Have ads ruined the internet?

[Daniel Hood]

Maybe, maybe not. Those trackers (you as a web developer should know it better than me) can find out many things just by landing on a page. But even if you have used the website, I didn't agree with selling my data to some other place.

There is not a single useful piece of data I can sell of yours just from you landing on my website. If you choose to input some more information, maybe. If you download a file, likely. If you just click on my site, scroll to the bottom, and leave, there is nothing useful of yours I can sell to someone. Other than maybe the fact someone from your city/state/country visited my site, so I could say "someone from Europe has an interest in XenForo plugins". I guess I could also include the browser you use in that as well. Someone might be give me like a hundredth of a penny for that, haven't really tried.

You have an incredibly odd outlook on the internet. I believe I've contributed all I can to this discussion.

 

[sbj]

Yours is the failed logic.

Well, I don#t see the failed logic here (and just in case, I don't want to brag, but I am a mathematician, so I know little things about logic).

Take a site like Eurogamer. It provides news, reviews and a lot more besides on video games and the gaming industry. They employ staff to write the reviews and the site content. To expect them and other commercial sites to just fund this out of their own pocket is illogical and naive. They need to earn income in some way. The choice is charge customers to use the site or provide it to customers for free via advertising. They choose the latter, as do many sites.

I am of course not naive. Of course I don't expect them to fund this out of their own pocket. As they want to earn money... So they act as a business. Fine, but I'll block the ads. You can't be that naive as a website owner to expect your users consume your ads... Sorry. They can be the best website in the world, I don't care. I want to decide who I want to contribute to and to who not. I don't need a pre-defined decision made by business owners. I want to decide by myself. It is my principle.

IMO using adblockers is tantamount to theft. I'm sure many on here will disagree strongly with my views but I'm sure some agree. After all, you are depriving owners of their income, you are using something without paying for it through its intended pay method which is viewing adverts.

YOU make your website publicly accessible and then I am the thiev here? Because I accessed your website which you made accessible to all people???
Sorry but I have rights. You can't force me something. As a website owner you have the right to put ads or whatever u want on your website. And as a visitor I can block them, it is my right. You can't take that away from me. Just block visitors with adblockers then, no problem. But if you let me access to it, you can't complain about if afterwards.

 

[Martok]

YOU make your website publicly accessible and then I am the thiev here?

Yes, because you have deliberately chosen to continue using the site with an adblockers, knowing that it is an income stream for the site owner/company. Just because you can and do block them doesn't mean it's right.

I suspect one of the reasons why adverts on some sites have become more insidious over time is because of people using adblockers. Sites and advertisers have had to come up with new and sometimes more annoying ways of displaying advertising to try and bypass the adblockers. I wonder if it would be as bad if the adblocker hadn't been invented.

 

[sbj]

Yes, because you have deliberately chosen to continue using the site with an adblockers, knowing that it is an income stream for the site owner/company. Just because you can and do block them doesn't mean it's right.

You can't open a restaurant and allow everybody to walk in and tell them it is free and let them eat, just at the end by telling them that it is not for free.

So basically you allow everyone accessing your website. So I can use your website. But then you say "well, it isn't free at all, you must see my ads". So basically you trick people. Who is the thief here?

Make a decision. Don't let adblock users in or don't complain about it. I don't complain about sites using ads at all. They do whatever they want on their websites. I just block their ads as I do whatever I want.
If you have a problem with that, don't let me in then.

Sorry, but I live long enough to know how the blackhatworld lived through a decade. Most websites are traps for creating revenues with or without using blackhat tricks.

The ideal website owner who just wants to provide information for the benefit of humanity is very rare. Those people wouldn't allow ads on their pages in first place anyway.
And I don't pity any kind of website with ads on them. If you act like a business, then deal with the consequences.

 

[Sador]

Yes, because you have deliberately chosen to continue using the site with an adblockers, knowing that it is an income stream for the site owner/company. Just because you can and do block them doesn't mean it's right.

I suspect one of the reasons why adverts on some sites have become more insidious over time is because of people using adblockers. Sites and advertisers have had to come up with new and sometimes more annoying ways of displaying advertising to try and bypass the adblockers. I wonder if it would be as bad if the adblocker hadn't been invented.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Ads got obnoxious way before adblockers ever existed.

Also, if websites are so sure they are worth money, why not make it accessible if you pay only? (which I think sbj is aiming at). I think it'd probably massively fail, but at least you'll know whether people agree with your opinion.

 

[sbj]

Also, if websites are so sure they are worth money, why not make it accessible if you pay only? (which I think sbj is aiming at). I think it'd probably massively fail, but at least you'll know whether people agree with your opinion.

That is exactly the point here. Thank you. They trick people by making the websites accessible to everyone (for free) but with the aim of generating revenue by using those visitors. If they really think they offer a value, why don't they make people to buy sth? So people actively choose to contribute. Like I chose actively to buy Xenforo. But we all know why they don't do it. By that method they couldn't earn money in 100 years because nobody would want to buy anything from them. So they use ads.
And in future they will have a lot of problems because slowly this itchy thing will be a thing from past as adblocking will be overall.

 

[Martok]

So basically you allow everyone accessing your website. So I can use your website. But then you say "well, it isn't free at all, you must see my ads". So basically you trick people. Who is the thief here?

It's clear from the first page you arrive on that the site uses advertising. If you don't like it you could simply stop using the site.

Also, if websites are so sure they are worth money, why not make it accessible if you pay only?

Because many people won't pay, irrelevant of how good or not the content is. You can see here that some people won't even 'pay' by viewing adverts and that really doesn't cost them anything. People also don't pay for TV shows, they'll torrent them instead, depriving the networks of their income. But that's another topic.

