Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Says Ad Blockers Will Save Online Ads

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the well-i-half-agree dept.

Google 419

azoblue writes "Google — the world's largest online ad broker — sees no reason to worry about the addition of ad-blocking extensions to its Chrome browser. Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying, the company says, and netizens will ultimately realize that online advertising is a good thing."

cancel ×

419 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And to them I say (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473494)

Good luck with that.

Re:And to them I say (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473694)

Don't worry, you aren't the intended target.

The idea seems to be - if the ads aren't too annoying, they are less likely to be blocked, and ad makes will be encouraged to make those less annoying adds.

Or more simply: Google is hoping that ad blockers will get rid of the more annoying ads that encourage people to get ad blockers. The idea is that everyone has a different point of "too much". I suspect google thinks that ad execs will end up targeting a middle ground. Probably little/no animation, no sound, and no more nudity/blood/violence than would be appropriate ofr the normal customers of the target site.

The most easily annoyed 25% are probably not going to be considered - nothing will satisfy them anyway. Most people, however, don't mind non-intrusive ads.

Re:And to them I say (1)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473848)

Well, maybe it's just me, but I have been noticing less and less flash ads lately. Less annoying and intrusive ads as well...

This begs the question of causality. Are ad-blockers causing advertisers to put up milder (and friendlier) ads? Or is that just the general trend of the industry (after they learned that the more annoying ads don't generate steady interest)? I tend to think the latter (since once someone blocks an ad, nothing the advertiser does to that ad with the exception of changing ad servers is going to make a difference)...

Still, I can't imagine the percentage of blocked ads is going to be that high to put a major dent in the industry (yet). On one of my sites (which gets around 60k unique visitors per day), I see about a 5% difference between http stats and adsense stats. That implies to me that about 5% of my visitors have an ad-blocker. Staggering? Nope. Enough to make me change my advertising practices? Nope. Then again, my ads aren't obtrusive and are simply image/text ads from Google...

Re:And to them I say (5, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473916)

I'm in this boat. I have nothing against online ads if they're not intrusive, annoying, and excessive. I never go back to sites which excessive ads because they clearly care less about their own content. I'd rather see a few simple ads on a quality site than block ads on a crappy site.

It's similar to TV advertisements. People watch superbowl ads because they expect them to be entertaining. The rest of the year I flip to a different channel when the ads appear because I just find them annoying. But the occasional unobtrusive product placement within a program doesn't deter people from watching the show.

Re:And to them I say (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474238)

This is exactly why I prefer to watch TV shows on a site like hulu. I, too, will flip the channel when I know the ad break is going to be 3 or more minutes long, but if it's just one commercial each ad break, I'll probably watch every one.

Re:And to them I say (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473970)

Agreed, I only block the annoying ones, or the ones that slow down my browsing, like Adtech.de.

That I very rarely react to the rest is besides the point.

Re:And to them I say (5, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474120)

Hey - Any time you visit a site and block their ads, you're stealing the Internet! Personally, I click on all banners and buy at least one item from each advertising vendor to support wherever I visit. Otherwise, I'm afraid that this whole "Internet" thing just won't stick.

Seriously, though, some places have it right. Google's ads are fairly unobtrusive and typically (although not always) relevant. Amazon's "People who viewed this item also viewed" or "...untimately bought" links are terrifically useful. And Slashdot's ads (IIRC) are certainly nerd-oriented and can be disabled if you give them money or contribute regularly - Seems like an OK system.

All that said, most places have it absolutely wrong which is why AdblockPlus and NoScript are my first two stops when installing FireFox.

If wishes were pennies... (1)

Aequitarum Custos (1614513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473524)

wait, Google is already rich.

Ads? What ads? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473528)

There are *ads* on the web? I haven't seen one in years!

Re:Ads? What ads? (0)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473678)

There are *ads* on the web? I haven't seen one in years!

Exactly! I keep trying different browsers like Opera, Chrome and even Safari, but then I see adds. Now, I don't mind adds and fully appreciate them paying for my browsing experience. It's the blinking, "Punch the monkey and win a prize" that drive me nuts and drive me right back to Firefox and AdBlock+.

Re:Ads? What ads? (0, Troll)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473868)

I already pay my ISP for my browsing experience - I have a bunch of websites that I can maintain advert free because I work for a living. If others have to rely on their advertising models to stay afloat, that's not my problem. The internet will still be here adverts or not.

