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!

Fighting Ad Blockers With Captcha Ads

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the buy-this dept.

Advertising 450

krou writes "Living in an ad-free internet thanks to ad blockers? That could be a thing of the past if software firm NuCaptcha has their way by making captchas into ads. 'Instead of the traditional squiggly word that users have to decipher, the new system shows them a video advert with a short message scrolling across it. The user has to identify and retype part of the message to proceed. Companies including Electronic Arts, Wrigley and Disney have already signed up.'"

cancel ×

450 comments

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

I'm not worried. (3, Interesting)

NBolander (1833804) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087356)

Easy. If I really want to use such a site, I'll just enable that add, authorize myself and disable it again. Besides, if it's video it'll most likely be caught in my flash-blocker rather than the ad-blocker.

A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087358)

Yes, this is going to endear me to EA and Disney - basically not only making me wait through an ad, but FORCING me to pay attention to it.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (5, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087406)

You ever watched a Disney DVD or video? Their entire business is based around making you watch ads for their own products.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (2, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087470)

I generally play DVDs with mplayer, which happily skips past all that junk. I've seen a few Disney movies on VHS some years back, but that had rewinding.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087612)

As a kid watching Disney titles (on betamax) I used to enjoy the trailers... even for my favourite video winnie the pooh which I watched over and over again, the trailers were very much part of the experience and I refused to let my dad fast forward through them... funny how things change huh?

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087688)

Ocassionally I do watch trailers, when I'm interested in finding something new to watch. But what I'll do is rewinding a few seconds into it to skip past the titles, take a quick look to see if it looks interesting, if so rewind back, and if not skip to the next one. So an unskippable one would still annoy the heck out of me.

Some ads are indeed a work of art, like the car ad with the rube goldberg machine made from pieces. But I don't remember which company it was for, and don't particularly care about what's it advertising. When I buy a car, I'll still come up with a price I'm willing to pay, the features I need, find every model that matches those requirements then pick something from there.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087598)

And here I thought their business was based on, I don't know, selling those DVDs. :P

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087672)

You ever watched a Disney DVD or video? Their entire business is based around making YOUR KIDS watch ads for their own products.

Fixed that for you.

Kids - the advertiser's force multiplier.

Still, as bad as Disney is, they're not as bad as the low-rent scum like Nickelodeon. Seriously - as kid's TV goes, PBS is tops, Disney is second, everything else is utter crap.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087714)

I've posted this in the past, but a Lifehacker article pointed out that for the majority of DVD discs and players (yes, yes, it doesn't work 100% of the time), you can hit STOP, STOP, PLAY to halt all advertisements and immediately begin the main feature on the disc.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (4, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087408)

It's an appeal to the authoritarian personality [wikipedia.org] . Some people really like being told what to do, and will respect a brand that makes them do uncomfortable things. Hm... or is that called BDSM [wikipedia.org] ? Meh, same difference.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087464)

A lot of people seem to block ads because they're too pushy and annoying. This goes too far. If it was just an image ad, then it wouldn't be so bad. I tend to block ads because they're video (on a largely static site), ugly, offensive, make noise or are otherwise excessively distracting. The site owners might not be in much position to make demands to advertisers, but it seems like they shouldn't be going along with these schemes that really dilute the quality of their content.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (5, Insightful)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087644)

I'm pretty sure I've said this at least one occasion before on /., but it bears repeating.

I wouldn't turn ads off if they weren't so idiotic, invasive, and everywhere.

Half of the websites I use are significantly faster because my browser isn't loading 8 flash instances for one page for all of the ads.

Then there's the ads that try and make themselves look like they're part of the site you're visiting to intentionally bait you into clicking on them.

Why not actually try and sell me shit I might actually want to buy, with tasteful or even funny ads that actually convey something about the product I might be interested in?

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087650)

I block ads because they're in flash and there's a new remote root hole for it every fucking week.

Re:A sure-fire way to make me HATE your product (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087562)

Yes, this is going to endear me to EA and Disney - basically not only making me wait through an ad, but FORCING me to pay attention to it.

What it's going to do is force me to avoid any and all EA & Disney ads (and anyone else who pulls this shit). Pages are chock full of ads, some sites put a paragraph on each page and force users to find it amongst the advertising. I'll skip any site that uses this because there's nothing on the internet I need or want bad enough that I'll be forced to watch their ad and take a test at the end of it. Not gonna happen.

