AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default • Hacker News Board

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#171

Post by DiabloD3 » Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 2:28 PM UTC

soult wrote: post #116

DiabloD3 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is incredibly interesting. That essentially boils down to "make ads that don't piss off users, or be blocked". I think this is a viable truce between people who hate ads and people who make ads. The only people who suffer from this on-going war to increase the snr of the Internet are website owners themselves.

I read that as "Make a contractual agreement with us or be blocked".

The contractual agreement is mainly "don't piss off users, and we WILL enforce this if you fail".

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#172

Post by 16s » Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 2:36 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #62

As a publisher, I say bring it all on. The reducing effectiveness of display advertising online has forced publishers to find different, and more profitable, models. Some have gone the 'payola' route (tailoring content to advertisers' whims - whether discree or not), and others, like me, have started to produce products that can be directly promoted within our content. Happily, these techniques are far more profitabl…

The ads are distracting (period). That's why I use blockers or disable javascript, but the latter breaks many sites these days.

Some tech sites (/.) have ads that show attractive women with large breasts wearing tight t-shirts. The ad is printed on the t-shirt so I'm forced to stare at her boobs to read the ad. That's distracting to me. I can't focus when boobs are popping-up in ads.

So I want all ads disabled. Even pure words with no pictures can be distracting while glancing at a page if it has the right words in it.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#173

Post by nathanb » Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 11:09 PM UTC

gwern wrote: post #163

nathanb wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Googling I did, as well as your quote, seem to disagree with your assertion. You say that Google have apparently declined to renew the deal, while those two links say that we don't know, but (per your quote) it's likely that they have. The fact that I couldn't find a link which conclusively states that either party chose not to renew the deal is why I asked for a citation.

Gee, thanks for explaining what you wanted the cite for, the part of my comment that presupposed the most in-depth knowledge of the issues and so is the least likely for any random commenter to drop a snarky {{fact}} on. That made it very easy for me to understand which claim you were questioning, and so either correct myself or provide further information.

Sorry about that. My comments aren't all winners.

Re: AdBlock Plus will soon allow "non-intrusive" ads by default

#174

Post by moheeb » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 11:54 PM UTC

cjfont wrote: post #152

moheeb wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be freaking awesome!? First of all we don't have to imagine that scenario. Going back to the beginning of the internet there weren't really any ads to speak of. Secondly, using the Internet Wayback Machine we can actually see what that internet looked like back then. And because the Wayback Machine doesn't save most images, you can get an even better feel for what the internet would look like if everyone use…

So where would the websites whose business depends entirely on ads get their revenue from? It's not like companies are blindly going to pay them to host ads which they know no one is going to look at. Perhaps you would prefer to pay an Internet fee? Of course an Internet with no ads seems great, but it's not something that would be sustainable, at least not the Internet we know today. There are some sites which I fee…

If you're asking me that question I have to say that for the most part I don't care about the ads one way or the other. In the second paragraph I pointed out that we don't have to imagine your scenario because there was a time with no ads in the past and we have a method to see that history.

Perhaps you would prefer to pay an Internet fee?

I feel dumb for needing to point this out to you but...I already pay an internet fee. Everyone I know pays a fee to access the internet.

Maybe your Corporate Overlord Internet Dream can't be sustained without ads but I know my internet can. I connected for years to BBS's that were free and maintained by volunteers. To believe that the internet can't function without ads is shortsighted.