Comments on: What You Need to Know About Blocking Ads

By: redwall_hp

redwall_hp — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:03:53 +0000

"No ad blocker I know of blocks plain text."

Actually, AdBlock's EasyList filters do that in some cases, I believe. And if you look at this site, there are no annoying Flash or Java ads. Just some unobtrusive 125×125 banners in the sidebar mainly. I don't care for Flash ads myself, but it seems making an effort to not annoy your readers with bad ads doesn't make any difference. AdBlock zaps them all the same, and the EasyList folks are dead-set on determining that it continues to do so, leading to a constant cat-and-mouse game.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:45:45 +0000

I am sick of all you people who claim that because I block ads it makes me a freeloader. If you a website I use wants me to see an ad all that is needed is a plain text ad. No ad blocker I know of blocks plain text. All these websites need to do is check for java, flash, and all the other insane technologies they use and where these options are not available then deliver a plain text ad. If they can do this (and many sites do) to keep you off the site for refusing ads they can also provide a plain text alternative. The Internet is and will always be a text based media. All the sights and sounds in the world will not change that fact. So website owners If you want me to see an ad deliver it in the native format of the Internet “plain text”

By: redwall_hp

redwall_hp — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:30:37 +0000

1. The old "I pay for internet" argument is just like saying "I pay for the postal service (in taxes) so I shouldn't get ads in my yellow pages. They weigh it down and cause more fuel and money to be wasted to deliver it to me."

2. Yes, the advertisers do need to rethink some of their habits. Some of them are less reputable than others, but that doesn't mean you should get rid of those that make an effort.

3. It sounds like the ad was badly made, and probably a Flash ad (which I can't say I like) at that.

4. Are you paying for the email service? If not, you can't complain about the ads. It costs money to run the service, and they have to pay for it all somehow.

By: Nicolaine

Nicolaine — Sat, 30 May 2009 17:05:59 +0000

I don't think its entirely correct to say that one is getting free content without the ads. In my case, what let me over here is (1) I have a 5G limit on my mobile broadband after that I am charged .20 per mb so as long as I'm paying for internet service and have a cap on my monthly service, I have an incentive to worry about what ads are being downloaded when I surf
(2) while I was trying to send out an important e-mail which took me quite a while to draft, firefox ran into problems downloading an add from a company called "blue lithium" This caused my e-mail to get hanged while I was downloading the attachment. Now the ENTIRE email is gone and I have to start from scratch, including re-attaching all the names for the distribution list. There's not even any point in giving vent to my outrage and fury. The email is GONE and that's that.

And really, what am I, a woman or a lab rat? Did I need to see an ad on my inbox page, an ad on my compose e-mail page, an add on my include recipients page and an add in my attach a document page? Condescending and offensive behavior! I'm calling this my "ha ha" moment. From this point forward, the advertisers and I are at war.

By: redwall_hp

redwall_hp — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:52:01 +0000

You're downloading the pages, and the ads are part of the package. Besides, AdBlock doesn't necessarily block the download of the JavaScript or image file, much of the time it simply applies a CSS rule to hide it. It depends on the filter rule that's being triggered.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:47:44 +0000

Coming from a country where you are charged per MB, I see no reason why I should fork out additional money downloading large image (and JavaScript) files.

Add to that the fact that ad companies have included (unintentionally) malware and other nasties in the adverts served by 3rd parties before (see http://www.google.co.za/search.....ad+malware) and you’ll see why I play it safe and block all ads from my viewing experience.

An idea of how much our bandwidth costs: It’s cheaper for us to fly to Taiwan and download 500GB of data than to do it in my own country.

By: Luq

Luq — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:36:09 +0000

for the most part, most reputed blogs and such only have harmless contextual ads like adsense which aren't really annoying and i think for providing frequently updated quality free content for everyone they atleast deserve the ads to show up and make a little something out of it. i think only ad networks that allow annoying and illegal or adult ads should be blocked using ad blockers.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:24:49 +0000

Robert: AdBlock Plus (a firefox extension) *does* have an option to NOT block ads on websites of your choosing. =)

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:48:58 +0000

I block all ads not because I want an “ad-free experience.” but I am tired of: those new javascript ads, adds that have an exit button that opens a new window anyway, porn/gay adds (even facebook seems to think I would benefit from some man-on-man advice), damn talking adds. Most of my time on the web is spent reading webcomics which have donate buttons anyway, while I have yet to donate I am seriously considering a generous donation to all my favorite webcomics. In anycase I would NOT mind having the option on ad-block to let some sites through. But until the day when computers tell if a site has obnoxious ads ad-block works just fine.