Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
There are 0 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 11/03/2007 02:09 pm
>> Use an ad server which will sniff for JS blocking and if
>> JS is blocked in the client's browser, it sends a static
>> ad - but it adds more instances of the ads all over the
>> place with a specific message that - these sporadic
>> outburst of ads will stop once they enable the JS
Sounds a bit aggressive ... might lead to
Amendments to the Constitution
Article XXVIII
"The right of citizens of the United States shall include protection from Excessive email and excessive advertising; no cruel and unusual punishments will be inflicted via the Internet."
|
 |
Prowler
Moderator
Joined: Aug 14, 2000
# Posts: 1723
|
Posted: 11/05/2007 12:56 am
Quadrille - I didn't think of that. Constitutional amendments can be tricky ...
I will amend my statement then - instead of sporadic outbursts of ads, you can leave a bigger sized banner ad. 
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3689
|
Posted: 11/05/2007 02:44 am
SSI Perl solution would defeat the HOSTS file method. That's why I would like a SSI solution. Then using a combination of other methods, we could fight the adblockers.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 11/05/2007 06:48 am
Whatever you use, you need some link back to the 'control' for the ads, in order to record your CTR and ensure payment.
That link will always be blockable, won't it?
With SSI, you may end up with visible ads - and no payment.
Looks like a lose-lose situation; you lose the money, the visitor who does not want ads, gets them.
Mind you, if you're accepting that it's just for spite, as the opt-outers will not click anyway, they just wanted to save you wasting bandwidth, then you may have achieved your target.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3689
|
Posted: 11/05/2007 11:29 am
I can make it difficult for the adblocker users to block ads on my site using various means. SSI along with other measures would help insure the NON-INTRUSIVE ad links stayed intact. Then when people that have adblocking software want to, by chance, click a text ad link they will be able to click it.
Besides, I don't really want visitors who want a free ride. “Free ride” visitors generally do not benefit anyone anyway. I work hard developing articles. They at least owe me the courtesy of allowing a couple non-intrusive text ad squares to show their appreciation. I'm not asking much in return for potentially helping my visitors with instructional content. I don't do flash ads and animated gif ads and you'll even rarely see static gif/jpeg ads on my sites. It's not like I'm putting up "in-your-face" ads on my sites.
Quadrille said:
...as the opt-outers will not click anyway, they just wanted to save you wasting bandwidth, then you may have achieved your target.
Saving me bandwidth?  My articles take more bandwidth than those adsense ads. And besides that, it's not about bandwidth for the general user. A good number are running “over-kill” ad blockers out of spite too. If they want to spite me, then I don't mind spiting them back by denying them access to articles. As I said, I'm not asking much in return.
These adblocking programs have gone too far. It's one thing to block popups and irritating flash/animated "in-your-face" ads, but quite a different thing when these idiot adblocker makers attempt to block every single ad out there indiscriminately. That's crazy! How does anyone figure that authors will want to write up articles to help those viewers who expect a free ride? I got better things to do than to work for free. The adblockers are helping to destroy a content industry that is virtually free as it is.
Some people expecting a free ride have the idea that things should have stayed like it was back in the early to mid 1990's. That model couldn't survive for any length of time. It's not reasonable for anyone to think that content developers should continue to work hard for free year after year. Just look at DMOZ failing. It's based on free labor—doesn't work. People are not going to provide a service forever for free. It can't work or at least it doesn't last for long. Or you end up with overworked editors who eventually quit. Where there's no real reward there's no motivation.
It should be a fair give and take situation, NOT the author giving and giving and the viewers taking and taking. THAT'S NOT RIGHT anyway you look at it.
FWIW: I do not run an adblocker except for the popup blocker. Those types of ads ARE intrusive. I DO allow all text based ads and even find some of the text ads helpful. I also allow all inline text ads to show too (ie. kontera, intellitxt) despite the minor annoyance from accidental mouseovers. Why do I allow them? It's my payment to the site owner for providing me helpful info. That's how I figure it. That's how I show my appreciation. SEF gets payment from me every so often when I find a helpful or interesting adsense ad.
Ads ARE GOOD when done right and people need to start seeing it that way. Reward your favorite sites by allowing ads to display when your favorite sites show responsible advertising.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 11/05/2007 12:20 pm
Many ads are NOT good; and victimising potential customers, rather than accepting that abusive advertisers are to blame is a little lame, quite frankly.
If you've never visited a page, got five - 5!!!!! - pop-ups/unders/overs/whatevers and not prayed for a total ad-blocker, then you must come from a strange un-Earthly planet.
A simple solution would be to divert all users who do not use javascript to an HTML page that says "I hate you all".
But history shows that picking on innocent bystanders is rarely a successful solution - for anyone.
I'm an Adsense publisher, and I have other ads and affiliations too; I'm the first to argue for ads
as fair recompense for webmasters - infinitely preferable to the subscription model that's gaining ground (again).
But I have zero but sympathy for visitors who get rampant abuse on so many sites.
Put the blame where it belongs, and you may recruit some supporters. Chips on shoulders win you few friends.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3689
|
Posted: 11/06/2007 08:16 am
Quadrille said:
Many ads are NOT good; and victimising potential customers
I think I got that message across if you read my comments carefully.
If you've never visited a page, got five - 5!!!!! - pop-ups/unders/overs/whatevers and not prayed for a total ad-blocker, then you must come from a strange un-Earthly planet.
Again... read my comments above ---> “I do not run an adblocker except for the popup blocker. Those types of ads ARE intrusive.” Translation: I do run a popup blocker, but only a popup blocker. I'd even be happy to accept animated image and moving flash ads if I could just easily STOP the animations when I wanted to.
If you read my comments carefully, you'll realize that I'm all for treating visitors fairly. Again... ---> “I don't do flash ads and animated gif ads and you'll even rarely see static gif/jpeg ads on my sites. It's not like I'm putting up "in-your-face" ads on my sites.”
I do try to treat my visitors right and I'll restate my comment above ---> Ads ARE GOOD when done right EMPHASIS on “when done right”
In summary:
• In-your-face Flash ads = BAD
• Animated Gif ads = Generally BAD
• Popup ads = BAD
• Static image ads = OK if not too big and not too many
• Text ads = GOOD as long as they do not outweigh the content
[ Message was edited by: Curt 11/06/2007 08:30 am ]
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
