Ad Blockers, Ads, And You

[ToridAkbolto 170]

I can't donate but I turned on ads after seeing this.

 

By the way, if I frequent these forums with ads on, how much support do you get?

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

1. If the placement is in the way of anything, contact the site owner.

2. Don't click them.

3. If they are in the way you should say something. See 1.

4. Fair point, usually AdSense/other reputable ad companies won't though.

5. See point 4.

6. See point 4.

7. See point 4.

 

1. Many are programmed to change location, follow the mouse, or generally interfere with things.

2. As I know too well, it only takes one accident to screw everything up.

3. You can't just ask the ads to nice change how they are hard coded to run.

4. First of, usually is not always. Second, that's an incredible naive view. Usually, the ads that pay best are the flashiest.

5. See point 4. The flashier, the longer loading time. If several of the ads are flashy, loading time increases and lag increases.

6. See point 1. Many ads are designed to either harass users or put them in situations where they nearly force users to interact with them. They operate similar to jokes, a type of malicious software.

7. Ads are notorious for having large payloads of viruses, trojans, and other malicious software. Certain ads, especially what is known as scareware, will draw people in the moment people click on them (Which some try everything possible to try to make a certainty). Once the ad has been clicked, code is run to circumvent and disable NoScript, circumvent and shut down the victim's antivirus, and disable the victim's ability to leave the site, exit the browser, end the browser process, or shut off the computer short of removing the battery. Then, the payload of the site will be delivered onto the computer, giving what can amount to dozens or even hundreds of viruses onto a computer. This is a similar process to what goggle.com did (Fake google site for those unfortunate few who mispelt google) and fake antivirus scareware does.

 

The reason I know ads do these things is because I've had three computers destroyed just because I clicked ONE ad. They slowly were eaten alive by hundreds of viruses and eventually had do be trashed.

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

How to disable AdBlock Plus (2.11) for Mozilla Firefox for only MLPforums.com:

 

Click on the Firefox main menu Add-Ons

Click on Extensions

Click on the Options button on Adblock Plus

Click on the Filter Preferences button. This should open up a medium pop-up of your Adblock Filter Preferences.

 

Click on the Custom tab, and add a New Filter Group. You can name it whatever you wish.

Right-click on the new Group you created, and click on Show filters. Click on the Add Filter button to create a new filter.

 

type in "@@|http://mlpforums.com" without quotation marks. This will make all traffic that is directed out of this website exempt from Adblocker.

 

In your User Profile Settings on this website, click on the checkmark to Opt in for Ads.

 

If you refresh a page on this website, Ads should be visible.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Blue

[Midnightive 458]

I was fine with ads and what not... I was fine with them all over the site.

 

Then youtube was like 'MWAHAHAHA AUTO PLAYING VIDEO ADDS ON VIDEO PAGES!'

Which was fine if it was one... but it was over and over and over again. Plus it was louder then the video its self ;_;

So that's why i have ad blocker

[I_wesley125 393]

 

 

AdSense is owned by Google, I can't see Google intentionally allowing malicious code into their ads.

[Quill The Pony. 175]

I always use ad blockers. Heck I just now updated mine.

[A Blithering Div 247]

NoScript doesn't make it so ads do not have viruses.

 

Neither does Ad Block Plus. Also, Ad Block doesn't stop clickjacking, redirects, auto exec flash or anything like that. So if you're blocking ads just because of viruses you're still kinda hosed. Hence why I recommended NoScript as it prevents things like that from executing unless you really want it to for your virtual virus fish tank.

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

Neither does Ad Block Plus. Also, Ad Block doesn't stop clickjacking, redirects, auto exec flash or anything like that. So if you're blocking ads just because of viruses you're still kinda hosed. Hence why I recommended NoScript as it prevents things like that from executing unless you really want it to for your virtual virus fish tank.

 

Good point. However, it doesn't prevent viruses from being dumped into your system.

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,526]

Sorry for not replying to any posts in here sooner, but I've been busy. Still, I'm happy to see this thread gaining some attention. With that said, I would appreciate if there was a bit more discussion (and maybe even some rebuttals? The OP is an editorial, after all) related to the original article that I spent several hours writing (and several months planning).

 

I'll respond to posts as I get to them! I won't do them all in one mega batch.

