Never see a YouTube commercial again

137 replies
So are you using AdBlock Plus yet?

I've been using it in Chrome for a month now

I had heard about apps like this, but have never bothered to install it. I don't know why it took me so long to try it.

It's freaking amazing.

I haven't sat through one of those annoying YouTube video ads in a month.

Pretty sure Google/YouTube is losing thousands (millions?) a day because of extensions like this.

Turns off adsense too.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, I feel kinda bad because the people who aren't getting paid are the YouTube video stars and the niche site owners -- who are often struggling anyway.

On the other hand, I really hate YouTube ads....

Thoughts?
#commercial #youtube
  • Profile picture of the author Vince1990
    It's just part of the ever changing part of the internet. Hey the way I used to make money online doesn't work anymore cause everyone's on mobile phones.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7723847].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CyberAlien
      Originally Posted by Vince1990 View Post

      Hey the way I used to make money online doesn't work anymore cause everyone's on mobile phones.
      And it's only going to get worse
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724085].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ChrisMoon
    Everything changes we need to go with the flow or drown
    Signature

    GreyGable

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724075].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724402].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
    As an internet marketer and product creator I am totally against using ad-blocking systems and I take measures to block visitors who try to access my sites with an ad-blocker. It is against the "terms of use" of my websites and I believe no commercial site owner would or should allow this type of access. We are not running a charity here, we are running a business. If they want to see my content, they can't do that changing the elements on my site. They don't like seeing ads? Fine they can just ignore them or send me feedback about them. Or simply they do not visit my site.

    I really can't understand how an internet marketer could support the use of ad-blocking systems. Maybe you are running a Wikipedia-like site that survives with the donations. I also don't understand how Google allows such blockers to be listed in its extension store. How happy would Google be if everyone on the planet blocked their ads? This is like "cutting off the branch you are sitting on".

    An ad-free Internet... Wouldn't it be wonderful? Hell yes, but do you really think there will be an Internet then?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

      As an internet marketer and product creator I am totally against using ad-blocking systems and I take measures to block visitors who try to access my sites with an ad-blocker. ...If they want to access to my content, they can't do that changing the elements on my site. They don't like seeing ads? Fine they can just ignore them or send me feedback about them. Or simply they do not visit my site.
      I live in the country and have slower bandwidth. The WF would barely load due to the Hello Bar that is used. Many sites have up to 30 or so ad scripts running. I use Ghostery to block most of it.

      As for not accessing a site because I use Ghostery, who cares? Information is everywhere and if you can't get it at one place, you get at another. I understand people wanting their ads to show, but so many webpages are little more than a page to place as many ads on as possible and really aren't worth the hassle of visiting with that kind of overload.

      Here's a simple news page and here's what Ghostery blocked, including ads and trackers that track your behavior. Pretty ridiculous. Over 30 scripts to sell and track me.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724624].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
        Not replying personally, but replying to all those who support the use of ad-blockers:

        If I don't like how a product works, I don't modify it before buying it, I simply do not buy it. Not only because I can't modify it but also I shouldn't do that.

        Don't like how a website behaves? Don't visit.

        "I wrote a script that blocks banners and signatures on WarriorForum and I will share it with all users." How would you feel about that? Certainly, we are not contributing here just for the sake of displaying our signature but it is an important factor that without it, there wouldn't be this much contribution on this forum.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724644].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

          If I don't like how a product works, I don't modify it before buying it, I simply do not buy it. Not only because I can't modify it but also I shouldn't do that.

          Don't like how a website behaves? Don't visit.
          Trust me, I don't. But you never know beforehand unless you're psychic, do you? ... and putting TOS of who can visit your site and who can't other than age for content that is inappropriate for young people is pretty futile, since you can't enforce it unless you go to the trouble to install a blocking thingy that blocks anyone with ad blockers. Even for the age thing for inappropriate content, it can't really be enforced. All you have to do is check, Yeah, I'm 18 and you're in.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724657].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author latestnewsheadline
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

          Don't like how a website behaves? Don't visit.
          It happens to visit a site from the google search page.
          I'm not magician to know the website behaves before I visit it for the first time.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725253].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
            Originally Posted by latestnewsheadline View Post

            It happens to visit a site from the google search page.
            I'm not magician to know the website behaves before I visit it for the first time.
            Of course I didn't mean that. You land on a website and if you don't like it because of ads it displays, you don't visit it again, that's what I meant. You don't have the right to modify a website as you wish while taking advantage of its content. It doesn't matter if you won't click ads in a million years, it is not about your clicking on ads, it is about how you are accessing that website.

            When I land on a website that annoys me for any reason, including ads, I simply click the close button for that tab. I don't continue browsing a web page violating the rights of the webmasters and modifying their sites in a way such as using ad blockers.

            Anyway, no point in continuing this discussion. Everyone is free to do as they wish, I just expressed what I think about this. It seems my reasoning doesn't make sense to some people, and your reasoning doesn't make sense to me either. Good luck with your ad-free Internet. I don't see it becoming real though because either we will have no Internet or we will have Internet with ads.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725495].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sunray
              Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

              Of course I didn't mean that. You land on a website and if you don't like it because of ads it displays, you don't visit it again, that's what I meant. You don't have the right to modify a website as you wish while taking advantage of its content. It doesn't matter if you won't click ads in a million years, it is not about your clicking on ads, it is about how you are accessing that website.
              Computers do not access websites, computers access data. Furthermore, your website is not built as one file like PDF-s are. It's you who offer your visitors a bundle of files, all separate. Your web server is there to serv visitors who send in queries: send me this html file, then this css design file, then this and that jpg files. It's totally up to the visitor what files he demands to be sent.

              Selective download was there long before advertising counquered the Internet. Browsers in the nineties had special "Image" button. If you sat on slow dial-up (like most people did at the time), you could set the program to NOT download any time consuming images, and only when you thought you need the images, you'd click on the beforementioned button, and the images started to appear. This is why we still have the image ALT tag - it dates back to the time when images were not always downloaded, and people just read the text that stood at the places where the images were meant to stand. The same reason why html lets you enter the dimensions of an image. If the image gets downloaded, these are not necessary at all. But, if not, you'd run into layout problems.
              Signature

              Use these laws and make the Law of Attraction work
              QuantumMindSuccess Learn how to live a happy, healthy and abundant life.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725724].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author moneygoose
              Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

              You don't have the right to modify a website as you wish while taking advantage of its content.
              Blocking something from being downloaded to and displayed upon your computer does not equal modifying someone's website. Your website exists just the same. The owner of the computer gets to decide what is displayed. It's very simple.

              Just like I can block any traffic I choose with my router. I can block any kind of images from loading in several different ways. I can block any and all scripts from running.

              Blocking images, scripts, etc is basic functionality in any web browser.

              I can go into my Hosts file and block the addresses of all the Ad Networks with just a text editor. That's pretty old school and doesn't require any add-ons.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7726986].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CBusiness
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        I live in the country and have slower bandwidth. The WF would barely load due to the Hello Bar that is used. Many sites have up to 30 or so ad scripts running. I use Ghostery to block most of it.

        As for not accessing a site because I use Ghostery, who cares? Information is everywhere and if you can't get it at one place, you get at another. I understand people wanting their ads to show, but so many webpages are little more than a page to place as many ads on as possible and really aren't worth the hassle of visiting with that kind of overload.

        Here's a simple news page and here's what Ghostery blocked, including ads and trackers that track your behavior. Pretty ridiculous. Over 30 scripts to sell and track me.


        agree wholly. Try logging on MSN.com , probably worse
        Signature
        Buy YouTube Views, No Way! ! ! Force Youtube Videos To Go Viral. Contact Me For eBook or check my WSO
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796129].message }}
    • Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

      As an internet marketer and product creator I am totally against using ad-blocking systems and I take measures to block visitors who try to access my sites with an ad-blocker. It is against the "terms of use" of my websites and I believe no commercial site owner would or should allow this type of access. We are not running a charity here, we are running a business. If they want to see my content, they can't do that changing the elements on my site. They don't like seeing ads? Fine they can just ignore them or send me feedback about them. Or simply they do not visit my site.

      I really can't understand how an internet marketer could support the use of ad-blocking systems. Maybe you are running a Wikipedia-like site that survives with the donations. I also don't understand how Google allows such blockers to be listed in its extension store. How happy would Google be if everyone on the planet blocked their ads? This is like "cutting off the branch you are sitting on".

      An ad-free Internet... Wouldn't it be wonderful? Hell yes, but do you really think there will be an Internet then?
      I agree. One example is when people who sell tell me how they hate sales people selling them.
      Signature
      soon people... Relax...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lulu Chil
    I have been using it for months and love it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Curtis2011
    I have used Adblock for years. I've also made money with Adsense for years.

    Hypocritical? Hardly. The type of person who is smart enough to utilize Adblock would probably never click on an Adsense ad anyways.

    Just because a website owner has placed free-to-view content out there, does not entitle them to ad revenue from it. They built the website with full knowledge that only a tiny fraction of total visitors will ever click on an advertisement. And even when considering ads that pay for pageviews, it is still just another cost of doing business that the website owner has to deal with that some of his users won't view the ads and won't add to the pageviews.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724663].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
      No webmaster (including me) expects all their visitors to check ads, click them or buy the advertised stuff. Also, no webmaster should run a website just for earning money from ads. If that's the only goal, that website does not survive for long.

      The idea I can't accept is that some people think that they have the right to disable ads on a website and view the content as they wish. I am sorry, they don't.

      Originally Posted by thatkeywordguy View Post

      I'm pretty surprised Google hasn't at least killed the chrome version of the app.
      The reason is that only technical people are aware of such tools for blocking ads at the moment. Let the regular users know about such tools, let hundreds of millions of people start using ad-blockers, then I will see how Google or others will feel about this.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724910].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author moneygoose
        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

        The idea I can't accept is that some people think that they have the right to disable ads on a website and view the content as they wish. I am sorry, they don't.
        And those websites are putting tracking cookies onto visitors' computers. The pop-ups and pop-unders which bypass built-in browser pop-up blockers are also taken care of with this app.

