NiKKoM said: if you really want to make the ads mandatory: write a redirect php script and acces the ad urls through a database.. no adblocker can block that cause they would have to block the entire site..

Wrong; many ad-blockers just block flash content, therefore not interrupting any PHP / MySQL interaction. Ads would still be blocked, site would still be visible.

@ioi

If flash expanding without notice's the issue, you could css their conteiners with the overflow:hidden property. The thing I find most annoying so far, is the audio they start without asking. Especially when you're listening to your own music.

PS: I just disabled Flashblock on this site. I love this place too much to hurt it.

Advertisements in all mediums of entertainment are insanely annoying, but consumers can usually understand and put up with limited advertisements -if the ads can be ignored-

The problem with online ads is that they are often poorly done scams and are targeted as hosts for malicious attacks on PC's. These 'dodgy' advertisements are not only found on small websites but any website using the advertiser.

As for the moral issue -- if user's should be viewing advertisements on websites then shouldn't the websites be responsible for ensuring these advertisements are safe for users to watch.

Posting to comeback to this thread

i never block ads, they don't bother me, because i'm just ignoring then.

hell, there are sigs on that site that are more annoying then any ad ever could be

ioi said: Mendicate Bias said: In the past this website has had some of the most intrusive and annoying ads I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. The browser would literally crash if I opened more than one tab the advertisements were so horrible. Recently it has gotten a lot better but when you barrage people with ads that are not only annoying but actually crash browsers then you can expect them to ad block. Even if the intrusives ads haven't been around for a few months the repercussions are still there, once someone turns ad block on their not very likely to turn it back off. If you want to keep people from ad blocking you need to have less intrusive and sketchy ads, simple as that. I can't tell you the number of times google has warned me of malicious software on the website due to the advertisements. Integrate the ads into your website better and no one will care to ad block. You see this is the issue I have. The fundamental point here is that it's not your right to block ads. Whether you have the physical ability to or not is a different matter. This website is provided under the condition that you view the ads. As I say, a lot of sites (VGChartz included) will be looking into the possibility of blocking access for those using adblockers in the future if the issue continues to grow out of hand. Ads are annoying in every medium - tv, radio, magazines, websites. They interrupt the media that you are consuming because people are willing to pay a media organisation to have that right. Ads are annoying by their very nature, but it's only on the internet that there is this attitude of "I don't want annoying ads so i'll just remove them". Nobody does but without them (and the more annoying they are normally means the better they pay) then websites will cease to exist or will have take drastic action to counter the issue of adblockers.

I think I disagree that we need/are obliged to view adverts my man. For example, I will turn over the channel when the adverts come on or I might choose to enter a cinema later. it is obviously different for internet sites that actually monitor the viewing/loading of adverts. In this case it is okay to ask people to view them to help you out, but to say they have to view them is probably going to annoy a lot of people and it simply isn't true. I reminds me of Malstrom's point that the consumer decides what is and isn't true when they have choices put in front of them. I don't block the normal adverts, but then I don't read them either. I think you'll need a better way than blocking content to get people to view/load adverts as this is quite a risky strategy. People might just go elsewhere.

