Adblockers, ideas for countermeasures?

[bladesb]

I did some searching here and found a mod that was in development, but there hasn't been aany new info from the developer for a long time.

Basically, he was looking to develop a mod that would detect browsers that were blocking ads, then pop up a nag banner to ask them to please unblock the ads.

I don't know the first thing about coding or software development so I wouldn't know how to implement this idea, or if it was even possible.


But, I thought an interesting approach would be a mod that made all images posted on a site using the BBCode tags appear to browsers as "ads" so the only way to view images on the site would be to allow ads.

I know such a mod would not be for everyone. Each forum community is different, and forcing guests and members to view ads might run some people off.

But it would be nice to have the option.

One of the members of my forum posted a topic complaining about the ads, and another member mentioned using adblockers.

One of the "perks" I provide to paying members of the site is hiding the ads. If my members all install adblockers, then that removes incentive for them to buy a membership, and it also makes my revenue suffer as well because there are people who will never pay for a membership, and ads were the only way they would contribute to the site's revenue.

[Arantor]

Doesn't really work like that. Most ads are not supplied as images - pretty much every ad is actually JavaScript included from another site. Blocking ads is mostly about blocking those domains rather than futzing around with images.

[busterone]

Funny, I will never, absolutely never un-block ads. If a site nagged me with some idiotic prompt asking me to, I will leave that site and never return. 99 percent of all sites running ads that I have ever visited run ads are overbearing and obnoxiously distracting.  I will never un-block. 

[Ricky.]

True, I never unblock but I guess, detecting browsing and making unobstructed request to turn of can be fine though.

[Arantor]

Maybe it's a sign to find a better method of incentivising your users to give you money.

[kat]

Most browsers, now, have a "Block content" feature, anyway.

I can see where bladesb's coming from, though. I know a few sites that have a sign saying that the site can only stay online by virtue of the ads and they'd be grateful if you didn't block those ads, or they'd not make enough money to be able to afford to keep the site going.

[Irisado]

One of the reasons I use Firefox is so that I can block ads, and I wouldn't appreciate a forum asking/telling me to turn off my ad blocker.

I appreciate that some fora rely on advertising to keep afloat, but it really just needs to be left up to each user in question whether they choose to block adverts in my opinion.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink after all .

[Antes]

One of the reasons I use Firefox is so that I can block ads, and I wouldn't appreciate a forum asking/telling me to turn off my ad blocker.

I appreciate that some fora rely on advertising to keep afloat, but it really just needs to be left up to each user in question whether they choose to block adverts in my opinion.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink after all .

If there is no water you can't drink it. How do you expect people run forum? Is their domain service telling them oh people blocked ads so I don't want any money from you to renew your domain or hosting company?

Okay lets change things here, and do all web paid - so If you don't pay you don't get anything? Is it better? Guess so.

You can look at: http://antiblock.org/?p=script

[kat]

I, actually, don't use an ad-blocker, for those very reasons.

A pop-up blocker, sure. Those things are just plain annoying.

[Arantor]

So find a better method of getting your users to give you money. Ask them for donations. Offer them proper premium services for their money.

[Antes]

But I'm not asking them to click on ads. Why sould I force them to donate ? or get premium services ? I'm just serving ads and they click if it interests them.

[Arantor]

No, but you're taking the view that it's wrong for them to block ads. It's not wrong - it's well documented that malware through bad ad networks are a major cause of infection.

Thing is, I'm in control of what goes through my computer, and you can't tell me I'm wrong to be that way.

Also, consider the situation: these people who are looking at your ads are also posting content on your site. They're your main contributors - and you're making money out of them as well as out of their contributions.

If you want to make money out of a site, consider all the angles, not just the obvious one.

[Antes]

I tought we were talking about legal and trusted network, if you are looking that way even a image hosting got hacked and all the files infected etc...

If they are coming to my site thats because I'm the main contributer, I never saw people populating a empty website with their posts. did you?

Also I'm not against Donate/Premium Membership they are all legal and nice way to earn money which SMF has it as Charter Membership (with some benefits). But you are coming with idea "ads are annoying web must get rid of it" and supporting that idea which is fully wrong. When you use adblocker it blocks all adds not just AdSense or similar networks also blocks well-known ad management systems (such as OpenX which SMF uses). You don't have any right to cut income resources of a website. If you don't like ads simply leave that site on the other side of the web.

[Arantor]

I tought we were talking about legal and trusted network, if you are looking that way even a image hosting got hacked and all the files infected etc...

I'm even including legal and trusted networks. DoubleClick (you know, the one now owned by Google) was shifting malware not that long ago.

If they are coming to my site thats because I'm the main contributer, I never saw people populating a empty website with their posts. did you?

True - but as the forum grows you're not the only contributor - and they're putting in content that draws people to your site.

But you are coming with idea "ads are annoying web must get rid of it" and supporting that idea which is fully wrong

Well done for misunderstanding. You do realise that 'not supporting something' is not the same as 'being against something', right? (Absence of support is not the same as actively not supporting something)

OK, here's the thing. If you want to put ads on your site, that's cool. But trying to force me to look at ads, that's wrong. If I choose to selectively block content coming onto my computer, that's MY right NOT YOURS. If you're complaining that users are blocking your ads, maybe it's time to consider other ways of getting revenue, rather than trying to beat users over the head because they're taking up their rights.

When you use adblocker it blocks all adds not just AdSense or similar networks also blocks well-known ad management systems (such as OpenX which SMF uses).