So, what happens to the site.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087370)

after the users abondon the site because of the ridiculous advertisements that disturb their viewing experience?

Yeah, I wouldn't do it.

Shrinking Your Market (5, Insightful)

GDI Lord (988866) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087372)

Hooray for video captcha ads in expensive bandwidth countries!

Re:Shrinking Your Market (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087720)

No amount of free bandwidth will solve the problem that i do NOT want to be forced to watch an ad, and have a pop-quiz about it.

Hell, the interruption of ads on TV is enough to stop me from watching TV as it is, and then i dont have to pay attention

No thanks (5, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087376)

If I see one of these, I think I'll just go somewhere else. It'd have to be something really compelling to make me endure that kind of abuse.

Re:No thanks (4, Interesting)

teslar (706653) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087456)

Really? Even if these captchas actually turn out easier to use than the current ones? I mean no more guesstimating which bit of what overlapping miscoloured squiggles belong to which potential letters (and is that a 1 or an l? O or 0?), just a quick message and an easily identifiable word within it.

Or, to rephrase the question: would you oppose the system if it wasn't about ads but just another innovation in captchas? Assuming, of course, that this innovation does actually make captchas less of a hassle. Just sayin' that this isn't necessarily bad and you might find that the benefits outweigh the agony of having to listen to an ad message (is that really so bad?).

Personally though, I don't think it's going to work, neither as an ad nor as a captcha. If it's based on videos with meaningful messages (ads!), the possibilities for remixing and regenerating random captchas is going to be severely limited. Which means it will take no time at all until someone has built a plugin that builds a database of these and simply looks up the correct answer in the background.

Re:No thanks (4, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087502)

Really? Even if these captchas actually turn out easier to use than the current ones? I mean no more guesstimating which bit of what overlapping miscoloured squiggles belong to which potential letters (and is that a 1 or an l? O or 0?), just a quick message and an easily identifiable word within it.

Really.

Or, to rephrase the question: would you oppose the system if it wasn't about ads but just another innovation in captchas? Assuming, of course, that this innovation does actually make captchas less of a hassle. Just sayin' that this isn't necessarily bad and you might find that the benefits outweigh the agony of having to listen to an ad message (is that really so bad?).

Probably not. It's the advertising angle that's offensive.

Also, normal use of captchas works to my advantage, like helping ensure every third comment isn't an ad for Viagra. That I can cooperate with.

Re:No thanks (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087530)

Or, to rephrase the question: would you oppose the system if it wasn't about ads but just another innovation in captchas?.

lol. Video that I probably can't see without a working plug-in (and don't tell me "It's flash," that's why I don't have much luck with YouTube ... yay for HTML5). On my flaky high-bandwidth connection that can barely chug down a YouTube video.

Re:No thanks (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087582)

Really? Even if these captchas actually turn out easier to use than the current ones? I mean no more guesstimating which bit of what overlapping miscoloured squiggles belong to which potential letters (and is that a 1 or an l? O or 0?), just a quick message and an easily identifiable word within it.

Yes, really. How long do think it's gonna be before they make it hard to get the right answer to force you to watch it again (or a different one).

Re:No thanks (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087664)

This has nothing to do with captchas. It is not intended to replace (or augment) the way that captchas are used. The sole purpose of this new technique is to force you to watch the ad in order to procedd to the website (as opposed to what I do now which is click on another tab until the ad is done).

Re:No thanks (2, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087726)

just a quick message and an easily identifiable word within it.

Who said anything about quick? 5 second ad, maybe I would tolerate it. But I imagine initially they will be short but progressively lengthen as people get use to them to epic advertising miniseries where the ad is longer then the video you wanted to watch.

Re:No thanks (1)

theskipper (461997) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087546)

If it's a preview ad or any other marketing crap that makes you wait, absolutely. But I like their "basic" captcha (http://www.nucaptcha.com/products/basic). Even if it had a Coke can in the background.

I'm sick and tired of squinting and trying to figure out whether it's an 'n' or an 'r' merged into the next letter. All on a lovely hatched background. The basic examples show clearly recognizable text where the obfuscation is done through movement and selecting the word by color.

Of course the other factors are increased aggregate data use, slower connections, eventually defeated, etc. And hopefully they can integrate some "good" into it like recaptcha does.

