Poll: Do you use an adblocker?
Do you use an adblocker?
217 comments
I use AdBlock and Ghostery. Ghostery is super useful. It throws out so much crap that I am not interested in. On sites like techcrunch, engadget or thenextweb it usually cuts the number of requests in half.
Rant:
It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story.
I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
Rant:
It is sure getting out of hand in a big way: it is not uncommon for tech news sites to send you 1.5 MB of crap surrounding a simple 200 word story.
I am getting so tired of that. Specially on mobile. My iPad has a 250 MB data limit, so with 10 pages like that I am already on 50% of my cap. Which is ridiculous.
Maybe it is time for some serious server-side proxy filtering. Like moving things like AdBlock and Ghostery to the server side?
1.5 * 10 = 15 MB, not 150 MB. So you can actually fetch 166 such pages unmodified.
Roughly how large is a TechCrunch page with Ghostery?
Roughly how large is a TechCrunch page with Ghostery?
Yeah I'm still on my first coffee. Good morning and thanks for the math :-)
Example:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first...
Without: 275 requests, 2.85 MB transferred
With: 76 requests, 1.72 MB transferred
Here is the shocker: ACTUAL ARTICLE SIZE: 163 words, 971 bytes. That is a 0.034% of what was actually downloaded.
I know that browsers cache stuff. But a lot of these are dynamic resources that get loaded anyway. There is also the fact that caching on both the iPad and Android is horrible. So this really adds up on a mobile device.
Example:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/03/siri-experiencing-its-first...
Without: 275 requests, 2.85 MB transferred
With: 76 requests, 1.72 MB transferred
Here is the shocker: ACTUAL ARTICLE SIZE: 163 words, 971 bytes. That is a 0.034% of what was actually downloaded.
I know that browsers cache stuff. But a lot of these are dynamic resources that get loaded anyway. There is also the fact that caching on both the iPad and Android is horrible. So this really adds up on a mobile device.
So I think what I really want is an add-on or extension (I use both Safari and Firefox) that selectively changes the user agent to Mobile Safari.
Most sites are pretty good with providing iPhone compatible content, which is magnitudes smaller than the desktop version.
For example the techrunch page from my previous comment comes in at 33 requests and 122 KB when I set Safari to "Mobile Safari iOS 4.3.3 iPhone".
If only Safari on the iPad supported extensions :-/
Most sites are pretty good with providing iPhone compatible content, which is magnitudes smaller than the desktop version.
For example the techrunch page from my previous comment comes in at 33 requests and 122 KB when I set Safari to "Mobile Safari iOS 4.3.3 iPhone".
If only Safari on the iPad supported extensions :-/
Hey thanks for mentioning Ghostery -- I never heard of it before, and it looks neat. I'm using ABP, NoScript and FlashBlock myself, and I think Ghostery will make a nice addition to my line of defense.
(minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit)
[edit on my own math. heh]
(minor nitpick: it would take roughly 83 pages, not 10, to reach 50% of your 250MB limit)
[edit on my own math. heh]
I wouldn't touch Ghostery with a long pole.
Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
Their parent company - Evidon - is suspicious. The FAQ on the site is choke-full of weasel words and wishy-washy statements on how they are not an "ad company" but rather an "ad assurance company". Skimpy on actual details too. They have changed their About summary now, but not long ago it basically said that they are in business of delivering better advertisement experience to the advertisers. Just ask yourself if instead of being tracked by multiple entities, you are OK with being tracked by one that gets your data resold to others. They are not a non-profit, so - as cliche as it sounds - you are their product.
Hi, I am a developer of Ghostery. Ghostery does not track its users; Ghostery tracks third-party page elements. The GhostRank panel is strictly opt-in.
For an example of what GhostRank makes possible, see http://www.knowyourelements.com/
For more information on Ghostery, Evidon and GhostRank, see http://www.ghostery.com/faq
For an example of what GhostRank makes possible, see http://www.knowyourelements.com/
For more information on Ghostery, Evidon and GhostRank, see http://www.ghostery.com/faq
What exactly is your problem with Ghostery?
I've used it for some time, quite happy to have it block the numerous tracker things that otherwise spy on me and/or add bulk to my downloads.
I've never noticed anything in their privacy policies that gave me concern, and I'm normally quite picky about such things.
I've used it for some time, quite happy to have it block the numerous tracker things that otherwise spy on me and/or add bulk to my downloads.
I've never noticed anything in their privacy policies that gave me concern, and I'm normally quite picky about such things.
Ghostery has a secondary purpose. It's also "the eyes in the sky" that the ad industry will use to monitor and enforce self-regulation. In other words, it will collect data to ensure that ad companies are complying and affixing proper opt-out mechanisms to behaviorally-targeted ads.
Adam from Ghostery/Evidon here.
First:Thanks very much to everyone that uses Ghostery here! This thread has been a great read for us.
Aaron is correct.. Ghostery works in the same way NPR works, only with data. Users can opt into data collection in Ghostery's options. Also, even if they do, we go to great lengths to make sure that all of the data are anonymous and only used in aggregate.
The extension will never collect anything if you don't volunteer it. The data are used in all sorts of ways to make the internet a better place, and to help us make money. For instance, website owners can use the data to see what 3rd party scripts are running on their sites and eliminate them. This saves load time, prevents data leakage to leeches, and - most importantly - allows them to provide a layer of privacy for their users.
The BBB also uses aggregated Ghostery data to monitor self-regulatory efforts - thanks to our awesome panel volunteers we can literally "track the trackers."
More info: http://mygho.st/D
My contact if you have any questions: adam _ at ghostery _dotcom
First:Thanks very much to everyone that uses Ghostery here! This thread has been a great read for us.
Aaron is correct.. Ghostery works in the same way NPR works, only with data. Users can opt into data collection in Ghostery's options. Also, even if they do, we go to great lengths to make sure that all of the data are anonymous and only used in aggregate.
The extension will never collect anything if you don't volunteer it. The data are used in all sorts of ways to make the internet a better place, and to help us make money. For instance, website owners can use the data to see what 3rd party scripts are running on their sites and eliminate them. This saves load time, prevents data leakage to leeches, and - most importantly - allows them to provide a layer of privacy for their users.
The BBB also uses aggregated Ghostery data to monitor self-regulatory efforts - thanks to our awesome panel volunteers we can literally "track the trackers."
More info: http://mygho.st/D
My contact if you have any questions: adam _ at ghostery _dotcom
Riiight.
What a bizarre conspiracy theory.
I know some of the people at Evidon rather well. They provide a mechanism that allows individuals to opt-out of behaviorally-targeted advertising via an icon in the advertisement. In other words, the company makes it easier for individuals not to be tracked.
You might not be paying Evidon directly - the ad networks that use their tools do that - but that doesn't mean you're the product. 'Keeping the FTC off your ass' is the product. Since the FTC is a pain, that product's worth a fair amount of money.
As far as I know, all Ghostery collects (if you opt-in) is which trackers appear on which page. It's a simple way for large organizations too screwed up to know which tags are on which pages (in other words, most large organizations) figure out if they're complying with the FTC regulations.
I know some of the people at Evidon rather well. They provide a mechanism that allows individuals to opt-out of behaviorally-targeted advertising via an icon in the advertisement. In other words, the company makes it easier for individuals not to be tracked.
You might not be paying Evidon directly - the ad networks that use their tools do that - but that doesn't mean you're the product. 'Keeping the FTC off your ass' is the product. Since the FTC is a pain, that product's worth a fair amount of money.
As far as I know, all Ghostery collects (if you opt-in) is which trackers appear on which page. It's a simple way for large organizations too screwed up to know which tags are on which pages (in other words, most large organizations) figure out if they're complying with the FTC regulations.
Ughh, Ghostery is available for iOS as well: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ghostery/id472789016
Privoxy is pretty good. I run it (usually a single centralised instance) on any LAN I am allowed to. Any network installs for people (e.g. family/friends) I set up a Linux server and Privoxy is in there (with judicious bypassing because it IS too aggressive for some sites out of the box).
