By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

impur1ty on 07 March 2010
ioi said:
impur1ty said:
ioi said:
impur1ty said:
lvader said:
impur1ty said:

 

Entitlement is not based on your opinion. Anyone is entitled to block adds. That is a fact.

And the web site owner is entitled to block/ban you for doing so. Also a fact.

 

You're exactly right. That's my point.

So in that case you are not entitled to block ads on this site and continue to view the content, correct?

 

User is entitled to block adds, site owner is entitled to block any user they wish. Simple.

 

There are sites out there that just display a splash screen to those who have adblock. Something along the lines of: "Users must disable ablock for this site if they wish to view content." It's then up to the user whether they believe it is worth it.

But again, you are not entitled (if we were to enforce it) to view the site with an adblocker.

I think you have a strange definition of the word "entitlement".

You can walk into a restaurant naked but you will be asked to leave - i.e you are not entitled to eat in the restaurant naked, i.e you have to abide by the rules set by the restaurant in order to eat inside it.

So saying "anyone is entitled to block ads" is wrong - are you saying (by extension) that anyone is entitled to commit a crime?

 

If this site was setup so service was refused to those who block adds, then yes, it would be the case that I would not be entitled to block adds on this site.



Around the Network
FKNetwork on 07 March 2010
ioi said:

Someone else missing the point.

Adblocking is an issue that affects all websites - IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, Arstechnica (the one who published the article to begin with), Digg, Youtube - it is a general issue that affects the internet as a whole. The debate over whether users should or should not be able to block ads is one that has raged on ever since adblockers were first created - it isn't a new debate either.

It's evident from the remainder of your post (and your moderation history which has twelve entries) that you have a general attitude problem so yes, it won't be a great loss if people like yourself no longer visit VGChartz to be honest...

Very strange that, I have 12 warnings on here over the entire time I have been a member here yet I have NEVER recieved a warning from ANY other site out there, something strange there, i'm even a mod on a couple of gaming sites.

And trust me, it is people like me that plays games and takes part in forum communities, losing people like me (who would be willing to pay to remove ads) is NOT what you want but seeing as you seem to always (think you) know best then yup, if you say so.

Basically ioi, anyone that doesn't agree with you would be better off not being a member here, that is what your saying in this thread, agree with you or fcuk off, thats fine but be VERY careful who you turn away from your site.

 

P.S, I don't block ads from any of the other sites you mentioned as there is no reason too, they are not annoying and unsafe like the ones here, e.g, get ripped in 1 hour, your pc has a million viruses, download this virus to stop those pretend viruses! etc



Conner52 on 07 March 2010

I block ads for one reason alone, some are very obtrusive. I have no problems with side, top, and bottom ads but if they make the website difficult to use then I have no problem. On this site, I block about half of them.



Gilgamesh on 07 March 2010

I got Adsweep turned off on VG Chartz, every other website is blocked.



Sansui on 07 March 2010

I haven't signed in to actively participate in a discussion in a LONG long time, but I felt the need to ad my two cents to this topic.

I am a web developer, and I truly understand the the problem of ad blockers, both with my own websites and with clients websites.

That said, a long time ago I was forced to install an adblocker just for Vgchartz - I was infected with rootkit viruses several occasions from a rogue ad on this website at various times, at which point I said sorry, but enough is enough. It's not much fun having to use various rootkit killers like combofix or unhackme because of ten minutes of browsing a site like this.



Around the Network
FKNetwork on 07 March 2010
ioi said:
FKNetwork said:

Very strange that, I have 12 warnings on here over the entire time I have been a member here yet I have NEVER recieved a warning from ANY other site out there, something strange there, i'm even a mod on a couple of gaming sites.

And trust me, it is people like me that plays games and takes part in forum communities, losing people like me (who would be willing to pay to remove ads) is NOT what you want but seeing as you seem to always (think you) know best then yup, if you say so.

Basically ioi, anyone that doesn't agree with you would be better off not being a member here, that is what your saying in this thread, agree with you or fcuk off, thats fine but be VERY careful who you turn away from your site.

 

P.S, I don't block ads from any of the other sites you mentioned as there is no reason too, they are not annoying and unsafe like the ones here, e.g, get ripped in 1 hour, your pc has a million viruses, download this virus to stop those pretend viruses! etc

Your moderation list reads like someone who doesn't understand the idea of rules which seems to be your main issue here.

 

On the subject of ads, how is a "get ripped" ad unsafe?

You speak as though this site is constantly populated by unsafe ads? If you are in the UK as you claim to be then you'd be interested to note that we actually use the same ad network here as Eurogamer uses. Most of the ads you see should be gaming ads - Final Fantasy XIII, Xbox Live, the "Why let drink decide" ad - they are all totally safe and can be found on most UK gaming sites (PSU, TGN, Play.tm etc) who use the same provider. What exactly are these malicious ads you keep talking about - I've never had a single malicious ad here in the UK and nobody is on this site more than I am. The US is a different matter - we do occasionally have ads there which slip through the net but "your pc has a million viruses, download this virus to stop those pretend viruses" are ads that I have never seen here in the UK so I don't really know what you're talking about?