Re:No thanks (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087708)

Some frames of the basic captcha looked ridiculously easy to OCR, to my eye at least (letters were cleanly separable).

Re:No thanks (2, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087716)

It'd have to be something really compelling to make me endure that kind of abuse.

You mean, like ... porn?

Proxy? (1)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087378)

If using adblocking software is the only way that people keep their web interface clear of bandwidth stealing ads, then they might have a small problem. Using a proxy and completely blocking the entire ad domain is a great solution, and easy for the average user to do.

Re:Proxy? (3, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087626)

The "Average User" dose not even know how to not click ok every time it pops up.

ads don't make you buy stuff... (3, Interesting)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087380)

...your lack of self-control, willpower, and independent thought makes you buy stuff after seeing an ad.

And because adverts essentially prey on weakness and are almost universally designed to mislead, it is quite simple to set your policy to being discouraged by any ad you see from purchasing from the sponsor.

So, it's advert blocking all the way, and anything which manages to slip through is avoided with extreme prejudice.

Also, don't forget that the real word in recaptcha is always "faeces". Stop doing free work for the biggest polluter of the Internet with adverts.

Re:ads don't make you buy stuff... (5, Insightful)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087580)

Ads mostly exist to put their brand name in front of your eyeballs.

Later on, when you're out buying some stuff, you need some $foo. You see two packages, brand X and brand Y. You have seen X before, but Y is entirely unfamiliar to you. So you buy X. What you don't remember at the moment is that only reason why X is familiar is because you've seen it in ads.

Re:ads don't make you buy stuff... (1)

gomiam (587421) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087590)

Interesting but entirely offtopic. We are not discussing whether ads make you buy or not, but whether we want to see ads or not. It can be the best ad in the world, it can be the best product in the world, but if I don't want to see ads, I don't want to see ads. In my case, because I want to decide how I spend/waste my time, and ads are no it.

This is just another trend in ad-blocking blocking. I have already seen a few webs where the important text is enclosed in DIVs and the like so it won't show up if you are using an ad blocker (basically, they fool the browser into thinking everything is an ad). Their loss: they aren't providing anything that I can't get in tens of other websites.

Re:ads don't make you buy stuff... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087634)

>> and are almost universally designed to mislead

Well the laugh is on you buddy, because I just bought a six-pack of Bud Light, and any minute now a bikini-clad model is going to show up at my house to have baby oil rubbed all over her chest.

Re:ads don't make you buy stuff... (5, Insightful)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087636)

ads don't make you buy stuff...your lack of self-control, willpower, and independent thought makes you buy stuff

It's not that simple. It has been scientifically proven that when seeing certain ads multiple times, even not consciously, can result in people having a positive opinion on a product. They forget the source of their opinion is actually an advertisement.

At first, I used ad blockers because of their distraction. Now, I use them mainly because I don't want marketeers pilfering in my mind.

Source: Hawks in sheep's clothing [psychologytoday.com] .

Re:ads don't make you buy stuff... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087674)

You are just providing evidence for my assertion: humans lack the ability of truly independent thought. The brain is just another biological organ, and we should have grown out of the two century-old (two millennia, if look beyond the dark ages) philosophical and quasi-religious fantasy of the perfect rational human mind to justify psychological abuses and simplistic rights/responsibility arguments.

Re:ads don't make you buy stuff... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087706)

Advertisers are more subtle than you give them credit for. There is currently a slow shift in progress towards product placement and astroturfing, and it's not all in obvious places. If you don't even know you are being advertised to, you won't have much of a psychological defence.

fine (2, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087382)

If a site is too obnoxious, i will just avoid it completely.

Re:fine (2, Informative)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087746)

If a site is too obnoxious, i will just avoid it completely.

They might be perfectly happy with that. A user who uses resources (bandwidth) without providing income (ad/payment) may be one they don't really care about losing.

I've built a couple of websites that block ad-blocking users. They are comparatively low volume, and low profile unless you are working in the specialised area. They are however in fields where advertising is comparatively profitable. It would be much easier to get past my method than a proper captcha system like this, fortunately the low profile has stopped anyone putting a work around out there.

