Ad Blockers...

[Janak Parekh]

JR, it starts out with a Flash ad. If you turned off Flash, it probably won't work.

--janak

[Jeff Rutledge]

JR, it starts out with a Flash ad. If you turned off Flash, it probably won't work.

--janak

Ahhh, my Netcaptor was blocking it as an ad. Got it now.

Thanks.

[Jason Dunn]

Ahhh, my Netcaptor was blocking it as an ad. Got it now.

Sorry to pull this off-topic, if someone's going to offer you free content, is looking at an ad really so much to ask? :? It really burns me up thinking that people are coming here, taking advantage of the content we put together, and not even letting an ad load. :x

[Jeff Rutledge]

Is anyone else having problems with the link? I'm consistently getting a blank page.

I'll try again in the morning I guess.

[Weyoun6]

I agree. TANSTAAFL. If you arn't willing to pay the cash, you shouldnt expect to get everything the way you want. There are some other reasons why people may have flash/images off though (low bandwidth and some of those nasty new orbitz ads come to mind).

[Steven Cedrone]

TANSTAAFL.

Ha, that brings back Heinlein flashbacks... :wink:

Steve

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Sorry for the OT question (though actually I just wanted to fully understand the post). What's TANSTAAFL?

[Weyoun6]

Its a phrase from Robert Heinlien's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
TANSTAAFL means There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Its a phrase from Robert Heinlien's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
TANSTAAFL means There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
Ah, I recognize the quote (or at least the message behind the quote from my old Econ class)... just didn't couldn't deduce that from the acronym. For some reason, I had associated that message to Bentham (famous economist... can't remember the first name... either Jeremy or Robert I think...)?

In any case, I'm all for ad-blockers on services or sites where I pay money, but agreed that for free sites such as PPCT where we enjoy much of the facilities free-of-charge, the ads are a rather small price to pay. Of course some sites abuse advertising, making you sift through the ads just to see the content, but I wouldn't consider this site in that category.

[Pony99CA]

Is anyone else having problems with the link? I'm consistently getting a blank page.

I'll try again in the morning I guess.
OK, what am I missing? What link are people talking about? I don't see any link. :?

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Sorry to pull this off-topic, if someone's going to offer you free content, is looking at an ad really so much to ask? :? It really burns me up thinking that people are coming here, taking advantage of the content we put together, and not even letting an ad load. :x
I don't use any ad blockers (except for Mozilla's pop-up stopper), but I have to ask one question about this "the content is free, so look at the ads" philosophy. If you ever watched broadcast TV, did you ever avoid commercials? If you recorded a program, did you ever skip through the ads? It seems like the same thing to me.

Steve (wearing my Devil's Advocate T-shirt)

[Steven Cedrone]

Is anyone else having problems with the link? I'm consistently getting a blank page.

I'll try again in the morning I guess.
OK, what am I missing? What link are people talking about? I don't see any link. :?

Steve

This thread was originally part of another and it was split off. I'll find out which one and get back to you...

Steve

Update: Pony, I believe this (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10160) was the thread...

[shawnc]

Its a phrase from Robert Heinlien's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
TANSTAAFL means There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch


Oh yeah.....I knew that :oops: :wink: !

[surur]

Sorry to pull this off-topic, if someone's going to offer you free content, is looking at an ad really so much to ask? :? It really burns me up thinking that people are coming here, taking advantage of the content we put together, and not even letting an ad load. :x
I don't use any ad blockers (except for Mozilla's pop-up stopper), but I have to ask one question about this "the content is free, so look at the ads" philosophy. If you ever watched broadcast TV, did you ever avoid commercials? If you recorded a program, did you ever skip through the ads? It seems like the same thing to me.

Steve (wearing my Devil's Advocate T-shirt)

Egg-Zact-Li.

Of course Jason feels there is an implicit contract with everyone visiting the site, to view the ads and help pay for the site. But of course no-one has signed this contract, or clicked through the EULA. Maybe if things were more explicit with maybe a blank frontpage with only an EULA on it (like most porn sites) things may be different, but as it is the obligation is on Jason to make the site pay in a way that wont alienate the crowd. (which I guess is where the subscription thing comes in )


Surur (proud owner of a Sky+ box (British satellite TIVO box)

PS: I also use netcaptor, and PPCT is the only website where I have not blocked the ads. I also regularly use the affiliate links when I see something I want. but of course when connecting using my Loox over GPRS I switch of *all* images (wouldn't you at 7 pence (11c)/KB?).

PPS: As a further aside, I just realised that I bought Netcaptor via an affiliate link from PPCT ages ago (before PPCT has much or even any ads)

[Janak Parekh]

If you ever watched broadcast TV, did you ever avoid commercials? If you recorded a program, did you ever skip through the ads? It seems like the same thing to me.
But it's not. There's a difference between ads that steal your focus for an extended period of time (like the Salon ads, which I'm not a big fan of, or popups -- both more like TV) as opposed to banners/skyscrapers. The fact that Jason uses the latter, not the former, makes the world of difference to me.

In my case, I do pop-up blocking via Mozilla, because I find them a menace to actually web surfing, but I don't block other ads.

Oh, and if you seen Salon's new day pass system - I think they're doomed. :cry:

--janak

[Weyoun6]

Popup/unders and the timed full page ads are like tv commercials.

Banner ads are more like the product placements in movies.