No, breaking rules and sticking up for myself are two different things but we're not really in this topic to talk about me are we!

I'll tell you what, I will turn off my adblock and take a look at the current ads, if they are ok and don't slow my pc down then I will leave it off, is that fair? if they are indeed the same as Eurogamer there should be no issues!



STEKSTAV on 07 March 2010
thekitchensink said:
STEKSTAV said:
@ Thekitchensink - To minimize the quoting.

1. Are you seriously saying that people who visits this site with adblocker is stealing money? If you were my community manager id fire you straight away.

But to take this back to reality. Lets take Microsoft as an example.

2. If their entire company would consist only of the Xbox and Xbl (VGC) was their only market channel. And Gold membership (Ads) was their sole source of income.
Do you think they'd go - "All you silvermembers are stealing our money. So either you upgrade to Gold or GTFO!".. ? OR do you think they rather try and make money off of their userbase in another way?

But you can also look at it from a VGC perspective.
- Sending people to E3 will generate X amount of articles
- X amount of articles will generate Y amount of more page views
- The only way for VGC to send more people to E3 is to reduce cost
- We can reduce costs by shuting out ad blockers.

Then id shut out adblockers in a heart beat. A means to an end. Im all for it. Go get your money!

But to sit here and cry that the community is stealing money by visiting your website, and that its the communitys fault that your business plan isnt generating money is not good management. Period.

1. Yes, I am.  Glad I don't work for you, then.

2. Actually, Xbox Live Silver members see plenty of ads.  When I had a Silver account, my Dashboard was still full of ads telling me to "Upgrade to the 120gb hard drive, the perfect place to store all that upcoming Fallout 3 content!"  So yes, even Microsoft, the company with the largest net worth in the world, relies on ads to support its free services.  If people found a way to circumvent seeing ads on their Silver accounts, you're damn right Microsoft wouldn't be pleased with them.  They'd probably ban them from Live.  Your point?

Your a site admin.. Have a good day.



STEKSTAV on 07 March 2010
ioi said:
Ok, this is the point that some people seem to be misunderstanding here.

Of course users are entitiled to block ads. I can't pyhsically stop you from doing so.

What I'm saying is that this website is provided to you UNDER THE IMPLIED CONDITION THAT YOU VIEW THE ADS. By using the website services but blocking the ads you are breaking the conditions under which the website is provided and can therefore be excluded from using it. Correct to those who say this isn't listed directly in the terms of use - the reason being that it is not enforced (as yet).

The point of posting this article was to explain to the majority of adblock users the damage that they are unknowingly causing to a website business by doing so. Most simply don't understand the repercussions and by explaining it hopefully some will change their mind.

However for every 10 people who fall into this category, 1 person will stand up and say "it's my right to block ads and I don't care if it hurts a website", the response being "it's my right to remove you from using this website". For users who wish to take but give nothing back it wouldn't be considered a loss if you were no longer able to use the site.


To those who are saying "it's not our fault your business model doesn't work" - you are missing the point. Nobody said the business model doesn't work - 95% of sites on the internet are funded by online advertising so evidently it does work just fine. The issue is why should people be allowed to use the services offered by a website without paying for it. The fact that we offer a solution in which you don't have to put your hand in your pockets but merely put up with the small inconvenience of viewing some ads should be something that people jump all over. The ads are what makes this site "free" for you to use. The alternative business model is to charge directly for using the site, which is a perfectly valid option and one I have discussed here and the only way to enforce that for those who are willing to pay is to block content to those who aren't paying but blocking ads as well.

Obviously the current business model dosent work, why else would you have to change the terms of use? If it was a working business model, you'd be able to send your people to E3. Could you point me in the direction to any free sites on the internet that block users from visiting their site, service based sites, not products? It just dosent make sense to me that any of those would exsist, but you might have more info on that matter?

No you dont offer a solution where we dont have to pay money, you've agreed to put ads on your site so that you can make money off of page views. Theres a difference. You've taken steps to try and cut down on costs by allowing ads to provide you with money. But obviously these ads is annoying to a big enough amount of users for you guys to start pointing fingers and blaming your community. So, A) Are the people annoyed by your service forcing ads on them wrong.. or B) might it be that you're useing the wrong kind of ads in a forceful way?

For the love of god, stop saying. Its YOUR FAULT. BEND OVER OR GTFO!

This is might be your first and only business(?), if so, i get that not all know exactly how to implement a working business model right off the bat. But blaming your community, your income, for not producing enough income just because you've increased your cost elsewhere, is just plain wrong.



STEKSTAV on 07 March 2010

Dont get me wrong, im looking at you thekitchensink, i dont mind if you shut out your users to turn a profit. Profit is the only thing that matters. As i said a few post back, if you feel that shutting down X amount of users in order to turn a profit, than fine by me, go ahead.

The issue here is that under no circumstances do you go out and tell your "share holders" that its their fault that your company is in the red. And that they're theifs for using the companys water cooler.



Senlis on 07 March 2010

I don't block ads I block flash of any kind. It is annoying, eats up bandwidth, and sometimes is a security vulnerability. I don't mind any other ads however.