Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers • Hacker News Board

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#21

Post by JoshTriplett » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

sparkzilla wrote: post #4

I'm fairly sure that if publishers removed popups (ads and subscription forms), ads that move the text while you're reading it, and autoplay video or audio ads, then most people would be happy. As it stands, readers are bombarded with ads that ruin the actual reading experience.

Add in "ads using any kind of animation", "ads that slow site loading in any way", and "ads that use up limited mobile bandwidth" and you'd get closer. When reading text, any kind of animation in view proves quite distracting, which likewise "ruins the actual reading experience". And ad scripts and ad servers use up bandwidth and slow down page loads.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#22

Post by krapp » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

arbitrage wrote: post #12

acdha wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So … in your idealized 90s web, how does a reporter pay their mortgage? Storage space was never the expensive part even back then – it's always been the skilled humans who create things.

That's not our problem. It's the reporter's. We are not responsible for helping businesses prop up their failing revenue streams.

Arguably, you are somewhat responsible if the revenue stream is failing because you want to consume content without caring whether anyone gets compensated for it.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#23

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #17

Kenji wrote: post #7

I'll be honest, I hate all ads, regardless of how good they are. I think it's creepy and fills my mind with things I do not want it to be filled with. For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears. I think it barely matters how good the ads are. I've only seen one single website that did ads right (they were perfectly embedded into a mosaic pattern of site functionality, things…

"For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears." My company makes most of its money off of advertising, I am broadly a fan of advertising (done well) myself, and yet.. I agree with your feeling at a core, technical level. I currently don't see how it's defensible to argue that a piece of software MUST render a certain stream of data in a certain way. This is not about copyright…

[deleted]

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#24

Post by username223 » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

hiphopyo wrote: post #5

> Look at New Yorker, for example. The ads are generally interesting and feature great photography. Wish Google would introduce some sort of minimum design requirements for their AdSense image ads. I also wish they'd give publishers full control over the appearance of their text ads. Right now, these ads look horrible, and only premium publishers (ie. websites with millions users) are given this sort of control.

> Look at New Yorker, for example.

Indeed. I'm not the target demographic for their ads (anorexic women and men who like expensive watches, AFAICT), but the ads on their site aren't aggressive, and they hire good writers. I'm happy to pay for a subscription, and wish there were more of them and less of buzzfeed on the Internet.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#25

Post by bitmapbrother » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #7

I'll be honest, I hate all ads, regardless of how good they are. I think it's creepy and fills my mind with things I do not want it to be filled with. For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears. I think it barely matters how good the ads are. I've only seen one single website that did ads right (they were perfectly embedded into a mosaic pattern of site functionality, things…

>For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears

What a silly statement. Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio? You are visiting a site that gives you content for free in return for viewing their ads. If you don't like that contract then don't visit the site and limit your browsing to sites that adhere to your personal contract.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#26

Post by JoshTriplett » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #10

Kenji wrote: post #7

I'll be honest, I hate all ads, regardless of how good they are. I think it's creepy and fills my mind with things I do not want it to be filled with. For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears. I think it barely matters how good the ads are. I've only seen one single website that did ads right (they were perfectly embedded into a mosaic pattern of site functionality, things…

So … in your idealized 90s web, how does a reporter pay their mortgage? Storage space was never the expensive part even back then – it's always been the skilled humans who create things.

> how does a reporter pay their mortgage

Some combination of charging up front for access (with only a few samples shown to people who don't subscribe), charging for timely access (see LWN, which provides articles 1-2 weeks earlier for subscribers), and patronage (if you want to see more investigative reports like this, pay me via Patreon).

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#27

Post by elorant » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

sparkzilla wrote: post #4

I'm fairly sure that if publishers removed popups (ads and subscription forms), ads that move the text while you're reading it, and autoplay video or audio ads, then most people would be happy. As it stands, readers are bombarded with ads that ruin the actual reading experience.

No, that wouldn't be enough. The real problem is profiling. It's spooky and most tech-savvy people dissent it. And they (aka we) are the ones that influence the general public as to adopting ad blocking technologies.

It's one thing having Google serving me personalized ads which I know come from my search history, and a whole other having the same thing happening from various ad-serving companies with which I have no affiliation at all. Where the hell do they get my profile from? And who regulates that market?

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#28

Post by bitmapbrother » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:48 PM UTC

Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad blockers because we're going to reach a point where the ad blockers are unable to block ads due to the myriad of ways publishers will use to foil them. It's only a matter of time before this happens and I hope Apple is paid back for this move in spades.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#29

Post by teddyh » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:49 PM UTC

cbhl wrote: post #18

douche wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, if all the websites that are the most flagrantly abusive and dependent on ad-support (the Buzzfeeds, Crackeds, HuffingtonPosts, etc) disappeared tomorrow, how much have we really lost? I can survive without another shitty slide-show of the 17 Most Ridiculous Cats Twerking, or another news article that is a summary of a summary of a Reuters, machine-learned bot-written summary of a press release about an abs…

You would also lose Google, GMail, and YouTube.

You say it like it’s a bad thing.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#30

Post by dogma1138 » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

elorant wrote: post #27

sparkzilla wrote: post #4

I'm fairly sure that if publishers removed popups (ads and subscription forms), ads that move the text while you're reading it, and autoplay video or audio ads, then most people would be happy. As it stands, readers are bombarded with ads that ruin the actual reading experience.

No, that wouldn't be enough. The real problem is profiling. It's spooky and most tech-savvy people dissent it. And they (aka we) are the ones that influence the general public as to adopting ad blocking technologies. It's one thing having Google serving me personalized ads which I know come from my search history, and a whole other having the same thing happening from various ad-serving companies with which I have no…

Most tech-savvy users aren't the problem, ad-blockers aren't popular because some people don't want to be tracked, they are popular because most people don't like being annoyed and spammed with obnoxiously loud advertisements.