Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Advertising Businesses The Almighty Buck The Media Games

Game Site Wonders 'What Next?' When 50% of Users Block Ads 978

6 writes "Destructoid, one of the few remaining bastions of independent game journalism online, wonders what to do now that nearly 50% of their users run ad-blockers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Site Wonders 'What Next?' When 50% of Users Block Ads

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:14AM (#43129987)

    Swallow it.

  • by lesincompetent ( 2836253 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:14AM (#43129989)
    Then i realized exactly that without ads 3/4 of the internet would not exist. Now i simply manually block ads with my hosts file only when they are particularly annoying (autoplaying videos? Whose great idea was it?).
    • by Flammon ( 4726 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:35AM (#43130079) Homepage Journal

      Ads is a very expensive way to pay for content. Your cost of living is 9% to 12% higher because of Marketing. I think that if we took the money spent on ads and gave it to content creators instead, we would have more and better quality content. As an added bonus, no annoying ads that slow everything down.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spxZA ( 996757 )
        What you are describing is a website behind a paywall. We don't all want that.
      • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:10AM (#43130243)
        This is the way I am looking at it:

        For many sites, there is a significant circle-jerk between the users and the advertising. The site would not exist without the advertising paying for it, AND the site also would not exist if the users werent generating content for the site. You are using an example of this right now, good old slashdot.

        In those cases, if a significant number of users turn to ad blocking then eventually they cut their own throats and the site will go away. Many forums and services on the internet are these circle-jerks.

        The thing about advertising is that its essentially a pay-per-view model, a model that is ultimately one of the fairest models that could be crafted. Subscription models tend to trend toward a reduction of alternatives, towards market consolidation, and the more casual a user you are the more you end up paying per view.

        Anyways, if this story is indeed about a site that has ended up with 50% of its users running ad blockers then there is a pretty good chance that the particular advertising they were doing was particularly annoying (possibly lots of malware delivered too.)
      • by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:30AM (#43130377)

        Your cost of living is 9% to 12% higher because of Marketing. I think that if we took the money spent on ads and gave it to content creators instead, we would have more and better quality content.

        Not to mention all the marketing and advertising people starving to death (which surely solves a few additional problems). :)

      • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:09AM (#43130553) Journal
        DO me a favor. Go out, start a business, don't advertise, let us know how long you stay in business.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:46AM (#43130145)

      The Internet was ticking along very nicely before it was plagued with ads. If a few sites die, so what, they're only glorified bloggers and aggregations replication stuff from elsewhere under the guise of "reporting".

      If the adverts weren't so obnoxious and stealing bandwidth, people wouldn't worry too much about them. Fix the ads, or shut up shop.

      • by JustOK ( 667959 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:11AM (#43130249) Journal

        By nicely you mean very little content compared to today. By nicely you mean not able to make money.
        It's the obnoxious, intrusive and privacy-stealing ads that are the problem.

        • by maztuhblastah ( 745586 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @12:52PM (#43131571) Journal

          By nicely you mean very little content compared to today. By nicely you mean not able to make money.
          It's the obnoxious, intrusive and privacy-stealing ads that are the problem.

          That's part of the problem yes.

          The other part of the problem is that people such as yourself see "not able to make money" as part of the "problem" with the pre-hyper-commercialized web.

          Not everything needs to be squeezed until it makes a buck, but as long as people keep seeing everything in the world with fucking dollar signs in their eyes the problem will continue.

          Was part of the "problem" with gas handle pumps that they didn't have space for another ad? 'cause we solved that problem.

          How about airliner tray tables? They couldn't make money, but we sure addressed that one.

          And long stretches of road with greenery and shit visible? The issue there was it just wasn't making money! But don't worry, we fixed it.

          Advertising is societal corrosion. It eats away at our experiences, it reshapes our thoughts, it homogenizes and neuters our culture, and it's all because people such as yourself see "not making any money" as an inherent problem with all sorts of aspects of our lives.

        • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @01:49PM (#43131963) Homepage Journal

          > It's the obnoxious, intrusive and privacy-stealing
          > ads that are the problem.

          Which is to say, most of them. :-)

          My rationale for blocking ads: Most ads come from ad networks. These networks can be hacked to serve malicious ads (or maybe people just pay for malicious ads and they don't get caught by QC -- don't know, don't care.) The fucking New York Times [] fell victim to this so it's not a minor problem. I block ads as a security measure.