 

---

To be completely honest, the only reason I use ad-blockers is because it massively slows down page loading times for me. Especially when ads load first, then everything else follows. I would know where I was going to click when all of the sudden a "CHEAP PORN" ad pops up right there and I accidently click that. I'm not talking about the forums in this case, just normal browsing. If ads were not able to be turned off here, I would have barely even started typing this.

 

Great piece Feld0! inb4 Tl:Dr

 

Now me personally, I have used an Adblocker App for Chrome, and I have fallen in love with it ever since. It saves time from loading and such, and is mostly a godsend. However, it thankfully has a Whitelist option, which I use if I enjoy using a website, like this one. Basically, if I enjoy using a website, visit it often, I'll support it by allowing ads. However, if I'm just dropping by, or leaving an angry letter to a company about their faulty product, I will not support them with my page view.

 

After all, I pay my ISP for an internet plan that allows me to see so much data a month, and if I go over said data, I get screwed and have to pay extra. And that ad takes up a bit of data that I could use for something else. Not much, but it is there. So in a sense, I'm paying to view an ad. Not to mention some ads can take a while to load and wait for, wasting my time that I could be using for things like charity work, building birdhouses, or knitting sweaters for kittens. So because of that, I'll only be willing to sacrifice my time/internets only if I enjoy and support a website.

 

I do use ad blockers, because I never shop online, never have, and would use classic Google to find the specific things, if I ever did. Thusly, they do nothing but open up that small window of taking up room, perhaps extending page loading time sometimes, etc. That said, I do understand what they mean to site owners and developers, and this was interesting to look at.

 

The three of you all brought up concerns over bandwidth usage and/or page loading times. I just want to say, the three of you are all using the MLP Forums skin, which comes with over 2 MB of baggage. That's an order of magnitude more data than any sane ad will have; and the complexity of the skin already takes a noticeable toll on page loading + rendering times on some computers. If you're that concerned about the time it takes for a page to appear ready to read on your screen, I'd suggest opting for the default IP.Board skin as well as removing ads. Just a friendly tip.

 

Adam, in cases where the ads "appear" after the content has finished loading, the ad's spot is often pre-coded into the page with the correct dimensions, so the page's layout does not change or reflow once the ads load (and the ad's spot appears as a blank space with nothing of interest until it loads). Of course, I can't really speak too much for other site owners, but that has generally been the case in my personal experience and I usually do that with any ads I run as well.

 

 

Tom, the concern you bring up over bandwidth usage (or transfer/data volume - those are more correct terms for what ISP's like to call "bandwidth") is a valid one, and I'm not going to deny that you are paying to view an ad. The monthly fee you pay your ISP for Internet access gives you access to a network pipe, and there is no traffic through that pipe which you won't be billed for.

 

However... it really works the same way with TV. You pay for access to the TV network, and the cable bandwidth that you pay for may be used by channel operators to stream both TV shows and advertisements to you. Even if you walk away during a commercial, it's still coming down the pipe that you pay for.

 

Most ISP's have rather generous transfer limits, so I'd suggest you check your usage and see if you're anywhere near your limit. We do an awful lot of HD movie/video streaming, online gaming, and other bandwidth-intensive things in my family (a household of four) and only use around 60% of our monthly quota. That's low enough that we never worry about exceeding the quota.

 

You might as well switch to IP.Board's default skin, as I suggested; or take an extra step and disable all linked files in an HTML document from loading. You'll save a lot more of your quota by blocking all images and scripts from loading than ads. Ads are usually very heavily compressed precisely to minimize their effect on page load times and file size (you're usually dealing in double-digit kilobytes).

 

 

~Chaotic Discord~, they don't "do nothing but open up that small window of taking up room, perhaps extending page loading time sometimes, etc." They're a valuable source of income for many site owners, even if you never click them (this is a point that many, many people seem to misunderstand - a lot of ads are CPM-based, meaning that they pay by the pageview, not the click).

 

Also, I think you need to see a few more ads - not all of them are about shopping. As a matter of fact, MLP Forums gained several hundred members thanks to my spending a great deal of money on advertising elsewhere.

 

 

I personally use ad-blocker programs because ads usually just get in my way and serve to annoy me. I would like to see ads implanted in a way that does not infringe on my browsing that still broadcasts the message it wishes to send. I would also like to see ads that are at least somewhat relevant to the content I'm viewing. For example, I do not want to see washing detergent pop-ups when I am viewing the forums. I am here because of my appreciation of Friendship is Magic, so I would be much more interested in ads that advertise MLP apparel, for example. (I'm not saying I am not pleased with the current ads, just my general opinion)

 

Balancing the viewing pleasure of the people who attend and contribute to the site and pleasing the ad-providers with the prevalence of their ads on your website must be quite the juggling act, but never let it infringe on us who are here to enjoy the content you created for us. If you want this site to continue being successful, the viewers need to come first, always.

