Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

To adblock or not to adblock that is the question!

  1. Feb 17, 2016 #1
    Curious what other people think about running Adblock.
    I personally don't surf without it. I get that its a way that sites generate revenue, but here's the thing. I find that so many ad's are so poorly implemented that they either take forever to load, or make the page run flaky, or are just annoying.

    I don't recall which site this was, but Slashdot had a story last week on the debate. The argument that I think makes the most sense is people who run adblock (like myself) are extremely unlikely to click through any ads.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 17, 2016 #2

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A new wrinkle - some pages won't load until you turn off ad blocking. Example: some pages linked from google news to Forbes.
     
  4. Feb 17, 2016 #3
    Wired is doing that now. Which is making me re-evaluate whether the site is worth the effort.
    I had no issues loading their pages, turned off Adblock an a page took over a minute to load, wouldn't scroll properly and all around annoyed me :)
     
  5. Feb 17, 2016 #4
    White list the sites you support
     
  6. Feb 17, 2016 #5

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I understand that someone has to pay for the content on the internet, and that revenue stream is ads. I get it. I really do. But the behavior of some advertisers is so bad, I completely understand why their ads are blocked.
    • Multiple simultaneous autoplay videos - not only is this loud and annoying, how can it possibly be effective?
    • Links disguised as something else, like "close" buttons
    • A complete lack of creativity - compare ads like Honda's Cog, Wendy's Russian Fashion Show, or Apple's 1984 with today's picture of toenail fungus.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
  7. Feb 18, 2016 #6

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't usually like to talk about it here because I don't want to impact PF's revenue. I don't use Adblock. Instead, I have a modified hosts file. I see little to no advertising unless it is coming directly from the site that I'm viewing. Anytime a new ad site shows up, I get its address and add it to the file.
    Most of those are running in Adobe Flash. I have Flash configured to not run on any page until I say it can. So much easier to read a news story without waiting for it to buffer a Kardashian. :woot:
     
  8. Feb 18, 2016 #7

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  9. Feb 18, 2016 #8

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Many of the ads are served up by sites that only provide advertising so I actually like being able to block entire sites. I wasn't aware that AdBlock was such a memory hog so that would be a non-starter for me - I use Firebug in my work and that's enough of a hog. I would hate to think what AdBlock would throw on top of that. :wideeyed:

    BTW, my hosts file is 500K. I block lots of stuff.
     
  10. Feb 18, 2016 #9
    After I posted this thread yesterday I did White List physics forums. But haven't seen any ads yet :)

    I looked into it and it was Stackoverflow who came out with the argument that if you use an adblocker you are almost certainly never going to click through an ad.
     
  11. Feb 18, 2016 #10

    QuantumQuest

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Creating revenue from ads is a completely fair thing to do, but pushing it far away off its limit, to the point of annoying users and maybe further, is unacceptable. What Vanadium 50 pointed out, describe pretty much the whole picture.Because competition has made this game perpetual, the only viable solution in my opinion, is what Greg Bernhardt suggests: black lists / white lists. I think that sites with fair advertising, must get their revenue.
     
  12. Feb 18, 2016 #11

    fluidistic

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I block every ad I can with firefox addons. (Noscript + umatrix + ublockOrigin), I also removed Flash player before it was officially removed from Firefox.
    I think that no human being deserves to be presented ads unless he explicitly wants it. If a website needs a revenue, why not buy a raspberry pi or a cheap laptop and run a script that auto clicks on all ads, over and over? The revenue should be higher than powering the hardware.
     
  13. Feb 18, 2016 #12
    You are suggesting mass click fraud? Really?
     
  14. Feb 19, 2016 #13

    fluidistic

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I didn't know it was considered as a fraud (first time I read about mass click fraud), but from what I've read on wikipedia about it, yes. I don't see anything bad with it, and I think it doesn't go much against moral, at least compared to showing ads in websites where almost nobody want them. If the law got it backward then I think it's broken, i.e. needs to be changed.
    I know I'm a special case, maybe an extremist, but ideally I'd like to have neutral (like wikipedia is supposed to be) websites where all the ads are displayed. And one would pick either a country or "Internet" and the subsections one want to see ads about.

