web More annoying: Hover ads, pop-ups, or autoplay ads?

[Wind Chaser 4,768]

It's a well-known fact that in comparison to the multitudes of banner ads all over the place that try to use decidedly more conventional means to grab our attention, all three of these are the Internet equivalent of pushy salespeople trying to disturb your peaceful Internet browsing.

 

The problem is deciding which one is worse. Which one is so bad that it makes you dislike a page? Which one do you think justifies an advertiser and a website shooting themselves in the foot by inconveniencing and annyoing their users the most? Which ones do you think are most deserving of the little X in the corner of the box?

[WhiteLightning 339]

Hover ads by far. Pop-ups are easily clicked away and are pretty much gone then. Audio/Video autoplay ads, are usually easily muted or stopped.

 

But hover ads... I've seen hover ads literally move a few times so you couldn't click them away right away! That, and it annoys me greatly when I'm scrolling and this stupid ad keeps moving along begging for attention.

 

Not a problem since a while though. Yay for AdBlock. (Which I have disabled here )

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

Adblock is a godsend...haven't dealt with ads in years...everytime I get on a computer I can't use (or forget to use) my linux live mode, the ads make me hate the internet with a passion. All ads are downright annoying, and none of them advertise anything I'd be interested in anyways....

[An Unknown Pony. 370]

In my opinion,hover ads really are messed up,some don't have the Close button,sometimes youtube ads and pop up ads annoy me more though.

[Snow Frostflame 3,568]

I use to get a lot of ads back when I first joined the Forums this one specific ad really pissed me off I would have to wait 5 seconds just to close out of it, it would play a random ad that you would normally see on YouTube videos the most common one it played was this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmV-WDuZVwY

 

every time I heard this go off I wanted to stab someone it would slow my computer down even more, and cause my music to glitch out. so I got my computer a virus check and I haven't gotten anything..... besides a few pop ups saying I should scan my computer again

Edited November 12, 2014 by Mike Schmidt

[chirox the pony 1,336]

The ones that play sound, you have no idea how much of nightmare it was for me watching rainbow rocks, I mean by the time you figure out where the sound is coming from you already missed some of what you were originally trying to watch and you have to go back a couple seconds, I hate those kinds of ads.

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,526]

Feld0's leviathan spiel on all things ads, ad blockers, and how they make and break the Internet.

 

Ahem. Don't take my position as a web developer and site operator as that of the opposition. Those who build the Internet as you know it are Internet users, too... not all of us are out to milk every last cent from a "freeloader's" visit.

 

I'd like to note that good ads are mutually beneficial. There are three key parties involved with an ad: the advertiser, the publisher, and the end-user. With a good ad, the advertiser reaches end-users highly relevant to them via the publisher. The publisher receives a fair payout from the advertiser for their work in rounding up their particular group of end-users and allowing the advertiser to communicate with them.

 

The end-users are informed of something that is relevant to them (it better be if the advertiser has paid to communicate to them), and if the match is right, the ad purchase generates enough new interest in the advertiser's wares to offset the cost of the ad.

 

In a good ad deal, everyone wins!

 

---

 

Between the three types of ad you brought up, Wind Chaser, I'm inclined to pin anything with autoplaying audio as the worst. It crosses the line when an audio ad begins playing minutes after a page has loaded - often while you're on another tab. Cue a frantic game of whack-a-tab to find the offender and shut it down. Ads like that, which depend on making their presence known when least expected, are more annoying than helpful.

 

Popups in the traditional sense - literally spawning a new browser window - have largely faded in popularity in favour of on-page "modals"; these are panes/overlays that appear within your open page, usually covering up content and sometimes darkening the screen. While they can border on the annoying, there are legitimately good ways to design an ad like this and integrate it into the natural experience of browsing a particular site. For instance, if I read several articles on a blog, I might actually find an obvious "hey, it looks like you like our stuff - why not subscribe to our email newsletter?" callout helpful and enticing at some point.

 

I do not recall specific examples, but in recent memory, I'm under the impression that a "hover timer" has become more commonplace - where you actually have to hover over the ad for some length of time before it grows across the page. A poorly built hover ad combines the worst elements of popups (covering your content in a way that makes you rage) and autoplaying audio (unforgivingly forces your attention onto it), but I haven't run into enough of them recently to feel I've been very bothered by them.

 

 

A tangent on who's to blame for this very discussion follows:

 

---

 

Which one do you think justifies an advertiser and a website shooting themselves in the foot by inconveniencing and annyoing their users the most?