 

This is the holy grail of online advertising. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to produce highly targeted advertising from an automated network, which is why Google and many other companies have invested millions (billions?) into refining their ad targeting technologies (ironically, many people who complain about ads not being relevant to them then complain that a tracking cookie records which ads they see and click - just something to point out). The most highly targeted advertising possible is achieved via direct advertising deals, but these are an awful lot more difficult to get than signing up for a network like AdSense.

 

Viewers do come first, and that's why I provide the option to opt out of AdSense ads at all (even though I personally believe them to be very unobtrusive and user-friendly). When I get an ad that is tightly targeted to the MLP Forums community, I put it in the news ticker where everyone sees it and ad blockers don't block it. You may not have realized it, but the banner showing off Dizzy Leanne Rage's Pony Pile project is, in fact, an ad.

 

Honestly, if you believe a site is using ads so heavily that it "infringes" on its own content, contacting the site's owner may prove to be a much more productive effort than putting on a riot shield by installing an ad blocker.

 

 

If ads are simply visible and "blend in" into the page I'm on, I have no problem with them. Now if I'm trying to enjoy a site when suddenly I'm attacked with pop-up windows of ads, that's when I consult the power of the ad-blocker. I, myself, am looking to be involved in the advertising/marketing industry so I understand the advertisers' end of the situation. On the other hand, as a consumer, I would like my experience to be as smooth and uninterrupted as possible. If I find myself wasting my time and energy battling pop-up windows, then I'll turn that blocker on or stop viewing a site.

 

Also I just had to answer the last question with the last answer because it made me LOL

 

Pop-up windows are a pretty dirty way to do ads, in my opinion (and pop-unders are even worse). I personally hate them as well. Why use your ad blocker to block -everything-, though? Why not just get a popup blocker if you don't mind the usual banner ads?

 

 

*remembers my status update*

 

I'm not one to click on ads. I go to a site for the site, and have no interest in clicking here and there. None of the ads ever meet my interest anyway.

 

Normally I have adblocker on for everything, because I don't click them, so they seem to just be taking up space or flashing annoying messages telling me I should find out if my boyfriend is cheating on me or telling me to buy World of Warcraft.

 

After that status update, I white listed these forums, but I still haven't clicked on any ads. They don't meet my interest and they usually aren't on my mind.

 

 

By this, I'm not trying to defend not clicking on ads, or even blocking them altogether, but generally ads (at least for me) do not attract much sincere interest from me.

They are simply there, so unless it comes to my mind that I should click one just for the sake of the site, site owner, etc. then I probably wont click any.

 

See my reply to ~Chaotic Discord~, and this section of my article:

 

Another common misconception is that ads only earn money if you click them, and that you won't cause any harm by removing them if you weren't planning to click them, anyway. This is, again, quite false. Advertisers are willing to pay more to show their ad to a larger audience (that's why a 30-second slot during the Super Bowl costs eight figures). As far as the advertiser is concerned, if you do not see ads, you do not exist and they will not pay for an ad slot that won't be shown to you.

 

Even without clicking ads, their value increases for every impression they get. Newspapers, TV, and magazines have no conception of a "click" whatsoever, and the advertising industry thrives in them, does it not? A well-trafficked ad space will be more valuable. It's basic supply and demand, really, and it's odd how many people do not realize this.

Just because you don't click the ads doesn't mean you aren't contributing. There are also ads that pay by the pageview rather than the click.

 

 

I, have never used an Ad-Blocker program in my entire web-browsing experience. One reason being, ads do not bother me, for they are inescapable in today's society. It is very hard to walk down the street without seeing some form of advertisement from companies to attract business. Adverts have become a daily part of our lives and they are what helps the world go 'round, without them, businesses and economies would have a tough time.

 

Adverts have always been something I'm accustomed to and do not mind, for as has been mentioned, they help websites thrive. Many say adverts are annoying, while they may be obnoxious at times, yes, but they don't truly damage your web viewing experience unless they contain material in which is offensive or mature for the viewer. That is resolved by reporting the inappropriate adverts to the respected site owners and getting that fixed, for, without ads, many many websites would not be where they are today.

