ones. I use an ad blocker some of the time, on some domains. I’ve left sites because of annoyance of ads. I’m with you. But the proposed solutions are often just as silly as the original problem.

A few points i’d like to add…

I do at times use adblockers because like a lot of others i get fed up with 50 things screaming at me to do something. I am especially fed up with things i’ve looked at turning up on every website i subsequently visit. I’ve looked at presents for people and then constantly have to hide my screen when they appear in adverts on every website i look at. Stop following me!

Security issues - just the other day some of the biggest websites helped spread a load of ransomeware http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-sites-new-york-times-bbc-ransomware-malvertising

Browsers have changed and are providing viewing options without ads. Take a look at the ‘reader mode’ in FF which is cutting the crap and just showing the main content. Perhaps they realise how difficult it is to read actual content now.

I don’t think ad blockers have anything to do with the increase in Ads or the ways they are forced upon users. It’s all money. Everything is so saturated with people trying to sell you stuff they just shout louder. Ever noticed how TV adverts get a lot louder than the tv show you are watching! I have to turn the volume down in ad breaks. You can’t even go to toilet in a service station without 50 adverts on the way in, behind the sinks, behind the urinals, on the back of the toilet doors…

Everyone is trying to convince you to buy some pointless rubbish you don’t need. It’s tiring and just because people decided to base their business on it doesn’t mean that is the correct thing to do, the internet was for the sharing of information and was given freely for that purpose. Not so people could try and sell me a timeshare in the Bahamas or a pair of Nike trainers. If you hate people who adblock because they are ‘taking’ money off the website owners give a thought to the Highstreet shop owner who is closing up because they can’t compete with the guy selling stuff online out of a spare bedroom.

just my thoughts

2 Likes

I hate that too. Partly because it brings home that idea you are being observed and tracked, but also it’s quite pointless in my case. I only buy stuff on-line when I need to buy stuff on-line, not every time some flashing box tells me I should. By principle I never click on ads. So on the rare occasions I want to buy something, I may Google it, find where it’s on offer at the right price, then buy it. Then I’m subsequently stalked by this product that I have already bought. No, I don’t want to buy it again, I already have one on its way.

2 Likes

I dropped Flattr.com because it is no longer supported :frowning:

A friend introduce me to this site which looks quite interesting especially since it appears to be a successful alternative to Adsense and appears to work regardless of Adblocking.

Thanks, but I wouldn’t call it “amazing, revealing, spectacular” :slight_smile: . I’d just say it’s a realistic observation, based on daily news from many tech and other kind of sources, plus many posts in forums like this, including of course in first place, your own:

Good to have agreement on a controversial point!

Interestingly, however, you declare my argumentation “silly”. You also deem most of the contributing ideas by others equally silly:

…which of course implies -or at least creates the wish in us with silly ideas- that you do have the non silly solution. So please, we long for it: kindly disclose it and end our misery.

Argumentum ad hominem is a tactic behind an attitude that I dislike and am not available for, much less being targeted at.

I didn’t know that the only way to trigger an event handler was clicking. Or that troubles only affect fools that click everywhere on the wrong buttons on repulsive sites. Funny, I do see crap when I disable ad-blockers. I thought I knew quite a bit of these things. Perhaps silly fingers inadvertently clicked horrible flamming buttons (stupid fingers!).

I thought jumping pop-up and pop-under, pop whatever, flashing crazy crap, unwanted sounds, hijacking windows or modals, and another zillion of things that totally disrupt my browsing, could be somehow reasonably described using a metaphor that means “they freaking disturb me like a punch in my stomach”. I wouldn’t imagine someone would read it so literally. Sorry about that: no, they don’t actually step off the screen and send me to the hospital.

So it’s gotta be people’s own fault, right?. It sounds as if perhaps all those intrusive trackers, fingerprints, keyloggers, disturbing popups or pop-unders, hijacking objects, fake widgets, malvertising, etc. are actually a good punishment for clicker idiots that cannot guess what event objects, handlers or scripts to avoid. Perhaps everybody should learn advanced Javascript before ever using Internet? Interesting point of view, but quite disturbing in my opinion. It would be like having a magician trying to entertain another magician with a known trick. A con man conning a con man. No fools to fool.