 

I've laid out my full stance on this in the thread I linked above, but to complement that, I wanted to add a few notes:

• It's incredibly common, especially for smaller sites, to completely outsource the sales and placement of their advertising to one or more services like Google AdSense (the one you've probably heard of), PulsePoint, Chikita, TribalFusion, or others.
• These advertising networks don't give site operators direct control over the ads they serve - this is necessary for them to function.
• These networks also typically require site operators to literally inject code from their servers into their websites, completely and fully trusting the network to not destroy what the site's users see - again, this is necessary for them to function.
• Ad networks are ridiculously convenient.
• Ad networks don't pay anywhere nearly as much as direct advertising deals.
• Direct advertising deals tend to work out really well because the advertiser and site operator explicitly and mutually agree to show the advertiser's content on the operator's website. This means, ads that generate more conversions, make more money for the site, and are more relevant to the site's users - everyone wins!
• Due to various reasons, direct advertising deals tend to be well out of reach of the Internet's smaller sites.
• Ad networks are ridiculously convenient, assuming you trust them to not destroy your site and can live with the lower payouts - get an account, paste some code, wait for the cheque.
• Sites that depend largely on ad networks for their income find themselves between a rock and a hard place when the networks they trust employ more aggressive means of presenting ads - the operators have no direct control over this, as the networks have unfettered access to what users see.
• Smaller networks often pay even less. Trying new networks can be risky, depending on how thin a site's margins are.
• There is a widely accepted mentality that Internet-based services and content should be "free".
• Nothing is truly free. If you're not paying for it, you're usually the product.
• Properly implemented ads can solve the issue by providing what is essentially highly relevant content to the right people.
• Properly implementing ads in a way that benefits everyone involved is not a simple problem to solve.
• Ad networks are ridiculously convenient.

There is a school of thought that massive ad networks like AdSense did something to democratize the Internet in that they made it possible for just about anyone to sell some space on their site to an automated system and collect some pocket change for it - with a little luck, it'll be enough to pay for the site's online existence... but that's only one way to look at it.

 

The payout is comparatively abysmal before you get into millions of pageviews (hence, ad-funded websites are often "optimized" to generate more of them by splitting articles across multiple "pages" or otherwise artificially making you load more pages), but there are few other options that consistently generate revenue online when it being "free" is a fundamental part of its purpose.

 

Did I mention ad networks are ridiculously convenient? More thoughts here.

[Wind Chaser 4,768]

Feld0's leviathan spiel on all things ads, ad blockers, and how they make and break the Internet.

 

Ahem. Don't take my position as a web developer and site operator as that of the opposition. Those who build the Internet as you know it are Internet users, too... not all of us are out to milk every last cent from a "freeloader's" visit.

 

I'd like to note that good ads are mutually beneficial. There are three key parties involved with an ad: the advertiser, the publisher, and the end-user. With a good ad, the advertiser reaches end-users highly relevant to them via the publisher. The publisher receives a fair payout from the advertiser for their work in rounding up their particular group of end-users and allowing the advertiser to communicate with them.

 

The end-users are informed of something that is relevant to them (it better be if the advertiser has paid to communicate to them), and if the match is right, the ad purchase generates enough new interest in the advertiser's wares to offset the cost of the ad.

 

In a good ad deal, everyone wins!

 

 

---

 

Between the three types of ad you brought up, Wind Chaser, I'm inclined to pin anything with autoplaying audio as the worst. It crosses the line when an audio ad begins playing minutes after a page has loaded - often while you're on another tab. Cue a frantic game of whack-a-tab to find the offender and shut it down. Ads like that, which depend on making their presence known when least expected, are more annoying than helpful.

 

Popups in the traditional sense - literally spawning a new browser window - have largely faded in popularity in favour of on-page "modals"; these are panes/overlays that appear within your open page, usually covering up content and sometimes darkening the screen. While they can border on the annoying, there are legitimately good ways to design an ad like this and integrate it into the natural experience of browsing a particular site. For instance, if I read several articles on a blog, I might actually find an obvious "hey, it looks like you like our stuff - why not subscribe to our email newsletter?" callout helpful and enticing at some point.

 

I do not recall specific examples, but in recent memory, I'm under the impression that a "hover timer" has become more commonplace - where you actually have to hover over the ad for some length of time before it grows across the page. A poorly built hover ad combines the worst elements of popups (covering your content in a way that makes you rage) and autoplaying audio (unforgivingly forces your attention onto it), but I haven't run into enough of them recently to feel I've been very bothered by them.