If we are reading... (2, Insightful)

Johnny Fusion (658094) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087384)

If we are reading scrolling text, would we then be paying attention to the ad's content? This seems less like a way for users to see advertising content and more an exercise in dickery. I am finding more and more content behind 30 second video ads. My current behavior is just go read something in another tab and come back to it after the ad is done. My prediction? Captcha ads will tank site readership. Seriously there is nothing I can think of on a chewing gum site that would require me to answer a pop quiz to view.

Re:If we are reading... (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087498)

If the scrolling text is also an advertisement then you are still advertised at.

Gee. Another website I can live without (3, Interesting)

The Optimizer (14168) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087392)

My response will be simple.

Here's another website I can live without. There are very, very few site I frequent that I honestly need (my webmail, and... and... I'll think of something).

Seriously, I would expect these to be traffic killers.

Re:Gee. Another website I can live without (1, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087490)

I have the same reaction to those ads that underline random words with some JavaScript stuff. I avoid The Inquirer and Phoronix because they use this form of advertising. The Inquirer used to be one of my news feeds, so they'd get me reading half a dozen or so articles a day. Putting in these ads made me delete them and I've not visited the site since then.

I probably wouldn't mind if they'd highlight relevant words, but when they're making things like 'software' and 'smartphone' the context words for ads, it's just silly. These sites get a line in my user CSS file so any link to them has a warning appended telling me that I will be irritated by ads if I click on them. Usually, this makes me just skip over them and not click.

Oh well... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087394)

EA and Disney have already been on my "No Buy" list for several years. I'll just add any site using this bletcherous garbage to my "No visit" list as well.

I get a headache thinking of it (1)

Knee Socks (1600375) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087396)

What a great way to dissuade people from participating in - or signing up for - anything at all.

They want me on their site right? (2, Insightful)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087398)

The quickest way to get me off your site/article is by making me watch an ad before the video starts. I don't like watching videos when I could just read an article in general, but something occasionally seems interesting enough that I click play. As soon as I see the 'your video will begin in 15 seconds' or hear some ad start, I close the tab and move on. I understand that ads are needed for some sites to generate revenue, but you've got my attention for _seconds_ so when I have to spend any length of that time watching a commercial I just move on.

Too many moving parts. (2, Informative)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087400)

This will backfire. Too many moving parts to do it's functional job effectively. If a video captcha was a good solution it would already be in use. Making the video an advert won't help. It probably won't hurt but that's beside the point. People will try a few times then give up and start complaining. Captchas are annoying enough already.

Re:Too many moving parts. (1)

lvangool (1393983) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087450)

If [...] was a good solution it would already be in use.

Now hold on...no wait, never mind my work here is done.

Spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087412)

Cheeky...

Would this be any more difficult to break than picture capchas?

this makes me laugh (0, Redundant)

ckeo (220727) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087414)

Sites that force me into ads also force me to never visit them again. Usually sites like that have nothing that interests me anyway.

why bother (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087426)

You can bet the people that figure out how to block ads, will figure a way around this. Either that, or just don't go to the sites, figure out if they have an FTP server if you need to download something, and download it the old fashion way.

Mandatory Ad Viewing Act of 2010 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087434)

I'm certain, if you legally force people to view your ads, they sure will.

Hello, I am now aware of your $PRODUCT_X (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087438)

But since I will associate $PRODUCT_X with an abusive pointless waste of my time, instead of merely ignoring $PRODUCT_X, I shall be sure to actively avoid paying for it, ever, and I shall recommend said boycott to all my friends and acquaintances. Congratulations, your marketing campaign for $PRODUCT_X has now gone viral.

To everyone posting "We'll go elsewhere" (3, Insightful)

edremy (36408) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087440)

Guess what. They don't care. The sort of folks who obsessively block ads aren't good customers anyway, and they aren't interested in random traffic, they are only interested in traffic from potential consumers.

Re:To everyone posting "We'll go elsewhere" (2, Insightful)

black_lbi (1107229) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087608)

They don't care. The sort of folks who obsessively block ads aren't good customers anyway

Apparently they do care, or else they wouldn't be interested in unblockable ads, would they?

Re:To everyone posting "We'll go elsewhere" (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087610)

Actually, I would think that the people who block ads are the best customers, because they care about quality and details. They're not morons, they' know what they want, and if they dont, they will research it. They are generally the best, most informed shoppers because they are not interested in being told what they want, but instead are interested in buying what they want.