Re:Ads? What ads? (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473898)

I already pay my ISP for my browsing experience - I have a bunch of websites that I can maintain advert free because I work for a living. If others have to rely on their advertising models to stay afloat, that's not my problem. The internet will still be here adverts or not.

Says the guy on ad funded slashdot.

Re:Ads? What ads? (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474052)

There are adverts on slashdot? You have a point, but really, I decide what browsing experience I have - it's advert free. My moral guidance unit tells me it's ok with this.

Re:Ads? What ads? (4, Interesting)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474092)

I use advertisements on most of my sites not because I want to make money, but because I want to pay for the site. It's not cheap running a dedicated server (Not to mention the time I spend administrating and developing the site), typically a few hundred $$$ per month... If I can recoup that cost (which I do), than I am happy. Is that such a bad thing? I'm not talking about a lot of money here either, I average around $500 per year above my raw expenses. I think that $10 per hour for the admin duties that I do isn't bad to take...

With that said, I see such a low impact from ad-blockers (around 5% or so), that I really don't mind. I keep the ads unobtrusive, and haven't heard a single complaint (yet). It's the few bad apples that overload their sites with ads that spoil it for the rest of us who are just looking to have an expense neutral side project (or make a little bit of beer money for the time invested)...

Re:Ads? What ads? (5, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474226)

Those ones are nowhere near as bad as the ones that pop up over the text you are trying to read. You know, the ones where when you click on the X button to close it it takes you to the advertiser's page? Creating those should be a capital offense...

Really? (1)

callinyouin (1138469) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473530)

This seems like some best-case-scenario-wishful-thinking to me. I really don't think this is Google's actual opinion on the issue, IMO.

Re:Really? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473676)

the article seems to be a bit of a strike on google. I am guessing a lot was taken out of context, akin to that whole google privacy debacle which was equally taken out of context.

I'm not saying google is perfect, they do a lot of good things and plenty of bad, but I also have skepticism here.

Ah! (0)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473532)

"It's unlikely that ad blockers will get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising needs to get less annoying.

Ah! A Koan [wikipedia.org] for my AM meditation.

You underestimate the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473534)

Jews are responsible for TV commercials being double the volume of the shows that they air with. Do you really think that internet commercials are going to be less annoying in the future, when the Jews bring their villainy to the internet?

Dream on. As long as there are Jews, there will need to be ad-blocking technology.

Re:You underestimate the Jews (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473560)

That was thoroughly shocking.

A good thing (3, Insightful)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473552)

I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad. Lately on Wired I've noticed that I have to carefully move my mouse down the page, otherwise I trigger same extremely annoying pop-up/overlay Flash ad often containing sound or moving video which covers the page. I also recently started trying Chrome, so this could be something they've been doing for a while I'm not sure.

I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free, but I don't think we'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever. So we'll all be stuck using ad-blockers.

Re:A good thing (2, Interesting)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473738)

We are stuck with ad-blockers because there's always an guy that assumes that being as annoying as possible is good to business. However, there are rare examples of ads and networks that I have left unblocked because their ads are not distracting, annoying or plain stupid. There have even been ads that I liked and never wanted to block. Such ads usually come from well controlled smaller syndicates and that includes Google text ads unless there are more ads than content on the page.

Re:A good thing (4, Interesting)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473782)

Most people are OK with Ad's on some level... just not OK with obnoxious popup-type invasive ads that even crash your browser sometimes.
The solution is an ad-blocker with level-based blocklist like this:
- Allow only text ads (this is where google wins)
- Allow simple image ads (not larger than ...)
- Allow animated image ads
- Allow movie and interactive ads (flash ads)
- Allow all terrible ads (never use this ad)

Re:A good thing (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474102)

That's my opinion too. Google's text ads I don't care about one bit. Banner ads - I don't mind them as long as they are "safe for work". I DON'T want to be browsing MSNBC's news section and have some woman in a bikini advertising "Hydroxicut" or some other weight loss pill flashing on my screen.

