you really can't know, those who claim they can are alienating their site`s users.

There is a thread here: [webmasterworld.com...] but it really relies on JS/DOM detection method.

I use HOSTS file/Noscript to block most of the tracking/profiling/ads, which accomplishes pretty much the same thing as AdBlockers

Your link 404'd on me..maybe this one will work ..edit..it does..
[webmasterworld.com...]

you really can't know, those who claim they can are alienating their site`s users.

True..you can't know with 100 % certainty, and there are more ablockers being released every day..( method ..yep ..knew that you'd know without looking at keyplayer's post ;).."alienating their sites users"..very probably, certainly why I'd never use a "second stage" ( I mentioned one way to do it, played around with it on a test site , ( as an academic exercise ), lower down in that thread ) that locked out those using ad blockers based upon what the "sniffer" result was..

Annoying users like that, ( or in any other way ) is a dumb move.. the WaPo has picked up a lot of flack over their "test"..and the thread at el reg
[theregister.co.uk...]
went incandescent over it..rarely seen their comments section lit up like that..

edit ..spelling

[edited by: Leosghost at 7:32 pm (utc) on Sep 18, 2015]

From that article:

If you follow the subject, you'll know that the advertising business is suffering a multi-pronged credibility crisis among the buyers who fund it.

Ju!cy

Google probably is not sweating this that much. They have been increasing the ads on YouTube (their fastest growing revenue source) at an incredible pace. I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube revenue exceeds Google Search revenue in the near future.

blend27: They been doing it for a while now...

1 You get Ranked!
2. You Get Tanked :(
3. You start paying Adwords and slowly drift to page 6.....

Happens to everyone's site eventually... That is their biz model unfortunately :(

Ha, that's true

netmeg: I still would like to know how to determine if ad blocking really is an issue. I *know* mobile is an issue. I haven't been able to ferret out an ad blocker footprint from my log files.

Been thinking about this too. Placed an ad of a business friend and I was driving traffic from there (to them off course). Been thinking on setting up a test with rotating ads but server side, you know, anything that will be invisible/impossible for adblockers (not that difficult actually) but I've been busy on other stuff by now. My bet goes beyond adblockers: ad blindness, but I also bet the numbers will be different from adsense reports.

Adblockers would/could and should be pointing to: some div classes, some key text, sure specific URLS. It's been posted but I won't go into details, specifics or what part I'm guessing at this moment.

Also, the ad blocking app "Peace" is already RIP. Google already bought him out I'm sure.

ooking for evidence of an adblocker is fairly simple..create a div that would correspond to one that is known to be blocked by adblockers, check to see if it is "displayed".

Right, that's the problem. Don't know any of that, don't know how to get any of that, and won't scale. So as far as I can see, there's no easy detection.

Google didn't buy out the "Peace" option, the dev supposedly had a crisis of conscience. I suspect he got a lot of negative feedback from publishers.

Read the thread that blend27 and I linked to..that is "the how" ( well.. one of them, and it is nice and elegant ).."scaling it" is easy..

"publishers" who rely entirely on ad servicing will likely suffer the most as that revenue stream is likely to be killed off in the name of security and user protection.

... as is usually the case when you work for someone else --

There are those, however, that can keep the free stuff out there. Ours isn't solely dependent on ads - We make our money via products/services, and we manage our monetary affairs in such a fashion so as to continue putting that free stuff out there.

I know a lot of guys that don't have even as much as two brain cells to rub together when it comes down to doing actual business.

There are, quite frankly, millions of web property owners that are out there that don't even need to put on the ads at all ... Their websites are their ads, and these would be the sort of ads that keeps the money rolling in on a consistent basis. You can never underestimate the true power of a website that's developed and maintained properly.

You only advertise when you're hungry or have something new that you want to tell folks about. If you've got a fairly decent product or service that might be in medium to higher demand, then running ads would be a waste of money -- You may have all of the work you can handle already, or you may be expanding.

You can pretty much tell which industries are the most desperate just by looking at the ads. With the exception of the few, most ads these days show products or services that nobody's interested in ... hammering away on someone's site ad nausium to the point, in most cases, of the end user installing an adblocker. They've seen it all all ready - And the more the ad gets ignored, the more the publishers try to put it in your face.

Ads by themselves are fine -- It's the constant nagging that's done during a read, or an on-load auto-play occurs about half the way down a page that people aren't liking.

Anybody that's been around the net for a while can probably see the pattern that's developed over the years with regard to ads -- There's always seemingly big problems every time the end user is required to participate against his or her will ... Before it was the pop-ups .. Now it's things like the Modals and all sorts of other on-load crap that we're being forced to deal with.

