Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by jauburn, Oct 19, 2015.
Those stupid click bait headlines are far worse than any adverts.
10 AMAZING WARDROBE MALFUNCTION PHOTOS. NUMBER 5 WILL LEAVE YOU GASPING IN DISBELIEF!
That sort of crap.
"Sponsored" in advertisers' lingo...
The latest trend seems to be whole-screen pop-ups that just won't quit. PC mag is particularly onerous. Dismiss one, and a few seconds later, you get another one.
Someone should develop a search engine that screens out any site that features advertising. I always thought that would be a great business model. Of course, I'm not sure how they'd make money....
Pop up ads?
And you know that any piece of journalism that says "5 things" or "10 ways," etc., is designed for nothing more than feeding you ads. It's sickening.
Journalism was a field that I reluctantly participated in for 17 years on the side. Now it's largely just a form of advertising support. Maybe it always was.
Have ads ruined the Internet?
No, the Internet ruined ads.
That one you'll have to explain.
Without ads most sites would not exist. So the opposite is (was) true: The internet prospered because of ads.
BUT: Now we see a setback into the other direction. More and more annoying ads force more and more people to use ad-blockers. It is just a question of time until regular ads will disappear and with them many internet sites. Many other sites will ask for money to read their content. Only few sites will be freely accessible.
In several years the internet will be different. Just how it would be if ads never existed.
Mine will be one of them. It's possible to run a web site because you enjoy distributing content that others also enjoy. I think the internet started this way. I could be wrong, but I hope I'm not.
It pisses me off when I see them on relatively reputable news site, such as my local paper's site. I mean, come on, seriously?
Even worse are the 'ads' you get on websites when visting with an Android device that create a js dialog, and then redirect you away from the original page completely, and render visiting the original page impossible. They should be banned.
The economics behind this mystify me. When I encounter such sites, I make a mental note never to visit again. I guess there are enough dummies out there willing to click on anything that appears in front of them to justify such BS. It's really quite sad, though--essentially hiding the content in favor of the chance to get a click or two.
If ads are "ruining" the internet for you, I suggest something like this:
If you like a site, unblock them and let them serve ads to you.
It started with small ads that were obviously ads, usually just some text with some links. Then they figured that random obvious advertisement that you could easily skip wasn't selling too well, so they started increasing blending it in with the webpage, making it more based on what they think people prefer, and make it harder to skip. Then the people who buy advertisements figured out that paying for people to technically watch it is probably not as effective as paying for people who actually click on the link. Which then ended up with websites adding more and more advertisement, ad providers like google to focus more on tracking so they can give you the ads they think you want, and users more and more getting fed up with seeing advertisement everywhere, so they started using ad blockers. And now more and more people start using them, so they'll start figuring out alternatives to prevent adblocker (which in time will find a way to be blocked etc.).
Ultimately, it's all greed. Ads are a huge business, and are used for way more than "to cover the costs" for big websites. That's okay to a degree, but (in my opinion) it's gotten to the point where there are so many ads in such obnoxious ways, they are effectively treating their visitors quite poorly and pushing them to adblockers and such.
Also, most websites will never be paid only, as very few sites have the appeal that people will actually pay for them to watch their content. Just look how difficult it is for streaming services to ask a high price, even though they provide a lot of content. Most websites who try to do that will just die off.
Yesterday I bought a magazine. Paid $5 for it. And guess what? Half of the pages in that magazine were filled with advertising. But there is no "ad-blocker" for magazines. So I had to ignore the ads.
Why is it a problem for web sites to display ads but not for magazines?
Why shouldn't web sites earn money from ads?
Had to look at a calendar to see what year I was in.
Why should they earn money? it's all just intellectual, by it being free they aren't actually losing anything. The magazine needs money cause it costs them to produce, all the site owner did was some typity typing and presto, site. They shouldn't get monies for that. It's not like a webmasters time is valuable or they did anything for it to happen. They just got lucky and possessed the internet magics that we all enjoy.
(Sadly too high of a percentage of people that read this will not catch the fact I'm being sarcastic)
If a company calls you out of nowhere to sell you their product, will you listen to their offer? If someone stops you on the middle of the street to give a sales speach, or rings your doorbell to sell you stuff, do you listen then? If not, why not? I mean, they're trying to sell, they're just trying to make money, right? Why would it be okay for websites to do it but not in these ways?
Most people don't have an issue with ads on their own, they have a problem with obnoxious ads all over the place, the ones that pop up, take over the entire background, the ones that move and flash and try to grab your attention in any way they can. There's also the fact that those ads collect your information to give you "personalized" ads. All of this doesn't happen in a magazine and as such are considered to be less problematic at least. I think that if you paid for the magazine, ads are a bit silly as well, but at least they're not actively in my way.
How is this the same thing? You are going to their site. They're not coming to you trying to sell something. You came to them. A more comparable situation would be "when you go to a person's house and they try selling you something do you listen?" except this is their job so an even better situation would be "when you go to a person's business do they hand you an ad".. oh you know what? they do, don't they? Webmasters aren't pushing ads on YOUR site. You don't have to visit their site and see their ads. You're there for a reason, you're gaining something from your visit, why can't they?
I agree, those ads are insane, I also can't say they exist on any site I visit regularly. You have a choice to stay away from them.
Collecting information is a different discussion but I also view that as less of a problem. I don't mind that they collect vague data on me and advertise based on my browsing history and social profiles and what I habitually click. If I have to see ads, I'd rather them be targeted. It's better for the viewer of the ad, it's better for the advertiser. Case and point, sometimes hulu lets you pick which ad you'd rather view. I figure if I'm going to be advertised to, which I should be, it may as well be relevant and not waste everyone's time and/or money.
Who says it is not a problem for magazines to display ads? It is also a problem. But for websites you have the technology to avoid the ads, for magazines there is no technology developed yet.
The same with television. In future when TVs are based on computers (which they are already with Smart TV etc), there will be a time when it will be possible to block TV ads.
It is just a matter of time.
And the example with magazines. You actively choose to support them by giving actively money from your pocket. Whereas websites doesn't ask you for your permission and earn money off of you.
Separate names with a comma.