Quantcast
Locked: Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

Forums - Website Topics - Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

There are numerous options. One would be a race of seeing who can make adds that can't be blocked vs who can block adds. Another is making other sources of revenue a bigger part of the revenue. You could just block the people from viewing the site but even in that regard it takes time and effort to do that as well, plus it could create some bad will. Another is keeping the site simpler, you had many volunteers before I'm sure you could get plenty again no one made you pay them.

The whole idea though of blocking being stealing is a tough argument. You made choices that had it that adds pay you by being seen and not just having them advertise on the site based on the number of visitors. Your choices of how you choose to set the site up let that be possible, maybe adds pay better of some type of another. I'm sure the ones that swell up and block out the page pay better than others but they also annoy people more. Maybe simpler adds wouldn't pay as much but if you don't have to worry about it being blocked it might be worth it. You took the risks by choosing certain types of adds one that is more risky. Is it stealing that people can block them or just the consequences of the risk you took? A lower income add that couldn't be blocked wouldn't make as much but you wouldn't loose anything since they couldn't be blocked.



Around the Network

It's stuff like this that shows how ad driven our society has become...



this thread really shows up the ppl who watch too much porn



Wonktonodi said:
There are numerous options. One would be a race of seeing who can make adds that can't be blocked vs who can block adds. Another is making other sources of revenue a bigger part of the revenue. You could just block the people from viewing the site but even in that regard it takes time and effort to do that as well, plus it could create some bad will. Another is keeping the site simpler, you had many volunteers before I'm sure you could get plenty again no one made you pay them.

The whole idea though of blocking being stealing is a tough argument. You made choices that had it that adds pay you by being seen and not just having them advertise on the site based on the number of visitors. Your choices of how you choose to set the site up let that be possible, maybe adds pay better of some type of another. I'm sure the ones that swell up and block out the page pay better than others but they also annoy people more. Maybe simpler adds wouldn't pay as much but if you don't have to worry about it being blocked it might be worth it. You took the risks by choosing certain types of adds one that is more risky. Is it stealing that people can block them or just the consequences of the risk you took? A lower income add that couldn't be blocked wouldn't make as much but you wouldn't loose anything since they couldn't be blocked.

Once you've started paying somebody, you can't stop. And we're not paid any huge amount.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

>>>  NO SOUND OPTION BUTTON ON ADS MUST BE OBLIGATORY <<<

Adds are nice for me.  Please, make these companies that use your space for adds to implement a "NO SOUND" feature.  It is very disturbing to be on the site and along with the music from the speakers to be forced to listen to the repetitive bad sounds of an advertisment until you exit. 

Is there something that can be done for this matter, at least?

(sorry for any mistakes in my English)



wii number: 8166 7045 0170 7783 (don't forget to inform me if you add me)

Around the Network

I don't adblock because they really aren't annoying to me..



 

ioi said:

As for ioi's last post.  If there are less people posting, that doesn't mean more people will view threads.  It COULD, but it also COULD mean less overall views.  With a larger userbase there are more "interesting" people.  This thread alone, mostly filled with posts from evil swine such as myself who block ads, already has 2700 views.   How many views would it have if there wasn't such controversy?

There would probably be half the number of posts but still 2000+ views since most of the viewers are guests anyway.

Thread views are directly linked to number of visitors, and far less directly linked to number of posts in that thread. A 40% dip in users would result in a 40% drop in views plus maybe a 10% drop in views from the remaining 60% so in terms of revenue you'd maybe lose about 10% in the forums.

So if you add the saving in bandwidth costs by removing the 40% of "non-paying" visitors to the ~10% loss in paying thread views due to fewer posts per thread then overall you'd probably be about even. If you add in that maybe half of the 40% adblockers would either remove the adblock or sign up for paid access with no ads and you'd see a significant lift in overall revenue (maybe 20-30%) which could mean 3-4 new writers, the ability to develop a whole new bunch of features and data tools, sending more people to E3 and so on, along with the personal satisfaction of removing people who think it is their right to be able to use something without paying (directly or indirectly) for it...

 

I would just like to add,

 

personally i only go to the threads that are in hot topics. I do not go around search for stuff to read. I am sure there would be a good percentage of people like me.



 

 

ioi said:
epicurean said:

If simply emailing with a description of what happens can help, I'd be more than willing.  As I said in an earlier post tonight on this thread, I still saw the evony and weight loss ads.  Though as I said then, I couldn't care less as long as it isn't harming my comptuer.

It absolutely does, how do I know there is a problem with ads (which are highly region-specific, even down to city sometimes) if you don't tell me?

The issue with Evony (google it) is that they keep signing up to different ad networks under different names so it is hard to block them...

I have absolutely no knowledge of the way ads are implemented on websites, but there has to be a better process to ensure quality control over harmful and obtrusive ads.  Can't there be some kind of 'content screening' prior to implementation? It's hard to take given the previous problems that the answer continues to be 'we'll continue to be firefighters, instead of back-burners'.



I've used adblock plus for a couple of years and I have never looked back. It feels like I've cleaned up the internet.

I suggest everyone at least give adblock a chance.



ioi said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Who actually buys gaming shirts?

About 75-100 people per day?

Wow, that is many more than I would have guessed!

OT: I guess I should feel lucky that I don't really get any intrusive ads, but if people were to turn off their adblockers and report the annoying ads, wouldn't that mean most of us would be better off? (I know some of you can't, due to internet restrictions)

I wouldn't be willing to pay just to remove ads, because right now, I just get ads for Microsoft's virtulization software and FF13, none of which are intrusive in the slightest. If there was more incentive to pay though, I probably would.

And I think I'll have to get myself a Digg-account based on this thread. I'm not going to the hellhole that is N4G, but I'll Digg us! (I have way too many t-shirts to justify buying a GamerPrint one, sorry)