        I am quite happy with my decision to start using AdBlock Plus
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725294].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

        The idea I can't accept is that some people think that they have the right to disable ads on a website and view the content as they wish. I am sorry, they don't.
        Accept it or not, but visitors do have the right to browse publicly available sites the way they want to and there isn't anything that you can do about it other than block them. I can choose to disable javascript, disable images, change font sizes, block ads, block tracking cookies, etc. if I wish and you can't dictate what people do to browse the Internet. They aren't actually changing your site. They are changing the way they view your site. What makes you think that you can dictate the world's browsing behavior? You can't, plain and simple. If it bothers you so much, get an anti-ad blocker script. Unless you're in the top 100,000 websites visited, I doubt many will notice or care.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725420].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thatkeywordguy
        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post


        The idea I can't accept is that some people think that they have the right to disable ads on a website and view the content as they wish. I am sorry, they don't.
        thats a very interesting question and extremely interesting from a legal standpoint when we're talking about adsense ads on websites.

        For example if i bought a book, i have the right to cutup the pages and read them in a different order.
        If i buy a newspaper, i have the right to take out scissors and cutout the ads.

        So if my computer downloads public data from the internet, and I hold my hand over an ad, is this allowed?
        And in turn, if I use a program to place a black square over the ad, what about this?

        It gets more complicated when we're talking about ads that play before videos though. Programatically forcing a website to "skip" a Video Ad is probably somewhat immoral and at least against the TOS.
        Signature

        Get Keyword Reseacher at CleverGizmos.com.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7726713].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
          Originally Posted by thatkeywordguy View Post

          For example if i bought a book, i have the right to cutup the pages and read them in a different order.
          If i buy a newspaper, i have the right to take out scissors and cutout the ads.
          We cannot compare physical goods such as a book or a magazine or a newspaper to a website. The reason is that every time you access a website, it returns as a cost to the site owner. Again, it is not about whether the visitors will click on the ads or not but it is about the way they access the site. I simply think it is unethical even if it is legal.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729274].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author latestnewsheadline
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

            We cannot compare physical goods such as a book or a magazine or a newspaper to a website. The reason is that every time you access a website, it returns as a cost to the site owner. Again, it is not about whether the visitors will click on the ads or not but it is about the way they access the site. I simply think it is unethical even if it is legal.
            You have the option to charge a monthly fee for the site access.
            Also, you can have benefit from adBlock users.
            They can recommend your site and if the content is really good, you'll get more traffic.

            If you have a plate with many types of vegetables and you don't like some of them,
            do you eat them all?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729503].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
              Originally Posted by latestnewsheadline View Post

              If you have a plate with many types of vegetables and you don't like some of them, do you eat them all?
              I don't eat them all, I just ignore the ones that I won't eat. Just like the way I ignore most of the ads I see on web pages. I don't try to install something on the plate that will make those vegetables disappear.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729683].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                I don't eat them all, I just ignore the ones that I won't eat. Just like the way I ignore most of the ads I see on web pages. I don't try to install something on the plate that will make those vegetables disappear.
                You wouldn't need to, because unlike many marketers, farmers don't try to force feed people things they don't want. I never heard a farmer accuse someone who visits the farm without buying any vegetables, of depriving them of their livelihood. You can't force people to be part of your market, and if they are blocking your ads, you might as well just accept that they aren't part of your market, and let it go.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733476].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
          Originally Posted by thatkeywordguy View Post

          Programatically forcing a website to "skip" a Video Ad is probably somewhat immoral and at least against the TOS.
          "Immoral"? Really?

          The only thing we all have that can't be taken away is the choice of what to pay attention to, and what to think, during the precious, finite moments we have on Earth.

          We don't owe our minds to anyone during our time here. Every one of us has the right to try to coax a moment of attention from others; none have the right to force it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733315].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

        The idea I can't accept is that some people think that they have the right to disable ads on a website and view the content as they wish. I am sorry, they don't.
        in your opinion -

        Signature
        ---------------
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7728994].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Exel
        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

        No webmaster (including me) expects all their visitors to check ads, click them or buy the advertised stuff. Also, no webmaster should run a website just for earning money from ads. If that's the only goal, that website does not survive for long.

        The idea I can't accept is that some people think that they have the right to disable ads on a website and view the content as they wish. I am sorry, they don't.



        The reason is that only technical people are aware of such tools for blocking ads at the moment. Let the regular users know about such tools, let hundreds of millions of people start using ad-blockers, then I will see how Google or others will feel about this.
        This must be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time and I hear a lot of them. Is there some law preventing me from blocking ads? If not (and there isn't), I have every right to do whatever I want and block all the ads I want on every website I want.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731187].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
          Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

          Ever change the channel or station because 5 minutes of straight commercials was going a little long?
          What great examples are being given on this thread to defend opinions... That is exactly what I am trying to say. If you don't want to see ads on a website, just change it by going to another website. Thanks for giving an example that supports the opinion I favor.

          Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

          aren't you the same guys who fast-forward your PVR so that you can skip the commercials while watching Sunday night football?
          I've never heard of PVR before so I have no idea what you are really referring to.

          Originally Posted by PerformanceMan View Post

          I don't owe webmasters a damn thing - and that includes ad revenue!
          And the webmasters don't owe you their content.

          Originally Posted by Exel View Post

          I have every right to do whatever I want and block all the ads I want on every website I want.
          God save me and my websites and other webmasters from visitors with this mindset. And thanks for letting me learn how to block such visitors.

          I guess none of you are running websites that rely on ad income. Because you would most probably think differently otherwise.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731755].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author butters
            Read through this post and I didn't pick up on this point for using an ad blocker, don't they heighten your PC's security? In terms of viruses etc... I know a few people who run ad blockers for this very reason.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731814].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

            And the webmasters don't owe you their content.
            Then don't provide it. Really, who asked for it?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731873].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author WillR
              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              I would consider a marketer a very negligent business owner if they refused to ever use an ad blocker because it tells them:
              You are kidding right? Not even going to attempt a comeback at that one. Just a silly comment through and through.

              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              Just because one is a "marketer" does not mean one should want to be bombarded by every ad in the world. Ever change the channel or station because 5 minutes of straight commercials was going a little long?
              Exactly, so change the channel. Go to another website if you don't like what you are seeing but don't sit there and happily consume their content and at the same time block their very income that is allowing them to make the content for you. It's you wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              Or, if you like surfing the web at turtle speeds because you want to see ads, that's your choice and time out of your life. You're missing a major point: it is simply not necessary for a website's advertising for 50 cookies and 50 tracking beacons to need to be set and downloaded.
              I really don't know what sort of Internet you guys are running but I have never once had an issue with advertising affecting the speed of websites showing for me. If anything you guys need to upgrade your Internet if ads and cookies are really causing you such big issues. Sounds like the days of the 56K modem here. We are in 2013 right? My Internet zips along -- I thought the US were supposed to be ahead of us?

              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

              All this talk about a website owner's rights ... you put a site on the very public Internet, you take what you get for visitors or go behind a paywall if you feel people would actually pay to view your content.

              I don't recall a website owner ever asking my permission to set tracking cookies and track my browsing behavior. I don't allow it and instead of whining about it, I do something to prevent it. I'll view the Internet that is publicly available any way that I want to. Website owners have to deal with that reality or do something to prevent me from accessing their sites.
              I never said you can't do it, but I am saying you are VERY hypocritical in what you are doing. You are sitting here posting on a daily basis with some intention to get eyeballs on your signature. If the signature was not there a lot of people would not be posting anywhere near as often as they do. You can argue that all day long but we both know the truth to that.

              So you are providing content in return for getting eyeballs on your signature but at the same time you do not think others have the right to do so and you block their ads. I only hope someone comes up with a Warrior Forum signature blocker we can all use and then see how you guys like that. Would be a bit different with the shoe on the other foot, wouldn't it?

              Let's take newspapers as an example. A newspaper might cost $1 and they rely heavily on the proceeds made by advertising in their paper. If that advertising became less effective then all of sudden they would need to do other things to make up for that loss. The paper that you used to pay $1 for is now $3 instead. Great move?

              You forget that your actions have bigger implications and this is where the hypocrisy comes in. You think it's fine for you to go and block all ads yet if everyone else did the exact same thing, big changes would happen in the world that would result in the cost of goods and services going up and you would then start to complain about that.

              I'm surprised by you especially. Someone who is always selling blog packages in their signature. How do suppose most bloggers make their income? In fact just looking at the blogs you are selling they have advertisements all over them. Once again, only use advertising when it suits your need or cause, right?

              Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

              I guess none of you are running websites that rely on ad income. Because you would most probably think differently otherwise.
              It's not just websites that rely on ad income. As I said above, even their signature ads in this forum are classified as advertising and I would love to see how they reacted if they were blocked by all users to the forum. I think they would be singing a VERY different tune.

              The fact is you guys can say and do whatever you want, it won't change my mind. I know the negative implications your actions would have if everyone did as you are doing so it's not a question I am asking you. And the fact you all have signatures in this forum just goes to show how hypocritical your argument really is.

              "No, don't show me advertisments, I don't want to see them. Oh, but please look at my one."

              :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732420].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                I never said you can't do it, but I am saying you are VERY hypocritical in what you are doing. You are sitting here posting on a daily basis with some intention to get eyeballs on your signature. If the signature was not there a lot of people would not be posting anywhere near as often as they do. You can argue that all day long but we both know the truth to that.

                So you are providing content in return for getting eyeballs on your signature but at the same time you do not think others have the right to do so and you block their ads. I only hope someone comes up with a Warrior Forum signature blocker we can all use and then see how you guys like that. Would be a bit different with the shoe on the other foot, wouldn't it?

                Let's take newspapers as an example. A newspaper might cost $1 and they rely heavily on the proceeds made by advertising in their paper. If that advertising became less effective then all of sudden they would need to do other things to make up for that loss. The paper that you used to pay $1 for is now $3 instead. Great move?

                You forget that your actions have bigger implications and this is where the hypocrisy comes in. You think it's fine for you to go and block all ads yet if everyone else did the exact same thing, big changes would happen in the world that would result in the cost of goods and services going up and you would then start to complain about that.