[jd4science]

I guess I am a little different from all of you, and an advertisor's dream. I don't like ads on other sites, but I do like them here. I found out about the Vaja cases here, and many other things. And it is a free site, there aren't popups, and the ads arent intrusive. That alone is better than most sites.

[Jeff Rutledge]

Ahhh, my Netcaptor was blocking it as an ad. Got it now.

Sorry to pull this off-topic, if someone's going to offer you free content, is looking at an ad really so much to ask? :? It really burns me up thinking that people are coming here, taking advantage of the content we put together, and not even letting an ad load. :x

Well, I thought I’d have a relaxing day of trying out Repligo, reading the “Myth of Interference” article and perhaps hopping into a discussion on it.

Instead, I find myself having to defend my web browsing practices.

First, I didn’t knowingly decide to block the ad from salon.com. I am using NetCaptor as my web browser. I purchased this after seeing Jason’s post a while back suggesting people check it out. I did and I liked it. When I purchased a license (via affiliate link of course), it added a URL Blocking component. I didn’t configure it at all, it blocked the ad on its’ own. If I’d been given the choice of seeing a quick ad first, I probably would have.

Having said all of that, I DON’T feel I should have to defend my choice to view ads or not. I DO feel that it is not an unreasonable expectation that I should be able to freely post a simple question on a public message board without the threat of being publicly “tarred and feathered” by it’s Moderator. Instead, my post was pulled from the thread I was discussing and used as a platform for debate. On it’s own, that’s OK. But when the topic of the thread is “People who use ad blockers” and the Site’s Owner states “people are coming here, taking advantage of the content we put together” and I’m quoted as those “people”, it’s not OK. In fact, it’s a personal attack – unprovoked.

I have been coming to PPCT daily for a long, long time; long before it was the populous community it is not. Not so long ago (December-ish), I was in the top 25 posters. I’ve purchased a great many products via affiliate link and tried to help out other members when I could. I slowed down on my posts sometime after New Year’s. I was starting to feel the community feeling was waning. Criticism was on the rise and help on the decline. I also heard “If you don’t like it, start your own site” – or something to that affect – a lot more than I used to.

After lurking for a couple months (still visiting several times a day), I decided I might as well hop back in. Well, it took me about 4 posts before I got nailed.

Very disappointing.

I haven’t decided if I’ll continue to visit this site or not. If I do, I likely won’t be posting for a while. I still feel this site is one of the best there is for PPC’s. And I still feel the community is one of the best out there. There’s just been an underlying “bitterness” towards the members and it’s getting harder and harder to overlook.

[taxus]

The difference between ads here and as on TV is that content web sites like this one are not for profit. Ads help pay hosting, but I'm guessing not all fees (probably far from it, and of course, not even mentioning time spent).

I think it must be getting harder for "free" content sites to stay afloat without the owner's pockets being slowly but inexorably emptied (high bandwidth is far from cheap). So I can understand why content providers like Jason & co. can feel frustrated and be edgy about the ad-blocking issue.

The Internet community has a history of thinking that everything should be free. I haven't kept up with the subject, but I suspect that sites that decided to charge their community don't do that well either. After all, if a site decides to charge its community, nothing stops its members from going to another site that is still "free".

TANSTAAFL is a concept that the "Internet community" as a whole doesn't seem to realize yet.

For my part I find the ads on PPCThoughts very tasteful, not too obstrusive, yet they often catch my eye.

Unfortunately, it's not the case on some other sites. I simply can't bear those flashing red-and-yellow ads, nor those ads that play sound (there was an article about that in Wired a few weeks ago) and I can well understand why someone would use ad-blocking software. I used to, since I'm a user of Norton Internet Security, and ad-blocking is an option of the software. But I stopped using it a while ago because it would also disable some non-ad content (download buttons on Baen WebScriptions for example).

I think most people don't really mind ads. They just mind intrusive, offensive, flashy ads. According to that Wired article I wrote about above, advertisers are more and more aware of that, but if you ask me, not enough of them.

Have you visited FreewarePPC recently? To me it's unbearable. So I've stopped visiting it, prefering instead French site PocketPCFreewares.

I guess sites like this one are so popular that the editor(s) can control what kind of ads go on the site, but less popular sites are not so lucky, and must accept (probably sometimes unpalatable) compromises.

Yet non flashy, unobstrusive ads may not achieve their ultimate goal: to attract customers.

It's a very delicate matter, and I'm really, really happy I don't have to deal (directly) with those kind of decisions.

[targetdrone]

When I go to free sites that I like, I will read relevant ads, and sometimes click on them... IF I am interested in what they are advertising.

However, I completely avoid and never return to sites that:
1. Hijack my 'back' button
2. Have multiple pop up/under ads.
3. Try to install software on MY computer.

I had Adsgone, but uninstalled it after it stopped ads that I wanted to see. I do want to find a good pop up blocker. And I want a nice rewarding sound, so I can tell when it rejects unwanted solicitous advances upon my precious bandwidth.

[luebster]

I do want to find a good pop up blocker. And I want a nice rewarding sound, so I can tell when it rejects unwanted solicitous advances upon my precious bandwidth.
Try Panicware's Pop-Up Stopper (http://www.panicware.com/index.html). I've been using the free version for what seems like a couple years now and I love it. It can play a sound when it blocks a popup, which is helpful, in case you are following a link and it is intended for a new browser window. You can hold down ctrl and click and it will allow the pop up. Great freeware.

