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.
These services do not change the source, this would be analogous to blocking the whole web page.
I'd argue that this case is the same. In no way is an ad blocker "changing the source". The source is the same as it has ever been, and still displays as intended for other users. The only thing being changed is what's displayed to me, on my computer.
And your ads are being blocked for very good reasons. Ads have become a major vector (probably THE major vector) for malware these days. Now I know you're going to swear that there's absolutely zero chance that the ads on YOUR website are going to infect my computer, but why should I (or anyone else) believe you?
Lets not try and put words into my mouth, OK? The chances of you being infected by the direct advertisers on my site that make up the bulk of them is 0 percent because the code is 100% under my control. The rest of the ads are from Google Adsense which does a very good job of vetting the ads. There is no certainty to that and they have failed to detect issues in the past but it's infinitesimally small percentage of the total ads served.
The malicious scripts are typically on low quality sites using smaller secondary low quality ad networks that do not have the resources of Google. They have either been booted from Adsense or cannot meet the criteria.
Quote:
If your website fails, don't blame ad blockers.
If I want you to see ads while visiting my site you will see ads. Again this is coming to a head and more sites like mine will be taken action to make sure they are displayed. The fact is it simply cannot go on like this.
Lets not try and put words into my mouth, OK? The chances of you being infected by the direct advertisers on my site that make up the bulk of them is 0 percent because the code is 100% under my control. The rest of the ads are from Google Adsense which does a very good job of vetting the ads. There is no certainty to that and they have failed to detect issues in the past but it's infinitesimally small percentage of the total ads served.
Again: why should I believe you?
No, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm pointing out that people who visit your website don't KNOW you, and have no reason to trust your claims. Why should I (or anyone else) trust the word of a stranger that his website is fine to visit without using the browser equivalent of a condom?
Quote:
The malicious scripts are typically on low quality sites using smaller secondary low quality ad networks that do not have the resources of Google. They have either been booted from Adsense or cannot meet the criteria.
For one thing, that's not true. Since when is Forbes, or The Atlantic Monthly, a low-quality site? People have been infected by malware visiting more very respectable sites than I have time to name.
And the average visitor to a website isn't running NoScript or similar, and has no way of knowing which third-party ad network the site owner has chosen to use. So why should they take the risk?
Quote:
If I want you to see ads while visiting my site you will see ads. Again this is coming to a head and more sites like mine will be taken action to make sure they are displayed.
No, if you force ads on me when I visit your website I will immediately stop viewing your website, and you lose all possibilities of making a sale from me. And what do you think happens when fewer people visit your webpage and purchase your products? Your revenue (from ads, due to dropping page views, and from sales) goes down, and you go out of business.
You don't get to demand a certain behavior from your customers. They are not your captives to use or abuse as you see fit.
Quote:
The fact is it simply cannot go on like this.
You're right. Best start looking for an alternative to ad revenue to keep your site funded. Because that ad revenue is going to continue to drop in the future, no matter what you try to do.
As far as the direct advertisers go it would imply I would purposely try an infect the users of my sites. I certainly don't need ads to do that. Understand?
Quote:
For one thing, that's not true. Since when is Forbes, or The Atlantic Monthly, a low-quality site?
What I said was "typically".
Quote:
No, if you force ads on me when I visit your website I will immediately stop viewing your website, and you lose all possibilities of making a sale from me.
I don't sell anything, I provide information to people. If you don't want to view the ads along with that information that is fine with me but in the near future you are going to find your choices very limited as more sites begin to block the adblocker and/or implement ads that cannot be blocked.
Quote:
And what do you think happens when fewer people visit your webpage and purchase your products? Your revenue (from ads, due to dropping page views, and from sales) goes down, and you go out of business.
You don't get to demand a certain behavior from your customers. They are not your captives to use or abuse as you see fit.
It always amuses me when people try and tell you how to run your business. As I told someone previously since you have it all figured out go get your own website and make your millions.
As far as the direct advertisers go it would imply I would purposely try an infect the users of my sites. I certainly don't need ads to do that. Understand?
Certainly. Do YOU understand that the average visitor who clicks on a link to your site has no idea whether you're personally vetting the ads being posted on your site which you wish them to view, or just accepting whatever crap some third-party ad network is deciding to serve up today?
Quote:
What I said was "typically".
And what you said was wrong. The malware risk is not in any way confined to "low-quality" websites.
Quote:
I don't sell anything, I provide information to people. If you don't want to view the ads along with that information that is fine with me but in the near future you are going to find your choices very limited as more sites begin to block the adblocker and/or implement ads that cannot be blocked.
I'd far rather have only a few high-quality information sources than a sea of junk. If sites that are dependent on advertising to stay solvent die, good riddance. The internet will be better off without them.