                I'm surprised by you especially. Someone who is always selling blog packages in their signature. How do suppose most bloggers make their income? In fact just looking at the blogs you are selling they have advertisements all over them. Once again, only use advertising when it suits your need or cause, right?
                I use a signature and whoever is interested can click. If not interested, they don't and I have no interest in attempting to compel them to view my ads. If they want to block signatures on the WF, which they can do, it's no sweat to me. Won't find me crying about it. You see, it's a free country. People are free to look at ads or not and I wouldn't want it any other way.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732527].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author WillR
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  I use a signature and whoever is interested can click. If not interested, they don't and I have no interest in attempting to compel them to view my ads. If they want to block signatures on the WF, which they can do, it's no sweat to me. Won't find me crying about it. You see, it's a free country. People are free to look at ads or not and I wouldn't want it any other way.
                  Can I ask you, if everyone on the Internet blocked ads like you do, why would anyone want to buy blogs from you? Don't bloggers primarily make their income from advertising? I'm confused. :confused:
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732565].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                    Can I ask you, if everyone on the Internet blocked ads like you do, why would anyone want to buy blogs from you? Don't bloggers primarily make their income from advertising? I'm confused. :confused:
                    Fact is Will, it's just a hypothetical question. Most people don't block ads and trying to force feed people who choose to block them is futile. They aren't a very targeted visitor if they are blocking ads, are they? Why sweat it? It's a minority.

                    Years ago I heard people whining about spyware programs blocking affiliate cookies. They were certain it was the end of affiliate marketing. Well, was it the end?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732580].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author WillR
                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                      Fact is Will, it's just a hypothetical question. Most people don't block ads and trying to force feed people who choose to block them is futile. They aren't a very targeted visitor if they are blocking ads, are they? Why sweat it? It's a minority.
                      But that's exactly my point. It's not hypothetical at all. If you expect to be able to block ads then everyone else should have the same right to so do, right? So it could potentially happen... unless you think you have rights that surpass everyone else?

                      So what happens to blogs when people no longer make any income from them? Are people still going to buy blogs from you? What happens to all those websites that make money from advertising? Do we start paying a subscription fee for Youtube? How much is our yearly fee for Facebook going to be? Are Gmail and Hotmail now going to be paid services? Does the Warrior Forum increase their membership fee because they are no longer making $1,000 from the banner ads at top of the forum each day? How much will Twitter charge per account? Will CNN.com have a fee per article we read?

                      "Oh yeah, I didn't think about all that stuff..."

                      No one ever does, until it's too late...

                      Do you use any of those free services that are supported by advertising? If so, you are a hypocrite. I'm sorry but that's just a fact. A hypcrite is someone who says one thing and does another. I hate ads but I want to reap all the advantages of advertising. It doesn't work that way.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732617].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                        But that's exactly my point. It's not hypothetical at all. If you expect to be able to block ads then everyone else should have the same right to so do, right? So what happens to blogs when people no longer make any income from them? Are people still going to buy blogs from you? What happens to all those websites that make money from advertising? Do we start paying a subscription fee for Youtube? Are Gmail and Hotmail now going to be paid services? Does the Warrior Forum increase their membership fee because they are no longer making $1,000 from the banner ads at top of the forum each day?

                        "Oh yeah, I didn't think about all that stuff..."

                        No one ever does, until it's too late...
                        Of course everyone has the right to block ads if they want to. You're talking about downloading info from the Net and trying to force what people choose to download or not. Like I said, people who block ads are in the minority. Do I care if no one buys blogs from me? Not really. I'm adaptable and not married to any one particular income stream.

                        All this uproar sounds like a bunch of chickens running around screaming the world is coming to an end because some people use ad blockers. Ad blockers would be used even less than they are if website owners didn't abuse the use of tracking cookies and ads. As far as I'm concerned, websites who load up over 30 scripts need to die. I won't miss them. That screenshot of ghostery blocking 34 scripts so I could read two paragraphs that are available on a hundred other sites is a prime example of that abuse. It's beyond ridiculous and tracking is an invasion of my privacy.

                        As for the WF, they must be doing something right because I see those ads just fine. In fact, there are ads that I see on most sites.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732667].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                          thanks for the Ghostery tip, Suzanne - installed it on Firefox and what an eye opener - for the record - it's not so much the ads I have a problem with - it's the trackers who then sell the private info to other parties - :rolleyes:
                          Signature
                          ---------------
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733113].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Newbieee
                            you know whats worse?

                            I can understand if its a free website.

                            But if u paid for the membership and in the member area they are still pushing ads to you, that is confirm 100% guarantee chop atrocious.

                            Like i pay for cable tv, and im not in the US, but i follow many of their programs like crime fox, trillers, investigation series etc.
                            Used to be commercial free, after all we paid for it, so its like a member area, then recently they start inserting ads in.

                            So ridiculous.
                            Signature
                            Pain is a perception, so is defeat & happiness!
                            & what doesn't
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733191].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                            Banned
                            Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

                            thanks for the Ghostery tip, Suzanne - installed it on Firefox and what an eye opener - for the record - it's not so much the ads I have a problem with - it's the trackers who then sell the private info to other parties - :rolleyes:
                            Glad you like it. You can block what you want to block with Ghostery and see what you want to see.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733226].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
                          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                          Ad blockers would be used even less than they are if website owners didn't abuse the use of tracking cookies and ads.
                          You clearly explained your reasons for using ad blockers on this thread and I am not saying none of them are acceptable. But, let's say that we educated the regular internet user and told them that they can use "ad blockers" and that they will never see any ads on the Internet again, don't you think that everyone would use it? If the technical people who are well aware of how a website is run uses such blockers, don't you think the regular user would start using them like yesterday?

                          This is not a doomsday scenario. Once again, this is not about people viewing or clicking ads or websites making ad revenue. This is about the way you are accessing a website.

                          Give me an Internet that has zero hosting, zero maintenance and zero content creation costs and I will swallow all the comments I made up to now on this thread.

                          Originally Posted by Greg guitar View Post

                          Therefore, you are making the remarkable assertion that advertisers by default, have greater ownership rights to the eyeballs of visitors, than the people whose heads those eyeballs are in. I am against all forms of slavery, so I must disagree.
                          You sound like you are somehow forced to see and click the ads and buy the advertised product when you visit a web page.

                          I don't remember the last ad I saw or the last time I clicked an ad and I am not using any ad blockers.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733698].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                            Banned
                            Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                            You clearly explained your reasons for using ad blockers on this thread and I am not saying none of them are acceptable. But, let's say that we educated the regular internet user and told them that they can use "ad blockers" and that they will never see any ads on the Internet again, don't you think that everyone would use it? If the technical people who are well aware of how a website is run uses such blockers, don't you think the regular user would start using them like yesterday?

                            This is not a doomsday scenario. Once again, this is not about people viewing or clicking ads or websites making ad revenue. This is about the way you are accessing a website.

                            Give me an Internet that has zero hosting, zero maintenance and zero content creation costs and I will swallow all the comments I made up to now on this thread
                            You're making an assumption that I might click on your ads if I saw them. People who block ads are adverse to ads and far less likely to click on them. I personally don't click on ads or Adsense on websites other than taking a peak at the Warrior Forum big banner ad occasionally and of course browsing the WSOs for products that I want. But visit some news site or other random site for information .... never.

                            I have no intention of educating the masses on the use of ad blockers. It's a personal choice that I have the right to make. The majority of people outside of this community have so little computer/Internet skills that the only protection they have from bad stuff happening to them on the Internet is that which comes pre-installed on their computers, such as a virus protection program.

                            It is a sky is falling scenario. Heard the same thing about spyware protection years ago, as I said. Everyone all in a big tizzy because some (one in particular) spyware programs stripped affiliate cookies. Oh, woe is me. Affiliate marketing is dead. Give me a break. It's not dead and if you're not making money from your site's ads, you're not reaching or converting the right market. Has nothing to do with a handful of people who aren't interested in your advertising.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733924].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                            Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                            You sound like you are somehow forced to see and click the ads and buy the advertised product when you visit a web page.

                            I don't remember the last ad I saw or the last time I clicked an ad and I am not using any ad blockers.
                            I don't "sound like" that at all; to get that meaning you had to completely ignore the context, which is that the comment was a reply to Will, regarding ad-blocker users "robbing" webmasters. Seems like you worked pretty hard to miss my meaning.

                            Like I said to Will; I am in favor of people seeing what they want to see; not speaking about my personal experience. Ads online aren't a huge problem for me.

                            What point are you making with the remark about you not seeing ads; I have no idea what it means?
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733974].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                        But that's exactly my point. It's not hypothetical at all. If you expect to be able to block ads then everyone else should have the same right to so do, right? So it could potentially happen... unless you think you have rights that surpass everyone else?

                        So what happens to blogs when people no longer make any income from them? Are people still going to buy blogs from you? What happens to all those websites that make money from advertising? Do we start paying a subscription fee for Youtube? How much is our yearly fee for Facebook going to be? Are Gmail and Hotmail now going to be paid services? Does the Warrior Forum increase their membership fee because they are no longer making $1,000 from the banner ads at top of the forum each day? How much will Twitter charge per account? Will CNN.com have a fee per article we read?

                        "Oh yeah, I didn't think about all that stuff..."

                        No one ever does, until it's too late...

                        Do you use any of those free services that are supported by advertising? If so, you are a hypocrite. I'm sorry but that's just a fact. A hypcrite is someone who says one thing and does another. I hate ads but I want to reap all the advantages of advertising. It doesn't work that way.
                        Ad revenues aren't about to go away just because some folks don't choose to watch ads. This "sky is falling" scenario completely lacks any connection to reality.

                        Mick Jagger once said: "it's my mind and I'll think what I want", and that is what I say to you, on behalf of anyone who opts out of watching ads.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733387].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author WillR
                          Originally Posted by Greg guitar View Post

                          Ad revenues aren't about to go away just because some folks don't choose to watch ads. This "sky is falling" scenario completely lacks any connection to reality.
                          Well actually that statement is false. If less people are viewing ads you are getting paid to serve then yes, ad revenue will drop as more people use ad blockers. That's just a fact. Not sure if I follow your logic there.

                          My argument is not a "sky is falling" scenario. But the argument being presented by others here is exactly the same as saying if just a few of us download music illegally it's fine, because everyone else will still buy it so it won't effect anything.

                          Is that how you really think?

                          If it's something that would have a negative effect on society if everyone did it, then it's still ok just for you to do it because it doesn't have such a huge impact? Really? Like the guy who flicks his cigarette butt on the ground because it won't make a big difference right? Well what if everyone did it?

                          I don't agree with your logic and glad plenty of others don't otherwise it would be a pretty f'ed up world.

                          So Greg, I take it you don't use any ad supported sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, CNN, etc, etc? If you do then it kind of makes you a hypocrite.