Chris

[TheBacklash]

you can also try Pop-up Cop. It's what I use.

Since using it, I think 3 pop-ups have come up. along with a box asking me if I want to block it or not... forever. And you can press the ctrl key while pressing a link to allow that link to create a pop-up,if you wish.


And I also sit on that fence hating pop-ups of ALL kinds. I refuse to read pop-ups, I could care less what the content is.

Banner ads, I'll let them be. I agree it's more like product placement in movies/TV. Pop-ups are more like a commercial in the middle of the juicy parts of a movie/tv.

Bad guy is about to tell the good guy what his plan is, then BAM Pepsi's new commercial pops up and you have to grab the remote to turn it off... and you miss the whole scene. Granted a pop-up don't makeyou miss any content on a web page... but it's annoying as hell.

I have Dish with the FREE PVR. (Tivo? pay $13 a month? :lol: ) I haven't watched commercials since the superbowl.... which is about the only time I do.

[PetiteFlower]

Difference between ads on TV and ads on the net is that the TV stations get the same money from the advertisers whether you watch the ads or not; web sites get more money when you click on their ads. So if it's a site you support, then yeah I think you should at least LOOK at the ads and click on any that you find worthwhile.

Obnoxious/noisy/sneaky ads are a totally different story of course.

However, JR has a very valid point--it does look like he's been attacked unfairly. Perhaps it would have been better to start a NEW thread if you wanted people to weigh in on their thoughts about ad blockers, rather then spotlighting his post. It's definitely a question worth discussing but it probably wasn't necessary to single out a particular person's post to do it....

[Janak Parekh]

It's definitely a question worth discussing but it probably wasn't necessary to single out a particular person's post to do it....
Actually, I don't think JR was explicitly being singled out. Steve split the thread from another discussion (the interference article), and he took out all the posts about ad blocking and lumped them together. True, Jason responded to JR, but I think he was making more of a general comment. The fact that JR's comment is first in this thread is simply an artifact of the split.

--janak

[PetiteFlower]

Yeah I knew that but it still LOOKS like he's being singled out and attacked even though that wasn't really the intention, you know?

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Yeah I knew that but it still LOOKS like he's being singled out and attacked even though that wasn't really the intention, you know?
I agree... it's unfortunate, but that is how it looked (at least to me) and I hope this can get cleared up soon. I'd hate to see JR disappear from the boards b/c of this.

[Jason Dunn]

I'm pretty livid after reading JR's post, but I'm going to take a deep breath and not respond to it until much later when I've cooled down.

This isn't about blocking pop-up ads: it's about people who block all ads and take away my ability to make a part-time living doing what I love: writing about Pocket PCs. If anyone can't see why I might be frustrated by someone who blocks ads on my site, or any other for that matter, then I have nothing more to add - you live in the dreamland of "The Internet is Free!" and no amount of arguing will sway that until a site you love goes away because you, and people like you, thought that saving 30 KB in bandwidth was more important than letting a Webmaster pay his bills. The Internet is littered with dead Web sites because of people like this, and I will vocally dennounce them at every turn!

I've made it a point to never allow pop-up/pop-under ads anywhere on the site, even though allowing these would allow me to make 300% more on my Tribal Fusion advertising. I would never put up a type of ad that irritates me personally, and pop-up/under ads fall into that category.

But I will clarify that I was the one who split the thread (not Steven), because once I saw where it was going to go, I didn't want it to pollute the original topic - I knew it would spawn a completely different discussion.

JR's post was the first one in the thread because that was the split point, so from that aspect, yes, he was being singled out. I'm not sure why that's a shock to anyone here, or why I'm being criticized for responding to his post (I didn't "attack" him). If he's not blocking ads from Pocket PC Thoughts, great, I thank him for that and apologize for making a bad assumption. But in reading his post it seemed like he was someone who was blocking ads from all sites, and that's what provoked my response.

More from me later when my blood pressure has come down a little. 8O

[Jason Dunn]

I've had a chance to communicate with JR in private, and I'd like to extend a public apology for unfairly misjuding his intentions - he's a strong supporter of the site, and it was unfair of me to put him in the same cateogory of someone who blocks 100% of ads.

However, that doesn't change my opinion about people who block banner ads on this, or any other site. :twisted: :wink:

[Jeff Rutledge]

I'd like to thank Jason for his response here.

My initial reactions to this thread was mostly shock: "This can't be right!" and "There must be a mistake."

As it turns out, that's all it was. This was a simple misunderstanding and Jason and I have cleared it up. As Jason stated, I do support this site whenever I can and I will continue to do so.

And just so everyone is clear, I am NOT a "banner-blocker" (say that fives times really fast...go ahead...say it...it's fun) :D

I'd also like to thank those of you who tried to "keep the peace" (as it were) in this thread. I think it's showings such as these that make me come back here every day.

Cheers, :beer:

[PetiteFlower]

Ok, now everybody hug ;)

I like it when misunderstandings get fixed :)

[Janak Parekh]

Ok, now everybody hug ;)
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/f_hug.gif

I think Ed puked on that smiley the last time I used it. :)

Seriously, we're all reasonable people here, and I'm glad to see that it was worked out.

