Remind me to ask for your opinion next time I just want a knee-jerk reaction rather than some critical thought.
I don’t think a poll would provide the results that you think they would. SP isn’t just developers or just advertisers. It’s full of copywriters, developers, designers, entrepreneurs, hobbyists, students, educators, etc… There may not be a whole lot of consumers here but there are enough distinct voices to provide an interesting result.
This isn’t a topic that revolves around critical thought, it’s based almost entirely on one’s personal viewpoints on information.
Some people feel that people should be able to be compensated for their work, some people feel that all information should be free.
The two will never be reconciled as they are diametrically opposed.
Not to mention that polls are completely useless, asking people what they would do or what they think is ridiculous because what people answer is often completely different than how they actually behave.
See polls on the environment, polls on global warming, polls on whether one donates to charity, polls on how people support websites or OS software.
A few years ago I wanted an in with the writer of a WP plugin to support a project I was working on so I donated $50 (whee $50, not even a nice dinner for 2), and he wrote me back immediately telling me how pleased he was and how I helped to re-energize him as he put in hundreds of hours and almost no one ever donated to him or thanked him for all his hard work.
We all go on about how we support OS software and the such, but very very few of us actually back up our words with actions and I’d be very surprised if any of the people who posted in this thread about how they block ads but support the websites they find useful in “other ways” have ever done anything of the sort.
@TKE: Well diffused
Advertising is more of a ‘statistical’ way of getting money. There are no guarantees.
Generally if you’re putting up a website with the sole intention of getting money from it, and you are relying on adverts to get that money, you are destined for failure. Look at Google and Facebook, for example. Both get revenue from advertising - but neither actually did it for the money. Both started off as a project which evolved and evolved, grew exponentially until they hit a certain point where the amount of users allowed advertising to make sense. People came to their websites to use their services.
Websites evolved around making money should get their revenue from other means - selling stuff, charging for use of services for example. Advertising works, but unless you have HUGE amounts of traffic it won’t really be all that profitable.
If your website is that popular, sell stuff from it. Merchandise. Make deals with other related websites. Do some clever business instead of waiting around waiting for it to make the money for you.
Once I donated $1 to a website and got the same response.
E
I wouldn’t say that. I have sites that were meant to generate revenue from advertising from the beginning and they’re doing well enough having years passed by. It’s all about proper planning.
It’s not the best business model by far, but it doesn’t mean it can’t work either.
I don’t think that’s the case with ads. The problem with them is not if you compensate the person that created that web.
Ads are intrusive and that’s why people don’t want them. Most people do accept them in small basis and when they don’t disturb their reading much. More often than not, ads are not well integrated and annoy more than anything else. Then, people leave.
On another hand, most people don’t know that they’re supposed to click the ads to give some revenue to the person that created that website. They do think that the site is there for free. And, anyway, if people knew that they had to click on the ad, the creator would be penalized in the end. If people click to say “thank you for the info” and not because they’re really interested in the ad, it will go against him.
Only those who try to get revenue through ads or are into this world, knows what they want the user to do. You may want it, you may expect it, you may wish it, but you can’t force it.
I agree 100%, we’re having this discussion on another forum frequented by people who make money from the Internet and my position is exactly that (in the long run).
Display advertising is simply a poor method of generating revenue and will get worse over time.
Pathetic isn’t it, and yet people will harp on the fact that they don’t want site earners to make a few bucks because they have the gall to throw a few banners on their site and expect them to earn a small return on their time through donations and the such which never materialize.
Is it gonna happen in 2012? 
Thanks for the thought provoking reply. I see where you’re coming from but I don’t think it’s that black and white. I think there is lots of grey area too. I maintain that the internet is free because of how it was built. It’s open and in order to prevent access, you have to go out of your way to do so. That doesn’t mean I don’t see the need or purpose for paid for websites. I’ve built many websites that have paid for or member only sections and I subscribe to some as well because the information is unique and/or valuable to me. I’ve also advised clients who have intended to have ad supported websites that they need to have a plan for revenue above and beyond their ads to provide income. Some have listened, others haven’t.
Perhaps but I still think there is some use in reviewing the results. Sometimes people act based on their circumstances rather than what’s in their heart but the opinion is still useful as long as you realize there is a margin of error.
Well yes, there is a lot of that that goes on but for everyone like you who has put $50 bucks towards a WP plugin, there’s someone like me who’s put $50 towards a Drupal module or contributed to the development with patches, coding, or other development support.
…And also people aren’t static, they mature, ripen, develop with time. I am much wiser and more charitable/helpful/empathetic than I was 10 years ago at which point I was an improvement over 10 years before, and so on… Sometimes with age comes wisdom, sometimes not but it isn’t black & white and people aren’t necessarily predictable.
Now I forget… What were we talking about? 
Now I forget… What were we talking about?
Damn kids on our lawns.
Both sides should have rights.
The user has the right to block ad
The website owner has the right to block users who block ads
And, as a matter of ethics, the Adblock developers should provide some easy way for the website owner to detect users who are using such plugins
I also think that telling website owners to find other means of monetizing their site because you don’t want to see ads is a bit arrogant.
I can’t speak for the others who have advised this way but I advise my clients to seek alternate means of support to protect them from unrealistic expectations and to ensure that they have a good understanding of what they are getting into. There’s no arrogance there, just experience and concern.