 

In the end, we need ads, and ads need us, we all work together in this society and depend on each other. I do hope this article will shed light upon the advertisement business and show what they mean for site owners and users alike.

 

That's a good viewpoint to have, NewCalamity. And what I like about your post isn't that you just said, "I don't and never have used ad blockers," but took the time to explain your views on the matter and why you don't use one.

 

 

I must apoligize Feld0, but I use an AdBlocker on my main laptop. I do opt in ads on everything else, but I don't on my main laptop. Why?

 

1. My laptop is easily hacked and has been before without even doing anything.

2. Coming on MLP Forums is one of the highlights of my day, and I want to just see a clean website.

3. I will gladly donate when I have money.

4. My laptop is extremely laggy and it slows down with ads.

5. The ads are always pony related, but I'm not an open brony with everyone.

 

Now like I said, I don't have AdBlocker on anything else. I will donate when I have enough money. Sorry.

 

• If your laptop gets hacked without you literally doing anything, then there's much more wrong with it than the fact that you view ads with it. Troubleshooting that issue goes well beyond the scope of this topic, but placing the blame on ads isn't quite right. An obsolete OS (I hope you're not using anything older than Windows Vista) is a probable cause. You may already be infected as well - malware does not simply download itself to your computer the second you connect it to the Internet. The user has to trigger it one way or another (although it is sometimes so well disguised that you don't realize you tripped it until it's too late and your computer is toast).
• Fair enough. And that's why you have the option to opt out.
• 
• How old is your laptop? Any computer made within the past few years should have no trouble handling a site with a few small banner ads on it. Google AdSense in particular (which is what I use on my sites) strives to serve very light ads and stay away from Flash stuff as much as possible. Again, I don't think the ads themselves are to blame - MLP forums itself likely places a much greater load on your computer than a few banners do.
• You may want to take a look at this. Google has a solution for letting you opt out of categories of ads that you do not want to see. More elegant than simply blocking them all, no?

 

So basically:

 

~ comic snipped ~

 

 

That's one way to put it. My article covers many more facets of the subject, however, and we're here for a serious discussion, not to laugh at a comic.

 

 

That was quite the read.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. When people block non-intrusive ads that wouldn't interfere with their experience negatively just because they can, that's selfish and inconsiderate of those who run the site. Ads are okay to me, as long as they aren't malicious. And any respectable webmaster won't let malicious ads on their site. You won't see SAVE THE QUEEN'S CLEAVAGE AND WIN A FREE IPOD ads here, for sure.

 

Now, the thing is, a lot of people go their merry way on the internet, not caring about ads. Then, one day, a page screams at them "YOU ARE THE MILLIONTH VISITOR! CLICK HERE TO CLAIM YOUR IPOD" at 90 decibels, and so they choose to block all the ads on all the sites. Does the guy who runs a forum, or a blog, or any kind of site, whose ads aren't malicious deserve not to receive his/her ad revenue just because that one ad on that one site screamed at you? Most adblockers allow you to set a whitelist, that the ad-blocker will disable itself on. If you feel the need to use an ad-blocker, block only the bad sites who refuse to take the bad ads off, and give the webmasters whose ads don't scream at you to claim dubious prizes their ad revenue. Though, I must say, honest websites really aren't known for flooding your screen with noisy popups....

 

Blocking all ads no matter what would be like if you spent your life eating burgers, then this shady guy in a van offered you a burger, and you got sick eating that burger, and then refused to eat another burger ever again, even from a reputable source.

 

Well, I can't really say much more without looking like I'm taking what Feld0 said and rewording it. So I guess I'll just leave my post at that.

 

This is a great post, Roops, and I'm not just saying that because it advocates the viewing of ads. Your analogy to eating a burger you bought in a dark alley from a guy in a van is a very good one.

 

Ads that play unsolicited audio... really, that's just dirty and annoying. You won't catch me running any of that crap on my sites. I strongly encourage any Internet user that cares about the sites they visit to tell those sites' owners that you really hate their choice of ads.

 

One thing I've always wondered about is... do any of the popular ad blocker extensions offer the option to operate in a blacklist mode rather than a whitelist mode? The vast majority of ad blocker users install an extension and never see an ad again. Some are aware of the whitelist, but many are too lazy to use it.