                          Just saying...
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733628].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                            Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                            Well actually that statement is false. If less people are viewing ads you are getting paid to serve then yes, ad revenue will drop as more people use ad blockers. That's just a fact. Not sure if I follow your logic there.

                            My argument is not a "sky is falling" scenario. But the argument being presented by others here is exactly the same as saying if just a few of us download music illegally it's fine, because everyone else will still buy it so it won't effect anything.

                            Is that how you really think?

                            If it's something that would have a negative effect on society if everyone did it, then it's still ok just for you to do it because it doesn't have such a huge impact? Really? Like the guy who flicks his cigarette butt on the ground because it won't make a big difference right? Well what if everyone did it?

                            I don't agree with your logic and glad plenty of others don't otherwise it would be a pretty f'ed up world.

                            So Greg, I take it you don't use any ad supported sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, CNN, etc, etc? If you do then it kind of makes you a hypocrite.

                            Just saying...
                            I agree with you on most things, if memory serves, and I like that you always have a strong sense of right and wrong, but there is a wide gulf between us in this particular instance, on what is right and wrong.

                            The gulf is so wide that I believe you have the wrong impression about what I think, and you've made assumptions that aren't true; for example, you seem to think I was speaking of my own personal habits, but I've never used an ad-blocker personally; I was simply defending the freedom to control one's own attention.

                            I also am not convinced that, were it to become a widepread "problem", less advertising would create an overall harmful effect on humanity. If the effect was to slow down our resource consumption at all, it might actually give future generations a slightly better chance of inheriting a liveable planet.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733873].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                            Originally Posted by WillR View Post

                            My argument is not a "sky is falling" scenario. But the argument being presented by others here is exactly the same as saying if just a few of us download music illegally it's fine, because everyone else will still buy it so it won't effect anything.


                            .
                            to equate someone who doesn't want to watch ads to someone who downloads illegally is really quite ridiculous. There is nothing illegal about not wanting to watch an ad - I'm not stealing anything from you by turning off your ads -

                            again I say to you - if you are going to call people hypocrites take a good long look in the mirror - because I bet when you record a show on TV and watch it later - you fast-forward the commercials - and if you deny that - you are an outright liar - and you damn well know it.

                            Folks, people will do anything for money - even try to brain-wash people into believing that since we're marketers we should be forced to watch every one's ads - and that is just plain bs

                            So ignore the forum bullies - they have an agenda and thinking people scare the crap out of them because at any moment their scams and lies can and will be exposed.

                            Fact: There is no law that says you or I should have to watch any ads - whether on the Internet or on TV, or anywhere at all. And anyone on this thread who says otherwise is blowing smoke out of their arse.
                            Signature
                            ---------------
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735562].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
                              Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

                              to equate someone who doesn't want to watch ads to someone who downloads illegally is really quite ridiculous. There is nothing illegal about not wanting to watch an ad - I'm not stealing anything from you by turning off your ads -

                              again I say to you - if you are going to call people hypocrites take a good long look in the mirror - because I bet when you record a show on TV and watch it later - you fast-forward the commercials - and if you deny that - you are an outright liar - and you damn well know it.

                              Folks, people will do anything for money - even try to brain-wash people into believing that since we're marketers we should be forced to watch every one's ads - and that is just plain bs

                              So ignore the forum bullies - they have an agenda and thinking people scare the crap out of them because at any moment their scams and lies can and will be exposed.

                              Fact: There is no law that says you or I should have to watch any ads - whether on the Internet or on TV, or anywhere at all. And anyone on this thread who says otherwise is blowing smoke out of their arse.
                              There really is no reason to be rude.

                              I personally am not forcing any others to accept my views and I am not insulting anyone who doesn't agree with me. You are thinking that you are right and I am thinking that I am right, there is nothing wrong about this. Everybody is free to do whatever they want. I am just trying to explain why I think the way I think.

                              If I record a show on TV and watch it later, I would of course skip the commercials. My watching that recorded show does not cost any extra bucks to the publisher. This is the very point most warriors on this thread are missing. Whenever you view a web page, whether it has ads or not, whether you view/click the ads or not, it returns as a cost to its owner.

                              I have been browsing the Internet for the last 6-7 years heavily. I visited tens of thousands of websites in very different natures and there hasn't been one single occasion that annoyed me to think about blocking ads. Maybe we are not on the same Internet.

                              Could anyone please give us an example that 100% correlates with "blocking ads on web pages" and I will gladly say "hmm, you may be right about this one".
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735667].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author butters
                                Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                If I record a show on TV and watch it later, I would of course skip the commercials. My watching that recorded show does not cost any extra bucks to the publisher.
                                How about providers like Sky? If you skip their ads, they become less effective in converting, thus advertisers revenues dropping since the ads were not served. This in turn would drop Skys revenue because their platform for advertising would be less effective due to everyone skipping them, just a thought.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735682].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
                                  Originally Posted by butters View Post

                                  How about providers like Sky? If you skip their ads, they become less effective in converting, thus advertisers revenues dropping since the ads were not served. This in turn would drop Skys revenue because their platform for advertising would be less effective due to everyone skipping them, just a thought.
                                  I don't know how Sky works. Are you referring to a TV system or an Internet system? If a system itself allows skipping of the ads or removing of the ads like many websites give that option ("Skip Ad" buttons on some video sites, or "Hide Ads" buttons on some forums), then there is nothing to argue about. The point of this thread is "using third party applications to block ads on websites" and that is what I can't agree with.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735762].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author butters
                                    Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                    I don't know how Sky works. Are you referring to a TV system or an Internet system? If a system itself allows skipping of the ads or removing of the ads like many websites give that option ("Skip Ad" buttons on some video sites, or "Hide Ads" buttons on some forums), then there is nothing to argue about. The point of this thread is "using third party applications to block ads on websites" and that is what I can't agree with.
                                    Sky is a tv system. You said: "If I record a show on TV and watch it later, I would of course skip the commercials. My watching that recorded show does not cost any extra bucks to the publisher."

                                    Your argument is about people blocking ads on your site and not allowing for you to distribute them as they should be. Your un happy about it when it is on your site but you admit to doing it yourself on a different site/tv? My previous post shows how skipping ads on tv can technically cost the company money.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735797].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                                      I've enjoyed the debate in this thread. Contributors on both sides of the argument have put across their points well and that's made for some thought-provoking reading.

                                      A big thanks to all.

                                      My view is that marketers (that's us!) are a remarkably resilient, imaginative and innovative bunch. We tend not to let a little matter of technology put us off. And this ad blocking software is just another piece of technology. It's legal. If it ever becomes widespread enough to affect us, then it's likely to be satisfying a consumer need. As marketers, we'll just have to respect and deal with that.

                                      When record companies were faced with download technology, their first reaction was to try to ban it. But consumer demand won the day. Meanwhile, the smarter publishers were busy finding other ways to profit from music.

                                      I have a TIVO (equivalent) and often use it to record TV shows specifically to skip through the ads during playback. Advertisers recognize this trend and that's one reason we're seeing an increase in activities like sponsorship and product placement. They're adapting to consumer activity.

                                      We're fortunate to be in business at a time of unparalleled opportunity for exposure. There are more outlets for marketers today than at any other time in history. Technology has provided us with easy and relatively cheap global access - something marketers just a generation ago couldn't have dreamed about.

                                      Ad blockers may or may not affect us. Either way, we'll adapt.


                                      Frank
                                      Signature
                                      TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735890].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                Banned
                                Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                If I record a show on TV and watch it later, I would of course skip the commercials. My watching that recorded show does not cost any extra bucks to the publisher. This is the very point most warriors on this thread are missing. Whenever you view a web page, whether it has ads or not, whether you view/click the ads or not, it returns as a cost to its owner.
                                So if I visit your site it costs you more than if I don't visit your site. That's really a crock of BS.

                                You may not have the option to fast forward through commercials for very long, and the people who pay for those ads have the same argument that you do ...

                                DailyTech - TWC Prevents DVR Commercial Skipping with New Patent

                                Time Warner Cable wins patent to stop fast forward button - Neowin

                                Advertising's Secret War Against DVR Fast-Forwarding - Rebecca Greenfield - The Atlantic

                                TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement | Techdirt
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735747].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
                                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                  So if I visit your site it costs you more than if I don't visit your site. That's really a crock of BS.
                                  Of course if you visit my website, it costs me more than if you don't visit my website (especially if you are using ad-blockers when visiting). Ask this to an 8 year-old webmaster and you will get the same answer.

                                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                  You may not have the option to fast forward through commercials for very long, and the people who pay for those ads have the same argument that you do ...
                                  Originally Posted by butters View Post

                                  Your argument is about people blocking ads on your site and not allowing for you to distribute them as they should be. Your un happy about it when it is on your site but you admit to doing it yourself on a different site/tv? My previous post shows how skipping ads on tv can technically cost the company money.
                                  Skipping commercials in offline media (e.g. a recorded TV show) is very different than skipping commercials in hosted media in which every connection costs to the publisher (in case skipping mechanism is not built into the system), and this has been my point from the beginning. If someone tries to add a mechanism to force commercials in offline media, I will of course be against it. But again, if the content provider set rules for how its content should be displayed, then I will not look for a third party blocker, I will just not get content from that provider.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735814].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                    Banned
                                    Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                    Of course if you visit my website, it costs me more than if you don't visit my website (especially if you are using ad-blockers). Ask this to an 8 year-old webmaster and you will get the same answer.
                                    Ok ... you want to persist with pure BS, please provide the cost breakdown of each visitor to your site and the additional cost of a visitor who doesn't give a shit about your ads. In dollars and cents please instead of fantasy.

                                    My host chages me the same thing every month no matter who visits, and any 8 year old webmaster knows that.