 

 

A tangent on who's to blame for this very discussion follows:

 

 

---

 

 

 

I've laid out my full stance on this in the thread I linked above, but to complement that, I wanted to add a few notes:

 

• It's incredibly common, especially for smaller sites, to completely outsource the sales and placement of their advertising to one or more services like Google AdSense (the one you've probably heard of), PulsePoint, Chikita, TribalFusion, or others.
• These advertising networks don't give site operators direct control over the ads they serve - this is necessary for them to function.
• These networks also typically require site operators to literally inject code from their servers into their websites, completely and fully trusting the network to not destroy what the site's users see - again, this is necessary for them to function.
• Ad networks are ridiculously convenient.
• Ad networks don't pay anywhere nearly as much as direct advertising deals.
• Direct advertising deals tend to work out really well because the advertiser and site operator explicitly and mutually agree to show the advertiser's content on the operator's website. This means, ads that generate more conversions, make more money for the site, and are more relevant to the site's users - everyone wins!
• Due to various reasons, direct advertising deals tend to be well out of reach of the Internet's smaller sites.
• Ad networks are ridiculously convenient, assuming you trust them to not destroy your site and can live with the lower payouts - get an account, paste some code, wait for the cheque.
• Sites that depend largely on ad networks for their income find themselves between a rock and a hard place when the networks they trust employ more aggressive means of presenting ads - the operators have no direct control over this, as the networks have unfettered access to what users see.
• Smaller networks often pay even less. Trying new networks can be risky, depending on how thin a site's margins are.
• There is a widely accepted mentality that Internet-based services and content should be "free".
• Nothing is truly free. If you're not paying for it, you're usually the product.
• Properly implemented ads can solve the issue by providing what is essentially highly relevant content to the right people.
• Properly implementing ads in a way that benefits everyone involved is not a simple problem to solve.
• Ad networks are ridiculously convenient.

There is a school of thought that massive ad networks like AdSense did something to democratize the Internet in that they made it possible for just about anyone to sell some space on their site to an automated system and collect some pocket change for it - with a little luck, it'll be enough to pay for the site's online existence... but that's only one way to look at it.

 

The payout is comparatively abysmal before you get into millions of pageviews (hence, ad-funded websites are often "optimized" to generate more of them by splitting articles across multiple "pages" or otherwise artificially making you load more pages), but there are few other options that consistently generate revenue online when it being "free" is a fundamental part of its purpose.

 

Did I mention ad networks are ridiculously convenient? More thoughts here.

That was a hell of a long post, but I get the point. Google's ad service is great, I've gotten quite a few relevant ads and I've actually clicked on some of them, and I've found some amusing enough that I've posted about them on occasion.

 

On the flip side, I've gotten a few times where Google was letting in some bogus-looking ads and even browser hijackers. The only time I've ever disabled ads on this site was when those attacks were becoming more frequent, but these issues usually resolve themselves soon afterwards.

 

I really hate the autoplays. They're especially annoying when you're watching a video in one tab while you have another open. DeviantArt seems to be one of the worst offenders with those. Thankfully, Google Chrome makes that "whack-a-tab" a lot easier in that it puts up a speaker icon on the tab playing audio. Makes it easier to choose which page to refresh.

 

The worst ones are hover ads that try to block out the content but take a long time to load, and even worse are the unclosable ones. Some just don't know where the line is drawn, and aren't aware of the no win situation that occurs when ads become too invasive (people are turned off to the product because the advertiser seems desperate, and extremely intrusive ads will drive some people to back out of the page). I think stats show that hover ads are the ones most likely to drive a person out of a webpage. For me, it's a bit of the opposite, usually autoplays are the ones that drive me to the close button. Hover ads usually get me to refresh the page and try to hit stop before the script loads.

 

It's a game of balance. Good ads done in moderation that have a relevance or cleverness to them usually get my interest, but try too hard and you could end up at a loss for everyone.

 

I came up with the idea for this topic when I was on an article on another site whose first paragraph was blocked out by an uncloseable hover ad. I promptly gave the page the refresh treatment. I think I went three rounds with it before I finally got to read the whole article. I don't normally use ad blockers because I find it inconvienient to have to change the settings for every individual site.

 

Just as bad, I hate the sites that are so littered up in pop-ups that are engineered to beat the pop-up blockers. Once I was on http://www.airliners.net/ , an airplane photo gallery that is covered in an excess of ads of almost all kinds. Clicking on the photo automatically opens it up in a new tab, but one pop-up was so sneaky that the pop-up blocker blocked the content and let the ad through.

 

It just is what it is. Some advertisers and networks just need to know the limits between generating interest and generating annoyance, and unfortunately few actually do.

[CheeryFox 23,821]

I’d like to say, I'm really indifferent by those that do utilize Adblock, or some other program they intend to block adverts set by site management.

 

The Net is based on publicizing. Keeping in mind it’s not perfect, individuals are doing different forms of intelligent things to make it more striking - less inquisitive and more valuable equally to benefactors and clienteles. But, that is, for the clients who decide to hinder themselves from this economy and fundamentally rummage off the abundance of instruments and society it has created, while draining assets out of it like some appalling, electronic hanger-on, or a bandit.

