101–110 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the vast majority of people never stray from defaults, and will think that it's just bad at doing it's job.
Does that really apply to most ABP users?
I asked the author to know if this would be a source of revenues for Adblock, and why they did make this a default choice rather than a yes/no question: 1) Does AdBlock developers get, directly or indirectly, any benefits from a third party because of this change? (Including, but not exclusively, money/donation/jobs/whatever by an entity supported by ads like Google, continued inclusion in the Chrome store, etc.)? Or…
Ugh. This throws the motives of the project into question. An ad-blocking project that wants to get paid by advertisers?
It is unfortunate that many people commenting here didn't bother to RTFA. In particular, from the FAQ: Are you stupid? Nobody wants this! The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some us…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users. * It's trivial to get around. Other options would be for webmasters to give Adblocking users a watered down version or just serve them up crapply encoded videos/images etc If adblock ever became popular, webmasters would quickly work around it, and you'd have an arms race, with the webmasters winning. * Adblock probably blocks 50% of adverts. The other 50% people d…
It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users One percent of whose users? That fails to account for the audiences of specific websites. If it's 1% for all browser users, I bet you that tech related websites are seeing much, much larger percentages.
Let's not pretend this is a "early adopter tech people know how to block ads, the masses will surely follow in time" thing. It's not.
You'd find similar massive disconnects if you asked who has a TV, who loves "Transformers" movies, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guilty unless proven innocent? Google's text ads certainly aren't intrusive.
Depends on their content: An ad for a local garage? Fine. But I would class "Mom discovers new TEETH WHITENING solution! Don't listen to your DENTIST! CLICK HERE TODAY!" to be pretty distracting and intrusive.
Edit: Come on... life is full of distraction. When you go shopping do you shut your eyes in case you see "SALE AT PENNYS!!!", or do you just ignore things that don't interest you? Jeez
"We have agreements with some websites and advertisers..." Uh huh..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that AdBlock Plus is becoming popular. Advertisers are noticing it too. And it will become a whac-a-mole game, in which advertisers will come up with creative ways to get around ADP or publishers will just block users with ADP enabled, or just setup a paywall. We are indeed tired of intrusive advertising. But some websites are good citizens and shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of others. It would…
* It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users. * It's trivial to get around. Other options would be for webmasters to give Adblocking users a watered down version or just serve them up crapply encoded videos/images etc If adblock ever became popular, webmasters would quickly work around it, and you'd have an arms race, with the webmasters winning. * Adblock probably blocks 50% of adverts. The other 50% people d…
That is actually a REALLY good idea - serve up smaller, low resolution content and let me easily BUY the higher resolution content (as a download, not some kind of time-limited thing) via a micropayment scheme.
That sounds better than an ad-supported model to me. However, I disagree with the idea that webmasters will "win" this battle - filtering proxies will just get more prevalent, smarter and easier for the average user to install and run. All my LANs already use Privoxy and I'm toying with enforcing it via Group Policy / WPAD / PAC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* It's not becoming popular. It's about 1% of users. * It's trivial to get around. Other options would be for webmasters to give Adblocking users a watered down version or just serve them up crapply encoded videos/images etc If adblock ever became popular, webmasters would quickly work around it, and you'd have an arms race, with the webmasters winning. * Adblock probably blocks 50% of adverts. The other 50% people d…
"...a watered down version or just serve them up crapply encoded videos/images etc" That is actually a REALLY good idea - serve up smaller, low resolution content and let me easily BUY the higher resolution content (as a download, not some kind of time-limited thing) via a micropayment scheme. That sounds better than an ad-supported model to me. However, I disagree with the idea that webmasters will "win" this battle…
The distinction between ads and content is one that is ridiculously easy to close if needed.
The only reason that adblock works on a good number of adverts is that they're usually served from an external source. If you serve them from exactly the same place the content is coming from, and make no distinction between the two, then filtering becomes more problematic.
The problem I have with this is not the display of some ads; it is the tracking that advertising networks perform. I would love to support some smaller sites, but not at the expense of my privacy.