See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
See, this is what happens when your ads are just that wrong side of obnoxious and you piss off the 1% - they might just have the power to make sure ANOTHER 10% don't see your crappy ad, either. And that 10% thank me for it. Every so often they get to see what a festering cesspool the internet is without a filtering proxy between them and it, and by God they thank me.
Adblock never gets turned off and hasn't since I discovered it. When I'm shopping, I'm shopping - the rest of the time, I'm actually doing something and since it's my computer I feel that I can edit the heck out of whatever it is which is served up to me - they're giving it away, I'm letting something censor out the garbage, of which ads are a huge part.
I also use NoScript, FlashBlock, RefControl, RequestPolicy plugins for precisely the same reason: I'm not visiting a page to read some garbage hosted somewhere else (i.e., the pretty pictures and styling you've hosted elsewhere, for some reason), nor for you to do fun things with scripts, nor to see anything move (and, incidentally, spy on me).
The web has become increasingly about hawking wares and doing so based upon observing behavior. I don't like the idea, even if it _could_ tell me about something which I would like to buy: if I _need_ something, I'll hunt for it. If I don't actually _need_ something, though, I don't want to have the equivalent of a dirty-old-man offering me candy from the back of his van if only I'd step inside for awhile. And I certainly don't want that dirty-old-man following me around, observing me, to find out what my favorite kinds of candy are, so that he can entice me into being a statistic.
I also use NoScript, FlashBlock, RefControl, RequestPolicy plugins for precisely the same reason: I'm not visiting a page to read some garbage hosted somewhere else (i.e., the pretty pictures and styling you've hosted elsewhere, for some reason), nor for you to do fun things with scripts, nor to see anything move (and, incidentally, spy on me).
The web has become increasingly about hawking wares and doing so based upon observing behavior. I don't like the idea, even if it _could_ tell me about something which I would like to buy: if I _need_ something, I'll hunt for it. If I don't actually _need_ something, though, I don't want to have the equivalent of a dirty-old-man offering me candy from the back of his van if only I'd step inside for awhile. And I certainly don't want that dirty-old-man following me around, observing me, to find out what my favorite kinds of candy are, so that he can entice me into being a statistic.
Banner ads pay my salary, so out of professional courtesy, no.
It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. Plus, if I see something egregious on my employer's site, I can let them know.
I use Ghostery to see who's buying data from whom.
It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads. Plus, if I see something egregious on my employer's site, I can let them know.
I use Ghostery to see who's buying data from whom.
Problem for me is not seeing ads, it's that they take too long to load and block the rest of the page. Perhaps strictly a browser problem, but until a better solution I just use
vi /etc/hosts
> It's very easy to voluntarily blind yourself to ads.
So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
So you do block ads, only with your brain ;) Fair enough, but can I ask why this is more courteous than blocking them in the browser? Are ad loads generally causing money to flow? I was under the impression that click-throughs cause revenue, rather than ad loads?
That's what lots of advertisers are pushing for. It makes in some cases, but in others it's a bit disingenuous. Lexus doesn't really care how many people click through to its landing page; they want to get their logo in front of your eyes as often as possible so that when it's time to buy a car, their brand is fresh in your mind.
Some online ads are just general brand awareness ads, in the way that the big Pepsi sign at a baseball stadium isn't talking about a new product or trying to get you to buy a Pepsi right now.
Part of it is competitive intelligence. I want to know who's doing big ad buys on Huffpo and FoxNews and the NYT.
Agencies have gotten very clever at measuring the indirect effect of ads; most of them don't get a direct click, of course, but you can still look at things like how likely someone was to search for your company's brand name the week after they saw the ad.
Agencies have gotten very clever at measuring the indirect effect of ads; most of them don't get a direct click, of course, but you can still look at things like how likely someone was to search for your company's brand name the week after they saw the ad.
It can go either way. CPM ads are for display, and a lot of sites charge for CPM.
The difference is that from time to time you see an interesting ad and click on it, if you don't have an ad blocker.
I block flash and popups which prevents a lot of advertising. IMO, professional courtesy only goes so far, and the fact I clicked on a link does not mean you can do whatever you want.
[deleted]
They pay mine, too, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. It also means I try and not view them on my own site to cost our advertisers money.
A compromise position for those who don't mind ads is "Fanboy's Annoyance Block List" (for Adblock Plus). It blocks annoying social media buttons without blocking ads.
My thought is: If you can't afford me blocking ads then do one of two things:
1) No flashing ads. No flash ads (cpu time is mine!) No ads that blur content with ads. And I will turn off ad blocking on your site. If ads have sound and I can't block it I will never visit the site. This is why arstechnica has ads turned off for me, autoplaying video and sound.
BTW I will not turn off blocking of the +1 button or Like or whatever. I just don't wanna be tracked.
2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
1) No flashing ads. No flash ads (cpu time is mine!) No ads that blur content with ads. And I will turn off ad blocking on your site. If ads have sound and I can't block it I will never visit the site. This is why arstechnica has ads turned off for me, autoplaying video and sound.
BTW I will not turn off blocking of the +1 button or Like or whatever. I just don't wanna be tracked.
2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
Definitely agree with that.
Although I would add a personal #3.
3) I've been using the internet since 1990 and how many items have I purchased from an ad? 0.
3) I've been using the internet since 1990 and how many items have I purchased from an ad? 0.
You may have unwittingly purchased an item because somebody else purchased it after seeing it on an Internet ad though...
> 2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
You might. 99% of the population would not.
You might. 99% of the population would not.
1) The industry is finally realizing that a massive amount of people got pissed by flashing display ads. Up to 14% of the online population uses an ad blocker (much more on HN :).
Last month, the IAB published their new guidelines, including max CPU usage for Flash banners: http://www.iab.net/iab_products_and_industry_services/508676...
I'm working on a product that helps publishers verify that CPU usage from ads served on their site does not exceed their specs, http://www.clarityad.com
Adobe is also investing in this, with their project Adthenticate http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/adthenticate/
"Up to 14% of the online population uses an ad blocker"
I would bet you anything that far more of the general population would use ad blockers if they knew ad blockers existed, and if installation and use of an ad blocker could be made very simple and understandable to them.
I would bet you anything that far more of the general population would use ad blockers if they knew ad blockers existed, and if installation and use of an ad blocker could be made very simple and understandable to them.
My suspicion as well. I was talking to my boss yesterday about the results of this poll, and he had no idea there were addons for blocking advertising.
And, being the contrarian he is, he didn't install one after I told him how to find them on the intertubes. Go figure. :-)
And, being the contrarian he is, he didn't install one after I told him how to find them on the intertubes. Go figure. :-)
> 2) Don't give free content. Make me pay for it. If I like it I would.
Nice in theory, but there are many markets where only 1 company will win, and it WILL be the ad-supported model. That's just how the math works.
Nice in theory, but there are many markets where only 1 company will win, and it WILL be the ad-supported model. That's just how the math works.
I write porn blocking software, so should I view porn out of professional courtesy?
If the logic follows, you should use the software you make and not watch porn out of professional courtesy. After all, that is what is paying your salary.
my logic was that my job exists because of the porn industry; I know it doesn't match entirely.
> Banner ads pay my salary
Do you mind if I ask which companies are your favorite?
Do you mind if I ask which companies are your favorite?
Completely agree...plus knowing who is running what where keeps me on top of my game.
I disable adblocker for independent blogs I read regularly.
You could just use adsweep, which loads them, but then hides them.
Used to be the first thing I install, but no more. There was a transition period where I would not install it but had a flashblock; my reasoning being that the flashblocker took away most of the really annoying ones. My new policy is a clean install. So many advantages: I rather like experiencing sites as intended (as well as supporting sites) rather than trying to force my will onto sites. I used to run into so many edge cases where the adblocker/flashblocker would break my experience. And if sites truly offend me with their ads, it is no skin off my nose. I just don't visit anymore.
I used to use flashblock. Lately I've just uninstalled flash. There is very, very little value to flash from a productivity point of view.