I would advise the original poster of this discussion the same way because obviously ads aren’t providing the financial support he/she feels they deserve. No arrogance here either; just common sense. If ads were supporting their site they wouldn’t have started this discussion in the first place.
Soooo… :goof:
In the case of ads there are at least three and usually four parties involved and not just two.
The advertiser benefits when those with no interest whatever in their ads is allowed to block them because it reduces their costs on the display of ads to those least likely to buy.
The ad network benefits because they don’t have the bandwidth costs associated with serving ads to those who don’t want to see them and who would only click on them by accident.
As a result of those two the web site owner will also benefit from allowing their visitors to block ads because it means they will receive a bigger payment for the ad clicks that they do receive since the advertiser will be able to pay more per click and the ad network will not need to take such a big portion of that payment.
In fact other competing web sites also benefit when a web site prevents their visitors from blocking ads since those people and all their friends and their friends friends will go to that other site instead.
The only loser when a web site prevents their visitors from blocking ads is the owner of that web site who will have fewer visitors and receive lower per click payments as a result.
So yes. Any site owner who wishes to do that should be (and is) allowed to do it - at least until they get to the point where they can no longer afford to have their site.
Of course if too many sites started doing that then that would leave the ad networks with no choice but to change their terms of service to prohibit the sites displaying the ads they serve from preventing their visitors from using ad blockers since the ad blockers actually help keep the price of advertising higher. Either that or they’d have to reduce the portion of the ad income the pass on to the site owner so much that no one would want to use their service any more.
Not as arrogant as forcing people to pay to see ads that they don’t want to.
It costs both your visitor and the ad network money to pay for the bandwidth used to display the ad and by doing so a web site is in fact stealing both from their visitors and from the network they use to supply the ads. I suspect that if you read the really fine print in the ad network terms of service you will find that as with clicking on ads on your own site they probably also prohibit you from blocking your visitors ability to block the ads if they don’t want to see them.
Advertising on the web is the complete opposite from most other situations where ads are displayed because elsewhere your visitor saves money through there being ads (even if they ignore them) whereas with web pages it costs them more to view pages with ads than it does to view pages without ads and they have the choice of multiple places to get the same information and so can always choose somewhere without ads.
no one is forcing anything, users who don’t want to see ads are FREE to go elsewhere
It costs both your visitor and the ad network money to pay for the bandwidth used to display the ad and by doing so a web site is in fact stealing both from their visitors and from the network they use to supply the ads.
it doesn’t cost anyone anything if the user go to another site, see the logic?
I suspect that if you read the really fine print in the ad network terms of service you will find that as with clicking on ads on your own site they probably also prohibit you from blocking your visitors ability to block the ads if they don’t want to see them.
this is just a suspicion and i’d guess it’s wrong.
Advertising on the web is the complete opposite from most other situations where ads are displayed because elsewhere your visitor saves money through there being ads (even if they ignore them) whereas with web pages it costs them more to view pages with ads than it does to view pages without ads and they have the choice of multiple places to get the same information and so can always choose somewhere without ads.
again you’re missing the point… user with adblock is blocked and invited to go find information elsewhere -> no bandwidth costs involved and everybody is happy.
all this verbose comment is flawed because you’re still missing one single point. If the user is blocked, there would be no bandwidth involved, no effect in cpc, nothing!
You are missing all the points here 
The thread has another subject than the one you’re defending!
The main point is: “Should ad blocking be considered illegal”?
And many pointed out: “No”.
The “legal” reasons, we all agreed upon:
So, if I, the user, don’t force the website to behave the way I wish, the website surely doesn’t have the right to force me to use or not ad blocking software.
Otherwise, what’s next: I, the user, will have to use only UAs website owners aprove? I, the user, will have to change my websurfing habits to accomodate the website owner’s business model?
If you don’t see anything wrong here, no harm done
Exactly. The advertisers would not want ad blocking made illegal, the ad network would not want ad blocking made illegal, the visitors would not want ad blocking made illegal, those web site owners who want visitors would not want ad blocking made illegal. It is only those web site owners trying to drive visitors away who would want it made illegal (not that they have any way to prevent it or even detect it and so making it illegal would not have any effect).
Also how would you get all the hundreds of countries around the world to agree to make it illegal? How would you even detect that ad blocking was in place so as to detect when the law was being broken (at best you’d be able to detect a specific ad blocker was in place and so people would simply switch to using a different method to block the ads they don’t want to see).
Not only would it make no sense to makee blocking ads illegal since it would reduce the income of the ad networks and publishers as well as make things less enjoyable for visitors, it would also be completely impossible to implement as there is no way for a web site to tell if ads are being displayed or not.
Visitors can turn off JavaScript. Visitors can turn off images. Visitors can block specific web addresses that deliver spyware/ads/etc. The web site has no way to tell if a visitor has done any of these.
For those who believe in preventing the use of ad blockers with their site by all means go ahead and try to block those visitors who use them from your site. All the other sites that are competing with you will be glad of all the extra visitors you send their way and will be even happier once your site shuts down due to lack of visitors.
You’ re missing the context
First because considering ad blocking illegal was never the main point of the thread. Second because the text you quoted was my reply to his quote on my reply, and my first reply made clear that the user has the right to use ad blocking software.
Quality users over quantity man. Website owners would generally prefer 10 users without ad block than 100 users using ad block
I don’t know why some people keep repeating this “forcing to do something”, no one is forcing anything! Adblock users are just being asked to find information on another site, that’s all.