So they buy things with intent, often early adopters, tech geeks, people who are into the new....

People who block ads are going to be generally smarter people, and smarter people have money... and they spend it.

Sounds great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087442)

The user has to identify and retype part of the message to proceed.

Fantastic. They give you the option to turn around and say "I'll take my business elsewhere". I can't tell how many clever marketing people have lost my business because they decided to insist on using Flash on their site.

It's their loss although it probably doesn't matter to them, but it does feel good to vote with your $$$...

goes against basic ad psychology (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087448)

an advertisement is essentially a form of seduction. that's why sex figures so large in advertising. you are trying to entice someone into buying your product, to woo them to come hither

so when you intrusively force someone to view your ad, you've just completely destroyed the psychology of what makes any advertisement work

you have in fact performed a pavlovian experiment: you've force someone into an unpleasant experience, then associated that unpleasant experience with your brand name. much as with pavlov's dogs who started salivating whenever they heard a bell because you always played a bell before feeding them, forced viewing associates the unpleasurable feeling of coercion with your brand name and products

so all these idiots have done is perfected the art of anti-advertising, of driving people away from your product

just make the ad nonintrusive, and anyone who is predisposed to your product might click. that's the best you can do. anything more intrusive simply destroys your brand name with the pavlovian association as described above

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087484)

I also hear that not using capitalization and forsaking periods is a great way to seduce people, too!

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (4, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087486)

So you're saying that this is more like rape than like seduction?

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087654)

mind rape is only possible by flayers, illithids, and other cthulhoid psionic creatures. although i would not be surprised to walk into an advertising executive suite and see a davy jones style squidface in a three piece suit behind the desk

in fact, i believe this is the surprise ending of this season's Mad Men: Don Draper is in his office with his back to the camera, embracing a woman, and he quarter turns to reveal a cephalopod-like head with octopus tentacles emanating from where his jawline should be reaching down and wrapping around the woman's throat. quick cut to black, season ending, much speculation all summer about the next season of Mad Men

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087722)

...ow! Stop doing that to my eyeballs!

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087600)

That is exactly what happened to me, several years ago, with anything associated with "X-10". Back in the prehistoric days (pre-Firefox, pre-Pentium 3) they were the WORST with those absolutely infuriating pop-under windows!

They poisoned me to their product pretty much for good... that's how badly that annoyed me. This forced-view of ads as Captcha will simply cause me to close the site and look elsewhere.

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087620)

I've never jerked off to a mcdonalds ad.... well once i did.. but I couldnt resist.

Re:goes against basic ad psychology (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087676)

an advertisement is essentially a form of seduction.

No, it's not. Ads are so you see and hear the product so next time you have a choice you will choose the one that you know. That's why there is no such thing as bad publicity and that's why the companies are paying for ads online, even if only 1% of the site visitors really click on that ad. That's why in the TV they always try to interrupt your show and that's why there are so many banners in car racing, which are only the company name.

Oh do stop complaining (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087454)

Its about time that a lot of people on slashdot realised that money doesn't grow on trees and what they enjoy on the net eventually has to be paid for by someone. If putting up with a short advert means I can continue to enjoy a lot of free sites then thats fine by me and I suspect a lot of other people.

Re:Oh do stop complaining (4, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087506)

It sounds like you're assuming everyone here blocks every ad they come across. I respect that the people running sites I enjoy visiting want/need to turn a profit but I want those sites to respect me as well. Some ads are so obnoxious they overshadow the very content that got me to the site in the first place and those are the ones I block.

Re:Oh do stop complaining (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087712)

It sounds like you're assuming everyone here blocks every ad they come across.

Whenever debates over Firefox vs Chrome vs Safari vs Opera come up on slashdot, there is always an explosion of posts about how they will never switch from Firefox until Adblock Plus or an alternative works well with any of the other browsers.

This leads me to believe that A LOT of slashdot users want to block every single advertisement. The figure certainly isn't 100% of slashdotters, but its almost certainly closer to 100% than it is to 0%.

Re:Oh do stop complaining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087528)

Hey I pay for my internet access, what about you? And of course money doesn't grow on trees, do you think people here don't realize that? Just because you put up an ad on your website, does not mean I should be compelled to look at it. Sorry, I paid for my side of the connection and if I don't want to see your ads, so be it. What next, should be glue people to their couches so they are compelled to watch ads on TV? Not allow them to change the channel during a commercial? I guess you would prefer that because "money doesn't grow on trees." While we are at it, why don't we just allow websites to charge your credit card automatically...surely you'd have no problems with that, right?

