Interesting... so a journalist that writes an article which is published on the internet with adverts on the page, basically states that the industry he works in is flawed and if it fails that is their problem?

If someone wrote an article like that on my website with adverts next to it, guess who would be on the unemployment list next? It's like a TV presenter campaigning against TV adverts!

AdBlock won't block your own local javascript will it? Then just use a local version of OpenX to run your ads. It uses a local javascript include to server ads.

Might be a work around for those who need one.

AdBlock won't block your own local javascript will it?

Adblock applications (norton, firefox, etc..) filter your code for keywords and then not execute the java, php or other script associated with the keywords. OpenX is typically delivered by php script and does have very distinct associated code. My Norton and Firefox addon can and does block OpenX, Adsense, YPN, Doubleclick, and other ad delivery mediums.

Ad blockers cannot block php or any other server side script. Those all execute before the page gets near the browser.

I'm sure they will look for distinctive code. Also they might block any images that happen to be in standard ad sizes (I've had fun with that one). Norton used to block pages with ad in the url - a friend had great fun with a classified page.

Ad blockers cannot block php or any other server side script.

No, but if those scripts are called by the browser using javascript, the blockers can easily stop the ads.

Ad blockers cannot block php or any other server side script.

The Firefox Adblocker addon can block the delivery of anything as can Norton. It's all in the configuration.

Norton can and does block graphic image sizes (468x60, etc).

can block the delivery of anything

Apologies - I was being pedantic. php isn't "delivered" to the browser, it is only processed by the server while it generates pages. This forum is presumably generated using php by the server, but check the source and it all looks like html. There's no evidence of php.

On the other hand, anything that is put into the code by php can be blocked just as much as if it were hand coded in html. I assume that was your point (which is a fair one).

Also apologies for being pedantic - was hoping to help those interested in ad blocking to differentiate between server side (which can be invisible to the user) and browser side.

i thought it was perl

Correction - Martinibuster sticky'd me on this post..

I said

Norton can and does block graphic image sizes (468x60, etc).

This is not true for the version of Norton on my wifes computer. Norton does not appear to have this capability.

However, Kaspersky - 2009 version will strip google, ypn, OpenX and all kinds of stuff out of your webpages..

I'm buying Norton when my subscription to Kaspersky runs out..

Worrying about ads is so 1999. With most people on broadband, it's not about slowing down the web experience anymore.

I don't find this to be as true as it might seem. It's not so much the volume of content, but the volume of requests. Sites with multiple ads from different providers are noticeable slower, and there's a tendency to "front load" the ads, so they display before content.

Added to that, internet speed seems to be like money - the more people have, the more they use. So faster internet = doing more internet things at the same time. Even for non-technical users, their computers are starting to automatically consume bandwidth. When people start watching videos and browsing, speed is right back where it used to be. Broadband internet is not always fast on most of the "end user" computers I use.

>> "Freeloaders"

You need to understand your audience before you start labelling them. I'm pretty sure I spend way more than the average internet user online every month. I block all ads. I also throw links at sites I like. I won't give you any links if you force me to view ads (I won't even know that your content was worth linking to).

>>> "Freeloaders"

I use RIP on FF. A webmaster might not recognize his own site if he viewed it on my machines. Header, footer, unused columns, large graphics --all gone.

I block all ads

Look everybody, a website is like a house and the house (website) owner makes the rules.

If you come to my house (website) invited or not - you may not remove my wifes ugly painting from the foyer wall. You may not go into any room (script) without my permission and you must not damage (hack) any property real or otherwise. You must follow my rules on my PROPERTY.

If I find anybody not respecting my house (website) and rearranging my furniture (ads) you will be asked to leave and your re-entry will be blocked.

Never forget that you a guest on other folks property.

The bottom line is if people have the tenacity to block ads, then they aren't a good prospect anyway.

game over

Look everybody, a website is like a house and the house (website) owner makes the rules.

The analogy doesn't stand up. Of course, you are free to block accesses to your site if you want to, I have no objection.

But you are essentially publicly distributing material and allowing everyone who requests it to make a copy, which is then stored on their property. More like a catalogue that is delivered. If I decide I want to cut out pictures I don't like from the paper Yellow Pages or use it as a doorstop, that's up to me.