                                    Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                    Skipping commercials in offline media (e.g. a recorded TV show) is very different than skipping commercials in hosted media in which every connection costs to the publisher, and this has been my point from the beginning. If someone tries to add a mechanism to force commercials in offline media, I will of course be against it. But again, if the content provider set rules for how its content should be displayed, then I will not look for a third party blocker, I will just not get content from that provider.
                                    Nothing but pure hypocrisy.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735852].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author butters
                                    Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                    Skipping commercials in offline media (e.g. a recorded TV show) is very different than skipping commercials in hosted media in which every connection costs to the publisher (in case skipping mechanism is not built into the system), and this has been my point from the beginning. If someone tries to add a mechanism to force commercials in offline media, I will of course be against it. But again, if the content provider set rules for how its content should be displayed, then I will not look for a third party blocker, I will just not get content from that provider.
                                    So your saying by not seeing the ad cost the publisher or the advertiser no money? Think that one through for a second... An advertiser PAID for people to SEE their ad on TV. If you SKIP that ad, then the advertiser isnt getting what they PAID for. Let's say an ad on TV will be displayed to 300k people, lets say 10% of them skip that ad, in reality the ad is being shown to 270k people but they are paying for 300k. Skipping ads costs people money, no matter what way you look at it. Which brings me back to my point, your unhappy when it happens to you but you do it to others.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735860].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Nail Yener
                                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                      My host chages me the same thing every month no matter who visits.
                                      It is not just the hosting cost. Besides, even if the cost of a visitor is 0.00001$, that's a cost and that is obviously more than 0.00 (the case that you don't visit).

                                      Originally Posted by butters View Post

                                      So your saying by not seeing the ad cost the publisher or the advertiser no money? Think that one through for a second... An advertiser PAID for people to SEE their ad on TV. If you SKIP that ad, then the advertiser isnt getting what they PAID for. Let's say an ad on TV will be displayed to 300k people, lets say 10% of them skip that ad, in reality the ad is being shown to 270k people but they are paying for 300k. Skipping ads costs people money, no matter what way you look at it. Which brings me back to my point, your unhappy when it happens to you but you do it to others.
                                      The advertisers pay for people to see their ads on TV but they know that the majority of people change channels or go to bathroom or kitchen when the commercials start. When I said offline, I was not referring to real-time TV shows, I was referring to shows that you record and watch later.

                                      Skipping or not viewing an ad on TV == skipping or not viewing an ad on a website. It is not blocking by using a third party application.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735898].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                        Banned
                                        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                        It is not just the hosting cost. Besides, even if the cost of a visitor is 0.00001$, that's a cost and that is obviously more than 0.00 (the case that you don't visit).
                                        I'm not responsible for your costs to put something on the Net that you obviously want on the Net. That is your cost and has nothing to do with your visitors. Your visitors don't owe you a damned thing. You put it there, you pay for it. Simple. If you can't afford it, don't put it there. The Internet is public and you don't dictate what the public can view and how they view it. If you don't get that, you shouldn't be publishing on the Net.

                                        But just to be fair, publish your url, so we can all make a note never to visit your site just to make you happy.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735937].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                                          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                          I'm not responsible for your costs to put something on the Net that you obviously want on the Net. That is your cost and has nothing to do with your visitors. Your visitors don't owe you a damned thing. You put it there, you pay for it. Simple. If you can't afford it, don't put it there. The Internet is public and you don't dictate what the public can view and how they view it. If you don't get that, you shouldn't be publishing on the Net.

                                          But just to be fair, publish your url, so we can all make a note never to visit your site just to make you happy.
                                          Good post Sbucciarel! A lot of people in the US are really unfamiliar with (or in many cases, downright hostile to) the concept of the commons, so thanks for reminding a few of them who forgot, that the internet is exactly that.

                                          Come on guys; for under $10 a month, you can host unlimited sites, on an infrastructure made possible at public expense, which allows you to make money from an easy chair, with tiny costs, and you cry "thief" when a few of your visitors block your ads? The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.

                                          You'd have a point if they were hacking your site so others can't see your ads, but they are only disabling them for their own viewing. Again, my earlier point stands; people have a right to control what they feed their eyes and brains; advertisers' rights don't supersede human rights.

                                          Speaking of controlling what goes into our eyes and brains, I don't recall the exact number, but studies have been done on how many ads the average person sees daily in the normal course of life, and it is mind boggling. The struggle to control one's own thoughts is a worthy and difficult one that takes constant attention, and for which one shouldn't be labelled a thief or a hypocrite.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7757831].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author butters
                                        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                        The advertisers pay for people to see their ads on TV but they know that the majority of people change channels or go to bathroom or kitchen when the commercials start. When I said offline, I was not referring to real-time TV shows, I was referring to shows that you record and watch later.

                                        Skipping or not viewing an ad on TV == skipping or not viewing an ad on a website. It is not blocking by using a third party application.
                                        When you watch a show on tv, a part of that show is the ads in between. That is how the provider makes it's money back for getting such shows on their service. It's part of the overall package, when you record something on tv, it will record the ads to, unless there is a specific function set up by a provider which stops this from happending.

                                        By fast forwarding through them you are doing the exact thing you say is wrong. Yes technically there isn't a third party software which does this but in this case, the remote would be the third party instrument.

                                        Yes an advertiser will factor in all of these costs because they know it happends but that isn't the point. Factoring peoples behaviours is a part of marketing, they know that most people will switch off or pay no attention to their ads. If we was to apply your arguement that wouldn't be fair, it would infact be unfair, they are getting the tv show so they should have to watch the ads.

                                        Look at it like this, people will block your ads, not many people will, it is a part of marketing, it will barely affect your business because them people were not interested in ads showing up in the first place. Focus on the people who actually want to see your website in its entirety. By focusing on them, you will yield a lot better results then the people who are running an ad blocker. Dont worry about the people who will use up a miniscule amount of bandwith and will cost you pennys a year. Just remember this though, if your content is good enough then you can easily make a sale without an ad being on the site.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7736258].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                                        Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

                                        Skipping or not viewing an ad on TV == skipping or not viewing an ad on a website. It is not blocking by using a third party application.
                                        The remote control is a third party application.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7757629].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
                              Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post


                              So ignore the forum bullies - they have an agenda and thinking people scare the crap out of them because at any moment their scams and lies can and will be exposed.
                              Obviously I agree with you overall on this thread, and I appreciate you thanking my posts; I agree with most of the above quoted post too, but I would like to defend Will a little bit here: I consider him to be one of the very ethical marketers on the forum, not a scammer or liar at all, and I see no reason to think anyone in this argument is lying or scamming, or intends to bully, although the accusations of theft and hypocrisy are a bit over the top.

                              When Will keeps calling everyone who disagrees with him, thieves and/or hypocrites including me, he makes it rather hard to defend him. He shouldn't be calling anyone names, and neither should you, imo; you're both good people (it seems to me); it is an issue with people on both sides strongly, sincerely believing in their views.

                              I think Will is way off base with the repeated accusations, but I have seen him all over this forum for years, and it seems to me he is far from a bully (normally anyway), and definitely not a liar or scam artist. Nor do I consider you a hypocrite for using ad blockers. I don't really know Nail, but see no reason to think ill of him either. I can see why you're irritated though; I don't much like being called a hypocrite or a thief either.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7757897].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gordon P
    IMO it's very short-sighted to use adblockers. I only hate the in-video ads, that are over 20secs long. However I totally agree with Curtis2011, a person using an adblocker would rarely click on ads.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724696].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thatkeywordguy
    I'm pretty surprised Google hasn't at least killed the chrome version of the app.

    I think there are probably several apps that violate their TOS -- like those SEO scraper and PageRank apps for example.
    Signature

    Get Keyword Reseacher at CleverGizmos.com.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7724872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ana Hoffman
    Forgot the name of the Chrome extension I recently installed - yes, it got rid of YT ads, but then added ads of its own to EVERY page I viewed in the browser....

    Clever marketing? LOL

    Ana
    Signature

    90% of your problems can be solved by smart marketing. Solving the other 10% just requires good procrastination skills. Can't help you with the latter, but I do know a thing or two about smart marketing. Want me to prove it? Pick up my free SEO report and we'll go from there.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725516].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author OrangeBull
    ACTUALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TI BROWSE how you want.

    In several US Circuits, excluding the Ninth Circuit, violating the Terms of Service of a website is A FELONY!

    It is a violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A law passed long ago to make "computer hacking" a crime. It was originally used to prosecute people who broke into the Pentagon's computer system, or bank's or whatever, but it was written so broadly that violating the TOS of Facebook or WarriorForum could be a felony.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sunray
      Originally Posted by OrangeBull View Post

      ACTUALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TI BROWSE how you want.

      In several US Circuits, excluding the Ninth Circuit, violating the Terms of Service of a website is A FELONY!

      It is a violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A law passed long ago to make "computer hacking" a crime. It was originally used to prosecute people who broke into the Pentagon's computer system, or bank's or whatever, but it was written so broadly that violating the TOS of Facebook or WarriorForum could be a felony.
      Hacking is accessing the data you are not supposed to access. NOT accessing some of the data you are given by the owner could never be a felony, it would mean total nonsense.
      Signature

      Use these laws and make the Law of Attraction work
      QuantumMindSuccess Learn how to live a happy, healthy and abundant life.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725751].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author OrangeBull
        Originally Posted by sunray View Post

        Hacking is accessing the data you are not supposed to access. NOT accessing some of the data you are given by the owner could never be a felony, it would mean total nonsense.
        Well tell that to a majority of US Circuit Courts. If you TOS says you can't avoid cookies or use adblockers and someone accesses the site anyway, that has been held to be unauthorized access to a computer system in a majority of jurisdictions in the US and it is a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, only the Ninth Circuit has disagreed with this interpretation of the law.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725892].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by OrangeBull View Post

          Well tell that to a majority of US Circuit Courts. If you TOS says you can't avoid cookies or use adblockers and someone accesses the site anyway, that has been held to be unauthorized access to a computer system in a majority of jurisdictions in the US and it is a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, only the Ninth Circuit has disagreed with this interpretation of the law.
          What a crock of BS. Link to just one case of someone being charged with a felony for using an adblocker. Just one. Using an adblocker to see only what you want to see is not hacking. There's no intrusion or alteration of the site. This is just too funny. :p
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725910].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
            On the one hand, I agree with Nail that someone should not be changing the content of my website as I want to present it to a visitor. They should also not be depriving me of a means to put food on the table.

            But how far does this extend? Does it mean a visitor must accept every third party cookie that is requested? As Suzanne notes, the ad tracking is beyond ridiculous on many sites.

            On the other hand, I hypocritically use Ad Block Plus and would not surf without it, and I block third party cookies by default. The difference in browsing speed and being able to read content is like night and day on many sites.

            If I wasn't blocking ads and cookies, on many sites it is like the 300 baud modem days waiting for a page to load.