Forced interaction isn't going to win the day with anyone accept the adblockers. Advertisers and their irresponsible publishers need to sit down and understand that although the money is important, it's the end user that keeps returning that's even more important than that. And if ads is all one has to pay the bills, then I'll suggest finding a different line of work, or invest time and energy into something that people can actually use -- Because the times, they are a changin' --

@mcneely

Forced interaction isn't going to win the day

Awesome! I think these would be some of the best few words of this entire thread.

Something worth noting:

By deault, AdBlock Plus (reportedly the most popular ad blocker) has "allow acceptable ads" enabled by default. To block all ads, the user needs to change a setting.

Also, there's a procedure for having your site whitelisted by AdBlocker Plus.

Here's the most interesting item of all:

According to AdBlocker Plus's own survey, "only 25 percent of Adblock Plus users are strictly against any advertising...The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some users are even asking for a way to enable Adblock Plus on some websites only."

For more, see:

[adblockplus.org...]

The actual adblockplus controls currently allow the user, with just one click, ( two clicks if you count clicking on the logo on the browser bar ) to..
Disable ( blocking ) on this website
Disable ( blocking ) on this page
Disable ( blocking ) everywhere

Degrees in rocket surgery are not required to operate it..

Same with the NoScript folks.... allowing what is domain level, rejecting all third party scripting/linking.

I doubt the world is anti-ads, but they are certainly anti-abuse and anti-malware sent via advertising!

When used together (or similar products) the end user can fine tune the experience to what it SHOULD be, not the raging cacophony and invasive tracking that it has become.

Another update on PEACE.

[theregister.co.uk...]

Appears the author of PEACE still believes in adblocking, just wasn't prepared for the perfect peace HIS adblocker did: killed everything. He now recommends apple folks download his competitor adblockers which are "more nuanced".

This is possibly the best thing I've read so far on adblocking. It unpacks the issues and possibilities very well:

[vox.com...]

There is a zero-sum element to change in the advertising industry. The rise of new media does not expand the total pie — it grabs a bigger slice away from old media. Ad spending stays consistent at 1 to 2 percent of GDP, no matter what. Conversely, if content blockers render a whole class of ad spending ineffective, the spending won't vanish — it will pop up someplace else. So to the extent that ad blocking is bad for some ad-supported companies, it will be good for some other companies.

The big question is who will win and who will lose. Three big shifts seem likely:
* A shift away from programmatic display ads in favor of "native" ads.
* A shift away from mid-sized publications, in favor of publications that are either big enough to support a sophisticated sales operation or small enough to have low revenue needs.
* A shift away from the web into mobile app platforms that can provide a more controlled experience.

Perhaps Apple's adoption of adblocking is not so much a direct attack on Google but part of its mission to 'appify' the web.

Exactly what I suggested on page 4. Surely it can only go so far though as there has to be a practical limit to the number of apps you can install.

This was from earlier in the year..I'd lost the URL..an article at elreg about the "peace" adblocker had it mentioned again in the comments..Troy Hunt's speciality is security..he is very well known, he's currently the only safe source of detailed data on the Ashley Madison hack..Even his site got taken over by "malvertising" earlier this year..The reactions of the ad agencies which were involved make interesting reading..
[troyhunt.com...]

A quote from his article..which he also bolds in the original..

When you allow third parties to run script on your site, you’re entirely beholden to them; they can run anything they like in the context of your site.

Do I hear that distant refrain that adblocking might be the next virus protection, firewall, etc apps of earlier days yet again?

We all know ads are necessary.

We also know that the current ad serving environment is too open and too little monitored and such malvert criminal activity is becoming more common, and more devastating month on month.

As Hogarth of the comics used to say (as did Charlie Brown) ARRRRGGHH!

Front page of the NYT. Seems to be rising mainstream awareness about how much these blockers will hurt small publishers.

[nytimes.com ]

Reads more like a puff piece of badly done product placement for where the "expert" Mr Carroll teaches..
How many times did they manage to shoehorn in his name and where he teaches..in full..ROTFALOL..
Maybe they thought an actual ad for him might get "adblocked"..but "this article sponsored by" would have been honest..or "advertorial"..

Despite what the "article" infers..not all adblockers take the "cudgel" approach..although if the "article" writers only live inside the fruity walled garden..they might not have heard of adblockers up until now..

The final paragraph however, seems to show that message is getting across to some advertisers that they have to change their ways..

“In ad tech, we tend to look at this as an opportunity to address the core issue, which is making the user experience better,” Neal Richter, Rubicon’s chief technology officer, said in a recent interview.

Reads more like a puff piece of badly done product placement for where the "expert" Mr Carroll teaches..
How many times did they manage to shoehorn in his name and where he teaches..in full..ROTFALOL..
Maybe they thought an actual ad for him might get "adblocked"..but "this article sponsored by" would have been honest..or "advertorial"..,

He was quoted twice, along with five other people, and you reckon this is a "puff piece"? Dear oh dear. Publishers and academics are entitled to an opinion too, you know.