 

That, as well as by sifting out effortlessly distinguished adverts, they urge site administrators to utilize more noticeable, less obviously stamped adverts the product doesn't get. Adblock isn’t really an ideal solution. Sure, some ads really piss me off but I know they serve a greater purpose... 

[SilverStarApple 849]

I despise hover ads, especially when you're on your phone and you can't get at the X button.

[Gernia 691]

Unless the autoplay ads are one that I can't skip or stop, I would say the hover ads since they get in my line of sight or even take up the whole screen. Good thing Adblock allows me to avoid them. I don't care if that makes me look like a scumbag, I just don't want some really intrusive ad (which excludes banners and most of the ones I can stop / cancel / skip).

Edited November 12, 2014 by Gernia

[PoisonClaw 8,164]

Oh, auto play ads are the worst. I could have several pages open when suddenly something starts playing for no reason and I literally have to spend several minutes hunting for it. You be surprised how many times I actually fail to find out where the sound is coming from. While I do keep my adblock turned off on certain sites for revenue purposes, the minute these pop up is the same minute adblock gets turned right back on for good.

[~Sugar Sprinkles~ 638]

They all really annoy me but.... THANK YOU FOR AD BLOCK.

 

Anyways, before ad block, I found the ads that popped up RIGHT IN YOUR face the worst. Especially how on some, even if you click the "X" its a trick and makes you click the ad anyways. Omg...

[Lato 246]

I don't see any of these, I have adblock

Although popup ads and extension detectors can detect that you're using it and can still display the popups or block you from the website until you disable to extension. 

 

Gotta love 8crap.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Feld0
Removed broken image

[Jeric 46,851]

Heh. Sitting hear watching (now listening) to Avengers on Equestria.TV and I stumbled upon this gem of a thread. I'm going to be far more succinct that Feld0 here. I admit that I have a Machiavellian grin reading a few of the posts that reveled in the fact that they used ad-block software to prevent the serving of ads. It does come across as a 'fight the power' mentality. That's fine I suppose. I do want to impart this little gem to you though - if you knew how effective marketing is on your day to day lives ... you would spend the rest of your days rocking back and forth in a fetal position questioning how much free will humans really have. 

 

I myself have to sit there in total awe of AdSense. The algorithm for it is nothing short of genius. Though I won't bore you all with concepts like targeting type, CTC, CTR, and so on ... just know that in the end it works. It's a thing to marvel in folks. Gone are the days of nearly infinite AOL driven pop-up ads that eroded my enjoyment of surfing. Instead, as I peruse this pony board, I am greeted by a simple nearly invisible banner featuring an SEC Football game. 

 

That is a key point here. A good design will never use an ad system that negatively impacts the user experience. Why? Repeat visits are an important metric. If you use a bad ad serving method, the site owner loses. 

 

Best to Worst. 

 

AdSense (barely noticeable)

Modal Ads (dependent on design)

Autoplay (I get annoyed at them some of the time)

Autoplay with loud playback (player.setVolume set to 'melt ear drum' level induces Hulk Smash mode in me)

 

---

 

You see that, I had my personal response, added some humor, AND I addressed the OP's question.

[Odyssey 5,716]

All three are annoying, but I find audio ads to be the most aggravating. Every time I come across one, I would pause it right away, but even after doing that it'll start playing on its own. Hover ads are no better, but at least they don't play any sound.

 

I was going to say pop-up ads as the most annoying ad, but unlike hover ads and autoplay ads, they aren't shoved down your face. Just a simple click and they're gone, obviously. Thankfully, I don't need to see any of these. Hooray for Adblock!

[Celli 4,338]

Hover ads are the worst. Especially on smartphones. I try to zoom in, but it blocks the close button and I can't get to it.

[Jackleberry 1,921]

All of them. Screw ads.

 

... I'd have to say, any sort of ad that plays audio is my least favourite. I don't like it when my music/video gets interrupted by some random, unrelated audio playing in the background.

[VulpineTaco 525]

Well, the most annoying is a mix of both autoplay and hover ads. Sometimes, ads just come up and play on a website, not even starting muted. The other annoying kind are the kind that, whenever you get anywhere near them with your mouse, the blow up to 3x their side and start playing. It's like an annoying corporate sponge.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,377]

Auto-play ads by far. If someone has to literally shove their product in my face like that, then they have already lost me. It is just annoying. Hover ads are also irritating, but at the very least they have some criteria to how they get in your face. Auto play is just 'hey look at my product look at it look at it look at it!" And that is irritating to a much higher degree in my opinion.

[SparklingSquirrels 21,340]

I could have sworn I posted here, but apparently not

 

Anyway, I hate all ads so I use Adblock, and I love it. I even use an Adblock browser for mobile! I suppose autoplay ads are the worst though.