Re:Oh do stop complaining (1)

cmdahler (1428601) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087684)

That's absurd. You paid for your access to the internet, not access to that particular site's content. Do you seriously think any website out there gets any of your internet access fee money? Just as with free television content on the big network channels, someone somewhere has to pay for all that content you're watching. Your choice is simple: either pay the site directly via credit-card access to their content, or put up with the ads that are financially supporting your ability to view that site without any additional payment on your part.

Re:Oh do stop complaining (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087604)

It's about time that people on slashdot realized that we are not sheep to be fleeced and slaughtered by corporate overlords.

"Respect" is a two way street and usually starts by the corporate overlord not being an abusive jerk to begin with.

Commercial blocking techniques usually start and gain popularity because of advertisers being abusive jerks.

Re:Oh do stop complaining (5, Insightful)

Announcer (816755) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087618)

A *SHORT* Advert, meaning what?

A static image. A basic block of text. These will not be blocked by me. Jumping things. Blinking things. Moving things. Things that BLOCK the site I'm trying to read... those will go into the bit-bucket EVERY time.

Static images and blocks of text have actually led me to click them. Score 1 for tasteful advertisements.

Re:Oh do stop complaining (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087658)

If you want me to give you money, cut out the ads. If you're ad-supported, then expect me to use every trick in the book to avoid them. Unless, of course, there's actually some quality content and the ads really don't get in my way at all.

The same applies here as to TV - if I'm *PAYING* for a specific channel, I don't expect to ever see an ad. If, however, it's free, I expect to see ads but I don't expect to be forced to watch them... I'm quite happy to set a DVR to ignore them or the much simpler method of just walking out of the room while the ads are on. I'd be happier without any free channels at all than being forced to watch the ads.

Ad-supported newspapers don't send you a paper through your door and then not let you see the news until you can prove you read the ads.

If you're ad-supported, that means you're reliant on your REPUTATION to bring in the money. Without reputation, you have no page visitors. Without visitors, your ad-space is worthless. I happily read, EVERY SINGLE WORKING DAY, an ad-supported totally free newspaper that's given out to every Londoner. I happily read several free local papers that may be sponsored by the local council but make more money from classifieds. I do NOT expect to be forced to read the ads in order to do that and if the paper can't make money - that's THEIR problem, not mine. My news coverage won't suffer. As it happens, the "free" newspaper is infinitely better, with better journalism, more science-y stuff, more independence and less crap than the other, quite expensive, newspapers (some of which have just paywalled their site and thus instantly removed their content and ads from my eyeballs). Thus the quality papers (free or not) that aren't obnoxious get my eyeballs and I don't go out of my way to avoid their ads.

But if you're ad-supported, you KNOW this, and whinging about users who don't see your ads is as ridiculous as banning any user who doesn't buy at least one items from the ads each year. I have no qualms about paying for things, but I also have no qualms about some outfit producing enough quality content that I get stuff for free. If they can't produce quality content, if their users all block their ads because they are obnoxious, distracting, irrelevant, too prevelant, enforced and/or just because internet advertising is like a virus on their computer (executing things they wouldn't normally allow them to execute, e.g. Java / Flash ads) - well, that's tough. I'd love to make a living from ad-sponsored bungee jumps but, you know what, it's unlikely that I ever could.

It's like complaining that the local free newspaper journalists can't make a living. It's sad, but tough. I'm not their income, their advertisers are. If they want advertisers, they need my eyeballs. If they want my eyeballs, they better make something worth reading and not put me off reading them / supporting their company.

The free things work because they can produce VALUE for money. Even the pay things work on the same basis. And to me, good content for free is infinitely more valuable than bad content for free or any content for money. It's as ridiculous as saying that you can't use Linux unless you have a line of code in the kernel - yeah, someone has given their work for free but, you know what, I didn't make them do that even if I'm very grateful when they do produce a high-quality product.

Anyone got a list of sites signing up for this? (4, Insightful)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087468)

I'll add them to my list of "websites I will never visit, places I will never buy anything from", it's a steadily growing list.

