Former Google exec declares war on ad blockers

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Former Google exec declares war on ad blockers[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2015/06/adblock-1-95x75.png[/newsimage]
[quote][/quote]
Read the full article here: http://www.myce.com/news/former-google-exec-declares-war-on-ad-blockers-76412/

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

The most popular adblocker, Adblock Plus, doesn’t block all advertisements. Companies can pay a fee to Adblock Plus to make sure their advertisements are also shown to users with an adblocker, which is also the business model of this browser plugin. Through the settings of Adblock Plus users can change a setting which will prevent any advertisements to be shown.

This is the reason why I use my own Custom PC hosts edit that goes around the google ads…and our Former Google exec whom thinks he is smarter…needs to try harder… :Z


#3

Good luck with this. More and more I run into sites that ask me to turn off my ad blocker. Or they refuse to let me see the article without looking at an ad first. I simply close the window and go on my way. If you want people to see your content, you cannot make it more difficult to do so. The traffic will plummet, the articles you write will not get linked, and no one will see it, not even those without ad blockers.

If you have good content, you really want it to be picked up by other sites. The interconnections of the net are what make for a richer environment of information.


#4

I switched from ABP to AD Muncher because it’s supposed to be blocked less by sites.
AD Muncher also has a tray icon & blocking can be quickly disabled with a right click & disable selection. So far I haven’t needed it.

That & like coolcolors I use a custom hosts file . It was actually coolcolors that got me to use a hosts file. I had tried to use a hosts file before that but I didn’t get it right & browsing wasn’t working well . So I stopped. Then about a year ago I gave a hosts file another try. I got it right this time.

What some people might not like about a hosts file is it completely blocks some sites . All you get is the “site unavailable” message. So as Kerry does I can just go on my way.


#5

I’m not sure why a site would need this technology… Maybe someone can explain, but why can’t google have an api that allows sites to retrieve the ads through a back channel and then serve them up natively on their sites? Do this, then randomize the content frame ids so if a user blocks the ad it will pop back up again when they refresh the page because the adblocker won’t know about the new id.

Doing this would put the ball back in the adblocker’s court, and to solve it the blockers have to give up with blocking entire ad server farms and come up with far slower and far less reliable heuristics in order to find and block ad content on the page - an approach which the site owners would of course try to fight with smarter and smarter ways to avoid the inspection and show the ads (while maybe blocking non-ad page content on purpose to tweak the user).

Make the ads native so full ad servers can’t be banned with a click of a button. Turn that turnkey solution into an annoying as hell cat and mouse game between the blockers and the site owners with the user getting pissed that the internet is suddenly slow as hell and parts of the page that shouldn’t be blocked are and parts that should be aren’t. Eventually the user would probably just give up and turn off the damn thing and deal with the ads…

It’s 2015 and I’ve been using an adblocker for like 10 years… The fact that it still works after all this time boggles my mind given the finances behind it. How has the industry not come up with an obvious solution like this?? I must be missing something, can anyone explain?


#6

Personally, I think a lot fewer people would resort to ad-blockers if ads were a simple static JPEG image that does not link or where the sponsor link is shown separately.

Such ads already work in newspapers and have done so long before the Internet, yet you don’t hear about people complaining that they wish they had a way of eliminating ads in newspapers. :disagree:

Advantages:

[ul]
[li]No fake buttons such as on software download and file transfer websites.
[/li][li]No malicious ads, unless someone manages to create a JPEG exploit.
[/li][li]Pages load a lot quicker, i.e. each ad is just one JPEG image to load.
[/li][li]No accidentally clicking ads, e.g. those that have a fake ‘X’ button
[/li][li]No cookie dropping, user tracking, etc.
[/li][li]No pesky animations.
[/li][/ul]

Disadvantages:

[ul]
[li]User would need to manually type link in ad just like a newspaper ad.
[/li][li]Difficult to track ad viewing figures, e.g. whether viewed by human or bot.
[/li][li]No “pay per click” model, although an option would be to provide the advertiser one choice of a number of predefined link texts such as “Buy above product”, “Visit sponsor website”, “Book appointment”, etc. where the link counts each view and where the advertiser cannot use custom text like “Begin download”.
[/li][/ul]


#7

[QUOTE=Seán;2755541]Personally, I think a lot fewer people would resort to ad-blockers if ads were a simple static JPEG image that does not link or where the sponsor link is shown separately.[/QUOTE] Exactly.

Some sites are filled with blinking scams, phishing attempts, fake buttons, attempts at tricking people to install malware, and what have you.

Some to the degree that they are literally unusable without ad-blockers, because actual content is hidden behind spammy scammy phishy infectious ads.

Some to the degree that they are dangerous without ad-blockers.

Some to the degree that they are merely annoying without ad-blockers.

Without such sites, ad-blockers wouldn’t be as attractive as they are, and people wouldn’t install as many ad-blockers. Once an ad-blocker is installed, people tend to have them enabled on all sites.

In my view, using ad-blockers is a defensive tool in the arms-race against scum-ads on the internet.


#8

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2755543]In my view, using ad-blockers is a defensive tool in the arms-race against scum-ads on the internet.[/QUOTE]

That’s the problem they make it so intrusive that one can see the content they are trying to see in the first place.

And as Cholla did-it took me quite a few trials and errors to get it right and now I can’t believe how much different it is when I use the computers at work compared to my computer at home is like night and day in what ads don’t show. That’s much better with my internet at home and families computers have become more enjoyable to use. If they made it just simple jpg not some “gotcha” click then people would care less about the ads. As to the site saying to turn off the hosts blocker I just find another site that doesn’t have this ads and never looked back.


#9

I will try and block every piece of network traffic i don’t want on my devices, including ads.


#10

Whatever the case the biggest downside to use adblocker is this kicker…

Companies can pay a fee to Adblock Plus to make sure their advertisements are also shown to users with an adblocker

Now I like to see users of adblock can make claims that adblocker works for them not the companies. Guess I know whom controls adblocker wallets now…


#11

The good thing is that AdBlock Plus is Free/Open Source Software (GNU GPL v3), hence anyone with the appropriate skills can make a fork. Until recently, I’ve been using AdBlock Edge, which is basically AdBlock Plus without the “exceptable ads” feature. However, the devs behind AdBlock Edge have discontinued it infavor of uBlock, which has been proven to use less RAM than ABP. Hurray for less RAM!


#12

The PC hosts edit is far cheaper and easier to do and doesn’t require a Rocket Science Degree to learn and do the simple edit.