The bottom line is if people have the tenacity to block ads, then they aren't a good prospect anyway

Sure, if the only way of converting my traffic into something useful for you if I click an ad, then that's true by definition. But the idea that ad blocking = no money or inclination to spend money online is not true at all.

I subscribe to sites, I donate to them and I buy lots of stuff online. It's just for me, ads making the internet less pleasant enough that I configure my own PC not to display them. I also block colour contrasts that make it hard for me to read and other things like that.

The analogy doesn't stand up.

Try to tell that to television stations, movie makers, artist, book authors, newspapers, CNN, Yahoo, magazines, and let's not forget Napster..

But you are essentially publicly distributing material and allowing everyone who requests it to make a copy,

No, visitors to my property may not make a copy and this is explicitly stated is my terms.

Just because you are given access (technology) to property does not make it yours. If you have the capability to copy a song, website, newspaper or other media does not make it is yours to do with as you please.

Do you park your car where the public has access to it?

If I decide I want to cut out pictures

That is after your have received the catalog not before. If your cutting out the ads - your seeing them.

But you are essentially publicly distributing material and allowing everyone who requests it to make a copy, which is then stored on their property.

...a bit like recording TV programmes on your video recorder. it's easy to take a copy of a show to store on your own machine, but it doesn't mean you can do whatever you like with the material.

I still don't think these analogies hold. For security reasons, I also block all java and javascript by default. I can't see how this is something that is intrinsically wrong.

That is after your have received the catalog not before.

Exactly. If you want to block adblockers, then you do it at the point of delivery. I have no issue with that at all.

Part of the process of viewing a website is being supplied a copy by a web server, which software on my own machine will display in a way I like. That could be reading it aloud, displaying it as text only, displaying it as code, whatever. This is just a part of the way web browsing works.

Most ads are not even served from publisher's websites anyway, so this has nothing to do with being on someone else's property and not obeying house rules.

I don't know if there's any legal precedent for a site owner to dictate the technology and software required in order to use it. I can't see how this would possibly work. How would it accommodate blind visitors or those with ancient technology?

You have the clear option of preventing access at the point of delivery if you do not like the fact that web browsing involves supplying a copy that individual clients may modify before display.

What nobody has mentioned her is the irony that Tech Smudge (it's not real dirt) runs on an advertising model so make sure AdBlock is on when you cruise their site because obviously they have no right to their business model.

I have written and tested AdBlock code several times but what I did was far more evil.

If I detected Ad blocking I shoved SERVER SIDE ads into the spaces about to be blocked so that the AdBlock code couldn't detect it from an ad serving server or whatever, VERY effective.

Additionally, I ran a test and actually bounced ad blockers to a page "Please Enable Advertisements that support this site" and a small percentage wanted on the site bad enough they did enable ads.

The rest just bounced but who cares?

If everyone bounced them they would finally give up and turn on the ads globally.

However, the real solution here is the we need more server side ad feeds so that we can populate the ads in the page in PHP or whatever server side and masking most of what triggers AdBlock and simply escalate the situation to the next level by removing the simple tell tale signs.

TIP: For banner ads I often force the size of the server side banners to be +/- 1 pixel different from the standard sizes the ad blockers look for and it fouls up their simplistic logic.

That all works for me, incrediBILL, since that's the way I think the internet works. Your server decides how it will respond to my request, my client decides what it's going to do with the response. Server-side ads tend to be much less intrusive anyhow.

you have the clear option of preventing access at the point of delivery if you do not like the fact that web browsing involves supplying a copy that individual clients may modify before display.

This is the rub that bothers me most in that we website owners don't have the choice. Ad blocker applications tend to be stealth in nature. Most ad blocker applications DO NOT communicate to the website owner that they are going omit the advertising display during delivery.

I do not have a problem with the use of ad blockers; this is and should be a personal choice. However, I do think that when a visitor arrives at my website door I should be notified that they intend to visit and modify MY code by not looking at my advertising.

The website owner should also the CHOICE to allow or not allow ad blockers on their website.

No doubt, there are plenty of websites that would allow ad blockers, however many that would not.