When mega rich multinational megacorps stop STEALING ALL MY BANDWIDTH then maybe I'll think about buying their product.

MAYBE.

Actively going out of your way to piss off your customers is NOT a good business model - one day you will learn.

Re:Anyone got a list of sites signing up for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087570)

www.slashdot.org is one of them. add them now!

lolwut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087474)

Caprica ads? How bout sending them some Apples?

It seems like a good way (1)

lahvak (69490) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087476)

to drive people away from your website.

Accessibility? (5, Insightful)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087496)

How exactly are vision-impaired visitors supposed to read this scrolling message?

Re:Accessibility? (1)

adamjcoon (1583361) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087692)

They will need an audio only button that reads the entire advert to them, including the captcha. However, since the captcha is layered on top of the video, it will also be a second layer of audio on top of the advert's audio, leading vision-impaired visitors just as pissed as the rest of us.

Re:Accessibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087704)

It will sing a show tune made up around the word as well

my word after clicking preview: ironies

(no - really...)

Squeezing the Balloon on Ad Views (1)

syntap (242090) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087510)

Do any owners (as in humans) of sites signing up for this personally use Web browsers to consume news and other data? Forcing acknowledgment of an ad view may increase the views per site visitor, but the number of site visitors is going to plummet. It is almost as bad as a paywall, and we have already seen how well that is working out for content owners.

blind people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087518)

I'll just block their video ads and use the system that they put in place for disabled users to satisfy their legal accessibility obligations.....

That's a GIF (1)

Rikiji7 (1182159) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087526)

not a video.

I'm fine with ads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087534)

Really, i am, i don't mind ads in the slightest. I have found some very useful things online through advertising. From some of my most used programs to games.

I don't know why people give a damn so much about "their precious privacy". You're on the internet, run by a company that has loads of information on you, living in a world that has loads of other companies that have more information on you than YOU yourself do. Grow up. Seriously.
It's not like it is hard to erase cookies anyway, so why do you care so much when chances are you almost certainly have a dynamic IP anyway?
I'm pretty sure your family doesn't care about your fetish for girls in army costumes, or hairy guys, or whatever other fetishes you have. It is called being mature adults, we all have fetishes, big or small. Stop being so anal.

The only ads that i block come under the following categories:
pop-anything. including popups, popunders, inline overlays
Flash that is extremely resource intense. (which is pretty simple to do)
Flash anything that autoplays, especially when IT HAS AUDIO. NO, I WILL NOT SAY SOMETHING YOU STUPID SMILEY!
Direct video (rarer these days) or audio.
Video that is more than 10 seconds long. I'm fine watching your ad, but if you don't get your point to me within that 10 seconds, i already don't care because i want to get to the content i was looking for.
Animated GIFs that have a frame-rate over 0.5-1 for most of the image where said frames are overly-contrasting. (>50%)
JAVA! Yes, i shit you not. I have seen a Java advertisement once... Java is fine, but not as an advertising platform... JavaSCRIPT on the other hand.
Anything that has ever stolen focus from the website. (in fact, generally any website that is like this i usually block)

Anything that falls under those categories is permablocked for a year. Then i will review them again. If they have changed their ways, they get whitelisted.

Wow, even more crap that requires flash? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087548)

There are enough sites that obnoxiously require flash to find the most benign content. I generally make it a practice to avoid those sites, and now I'll be avoiding these ones as well.

Re:Wow, even more crap that requires flash? (4, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087632)

"You need the latest version of Flash to view this captcha, to sign up for our website, to register your product, to download the update, to fix the problem that we shipped it with. Please download and run this executable now."

Checkmate in 5 moves! (1)

anomaly0617 (752182) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087564)

What a GREAT idea. Am I the only chess player here that can see the next moves clearly before they happen? It'll go something like this: 1. CAPTCHA-enabled ads force you to type something to continue 2. Some honest-yet-enterprising programmer that wants to make a little cash will (finally) write a program to recognize CAPTCHAs reliably. 3a. He'll make approximately $5 before some other arsehole copies his work and releases a free version, -or- 3b. He'll make approximately $5 before some other arsehole cracks his program and releases the crack on BitTorrent 4. Due to the above copy/crack, spammers previously stopped by CAPTCHAs (you know, all 3 of them) will use his programming to bypass existing CAPTCHAs 5. Final result: more spam. Thanks, NuCaptcha and Disney. We love you too.