      • by Mike Frett ( 2811077 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:20AM (#43130319)

        Exactly. It was working just fine, and the pages were not slow and bulky. And when ads did appear, they were minimal and not intrusive. People say we should just let the banks fail and reboot, I think we should let websites whose pages are slow and bulky and have top bottom and sides filled with ads, just let them fail.

        User created content use to be king, now it's corporate garbage with shill reviews and web browsers that can't cope with all the shitty code and slowness. And when you searched from a Search engine, you actually found relevant results and not auto generated trash.

        This virtual world is in dire need of a reboot.

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert&slashdot,firenzee,com> on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:48AM (#43130161) Homepage

      I used to only block particularly obnoxious ads (those with sound mostly, or any form of popup that disrupts what your doing)... But then i found there were simply too many obnoxious ads that it was easier to block them all.
      I never had a problem with simple banners or text ads, and would never have considered blocking them.

      What i found particularly offensive was video ads for movies that started automatically playing (thus distracting me with the noise and wasting a substantial amount of bandwidth), and which were for movies that i couldn't even legally see in my location!

      Incidentally advertisers generally pay per click not per view, and those who block ads are generally those who would never have clicked on them in the first place.

    • by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:03AM (#43130221) Homepage Journal

      Now i simply manually block ads with my hosts file only when they are particularly annoying (autoplaying videos? Whose great idea was it?).

      I used to do that until I discovered the Flashblock extension. Now I block ads only when they're presented in SWF format. Chrome on my tablet doesn't even support SWF, and Firefox on my laptop and tablet makes SWF click-to-play except for a few sites on the whitelist. Text ads and still image ads still load just fine; an advertiser wanting to reach me should use those.

  • by Tagged_84 ( 1144281 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:17AM (#43129999)
    How about they work on creating something worth paying/subscribing to? Simple to suggest, hard to deliver. Perhaps that's the reason? I've been getting into Giant Bomb more lately and if I had a job I would consider trying out their premium service.
  • by Picardo85 ( 1408929 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:19AM (#43130005)
    The swedish gaming journalism website FZ [] has started informing their users how the ad-blocking is hurting their business.
    And I do think that most gamers who frequent that said site have started unblocking ads on said site so that they can continue to enjoy the reviews and other content on the site.

    However, I don't think that this is a solution for EVERY site, but it might be a solution for sites with a large steady user base.
    • And I do think that most gamers who frequent that said site have started unblocking ads on said site so that they can continue to enjoy the reviews and other content on the site.

      If I am viewing a web site, but Flash is click to play on my machine and HTML5 video in MPEG-4 format is not available, am I "blocking ads"?

    • by Splab ( 574204 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:30AM (#43130375)

      Well, if they want me to view ads, it's very easy.
      1. Host them your self you lazy ass fucktards! There is nothing more frustrating for users than waiting some 3-5 seconds for some stupid adserver to respond with whatever crap they want to sell. Also, adnetworks are prime system for spreading malware, vet your friggin ads, host them and serve them proper.
      2. No flash. No moving about. No Sound.

      Do that and you wont be blocked (by me).

  • ad networks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:20AM (#43130015)

    Pretty much the answer is to embed ads in the site code itself, rather than simply link to some dodgy advertising company's site.

    I recall WebhostingTalk site had a pdf describing their site that they would use for potential advertisers, you paid your money and supplied some ads in the required formats and they'd put them in their site themselves. Nowadays, 'ads' are just a couple of clicks to the most annoying syndicated rubbish (along with all the tracking cookies) that have nothing to do with the site you're looking at, except an easy way to attract money.

    So the solution for this site is simply to work at getting the advertisers and give up the ad networks.

    • And no animated ads. I use adblock, but there are several sites which make unobtrusive relevant ads. I've unblocked them, and even sometimes I find something interesting enough to buy.

      • Re:ad networks (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MickLinux ( 579158 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:52AM (#43130181) Journal

        Biggie here. I work at a concrete plant, and we sometimes need to check the weather loops. At our remote location, the only internet available is by way of AT&T through Verizon lines, so the latency is terrible. Maybe that's part of the problem, but when switched to running multiple ad loops, the weather loop page would reset and timeout -- then reload (starting with a whole new page of the ads) before we ever saw the first motion of the weather map.

        We never got the content we came for!!!

        So I don't go there any more. I go to a local TV station instead. I tried to notify, but they've isolated themselves very well from any feedback.

  • by DCFC ( 933633 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:22AM (#43130019)

    Readers block your ads because they are crap.