The really annoying ones though are indeed the ones that the GP mentioned. Those ads that pop up when you scroll and cover the page until you find the (usually well hidden) close button for the ad. Or on online video sites that try to insert ads before the videos play. That was fine on TV when the ad to content ratio was measurable and consistent, but when browsing an online video site I can be flipping between tons of videos - many of which I might watch for 10-15 seconds before flipping to something different. If I have to deal with a 10-15 second ad before each one starts I just get frustrated and go somewhere else.

Re:A good thing (2, Insightful)

bit01 (644603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474236)

Most people are OK with Ad's on some level.

Yes, the ad's that don't work.

The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention. If it doesn't do that then it's not working. And a person's attention is valuable to them.

If an ad "pays" for the attention in some way (e.g. entertaining or actual useful information and not spam) then it might be okay but almost no advertising does that.

---

The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

Re:A good thing (4, Interesting)

jonsmirl (114798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473852)

I use an ad blocker to stop:

        Video ads that automatically play
        Animated ads
        Blinking ads
        Ads that automatically talk
        Ads that automatically popup
        Large multimedia ads on a wireless link

I don't want my web pages to move or make noise unless I tell them to. Telling them to means clicking - not mouse over.

Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too. I don't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them.

Re:A good thing (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473988)

Add viruses to the list.

Re:A good thing (1)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474140)

Then Flashblock with a good whitelist ? That's what I ended up with, instead of using AdBlock. Works pretty well, I must say.

Re:A good thing (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473866)

I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free, but I don't think we'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever.

I think most people don't understand that they can block the ads using easy to install software. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people still using IE6 (with no quick and easy adblocking abilities) or some outdated version of Firefox without running ABP.

I use ads to pay for the work I do on my own website but I, as a publisher of content, do what I can to ensure that the majority of my regular repeat readership doesn't see them. So in addition to the fact that Google's partners are supposedly keeping their ads sane, I'm adding an additional layer of security for those I care the most about.

As long as at least one party out there does that, it should remain in balance--for the most part.

Re:A good thing (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474036)

But.. why are you encouraging this behavior by using the websites? I know there are for example news sites that I refuse to visit because of the ugly ads, but there are dozens or hundreds of alternatives (at least here in Sweden..) that carry pretty much the same information sans obnoxious ads. Of course there are ads there, but discreet enough.

Re:A good thing (1)

customizedmischief (692916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474132)

I think this is not completely unrealistic. I do not block every ad, but I do it selectively for sites that irritate me. For instance, Facebook ads get blocked because I don't ever want to see those fucking teeth ads again. Also, I need to filter Facebook to block all of those surveys anyway. Slashdot apparently offers to remove ads for free if you post several good comments, but I have never taken them up on that and clicked the box because the ads here are not that irritating.

I don't think the advertisers will ever come to a consensus that blinking popup ads of dancing babies with awful teeth schilling for fraudulent mortgage companies that install malware are below a certain standard of taste and should not be used, but the sites I use most often already seem to have the self-respect not to run crap like that. Maybe if I spent more of my online time searching for free ringtones, things would be different for me.

Put another way, I am too lazy to block ads unless they piss me off. Maybe the folks at Google are expecting a lot of people to be like me.

And allow them to collect demographic data... (5, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473558)

And, presumably, if there are ad-blocking extensions to Chrome, they will send their information back to Google, and give Google information about precisely which ads are being blocked.

So, when company X comes to Google and says, "Your prices are far too high, most of our ads aren't making impressions anyhow, they're being blocked by clever browser extensions!", Google can come back and say, "Well, we've actually got some data on that, and..."

Re:And allow them to collect demographic data... (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473772)

I think it's a bit more nefarious than that. Allow me to finish that thought for you:

Google can come back and say, "Well, we've actually got some data on that, and...it appears that without the add blocker, your ad will be seen by 275 billion more people a day. We can add your adds to our "safe list" to allow them to get through our add blocker, but it will raise your rates by 35% in order to cover the administrative costs of maintaining your position on that list".

Re:And allow them to collect demographic data... (2, Insightful)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473946)

I think it's a bit more nefarious than that. Allow me to finish that thought for you:

Google can come back and say, "Well, we've actually got some data on that, and...it appears that without the add blocker, your ad will be seen by 275 billion more people a day. We can add your adds to our "safe list" to allow them to get through our add blocker, but it will raise your rates by 35% in order to cover the administrative costs of maintaining your position on that list".

