I wish search engines would start banning Forbes too: very often they're one of the top results, but their implementation of interstitial is broken and lands you on their home page instead of the page which search engine links to. And I don't even use ad blocker!
“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
101–110 of 259 posts
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#102Same should go for HN, really. Paywalls and adwalls are a great way to make me not even read the article and thread. Yet, they make frontpage due to buzz.
Yea, it's horrible that high-quality journalists won't just work for free.
No one is saying "high quality" journalists should work for free (although their employers would probably prefer it), only that they can no longer depend on advertising for revenue. If companies want to remain on the web and continue making money they're going to have to be more creative, begging people to view their ads by blocking ad blockers (while understandable) probably isn't going to work in the long run.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#103Maciej (HN handle 'idlewords') has an interesting take on this that I'm struggling to find in my history right now. The basic idea is that all of the data these companies collect is still ultimately useless in practice. We still don't have advertising that is even close to being relevant. But the data retains its toxic qualities (of being a database of every action I take on the Internet and some in the real world).…
Do you use YouTube while logged in? In my experience, the content recommendation on YouTube is the best. I've been learning about electronics and watching a few videos about it. Now YouTube recommends me new content and channels that are extremely relevant. My brother is into guitars, and his frontpage is all about that.
That's the thing... There's one company that figured out that the way to make money on ads is by simply making them relevant to the user, and that's Google.
The majority of the other ad companies are still--despite all the massive dot-com failures during the boom--trying to just throw in ad referrals everywhere hoping something will stick, and trying to hand off those connections to the highest bidder... like, maybe if they just keep doing it for decades, somehow it will magically become profitable.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that sites with advertisement are shooting themselves in the foot. They produce valuable and high quality content attracting readers and increase revenues by providing more advertisement. The amount of advertisement drops the efficiency of advertisement, so price drops and you put more advertisement. None of these people really considered the user experience on their site, except google on the google s…
Nice shot at liberalism at the end there. I almost took you seriously, appreciate the heads up.
Sorry. I was referring to food and health regulation services. The link with advertisement is that it could be tempting to imagine a regulation system, but this is known to be easily subverted and corrupted. In fact letting users freely control the amount of advertisement they get and letting the market adapt itself is liberalism. But that is a totally different subject. Sorry for the digression.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#105I wish search engines would start banning Forbes too: very often they're one of the top results, but their implementation of interstitial is broken and lands you on their home page instead of the page which search engine links to. And I don't even use ad blocker!
Does the search engine have a relationship with the ad providers?
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Google is that they are labeling as malware a lot of software that is not malware just because they have an .exe. Source: it is happening at my company. It seems like just signing the software is enough to remove this labelling but their policies are not transparent. At the end Google is behaving like a vigilante.
When the IP for a shared hosting server is flagged, the result in search for all sites residing under that IP are saddled with an alt URL titled "This site may be hacked". Their solution to fix it for the dozens/hundreds of benign sites co-hosted on said server? Sign up for more Google services(Google Search Console). In that way, they are behving like a typical corporation.
Sadly for your argument, what Google does there is the correct solution, because it is true.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, it's horrible that high-quality journalists won't just work for free.
No one is saying "high quality" journalists should work for free (although their employers would probably prefer it), only that they can no longer depend on advertising for revenue. If companies want to remain on the web and continue making money they're going to have to be more creative, begging people to view their ads by blocking ad blockers (while understandable) probably isn't going to work in the long run.
The parent was railing against both adwalls and paywalls.
If you don't want advertising and refuse to pay for content, I don't see how that's anything less than expecting free journalism.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#108The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…
In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.
The first response should have been people install link removers to sites with invasive ads and paywalls. Ill-behaved sites would change a lot quicker if they knew lots of people weren't even seeing/posting links to them. Something like that would effectively remove junk from a users entire internet experience. A natural search result to wsj.com wouldn't appear, a link in a web based email reader wouldn't appear, a link in a web based RSS reader wouldn't appear. They would hate that.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#109Maciej (HN handle 'idlewords') has an interesting take on this that I'm struggling to find in my history right now. The basic idea is that all of the data these companies collect is still ultimately useless in practice. We still don't have advertising that is even close to being relevant. But the data retains its toxic qualities (of being a database of every action I take on the Internet and some in the real world).…
Do you use YouTube while logged in? In my experience, the content recommendation on YouTube is the best. I've been learning about electronics and watching a few videos about it. Now YouTube recommends me new content and channels that are extremely relevant. My brother is into guitars, and his frontpage is all about that.
The related/recommended videos are very relevant and well targeted on youtube, if you are logged in.
Unfortunately, the adverts aren't.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#110uBlock Origin and enable the anti-adblock killer under 3rd party options seem to usually work great. I also run Privacy Badger add-on which allows me to disable certain scripts and trackers from pages. Works great.
I'll subscribe to sites that I visit on daily basis if they offer it with option to disable ads. I have no problem with this. I don't want to be served idiotic malware from some ad-exchange.