--janak

[PetiteFlower]

Oh THERE it is! :hugs: works on another board I use but apparantly not this one :)

:beer: works too though if hugs are too cute for you ;)

[Janak Parekh]

Oh THERE it is! :hugs: works on another board I use but apparantly not this one :)
It's not one of the "real" smilies. I grabbed it and put it in the images directory. Look up the URL if you want. ;)

--janak

[ux4484]

Whew.....now that the smoke has settled, I do have 2 cents on ad blockers. I use Add/Subtract. I have it on 99% of the time, but for sites I frequent often (like PPCT) I disable it about once a week to look-see the stuff that's being blocked. I don't have it set to block everything (just pop-ups and referrers). Even with it running I still see about 1/3 of the ads on the home PPCT page. While I may be in Jason's "wrong minded" pile, I know my cookies have indicated click-through to acutal purchases of links/ads here. So don't put everyone in that pile just because you see a proxy address, or a referrer doesn't get a response. I respect what you do here and I do see your ads, just not all the time.

[Jason Dunn]

Even with it running I still see about 1/3 of the ads on the home PPCT page. While I may be in Jason's "wrong minded" pile, I know my cookies have indicated click-through to acutal purchases of links/ads here. So don't put everyone in that pile just because you see a proxy address, or a referrer doesn't get a response. I respect what you do here and I do see your ads, just not all the time.

If you're only letting 33% of our ads load, you're denying me the chance to make a living running this site. If more people were like you, Pocket PC Thoughts would have died a year ago. :? Rest assured that if I can find a way to stop people like you from viewing anything on this site, I will certainly do so.

If you don't have the basic respect for me to let a few banner ads load, why should I provide a free service to you?

[ux4484]

so let me get this straight.......even though I've clicked through on YOUR ads and links and actually BOUGHT stuff, you'd rather I not come here at all (and no longer patronize your advertisers) than block ads on most (not all) of my visits?

Isn't what I'm doing better than looking at ALL the ads and buying nothing?
Seems that if the gift horse isn't meeting your exacting criteria, your looking it in the mouth.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I, too, am happy to see things clear.

Personally, I've never used ad-blockers myself, but for sites with an annoying number of pop-ups with music and such... Usually I'll just stop going to their site totally or just ignore all the ads, get what I need, and then get out.

Like JR, this is the site I'm logged into most predominantly and anytime I can purchase something through an affiliate link, I do so. The ads here are actually quite interesting and on several occasions I've followed through to get more information.

So with that in mind...

However, that doesn't change my opinion about people who block banner ads on this, or any other site. :twisted: :wink:

Understood and totally agreed...

[Jason Dunn]

Personally, I've never used ad-blockers myself, but for sites with an annoying number of pop-ups with music and such...

I don't consider pop-ups "ads" - they're an irritation. I use a pop-up blocker myself and don't feel a moral compunction to support a site that uses them. I suppose that if I REALLY liked a site and they said they were in danger of going away unless people allowed pop-ups, I might disable my blocker, but for the most part pop-up/pop-under windows cross the line between "advertising" and "irritating your visitors".

[luebster]

Banner ads that are built into the design layout of a website are truly ads. The only reason to block those ads are for bandwidth considerations. For the 15% or so of computer users that have broadband, it is not an issue. Not surprisingly, based on this very unscientific poll (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9526&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=), 77% of PPCT users are on broadband. There is no excuse for these users to block banner ads that are part of the page layout. Users still on dial-up have my sympathy.

I also agree with Jason in that pop-up ads should not be considered ads. They are annoying. They force your computer to spawn new windows, which not only consume bandwidth (by loading the content for the window), but also consume CPU clock cycles (by loading the new windows themselves).

Shame on broadband users that are blocking banner ads. Kudos to those who block pop-up/unders.

My $0.02.

[dh]

Banner ads that are built into the design layout of a website are truly ads. The only reason to block those ads are for bandwidth considerations. For the 15% or so of computer users that have broadband, it is not an issue. Not surprisingly, based on this very unscientific poll (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9526&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=), 77% of PPCT users are on broadband. There is no excuse for these users to block banner ads that are part of the page layout. Users still on dial-up have my sympathy.

I also agree with Jason in that pop-up ads should not be considered ads. They are annoying. They force your computer to spawn new windows, which not only consume bandwidth (by loading the content for the window), but also consume CPU clock cycles (by loading the new windows themselves).

Shame on broadband users that are blocking banner ads. Kudos to those who block pop-up/unders.

My $0.02.

Have to agree totally here. In general I hate all ads, especially popup ones. I have used a popup blocker for ages and will always to so.

I have never used a general ad blocker, although back when I was using dial up I thought about it.

One reason I visit this site is to learn more about PPC and I actually find some of the ads here to be helpful. (Amusing the time a Handspring one appeared). Most of the time though I really don't notice the ads on PPCT, I guess I'm just looking for the content.

If the banner ads help Jason pay the bill, they are fine with me.

[PetiteFlower]

I don't know, it seems to me that if a person goes out of their way to purchase through affiliate links and click through ads on a fairly regular basis, then that should at least partially forgive them for using an ad-blocker part of the time. But maybe that's because I don't really understand how compensation for advertising on this site works. Are you paid based on how many times your ad is LOADED on someone's page or how many times it's actually clicked by a visitor? I thought it was the latter, but I'm not a webmaster so I haven't a clue! I can understand being upset about ads being blocked if you're actually losing money for every ad blocked. Can the advertisers really tell every time one of their ads has been blocked from loading on a page? If so, can they tell whether it was blocked on purpose or just didn't load properly? I've had ads fail to load because of an error of some sort before, and I didn't even know banner ad blockers EXISTED before I read this thread!