 

[n00bsaibot]

The end user is never the customer of an ad supported medium. The customer is the advertiser... the end user is the product. The content is nothing but bait.

To take martoks theft statement to the opposite extreme, the website is the free candy van luring people in with 'content' to sell them off to advertisers.

 

[sbj]

It's clear from the first page you arrive on that the site uses advertising. If you don't like it you could simply stop using the site.

It is not clear as I use adblockers.

And by my visit of that website, that website gets a hit. And the total amount of hits/views or whatever that generates popularity and revenue for your website.
With our without adblockers in a tiny way I already contributed to your site. So I find it fair to use your site even with using adblockers.
It is a fair deal. Or just block me to your website then. It would be ok. But if you let me in, I do whatever I want. You can't have both ways, letting me in and decide over me what I want to see or not.

 

[Sador]

Because many people won't pay, irrelevant of how good or not the content is. You can see here that some people won't even 'pay' by viewing adverts and that really doesn't cost them anything. People also don't pay for TV shows, they'll torrent them instead, depriving the networks of their income. But that's another topic.

Yet Steam, Netflix and Spotify are among some of the most popular webservices there are and they are all paid (well I guess Spotify has a free mode, but still). Television is still found in most houses as well.

 

[Martok]

It is not clear as I use adblockers.

Don't use them then. Do the honest thing of walking away from a website that uses advertising if you don't wish to support them.

And by my visit of that website, that website gets a hit. And the total amount of hits/views or whatever that generates popularity and revenue for your website.

But if everyone took that attitude then there would be no revenue.

Yet Steam, Netflix and Spotify are among some of the most popular webservices there are and they are all paid (well I guess Spotify has a free mode, but still). Television is still found in most houses as well.

They are popular but in the case of streaming TV services, they don't show the latest shows (except their own) as it's too expensive. The networks show these, and some people will torrent this stuff rather than pay for subscription TV. As for Spotify free, that is free in part thanks to advertising that they play between songs. But as I said this is a different topic.

 

[n00bsaibot]

I look at it like a predator/prey dynamic. The prey have gotten smarter with ad blocking. It's up to the predator to adapt to the challenge.

That said your site does a great job with driving off Adblock traffic. I couldn't deal with that popup and would either disable my blocker or leave.

 

[HWS]

I also have the choice to use the technology to hide them, making my webpages load faster

Back to my magazine. If there were no ads in it, it would have only half the pages. It would have been much thinner and lighter. I would not need that much time to go through the magazine, half of the time just turning the pages. Also I would not need that much energy to carry the magazine home. Wait, before you laugh! If I buy 2 magazines a week how much energy and life time could I spare if there were no ads in them?! How much food cost would I spare because I would not need to eat that much. And bacon is expensive!

Yes, sure the magazine without ads would cost $50 instead of $5. No, I don't want to pay that much. Next time I go buying a magazine, I take scissors with me! I have the technology to hide them and make my life easier!

I suspect one of the reasons why adverts on some sites have become more insidious over time is because of people using adblockers.

This is true. Each blocked ad is added to another users page to hold the revenue.

 

[Mouth]

webpass.io ?? Webpass.io - receive revenue for ad free site usage

 

[AdamD]

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.

I notice they are everywhere these days
Also noticing an increase in those pop-in? ads, where it asks if you want to sign up for their newsletters/special offers, but unlike pop ups, you can't ignore it, you have to click the X or cancel, to close it.

 

[Jeffin]

This is just my opinion. I think ads in a way have helped the internet grow to what it is now. I am happy seeing ads on a site I can browse for free. Youtube is about to release an ad-free version called Red for those who don't want to see ads and want additional premium services. Guys like me would be fine with the ads and without the subscription. That being said, the pop-up ads I find annoying but then I rarely visit those type of websites.

 

[Dakota Storm]

I block everything apart from text based ads

 

[Digital Doctor]

I rarely see ads hat go overboard if they do I find a better site

 

[Dude111]

Ads have ruined everything!!!!

Its ridiculous how many there are!!!! (Especially from US companies)

 

[jauburn]

Ads have ruined everything!!!!

Its ridiculous how many there are!!!! (Especially from US companies)

This is a complicated discussion, and I tend to agree with you, but then again with many sites someone has to pay for the site, and in an Internet world in which many have come to expect something (or even a lot) for nothing, advertisers are the ones who pay. And when advertisers pay, they of course want something for their money. They want clicks; they want attention; they want return on investment. As Web users started becoming more ad-blind, the ads started becoming more intrusive, to the point where, now, it's not uncommon to have to deal with not just one but two huge, content-obscuring, full-screen ads that contain timers through which you must wait before you see the content you came to see. And then it so often happens that the content you thought you wanted to see is in fact rubbish, essentially erected in order to feed you ads.

People get angry at this situation, and that anger gets transferred to the owners of all sites that run ads, obtrusive or not. The situation has turned ugly for everyone, I think.

I believe the Internet started as an information-sharing medium among academics. It has turned into something far less noble--and arguably far less useful. Because of ads and the proliferation of sites that pretend to offer content but actually just want your clicks, I see the Internet as less useful today than it was, say, 5 or 10 years ago. If it continue down the current path it's on, I can imagine that it will be even less useful, or perhaps less tolerable is the term, 5 years from now. Perhaps you will have to pay for everything when you don't want to see ads.

Personally, I'm very happy to be running an ad-free site for pretty much the same reason that I imagine the original creators of Internet content offered their wares: to disseminate information and create a community of like-minded people. Ironically, I believe the ad-free sites will start to look better and better as they become rarer and rarer.

As always, however, I may be wrong.

(And I still think that a search engine that filtered out sites that contain ads--to whatever degree the user wanted--would be a great service, if not a great business model. I wish someone would do it.)