At which point people will just start using 3rd party adblocking software again to block all ads, and the cycle continues. Either:

  1. Google will predict this cycle happening and thus won't bother trying such a stupid scheme, or
  2. Google will not predict this cycle happening, will try what you suggested, and we'll get 3rd party adblocking tools again to compensate for punch-the-monkey ads.

Either way, we've nothing to worry about.

Re:And allow them to collect demographic data... (3, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473958)

Why would anyone write an adblock extension that phones home to Google? Unless Google wrote the extension themselves (unlikely!) it is just not going to happen.

great news everybody! (1)

notgm (1069012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473564)

I've invented an ad-blocking technology that is entirely funded by proceeds garnered from companies who will pay us to put small marketing statements, catch phrases, and logos on the visible interface of the software while the software is running.

it's genius!

If you're as good at it as Google (4, Insightful)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473576)

If you're as good at it as Google, if you, too, can delivery such customer-specific advertising in a peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system, then yes, you too will have no reason to worry about ad-blocking extensions.

Re:If you're as good at it as Google (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473922)

Sort of, but the "non-intrusive" part depends on your perspective. I could live with a few text-only ads, but they are probably a wolf in sheep's clothing when hitched up to googleanalytics and whatever other scraping systems they've devised.

I prefer to live without any ads, so I keep my hosts file as current as I can, and use adblock and flashblock for fine-tuning.

If content providers don't like that, they might want to think about making the ads less obnoxious. And if a site insists on shoving hover-ads in my face, that domain gets totally blacklisted with no right of appeal.

Not even google (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473984)

The ads might be text-only, but they are rendered with reams and reams of Javascript, which I have blocked.
However targeted an ad is, it's by definition not what I'm looking for because it's an ad.

Under my ad-blocker, all are equal.

Umm... (4, Insightful)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473580)

So how will users who have installed ad blocking software at some point realize that the ads they are no longer seeing aren't really that annoying anymore? I suppose what they actually meant to say was "buy text ads, ad blocking software will ... perhaps ... not block them" (sure it does).

Re:Umm... (3, Insightful)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473974)

So how will users who have installed ad blocking software at some point realize that the ads they are no longer seeing aren't really that annoying anymore?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're talking about me. In 2004, I installed a bunch of ad blockers, and I saw next to no ads. That lasted for a few years until I got a new computer. With the new computer, the ads were far less intrusive, and generally not worth going through all the ad blocking hassle (which isn't much, so obviously a threshold was crossed). The stupid monkey was gone, all the blue/red flashing background was missing, etc. I'll still keep FlashBlock on until the day the machines rise up against their masters, though. A line was irrevocably crossed when an ad started making noise and wouldn't shut up. Flash is great for games, but for so much of what's done, a simple JPG would suffice at a fraction of the development and delivery cost.

I can guarantee you (1, Insightful)

holychicken (1307483) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473590)

that I will never find online advertising to be a good thing.

Re:I can guarantee you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473664)

You will if the alternative is to either pay or have no content.

Someone somewhere has to pay for the content, even if it is a tiny microscopic amount.

If everyone blocked ads, there would be less (legal) free content.

Re:I can guarantee you (2, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474046)

If the content is fantastic, there will be large scale contributors.

http://mises.org/ [mises.org] has no advertising that I've noticed. They have some million-dollar contributors.

I have a newsletter site that is free, with no ads, and I have some contributors that offer me a few hundred a year. I don't even openly ask for it (there's a link to contributing that just says "Contribute."). If the content is good, the money will still come in.

Re:I can guarantee you (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473764)

I run with no script active, That catches most of the annoying ads. I usually ignore the rest unless its something very specific I like, for instance RPG ads served at enWorld. Ads on the internet don't really bother me.

Google Mind Trick (5, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473596)

[glazing over]

yes, ads are a good thing.

I like ads.

They make me happy.

I want to click.

[snapping out of it]

What? Damned Jedi^H^H^H^HGoogle Mind Trick®

Re:Google Mind Trick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473798)

I want to click.

maybe little click?

You know i got this browser with adblock+ soo....

no click, no click, no click.

Google can survive them (4, Interesting)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473610)

I think the point here is that ad blockers will have more impact in the less sofisticated ads (popups and the like). Probably Google thinks that it has the muscle to get its ads in a way that won't suffer as much. Either as they are less intrusive so less people is likely to try hard to get rid of them, or because they have technological ways of distributing the ad that make much harder to dismiss it without breaking the page that the users wanted to see. Or both of these reasons.

Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH * (2, Interesting)

hexed_2050 (841538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473612)

If the ads were less annoying I wouldn't mind them at all. Some of the ads are actually very informative rather than spammy if you are on a website that caters to your interest and delivers ads based on content served on the site.

I'd love to see sites implement an ad protocol such as this:

1. No flash-based or animated ads.
2. No ads bigger than 300 x 100 pixels.
3. No ads with bright contrasting colours such as orange when the entire site is white and green.
4. All ads can be turned on or off at the user's preference. This site implements an honour system.
5. Users can select what categories of ads they would or would not like to be served.

If websites and companies were just more sane about their ad policies, I think a lot less people would resort to ad-blockers.

Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH * (1)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473802)

and can i add to the list the rollover ads that suddenly fill your screen!

Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH * (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473892)

6. No ads pretending to be elements of the site they appear on, such as a big "Download" button which gives you crapware instead of the file you were looking for...

Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH * (1)

L0stb0Y (108220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473934)

I completely agree with this- I actually enjoy ads that are for things I am interested in- further I like when a site I trust won't allow ads from companies that they deam are less than reputable (they do some weeding out for me)-

I really do think that the ability to turn ads on or off would be the best solution-

Firefox users with Adblock: 12% (3, Informative)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473614)

Perhaps of interest: how many Firefox users currently use AdBlock Plus [mozilla.com] ? According to this reference (search for "AdBlock" to find the spot), the number is around 12%.

Re:Firefox users with Adblock: 12% (5, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473734)

The other 88% have NoScript too, which prevented their usage script from running and listing installed addons! :D

ok sure (1)

daveb1 (1678608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473620)

ok sure some of google's ads are useful. But most ads on the internet are just garbage. You have the pop up, the flash, the sound / combination, alternating images .... etc. all of these ads are part of EVIL user interface design. Therefore, most of use these days block all ads on the intertubes. Nothing to see here. Move along!

I see their point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473632)

This is true for me. I loathe flash, blinking, pop-up ads. I do whatever I can to eliminate them without even looking at what they're advertising. But I okay with text ads...I even find them useful from time to time. I'm more apt to not block and to read some text off to the side than attention-whore graphical ads.

wrong assumption (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473634)

Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.

What they don't realize (and what people in marketing can not realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.

I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.

Re:wrong assumption (1, Insightful)

hexed_2050 (841538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473668)

Some ads can be informative and can remind you of an issue you needed to solve last week and still have not. I don't believe the problem is with the ads in general, but with the style and way they go about serving you those ads.

Re:wrong assumption (3, Insightful)

bit01 (644603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474134)

Some ads can be informative and can remind you of an issue you needed to solve last week and still have not.

That is a minute fraction of all unsolicited ad's. The cost benefit is not even remotely there.

There is a very real cognitive cost associated with every single unsolicited, unneeded, unwanted ad. And that cost over time adds up to a huge loss.

The entire marketing industry is in denial about that. A real shame that so many trillions of hours of people's lives and attention are being wasted on such dross.

---

An unobtrusive ad is a non-functional ad. It is a non-sustainable business model.

Re:wrong assumption (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473752)

Oh, I agree. So please get rid of that damn thing about Lemuria Skies from your sig, because, if I want to find out about skyboxes for a video game, I can do a Google search. Don't shove this information down my throat. Your sig is very annoying.

Re:wrong assumption (4, Insightful)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473952)

He was probably only talking about ads for "The Corporations!", because, you know, The Corporations are evil etc etc etc

Re:wrong assumption (2, Interesting)

JordanL (886154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474104)

How, precisely, are you supposed to search for something that don't know exists? This is the primary function of advertising as a concept, (though not the primary function of the ads that I'm sure annoy you).

Re:wrong assumption (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474174)

This is usually the point where marketing folk will want to convince you that they have "studies" showing that you can create demand out of thin air by just showing people completely inappropriate, boring, offensive, time-wasting ads that viewers will never see because theirs minds are blanking them out after enough exposure to similar crap in the past. This wouldn't be a problem and you could happily laugh in their faces and rightfully call them morons, if they weren't also feeding the same nonsense to marketing people working for big advertisers with a similar mindset and convincing them to only advertise in the most annoying matter possible. So website publishers can choose to put up those annoying and pointless ads or forfeit their chance to get any advertising money.
As for Google ads, they might be less intrusive and annoying, but they are far too often posted by fraudsters, pointing to websites with malware, or simply not appropriate for your audience. It would be much better if visitors could report ads as offensive/dangerous/inappropriate...

