Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most annoying type of ads are the javascript overlays that take up the entire screen while you're reading,
The overlay itself is not created with javascript, it is triggered or hidden with javascript. If you wanted to be a real prick you could have a page that renders with the overlay that requires JS is enabled to close it.
I have slow service and limited gigs a month. I can't have things like full page pictures and videos running that eat up thousands of megs.
I block third party cookies, I have flash on 'prompt'. I have adblock, I use active X filter
If a site demands 'turn off adblock' to view site, I click off the site.
But there are some news sites that have embedded video and there's no way to stop them. I watch the status bar for fast moving download. If there is any, I click off.
What ever they are trying to get me to buy, I'm not interested.
This browser here seems to be a balance of sorts in that it:
1.) Automatically blocks the annoying types of ads (Makes users happier)
2.) Doesn't allow AdBlock plugins to be installed and still allows the regular ad types (Makes site owners happier)
I admit, it seems to use more RAM (in general) than Chrome but less than Firefox and is similar in speed to Chrome.
Also, on Chrome and other browsers, I think that the AdBlockers themselves are causing RAM to go higher than it normally would on sites. (Massive ad-bloated sites excepted) Since Brave has a built in ad-blocker, that may also explain the increase in RAM.
Brave, the Internet browser from Brendan Eich — the creator of JavaScript and former Mozilla CEO chased out of the company because of political wrongthink — has announced a new feature that users might use to combat YouTube’s growing censorship of independent channels in favor of corporate brands.
Earlier this year, Brave created its own decentralized digital currency, the “Basic Attention Token” (BAT). BAT’s purpose is to reform the Internet’s dominant system of monetization — advertisers paying per click or per impression — and instead empowering users to become patrons of their favorite sites and publishers. This blockchain-based payment method will hopefully counteract the rampant politicization of corporate ad buys, which have caused a chilling effect on free speech.
If a Brave user has already purchased BAT, he can load it into the browser’s wallet or convert other top currencies — Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ethereum (all of which can be simply bought with USD) — into BAT. The browser’s settings page has a “Payments” tab where the user can see all the sites he has visited and select which ones to give BAT and how much. On Thursday, Brave announced that instead of their BAT only going to Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, users can now direct their payments to the owner of a particular channel.
There is no reason for web pages to not follow these standards.
A. No one gets to tell me ho to run my site whether I agree or not.
B.No advertiser/site should be held ransom by some third party and they would be foolish to pay them this fee.
C. Most users will turn them off anyway so it's pointless exercise.
Quote:
Ads must not disrupt the user's natural reading flow. Such ads must be placed on top, side or below the Primary Content
That's stupid, you can't pigeonhole a site layout and the suggestion they be on the top is about as lame as it gets. If you go to one of my sites the ads will appear below the fold or just above it depending on the content.
A. No one gets to tell me ho to run my site whether I agree or not.
B.No advertiser/site should be held ransom by some third party and they would be foolish to pay them this fee.
C. Most users will turn them off anyway so it's pointless exercise.
That's stupid, you can't pigeonhole a site layout and the suggestion they be on the top is about as lame as it gets. If you go to one of my sites the ads will appear below the fold or just above it depending on the content.
He didn't say, and I didn't take it to mean, that it was a standard that should be made into a law. You are free to code your web page any way you like, and I am free to run an add blocker. If a site tells me I have to turn the add blocker off to see the site, I will find another site. If they ask me to turn the add blocker off, I probably will, unless they have enough adds I can't see the site. (I think it was PC magazine that kept loading adds for 10 straight minutes, but I could be mistaken.)
If a site tells me I have to turn the add blocker off to see the site, I will find another site.
The issue is that adblocker is eating into the revenue of practically any site that relies on advertising which is almost all of them. I understand the complaints about some sites and have the same complaints myself. As this goes on what you will find is more sites pulling the trigger and blocking the adblocker. The success of adblocker will be it's demise.
The issue is that adblocker is eating into the revenue of practically any site that relies on advertising which is almost all of them. I understand the complaints about some sites and have the same complaints myself.
Nope, only blocks ridiculously intrusive adds. I run add blocker and see adds all the time on lots of sites. I go to a site and see a dozen adds, and my add blocker says it blocked two or three. Once in a while I go to a site and it asks to unblock. I glace at my blocking meter and if it says something less than about ten, I will unblock the site. If it says (and I have seen this) 35 or even 50, I may go elsewhere. Or I might pause addblocker and see how bad it is. If it is bad, I will click out, and go elsewhere.
Quote:
As this goes on what you will find is more sites pulling the trigger and blocking the adblocker. The success of adblocker will be it's demise.
If you read my post, you will see that is already going on, but it isn't hurting addblockers much. If it is a war, you will lose.
But there may be something better on the horizon, if we can get micro payments to work, we can provide revenue streams instead of relying on adds. Of course, if you are an advertising agency instead of a site owner, that might make you see red.
It blocks Google ads on my site, 1 to 3 per page depending on the amount of content. 1 ad if you are logged in....still blocked....
Quote:
I run add blocker and see adds all the time on lots of sites. I go to a site and see a dozen adds, and my add blocker says it blocked two or three.
About 15 years ago I think it was Norton with one of the first adblockers was blocking images on one of my sites . Why? They were in a folder called banners and they had nothing to do with advertising. Moving them out of the folder called banners unblocked them. The same thing applies today. Adblocker depends on consistency, they can easily block Google ads because they know the source. Direct ads on my site are not affected because it has no idea it's an ad and if they happen to figure it out I'll simply adjust.
Quote:
If it is a war, you will lose.
If I wish to show you ads you will see ads. It's not a question of if I can force ads onto you, it's a question of whether I want to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