Allow me however, to provide a hint on the concern about “forms of malware and just simple violent disruptive/disturbing and/or invasive/abusive unsolicited bad quality stuff”: Your own words provide support to my “silly” argumentation.

You point out (and damn right!!) sites not handling things properly, and especially: Users that don’t know how to operate the Internet safely.

I presume we could pacefully agree that those users are at least the majority. Couldn’t we? I mean: how many internet users out there do NOT master trivial concepts like the DOM, ECMA 5/6, closures, prototyping, AJAX, event handlers, canvas fingerprinting, evercookies, phishing, support scams, spoofing, man in the middle, sniffing, reconnaissance attacks, cross-site scripting, malvertising, ransomware, keylogging, … ?

But even if we don’t agree on how many not highly qualified software engineers use the internet (fools?): What could all those poor fellow citizens do once they would read any of these (small sample), trivial to found every-day-information bits:

Malvertising Campaign via Pop-under Ads Sends CryptoWall 4
Major sites including New York Times and BBC hit by ‘ransomware’ malvertising
(…forum rules only allow me to put here only two links…)

You say advertising, I say block that malware ( search for engadget.com 2016/01/08 you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware )
How spyware peddler Hacking Team was publicly dismantled ( search for engadget.com 2015/07/09/ how-spyware-peddler-hacking-team-was-publicly-dismantled )
I’ve started getting pop-under ads every time I launch Firefox (check support.mozilla.org questions/969218)

, …and so on, and so forth…

So if those who “don’t know how to operate the Internet safely” (and those who know?) would find a thing that helps: In which Universe wouldn’t they try to defend themselves? Is this sensationalistic? Ok, so what should they do (I repeat: do): ignore it?

If not professionally: how many friends, colleagues, neighbours, and family members have many of us been requested to help fixing/protecting/recovering their digital things?

No, really: Deeming silly and scandalmongering to be concerned/pissed about (and act upon!) many “forms of malware and just simple violent disruptive/disturbing and/or invasive/abusive unsolicited bad quality stuff” means we are also “silly-ing up” the likes of Apple, Samsung, Opera, Firefox, CK Hutchison’s Three network, … and all those who actually use ad-blockers (from allegedly reputable sources in some posts in this thread, nearly half of the Internet users). Denial, anyone?

A bold premise like that thrills me to read its demonstration. Especially when I am not in the “every person” section of it. The next sentence brings the “because…”:

Oh, circular reasoning and hasty generalization. Ergo, whatever. Q.E.D. .

1 Like

7 Likes

I dont think you can calculate the amount you loose by Ads blockers… Is there any way then please let me know. Thanks in Advance

Calculate, no, Estimate, perhaps.

IMHO ad blockers have become a scapegoat for why the tactic of placing ads fails to live up to expectations.

Not passing judgement. It’s human nature to choose the easier path of Blaming (subjective) than it is to analyze the situation critically (objective)

1 Like

No one looses or tightens anything by ad blockers.

You can tell how much you LOSE via adblockers by measuring bandwidth to determine how much bandwidth you are paying for that doesn’t load the ads.

2 Likes

I find this discussion to be getting a little tedious, to be honest. You’re specifically picking apart my posts, altering my intent, and drawing your own factless conclusions from my words. And as you say, we actually agree on many points, so I don’t see the point, really. But here goes.

  • Sensational: “presenting information in a way that is intended to provoke public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy.”
  • I do hate ads. But that doesn’t mean I can’t find other people’s conclusions to be incorrect, even if they also hate ads. And me hating ads doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re necessary, either (or that I do).
  • “You also deem most of the contributing ideas by others equally silly” - the quote is “are often as silly” - if you’re going to nit pick at the post, do it accurately. I’ve never once said that most ideas contributed to this problem (here or elsewhere) are blanket silly because they’re not mine.