[Jason Dunn]

Are you paid based on how many times your ad is LOADED on someone's page or how many times it's actually clicked by a visitor?

Some sites sell on clicks, but most sell on impressions - the number of times an ad is loaded (usually in blocks of 1000). So if someone is using software that is stopping an ad from loading, that means they're coming here, using our resources, and we're not even getting a banner load out of it. That's what's frustrating to me, and why I get so upset about it. It's taking something and giving nothing back. :?

I don't think people understand what would happen to the Internet as we know if if ad-blockers were widespread...almost every site you visit would shut down in a matter of weeks. This is a deadly serious topic, and the arrogance a person shows by saying "The time or resources it takes to download a banner is not worth what I get from this site" is truly stunning.

[Janak Parekh]

Can the advertisers really tell every time one of their ads has been blocked from loading on a page?
Regarding your technical question: yes, easily. Web servers automatically track every time an image (or other file) is downloaded from them. Large advertising companies automatically aggregate that information, and it's how they track impressions; they don't take your word for how many times the site was hit. :)

--janak

[shawnc]

I don't think people understand what would happen to the Internet as we know if if ad-blockers were widespread

I agree and this is why you're reaction caught me by surprise. I had no idea how this type of software impacts you're ability to fund this site. I always use the affiliate link when possible and would likely had used ad-blocker software if I had known it was available simply out of ignorance, with no ill-intentions whatsoever.

...almost every site you visit would shut down in a matter of weeks. This is a deadly serious topic, and the arrogance a person shows by saying "The time or resources it takes to download a banner is not worth what I get from this site" is truly stunning.

Again, I'm surprised by the reaction. I don't think it's arrogance at all. Seems to me that education, not anger, is a more appropriate response. Just my opinion.

[PetiteFlower]

Oh well I see why you would feel so strongly about it in that case.

But I think lots of surfers might not know this; they might think like I did that ads are sold on clicks and they might not realize that they're affecting revenue by using an ad-blocker. So maybe you should go easy on them if they don't know any better :)

[Jason Dunn]

Again, I'm surprised by the reaction. I don't think it's arrogance at all. Seems to me that education, not anger, is a more appropriate response. Just my opinion.

You could be right. But it honestly never occurred to me that anyone could think that blocking ads was a HELPFUL thing to the Web site owner. If you ripped all the ads out of a local newspaper that was being given away for free, don't you think the newspaper could think twice about publishing? :|

If ads didn't benefit the site running them, why would the site have them? And, by extension, if the ads are benefiting the site, how can doing something to STOP the site from benefitting from ads be a good thing?

I'm sorry Shawn, but I think the vast majority of people using ad blockers know exactly what they're doing. :? I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it - they're simply putting their own need to save 50 KB in bandwidth and a few seconds of time in front of the needs of the site owner to pay his/her hosting bills. I'm sure there are exceptions, but honestly, how do you think the Internet works? SOMEONE has to pay for things along the line...nothing is truly free. :huh:

[Kati Compton]

I'm sorry Shawn, but I think the vast majority of people using ad blockers know exactly what they're doing.

I think those previous few posts demonstrate that this is not in fact true. Many people were under the impression that it was clicking on the ads that mattered, not the loading of them. I myself was under the same impression. So, based on what we thought was true (which apparently isn't the case), blocking the ads would not adversely affect the website if you had no plans to click on them anyway. I don't think anyone is spitefully using ad blockers just to cause you harm.

[Jason Dunn]

I think those previous few posts demonstrate that this is not in fact true.

Come on Kati, you're educated - two or three posts in a thread does not statistical evidence make. :wink: People using ad blockers are going to be fairly sophisticated users (because it's a browser add-on in most cases), and we've had threads on the site before where people who have run ad blockers fully admit they are blocking the ads because they don't like to see them, knowing that it hurts the site.

I might do a front page survey, although I might become suicidal if I see a high percentage of people using ad blockers. 8O :lol: Perhaps a better approach would be to simply explain to people that while clicking the ads is MOST helpful, letting them load is also a necessity.

[dh]

I think those previous few posts demonstrate that this is not in fact true.

Come on Kati, you're educated - two or three posts in a thread does not statistical evidence make. :wink: People using ad blockers are going to be fairly sophisticated users (because it's a browser add-on in most cases), and we've had threads on the site before where people who have run ad blockers fully admit they are blocking the ads because they don't like to see them, knowing that it hurts the site.

I might do a front page survey, although I might become suicidal if I see a high percentage of people using ad blockers. 8O :lol: Perhaps a better approach would be to simply explain to people that while clicking the ads is MOST helpful, letting them load is also a necessity.

Jason, I don't consider myself uneducated but I certainly had always assumed that the success of internet advertising was judged by "clicks" not by "views". I guess ads are generally things we just see and shut out (unless they are of real interest to us) and pay them little attention.

I mentioned earlier in the post, I've seen ads for ad blockers (??) and thought they were a good idea, 'specially when I still had dial up. The only reason I never got to install one is lazyness not any feeling of cheating the site owner out of revenue. I did install a popup blocker because those kind of ads piss me off no end!

You would probably find that only a small proportion of users here are using an ad blocker since most seem to be using a broadband connection.