            Advertising and cookie tracking on many sites is out of control as websites pray for random ad clicks because other ways of monetizing have not succeeded. There will be more privacy legislation on tracking issues because of what is happening. It is the reason why products like Ad Block Plus even exist.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725965].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

              But how far does this extend? Does it mean a visitor must accept every third party cookie that is requested? As Suzanne notes, the ad tracking is beyond ridiculous on many sites.

              ...

              If I wasn't blocking ads and cookies, on many sites it is like the 300 baud modem days waiting for a page to load.

              Advertising and cookie tracking on many sites is out of control as websites pray for random ad clicks because other ways of monetizing have not succeeded. There will be more privacy legislation on tracking issues because of what is happening. It is the reason why products like Ad Block Plus even exist.
              Exactly this. If websites weren't misbehaving so badly, adblockers wouldn't be in demand. I would barely be able to use the Internet without one, and I do not give permission and permission isn't being requested to track my activities.

              As for the ads and income... I don't buy stuff from random ads placed on sites. I buy because I want or need something and know where to get it when I'm ready to buy. I wouldn't be clicking on those ads. I never do. But if someone writes up an in depth and impartial review of something I am interested in and has an affiliate link to the product, that is not blocked and I will click on it. Again ... it's because I am searching for the product and info on the product and am near ready to buy.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725988].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesColin
    Banned
    I have never installed it and I know about it for several years.
    I haven't installed any script to block people who have this installed to view my sites, but it's more by lazyness than for anything else. I'd be all for blocking their asses from my site or redirecting them to some malware software installation.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
    as a consumer I do love it. Gimme a break, networks trying to put a 30sec-1min ad on every online video and news story? FAIL.
    Signature

    In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725702].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Anish
      Originally Posted by NewParadigm View Post

      as a consumer I do love it. Gimme a break, networks trying to put a 30sec-1min ad on every online video and news story? FAIL.
      I fully agree. Adsense ads are fine, not really interruptive. I, in fact, like the video thumbnail ads on the side, but the in-between ads' interruption just gets ridiculously annoying, mainly because it's way too frequent.

      Maybe if the video ads were in the END of videos - AFTER the person has watched whatever they wanted to watch, it'd be less annoying. But beginning.. heck..If somebody opens a pink floyd song on YT, they WANT to listen to PINK FLOYD!! Not see a pathetic advertisement about some car.

      God bless the makers of this extension. :p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7727571].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PerformanceMan
    I've been using it for a long time too. What did it for me were the auto-play videos on Daily Mail and other sites. I don't want to watch the frickin' video!
    Signature
    Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725718].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnV88
    Actually the ads Youtube shows specially the one which starts before the video & they are mainly 60 second long are so irritating as mostly they are irrelevant & It's a fail concept anyways they are meant to be blocked so there is nothing wrong what Adblocker did.
    Advertisements are very important for the survival of any website or company but there are certain guidelines which are meant to be followed like relevant ads I am a internet marketer but I do click on Adsense adds which I see relevant to my searches it's nothing wrong in it.
    There is difference between spamming & forcing people to see something which they don't want to & relevant adds which Adsense mostly shows they makes people to click on them.

    Some people are over reacting here without understanding the true cause of which led people to download such apps.
    Signature
    For Only Real Facebook Likes, Youtube Views & Twitter Followers
    www.SocialKings.info
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
    Pretty funny, this place is becoming...

    Warrior Forum The #1 Internet Marketing Forum Where People Hate Advertising
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725807].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author OrangeBull
    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explained: Why you may be a felon

    The OTM Explainer - Chris Asks Alex About the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - On The Media

    In the second article, read about the violation of Myspace's TOS that lead to an indictment and conviction which was later overturned on appeal and resulted in a subsequent acquittal at trial, so, as I said its about violating TOS and if the TOS says no access with adblockers, that's unauthorized access and CAN BE PROSECUTED!

    Have a nice day.

    I'm not stating my opinion about what I think about the law, just trying to explain what the current state of the law is in America.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725953].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by OrangeBull View Post

      Computer Fraud and Abuse Act explained: Why you may be a felon

      The OTM Explainer - Chris Asks Alex About the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - On The Media

      In the second article, read about the violation of Myspace's TOS that lead to an indictment and conviction which was later overturned on appeal and resulted in a subsequent acquittal at trial, so, as I said its about violating TOS and if the TOS says no access with adblockers, that's unauthorized access and CAN BE PROSECUTED!

      Have a nice day.

      I'm not stating my opinion about what I think about the law, just trying to explain what the current state of the law is in America.
      Myspace was the victim of massive spam attacks. Their system was used by spammers to promote their dodgy spammy products. Sorry, but not even close. I asked for one single link to prosecution for using an adblocker. Just one. Not a bunch of irrelevant cases that do involve real crimes.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7725963].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HzCy
    Thanks for this tip. Just downloaded it, and it works just great.

    THANK YOU !!!!
    Signature
    ----------><----------
    Want to build passive income streams while travelling the world?
    Here's how.. http://sunnyincome.com/blog/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7726990].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MartinPlatt
    Originally Posted by thatkeywordguy View Post

    So are you using AdBlock plus yet?

    I've been using it in Chrome for a month now

    I had heard about apps like this, but have never bothered to install it. I don't know why it took me so long to try it.

    It's freaking amazing.

    I haven't sat through one of those annoying YouTube video ads in a month.

    Pretty sure Google/YouTube is losing thousands (millions?) a day because of extensions like this.

    Turns off adsense too.

    I'm not quite sure how I feel about it.

    On the one hand, I feel kinda bad because the people who aren't getting paid are the YouTube video stars and the niche site owners -- who are often struggling anyway.

    On the other hand, I really hate YouTube ads....

    Thoughts?
    I do think that the world has gone ad crazy, so it was bound to happen.

    I have used ad-block for a time. It's good to switch it off from time to time, so that you can see what people are doing advertising wise, can get you ideas sometimes.

    It seems to be the same with TV too - far more ads seem to be being shown, and a lot of your life is wasted with watching what someone else thinks you should buy. I don't like interruption marketing personally, even though it might be effective as a marketer.
    Signature

    Martin Platt

    martin-platt.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7727602].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Newbieee
      Originally Posted by Nail Yener View Post

      As an internet marketer and product creator I am totally against using ad-blocking systems and I take measures to block visitors who try to access my sites with an ad-blocker. It is against the "terms of use" of my websites and I believe no commercial site owner would or should allow this type of access. We are not running a charity here, we are running a business. If they want to see my content, they can't do that changing the elements on my site. They don't like seeing ads? Fine they can just ignore them or send me feedback about them. Or simply they do not visit my site.

      I really can't understand how an internet marketer could support the use of ad-blocking systems. Maybe you are running a Wikipedia-like site that survives with the donations. I also don't understand how Google allows such blockers to be listed in its extension store. How happy would Google be if everyone on the planet blocked their ads? This is like "cutting off the branch you are sitting on".

      An ad-free Internet... Wouldn't it be wonderful? Hell yes, but do you really think there will be an Internet then?
      Is this why Google CEO sold 40+% of his shares which caused the stock to plunge upon opening yesterday? hahaha

      It affected the whole US stock market as a whole, the indices were down too, DOJ, and Nasdaq, S&P 500.

      But this has probably been around for long.
      All i know is he sold his share and it all went down from there.
      But i didnt find out why he sold his shares. :p
      Signature
      Pain is a perception, so is defeat & happiness!
      & what doesn't
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7728376].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author latestnewsheadline
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Newbieee View Post

        Is this why Google CEO sold 40+% of his shares which caused the stock to plunge upon opening yesterday? hahaha

        It affected the whole US stock market as a whole, the indices were down too, DOJ, and Nasdaq, S&P 500.

        But this has probably been around for long.
        All i know is he sold his share and it all went down from there.
        But i didnt find out why he sold his shares. :p
        Unfortunately was also my prediction...
        http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...oing-down.html
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729455].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RachelLily
    ads are ok, at least we get information even if we dont want to. but of course, sometimes it pisses me off. cause everytime a video is on, there goes the add. sometimes i use the blocker, sometimes i dont. depends on the mood
    Signature

    I make $50 every 3 hours. Learn my methods here: eliteincomeprofits.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7728423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kelvintoro
    I've been using FF for years and have always had Adblock Plus as an add-on. I don't like to see ads because I find them annoying when I'm watching videos or visiting sites. BUT I'm a wannabe internet marketer, so that's contradicting to what I'm doing. Oh well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729037].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mr2monster
    It's not that I like being marketed to, but more that I like knowing who is out there marketing..

    I don't use ad-blockers because as much as it's annoying to be advertised to, if you look at it in a different light, it's an education all in its own.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729128].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ByEdvin
    I don't actually like when people advertise to me but the thing is that I like Marketing and its really cool to see how other people out there are trying to advertise.
    In my mind it just spins the idea if the majority starts using AdBlock...
    Signature
    =============> Is This too Much Hype For You? :-) <=============

    ★★★★★
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729475].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author aceshigh888
    Ya I can't believe I put up with those stupid ads for like a year not knowing there was an ad blocker. duuhhhh.

    You can get them for any browser.
    Signature
    EXERCISE: Take a deep breath, hold for 10 seconds, release. ..... There see you feel better now???
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729517].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    Ahh this thread makes me laugh just as hard as the marketers who complain about OTO's but then turn around and want to run them in their own offers.

    I have never once used an ad blocker and never would. I am a marketer and so I want to emerse myself in advertising and see exactly what other advertisers and marketers are doing. It's where I have got a lot of great ideas over the years. I find it weird that some other marketers in this forum call themselves marketers but can't stand the sight of advertisements. A little hypocritical, for sure.

    What you also are forgetting is that advertising is the life-blood of many businesses and websites. Whether you would click on an ad or not is irrelevant. Some sites get paid for the number of times ads are displayed on their site so it's not necessarily you clicking an ad that makes the website money. There are also plenty of businesses out there that run banner ad campaigns not to receive clicks but to receive eyeballs on their ads to help build brand awareness.

    By removing the ads you are robbing these websites of income that is rightfully theirs.

    I find it funny that people are happy to visit sites and use them for the information or whatever else is provided on them but then want to disable the bread and butter for these same sites. This is about as silly as downloading all your songs for free from Napster (back in the day) and then complaining when bands are no longer putting out records because they can't afford to.