.which of course implies -or at least creates the wish in us with silly ideas- that you do have the non silly solution. So please, we long for it: kindly disclose it and end our misery.

You don’t have to have a solution to see that another solution won’t work. If there’s an asteroid hurtling towards Earth next week and I suggest that we fire catapaults of rocks at it to deter it, or that perhaps that the root cause is Zeus, who has become really angry, taken up residence on the moon, and started hurling rocks at us… do you have to have real explanations or solutions to decry mine? Extreme example, but you get what I mean.

The solution to the ad problem can’t just be those of us who dislike ads angrily stomping our feet and demanding an end to ads. It requires the industry to find ways of satisfying both your anger at ads, your anger at paywall’d content, the need for everything to be free… and still remain in business to provide the content you want. It’s a hard problem to solve.

Hence the word most. Again, you’re disagreeing with something I didn’t say, and slathering on the sarcasm, for no other reason than to attempt to make me look stupid personally.

You must travel to widely different sites than I to be able to lump all ads together in the description you just wrote. Most ads I see are nowhere close to resembling any of that.

And you’ve been doing a lot of literal reading here, why wouldn’t I? :laughing:

Again, run with arguing against something I didn’t say. My point is that the actual act of choosing to display ads isn’t causing people harm in a lot of cases. It’s the fact that we don’t teach Internet users about basic safety. It’s the fact that owners of websites have no idea what they’re doing sometimes. It’s about people being unaware of how to find ads to place other than from massive ad networks. It’s about them not knowing how to tweak those networks, when they can, to give them certain types of ads only. What I’m saying is that those things are the problems.

Never did I say, or imply, that a user needs to learn advanced JS before using the Internet.

Read statements carefully before responding to something someone didn’t say. Again. I can guarantee that every single person does not have that intention. That means all I need to do is prove that a single one does not want to see ads, disruptive or not. I can definitely do that. I don’t really care whether you or I are in that group or not.

Now, to the one section where we aren’t just being sarcastic and inferring things that aren’t there, personally directed argument rather than actual organized discussion:

Yes.

I absolutely agree. In my mind, what people see is that ads are annoying. Sometimes minorly so, sometimes as you’ve said, invasively so - pop ups and the like. They probably don’t often even recognize a risk, it’s just an annoyance. And so they find a two click (or whatever) solution to take that problem away. Of course they’d do it. Definitely.


As I said. I think the real issue I have with this thread is that we are all (you included, along with me) not coming up with viable solutions that suit everyone - just like the entire Internet hasn’t for years now. The problem is that if content is to be free, at the moment, for the most part, it is ad supported. The problem is that some ads are annoying, some are intrusive, and some are downright malicious in nature. The problem is that ad blockers, for the most part, block all ads, and most users are not interested in ads at all, circling back to the first point - good content providers need those ads to survive.

I would support an ad blocking solution that blocked pop ups, flashing neon ads, ads with malicious code or with links to disreputable sites, but left the rest whitelisted. But that’s not what a lot of users want, they see ads as synonymous with malware, or synonymous with annoyance, and they don’t want them period. So what would satisfy me as a solution here isn’t what would satisfy the person next door, or the person across the world from me, either.

3 Likes

@jeffreylees
Yep, I have to admit that I find myself agreeing with most of what you have said, sarcasms and nit picking apart, which -I peacefully agree- in general tend to be superfluous, even if occasionally entertaining. In fact I have -sincerely- liked your post. That’s actually cool. :relaxed:

3 Likes

So… now we all we need is to put the Awesome Collective Power of SitePoint onto the task of finding a way to have free-for-all content on the web while still supporting creators - and not alienating viewers along the way?

That sounds impossible or maybe cynical, but really, much harder tasks have been done with far fewer available minds!

I think some kind of
New content - with ads or fee
Old Content - no ads, no fee
model could work.

2 Likes