Agreed on "experiencing as intended" and "supporting" - also, on tech news sites it's of interest to me to know what adverts such sites' advertisers believe their users want.
Plus I've found an extensionless firefox is much less crashy than one with any number installed (and yes, I know chrome exists, but I prefer the way firefox interacts with the high contrast bright-colours-on-black type desktop colour schemes I prefer to use)
Plus I've found an extensionless firefox is much less crashy than one with any number installed (and yes, I know chrome exists, but I prefer the way firefox interacts with the high contrast bright-colours-on-black type desktop colour schemes I prefer to use)
It has occurred to me before that those of us who use adblockers might prefer that they remain unpopular, because it's not clear who would win if the adblocker arms race really heated up. Might be that some of the "no" answerers are actually just concealing their true nature as adblocking zealots.
Nope, never have. I have 99 problems but an ad ain't one.
I am very surprised to hear this given your expertise.
I would have imagined you visiting every website with at least two browser at the same time, at least one of them blocking all ads and then some.
I would have imagined you visiting every website with at least two browser at the same time, at least one of them blocking all ads and then some.
I am totally mystified as to how that workflow would improve my life. It sounds like a lot of work for no gain. Can you explain to me what you find attractive about it or think I would find attractive about it?
I guess it was a joke related to your A/B testing.
Yep, visual A/B testing.
But seriously, does this mean there isn't even any point in trying to find a way to give people who use ad blocking something which would almost never be blocked, and yet could still be considered advertising if not blatantly so?
Are users of ad blocking just a complete and total void from an advertising perspective?
For example I know reddit sometimes has games in their ad banner, that's a way to encourage people to turn off add blocking.
And some TV advertisers are designing adds which still look good at Tivo fast forward speed.
But seriously, does this mean there isn't even any point in trying to find a way to give people who use ad blocking something which would almost never be blocked, and yet could still be considered advertising if not blatantly so?
Are users of ad blocking just a complete and total void from an advertising perspective?
For example I know reddit sometimes has games in their ad banner, that's a way to encourage people to turn off add blocking.
And some TV advertisers are designing adds which still look good at Tivo fast forward speed.
He's probably referring to A/B testing your browsing experience.
[deleted]
I'm puzzled that you'd couple "expertise" and ad blocking. Why do you feel the two go together?
I am relating patio11's expertise in web advertising to ad blocking browsers. As in, would he be interested in how the web looks to someone using ad blocking.
I hate ads with a passion. If I had the power, I'd make unsolicited advertising illegal. If I hear or see an ad, I often make a mental note not to buy that product.
All ads? Really? This whole website is, in a sense, a promotional vehicle for Y Combinator.
At best, it's a stretch to go from in-your-face, unsolicited advertisements to "promotional vehicle" which we all use willingly. In addition, there is a value associated with this website that you just don't get from ads.
The ads usually intend to add value. They just often aren't very good.
I don't think advertising is inherently evil (though I respect that some may disagree), I think the problem is that we're still in the early days of Internet advertising. The technique isn't quite there yet.
I don't think advertising is inherently evil (though I respect that some may disagree), I think the problem is that we're still in the early days of Internet advertising. The technique isn't quite there yet.
We could categorize ads into value-added, passive ads versus brute-force, active ads. Passive ads don't only push a product, but provide some useful content for the user, be it music discovery or news aggregation (I guess calling it intellectual stimulation would be reaching, though). The purpose of active ads is to simply push a product and entice the user to buy now. As such, they vie for attention and usually interrupt the user's workflow.
Examples of passive ads: music discovery [pandora], news aggregation [HN], etc versus active ads: traditional ads (TV/radio/internet/magazine) and active product-pushing.
As an aside, I am aware that Pandora has ads which is kind of mind boggling - they are actually providing free advertising to the music companies by letting me discover new music, yet they still have to pay royalties, so they are forced to use ads.
Examples of passive ads: music discovery [pandora], news aggregation [HN], etc versus active ads: traditional ads (TV/radio/internet/magazine) and active product-pushing.
As an aside, I am aware that Pandora has ads which is kind of mind boggling - they are actually providing free advertising to the music companies by letting me discover new music, yet they still have to pay royalties, so they are forced to use ads.
"The ads usually intend to add value."
Maybe in the advertiers' and their bosses' deluded minds.
I'd estimate that 90% of ads I saw were lying either directly or by omission. They don't add value, they try to trick you in to buying crap you don't need, that's often no better (or even worse) than the competition, products that can even be harmful (like various prescription drugs that you'd often be better off not taking in the first place).
The people that peddle this crap are slime. But I'm not at all surprised that a large contingent of HN members would defend them and try to justify their miserable, lying, parasitic existence. After all, many of them own companies which depend on advertising. So they try to apply some moral balm and pretend that they're "adding value".
Maybe in the advertiers' and their bosses' deluded minds.
I'd estimate that 90% of ads I saw were lying either directly or by omission. They don't add value, they try to trick you in to buying crap you don't need, that's often no better (or even worse) than the competition, products that can even be harmful (like various prescription drugs that you'd often be better off not taking in the first place).
The people that peddle this crap are slime. But I'm not at all surprised that a large contingent of HN members would defend them and try to justify their miserable, lying, parasitic existence. After all, many of them own companies which depend on advertising. So they try to apply some moral balm and pretend that they're "adding value".
What is actually more offensive to me is the tracking. Ads, I can choose to ignore them. But I don't like the idea of being tracked, and having my every move online watched under a microscope in the name of selling me a targeted product. That's why I make every effort to block ads and scripts.
However, I don't think it's fair to say that "HN members defend them" since (as of this comment), there is a 2:1 ratio of blockers vs. non-blockers. OTOH, this survey doesn't distinguish users who block ads AND use them on their own sites.
However, I don't think it's fair to say that "HN members defend them" since (as of this comment), there is a 2:1 ratio of blockers vs. non-blockers. OTOH, this survey doesn't distinguish users who block ads AND use them on their own sites.
> The technique isn't quite there yet.
Ads generate $billions online. They work.
1% of the online population block ads. It's not really a problem outside places like HN where the majority detest ads.
Ads generate $billions online. They work.
1% of the online population block ads. It's not really a problem outside places like HN where the majority detest ads.
While maybe unsolicited advertising is annoying, good luck with your mental notes though. I assume you are writing your posts on a computer? Sure hope Intel or AMD never ran a commercial...
Would you prefer to pay for your online content? Without ads, that's the only sustainable business model I can see for things ranging from the NY Times to Penny Arcade.
There's no shortage of free, non ad-supported content out there. I would gladly ditch whatever ad-supported content there is, if that's what it took to get rid of ads.
There are only a handful of industries (like movies and tv shows) which take a fair bit of money to create high quality content (though overwhelming majority of the time the money's wasted on utter garbage). Books, stories, news, and music can be created and distributed on a shoestring budget. They don't need the ad-supported creation or distribution model to thrive. The days of content shortages are practically over.
There are only a handful of industries (like movies and tv shows) which take a fair bit of money to create high quality content (though overwhelming majority of the time the money's wasted on utter garbage). Books, stories, news, and music can be created and distributed on a shoestring budget. They don't need the ad-supported creation or distribution model to thrive. The days of content shortages are practically over.
From what I can see, there is a shortage of free, non ad-supported news of the level of the NY Times. The only two venues I can think of that qualify are the BBC and NPR - both take government subsidy, and one does do infrequent pleas for money.
Then there are some of the webcomics I like, which has no alternative. If I want to read Penny Arcade, substituting another comic won't help.
So do you not read the NY Times, Washington Post, or any online newspaper that has ads? Do you not read print newspapers because they have ads?
Then there are some of the webcomics I like, which has no alternative. If I want to read Penny Arcade, substituting another comic won't help.
So do you not read the NY Times, Washington Post, or any online newspaper that has ads? Do you not read print newspapers because they have ads?
There's definitely some good content in the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post, Independent, Guardian, Spiegel, Japan Times, etc. But there's also a lot of propaganda and slanted journalism (witness all the disgusting cheerleading for the pro-war side during the lead up to the Iraq war).