    Your advertisers only want to reach people that are useful to them.
    Cross the two.
    Facebook et al try to steal personal data, why not negotiate with users ?
    Treat them like adults, say “you are going to get one ad per 5 page views, so why not tell us what sort of ad you want ?”. I care about storage, you probably don’t, so why not honestly ask the readers ? You’d have a higher quality product to sell and readers would be bugged less.

    Also, make a virtue about only having non-irritating ads and be honest that having the ad pays for the content, so that people ad your site to their exception list.

    The thing I hate about most ads is that their server slows down your page load, that's fixable, and would cause a lot less use of blockers.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:37AM (#43130091)

      No, readers block ads because they're capable of researching what they want on their own and don't want more crap foisted on them.

      There is no such thing as a good advert to me. Adverts are inherently daft.

    • by grumbel ( 592662 ) <> on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:19AM (#43130307) Homepage

      Yep, very much this. It always puzzles me why ads are so crappy on the Internet. Every website these days has all those Web2.0 features, yet ads are still completely passive, I can't rate them, I can't comment on them, I can't even link them and even when I click them they hardly ever lead me to the information about the product I actually seek. What also annoys me a lot is the lack of variety in ads, if I open three tabs on Youtube, chances are they will all play the very same commercial and often one that I already have seen five times before the same day. And finally after all that hubbub about user tracking I have to wonder why ads are still so often so random and out of context, the very best that I have seen so far is that Amazon keeps advertising me products that I already bought the day before, which not very helpful to say the least.

      It also would help a lot when companies would be a litter more active in interacting with their user base. For example when it comes to customer product reviews there are frequently persistent issues with the product, stuff that breaks, bad documentation or whatever, where is the company support guy actually answering those issues? The only times I ever the active support is from indie game developers, everybody else either doesn't interact with the customers at all or only via generic copy&paste text snipes that completely fail to actually address the issue.

    • by houghi ( 78078 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:29AM (#43130699)

      People want better ads? No. People do not want ads, But if they are forced to chooses between two evils, they will chooses the less evil one.
      In this case that is better ads.
      Sure, sometimes the ads are better then the content (Superbowl anybody?) but that does not mean I want to watch ads all the time.
      Soa Paulo in Brazil does not have any ads anymore [].
      I would be happy if all cities in the world would follow their example.

      Banksy [] has a nice idea about it:
      People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

      You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

      Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

      You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.

  • It's not the ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thePowerOfGrayskull ( 905905 ) <> on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:22AM (#43130023) Homepage Journal

    For the most part it's not the ads. If they're not blinking or obnoxious I can live with them.

    It's the tracking intrinsic to the ads that are the problem.

    Use a service that allows you to host the ads on your own servers, so that I know the only person collecting my data is the site that I'm visiting.

    • by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:35AM (#43130075)

      Mod up parent.

      It's being tracked that freaks techies out. Not the ads.

    • It's also a security risk. Anybody can effectively pay a few bucks to have their active content downloaded and run on users of a giant network of ad hosting sites.

      If ads were limited to images (and even then there have been some attack vectors against file decoders) or text, this wouldn't be as insidious a problem.

  • by vidarlo ( 134906 ) <> on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:23AM (#43130025) Homepage
    Ad blocking came about as a reaction on the huge multimegabyte flash ads with sound and moving images - at least for my part. They were slow to download on 56k modem, and waste of space. Then, google started tracking me across sites using google ads, and I don't particularly want them to track my browsing habits. So I blocked that too. But how much is lost to blocked ads? Did the people blocking ads click ads before blocking was common? I did certainly not. Also, a lot of the ads on the web is quite US-centric, and of less interest to me as a european. Is this really a loss? I'm not so sure. Maybe a clean advertising standard, with text ads and as little tracking as possible would be a better way to go?
    • Ads aren't just for click-through. Advertisers also want their product simply displayed and put into the minds of websurfers, so technically they are losing that form of audience when adblocking is enabled. Yeah, many of the products won't be applicable for out-of-country users, but they still might want to show their ads to local people who would never even click through.

      But it's my bandwidth I pay for, it's my machine to decide what runs on it, and my choice whether to ignore sites that prevent adblocke

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:26AM (#43130041)

    I have been running Ghostery for a while for this reason, and going to Destructoid it hit an all time high score of blocked content. 43 items blocked, even News Limited's only gets 10 blocks and there is enough crap on there to annoy the hell out of most people.