Stupid move (2, Informative)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087566)

If the owners of a website are willing to get paid for using a CAPTCHA system, then I guess they're also willing to lose most of their users because of it.

There are other methods [xkcd.org] to keep your website clean.

Prevalence (1)

pipboy9999 (1088005) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087572)

I can count on zero (0) hands how many times I have been to those three sites in the last five years, and I can count on one hand the number of Captchas I have been forced to interact with in the last month. I get the feeling that most of the sites I visit, and would expect to see a captcha at, aren't going to want to use such an off-putting system. The sites that I really care about blocking ads on are sites that I hardly visit.

When encountering a new site I usually block the most annoying ads and leave the static image and less annoying ads alone. It is only when a site gets douchey with its advertising that I start to block entire domains. If EA, Wrigley and Disney (and almost all other big-name company sites) could provide a less annoying advertisment experiance on their sites I would not feel compelled to block all ads.

Why bother? (2, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087574)

At that point, why not just go ahead and use a paywall?

Anything so interesting that I'm willing to spend my attention span deactivating the advertisement filter (hint: not much, with so many free alternatives for content) and paying attention would probably be worth paying to see. And any payment I'm willing to make, no matter how small, is likely to exceed the pittance a single ad impression (even a verified one) is worth.

What about 56k? (3, Insightful)

apn_k (938000) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087576)

Are they are forgetting that there are still people out there stuck on dialup?

NoScript plugin Blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087578)

Between not allowing JavaScript for unwanted domains, running an AdBlocker and blocking 3rd party cookies, I haven't seen an ad ... except from sites that I support .... in years. AdBlockPlus let's you allow ads from specific sites, so they can earn the revenue and stay up.

Sites that I let show ads?
- /.
- Lifehacker
- TomsHardware
- HowToForge

Sites with obnoxious ads that will never be shown
- LinuxToday (all Microsoft ads)

ad-blockers that register a click (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087592)

Maybe we should add an option to Ad-Block to register a click randomly on one of the ads that was blocked, when it's been "on screen" for several seconds, one ad one time per page load.

Intrusive ads.. (2, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087614)

I block video ads because the ones that make sound are far too intrusive (and hard to track down if you have lots of tabs open) and pop-up ads...

I don't really mind small graphical or text based ads, and still have ads on slashdot despite being given the option to turn them off.

The more intrusive ads become, the more likely i am to block them and avoid the sites which show them.

I especially hate the video ads that are on failblog these days, they force you to sit through the same advertisement for every video you watch, and the ads are full videos 30 seconds to a minute in length wasting your bandwidth and quite often are for a product not even being sold here.

Toxic Advertising (4, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087624)

Seriously, who is not getting this message? Why do ad-blockers exist at all?

How about finding a new revenue stream that doesn't annoy me to the point where I get off my ass and do something about it!

Good luck with that (3, Informative)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087646)

My general rule is that if I have to take my hand off the mouse to view your content, I'm going elsewhere. I'll even put up with short interstitials, but I don't do quizzes.

They seem to be missing the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34087666)

It's funny they think Captcha is dead and don't think they're tech will fall prey from the same. And I love the word information theif, great jobs villianize the customer, what happens when the customer realizes they don't need you?

Brand name association with unpleasent (1, Redundant)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087680)

Ahh, nothing like associating your company's brand name with the unpleasant task of having to watch something, spot the captcha keyword and type it.

They've even went to the point of getting people to activelly participate in the event thus enhancing the effectiveness of the conditioning.

The genious of promoting a brand by creating negative Pavlovian associations to that brand's name is beyond my understanding ...

Just use their accessibility features? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087734)

Thanks to the ADA, it's illegal to make a website that does not make reasonable accomadations for the blind, so there should always be some accessible equivalent to the Captcha image that does not require seeing a video or security Captcha muddled with an advertisement.

I think something was lost in translation (2, Funny)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 2 years ago | (#34087738)

I don't think that the intent is to make you watch a video ad. I think what they want to do is make you get past a video captcha to prove you're not a bot. Then, the website owner can be assured that his content is being viewed only by humans and not stolen by bots.

Something like this would be useful for TicketMaster and Orbitz. They could better protect their valuable content.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>