Advertisers, corporations, and the government have a corrupting influence on the media. I'd much rather the media be 100% listener-supported, like Pacifica Radio is. Then there'll be a lot less conflict of interest.
Advertisers, corporations, and the government have a corrupting influence on the media. I'd much rather the media be 100% listener-supported, like Pacifica Radio is. Then there'll be a lot less conflict of interest.
Okay, that's how you would like things to be, but I'm still curious about what you do now.
> Would you prefer to pay for your online content?
Yes. A thousand times, yes.
As it turns out, we're already inefficiently paying for our online content. Where do you think the dollars for ad budgets come from?
I like to think of it as the country's largest privatized hidden tax system, funding socialized content.
Yes. A thousand times, yes.
As it turns out, we're already inefficiently paying for our online content. Where do you think the dollars for ad budgets come from?
I like to think of it as the country's largest privatized hidden tax system, funding socialized content.
I think that's tenable - I actually have an NY Times subscription for this reason. I think it's important to pay for good journalism, and I'm putting my money where my mouth is. But I ask because it's possible there are people who don't want to pay for content, yet want it to be free. I want to understand their thinking. (Assuming, of course, they exist.)
I hope you also enjoy paying a fee for every single website you enjoy, because without ads, this would be the only way anyone would be able to keep the lights on.
I offered to pay a higher monthly fee in order to watch content on Hulu commercial free. There's no commercial free option, so I cancelled. Bottom line is I hate being exposed to commercials and am happy to pay for content.
I prefer having ads during a film, so that I can get a break and go make tea or whatever. Watching films on the BBC, which has no ads, used to irritate me a bit, as there are no breaks. But I guess you can hit pause on Hulu, unlike on regular television.
I have a Sky box. It lets me pause live TV. Including the BBC.
[deleted]
I don't use adblock either. If I find a site that is so eggregiously ad-heavy that it hampers my browsing experience I'll generally just not go there. For the most part such sites don't have much to offer anyway so it's not a big loss.
"Sort of". I use Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/), but mainly use it to block 'like' buttons and various analytics/tracking services. I also block a few ad networks that are either consistently obnoxious or really slow-loading, but I don't use it mainly as an ad blocker.
I'm using ghostery to block pretty much everything, but I'm not happy with that solution. Blocking all advertising isn't what I really want to do. Yes ads are annoying, but I consider them payment for the service.
What I cannot accept is ad networks, social networks and anlytics tools tracking me all across the internet. Unfortunately tracking, advertising and analytics are too intertwined to be more selective. At least I haven't found a way yet...
What I cannot accept is ad networks, social networks and anlytics tools tracking me all across the internet. Unfortunately tracking, advertising and analytics are too intertwined to be more selective. At least I haven't found a way yet...
Have a look at: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy
It breaks a lot of sites at first but once you've used it for a while, allowing connections to CDN's and such, it isn't that bad. It's probably a case of paranoia, but now I feel "exposed" without it.
It breaks a lot of sites at first but once you've used it for a while, allowing connections to CDN's and such, it isn't that bad. It's probably a case of paranoia, but now I feel "exposed" without it.
The next major version of Ghostery will come with an expanded "bug"/page element browser that will break down Ghostery's database by category. The goal is to offer the most granular and usable selective blocker, and this will be a big step in that direction.
I use a heavily edited /etc/hosts file, based on http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/.
I do something similar, but on my router. That way everyone who is connected to my wifi has ads filtered.
Opera comes with a "content blocker" that I use. If I see an annoying ad, I block its origin. I count all animated ads as annoying, because they distract me from the content.
In blocking only a few sources, this takes care of nearly all ads on the Internet, with the notable exceptions of Google's and Facebook's ads. These I don't mind. I don't interact with them either, but I see no obligation to.
In blocking only a few sources, this takes care of nearly all ads on the Internet, with the notable exceptions of Google's and Facebook's ads. These I don't mind. I don't interact with them either, but I see no obligation to.
Ghostery, Disconnect, FlashBlock, AdBlock, and in some browser profile: NoScript & RequestPolicy. I whitelist trusted sites.
The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes).
HTTP_DNT=1
The online ad ecosystem is out of control with surveillance: data collection, tracking, device fingerprinting, aggregation, de-anonymization, etc. (and data volumes).
HTTP_DNT=1
Oh yeah... plus hosts file blocking of the most egregious servers and DNS blocking of the most egregious domains.
What are some egregious servers?
Can I have a peek at your /etc/hosts
I have flashblock, adblock with the antisocial filter. Still I see the damn twitter buttons. Is there a way to remove them and g+?
How do I prevent google from tracking me?
Can I have a peek at your /etc/hosts
I have flashblock, adblock with the antisocial filter. Still I see the damn twitter buttons. Is there a way to remove them and g+?
How do I prevent google from tracking me?
I use this on my Iphone: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/
To prevent those annoying widget buttons, use NoScript or Ghostery. Of course NoScript's white list method is more secure but I like Ghostery's blacklist approach more. It's tiresome to have to constantly click on NoScript to allow Javascript running
To prevent those annoying widget buttons, use NoScript or Ghostery. Of course NoScript's white list method is more secure but I like Ghostery's blacklist approach more. It's tiresome to have to constantly click on NoScript to allow Javascript running
Ghostery.
You don't need Disconnect if you're using Ghostery. I too was using Disconnect first, but Ghostery (at least the most recent version) does its job and then some.
First I used AdBlock and FlashBlock.
Then I used AdBlock and NoScript.
Then I stopped using AdBlock. What a shock that was. NoScript would still catch the nasty stuff and block those talking Flash ads, but it was much less noticeable.
I don't use an adblocker now because it makes me feel out of touch with the reality of the regular user. I've been reconsidering lately, due to the proliferation of web crapware like Facebook like and Tweet buttons.
Ideally, I'd like something that blocks the incessant tracking of my web usage, uses aggressive caching and placeholders to boost performance but still lets me see the web as the regular users see it.
Then I used AdBlock and NoScript.
Then I stopped using AdBlock. What a shock that was. NoScript would still catch the nasty stuff and block those talking Flash ads, but it was much less noticeable.
I don't use an adblocker now because it makes me feel out of touch with the reality of the regular user. I've been reconsidering lately, due to the proliferation of web crapware like Facebook like and Tweet buttons.
Ideally, I'd like something that blocks the incessant tracking of my web usage, uses aggressive caching and placeholders to boost performance but still lets me see the web as the regular users see it.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your request, but maybe ghostery is what you want
http://www.ghostery.com/download
http://www.ghostery.com/download
I set up a new Windows machine the other day, using Chrome as my primary browser. Within five minutes of sitting down to do some browsing, I had loaded a page with a Flash video ad, with sound, that started playing automatically.
Sorry internet, but a few obnoxiously bad apples spoil the bunch. Websites I visit frequently I subscribe to (e.g. Ars Technica), but the massive amount of poor, distracting, or annoying ads, the poor layouts that are 60% ads and 40% content, and the pages that take literally 10-20 times longer to load because of all the (slow) external resources? Not worth it.
Sorry internet, but a few obnoxiously bad apples spoil the bunch. Websites I visit frequently I subscribe to (e.g. Ars Technica), but the massive amount of poor, distracting, or annoying ads, the poor layouts that are 60% ads and 40% content, and the pages that take literally 10-20 times longer to load because of all the (slow) external resources? Not worth it.
I voted yes although it's not strictly true since I don't use an adblocker per se. I browse mostly in Opera, with plugins and images turned off. I have toolbar buttons to turn them on in one click when needed, but on 90% of sites that works fine and gets me just the text. Turning off Javascript is also one click away on the F12 menu for difficult sites. I also have a custom style sheet in Opera to force all text to black-on-white at a reasonable size and my choice of font. This makes the web pretty manageable, without depending on browser extensions or addons.
By default, yes. Only whitelist sites that I support and aren't abusive with ads/tracking
The first thing I install on a new computer / new browser is adblock.