    Blocking advertising is all good and well but if everyone did it, the Internet and the world at large would be a VERY different place. Advertising makes the world go around and without it you would find the products and services you enjoy on a daily basis, a LOT more expensive. But it seems a lot of you are happy to take the advantages that advertising brings to the modern world but don't want to put up with inconvenience of seeing a few ads on a site that let's face it, could easily be ignored.

    Here's a question for you. Let's imagine you had a review site full of reviews for different products. Someone then created a browser plugin that would remove all affiliate links and replace them with standard order links so now anyone who reads your reviews and orders, does not earn you a commission. You'd be fine with that? What if you were promoting an affiliate product on your blog and had done a video review. Someone was using the same browser plugin and sent people to watch your video review but when they clicked the order button it was no longer your affiliate link being used. Again, you'd be fine with that, right?

    The mind boggles....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7729756].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      I am a marketer and so I want to emerse myself in advertising and see exactly what other advertisers and marketers are doing.
      Then turn off the ad blocker when doing marketing research. I would consider a marketer a very negligent business owner if they refused to ever use an ad blocker because it tells them:

      - What affect, if any, blockers have on their website.

      - What affect, if any, blockers have on other websites.

      It is very easy to avoid ad blocking effects for many ads. Adsense excepted:

      - Don't use certain names for images.

      - Host your own images.

      - Use products like I do that either hide the affiliate link or inject it into the page after the web browser loads.

      Just because one is a "marketer" does not mean one should want to be bombarded by every ad in the world. Ever change the channel or station because 5 minutes of straight commercials was going a little long?

      Or, maybe you enjoy being on a website and never being allowed to leave because your back button is disabled and it wants to force popup ad after popup ad after popup ad.

      You must not remember the days when some websites required that you had to either subscribe or shut-down your web browser.

      Sorry to steal your bread and butter.

      Or, if you like surfing the web at turtle speeds because you want to see ads, that's your choice and time out of your life. You're missing a major point: it is simply not necessary for a website's advertising for 50 cookies and 50 tracking beacons to need to be set and downloaded.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7730060].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
        for all those who think it's unethical for website users to turn off a site's ads -

        aren't you the same guys who fast-forward your PVR so that you can skip the commercials while watching Sunday night football?


        I rest my case.

        :rolleyes:
        Signature
        ---------------
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731083].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      By removing the ads you are robbing these websites of income that is rightfully theirs.

      I find it funny that people are happy to visit sites and use them for the information or whatever else is provided on them but then want to disable the bread and butter for these same sites. ...

      The mind boggles....
      The mind boggles that sites find it prudent to load 34-50 cookies, trackers, and ads and impose that on their visitors. As kindsvater reminded me, I remember all too well the days when sites would use some kind of crap that made it impossible to close it along with a million popups without rebooting your computer.

      All this talk about a website owner's rights ... you put a site on the very public Internet, you take what you get for visitors or go behind a paywall if you feel people would actually pay to view your content.

      I don't recall a website owner ever asking my permission to set tracking cookies and track my browsing behavior. I don't allow it and instead of whining about it, I do something to prevent it. I'll view the Internet that is publicly available any way that I want to. Website owners have to deal with that reality or do something to prevent me from accessing their sites.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731139].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      What you also are forgetting is that advertising is the life-blood of many businesses and websites. Whether you would click on an ad or not is irrelevant. Some sites get paid for the number of times ads are displayed on their site so it's not necessarily you clicking an ad that makes the website money. There are also plenty of businesses out there that run banner ad campaigns not to receive clicks but to receive eyeballs on their ads to help build brand awareness.

      By removing the ads you are robbing these websites of income that is rightfully theirs.
      So, by blocking ads, internet users are "robbing" those wanting to pitch them? To state the obvious, you can only rob people of something that isn't yours, but theirs, and you rob them by taking that thing from them against their will.

      What is the thing users are being accused of robbing webmasters of? Eyeballs, of course; their own.

      Other than the control of the eyeballs of the user, there is nothing to "rob".

      Therefore, you are making the remarkable assertion that advertisers by default, have greater ownership rights to the eyeballs of visitors, than the people whose heads those eyeballs are in. I am against all forms of slavery, so I must disagree.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733665].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PerformanceMan
    I don't owe webmasters a damn thing - and that includes ad revenue!
    Signature
    Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7731184].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
    For me ads have always been a key part in developing ideas for headlines, bullet points, etc... I find them intriguing (but that's just me) and I've become a better writer since committing myself to looking at more ads.

    My favorite commercial:


    A quick tip for newbie list builders, this is why you never display the javascript version of your optin box in a widget area or on your page ALWAYS use the HTML version. When some of these adblockers are turned on people won't see the optin box displayed on your page.

    (and trust me, they'll want to see it because it could be for a free offer, just don't try to sell them anything after they join your list since everything on the Internet should be free )
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thatkeywordguy
    One important thing to note for the bloggers and Adsense people, is this:

    Be aware that Ad Blocker will turn off Adsense access to your browser.

    Meaning that when you go to check your Adsense stats, and you have AdBlock Plus installed, then you may just see a white page.

    You have to DISABLE AdBlock Plus if you want to check your Adsense stats.

    (For a week I thought there was something wrong with my Google account. hee hee)

    Oh the irony!

    Also, be aware that if you're a designer, and you're trying to make a wordpress theme or whatever, you also should DISABLE Adblock because it will keep all your adverts from displaying and hence, will mess up your HTML blocks. Oddly, AdBlock Plus sometimes even eliminates things that are not ads -- e.g. like images that appear to be ads.

    I basically only turn it on when I watch YouTube videos.
    Signature

    Get Keyword Reseacher at CleverGizmos.com.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732607].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gengis
    I have been using it for a few months now and have noticed a significant difference in ads..
    Signature
    My Craigslist Arbitrage Method Of Making Money On Demand -->

    http://www.warriorplus.com/w/v/f2fwlp
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7732624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author frankbrb
    Yea been using it for awhile now wasnt aware it stopped youtube ads until i turend it off haha. i had to turn it off a few days ago just to see how other sites where advertising. and if some where advertising. It even blocks googls sponsored ads. its great!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thatkeywordguy
    It's hard to make a moral case on the Adsense side of things.

    As the owner of the router, you are definitely allowed to block out any domain you want. If someone is going to "broadcast a public message" (e.g. create a web document) that is composed of Content Domain A and Advert Domain B. Then, I am definitely in my moral and legal right to refuse B and only download A.

    However on the "video ads" side of things, its more complicated...
    Signature

    Get Keyword Reseacher at CleverGizmos.com.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733929].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Just checked out another news story. This is what I saw. In addition to all of those ads, that displayed, Ghostery did block 8 trackers on the site. So you see, there are sites that know how to display ads and sites that do not know how to display ads.

    Did I click on them. No. I have a secondary ad blocker commonly referred to as Ad Blindness, which is by far more prevalent than people who use ad blockers.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733976].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brad Berry
    Let's get serious to the business, we are running a company, we need support from the customer in the form of click and view. It will be bad for business if the customer view our content without giving us "feedback", I hate this add-on, seriously. Moreover, there is no real free content in the internet, at least the provider will get the credit or more. If this add-on vastly growing, I am quite sure Internet Marketing in general will suffer a great loss.

    Tips: tell your loyal customer to turn off their ad-blocker if they want to visit your site, just like Reddit.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7733993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Funny thing is ... these savvy marketers who are so up in arms over people browsing the Internet the way they want to or need to, whichever the case may be, don't seem to be savvy enough to know how to display ads that won't be blocked. It's simple and the secret has already been told once in this thread by kindsvater.

    You simply host the images yourself and cloak the url. Duh. Won't work with Adsense, but unless you're an Adsense heavy hitter, you're just trading away your traffic for chump change anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7734043].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by drunkenmonkey View Post

      What?...you think I don't know that?
      I wasn't addressing you with this comment. Some people don't seem to know.



      Originally Posted by drunkenmonkey View Post

      ^exactly, so, if someone is buying ads through Google ad placements which is served by Adsense, that advertiser is pretty screwed right?

      And so is the poor sod trying to make a living from Adsense.

      That's the point.
      Sorry, but I'm not responsible for website owners making a living. They are and they aren't making any less because I block ads. As I've already mentioned, I don't click on ads, except on the WF. I know what products I use and want and know where to get them when I want them. Ads don't sway me.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7734071].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by drunkenmonkey View Post

        ^Fair Comment.
        I rather suspect that you know more about ad revenue than most around here and have little trouble getting around ad blockers. Am I right?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7734096].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by drunkenmonkey View Post

          Not if you keep telling people to use Adblockers and the like.

          Some adblockers will block you no matter what.

          I'll revisit this thread tonight.
          I didn't start the thread and don't use the ad blocker that was suggested by the OP. I use Ghostery which allows me to pick and choose what I want to see and don't want to see and most importantly how I don't want to be tracked. Ghostery won't block the Youtube ads from what I can see and as you can see in the screenshot above, a ton of ads got through just fine, but the trackers were all blocked.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7734119].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PerformanceMan
    Everyone online starts using AdBlock....

    Webmasters all close their websites because they no longer have revenue...

    Only one webmaster remains (me)....

    I have the whole Internet to myself with NO COMPETITION!

    Sounds pretty good to me
    Signature
    Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735579].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Much has been said about blocking ads and what it means for webmasters and how it affects their revenue.

    But what about for advertisers? From an advertiser point of view, I don't think I mind people blocking my ad impressions because those are impressions that I don't have to pay for which probably wouldn't result in any return if the person is so disinterested in ads that they would use an adblocker.

    If ads are blocked by the people who don't like them, I'd expect the click through rate to increase, and therefore ROI. Webmasters should think about the benefit to their advertisers, and not just how much they can make on ad impressions.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735849].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mogly
    Stealing from online content creators.. and telling possibly the largest online marketing forum about it.

    Cool.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735872].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by Mogly View Post

      Stealing from online content creators.. and telling possibly the largest online marketing forum about it.

      Cool.
      Is it stealing if I prevent ads from being shown on my computer?

      Is it stealing if I have javascript disabled in my browser, preventing many ads from being shown?

      How about if I use a text-only browser, like Lynx, which is incapable of showing most advertisements? Is that stealing?

      What about if I use an outdated browser which may not show ads as they're intended. Should I be required to use an up to date browser which displays ads properly, and am I stealing if I don't?
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735912].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Mogly View Post

      Stealing from online content creators.. and telling possibly the largest online marketing forum about it.