    I've seen people clicking ads links on purpose on the TCEC website (chess related) because they either weren't willing to donate or didn't have a credit card and they were still willing to support the event. I found it sad that they lost their time on this, and I believe they could have used a program to do this for them (2 clicks per minute as long as they are watching the event for example).
     
  15. Feb 19, 2016 #14
    And how is this fair to the advertisers? Put yourself in their shoes. You create an ad and have a budget $100k. Two days later the budget is gone and you find out it's mostly from bot clicks or "support clicks". Exactly how is that healthy? I do advertise PF on Facebook and I used to on Google. If I found out my campaign budgets were mostly blown on bot or support clicks I'd go bonkers. Don't click an ad unless you are interested in the product.
     
  16. Feb 19, 2016 #15

    fluidistic

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Advertisers should know there's a risk that a bot is going to mess things up. I don't consider as morally correct what advertisers do (publish ads on websites that I don't expect to see any ad, which means more than 99% of websites) so if a 100k dollars budget gets ruined I'd ask my boss why on Earth he did put so much money in that instead of finding other ways to earn money.
    One thing that occur to me for PF (and why not other websites) is to open source the budget related to donations. Every member would be able to see how expensive it is to run the server for 1 month (electricity bill + hardware replacement/improvement, etc.), how much money donations yielded so far this month (and overall). When a member donates, he would have the choice to do so anonymously or not. There would be a ranking of members who donated the most this month and overall. I think that this could increase donations. But I'm getting off-topic.
     
  17. Feb 21, 2016 #16

    jim mcnamara

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    @Borg @Greg Bernhardt
    FWIW - Mozilla has a feature 'Enter reader view' which is an icon on the far right of the URL box - looks like a open book. Cuts right though ads and all of the startup flash "bombs", etc. Wonderful.

    Turn it on for a given page. Any CNN page link gets this turned on for me, and pages load an order of magnitude faster. This thread prompted me to try it. It is not an all-or-none approach or something you have to tweak constantly, and is not a memory hog. It simply levels the playing field between consumers and over zealous ads. And my wife likes it too - she describes herself as a 'post-modern luddite' - meaning that all the tweakage required for other ad controls were something 'up with which I will not put'.

    There have been links from Google news that actually were unreadable minefields because of interference and deliberate pagination to force more ad displays. Indian news services come to mind. Problem solved.

    I would say this is a default feature browsers will have in the future or lose market share. YMMV.
     
  18. Feb 21, 2016 #17
    You realize that the website owners are the ones who decide the size and location of advertisements right? They sell that space to pay for the content they create. How could that possibly be immoral?

    It's fine that you would prefer website owners use different ways of making money (would you prefer paid subscriptions in the absence of adds?) but I think it's wrong to block adds and then still consume content, especially if it's a website you visit frequently.
     
  19. Feb 21, 2016 #18

    fluidistic

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well I had never thought about it, but ok. When I'm looking for a specific information on the web, be it on Wikipedia or anywhere else, I'm not willing to see ads in my way. If I'd want to see ads I'd go to an ad website (if that even exist). Forcing people to see ads is immoral to me.

    No, I dislike the paying subscription for no ads. What I'd prefer is that web browsers would have integrated ad blockers by default instead of having people to download and install them thru add ons.
     
  20. Feb 21, 2016 #19
    How do you feel about tv, newspaper, magazine, billboard ads?
     
  21. Feb 21, 2016 #20
    My only internet connection is over my cell phone, so my data rates are very expensive, that is my primary reason for blocking ads.
    I don't mind some respectfully placed ads on a page.. perhaps a sidebar, but leave the content intact.

    One of the worst offenders in my book is Photobucket.. even when I'm on a fast connection capable of 10mbit, I can't get the pages to load.. they have calls to SO MANY different domains/servers, and it seems like if any one of them fail, the page fails..
    A polar opposite is Gmail, where you ave good access to the content, yes, there's a sidebar with ads, and they're relevant to the conversation.. Yes, I have clicked on them because they were USEFUL.. it was like googling for something without having to google for it!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: To adblock or not to adblock that is the question!
  1. Ipod Question (Replies: 16)

  2. Bluetooth questions (Replies: 3)

  3. Grammar question (Replies: 2)

  4. Beginner's questions (Replies: 7)

Loading...