Posted on 09/12/2007 8:02:47 AM PDT by ShadowAce
It seems harmless enough at first, the desire to keep ads from overtaking the content you wish to view from your favorite websites. But what so many people seem to fail to understand is that many of these content providers are using ads to make a living. Otherwise, there would be no time to gather the content and post original works in the first place.
And while I sympathize with the frustration of readers using these website resources and not allowing themselves to view non-intrusive advertising, the approach talked about in jacklewis.net/weblog is insane.
Telling Your Readers to Kiss Off! I can see and would even support the ability to outwardly block the extension that Jack has a problem with. But I'm a Firefox user who not only supports the ads of other writers, I also happen to agree with his position with the exception that he is blocking me from his site. Instead, I end up at this drivel filled website rather than the blog I'm trying to view.
To be fair, Jack has pointed out that he would rather only block the users of the plugin themselves, which I can certainly get on board with, as they are obviously not worth the bandwidth they are using. However, I'm angered and rather disappointed with the toleration approach of blocking anyone using Firefox.
Adblock Plus: Benefit or Hassle? The creator of Adblock Plus for Firefox Wladimir Palant rightfully points out that the desire of wishing to block ads on websites stem from poor website design. True enough, yet he fails to mention others using his product simply out of spite as these users feel everything should be free to them without any level of inconvenience.
Think I'm wrong? I would challenge you to prove me wrong. Most people using products like Wladimir's are generally doing so out of ideology rather than most of the sites they visit being of poor design. At the end of the day, the design argument is pretty weak.
Better Alternatives for Users and Publishers. Frankly, I cannot see the need to run yet another plugin for Firefox, especially when the going argument is in response to poor site design with an overabundance of ads. If a website's design is simply that bad, why would one bother to visit it in the first place? For the content? Alright, fine. Then if the content of that site is of that much value, then there is no sustainable argument for blocking ads no matter how annoying.
I'm all for pop-up blockers. Seriously, who isn't? And while I agree that some Firefox plugins are overkill, there has to be a happy medium between banning anyone using a certain browser and viewing content in such as it is not intended.
Sort of like my DVR. I wouldn’t go without either.
Goofy story.
I don’t mind ads. But the ones that roll across the screen, load up multimedia, etc.,grrrr...
I do actually look at text ads with jpgs, but all the flash stuff just wigs me out.
No apologies for blocking stuff that wants to take over my computer!
I have ads unblocked for several sites. If you like a site, and the ads aren’t crazy flashing intrusive, you should unblock it.
Any ‘webmaster’ that blocks FireFox for this is a backward thinking idiot. Calling people thieves and attempting idiotic measures to deal with technology is emulating the incredibly stupid methods of the dinosaur MPAA and RIAA.
When technology changes, you need to change with it. Find a way to have advertising that can’t be blocked or works better into your website and you will magically find your problem solved. Start growing and stop clinging to antiquated methods.
It’s not the ads so much that bother me.. it’s what they sometimes bring with them.. intrusive adware and malware that can infect your machine.. I have not had a single incident of a problem like this since installing Adblock and noscript addins in FireFox.
PS.. I got news for ya Jack.. with the user agent switch addin for FireFox, my browser can report to your webserver that it is Internet Explorer, and your server will be none the wiser.. Game on..
Apparently, some forms of annoying ads are better than others. I only block the annoying ones (animated gifs, etc.).
Those aren’t annoying. I hate it when music starts playing loudly or when animation slows down the computer while downloading or playing.
Firefox rules!
FireFox RULZ!....................
Semi-agree. I tend to block all ads for reasons of efficiency. I tend to go from one site to another fairly quickly, and loading up ads takes time. There are a few sites that I do not block ads on as they tend to actually have informative ads rather than on things I couldn't care less about.
13% of my site visitors are Firefox users — blocking them all due to the spector of “adblocking” plugins seems awfully shortsighted. I’d be amazed if even 5% of them have the plugin installed. .65% of site visitors “stealing” content, maybe? What about site visitors who use readers and shut off images (text only) due to disabilities? Should they be blocked too?
In all my years in development, the goal has been usability and compatibility with browsers and browser usage behaviors — it never crossed my mind to complain that web users weren’t doing what I wanted them to do with their personal machines.
If the author has a problem let them design a blocker that allows adds which are not intrusive through and block others.
The whole *if you block my ad youre stealing* is like telling folks they cant go use the can during a commercial.
I guess I've been rather clueless about this particular issue on the net, as I never look at ads, block 98% of them, and don't even worry about them. As a result, I never get anything like that, think of particular websites for particular topics (brand awareness), and know who is knowledgeable.
Websites should build their readership via knowledge and expertise. The more readers one has, the more he can charge for tiny, unobtrusive ads that are much less likely to be blocked.
Whenever I run across a site with sound in the ads, I leave immediately. I don't care why I went there in the first place, I never re-visit that site again.
Just use a customized hosts file:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
No ads. No annoying animated .gifs
My initial thought and the reason I posted this.
True enough, yet he fails to mention others using his product simply out of spite as these users feel everything should be free to them without any level of inconvenience.
He requires us to "prove him wrong" earlier, yet he makes this blanket statement without any proof? Give me a break.
I like to use the tabbed view with Firefox. I open up a web page, and if it starts showing those annoying ads that creep across the page, I tab back to FreeRepublic or whatever else I have open, and wait a few minutes for the ad to finish. If the ad’s still there and doesn’t have an ‘X’ in the corner to close, I get rid of the tab and go elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.