  • by louic ( 1841824 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:26AM (#43130045)
    I don't see the problem. Actually, I would be happy to see all those ad-supported websites disappear (especially those that make you click through 10 pages to read a single article). If the internet were to become a place where enthusiasts write their weblogs, scientists and hobbyists share results, and some really good content that is worth paying for hides behind paywalls, I do not have a problem with that at all. In fact, it would be a brilliant improvement!
  • by devitto ( 230479 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:39AM (#43130099) Homepage Journal

    AdBlock has a scheme where if your Ads are place sympathetically, they're not blocked.

    But this article (and TFA) reads as 'We don't understand or communicate with our readers, but this is somehow THEIR fault.'

  • Plead (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:40AM (#43130107) Homepage

    People didn't install ad blockers to block your site specifically, they did it once because of some annoying ads or just the vast volume of ads everywhere. They don't really think about the fact that they're doing it and depriving you of ad revenue. I would make a box one pixel higher/wider than the ad (since many blocks are based on standard ad sizes in addition to lists) with a background that said something like "[website name] is funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, please do not block our ads. Thank you." so that if you have no ad blocker installed the ad loads on top. If you block the ad they get that message instead. Start there, only take more drastic measures if you have to.

  • by alen ( 225700 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:43AM (#43130121)

    Have the game publishers pay for good reviews

    Site gets money
    Readers get content

  • by putaro ( 235078 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:43AM (#43130125) Journal

    I ran without an adblocker for the longest time because the ads on the side don't bother me. Even the occasional interstitial I could deal with. Then, one of the sites I visit regularly started running that damned Meebo toolbar that manages to cover part of whatever you're looking at. It looks like it's been fixed but for a while it repopped up on every page you went to on the site. So, I installed an adblocker, and I've been a happy camper ever since. I don't even think about it running anymore.

    This is sad for the sites who have not been annoying with their ads. However, even those sites that want to keep the ads under control apparently have trouble. The writer at Destructoid said that they try to keep the annoying ads out, like the ones that start running audio as soon as you open the page. Try is the operative word, though, and many other sites do not try, so it's always a possibility that something stupid will start blaring out of your speakers. The industry as a whole needs to stop looking at consumers as sheep to be milked instead of customers to be convinced.

  • Why I block ads (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LihTox ( 754597 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @08:53AM (#43130185)

    I refuse to read ads. I refuse to click on ads. People trying to manipulate me piss me off, and now I'm reading your site and I'm pissed off. Ads are computer viruses for the mind (trying to rewrite the software to their own ends); if a website came to me and said "Don't install antivirus software because malware pays for our bandwidth" I would laugh in their faces and I hope you would too.

    I'd be happy to load the ads if I didn't have to look at them. Perhaps I could have a special sandboxed browser where you type in all of your favorite sites, and it loads them up with the ads in the background every day (at 3am when I don't care about bandwidth).

    But the real sin to advertisers isn't blocking the ads, it's ignoring them, right?

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @09:01AM (#43130211) Journal

    I don't read Destructoid, but I read plenty of other gaming sites.

    I run strict adblockers for the same reason pretty much everyone does: because the obtrusiveness of ads - popover, popunder, audible, garish, and intellitext ads all are simply annoying, not to say that some (scripts) are flat-out security risks.

    The fact is - not as bad as broadcast TV, but close - the hook is too large for the bait. Few people understand the true relationship between viewers, content producers, and advertisers: the ADVERTISERS are the customers, the viewers are what are being sold, and the content producer is like a fisherman, throwing just enough bait (content) into the water to get the fish to swim closer (read the site and thus the adverts) to sell THAT to the customer.

    50% of the users block ads? I think that's low, actually. I also put adblock on every computer in our family (it means less service work for me).

    So, you ask, how is a site like Destructoid supposed to survive?
    1) recognize that (contrary to the OP) you're NOT "working 2x as hard as anyone to survive"...everyone else's ads are blocked at the same rate.
    2) you are in a market where there are a glut of suppliers because the entry-price is so low: a website is cheap to start and there are all sorts of budding writers that are simply happy to have their crap posted somewhere more official than their facebook page.. The sad fact of capitalism is that many of them will fail.
    3) Sadly, whether you fail or not will probably have little to do with the quality of your content. Life's a crapshoot, and choosing a business with a zero-depth entry point means your business is going to be CONSTANTLY challenged by other people who think they can do it better. Further, it is overall a relatively puny business, something that a corporate giant (a Sony, or EA, or whatever) can 'blow' $$$ on with little/no hope of return, compensating writers more aggressively. The only thing you have to offer that beats that is neutrality - any corporate-sponsored site (if it's identifiable as such) is suspected of being biased in its reviews, or (at best) being a gross corporate shill (ala Game Informer magazine). But ultimately (as especially those of us having spent time in the industry know) you are hostage to your advertisers too. In point of fact, the agglomerated sites (Telefragged, etc.) are probably LESS hostage to a particular advertiser, although as I'm not sure how fast the zeroes pile up at that scale, I'm not certain that's true.