Once the bits leave the server, they're available to rewrite as the user sees fit. And I have no problem with doing so in an automated way, to remove content that I know I will never be needing.
Once the bits leave the server, they're available to rewrite as the user sees fit. And I have no problem with doing so in an automated way, to remove content that I know I will never be needing.
I don't use adblock, but if I'm loading a page and it is sitting there waiting for <some ad server>, I'll go and kill it in my hosts file.
I don't mind SEEING ads, but I am certainly not going to wait for them.
I don't mind SEEING ads, but I am certainly not going to wait for them.
The three main reasons I block ads:
1.) Speeds up the web dramatically
2.) Increases privacy (Ad networks track users across sites)
3.) Improves security (Ad networks have been known to serve malware)
Same for me but in the order: Privacy, Speed, Security. I don't mind seeing them too much either. I have zero sympathies for websites that whine about ad-blockers when they don't care about my privacy.
If you were to have asked this about two weeks ago I would have said no. Sadly, performance and memory usage of javascript/flash has gotten to the point where I must use a script blocker. If the ad only contains a picture and does not load via js I will still see it; if the ad is on a page that I have explicitly allowed then yes as well.
AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, Flashblock.
Vaguely related: Autopagination (fixes multi-page sites), and Remove It Permanently.
It's my browser, my computer, and my network connection. Damned straight I'm going to exert my preferences over them.
Your crappy business model is your problem.
It's my browser, my computer, and my network connection. Damned straight I'm going to exert my preferences over them.
Your crappy business model is your problem.
I don't use ad blocking software because (1) I'm in marketing and (2) it's nice to know which companies are making moves.
I do opt out of Google's targeted advertising, and I definitely use Facebook Disconnect. All of my searches also originate from DDG, even if I throw a !g on the query every now and then.
I do opt out of Google's targeted advertising, and I definitely use Facebook Disconnect. All of my searches also originate from DDG, even if I throw a !g on the query every now and then.
There are only two websites which I endorse enough to whitelist them in my adblockers.
It's a case of having a finer control over the behavior of your web browser. Once upon a time, you had only rudimentary control, and had to use your eyes to ignore extraneous information. Adblocking gives us a little more automation. It's my hope that in the near future browsers will be able to parse the "real" content out of web pages in order to present it and only it to the user. Wouldn't that be nice? No more sidebars, no more banners or popups or buttons or other garbage, just paragraphs of text you want to read, pictures you want to see, and videos you want to watch, undiluted.
It's a case of having a finer control over the behavior of your web browser. Once upon a time, you had only rudimentary control, and had to use your eyes to ignore extraneous information. Adblocking gives us a little more automation. It's my hope that in the near future browsers will be able to parse the "real" content out of web pages in order to present it and only it to the user. Wouldn't that be nice? No more sidebars, no more banners or popups or buttons or other garbage, just paragraphs of text you want to read, pictures you want to see, and videos you want to watch, undiluted.
I block ads on all websites, except those that ask me to stop blocking ads. The first site I stopped blocking them on was Reddit.
There are a few more now that detect that you block ads and politely ask you to disable it to conserve their business model. I gladly oblige.
But for every well run site politely asking you to view their un-scammy non-crappy ads, there must be 100 full of whatever advertising program offers the most money, linking to all kinds of information stealing, questionable ethically companies.
When your business model, advertising, begins to threaten the safety of my system, you better believe I'm blocking it!
There are a few more now that detect that you block ads and politely ask you to disable it to conserve their business model. I gladly oblige.
But for every well run site politely asking you to view their un-scammy non-crappy ads, there must be 100 full of whatever advertising program offers the most money, linking to all kinds of information stealing, questionable ethically companies.
When your business model, advertising, begins to threaten the safety of my system, you better believe I'm blocking it!
I use a cocktail of AdblockPlus, Ghostery, NoScript, CookieMonster, and BetterPrivacy. I've used Flashblock in the past, and may use it again, but there are a couple of flash game sites I frequent and BetterPrivacy takes care of the persistent flash cookie issue.
All of these make browsing a lot speedier on my DSL connection. However, I'll admit they can also be a pain in the tuckus when wanting to log in, or a site requires JavaScript to view content. Still, I consider them worth it for "tracking" considerations alone.
All of these make browsing a lot speedier on my DSL connection. However, I'll admit they can also be a pain in the tuckus when wanting to log in, or a site requires JavaScript to view content. Still, I consider them worth it for "tracking" considerations alone.
AdBlock + NoScript. The web has been much more tolerable for a long time, thanks to these, and it is always amazing how much noise is on the page when I navigate with an alternate browser.
I use AdBlock, but I stopped using NoScript. NoScript essentially makes the modern web unusable. For 99% of the sites I visit I want them to be able to make my user experience more pleasurable through these technologies.
It would be interesting to know how many devs consider NoScript users when designing websites. (I personally think it's too much effort).
It would be interesting to know how many devs consider NoScript users when designing websites. (I personally think it's too much effort).
I agree. And so when I go to a website that I trust, I enable its JavaScript. NoScript makes it easy to enable JavaScript from specific places and permanently ban scripts from other places. I prefer having the whitelist approach so that I can avoid accidents, such as clicking the wrong result from a search. I do have to occasionally play guessing games when I am on certain sites and want to enable media served by multiple other places.
With this policy, I have an awesome track record on my systems with regards to the number of "problems" that have installed themselves on my computer (number = zero, and I do not have AV installed, though I like to temporarily install several AVs and sanity check once every couple years or so; their overhead, constant updates, etc, just are not worth my time).
With this policy, I have an awesome track record on my systems with regards to the number of "problems" that have installed themselves on my computer (number = zero, and I do not have AV installed, though I like to temporarily install several AVs and sanity check once every couple years or so; their overhead, constant updates, etc, just are not worth my time).
In windows I use Microsoft Security Essentials, otherwise, nothing else.
I don't use NoScript, and have never had anything install itself on any of my machines (to my knowledge at least - and as a dev I actively monitor CPU/Memory so hopefully would notice).
http://xkcd.com/552/
I don't use NoScript, and have never had anything install itself on any of my machines (to my knowledge at least - and as a dev I actively monitor CPU/Memory so hopefully would notice).
http://xkcd.com/552/
I don't like the ads that pop into my face like someone threw a flier in my face.
Ads have always had their respective places on websites, but lately the aggressiveness of advertisement is out of control and those are the ones I block. When a website is supposed to be user friendly but it has a lot of ads in uncomfortable zones then I tell myself that the website does not deserve another user and I stop visiting.
Since most banner networks pay per click, and I never click on a banner anyway, there's no point for me to see them. So AdBlockPlus all the way...
For those who are as paranoid as me about any sites tracking you, I recommend taking a look at: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/requestpolicy
It breaks the Internet a lot at first, but it gets better once you've used it for a while, allowing what makes sense. Nowadays I feel "exposed" without it.
It breaks the Internet a lot at first, but it gets better once you've used it for a while, allowing what makes sense. Nowadays I feel "exposed" without it.
Ads, unless they're really huge/obnoxious/blinking/etc don't bother me as I don't even see them. I don't really see advertising when I'm outside walking around/driving/etc, either.
I've had people argue that I probably do actually see them and they're affecting me, but it's certainly not affecting my spending habits, as I don't really buy much of anything.
I've had people argue that I probably do actually see them and they're affecting me, but it's certainly not affecting my spending habits, as I don't really buy much of anything.
Not really, no. I mean, whatever degree of "pop-up blocker" that Chrome has built-in, but no specific "ad blocker." Honestly, I don't see the point. Banner ads don't affect me one way or the other, and they're even (rarely) beneficial on occasion. As long as the ad isn't creating pop-ups and pop-unders and shit, I don't much care.
Edit: Oh, there is one specific type of ad I find highly annoying and could possibly justify blocking... anything that makes noise without asking my permission. I tend to always have headphones on and have the volume up pretty good when I'm web surfing, and any stupid ad that starts talking or playing a jingle is annoying as f!#k. Fortunately they seem to be fairly rare. Enough so that the pain hasn't been enough to push me to install an ad-blocker anyway. But if more of those started to appear, I'd totally look for a way to block them.
