Skip navigation

Sign up | Lost password? | Help

Hello World

Practical programming... and stuff...

Blocking ads on websites is bad behavior

A lot of people really dislike any ads on a website. This shows in browsers too: Opera added a content blocker and Firefox has AdBlock and probably at least two other plugins for getting rid of ads. Some people even use separate ad blocking proxy tools such as Proxomitron and IP address blocks for servers known as ad servers.

I think people who block ads are wrong.

Why shouldn't I be blocking those ads on the websites you say.


For starters, a lot of people pay for their website hosting and domains with ads. Without ads, your favorite website might not exist, or it might cost you a certain amount of money per month to use it.
Many people don't realize this at all. I used to be one of them, but these days I've even clicked some ads that I wasn't interested in just to support some site I like.

If you watch TV, the chances are that they display ads, and you can't block or skip ads on TV. You will either have to watch the ads or change the channel and perhaps risk a bit of the show you were watching because you didn't tune back in on time. If TV didn't have ads, you might have a TV payment like we have in Finland: We get few channels with no ads, but for example I don't even watch them and I still have to pay it. On the internet, you can skip ads - Actually, you don't have to skip ads because they aren't blocking you from doing whatever you were, unlike the ads on TV.

You might think that comparing TV commercials with ads on websites isn't sensible, but the intent of both is often the same: To provide revenue to pay for other costs. You could throw in newspapers too; they have ads as well and they are more like the ads on websites.


Most of the time inline ads don't bother me. As long as the ad isn't blinking, distractingly animated or makes sounds, there should be no reason to not see it. There have even been times when an ad has introduced me to a genuinely useful product or service. Some ads are even a bit humorous - I often find the AdCouncil ads displayed on various sites funny.

Ad placement and colors are a big factors in making an ad annoying or not. Ad boxes in the middle of content which act like a big line break, such as some ads at sitepoint.com are something I personally don't like that much.
They are the kind of ads which distract people: They might make you think that whatever you were reading ends there, but oh wait, it actually continues under the ad! Geez...

Sure, they are more visible when they are placed right where you would expect the text to be, but I think it's better to place them on the sides, or to the top and bottom of defined areas of content. When the ad is not breaking anything, it's less confusing and it can still be quite well visible to the users: For example, placing an ad between the content of a blogpost and the comments box.

Colors are probably a bit less of a factor, but very bright or contrasting colors and those which don't match the overall color scheme of the site in question are more likely to distract people.


Of course it's still possible to go overboard with ads. I have seen sites with too many ads, even to my liking. And ads which are animated or use Flash are a whole different issue... You can go wrong with those on so many more levels.



In the end it boils to a single thing: Do you want to support the sites you use or not?

I have some websites which I don't really care about that much; sites which are replaceable with some other one, but some of the sites I visit I wouldn't like to "vanish", such as some blogs that write about things that I'm interested in, as there are not that many of them.
On those sites, I tend to try to click on ads at least once in a while, just out of courtesy: If a blogger notices that he actually can gain a bit of pocket money from his site, it's very likely that it will work as an incentive for him/her to post more quality articles.
The only time I seriously consider blocking ads on a site is when they are really bothering me.

Top 9 most useful web developer tools for OperaLively Kernel - Another waste of time?

Comments

Anonymous 8. October 2007, 05:45

Anonymous writes:

I very much agree with you. I don't block ads, except of course for popups. I do, however, block those pesky cookies from advertisers. My browsing behavior is no one's business but my own.

drlaunch 8. October 2007, 10:31

I think it should be each person's choice to block ads. Those who block ads wouldn't click them either way. I'd say ad blocking would make no difference in the revenue of a site.

Personally, I don't click ads. But I don't block them either. I simply ignore them because years of browsing with Internet Explorer made me immune to ads. I have no reason to click ads either because most ads want you to buy something and I have neither a paypal account, nor a credit card. I can't buy stuff on the web.

I do sometimes click the ads of my friends on request. But clicks with no further action from many people is usually known as click fraud and might damage the site.

There are some ads I like. Such as ads from Project Wonderful. Instead of pay per click, you rent a spot on a website for 0.- or more per day. If someone else want the spot, they'll have to bid more than the current advertiser, and if enough people bid more than the others, it becomes quite profitable for the owner of the spot. This eliminates click fraud and everybody wins. Another thing I like about project wonderful is that a lot of webcomics and other cool sites advertise there. So project wonderful ads are probably the ads I click the most.

If sites didn't have more ads than content, content (ad) blocking would probably not become popular. More ads than content has also led people like me to ignore the ads. Webmasters can blame themselves if no one clicks the ads they have on their site. A few well-placed ads on a site should lead to more clicks than a overload of ads.

zomg 8. October 2007, 13:38

I'd say ad blocking would make no difference in the revenue of a site.


Oh really? If a high traffic site gets 10.000 clicks per month, which they might not get if blocking ads was more common, it doesn't make them any money?


Yeah project wonderful is a pretty good idea, except that some of the ads I've seen from there are kind of... flashy.

Webmasters can blame themselves if no one clicks the ads they have on their site. A few well-placed ads on a site should lead to more clicks than a overload of ads.