Pot, meet Kettle. (0)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474244)

OK, so ads served by Slashdot to support their page are wrong in your opinion, but your ad for Lemuria Skies in your signature (which presumably does not support the site you posted it on) is somehow OK?

Wait, I'm confused. The ads are bad on sites even when they help pay for content, but the ad in your signature is somehow OK even though it doesn't?

Or are you reserving the right to be the only person allowed to shove "product information" down other people's throats, "willingly or otherwise"?

Or is this a carefully-crafted example of ironic humor that went way over my head?

No Problem (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473648)

I have no problem with unobtrusive ads that aren't all flashing animation and sound and which do not slow down my system with their overblown Flash garbage. If it does not interfere with my use of the web, I'm fine with them.

Until advertisers start delivering those ads, I'll keep using adblock.

Only geeks and nerds care about ad blockers (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473654)

... and they're already excluded from the intended demographic.

Re:Only geeks and nerds care about ad blockers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30474034)

Firefox needs to come with ad blockers installed and enabled by default so that this technology sees a wider audience than just geeks and nerds.

Re:Only geeks and nerds care about ad blockers (2, Insightful)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474130)

So, who do you think helps when family / friends / whoever has computer problems?

Yea, it's those geeks. What do you think they will install first when they try to find a solution in the Internet to some technical problem? AdBlocking. Mandatory 10 seconds.

And people like it. They talk about it and others follow.

General demographic is catching up to ad-blocking very fast.

They're right for the wrong reason. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473662)

Most people don't use ad blockers, that's why they're not worried.

There's no difference between online advertising, tv adveritising or radio advertising. It's in your face (in one way or another) and after a while, people just don't want it. Why else do radio stations make a big deal about "no ads from 9am to 10am"? TV ads become toilet, food, etc, breaks. My folks spend most of their time watching the government TV station that has no ads.

If the executives at Google really think that netizens (in general) will come to the conclusion that online advertising is a good thing then the company is already doomed.

If all Firefox installs came bundled with AdBlock enabled by default, I wonder if the attitude towards advertising would change when people realise just how different the Internet is without it.

p.s. Until Chrome has Cookie management built in, I ain't using it for anything.

Why I block some ads (2, Insightful)

MaraDNS (1629201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473666)

While I don't use adblock per se, I do use a combination of Firefox's advanced option to disable animated gifs (actually, to have them animate only once) as well as flashblock so I don't have to see animated flash ads.

The reason I do this is because I'm used to reading books; books do not have anything that animates in them, and anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something. I don't mind ads with bright, flashy colors; magazines have had those since the beginning of time [1], but I can't read a page when I see something animated; it's as annoying as having a fly.

As an aside, I remember in the early 2000s when Slashdot was very much against having animated flash ads. Now, they're very common here. I hope, now that the economy is picking up again, that Slashdot will go back to not having animated ads that I have to block. Also, it would be really nice if Adobe gave flash an option where a flash document would never animate until you clicked on it.

[1] The air conditioner was invented so color printing presses used by advertisers would not have the ink run.

Flash is evil (2, Informative)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473776)

Flash is just evil (for that matter, so is Silverlight). I understand why designers like it, but it breaks the very paradigms that make the Internet great.

Example: I recently ran across the web-site of a very nice little company in my neighborhood. Whoever they hired to do their website put the whole thing into Flash: the menus, the content, even the contact information. Result: you can't find their sitein Google, not even under their company name and address. Accessibility to the blind: none. But the website looks pretty...

Flash: just say "no"!

Re:Flash is evil (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473862)

I could misuse images in much the same way.

Re:Why I block some ads (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474186)

... anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something.

Believe me, you're not the only one. That's one of the reason that I browse with the plug-ins disabled. All that's left is animated GIFs and those are less frequent these days, being replaced by Flash ads instead.