 

A lot of sites are surprisingly reasonable with their use of advertising, so I think a "block first, ask questions later" model is unnecessarily destructive for webmasters. However, the ad blocker developers don't care about webmasters - they care about their own users and their bottom line (remember the dev who quit his job because of the donations he gets?). And to a user, installing an extension that appears to "magically" remove all ads from the sites they visit looks much more impressive than "install this, then hit a button for every site that you want to remove ads from". An impressed user is a user likely to write a positive review, recommend the extension to their friends, and throw some dosh at the dev.

 

Does that sound familiar? It should - ad blocker developers have to think about how they're going to advertise their extension and get it out to as many users as possible. They're not above the advertising industry, and their promise of an "escape" from it is really just an attempt to lure you into that developer's own ecosystem instead.

 

 

I don't use an add blocker because I do a lot of online shopping, and ads help me find things I wouldn't normally see.

Although if a site has 'pornographic' ads.

I make a point to blacklist it and never visit it.

~

 

See? Ads can be useful! Before going on, I just want to say that I discovered our new hosting company through an ad as well - and I feel very confident saying that they're an awesome improvement over our last one.

 

Porno ads, while certainly a problem on the Internet, are generally found in its shadier corners, anyway. I haven't run into them on "clean" sites, because said sites usually hate them as much as users do. You may be surprised at how much they earn, though.

 

 

I use adblockers mainly to block craptube (I mean YouTube) ads, their so damn greedy nowadays, I only use them to block certain ads. (In fact, it lets me choose what ads to block. )

 

Greedy? I challenge you to start a totally free video hosting site that creates about 7 copies of your video optimized for various resolutions, allows you to host 4K-res videos with it, and doesn't miss a beat if a million people try to watch the same video all at once. You'll be begging an advertising agency to help you with the server bills and bandwidth costs before you know it.

 

YouTube was getting around 48 hours of video uploaded every minute, last time I checked. They need to cover the cost of all those servers somehow. Let's not forget that Google also has to pay thousands of employees salaries, benefits, etc. and leave some profits for themselves to save and invest into future projects.

 

I don't mean to imply that putting pre-roll and mid-roll ads on YouTube was the right thing to do, but you can't really blame Google for trying to cover YouTube's costs while still turning a profit on it (an unprofitable business idea isn't a very good one, trust me, and YouTube's the kind of monster idea that even Google can't afford to take a loss on for too long).

 

 

Color me a little surprised, I thought adblockers were a generally accepted and widely used program. I'm starting to see that not everyone gets them or automatically approves of them

 

Your perception will be strongly biased by the peers you interact with. If you have ten friends and they all happily use an ad blocker, you'll inevitably get the impression that ad blockers are a popular thing that most people use.

 

In fact, not that many people do, as a fraction of the world's total Internet users. Teens and young adults are most likely to be aware that ad blockers exist, and sites targeted towards younger or older age groups than that tend to earn much more from advertising than ones with a teen-young adult audience.

[NavelColt 22,880]

I was going to respond about how I've in fact seen plenty of ads, and that I mainly brought up shopping because it was Shanks' point for why she used ads, but then your post length scared me, and I decided that it was far safer to not try and quote you xD

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

Also, I recently read on a security site that ads and other parts of a page with malicious code can give you malware and viruses just by viewing the page they are on.

[Digit Sums 42]

I agree with just about everything in the editorial, and I'd like to take this moment to congratulate Google for their own efforts in streamlining their advertising. Ads by Google are just about the least intrusive ads on the Internet. They're not popups; they're not loud and colorful; they don't interfere with page load times. They're just there, quietly sitting at the top, side, or bottom of the page for us to choose to ignore. And for the most part, Google does a pretty good job at screening their ads to provide the best possible UX while still enabling companies to advertise their products. There's little or no malware in Google's plain-text ads, making them very safe to view.

 

The editorial also reminded me to white-list this page on AdBlock. Yes, I do use AdBlock, because most sites I view are ones I neither support nor trust. I turn off AdBlock on domains I trust and wish to support - like Facebook, deviantART, YouTube, EqD, and here.

[Arylett Charnoa 4,919]

Honestly?

 

I'll say it. I really dislike ads. I never used Ad Blocker because I used to use Opera, which had no such thing. Now, I pretty much have it on by default. I enjoy it, and am very much aware of the damage it causes to revenue. In fact, I see ads mostly as the necessary evil of the world. They're really annoying, and I know how much money they make, but in a perfect world, we wouldn't have these blatant advertisements splattered in our faces everywhere we look. I've learned to mostly ignore them, but I find the fact that a page has to be dirtied up with a million ads to make money to be really sad.