Edit: Oh, there is one specific type of ad I find highly annoying and could possibly justify blocking... anything that makes noise without asking my permission. I tend to always have headphones on and have the volume up pretty good when I'm web surfing, and any stupid ad that starts talking or playing a jingle is annoying as f!#k. Fortunately they seem to be fairly rare. Enough so that the pain hasn't been enough to push me to install an ad-blocker anyway. But if more of those started to appear, I'd totally look for a way to block them.
kinda, all browser plugins blocked with click-to-play in chrome, which hides most of the annoying flash banners
I block ads, and am seriously considering putting ads on my next website.
My only defense against hypocrisy is that there's nothing stopping users blocking ads too. Obviously if enough people did block ads, I'd have to rethink the biz model.
I don't feel this is particularly evil - just trying to get by...
I don't feel this is particularly evil - just trying to get by...
I used to. I'm not bothered by ads much anymore and I don't frequent sites with a lot of annoying ones. I guess I appreciate advertising more than I used to considering I use it personally, and I like to support the sites I love that rely on it.
I did start using Facebook Disconnect though.
I did start using Facebook Disconnect though.
I don't block ads because I feel guilty when I do, however, typing this out makes me feel ridiculous.
i feel bad about it, and keep trying to stop, but every time i disable adblock i end up turning it back on after a few days. if ads were less intrusive, i wouldn't mind them but so many websites get wrecked by the ads (verge, i'm looking at you).
[deleted]
Yep, but without a subscription to a blacklist. I only block things if they turn out to be too annoying. As it turns out, most of the things I've block aren't ads but are annoying images, javascript, and UI clutter.
I use a multi-drug cocktail against crapware: AdBlock+FlashBlock+NoScript+Ghostery
After some training the web experience is Awesome.
Browsing for anything other than a few minutes without these is impossible for me anymore.
Browsing for anything other than a few minutes without these is impossible for me anymore.
May I ask why you use both FlashBlock and NoScript? I haven't looked too much into the former but it looks to me to just have a subset of the functionality of NoScript (which I do use).
On a few sites NoScript causes the whole web Page to go nuts. So rather than dig into what element is causing this I disable NS and fall back to the protection of FlashBlock (Which is doing something simpler).
I block things like third party cookies but don't block adds on sites that I frequent. However if I go to a new site the adds are blocked by default; if I find myself going back to the site I unblock it.
I knew about adblock from the very beginning but I only broke down and installed it last week. The reason was one particular forum where while I didn't have problems with the ads themselves (I simply don't visit sites that have intrusive ads) they were just loading extremely slow. My eyes have been opened after that. I knew I could speed up my surfing a little bit by using adblock but I didn't know that the difference was so huge.
I decided to keep using adblock but with an empty filter to which I will add offending sites instead of just disabling everything.
I decided to keep using adblock but with an empty filter to which I will add offending sites instead of just disabling everything.
I'm a fan of Glimmerblocker (http://glimmerblocker.org/) on OS X - you set it up at the system level and therefore works on all browsers, RSS readers, etc. It doesn't handle SSL and with more sites going that way I may need to start adding some browser specific blocking.
Edit - at work on Windows I use SRWare Iron which is an awesome Chrome derivative running Fanboy's Adblock list at http://fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron.html
Edit - at work on Windows I use SRWare Iron which is an awesome Chrome derivative running Fanboy's Adblock list at http://fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron.html
I also use dnsmasq as a DNS aggregator and filter. I also have a number of domains (doubleclick, tynt, adbrite, tribalfusion and some others) set to have an IP address of 127.0.0.1.
When I got my current laptop about 1 1/2 years ago I didn't install an ad-blocker (or NoScript or FlashBlock) and really don't care anymore. Ads improved over the last view years.
My solution for sites with crazy ad banners/skyscrapers (too colorful, too much movement or - worst of all - play sound) is simply to stop visiting them. Sidenote: If I tend to somehow return over and over again they get an entry in /etc/hosts).
And yes, pop-ups are blocked (as it's default in Chrome)
My solution for sites with crazy ad banners/skyscrapers (too colorful, too much movement or - worst of all - play sound) is simply to stop visiting them. Sidenote: If I tend to somehow return over and over again they get an entry in /etc/hosts).
And yes, pop-ups are blocked (as it's default in Chrome)
as a few of you have pointed out, i'm at the point where i can't really stand to browse without an adblocker of some sort - and so use a combination of adblock + ghostery. for those that may not be aware, if you flash your router with tomato/dd-wrt/etc you can install an adblocker/host script which will allow all mobile (iphone/ipad/android/etc) devices to browse relatively ad-free when connected to wifi.
Wow, as I write this, it's 560 points for Yes. and 292 points for No.
Lesson so far: If you want to reach the HN community, don't bother with a web advertising campaign.
Lesson so far: If you want to reach the HN community, don't bother with a web advertising campaign.
I don't know about you, but I use a lot of different devices for internet navigation, and I only use Adblock on my main home pc and work pc, so on the rest I see ads..
One ad I see all the time is Chargify (another is the local airline that absolutely plasters me with ads, as it seems it's the one that bought the Uruguayan market on Google adsense)
One ad I see all the time is Chargify (another is the local airline that absolutely plasters me with ads, as it seems it's the one that bought the Uruguayan market on Google adsense)
That's what PR news stories are for. If you do something interesting enough, people will seek out more information on their own.
For example, how many people will admit to having read about the place that was giving out free cows as a signing bonus?
For example, how many people will admit to having read about the place that was giving out free cows as a signing bonus?
I think that it is extremely unfair to block all ads as they are a lifeline for many people. I do however, try to avoid sites that have annoying ads as I expect that my loss in traffic will make a difference, no matter how small it may be. I also watch a lot of Justin.TV and Twitch.TV people and that is really where I base my beliefs. If someone gives too many commercials I simply turn off the stream.
The thing is, as usual, a few ruined it for the many. There are a few extremely obnoxious ads that made me install Adblock.
I allow the Google text ads, though :)
I allow the Google text ads, though :)
I sometimes use FlashBlock so I can start/stop Flash as needed.
Otherwise I use a HOSTS file to block ads. Works great for Mac OSX as well as Windows 7.
Otherwise I use a HOSTS file to block ads. Works great for Mac OSX as well as Windows 7.
I don't, because I'm too lazy to install one (I change browsers often). Also, I use ads as a general 'trustworthiness' metric of a website/service. The more ads are there relative to content, the more tricky are those ads, or the more ugly they are - the more I'll consider a website to be scammy/malicious. It seems to have worked quite good for me so far.
Yes.
Why?
I am tired of ads with sound, hidden in one of my 50 tabs.
And Youtube is not usuable with ads before a video.
I use NoScript -- not sure if that counts as an ad blocker (it blocks all JavaScript) but it definitely gets rid of ads.
Adblock Plus, NoScript, RequestPolicy - the latter also helps against privacy problems with Facebook-like buttons etc.
I use Dan Pollock's hosts file:
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
which does the usual trick of 127.0.0.1-ing all kinds of unwanted URLs.
Some people seem to find my Github mirror of the hosts file useful:
https://github.com/chalst/pollockhostsfork
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
which does the usual trick of 127.0.0.1-ing all kinds of unwanted URLs.
Some people seem to find my Github mirror of the hosts file useful:
https://github.com/chalst/pollockhostsfork
I don't mind most ads. But I do manually block particularly bad ones.
I wouldn't use one of those AdBlock subscriptions though. Sure, maybe now you won't be "tracked" by as many ad networks, but you're allowing your web experience to be edited by some unknown party. Most configurations don't even show you what you're missing.
I wouldn't use one of those AdBlock subscriptions though. Sure, maybe now you won't be "tracked" by as many ad networks, but you're allowing your web experience to be edited by some unknown party. Most configurations don't even show you what you're missing.
I'm different in that I really enjoy a well prepared ad. Seeing how it is supposed to work on people is quite interesting. Even spam can be a good read as those guys sometimes really put such quality content together (from a writing POV) made more interesting by what they are trying to sell you.