Hey, I finally ordered an Axim today, business through your affiliate link is going to increase. :lol:

[Pat Logsdon]

I might do a front page survey, although I might become suicidal if I see a high percentage of people using ad blockers. 8O :lol: Perhaps a better approach would be to simply explain to people that while clicking the ads is MOST helpful, letting them load is also a necessity.
I think this would actually be a good idea. I too was under the impression that ad revenue is based on clicks, not views. I don't use ad blocker software (except the pop-up killer built into Opera 7), but I'd bet that a good chunk of users here would adjust their settings if they knew the real story.

[Kati Compton]

I think those previous few posts demonstrate that this is not in fact true.

Come on Kati, you're educated - two or three posts in a thread does not statistical evidence make. :wink: People using ad blockers are going to be fairly sophisticated users (because it's a browser add-on in most cases), and we've had threads on the site before where people who have run ad blockers fully admit they are blocking the ads because they don't like to see them, knowing that it hurts the site.


But there's a difference here in terms of web site user knowledge and web site runner knowledge. How are people that don't deal with web site advertisers supposed to know exactly the terms of the ad? Does blocking cookies that don't originate from this site also lose you advertiser money? These are things that people may not know if they do not run an advertiser-funded site.

And if you're conceding that I'm educated, and *I* didn't realize that funding was based on banner loads, not on clicks, then that should say something.

Did someone on this site say "I don't load banners because I don't want sites to earn adverrtiser money because of me"? If so, I missed it.

Just put a little blurb (I'd suggest a non-confrontational tone) in the about page explaining that it's important for banner ads to be loaded in order to pay for the site. That way at least the people that think to check that page will be informed.

[shawnc]

If ads didn't benefit the site running them, why would the site have them? And, by extension, if the ads are benefiting the site, how can doing something to STOP the site from benefitting from ads be a good thing?

Makes perfectly good sense, just never thought about it. But to use your newspaper analogy, I assume they get paid whether I read the advertising insert or throw it away. I can't say I assumed websites work this way. I can honestly say that I switch channels when the commercials come on and I don't read the inserts unless there is something compelling that fills a personal need. I surely don't think about the harm that I may be doing to the TV industry or my local newspaper. And that's my whole point, that I think there are many people who simply never thought about the harm an ad-blocker would do to the site. I think most of the readers of this site have a tremendous appreciation for the obvious work that goes into maintaining such a quality product, I find it hard to believe that they would knowingly do it harm in the name of bandwidth.


I'm sorry Shawn, but I think the vast majority of people using ad blockers know exactly what they're doing. :? I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it - they're simply putting their own need to save 50 KB in bandwidth and a few seconds of time in front of the needs of the site owner to pay his/her hosting bills. I'm sure there are exceptions, but honestly, how do you think the Internet works? SOMEONE has to pay for things along the line...nothing is truly free. :huh:

Maybe you're right and it's just my lack of sophistication. BTW, I realize the internet is not free but there are MANY uses of this medium that do not rely on advertising.

[Janak Parekh]

we've had threads on the site before where people who have run ad blockers fully admit they are blocking the ads because they don't like to see them, knowing that it hurts the site.
Yes, and I agree with your reaction to these users.

But how about the users who get an email saying "block popups and ads forever?" They hit one click, it's an ActiveX control, downloads, and bam! (Never mind that it's spyware, that's another discussion entirely.) They've now got no ads. I would not be surprised if a substantial number of ad blocker users do this without realizing the effect on revenue streams. I work with a lot of end users, and honestly, they go to web sites without thinking about the costs and income models.

It would be very interesting to do a poll. Maybe I'll run one when you're on vacation. It wouldn't be good for you to get a heart attack. :lol:

--janak

[Weyoun6]

The truth is that most people dont know how website make money or works, unless they have been a webmaster. They think the internet is free. I can understand your anger, Jason, but most people dont know or understand. Sure there might be some people who are arrogant, but I dont think the majority are arrogant. It suprised me as well that this tech-savvy board did not know much about internet ads. Education is the best way to fix the problem.

[PetiteFlower]

Knowing how to make something do what you want it to, and truly understanding HOW it works are two totally different things. I consider myself very good with computers, I can figure out how to make them do what I want pretty easily on my own. I even understand the basics of how to open up my case and upgrade components(though building a computer from scratch is still beyond me). But I haven't really a clue about what exactly it is that my computer's hardware does that makes it have all these amazing functions. I don't understand the mechanics of "writing" to a hard disk, or what goes into making a processor, or anything like that. In the same vein, I can make all my software do pretty much anything I want it to(well within its design), but I don't know the first thing about programming. And I can surf the web with abandon, but that doesn't mean I know how webmasters make money....it's not like they include that in the help file or anything!

[Jason Dunn]

Ok, point taken. I'll take the "educational" route from now on rather than assuming the worst and getting upset about it. :ladysman:

[Steven Cedrone]

I might do a front page survey, although I might become suicidal if I see a high percentage of people using ad blockers. 8O

Noooooooooo, don't do it!!!!!! :wink:


It would be very interesting to do a poll. Maybe I'll run one when you're on vacation. It wouldn't be good for you to get a heart attack. :lol:

Make sure it's a L O N G vacation... :eek:

Steve

[TheBacklash]

Even with it running I still see about 1/3 of the ads on the home PPCT page. While I may be in Jason's "wrong minded" pile, I know my cookies have indicated click-through to acutal purchases of links/ads here. So don't put everyone in that pile just because you see a proxy address, or a referrer doesn't get a response. I respect what you do here and I do see your ads, just not all the time.