BS. You can quite happily selectively enable ads if it's a website you choose to support. As mentioned in this very topic.

If you don't like ads simply leave that site on the other side of the web.

That's ridiculous. There are sites I'm more than willing to support financially but not wanting to do so with ads. If you assume ads are the only way to make money, you're limiting your potential.

[Antes]

I'm even including legal and trusted networks. DoubleClick (you know, the one now owned by Google) was shifting malware not that long ago.

DoubleClick is online version of OpenX-type AFAIK - I don't have real info about it.

True - but as the forum grows you're not the only contributor - and they're putting in content that draws people to your site.

I'm the main source here, beside that egomatic talk - They are here because they want it. If we continue that road they may even have right to request share from revenue?

Well done for misunderstanding. You do realise that 'not supporting something' is not the same as 'being against something', right? (Absence of support is not the same as actively not supporting something)

OK, here's the thing. If you want to put ads on your site, that's cool. But trying to force me to look at ads, that's wrong. If I choose to selectively block content coming onto my computer, that's MY right NOT YOURS. If you're complaining that users are blocking your ads, maybe it's time to consider other ways of getting revenue, rather than trying to beat users over the head because they're taking up their rights.

"blocking" something means being against it. I'm sorry I'm not directly talking with you actually (you may/not blocking ads) - making general replies.

Also Its my right to show/hide ads because ITS my site

BS. You can quite happily selectively enable ads if it's a website you choose to support. As mentioned in this very topic.

No obligation against it

That's ridiculous. There are sites I'm more than willing to support financially but not wanting to do so with ads. If you assume ads are the only way to make money, you're limiting your potential.

As I said before I'm not against Donation/Premium Membership, beside main idea of Premium membership is removing ads for that group.

Also I want to say, some sites adding too much ads to their website (annoying) but its their right to place / put them. I simply left that site and never return because I don't like it. 

[Arantor]

DoubleClick is online version of OpenX-type AFAIK - I don't have real info about it.

I don't know, don't really care. I do know that it is owned by Google though.

If we continue that road they may even have right to request share from revenue?

Some sites do do that.

Also Its my right to show/hide ads because ITS my site

I never said it wasn't. I specifically said it was your right to show ads.

But it's my right - and you can't take it away from me - to not see your ads.

[Irisado]

If there is no water you can't drink it. How do you expect people run forum? Is their domain service telling them oh people blocked ads so I don't want any money from you to renew your domain or hosting company?

Okay lets change things here, and do all web paid - so If you don't pay you don't get anything? Is it better? Guess so.

You can look at: http://antiblock.org/?p=script

That's a curious reaction to a statement regarding personal choice.  At no point did I say that adverts should not be used, I merely said that I don't want to be forced to read them, so I will block them.  Others may read, and click on, the adverts as they see fit, as not everyone will have the same position as me .

[Arantor]

That's exactly the line I've been taking But our approach is not considered particularly acceptable to those who run ad-supported sites.

* Arantor wonders how many of these people who run ad-supported sites use ad-blockers themselves.

[Account Abandoned]

I don't use ad blockers. I do the majority of my shopping online so I love to see ads. Google Ads has taken me to a lot of great websites that I would of likely not found without the help of the ads. I run some ads on my forums but I work on ways to make it less intrusive. If people don't like the ads, they can go somewhere else, not all of us are rich out of out pockets... some people just seem to have a problems with people using the web to make money, without realizing that is how some people actually earn a living...

Me? I put it all back into my sites usually spending it on my members with contest money and so on.

But I will say, too many ads and the wrong ads can be a forum killer...

[bladesb]

But it's my right - and you can't take it away from me - to not see your ads.

I agree you have the right not to see adds on the site of your choosing by choosing not to use that site. But I don't agree that you have the right to access content without seeing ads. In other words, if the ads are so repugnant to you that you don't want to see them, then fine, you don't need to visit the site.

Blocking ads while continuing to use a website is the "real world" equivalent of eating all the free samples at the grocery store without any intention or interest in buying any of the products. You get to enjoy a benefit (in our case, site content) while offering nothing in return. Granted, if you don't like a cheese sample at the grocer, you are under no obligation to buy it. But if you do like it, is it fair and ethical to keep coming back for more "free" samples and never actually buy a block of cheese?

I get the content contribution angle. Several of my forum's most prolific posters are not paid subscribers. But I don't mind because they do contribute so much in the way of growing the forum. And that is certainly a valid way that they help to keep the site afloat. But the vast majority of forum users are guests or infrequent "lurking" members reading content. And while there might be a few forums out there where the paid subscribers make up the majority of members, I think most forums have far more "free" members than paying members. But like another member mentioned above, I am by far the single largest content contributor to my site.

For example, I'm a "free" member on this forum. And the owner of the site is benefiting from my ad impressions. I have learned a few things here, and this site has displayed some ads to me. I think that's a fair exchange. Now, if I blocked ads, the site would arguably get nothing from my visits, but I would still enjoy the benefit of the knowledge I gain here. That strikes me as a bit unfair, particularly if the site relies in some part on ad revenue in order to operate.

*To answer your question, I don't run an adblocker. Can't speak for other admins who run ads, but I don't mind seeing ads. It doesn't bother me if someone profits from my visit to their site by counting my ad impressions and the occasional rare ad click. On the few occasions where ads were so overbearing that I couldn't easily navigate a site, I stopped using that site altogether.