You have the clear option of preventing access at the point of delivery if you do not like the fact that web browsing involves supplying a copy that individual clients may modify before display.

i think this is the bit where us webmasters get a raw deal. everyone seems to think that the web has different rules to TV and radio. but in my mind, sending a webpage to a user's computer is no different to sending a programme to their TV screen, or a radio broadcast to their hi-fi.
sure, it's their equipment, and they have the technology to fiddle with what they're seeing and hearing, but that doesn't give them the right to edit great chunks of it. you can't phone up SKY and demand that they remove all the ads before they broadcast the programme. and you can't phone up Radio 1 and demand that they bleep out all the jingles before they play you the songs. you get what you're given, and if you don't like it then you should watch something else.
but now we seem to be arguing that web users deserve some kind of special right to alter the content before they receive it.

if they don't want to watch or listen to the ads, then that's fair enough. but they shouldn't be allowed to remove them from the source.

put it this way... there are plenty of radio stations on the net. and presumably they play a lot of adverts. if IE/firefox came out with a plugin that somehow blocked all the ads from internet radio stations the stations would go bust in a month... it's not impossible to do... they could buffer the broadcast for a minute before playing it. how long do you reckon it would be before the stations ganged up and filed suit? there is no real difference between that and people blocking ads on our websites.

Sure website owners have the option.

You can either:

a) Send the entire page as a single image, filter THAT!

b) The natural evolution of the single image idea is FLASH, which could have ads embedded

c) Send the entire page as obfuscated javascript so that most of the normal methods use to block content in HTML fail miserably

Just remember, where there's a Bill, there's a way :)

adverts are going to be like the paid links of old. you look at companies that sell paid links now... they do everything they can to hide the fact that they are paid links, short of painting them in invisible ink. ads are going the same way.

adverts are bad! down with capitalism! how dare they try and make money! they are becoming a sin -- a sin that we will have to try and hide to sneak them past the blockers.

This is the rub that bothers me most in that we website owners don't have the choice. Ad blocker applications tend to be stealth in nature. Most ad blocker applications DO NOT communicate to the website owner that they are going omit the advertising display during delivery.

This is a fair point. I certainly wouldn't object to a notification system (maybe something in the user-agent). Part of the problem is that while standard adblockers are an obvious case, what about if I disable javascript? I allow javascript for trusted sites only, and third party ad serving networks are very unlikely to be trustworthy.

londrum, there are already devices etc. that will block ads on TV. This is only possible in more recent years because of digital TV - a technology gap, basically rather than any legal barrier.

they could buffer the broadcast for a minute before playing it. how long do you reckon it would be before the stations ganged up and filed suit?

A suit against who, though? They could sue someone who made software that allowed skipping ads (there are even legal precedents, I believe) but if an individual takes steps to avoid watching ads (like fastforward on a VCR), what possible law have they broken?

I don't think there is any legal mileage here. At its heart this is an ethical discussion. You think it is unethical to block ads, and I don't.

I actively contribute to sites that I consider to have helped me or provided value. But I don't accept that I must view popups, popunders, scroll down past flashing gizmos or load untrustworthy content when I'm browsing the internet trying to find something of value. I feel that my karma is in fair condition ;)

when i'm watching TV i skip past the ads too. and i don't bother with them in the papers. probably everyone on the planet does it, it's no big deal. but if it ever got to the point where no one could even SEE them, then that's a problem because websites will start closing down for lack of money.

these plug-ins are getting more and more popular.
if it's not a moral or a legal issue, then what's to stop IE and firefox pandering to their users and installing these plugins as a built in piece of their browser, switched on by default? where would that leave us webmasters? we would find ourselves with a major headache literally overnight.

browsers are built for the users, not the webmasters, so it's not impossible. "download firefox... and never be bothered by adverts again" would be a selling point.

Half of the equation is:
What have these ads become that inspires people to block them?

I don't care if you sneak your belly fat, teeth whitening, acai, or dancing monkey ads past my adblocker.
I'm still not clicking on them. :)

b) The natural evolution of the single image idea is FLASH, which could have ads embedded

:))

Bill ..sun, yardarm, slainte ;)

mais ..luke .8.6

I don't have problems with ads on the web. I have problems with sites serving third parties wherein security issues can come into play... hence, I block everything that is third party ... and, unfortunately, that means most of the ads. Unlike TV and Radio which goes into a box unconnected with the rest of my life, the web is potentially intrusive on my computer. I have the right to secure it... and chose the level at which I secure it.