If you're only letting 33% of our ads load, you're denying me the chance to make a living running this site. If more people were like you, Pocket PC Thoughts would have died a year ago. :? Rest assured that if I can find a way to stop people like you from viewing anything on this site, I will certainly do so.

If you don't have the basic respect for me to let a few banner ads load, why should I provide a free service to you?

Unless I missed something in the setup... AdSubtract ONLY stops pop-up/under ads.... does nothing about banners. I used to use AdSubtract. Iliked it, but got tired of the many ads that it didn't block... I had to manualy ad sites... and it blocked the site about 90% of the time. (course it was an older version, things can change)

I use pop-up cop, and the Shield turns to a boxing glove when any site sends a pop-up/under ad PPCT does *not* get the glove... well unless I get a PM. but thats a setting I can change.

And yes I can see every banner ad you have on your site. as I said before, Banner ads I let go. as long as it's not flashing 9000 different colors and giving me a headache... those really don't bother me.

And it's been said that saving the 50k of bandwith is the reason people use ad-blockers.... NOPE. it could be for some with 14.4 modems... then again they can change IE to not show pics, and your banners are toast as well....

I run ad blocking software for one reason. I can't stand pop-ups. I could care less what the hell is on the pop-up.... I don't want to see it. If I am running ONE IE window, I do not wish to have 30 running and cluttering my tray... and try to figure out which one is the page I *want* to see...
There are a few sites I frequent that have about 10 pop-up ads, 9 of which are of the porn variety. Personaly I do not want to see them. So I block them. Now I can go to the sites, get the game cheats/codes (in one case) and don't have to see the ads for the barnyard bangers... Think about that one for a sec and you will see why I don't want to see it... Unfortuantly this cheat code site has a rather large section of game cheats, and Are regularly updated. unlike some websites... and I don't have to pay to access the site either to view a guide that another person made for me to view for free. (like IGN) Another site requires me to click on the banner every 24hours in order to read anything on the site... guess what? some days it's a porn site, which then triggers 10 more porn sites to pop-up... which trigger more... pretty soon it's easier to select IE in task manager and end task shutting them all down.

Not anymore. click the banner, the pop-up cop sounds off, the page refreshes, and the site is now readable. simple and very effective.

That is the main reason I got into a ad blocker program. and the main reason I will stay using one.

Talk about banning those of us that use Ad-blocking software, will only result in someone building ways to bypass the "rules" Always has been, always will be that way.
Those sites that "claim" to protect images from being downloaded? :lol: that took what? a week before someone figured out how to bypass that one?

[TheBacklash]

I think those previous few posts demonstrate that this is not in fact true.

Come on Kati, you're educated - two or three posts in a thread does not statistical evidence make. :wink: People using ad blockers are going to be fairly sophisticated users (because it's a browser add-on in most cases), and we've had threads on the site before where people who have run ad blockers fully admit they are blocking the ads because they don't like to see them, knowing that it hurts the site.

I might do a front page survey, although I might become suicidal if I see a high percentage of people using ad blockers. 8O :lol: Perhaps a better approach would be to simply explain to people that while clicking the ads is MOST helpful, letting them load is also a necessity.

Jason, I don't consider myself uneducated but I certainly had always assumed that the success of internet advertising was judged by "clicks" not by "views". I guess ads are generally things we just see and shut out (unless they are of real interest to us) and pay them little attention.

I third this opinion....

Most banner ads and Webmaster pleas that I have seen, have in fact said pleace CLICK on our sponsers to support the site.... which leads me to believe that clicking on the ads generates revenue for you... not views.

I can show you a few sites that I frequent now, that do in fact have this plea on the front page.... and do not in any way say please let the banner load, but say click the banner, and let the page that pops-up load.... *then* close the window if you wish and continue onto our site.

With the above situation it is very easy to think that ad money is generated by click, and not by views of the ad.

If thats the case, views and not clicks get you the revenue... why can't we all refresh a page or two every visit? :lol:

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Ok, point taken. I'll take the "educational" route from now on rather than assuming the worst and getting upset about it. :ladysman:
I'm glad you're keeping an open mind about this (you "lady's man" you!).

I used to work as a software engineer at GeoCities (5-6 years ago). While I knew that all of their revenue came from ads, I was surprised when I found it was only based on clicks (not impressions). They told me that the newspaper / magazine / TV model of advertising revenue doesn't get applied to web advertising.

I guess we were all pre-conditioned to those notions which is why I actually thought that ux4484 had an interesting point.

[ux4484]

Ok, point taken. I'll take the "educational" route from now on rather than assuming the worst and getting upset about it. :ladysman:


A response as such would have a resulted in an instant: "for you, sure Jason" from me, instead of a forum and PM battle. And yes now when at PPCT, I'll turn it off, but I certianly won't uninstall my blocker. Asking to do it for you is one thing, asking to do it for the whole internet, well.....you just don't have the right or justification.

All who use them aren't of the same cut as Warez and MP3 pirates, and trying to put them in the same league is wrong.
The reason I started using one? Online one day my Mrs pulls up a site from favorites that was bookmarked for religious art (she does our kids school newsletter). What does she get instead of her clipart site? About 30 IE porn windows, a dollup of porn spyware, and a whole lot of pissed off.

Buying old religious domains seems to be a recent tactic of the porn industry, as it has happened on more than one occasion...even from a google look up, but every one since the first one never resulted in more than one page, and never has resulted in spyware again (since using add/subtract). Many freeware sties that are linked to (*edit*) here have some pretty invasive/lude (Pocketgear comes to mind) page ads as well as popups. Using a blocker when venturing to somewhere new on the internet is smart, not devious.