      Cool.
      In case you aren't aware, there is an online dictionary at dictionary.com to familiarize yourself with words before using them. Obviously, if you put the site on the public Internet with nothing to prevent people from accessing it. Nothing is stolen. You have to remove something that belongs to someone else to steal it. Duh.

      v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
      v.tr.
      1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
      2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
      3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.
      4. To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.
      5. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
      6. Baseball To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
      v.intr.
      1. To commit theft.
      2. To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.
      3. Baseball To steal a base.
      n.
      1. The act of stealing.
      2. Slang A bargain.
      3. Baseball A stolen base.
      4. Basketball An act of gaining possession of the ball from an opponent.
      Idiom:
      steal (someone's) thunder
      To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735914].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
        Suzanne/sbucciarel and Karen,

        Bless you both. You guys are my new heroes.

        I'm way tired of ads and scripts trying to load and locking up my machine.
        Will be blocking that BS from now on.

        Ladies, thank you. Your next box of cigars is on Dr. Lafuddy.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9009960].message }}
  • Sounds nice if I wasn't in the IM field. Seeing concepts and different ads certainly gives me ideas and keeps the creative juices flowing. Another reason I probably don't fast forward through TV commercials. It's my industry
    Signature
    Make Big Money in South Florida Real Estate!
    Our real estate team takes your online and offline generated home buyer and seller leads, and converts them into BIG money in return. We're currently looking for international partners located in UK, Russia, China, Brazil, and more. PM me today for more information. Start earning what your worth by creating a niche in real estate.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735904].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ephrils
    I use AdBlocker Plus and NoScript, which is a Firefox Plugin that won't let scripts on a site load unless you allow them to.

    I have both of these because of the huge amount of scripts often running that @sbucciarel has posted screen shots of already in this thread. There is no reason for that much tracking and to want that much excess stuff to load. Plus all the privacy issues it's going to raise if it hasn't already.

    I'm really annoyed by YouTube ads. I want to watch the video, not a 15-2:30 long ad. The ad is sometimes longer than the video. As she also said, if I wanted to buy something I'd be there, on a website to purchase what I need, and not on a video site.

    How many people really ran out and bought a car after seeing a Youtube ad for one?
    Signature

    Two Signature lines for rent.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7735969].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by Ephrils View Post


      How many people really ran out and bought a car after seeing a Youtube ad for one?

      I agree what most of what you said, but this is not how automobile advertising works. Ads on TV, in print, or on the web for cars are probably not intended to make viewers run out and impulse buy a car.
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7736014].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Ralph
    Cool trick, never really got into chrome though, still using firefox. Not sure if it's a good thing or not, sometimes I quite like the adverts then again at others times theyre annoying. Might hurt some of the Youtube stars who rely on the ad revenue
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7736041].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
      Nail, I'm not apologizing for what you consider rude- I don't take too kindly to forum bullies, bullshit information that newcomers to this forum could be misled by, or people's warped sense of entitlement.

      Others have said this and I will repeat it so that everyone gets it - when you publish something on the Internet it is public. If you don't understand what that means and you deem your content to be "not for public consumption and should be paid for" then create a paid membership site - if your content is good enough - you'll make far more money that the pittance Google pays you in your Adsense "business".

      the subject of stealing has come up a couple of time- but Suzanne covered it above perfectly - so I won't even add to it - thumbs up for that one!

      I'm going to tell you a true story and it will explain why I'm blocking most ads and trackers: I visit St. Catharines, Ontario Kijiji regularly - and I browse the ads - for real estate, for part-time gigs, for bargains, and most recently for a decent used car. I did not know I was being tracked and that my information was being shared with other 3rd parties. A few days after browsing ads - what do you think appeared in my spam folder? Emails about buying used cars, and car insurance quotes.

      Coincidence? I don't think so -

      Bring on the ad blockers - I specifically checked off in Firefox that I do not wish to be tracked - but software was invented to break the browser security feature - and I'm quite sure that eventually software will be created to disable the ad blockers too - and then better ad blockers will be created, and so on. It has always been that way. Why do you think WordPress is updated so darn often?

      Now another thing I wanted to point out: if closing ads or blocking them is illegal, why do you suppose the big guys like Yahoo, Google and Youtube give you options like this: "wait 15 sec to skip this ad", "click the x to close this ad"?

      oh yeah - that's right - because it's all about choices, people - and when I visit your site- I am not interested in your ads, I'm interested in what your site is about - and when I get to know you and trust you - I'll buy directly from you - I would rather make you rich then some corporation - so am I still the "bad" one here?

      that's all I will say about this matter - please allow me the same respect as I give you and please don't insult my intelligence.

      peace out,

      Karen
      Signature
      ---------------
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7736313].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    Webmasters - if you're worried about ad blockers cutting into your revenue then you should get familiar with how the ad blockers work. There are ways around them if you're proactive and think it's worth the trouble.

    I personally don't understand why publishers would be upset about them. By letting the ad-blind remove themselves from the picture your ads on your site should become more valuable so your advertising rates should increase.

    CTR and EPM should improve as advertisers are no longer paying for views that are less likely to get clicked. They will therefore be able to afford to pay more CPM or CPC.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7736797].message }}
  • Will definatly look into this Youtube ADS do my head in lol!

    I end up sitting through soooo many lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7736825].message }}
  • Wow, I didn't knew about this app, and it will save a lot of time for sure.
    It can be useful.

    Thanks for the advice!

    See you,
    Alessandro
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7757906].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thatkeywordguy
    Update

    Ok I just went to YouTube and the ads are back.

    Apparently google has changed something this morning.

    Is anyone else noticing a similar result?
    Signature

    Get Keyword Reseacher at CleverGizmos.com.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7771954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author imacyrayy
    Apps like this are not good for business. We are not getting paid.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7771960].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
      Originally Posted by imacyrayy View Post

      Apps like this are not good for business. We are not getting paid.
      The off switch is bad for business too. Darn computer manufacturers are screwing us IMers big time. Whenever someone has the computer off, we aren't getting paid.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7795225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tomerep
    I really appreciate anything that blocks all the internet junk or junk mail and ads, especially solicitations from companies for business that I have never even heard of. I think it should be my decision when I go to online stores to shop or use services or whatever. I don't need to be bombarded by ads and junk mail informing me that I am about to miss a great deal or that more of what I am looking for is at an even better price now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7773317].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rgb
    actually, I tried something simillar years ago,
    but since I am a full time IM after a 30 minutes,
    I uninstalled it... since I felt I was missing out.

    I want to know what other are doing/advertising
    in my preferred niches.

    But maybe that's just me..
    Signature

    Do you want to become an Amazon Best Selling Author?
    Then you need to look like one - check out how I help authors build a better brand and sell more books.

    > Check our my new product for authors <
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stanleychong
    Well in Malaysia, the government is using YouTube commercial for their election campaigns. So is quite annoying to see politicians talking before you can watch the video
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796168].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author georgecamins
    I've been using Adblock Plus for roughly two years now and I have to say, it is now an absolute necessity. I cannot browse YouTube on someone's computer if they don't have Adblock Plus installed. Those 30 second video ads they have before videos now are just absurd, I feel bad for anyone who has been watching them all these years.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797264].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thatkeywordguy
      Originally Posted by georgecamins View Post

      Those 30 second video ads they have before videos now are just absurd, I feel bad for anyone who has been watching them all these years.
      I know

      I'm at the point in my life now where I simply CANNOT LISTEN to advertisements.

      I remember being a kid and watching cartoons on TV. And sitting through a constant barrage of commercials.

      It's funny how these days, commercials seem odd.

      I simply don't want to give them 30 seconds of my life anymore.

      That's what it comes down to.

      The revolution of "new media" has really changed the way I look at time.
      Signature

      Get Keyword Reseacher at CleverGizmos.com.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7801332].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Greg guitar
        Originally Posted by thatkeywordguy View Post

        I simply don't want to give them 30 seconds of my life anymore.

        That's what it comes down to.
        Exactly; it is your LIFE we are talking about. The sense of entitlement that some marketers have that makes them feel they have the right to force you to sit through their ads is stunning.

        They think when you visit their site, they temporarily have more of a right to determine what you do with your eyes and your mind than you do. We're nearly constantly surrounded by paid advertising.

        So there is always someone who paid to grab your attention at almost any given moment of your life. If some marketers had their way, any effective means of you grabbing it back would be outlawed. It's absurd.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7824278].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ownergolan
    AdBlock is my best internet friend :]
    Signature
    "Aiyyo I'm gonna be on ti-dop, that's all my eyes can see..
    Ill put in work, and watch my status escalate"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797496].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cbader
    Well, I will say this. Adblocking software probably isn't good. But I also see a problem with sites where you can't even tell what the content is because there are SO many ads. I simply stop going to those sites.

    Regarding youtube, I generally don't mind the ads and I understand the necessity. But sometimes is frustrating when the video you want to watch is under 30 seconds and a video ad pops up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7838951].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vadimarket
    Using it for 3+ years now and feeling good about. Sure, there are some great videos from talented creators out there that deserve all what they deserve. But most top youtubers are utter garbage( especially that do those stupid random comedy skits) and all the money they're making are completely undeserved. They probably cheated their way to the top in the first place.....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7839012].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Singlepile
    I have never seen youtube ads, not because I use adblock, but for my country China. No ad is targeted to me. 0_0
    Signature

    I am sexy and I know it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010876].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JWImarketing
    I think what you put on your computer is your own business. Trust me if it's a problem the ad agencies will find away around the blocking software. In the end most people are just going to grit their teeth and make it through the 20 sec ad anyways. That's my 2.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author chickenfillet
      Hi,

      I also never personally use any AdBlocker, because in a way I like banner & text ads. They aren't that intrusive, and many times I found out about good quality products, that I would have NEVER found if I would have enabled AdBlock. The only advertisements that annoy me are the YouTube video ads that buffer.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9011041].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author carlamae
    Time is money....watching ads just isn't an income producing activity.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    I used to earn about $4,000 a month from ads on my site. A year later, after a few ad blockers hit the market, I was earning only about $130 a month from ads. That wasn't all due to ad blockers, part of it was advertisers weren't paying as much, but ad blockers did a lot of the damage.

    Ad blockers hurt real people.

    But, that's not near as important as being a little inconvenienced by ads, is it?
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013311].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SethLogan
    So does it skip the ad or do you still have to wait?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9798222].message }}

Trending Topics