Good luck with that (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473686)

I started out just blocking Flash ads and obnoxious (= animated) image ads. I've since graduated to blocking all the ads I can, and using Greasemonkey to remove parts of sites I find objectionable (an iframe here, a div there...).

There will always be a group of us who have discovered the ability to control and customise our web browsing and will not give it up.

Besides, I don't know anyone who actually *likes* ads; at best they tolerate and ignore them.

Obvious conclusion is obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473700)

Uh, maybe it is because Google's ads are text. Most of the ad-blockers are actually image blockers...so, ad blockers don't really have an impact on Google's advertising.

Re:Obvious conclusion is obvious. (1)

Emb3rz (1210286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473990)

Negative! Some very effective ad-blockers work by modifying your computer's DNS entry to a given ad-serving domain so that it will appear as though the server does not exist. This works regardless of what sort of content is being served.

On the general topic at hand: I have found that, while ads are getting creepier as to how much they clearly know about you, they are getting to be more useful to me personally. "Got an iPhone? Like chocolate? Work in IT? Buy our combination iPhone case, chocolate bar, VPN token generator!"

Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473724)

I wouldn't mind them so much if there were at least some standards, like limited to a few per website, nothing annoying, simple text and images, perhaps allowing for moving ads where appropriate and non distracting, also no sound, EVER!

Im also concerned they can contain dodgy code and stuff so only a few reputable company's should serve ads, basically we should be in control of what is acceptable and not the advertisers for once, it's that or we will just have to keep blocking them!

This argument has merit (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473726)

I wouldn't block ads if they weren't everywhere and flash-heavy enough to slow down my browser.

It would also help if ads were a bit more honest. I believe Bill Watterson referred to them as "insidious manipulation of human desires for commercial purposes."

Re:This argument has merit (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474144)

This is generally why I click on ads on Slashdot and no other site. The ads are generally straight forward, not too much Flash and it's for things that interest me.

I have zero interest in punching the monkey or shooting the duck.

The saying goes (1)

MassiveForces (991813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473758)

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer. All this will do is allow chrome to compete against firefox even more and once they reach a dominant market position they will have the power to invent ads that cannot be stopped. Yes, root for the underdog, as long as it stays the underdog.

They're a response to a problem. (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473774)

These companies don't seem to realize that ad blockers came about because the ads themselves because increasingly annoying and intrusive. If advertisers played nice and didn't piss people off (ha, right) then we wouldn't need to use ad blockers just to make our browsing experience pleasant again. I don't know anybody who actually likes ads.

mod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473810)

BSD aadicts, flame First avoid going If you have the same operation MARKET. THEREFORE,

I'm glad Google has such a good sense of humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473846)

hahaha!

whats that? they are being serious? well then allow me to laugh louder!

HAHAHAHAHA!

Ad Types (1)

Foxxxy (217437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473854)

I love the fact that /. allows ads to be disabled. I enable every once and a while and click around just for fun.

What I really dislike are the ads that take up 80% of the screen such as the new CNN ads for Lexus and Mac that expand if you accidentally hover over them and take up the whole screen. The honor system works if you prove that you aren't trying in your face ads. I don't mind the occasional flashing ad in a small section of the screen, chew up my whole screen or have some loud audio and I visit the site a lot less. Show me your product or service and I will make a personal decision. Jam your ad in my face and I won't even take the time to see if you really are 1000 times better than your competition.

I don't use Adblock Plus (4, Interesting)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473858)

Really, I don't. I use NoScript instead, and will add defenses as I see fit.

It isn't so much that I like ads as that I don't mind them as long as they aren't dangerous or obnoxious. (This means that I'm never going to give an ad site clearance in NoScript, for example.) As long as advertisers don't bother me overmuch, I won't worry about them.

Fundamentally, Google's got an idea here. The only question I have is whether the advertisers will, indeed, learn to control themselves and live within this contract. About a third of television shows is ads, and there's plenty of obnoxious ads on the web. Heck, there's plenty of billboards along highways that try to get your attention, and that's potentially lethal. So, I'd bet that there will continue to be a need for ad blockers.

Re:I don't use Adblock Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30474058)

Fundamentally, Google's got an idea here. The only question I have is whether the advertisers will, indeed, learn to control themselves and live within this contract.