    For what it's worth, there is no bad publicity; I'd never even heard of Destructoid having been in the gaming industry as a consumer and reviewer since 1994. I'll check out Destructoid for a while, see if it's worth reading.

    I don't have any advice for you. If I could be certain that the ads provided through your ad-providers are never going to be minimally-obtrusive, sure, I' d suspend adblock on you pages. But I can't change the fact that your industry is easy to get into and you will always have lots and lots of competition...I doubt it will ever get easier for you.

    Truth in commenting 1: I personally can't understand the advertising economy; the amounts paid for advertising seem to me staggeringly out of line for the benefit. I rarely watch/view ads, those I do see often dissuade as much as persuade, and I've never (as far as I can tell) made a purchasing choice based on an advert.
    Truth in commenting 2: on Slashdot, I have deliberately left unchecked the 'disable adverts' box because I've never been annoyed at their ads; however, I don't make an adblock exception for them either.

  • I block abusive ads (Score:5, Informative)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:05AM (#43130521) Homepage

    Abusive ads have one or more of the following:

    • Use animated GIF to blink
    • Use Flash
    • Use Java
    • Track users
    • Load from another domain

    These are the ones I block. I suggest advertisers start treating people as people.

  • That site is a joke. (Score:4, Informative)

    by JakeBurn ( 2731457 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:05AM (#43130525)

    My Ghostery blocked 14 scripts from loading on that site. The sad thing is, with all that blocked, the entire left and right quarter of the screen came up blank. If a site needs that much revenue from ads for mostly re-reporting what other people have already written they do not deserve to be in business in the first place. I can't stand that most of these types of sites have nothing but garbage opinions and things I've read elsewhere AND think they have a right to gather my information for free, even if its just my IP. If it was for their own metrics, fine but not to 14 entities that I never clicked on or agreed to share with. I've never clicked on disable advertising on Slashdot and yet I'm still looking at most of my screen showing content. I don't have Musinex ads screaming out of my speakers. If they want to survive, sites like Destructoid need to figure out how to do it in a way that consumers are willing to put up with.

  • by David Gerard ( 12369 ) <> on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:12AM (#43130587) Homepage []

    I appreciate the ads that get in people's faces pay more. Until they're blocked.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:39AM (#43130749)

    By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing kill yourself.

    No, no, no it’s just a little thought. I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they’ll take root – I don’t know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself.

    Seriously though, if you are, do.

    Aaah, no really, there’s no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan’s little helpers. Okay – kill yourself – seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you’re going, “there’s going to be a joke coming,” there’s no fucking joke coming. You are Satan’s spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It’s the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself.

    Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, “he’s doing a joke” there’s no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend – I don’t care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking makinations. Machi Whatever, you know what I mean.

    I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, “Oh, you know what Bill’s doing, he’s going for that anti-marketing dollar. That’s a good market, he’s very smart.”

    Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags!

    “Ooh, you know what Bill’s doing now, he’s going for the righteous indignation dollar. That’s a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We’ve done research – huge market. He’s doing a good thing.”

    Godammit, I’m not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

    “Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill’s very bright to do that.”

    God, I’m just caught in a fucking web.

    “Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market – look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar”

    How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don’t you?

    “What didya do today honey?”

    “Oh, we made ah, we made ah arsenic a childhood food now, goodnight.” [snores] “Yeah we just said you know is your baby really too loud? You know?” [snores] “Yeah, you know the mums will love it.” [snores]

    Sleep like fucking children, don’t ya, this is your world isn’t it?

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @10:40AM (#43130755)

    Ads get more and more obnoxious as time goes on. I guess the train of thought is that people don't click ads because they didn't see them, so they have to be more intrusive to get seen and then people will click.

    Bzzzzt. Sorry, wrong, but thanks for playing (I'd even thank you more if you stopped playing).