Now, I have a new question. What about NetFront and Thunderhawk? Both of these apps give the ability to fully access PPCT via PPC's/smartphones without ads and without cost (i.e. the coming pay-mobile forums) and it makes them quite readable. (Netfront adds the further option of not letting the site know it's a mobile browser). Wouldn't you also want to request that folks NOT use them to access the site?

[Kati Compton]

Ok, point taken. I'll take the "educational" route from now on rather than assuming the worst and getting upset about it. :ladysman:

I think that will make everyone (especially you) happier. :)

[Janak Parekh]

Now, I have a new question. What about NetFront and Thunderhawk?
I don't know about NetFront, but Thunderhawk downloads the ads and displays them in-place. I have not seen an option to adjust that behavior.

--janak

[torgamm]

Many freeware sties that are linked to (PPCfreewares comes to mind) here have some pretty invasive/lude (Pocketgear comes to mind) page ads as well as popups.
What ?
Just a Flash banner from our provider, and it is not a pop-up

[Kati Compton]

Many freeware sties that are linked to (PPCfreewares comes to mind) here have some pretty invasive/lude (Pocketgear comes to mind) page ads as well as popups.
What ?
Just a Flash banner from our provider, and it is not a pop-up

Perhaps he meant freewarepocketpc.com. I have not encountered pop-ups on PocketPCfreewares.

[ux4484]

yes I stand grevoiusly corrected, my apologies.

[torgamm]

No problem :)
But as long as we hope we shall be able to provide an english version some day (do not ask when...), I want to keep our reputation clean ;)

[Pony99CA]

As usual, I have an opinion. :-D And, I'll even propose a solution. :-)

First, as I said previously, I don't block any ads anywhere except pop-ups. I have clicked on ads occasionally. I have bought things using Jason's affiliate links.

Second, I agree that most people should not be expected to know how a Web site owner gets his revenue. Even savvy Web programmers may not know, because they're techno-geeks, not business people.

Third, I think Jason went over the top expressing his dislike for ad blockers, and not only due to my second point. I don't think anyone should try to tell another how to configure his computer unless it improves someone's computer. Blocking ads may indirectly affect me if a site I like goes away, but telling me not to block them would be like telling me I have to at least look at every ad in the free local weekly newspaper.

Fourth, I find the claim that Web sites have gone under because of ad blocking unproven at best and specious at worst. I don't doubt that Web sites have gone under due to lack of revenue (my old company did), and maybe even due to lack of ad revenue. But unless it can be proven that the money they didn't get due to ad blocking would have kept them afloat, I don't think anyone should claim ad blocking is killing Web sites. It certainly may hurt them, but that's a different thing.

Fifth, I think that Jason also has the right to say what he did about ad blocking. That's what freedom of speech is about. Plus, it's his site. :-D

Sixth, I think users also have the right to express our feelings (although perhaps not on Jason's site, if he so chooses). Besides, when someone disagrees with me, I fully support their right to be wrong. :lol:

Seventh, I'd be curious to get a feeling for how much a site made on impressions, click-thrus and purchases. You don't have to post dollar amounts if you don't want, but how about percentages? For example, "Of all revenue PPCT makes, 50% is impressions, 30% is click-thru and 20% is from sales." If there are other revenue sources, feel free to cite them, too. :-)

Finally, here are solutions to your problems with ad blocking.

First, make everyone who wants to see all of PPCT's content register. As part of registration, include a mention that your site makes money from ad impressions (but don't call them "impressions", as that's not a common term among non-geeks) and that their registration is an implicit agreement that they will turn off ad blocking while at your site. Also mention that you don't use pop-ups/pop-unders, etc.

To allow people to decide if they want to register, make a certain amount of content available for free (maybe 10 articles per day, or 50 unlimited visits).

One of my favorite humor sites (The Top 5 List (http://www.topfive.com)) went from free to pay, but they still have a complete list on Wednesdays and partial lists the other weekdays to allow people to get a flavor of the site. I didn't opt to pay, because I didn't find it worth the money, but I would gladly register to see the whole site.

I realize that this won't prevent ad blocking, but you'll have the moral high ground in any future discussion with a registered member. Someone will have to be pretty cheesy to block ads after agreeing that they wouldn't.

Also, and this is something I've never seen suggested -- a Pony original, perhaps. Include an affiliate link in your signature every time you post. In fact, you might be able to contract out with someone to pay you to do this. Tell them that your signature will include their link for a week if they pay you a certain amount. While people probably could block text links like that, I don't know that anybody actually does.

There you have it. And it's my 1600th post, too. I hope it was worthwhile. :-D

Steve

[Jason Dunn]

Gosh, and here I thought this thread was finished... :lol: To answer your question, about 90% of our income comes from banner impressions, perhaps 10% from affiliate sales, and none from clicks (we don't sell on a per-click basis). But if 100% of people were to stop clicking on the ads, we'd lose most of our income pretty quickly. 8O

The best thing people can do is, every time you visit the site, click on one banner someplace, and take 10 seconds to look at what the sponsor has to offer - it might interest you. If not, close the window and go about your business. :mrgreen:

[DrtyBlvd]

Gosh, and here I thought this thread was finished... :lol:

...there's always someone watching Jase 8)