 

Not all ads are like that, no. But this is why most people use Ad Blocker, other than being selfish and not caring (which honestly, is partially my reason. I'm going to admit that): The majority of ads on the internet are massively obtrusive, annoying, flashy, and just all out in the way. Also, a lot of them carry malware. All of the spyware and viruses that had gotten on my computer have been from ads. Since I have turned on Ad Block, my computer's stayed relatively clean. Provided, I tend to stay away from shady sites and browse the same consistent ones which I'm pretty sure won't give me a computer-shattering virus, but the fact that my computer's suddenly gotten a lot cleaner since getting Ad Blocker really tells me something. I've still been browsing the same exact sites. Spyware? Hasn't shown up at all on my scanner.

 

Maybe if more sites had GOOD ads, less people would use them. But that's just the sad matter of the fact. I'll continue to use them until I can be certain that an ad cannot harm my computer in any way, and that it's not blatantly and really annoying. Sure, there's the solution of contacting website owners. But from what I've seen, for the bigger websites, most of the owners do nothing and just sort of waffle around whilst not listening to you. A website like this where one person runs everything is different.

 

But a massive website with a million users and many of them probably sending stuff to the runners of it every day? You're probably going to get ignored unless it's something that destroys the computers of many MANY users.

 

If you were wondering by the way: I don't opt into ads and I haven't donated. Honestly, even though the ads are relatively okay compared to the rest of the internet, I'm just used to the clean interface of MLP forums and don't want it marred by ads due to my distaste of them. I figure I'll just donate whenever I can. (I have no way of income whatsoever at the moment.) I'd rather toss money than look at ads to quell my user's guilt. For now, I figure moderating and donating my time in helping out with the site is as much as I can do.

[KakeiTheWolf 652]

Before using AdBlock, I visited the same sites I do now. My computers were teeming with malware, adware, and trojans.

Since using AdBlock, I have had only one trojan. I averaged 10+ per scan before using AdBlock.

 

My Little Internet: Ads are Virus-laden.

[CloudFyre 848]

I agree...yet at the same time, I hold reservations. It's not like a half and half thing either - I agree almost entirely, yet I disagree entirely as well. (That probably doesn't make sense, but I'm fine with that.)

You're correct: a website is private property, much like a mall. Advertisements are placed for reasons. Apart from that however, the similarities begin to decline.

My browser axe's the vast majority of web-bugs floating about. For example, this page has the following services watching:

• ContextWeb
• Facebook Connect
• Flattr button
• Google +1
• Google Analytics
• SkimLinks
• Twitter Button

Now, a question to the normal, everyday web user: you haven't heard of half of those, have you? Me neither. If I know what it is and I know it's not too intrusive, I'll let it by. (For example, the Twitter Button and Facebook Connect are relatively harmless to my knowledge.) If I don't know what it is however, it's removed. Don't get me wrong: it could be altogether harmless, but looking through the master list of known background trackers, it's easier to add services to a whitelist than it is to add individual offenders to a blacklist.

Back to the subject of...of...what were they called again?

Ads! That was it. I went thermonuclear on those years ago. 

For the first time in a very, very long time, someone has convinced me otherwise on a very firmly held opinion. As for this website, I will remove my blocking applications and add everything within to my whitelists, as I realize that I opted for site ads, yet hypocritically left blocking applications in place.

Rest assured, you will have my views here in a little while, as soon as I'm out of college for the day and able to add MLP Forums to the whitelist. Even if ads weren't optional, I'd still probably be fine with this website and it's ad layouts, but that's because you do it well. Yes, you need funding, but you have honest feelings for the users as well. Other websites don't necessarily follow that ideology.


For me, there are very precise boundaries in which I will not cross. If music and a spokesman starts to blare, it will be blocked. If a video starts streaming without cause, it will be blocked. For me, it's an issue of productivity. I'll gladly let ads sit on the side of a page. As with mall banners, they can be ignored. However, being confronted with 2 pop up windows and tacky elevator music is like having someone follow you around the mall and pester you to death. YouTube's video advertisements are annoying as well (ESPECIALLY the ones that STOP A MUSIC TRACK DEAD CENTER) - what if you were forced to sit through a 30 second advertisement before you could walk into your local grocery store?

No thank you. (Perhaps that's a poor example.)