    The reason is a very different one: You're hawking a product nobody wants. The way I see it, to get me to click on an ad, getting me to notice it is only the first step out of many. There are so many others, and the most important two are simply that

    - I have to have some use for your product
    - I have to want to do business with you

    Now, please tell me why I should even consider doing business with you if you yell in my face. Would you? Be honest. If I came up to you and jumped up and down in front of you while you're trying to have a conversation with your friend or read something that interests you, would you even listen to me when I yelled into your ear and generally be as obnoxious as I can be? Most likely you'll grab me and throw me into the next garbage bin you find. And that's, essentially, what the people using ad blocking on your ads do: They toss your ads into the garbage. Without even looking at them. They may even be for a product they'd be at the very least mildly interested in, but presented in THAT manner? I wouldn't do business with you if you were the last person on earth offering this product.

    The only thing I'd ever want from you is to be left alone.

    For the longest time I had no ad blocker running. What I did instead was to automatically close every pop up that started to load, without even looking what it was about. It was a popup, it was obnoxious, I didn't even WANT to know what it was about.

    Lately, YouTube started to insert ad clips before giving me the clip I want to see. What does this accomplish? The same. You sit there with your mouse hovering over "wait 5 seconds to skip ad", and as soon as "skip ad" is offered, you click. I've probably seen the first 5 seconds of a few ads by now, and I even have no idea what those ads were for. Who thought it would be a bright idea to do that? There's this user who wants to see a clip. And he wants to see it NOW because, well, when he types his search string into YouTube and hits go, he wants to see it. No matter how interesting your ad could be, this is NOT the time this user will watch it. He wants to see his clip. Unless, maybe, he has the attention span of a gold fish and gets easily distracted by shiny things, but then, chances are that he will have forgotten about your ad by the time his clip finishes, so what's the point?

  • Youtube Ads (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sibko ( 1036168 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @11:11AM (#43130935)
    We've been doing renovations on the house here, so I recently moved in with my father for a couple weeks while getting everything done at home. I noticed that suddenly youtube seemed to have an incredible number of ads when I used his computer. I wasn't really sure what had happened, I assumed maybe there was something related to his google account that showed him more ads, or perhaps youtube had suddenly implemented a massive new ad campaign.

    Eventually, I realized, my dad's computer didn't have adblock, while mine did. The difference this made was staggering. I'd always assumed Youtube was just really gentle with their advertisements - I'd still get them, but they were quiet and relatively few. Without adblock, jesus, I couldn't believe what the site was like without adblock. It's nearly as bad as cable TV.

    The thing is, I happened to be building a new computer at the time and decided to forego the normal adblock install in chrome. That changed after about a week, youtube was a significant part of that decision, but there many many website that would pop-up shit on the screen that would block out all the other content and darken everything except the ad, or there'd be annoying little mini-videos strewn about the page, or they'd blare some noise loudly and randomly.

    Seriously, I don't mind ads. They pay for the content I enjoy, but this is too much.
  • by SLi ( 132609 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @01:46PM (#43131941)

    I would like an ad-blocker that loads the ads and is otherwise undetectable for the site I'm reading, yet does not display the ads. If that were the norm, we probably wouldn't even be seeing this article, because the site in question wouldn't know which percentage of its users blocks ads and would only have to assume it's roughly the same as for every other site.

    This would strangle the most the parties that I loathe the most, i.e. the advertisers. The site would still get their cut for the viewed ads. Granted, it might slowly make web ads a less lucrative business for everybody as advertisers no longer sell anything, but at least it would transfer the harm from the sites I access, which seems backwards to what I want, to the entire web ad business. Yes, it would come with a small cost to me in wasted bandwidth, but I don't mind, especially not when on a good connection.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday March 10, 2013 @02:11PM (#43132119) Homepage - stuck trying to read assets from "", "", etc. When it finally comes up, we get a giant picture from Teenage Pokemon, followed by clips from stories. Plus lots of ads.

    Their RSS feed [] is more readable and loads quickly. Now we get to see the content.

    It's just some gamer's blog. "This is my favorite episode so far." "There's not a whole lot of information disclosed on how and when the game will released". "Ten golden rules of online gaming." (the usual excuse for hanging ads on every paragraph.) "We had a delightful little Saturday Morning Hangover this morning, playing the recently released Phantom Breaker: Battle Grounds." No insights. No inside information. Not even good trip reports.

    Why should this guy expect to make money for writing a personal blog about his hobby?

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.