thekitchensink said: rendo said: thekitchensink said: STEKSTAV said: thekitchensink said: STEKSTAV said: I just cant seem to let this go.. 1. This is basicly - "buhu, our business model dosen't work, and its your fault". Its like crying because people don't want to talk to you when you're working at a telemarketing company. - "Its your fault I can't do my interview". Id say you're looking at it the wrong way. It can be viewed as a two way street. You're basicly saying that "Here's our product, buy it or get out" - but the 'customers' can also go "this is what we're interested in, provide it and we'll buy it". A subscription plan can be one of those deals. Just look at Spotify for example, ad free premium subscription and higher quality service. The thing that bothers me the most is the attitude. Its a real - F you, give us money! Because we think we deserve it! Further on, when this site was started did you all go "Oh crap, we have page views.. its going to cost us. Lets demand a return on our service!" - Most likely no. You were all excited as the site progressed and more users found your site, more oppertunities presented themselves. Its just as of late that you found out that there's money to make, or that expanding costs money. But to go out and say "why should we care about you!?" and later practically ask for hand outs just because you feel you deserve it.. is just bad business. You need to figure out how to get income, and not blame the community that makes your product what it is for not accepting the product for what it is. 1. It's actually nothing like that.  By using the site with an ad-blocker, you are actually COSTING the site money in terms of bandwidth.  In that way, using Ad-Block is effectively stealing from the site, as you are using its data and simultaneously causing it an expense. 2. And yes, actually, Brett DID make the site with a mind to making money.  This is his full-time job, and it's how he earns a living.  Not to mention over twenty staff who need to be paid, the site's bandwidth, and oh yeah, the actual data.  Just because you have free access to the sales numbers doesn't mean Brett gets them for free.  Almost every business in the world takes a loss when starting up.  It doesn't mean it's acceptable once it gets off the ground.  Simply put, if everyone used ad-blockers, this site would not exist. 1. Thats the problem with having ads as a sole source of income. Find other ways to get your money (i.e more page views). 2. True, if everyone used ad-blockers this site wouldnt exsist. Is that because A) The community is to blame for not liking our service, or B) Its our fault for not providing a service that makes users want to be apart of it? Alot of you seem to look at this from a very juvenile way in business management. Im not trying to force you into anything, or start some shit. It just seems as if you'd rather not look to yourself to see how you can improve and make more money, but rather try to force your business upon people. A fundamental rule of business management is to make money, not to reduce costs as a means to get money. Obviously reducing costs if possible is a given, but as i said, not the best way if you're looking to expand. If you want to expand, you need to earn more money. Also, check out the reply to ssj12 for further ways to look at this matter. Good day. Im off.. ill be back in 9 hours or so. I read your response to ssj, and I understand what you are saying.  If Brett finds other ways of making money, he can offset the cost of people stealing from his business.  That doesn't solve anything. No one is stealing anything.  It's not like ad blockers get all the ad income.  Come on.... If you steal from a store, the company loses money because they bought that item from their supplier.  If you use an ad-blocker, the web-site loses money because they paid for that bandwidth.  So the comparison is perfectly valid.

I don't see the validity of the comparison either. I do understand what you're getting at, but it just isn't a fair comparison. The site needs to adapt to its consumers not the other way around. Blocking isn't a good idea either for the dangers I mentioned in an earlier post. There must be another way to use advertising, TV adapted by product placement, for example.

If you don't mind me asking, ioi, how much do you get from a single page view with all ads loaded?

ioi said: You see this is the issue I have. The fundamental point here is that it's not your right to block ads. Whether you have the physical ability to or not is a different matter. This website is provided under the condition that you view the ads.

Sorry WHAT!? I think you will find it IS our right to block ANY adverts we wish, it is our computers and our browsers viewing the site, if we don't want to view adverts then we won't, that IS OUR RIGHT, unless you can make it impossible to use this free site unless you view/click the adverts there really isn't a lot you can do about it (unless you offer a premium service)

 

Could you show us in your terms upon joining this site that it states we MUST view ALL the adverts displayed

 

 

Sorry to sound funny but you can't just say things like that and not expect to get a reaction, and anyway, your asking for peoples views (good and bad), this will help this site in the long run by helping people express thier views!

And also, I said before and will say again, I would be HAPPY to pay for a premium membership to get rid of all these adverts, make it work ioi, make it work!

Infamy79 said: phxprovost said: Last time i checked i can do what ever i want on my pc within US laws and regulations and until a law is passed about ads i will continue to do what i wish with my pc.  Your only option as a content provider is to A. deal with it and accept the profits you are currently raking in and ignore people like me, Or B. try to do something about it but risk losing all the people like me.  I cant believe the attitude you seem to have believing your entitled to force feed me ads without retaliation of any kind simply because your site regurgitates infromation from around the net. Why should ioi care about losing people like you? You use up his bandwidth, which costs money, read his content, which costs money and block his ads, which generates his income. People like you are a parasite to sites like this, he should be happy to lose people like you. I would be.

Browser had a fit. Edited out the content as a result.

Infamy79 said: phxprovost said: Last time i checked i can do what ever i want on my pc within US laws and regulations and until a law is passed about ads i will continue to do what i wish with my pc.  Your only option as a content provider is to A. deal with it and accept the profits you are currently raking in and ignore people like me, Or B. try to do something about it but risk losing all the people like me.  I cant believe the attitude you seem to have believing your entitled to force feed me ads without retaliation of any kind simply because your site regurgitates infromation from around the net. Why should ioi care about losing people like you? You use up his bandwidth, which costs money, read his content, which costs money and block his ads, which generates his income. People like you are a parasite to sites like this, he should be happy to lose people like you. I would be.

The reason he should care is that every member whether they block or not is potential income. Some of which is even generated by blockers when they create threads, contribute to discussions and the like. This is not easily measured of course. My view is the business needs to adapt rather than the consumers. It is legal to block adverts and thus it is up to the site to work around that. Asking people to help is fine but moralising over it is not the way to do it. It comes across as self-righteousness and seriously pisses some people off. I guess its up to the team to find ways to make sure advertising is loaded, but blocking content is NOT the way to do it.