As for adblockers, I've always seen them as the lesser of two evils. Perhaps they are promoting something (I've never bothered), but a one time promotion is much less annoying than constant speaker abuse and flashing text. I simply hit "install", and go from there. If for some reason it ever stops working the way it was meant to be, I'll promptly remove it and find a replacement.

Is it right? I'm not sure. I'm just tired of the obtrusive advertisements. Somehow I superimpose the idea that "if one is bad, they're all bad" onto the situation, when it's probably not the case.

That's my two cents, minus one perhaps. I'm not sure if I'm quite satisfied with that reply, but I have Calc 2 coming up here in 10 minutes, and I have to get to class.

Edited January 8, 2013 by CloudFyre

[Betez 1,734]

I for one, only block ads when there's more than 3 ads on a page. This site, I haven't blocked the ads. It says "I want to support the site", because I do. I can't donate; this is the next best Thing I can do. I do feel like Ad blockers are essential for a more pleasant web-browsing experience.

[Scootalove 10,689]

The only ad that I find that is annoying, is the Spotify Premium ad when I use Spotify to chill & listen to some songs. A pony like me, wouldn't use adblock on this site.

 

But the ad on Spotify drives me insane:

 

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,695]

Sorry, Feld0. I put up with Internet ads for 7+ years without a blocker, but my patience has finally been exhausted. When some friends showed me how to install one I jumped at the chance. It's such a relief not having to see that junk on every site I visit. I wouldn't mind if it were decent stuff I might actually want to buy like McDonald's or whatever, but it's always pathetic scams like "ENHANCE YOURSELF BY 6 INCHES USING THIS SIMPLE TRICK" or "14-YEAR-OLD MOTHER OF THREE MAKES $70,000/YR FROM HOME!" Youtube in particular has sold itself out beyond belief, literally forcing video advertisements on people who are just there to look for ponies. And I don't need to hear "congratulations, you won" at a thousand decibels anymore.

 

If I have a little extra money to donate to the forums, that's different. I've done it before. It's true that blockers have to advertise themselves just to get noticed. But at least they don't charge me to use their product.

[Anorax 29]

 

More like potentially offensive to me. Comparing someone's precaution against wild ads with a generation of genocide horror? Yeah right :/

 

 

 

One severe case of explosive diarrhea should be enough to traumatize someone to never eat any burgers again, unless it was made by his own mother

 

Franceium?

 

Is that you?

I agree...yet at the same time, I hold reservations. It's not like a half and half thing either - I agree almost entirely, yet I disagree entirely as well. (That probably doesn't make sense, but I'm fine with that.)

 

You're correct: a website is private property, much like a mall. Advertisements are placed for reasons. Apart from that however, the similarities begin to decline.

 

My browser axe's the vast majority of web-bugs floating about. For example, this page has the following services watching:

• ContextWeb
• Facebook Connect
• Flattr button
• Google +1
• Google Analytics
• SkimLinks
• Twitter Button

Now, a question to the normal, everyday web user: you haven't heard of half of those, have you? Me neither.

 

 

First of all, there should only be two, maybe three that you haven't heard of. I don't know what ContextWeb or SkimLinks is, but I can have a good idea. But Flattr?

Come on, you have got to have heard of that. No?

 

Well, let me enlighten you.

 

is a system based on microdonations. You log into the flattr website and set up a monthly donation limit. Then you go about the interwebs clicking on "Flattr buttons". Say you've made 20 clicks on Flattr button. If you want, you can call these clicks "flattrs". These clicks are then linked to your Flattr microdonation account. Therefore you're now flattring (lol) 20 people or websites.

Now, you've also set up your monthly donation amount to be $40. Each month, this money is evenly divided between every single flattr button you've clicked (which means in this scenario, the owners of those 20 buttons each get $2 in that month as a direct donation through Flattr). It's a quick and easy way to support websites that you enjoy, and that have a Flattr account.

 

As you can (or can't?) see, has three people actively Flattring MLPf. That means MLPf gets a donation from these people every month, however small it may be (as designated by each Flattrer's donation settings).

 

It's a brilliant idea that really should be more widespread than it currently is.

 

Arrivederci!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Anorax

[Harmonic Revelations 8,835]

Don't worry Feld0, while I do infact use adblock plus, MLPforums.com and it's domains are on my exceptions list so I'll still see ads here.