Agreed, but I haven't seen any sites with more ads than content... at least not any "real" sites.

claudeb 9. October 2007, 03:55

"If you watch TV, the chances are that they display ads, and you can't block or skip ads on TV. You will either have to watch the ads or change the channel"

That's the whole point, you can at least change the channel while the commercials last and then come back. By your own logic, this is wrong. Would you like a TV that doesn't let you change channels while ads are playing? Guess what, one of those was patented a few months ago.

And what about that other technology announced by Microsoft (IIRC) that is supposed to track your eyes (via webcam) and prevent you from using a site unless you're actually looking at the ads? If it ever gets implemented, I hope you do have a webcam...

Even outdoor panels have begun to intrude on people (see my latest blog post). At least nobody can claim we're morally obligated to look at those.

Face it man, the advertising industry is going way too far.

P.S. What if you're using a browser that is legitimately unable to display ads, such as lynx?

P.P.S. I'm not even sure clicking on ads "out of courtesy" is effective. There are ways to measure whether a click was out of genuine interest or not, I hear.

zomg 9. October 2007, 07:20

Would you like a TV that doesn't let you change channels while ads are playing?


I watch ads on TV, it's not like they are that long. :D
Although I've heard that for example in USA there are much more commercials in TV than in here.

And what about that other technology announced by Microsoft (IIRC) that is supposed to track your eyes (via webcam) and prevent you from using a site unless you're actually looking at the ads?


Haven't heard about that, but I'd expect it to be easy to cheat. And with all the fuss over security and such, who would allow MS to implement something like that? To be sure, I did some googling and wasn't able to find even a trace about any such technology being developed.

P.S. What if you're using a browser that is legitimately unable to display ads, such as lynx?
P.P.S. I'm not even sure clicking on ads "out of courtesy" is effective. There are ways to measure whether a click was out of genuine interest or not, I hear.


If they are properly done, you should still get the alt-text for an ad image in Lynx :wink:
There is no way to detect real or fake clicks, unless you implement something really funky to go about and time how long the user stays looking at the website they would arrive to through the ad... which really wouldn't even work.

claudeb 9. October 2007, 13:39

I don't know about the USA, but where I live the TV ad breaks last for 20-30 minutes as a rule. I usually end up giving up on (or even forgetting completely) what I was watching. Rather the opposite of the intended effect, don't you think?

Luckily, my TV has been broken for over a month now. I find my house is better whitout it. Radio rulez :D

There is no way to detect real or fake clicks



Actually, I just noticed drlaunch explained this one earlier: "clicks with no further action from many people is usually known as click fraud and might damage the site".

In the end, I think there is a simple way to convince people not to block ads on your site: be decent. Good examples: Coding Horror, Yahoo! Mail Classic. Bad example: WorseThanFailure.com.

zomg 9. October 2007, 15:49

where I live the TV ad breaks last for 20-30 minutes as a rule


wtf?! That's... crazy!... I think there's even a law/rule here which governs the maximum amount of commercials in TV per hour or something... and it's like a few minutes maybe. 20-30 minutes is... something totally wrong. P:



Regarding the click fraud thing... If you suddenly start getting a lot of clicks without the traffic levels increasing at all, it could be that the ad provider might think that you're faking clicks... but in reality it's not feasible to make any solid method of detecting whether something was a "fake" click or not, especially when most ad providers just display ads which then redirect the user to the target site and the target site's don't have to modify their sites in any way.

claudeb 10. October 2007, 04:05

I think there's even a law/rule here which governs the maximum amount of commercials in TV per hour or something...



There is. TV stations get fined regularly. Unfortunately, the fines are small enough that they consider the situation profitable. What's 15000$? A few minutes worth of commercials?

GreyWyvern 10. October 2007, 14:10

I aggressively block advertising, because I can. Online advertising is getting more and more intrusive on a daily basis; much more intrusive than passively delivered television commercials. The two can't be compared.

Consider the ubiquity of Google ads on every half-baked site hoping to make a buck. Consider intellitxt and other invasive inline keyword grabbers. And only two days ago I was browsing Yahoo! when about ten seconds after the page load, a huge blue box appeared and began floating across the screen: "Take this survey!" You expect us to happily approve of these tactics? You expect us to willfully submit to taking our daily dose of corporate pap as a requirement for visiting the sites we like?

I'll gladly support a site I like, with a donation. Obviously, many sites can't get by on donations alone, so I'm happy to let them keep their ads. But I'll let other people, who don't mind ads so much, deal with them. As for me, I will continue to block with extreme prejudice and keep my internet experience clean and sane.

zomg 10. October 2007, 15:42

the keyword grabbers that make words look like links and display popups on hover and all kinds of stupid crap that is blasted in your face when you don't expect it are what go in the distracting ads category and that is when I make exceptions and may block them if I constantly had to visit such pages (I don't). Luckily those aren't very common.

Anonymous 25. August 2008, 23:35

Anonymous writes:

I agree but I only block PORN ads cuz they are annoying as hell

How to use Quote function:

  1. Select some text
  2. Click on the Quote link

Write a comment

Comment
(BBcode and HTML is turned off for anonymous user comments.)

If you can't read the words, press the small reload icon.


Smilies