What are your thoughts on Ad-Blocker software?

I just thought at this: what do you think if ad-blocker softwares like AdBlock, uBlock, etc. will implement a feature that (if a website meets certain parameters*) they just show you at first the page with the ads, and then give you insantly -eg. with a popup- the choice to “block” the website or to just to continue to view it with those ads normally.

* for example if the website doesn’t have some specific “bad ads”, like those who automatically open a new tab, or does who open in background, etc.

AdBlock allow sites that meet certain criteria with their ads to be included in an exception list where the browser owner will see those ads unless they specifically block the ads on that site.

They consider image ads to be too obtrusive to get on that exception list - to get on the list you must have text only ads.

Its far simpler to just set up your site so that if the ads are blocked then some or all of the content is too. You can do that without needing the ad blockers to do anything.

I think it’s redundant, adblock users don’t want to see any ads at all.

I never have considered it along this way. I utilize adblock for chrome a reasonable piece yet just stop video advertisements like on youtube. How either in the wake of perusing this I’m presently going to uninstall it.

Where the ads are what pays for the content that means they want to steal the content. As no site can survive if all their content gets stolen this means an alternate method of charging those people will need to be introduced.

As suggested earlier in the thread those who are not prepared to pay for the content by having the ads visible may be asked to pay cash instead.

Today there are already ant-adblock companies starting to over-ride the adblockers and do things similar to your suggestion.

Sorry - I have to take issue with that. There are legitimate reasons why people install ad-blockers. As I said in another current thread:

I’m happy to disable the ad-blocker for sites I want to use, provided it causes me no difficulties in doing so. (There is little benefit to either me or the site owner if I disable the ad blocker and then find the site unusable.)

A good example, IMHO, is Font Squirrel. If you visit with an ad-blocker enabled, you see a polite message:

I appreciate the service, they offer, so I enabled ads, found they are static and cause no problems, and have now whitelisted the site.

So please don’t portray all users of ad-blockers as conscienceless thieves.


If the conditions for viewing a web site are to view the ads then blocking the ads is stealing. If you don’t want to pay what they charge for viewing their site then don’t view it.

If the site is unusable because of the ads then go somewhere else instead. I find that unusable sites are unusable with or without the ads so just blocking the ads is pointless. Sometimes I find that unusable sites become usable with JavaScript disabled but that isn’t specifically ad related.

Adblocking on a site you don’t own yourself is stealing. If the ads make a site unusable then encourage them to make their ads less obtrusive by not visiting rather than encouraging them to make the ads more obtrusive by blocking them.

A thief is still a thief whether they accept that they are stealing or not.

I wonder if instead of blocking ads there was an “ad muffle” type of thing if people would use it.

For example, reduce color intensity, prevent animation, display image captures of flash, add a close for non-closable ads. etc.

In other words, make obnoxious intrusive ads more palatable.


Well if someone is using adblock than for sure he don’t want to see any ads at all :wink: Sometimes when I am watching some youtubers which i subscribe I am turning it off to let them earn but beside that I don’t want to see tons of pop-up’s etc.

I have no issue with paying to use a site, and as I’ve said already, I’m willing to enable ads on sites I want to use.

The problem I’m trying to highlight is that some people have no option but to disable ads in order to use the Internet.

Now I’m sure you’re not suggesting that disabled people should be banned from the Internet. But until there is a way to display ads which does not interfere with their ability to use a site, I’d be interested to know what solution you would propose (which doesn’t involve branding all concerned as wilful criminals).

@felgall, I don’t agree with you at all.

For me there legit reasons to use an ad blocker. Most people that use it do so because people abuse of ads on their sites and even intefere on how the site works. And, of course, there’s the security aspect of it. Although sometimes is not intentional, you can get all kind of malware and stuff from an ad.

If the website owner only cares about monetizing his site, that’s his prerrogative. But mine is to block them.

Now, if ads were not that annoying and there were less people with bad intentions, it will be quite likely that many people would leave them, if only because they’re too lazy to bother.

But if it gets to a point where it is annoying to no end, people will install an ad blocker… and most of them will not know that they could block the ads of one page but not the ads from other page, if they so wish. Or even if they knew, they’d be too lazy to bother configuring the software.

So it is likely that thanks to one greedy guy, other people are suffering the consequences


Why even visit sites like that - with the exception of Government sites where you don’t have any choice about trying to work around all the problems in the site - there are always other sites around that provide the same or similar information. Simply go to one of the alternatives that doesn’t have the obtrusive ads. That’s what I always do.

At one point the SitePoint ads started to become more obtrusive. I was starting to think about abandoning visiting SitePoint - I didn’t even consider blocking the ads that pay for the site.

It is quite likely that I got there thanks to Google and that I’m trying to get some specific info… and even more likely that I will not visit again.

Having said that, there are a few occassions that I need regular info about a specific subject and not many sites may have the level of depth I need but a few.

If the ads don’t bother me, they will likely stay. But if the ads do annoy me, they’ll be blocked.

And the nature of internet is to share information… and those who want to sell it, normally do so by asking you to pay a monthly fee


I don’t think many sites offering a serious information resource are just giving it away - many are still trying to make the money from ads so that they don’t have to introduce a fee. The increase in adblocker use will increase the number of sites forced to charge those blocking the ads a fee for access but at the moment most still rely on advertising.

After all SitePoint isn’t charging a fee - yet.

I’ve had problems with windows crashing at random over the last couple of days, on abblock+ I’ve just selected for it to not even allow unobtrusive ads and have seen an instant and noticeable performance in page load speeds and stability. I had already ruled out windows updates and a driver update by system restoring to before the last updates


Over the last few months I’ve interviewed more than a hundred individuals of all ages and demographics about ad-blocking. Nearly everyone would use blockers if they had the technical wherewithal to do it. It may surprise felgall that people in the advertising and publishing industries use ad-blockers as much as anyone!

The most offensive formats are video pre-roll ads and full screen pop-ups.

The industry has to change to ad models that are less intrusive. It doesn’t make sense to endure a 15-30 second ad for every 90 second video clip you want to watch. And downloading 2.5MB in order to peruse a 250KB website is just plain ridiculous, particularly when views have shifted massively to mobile where users are paying exorbitant bandwidth charges, marked up by VZW and ATT 250x over the wholesale cost of bandwidth.

Annoying the public is not a good formula for any long term business plan. The real problem is that there is huge resistance to change in an industry - digital advertising - that is spinning off $68 billion in revenue this year. It’s like changing course for a mile long overloaded ocean freighter - you can flip the rudder but it takes forever to turn because the momentum is so great.

I have never tried but curious to know if the YouTube adverts which frequently precede some videos can be blocked. Will a blank window show instead of the advert or is there no escape from viewing?

The most obtrusive ads I have ever seen on a site that I have visited more than once are here on SitePoint.

No one is forced to visit sites with obtrusive ads. The simplest way of stopping sites using obtrusive ads is to not visit those sites.Visiting them just encourages them.

They do. It is called Premium and totally worth it :slight_smile:

And you very well know how we complained about it :slight_smile: