JazzB1987 said:
think-man said:
Btw pachter is right.
|
How? If they make ads that are in the background that are okay everyone would be fine with ads. But if you make ads that actually prevent one from doing what one wanted to do then how are those ads good? They are an obstacle.
Also when its the 10th time that e.g a COD Video is preventing me from watching something Halo related I will start to HATE COD for that stupid commercial.
If its a cool designed static AD without sound and without flashing animation etc. It would be completely cool.
The web worked like that a long time ago and one day people were like "hey site if you dont use our annoying ad we wont give you more money you will get the bare minimum" and some dumb sites said "okay lets do it" and it got worse and worse.
If everyone would have agreed to NOT have this shit then every site would get the same amount of money for static "cool" ads than they now get for annoying ones.
Also if ads would be "reasonable" then noone would need to use adblock and the ad-revenue would automatically increase. Its the same as annoying shitty anti-pirate measurements that result in MORE pirates.
|
Thank you. Ads should be inconspicuous, something that is passive in nature, that you just notice and are like "oh, that's kinda cool".
Ads that are straight up in your face, refusing to let you access a video or website until you click on them or let a timer run out are complete BS and far too prevalent, and make me hate the product more than make me interested.
Patcher comes down as a condenscending moron getting too worked up over crappy practices that shouldn't exist.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
