61–70 of 710 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean something like AdNauseam? https://adnauseam.io/ Edit: it's an adblocker that is supposed to click on EVERY ad that it blocks.
What GP describes would be stronger than AdNauseum. Instead of sending clicks indiscriminately for every ad, you would send clicks for high quality content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What GP describes would be stronger than AdNauseum. Instead of sending clicks indiscriminately for every ad, you would send clicks for high quality content.
That'd just end up costing the high quality content providers money. Ads wouldn't just get cheaper for them. On the contrary, clicking only on trash, and having the high quality content have a much higher signal-to-noise ratio would have the desired effect. Maybe.
I always click on Taboola bitcoin scam links for that exact reason. It's like scambaiting an algorithm.
"All in all, the difference in stats would mostly come from people blocking the Google Analytics script. Google Analytics is listed on many blocklists while the Plausible proxy runs as a first-party connection and is not." So what exactly does Plausible do to avoid being blocked in the same manner? What prevents GA from doing the same?
It seems they serve plausible from the same server as the origin website (first party), probably under an unique name, which means you need to block the script manually on every domain instead of simply blacklisting `plausible.io` (for example).
> What prevents GA from doing the same?
That's a good question. Probably ease-of-use (no need to explain how to host it, easier updates) and the lack of need to do so. YouTube, for example, could also make it _far_ harder to block ads by simply sending a single video stream, but they don't for some reason.
There is a German movie about the system that is used to gather TV ratings. It's a special box that some users get which reports what they are watching. Small sample size goes into a big statistic (not sure how accurate the portrayal of the system in the movie is). These boxes are given to the people who pay the German public TV fee, which excludes i.e. students (they don't have to pay) and some other groups. This gr…
> which excludes i.e. students (they don't have to pay) That is incorrect, they do have to pay (once per household). But if you get BAFÖG (student loan/social benefit mix that require you and your parents to be below a certain income bracket), you don’t.
As a developer of an ad blocker[1] our stats would seem to back up what Plausible has found: - Despite having equivalent desktop (macOS) and mobile (iOS) apps, most of our users (> 75%) use the app primarily on desktop - Most users say the key reason for use is for privacy protection; even with Safari providing some inbuilt privacy tracking protection - Our app is focused on providing a simple 'set and forget' ad blo…
Are there relevant studies on the effectiveness of advertising? I remember spotting such study. I still wonder if advertising is always worth spending on, beacuse google and facebook make a big amount of money with it, but I'm still skeptical when I see the actual amount of people "engaging" in ads, when you see how much it actually costs.
That’s why the hostility to ads feels misplaced: it works, it helps company to whom you want to give money to find you and people like you. It’s just that condescension from _some_ people in Ad platform and a press that insistently favours the worst people mean that people like me who argued for more user-friendly interfaces (ban certain content, prevent repeated ads) were routinely overruled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What GP describes would be stronger than AdNauseum. Instead of sending clicks indiscriminately for every ad, you would send clicks for high quality content.
That'd just end up costing the high quality content providers money. Ads wouldn't just get cheaper for them. On the contrary, clicking only on trash, and having the high quality content have a much higher signal-to-noise ratio would have the desired effect. Maybe.
Might be interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can: use Firefox Mobile and turn on Enhanced Tracking Protection.
You can install ublock on mobile firefox too.
On the other hand, it probably means that I am a "false negative" in TFA's report. I'd love to know the correlation between the server logs and what Plausible shows for a connection. I'd also like to know how they infer OS -- e.g. for privacy reasons, my reported user agent is not accurate...
That's why I prefer goaccess(1) over any other tool that uses client side Javascript. It's basically a real time website log analyser which gives you enough information to know whats happening on your website but doesn't require any pesky Javascript etc to do it. Also since it is works by analysing your log files it can never be blocked. (1) https://rt.goaccess.io/?20210826211303
By nature it won't filter out bots, however. One of my clients' website traffic is composed of over 75% bot traffic. Server-side logs are unusable for anything other than site performance.
I have two questions about this:
- Since you know they are bots, why couldn't you filter them?
- On the other hand, couldn't there be bots that run JavaScript which would be tracked client-side?