[Stalliongrad 982]

While I don't use an Adblocker i probably will in the future. I had a nasty virus hit my last computer which was only because of a pop up ad. I completely understand its damage to revenue but its just the most annoying part of the internet in my opinion. I even think they are becoming a little crazy off the internet too. My drive to work used to take 30 minutes. i remember once i was listening to ads on the radio the whole way there every station was running ads and no music. TV is the only place i do not mind them. In fact i love the creativity that goes into some of them which is why its such a big deal come super bowl time.

[Creamy Arty 6,252]

I use an ad blocker for a variety of reasons, one of which has changed over the past year.

 

The primary reason I started using one was for the speed enhancement. Until November of 2011, I lived in a rural place with no alternative to dial-up. Web sites these days are so media-rich that even without ads dial-up is almost unusable. Blocking ads at least made it possible for me to use the internet at home for some mundane things, but I sometimes still had to drive five miles to the nearest library in order to use their WiFi which was fed by a T1, the same T1 that also serviced their cabled network. After about an hour or so the librarians would get mad that I was decimating their already strained network and would kick me out, thus ending my internet usage for the day; time to drive back home. Have you ever seen Green Acres? Whenever Oliver or Lisa had to use the phone, they had to climb a telephone pole and use one located up there. That's similar to my internet situation in my hometown, except my situation was worse. These days it's a moot point for me, with my current service that sees an average of 54Mbps downstream.

 

 

Another still very valid reason are bogus download links. Ever try to download some kind of utility from somewhere and the real download button was hidden among >9000 ads that also had a big, elliptical "DOWNLOAD" button that only linked you to someplace you didn't want to be? I got tired of having to sift through those. I understand the site's owner relies on ads to make the money necessary to keep the site in operation, but if the site is unusable because of stuff like that, then I don't care if it folds; it's not doing anybody any good, and for all I know one of those "ads" to download some dubious program could be harmful. Some webmasters aren't too particular where their revenue comes from.

 

And lastly, maybe all I wanted to do was show my father how to grab a few ROMs of games he loved playing as a kid that are almost impossible to buy anymore, not introduce him to the wonderful world of hentai. Seriously, every emulator/ROM site I've been to without an ad blocker has featured banners of anime women getting every orifice brutalized by tentacles. They didn't get in the way or make it hard to find what I was originally seeking, but most people who aren't seasoned internet dwellers find that kind of stuff to be revolting.

 

 

Ads are entirely opt-in for me, and I gladly opt-in at sites that I use regularly or find helpful. And like most people, I have a tendency to visit the same sites day after day with little variance. MLP Forums, Reddit, Newegg, Maximum PC, Tom's Hardware, various manga hosts, and almost any other site that I've ever found beneficial gets whitelisted. Unfortunately, most sites these days get out of hand with their advertising, and the average user honestly can't risk giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore. I've seen plenty of evidence to support that in most computers I've had to fix for people. It's not a matter of "rights" on the part of content owners, it's a matter of self-defense.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Artemis

[Kamil 315]

I used an adblocker once, when a site I visited frequently was overrun by some quantity of ads that constantly tried to give me viruses (Nothing my antivirus couldn't handle, but there were annoying popups about the viruses I was getting) so I had a blocker while I waited for that to get fixed. Something similar happened again recently, but after the site (a different site) basically said "We don't know what that is or how to fix it" I found a way to just block that specific ad and continue without issue.

 

Also, this may seem strange to a lot of people, I like having a small number of non-intrusive and safe ads. They help me discover new things to try. On the other hand, popups only get my clicks by accident, and anything that defaults to making noise has me frantically searching through potentially dozens of tabs after desperately jabbing at the mute button to cut off the sudden horrible sounds. I would like to see more sites or more likely ad services include an obvious way to "Report this ad" without having to go to the site owner and say "one out of the many ads on the site is doing something it's not supposed to." and then they go to the ad company and say "one out of the thousands of ads you may have in circulation is breaking the rules of our agreement" and then the company has to track it down and remove it from rotation, and potentially find a way to blacklist the company that promoted the ad... It's a long and unreliable process right now.

[Prismatic 49]

Just to add my two cents here Adobe Flash can be turned off without the usage of any modifications in both Internet Explorer and Firefox.  I do this on underclocked systems so they're run a bit faster.

[khaine21x3 789]

I don't use an adblocking addon for any browser and I'm not blocking anything on this site but I do have some other option to block ads for certain sites if I choose to without the use of adblock.

 

I understand that ads gives revenue which is why I don't block em unless it's sites that engage in immoral practices.