No, because these days I do 99% of my web browsing on a tablet (iPad and altered NookColor) or mobile device (iPhone). While I could block some ads at my router at home, but the risk of false positives doesn't outweigh the benefits. And that wouldn't help when I'm not at home.
AdBlock. It's the main reason I primarily use Atomic Browser on iOS. Ads on mobile are just ridiculous.
I only block Flash using FlashBlock for Chromium. Running Flash on every site is a high security risk.
Do you really care if people actually see they ad - or do you really only care that the provider thinks people see the ad? In other words, would it be okay if the ad blocker was set up to download the ad but simply not show it? Where are your ethics now?
I either tolerate the ads to support the site, or avoid the site altogether because they have too many ads that I get annoyed. Weather.com is the only exception I have to these rules. I use an ad blocker because their animated ads are just too annoying.
I block ads cause i don't want to deceive advertisers :) i never buy anything through banners.
I don't visit websites that overly abuse ads. If I happen upon a site that forces advertisement on me, I close the window and move on. I'm generally consuming content that I can find on a variety of places. I'll simply try the next link in Google.
Of course. AdBlock + Flashblock + OptimizeGoogle (blocks Google ads) + Ghostery. Say what you want about the ethics of adblocking, but at this point, browsing the web without an adblocker is truly painful for me, as I've been using one for 5+ years.
Advert revenue is what pays my bills, I would be a hypocrite to ad block, however even before I made money from adverts I didn't use an adblocker and don't really consider them much of an issue. So no, I don't.
I haven't used an adblocker in years; I do use flashblock and nuke anything (to remove ads that appear over content).
Just these two are enough to deal with the most annoying ones, the rest of the ads don't bother me too much.
Just these two are enough to deal with the most annoying ones, the rest of the ads don't bother me too much.
There was a Flash advert with a man gesturing and waving at me. It was so distracting I literally could not read the article text. I installed adblock and reloaded the page.
An example of "tragedy of the commons", perhaps?
An example of "tragedy of the commons", perhaps?
I usually don't mind browsing without an adblocker enough to put it back on... until I visit Phoronix. I do find the experience to be better generally and less distracting with an adblocker, however.
I wonder if people who use adblocker are more likely to answer this poll than those who do not use adblocker. I guess we can't control for that, but I feel like it might have some bearing.
On my netbook* in particular. Those ads are expensive to render.
* Lenovo x120. It's not technically a netbook as it's more powerful than one, but it's still weak in the grand scheme of personal computers.
* Lenovo x120. It's not technically a netbook as it's more powerful than one, but it's still weak in the grand scheme of personal computers.
I use Flash Block for most sites by default and will only disable it on sites I believe in supporting. I don't hate adverts I just dislike crappy flash ones slowing things down.
No because I find it annoying to have to turn blocking on/off (or switch browsers) while I'm developing on my company's (ad driven) site. The fewer distractions, the better.
It's funny. Since I removed flash from my main browser (Safari) the internet is much less annoying. Also, on the iPad it's fine to browse around (alas without any ad-blocker)
How much do websites get paid for ad views compared to ad clicks? I never click ads, but I am still "supporting" websites if I allow them to serve me ads?
[deleted]
Luakit (my web browser of choice) doesn't have an ad blocker extension yet.
I find that I subconsciously don't visit websites with too many ads anymore, so it's not much of a problem.
I find that I subconsciously don't visit websites with too many ads anymore, so it's not much of a problem.
Weather.com has the best weather data, but the worst "professional" site on the internet. So I run AdBlock on Weather.com and allow most other sites to run ads.
No. I just don't go back to websites with annoying ads. I have yet to come across a website with utterly compelling content and also utterly intolerable ads.
Ads don't bother me. Flash and other plugins bother me so I use a flash/plugin blocker. Keep the ads text and I'll at least see them show up on the page :)
Yes, but I use that option that shows me Google text ads. They're unobtrusive and sometimes they're of interest.
I also disable plugins (click 2 flash/java/shockwave/etc).
I also disable plugins (click 2 flash/java/shockwave/etc).
I did a test on my website for adblocking. I'll write it up soon, but among the general population, about 30% of people seem to use adblock of some kind
Another option is "Beef TACO", a Firefox add-on that generates cookies to opt-out of tracking for known ad networks without blocking the ads themselves.
No. ClickToPlugin? yes.
http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/
http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/
I voted yes, meaning I use a flash blocker which helps not wasting battery on all kinds of flash stuff running in the background including ads.
I generally do, but not at the moment, as I'm contemplating an advertising project and want to see what's out there (appalling as expected).
I block almost everything. Before I switched to DuckDuckGo I even used Opera's "user css" feature to block the promoted links on Google.
[deleted]
I don't use an ad blocker, but I don't regularly visit any web site with ads. If a website has ads I leave never to return again.
You don't read any newspapers online? Or read any web comics?
I read comics in a RSS reader, ads don't show up, though I've just checked and the only web comics I read that have ads are dilbert, and in linux mode[1] the only non-dilbert related ads are textual, and at the bottom of the page.
I read news, though I don't read any particular newspaper, and news links often lead to pages with ads, but those pages are not sites I visit on a regular basis.
It's very possible I visit sites with ads that I did not see. I don't look for them. If ads catch my eye it's a big sign not to visit that site anymore.
[1] http://dilbert.com/fast/
I read news, though I don't read any particular newspaper, and news links often lead to pages with ads, but those pages are not sites I visit on a regular basis.
It's very possible I visit sites with ads that I did not see. I don't look for them. If ads catch my eye it's a big sign not to visit that site anymore.
[1] http://dilbert.com/fast/
No, but flashblock, noscript, and image.animation_mode = once cut obnoxiousness to near zero without specifically targetting ads.
I don't frequent sites that have annoying ads. The sites I do frequent I have no problem "paying" for them by letting ads in.
Yes, I use ABP and Ghostery. I would run noscript, but too many sites are incapable of rendering in plain html these days.
I block Flash, and a majority of 3rd party Javascript -- this tends to catch ads, but it's not an adblocker, per se.
I don't, but I use Chrome with plugins blocked by default, which has the side effect of limiting the ads I see.
I don't specifically block ads, but I only execute white-listed JavaScript which effectively does block ads.
Flashblock, but that was primarily motivated my the amount of CPU it sucks up on my e350 based laptop.
I use ClickToFlash, which gets rid of the annoying, CPU-hogging ads while supporting most websites.
I used an adblocker long enough to be bitten, multiple times, by false positives. Now I just deal.
No, just FlashBlock and a hosts file that blocks the Facebook "Like" button (but nothing else.)
Hoping Flattr catches on. It works flawlessly. It's how I want to support great content.
No, but I do use a Flash blocker. I find for the moment that's enough to keep me sane.
No option for "Used to but not anymore?"
It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.
It gives interesting insights and idea about do's and don'ts.
Adblock, Noscript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy and ShareMeNot. I'm using Firefox.
I block the shit out of everything. This includes the facebook API crap.
Yep ... Good stuff. I also used AdMuncher. Just awesome and fast.
So every week there's a pool asking if people block ads?
I don't use an adblocker but I do use NoScript.
I've gotten some value out of targeted ads.
[deleted]
Yep, since 1998.
Amongst the general online population it's about 1%.
Judging from the results here so far, it's pretty clear that a large amount of HNers are in that minority.
Judging from the results here so far, it's pretty clear that a large amount of HNers are in that minority.
need 3rd choice: use Flash blocker; which blocks a lot of ads but not all, as nice side effect
AdBlock and Ghostery.
Trying to speak reason to HN on this is a lost cause. Look at the results of the poll so far:
About 65% of HN use an adblocker. The general online population, only about 1% use an adblocker.
HN is heavily heavily biased away from advertising. HN also mistakenly probably thinks it's because they're "early adopters" or more "technical". The truth is more like HN is in a bubble, anti-mainstream etc. If you did a poll on here to find out how many people watched American Idol, you'd probably find similar results - but that wouldn't mean HNers were 'ahead of the curve', it'd just mean HNers aren't "mainstream".