Well considering Google's main source of income is GoogleAds, I fairly sure at least one advertiser is trying to control themselves.;)

Ads not acceptable if we pay for bandwidth (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473900)

With the ISP's pushing to get us to pay for every bit of data there is no way I am going to let any page I visit load every element without me giving it permission.

Page text 2k.
Page images 4 x 50k = 200k

Ad to text ratio 100:1. Sorry not a good idea.

Also page rendering time is a function of the size of the page elements. A snappy page usually has very few ad images.

If they can make the ads low bandwidth and not add a load to the page rendering and not annoying people might accept them. The odds of that are very low.

When are ads a good thing? (1)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473918)

In what other medium are the ads actually useful and value added to your experience? Now that I have a DVR that can easily remove the ads actually watching commercial TV is brutally painful. The ads in magazines don't augment the stories at all, they are just the filler that makes the magazine 100 pages instead of 12.

Ads may be a necessary evil for a medium's survival, but that doesn't mean we as consumers like them or appreciate them as Google is asserting. In this day of internet product researching, ads mean less and less to me every year.

Sheldon

Bullshit -- It's an arms race. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30473964)

The ad people will always be pushing to see what they can get away with and the browsers will always play catch-up until there are some fundamental changes to browser and plugin security.

The very next useful ad I see... (4, Insightful)

rshol (746340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30473982)

will be my first. I have seen some entertaining ads (for example during the Super Bowl), but never one I considered useful.

Advertisers (and Content providers) Listen Up (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474006)

Its really very simple.

First, don't interfere with the reason I'm visiting the site in the first place. If I'm trying to read an article, or look up some information, and the mere act of moving my mouse across the page puts some annoying popup in my way, I'll do what I can to block it in the future.

I understand the desire to be noticed on a page, and not blend right in to other navigation or content. That's fine, but massive banners that take more room than the content, or are so obnoxious with animation or sound as to distract me, will make me avoid that site in the future.

Ads, what's the big deal? (1)

Flector (1702640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474086)

I stopped blocking ads quite a while ago, though Flashblock is always on. They just don't bother me all that much and people need to support the ecosystem.

No Flash (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474108)

Ads are generally ok as long as they're not flash. There is nothing worse than a site with a load of god awful Flash ads.

A Brewster's Millions Option! None of the above! (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474158)

Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying

Yeah. Because this has worked REAL well so far.

Never mind the war going on between the crapvertisers and the adblockers.

Never mind the annoying fucking pop-overs.

Never mind the stupid in-video adverts now being used that cover over 1/3 of the content being displayed and don't go away until you click them away.

the company says, and netizens will ultimately realize that online advertising is a good thing.

And I say "Stick to search. When it comes to the psycho-social aspects of the advertising debate, you're just a piker (albeit a big, burly, heavily armed piker, but still a piker) giving tactical and strategic advice to people who know their business better than you do."

Arnie says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30474162)

Cue Schwarzenegger quote: "Wrong!"

Not too surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30474212)

Besides offering better search results, one of the things Google did at the very beginning was to limit the intrusiveness of ads in their search results. They've always recognized that obnoxious ads reflect poorly on them.

Make all popups double click (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474220)

My biggest problems with ads these days (beyond automatic popups, stupid corporate mandated IE6) is less about their visibility and more about just trying to click somewhere on a page when I've been working somewhere else and always having to close the add that pops up. With as slow as the internet gets at times here I don't always even see the add that I just clicked. Make it so they will only popup when you double click and you can put adds where ever you want (so long as they don't block out what I am actually reading on the page). Just my $0.02

haha (1)

pacobahyba (934689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474228)

Ain't that right? I can honestly say that now I've heard everything

Sounds right to me (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 4 years ago | (#30474240)

I don't get why the tags "hahahaha", "whenpigsfly" and "yeahright" are on there.

They're mostly correct.

It's basically an arms race between ad blockers and advertisers. And AdBlockPlus, for one, is faster. So they only option they really have is to make ads that aren't so obnoxious they'll be blocked. ad blockers were created primarily because the ads got incredibly annoying and they're here to stay, so it's either tame the ads or have all ads blocked.

I mean, who bothers to block Google ads? They're usually relevant and never annoying (when compared to animated flash objects with sound at least).

So which ads get seen? The ones that aren't obnoxious. Which ads are the most expensive (and valuable)? Non-obnoxious, relevant ads. Primarily Google's.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>