There are alternative ways to make money. Paywalls have already been mentioned; pay-per-article, subscriptions, donation buttons, sponsored links to Amazon and other online sellers which the website owner can encourage readers to use in order to financially support the site. It's simply not true that there are no alternatives to ads.
Quote:
It always amuses me when people try and tell you how to run your business.
I'm not telling you how to run your business. I'm telling you how not to run your business. Alienating your customers is rarely a winning business move.
And if customers aren't actually willing to actually PAY FOR whatever information you are offering, just how valuable can the information you are offering actually be?
Certainly. Do YOU understand that the average visitor who clicks on a link to your site has no idea whether you're personally vetting the ads being posted on your site which you wish them to view, or just accepting whatever crap some third-party ad network is deciding to serve up today?
I go over the ads daily to weed out the crap, it also has positive affect on my revenue.
Quote:
And what you said was wrong. The malware risk is not in any way confined to "low-quality" websites.
You apparently do not understand the use of the word typically but I'll be happy to explain it. When used in that context what that means is usually but not necessarily all the time.
Quote:
I'd far rather have only a few high-quality information sources than a sea of junk.
I do have a high quality source of information and the ads are minimal. There is millions of sites just like mine losing revenue, this site we are using right now included.
Quote:
There are alternative ways to make money. Paywalls have already been mentioned; pay-per-article, subscriptions, donation buttons, sponsored links to Amazon and other online sellers which the website owner can encourage readers to use in order to financially support the site. It's simply not true that there are no alternatives to ads.
I will have to reiterate I find it very amusing that you feel compelled to tell someone how to run a business you know nothing about. Since you have it all figured out, quit your job, start your own web site and make your millions.
That's not going to happen right? You are the type that is going to go through life working for someone else and complain about how they run their business. Did I nail it? There is a reason people like me do not need your advice. LOL
Quote:
And if customers aren't actually willing to actually PAY FOR whatever information you are offering, just how valuable can the information you are offering actually be?
Valuable enough that my site has been around for about 12 years. Valuable enough that I have enough traffic it requires dedicated server.
Last edited by thecoalman; 01-03-2017 at 04:39 PM..
"Those online ads driving you bonkers are virtually 'worthless for brands'".
If you are depending on ad revenue to make a living, it is time to enroll in a trade school and learn a trade. Donald Trump won the election by spending $600 million to Hilary Clinton's $1.2 billion. Donald Trump has put the proverbial stake in the heart of the myth that if you just bother people enough, they will buy your product.
I go over the ads daily to weed out the crap, it also has positive affect on my revenue.
Again: no one visiting your site knows that (certainly not the first time they stop by).
Quote:
You apparently do not understand the use of the word typically but I'll be happy to explain it.
I understand the word perfectly. Your statement was wrong.
Quote:
I do have a high quality source of information and the ads are minimal. There is millions of sites just like mine losing revenue, this site we are using right now included.
And that is not going to change for several reasons: many site owners are not and will never be as conscientious about the vetting and placement of ads on their sites as you are, advertisers have learned that online ads are much less effective than they had originally believed, and people (the more tech-savvy ones especially) have learned that ads served up by third-party ad network servers are a security risk so there is good reason to block them. The lost ad revenue is NOT coming back. That is just a reality that site owners are going to have to adapt to.
Quote:
I will have to reiterate I find it very amusing that you feel compelled to tell someone how to run a business you know nothing about. Since you have it all figured out, quit your job, start your own web site and make your millions.
That's not going to happen right? You are the type that is going to go through life working for someone else and complain about how they run their business. Did I nail it? There is a reason people like me do not need your advice. LOL
I've already made my millions, so, no, I'm not going to quit my job to run a web site. And I'm not going to complain about how you run your web page. I just won't visit it - at all - if you force ads on me.
I do visit (and financially support) sites that allow me to block ads. Ars Technica used to block visitors who ran an ad blocker on their browser (I don't know if they do now), but they offered that visitor a choice: whitelist the site, or buy a subscription. I chose the latter option, and now they get $50 a year from me. Ironically, when I went to the Forbes website and discovered they had decided to block ad blockers, the purpose of my visit was to buy a subscription to the magazine. Needless to say, that subscription was never purchased, as I couldn't view the site. Which web site made the better business decision?
Quote:
Valuable enough that my site has been around for about 12 years. Valuable enough that I have enough traffic it requires dedicated server.
But apparently not valuable enough to your visitors for them to actually pay you for your content. Color me unimpressed.
This may not be the Political forum, but the link mshultz posted is good and on-topic. Web advertising is struggling for reasons besides ad blockers.
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.