Get out of your bubble HN. Do what your potential users do - view ads. Maybe even buy a TV as well!
About 65% of HN use an adblocker. The general online population, only about 1% use an adblocker.
HN is heavily heavily biased away from advertising. HN also mistakenly probably thinks it's because they're "early adopters" or more "technical". The truth is more like HN is in a bubble, anti-mainstream etc. If you did a poll on here to find out how many people watched American Idol, you'd probably find similar results - but that wouldn't mean HNers were 'ahead of the curve', it'd just mean HNers aren't "mainstream".
Get out of your bubble HN. Do what your potential users do - view ads. Maybe even buy a TV as well!
HN is heavily biased toward hackers and tweakers, in the sense of those who prefer to hack at and tweak their environments.
Many, many, many moons ago I ran across a page which reported on user display resolution setting as reported via javascript. At a time when low-end equipment generally supported at least 800x600 and likely 1024x768 display, over 50% of users showed 480x640. Which was the Windows default at the time.
Changing your display resolution takes 2-3 clicks: right click on Desktop, display settings, resolution. And "OK". And this was too much for people.
The lesson was: people don't change defaults. So, oh you devs: choose really sane defaults.
As for me? I've hacked my environment a lot over the several decades I've been using it, and I hack it a little bit more every day. Why? Because I become more productive in it, and it becomes more useful to me.
Many, many, many moons ago I ran across a page which reported on user display resolution setting as reported via javascript. At a time when low-end equipment generally supported at least 800x600 and likely 1024x768 display, over 50% of users showed 480x640. Which was the Windows default at the time.
Changing your display resolution takes 2-3 clicks: right click on Desktop, display settings, resolution. And "OK". And this was too much for people.
The lesson was: people don't change defaults. So, oh you devs: choose really sane defaults.
As for me? I've hacked my environment a lot over the several decades I've been using it, and I hack it a little bit more every day. Why? Because I become more productive in it, and it becomes more useful to me.
I don't think that's the explanation. Reddit is also heavily anti-corporation, anti-advertising, anti-mainstream. It's just the culture on HN and Reddit.
I've always been a hacker, tweaker etc. But I can't imagine how anything would work without advertising. And it's not something I find annoying or have trouble filtering out. It's like if you're walking down a street, and you see all the shop signs... If you're not interested, just keep walking.
I've always been a hacker, tweaker etc. But I can't imagine how anything would work without advertising. And it's not something I find annoying or have trouble filtering out. It's like if you're walking down a street, and you see all the shop signs... If you're not interested, just keep walking.
Alternatives to advertising:
- Patronage. It's how the arts survived for the first 2-3000 years of civilization.
- Mechanical royalties / automated syndication. It's how musical performances are licensed currently.
- Live performance. Asses in seats.
- Mixed-model revenues. The Economist splits its revenue share roughly into thirds of subscriptions, ads, and bespoke services (the Economist Intelligence Unit).
- Memberships. Public broadcasting, Consumer Reports, and similar systems rely on contributions and pledges.
- Mandatory licensing -- the BBC television tax model. I'm not arguing that it's a free market system, however it's demonstrably worked and fairly well for nearly 85 years.
There are a lot of models. Mass-market advertising applied well to mass-media broadcasting. It's been heavily pursued online, though advertising rates (low), click-through metrics (phenomenally low), technical means of avoidance (readily available if not widely applied), audience dispersal (high) all suggest it's not exactly a resounding success.
I'm not so convinced HN is as anti-corporate as you claim, though I'd color myself that way. It's that there's a very high level of technical expertise -- far more than is necessary to be aware of and successfully deploy ad blocking. Without both factors, you'll find low utilization of same, even with a high anti-corporate bent -- which isn't all that rare, really.
I'll stand by my first point: the general public is fearful and highly ignorant of the technology they use in general. Show me some stats to the contrary and I might find this conversation more interesting.
- Patronage. It's how the arts survived for the first 2-3000 years of civilization.
- Mechanical royalties / automated syndication. It's how musical performances are licensed currently.
- Live performance. Asses in seats.
- Mixed-model revenues. The Economist splits its revenue share roughly into thirds of subscriptions, ads, and bespoke services (the Economist Intelligence Unit).
- Memberships. Public broadcasting, Consumer Reports, and similar systems rely on contributions and pledges.
- Mandatory licensing -- the BBC television tax model. I'm not arguing that it's a free market system, however it's demonstrably worked and fairly well for nearly 85 years.
There are a lot of models. Mass-market advertising applied well to mass-media broadcasting. It's been heavily pursued online, though advertising rates (low), click-through metrics (phenomenally low), technical means of avoidance (readily available if not widely applied), audience dispersal (high) all suggest it's not exactly a resounding success.
I'm not so convinced HN is as anti-corporate as you claim, though I'd color myself that way. It's that there's a very high level of technical expertise -- far more than is necessary to be aware of and successfully deploy ad blocking. Without both factors, you'll find low utilization of same, even with a high anti-corporate bent -- which isn't all that rare, really.
I'll stand by my first point: the general public is fearful and highly ignorant of the technology they use in general. Show me some stats to the contrary and I might find this conversation more interesting.
Your alternatives are for the income that hosting advertisements may provide. They are not alternatives for the service that advertising itself provides.
And for that I offer in place of unsolicited advertising:
- Classifieds
- Directories
- Brochures
- Information centres
- Expos
- Local bulletins
- Store signage
- Word-of-mouth
- Sponsored events
- Trade publications
Of course these may well not have the bang-for-buck of unsolicited ads, but I dream that one day the visual pollution of third-party advertising will not be as accepted.
And for that I offer in place of unsolicited advertising:
- Classifieds
- Directories
- Brochures
- Information centres
- Expos
- Local bulletins
- Store signage
- Word-of-mouth
- Sponsored events
- Trade publications
Of course these may well not have the bang-for-buck of unsolicited ads, but I dream that one day the visual pollution of third-party advertising will not be as accepted.
"Reddit is also heavily anti-corporation, anti-advertising, anti-mainstream. It's just the culture on HN and Reddit."
HN is not "heavily anti-corporation".
Plenty of HN users own their own corporations and defend/praise them constantly. The majority of HN users be against working for most big corporations, because so many HN users are involved in the startup scene, which is dominated by small corporations. But that doesn't mean they're against big corporations per se, and I'm sure plenty HN users are dreaming of being bought out by big corporations, or even working for the likes of Microsoft or Google, which are not exactly small. Most HN users are willing, eager participants in the corporate economy. Many are even libertarians, who staunchly defend capitalism every chance they get.
Also, I don't think HN is "anti-advertising", just against viewing ads on their own machines. I would bet if I ran another poll asking how many HN users are against advertising as such, only a small minority would come forward.
Finally, I've seen no indication that HN is "anti-mainstream". HN is not a meeting place for some kind of underground subculture. With a few exceptions, the people here seem to be relatively mainstream, conforming, well off individuals.
HN is not "heavily anti-corporation".
Plenty of HN users own their own corporations and defend/praise them constantly. The majority of HN users be against working for most big corporations, because so many HN users are involved in the startup scene, which is dominated by small corporations. But that doesn't mean they're against big corporations per se, and I'm sure plenty HN users are dreaming of being bought out by big corporations, or even working for the likes of Microsoft or Google, which are not exactly small. Most HN users are willing, eager participants in the corporate economy. Many are even libertarians, who staunchly defend capitalism every chance they get.
Also, I don't think HN is "anti-advertising", just against viewing ads on their own machines. I would bet if I ran another poll asking how many HN users are against advertising as such, only a small minority would come forward.
Finally, I've seen no indication that HN is "anti-mainstream". HN is not a meeting place for some kind of underground subculture. With a few exceptions, the people here seem to be relatively mainstream, conforming, well off individuals.
Banner ads are the reason that several of our favorite websites can even exist. Therefore, no, I do not block ads. It's almost internet blasphemy.