Carroll's second point is actually an interesting one. Perhaps adblockers will evolve to become more customisable and more discretionary, allowing one or two static ads per page.

Adblock plus* already allows one one two static ads per page..but in order to get on their whitelist ( which is on "accept ads in this list" by default when installed ) the site or the ad agency must first apply to , and be vetted for compliance,

[adblockplus.org...]
by the makers of Adblock plus, not all sites have to pay..only the large agencies and ad slingers like Google..

I know this because 1) Adblock Plus say this..

But most importantly..I found one site on the list..a small site..runs two static image ads with "click throughs" per page..I phoned them to ask if they had to pay..they said "No..not at all"..

*Yeah ..I mentioned their name 3 times..but they are the subject of my post..

If you think that the NYT "promotion" twice in their" "article" of Mr Carroll's ( an associate professor of "media design"..works in an ad agency by any chance ? I had that same "associate professor" title a couple of times when I taught at Universities in the UK, whilst I worked freelance in ad agencies ) place of employment was normal, ( the others interviewed only got one mention each ) I can't say that I'm surprised in the light of your other posts on the subject of adblockers..

Here's Carroll's background:

[newschool.edu...]

I've no idea whether he still has ties to the advertising industry. However as I've said, as an academic he's entitled to be consulted. And a couple of mentions hardly makes it a puff piece, however fond of conspiracy theories you are.

On a related topic, I'm a little tired of seeing the Irish mob PageFair cited every time there's a story on Adblock. They certainly are a vested interest. And their $22 billion figure seems to have been plucked out of thin air.

They certainly are a vested interest.

PageFair, either by accident or design, somehow felt it wasn’t important to present the real problem. If they were serious about addressing the problem, you would see web publisher abuse on the chart as well. But then again, publisher abuse can’t be shown, because if it were, PageFair wouldn’t be able to argue against the use of adblockers.

@Leos, if you don't have an ad dependent business to run, why are you posting in the Adsense forum?

PageFair, either by accident or design, somehow felt it wasn’t important to present the real problem. If they were serious about addressing the problem, you would see web publisher abuse on the chart as well

PageFair isn't interested in "addressing the problem". They're an ad network whose business model is built on exploiting publisher paranoia about adblocking. You're right though, if they were serious they'd be surveying sites, reporting on disruptive and intrusive advertising practices and advising publishers on responsible advertising.

@mrsavage..
I did not say that I only have a non ad dependent business to run..my main business(es) do not depend on ads..But , I have some other websites that I run ads on..I have been perfectly clear about that since I joined..Many of us here have multiple businesses, and some have both ecom and ad sites,some also have offline businesses too.. do try to keep up..it saves keep having completely unnecessary arguments and or stopping to have to explain things to you that have already been dealt with..some here don't have ecom businesses, it has never stopped them posting in ecom SEO threads..although many of us wonder why..

If I ran adwords for my products ( I don't ) I might be in the adblocker threads , because the rise of adblockers will affect advertisers to..the people who are paying for the ads that adsense publishers run..that is where the money that some are so afraid will be affected is really coming from..advertisers won't want to pay for ads that won't get seen..

If they want to continue to use the "content networks" and have their ads seen, they'll want to use ads that are allowed through or that get through, that is an opportunity for webmasters who have ad supported sites to make money from those advertisers, if they adapt, if they can..

advertisers won't want to pay for ads that won't get seen

That's one way of looking at it. Some advertisers might see it as an opportunity though. People who install adblockers clearly aren't interested in ads. People who don't install adblockers could be a more accessible / approachable audience for ads.

[edited by: engine at 6:43 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

Now I have another rugby match to watch :), while I also watermark images ( for my ecom sites, and my sites which have ads on ) individually , so as to make sure that each is unobtrusive, and cannot be scraped..

ps..Pagefair have shown themselves to be extremely good at "clickbait" and viral marketing of their name..I would imagine that it has done their SERP position , and their bank balance , no harm at all..in fact probably the precise opposite..and they will have become a "go to" company, for any "journo" writing or speaking on the subject of adblockers..

[edited by: engine at 6:43 pm (utc) on Sep 25, 2015]
[edit reason] tidied up [/edit]

I was considering starting a website but now I'm not sure if I can make it pay for itself.

I've installed an adblocker on my iPhone and I'm amazed how much quicker pages load now.

I suspect people install them to speed up page loads and thus reduce data use age.

So if ads can load more quickly then everyone wins / I have been to some sites ( including some major news sites) which are so so to load because of ads I avoid them.

Here's an interesting article on this at a site I read (. [infobritain.co....] uk/ )- this is really affecting the little guys making a modest living I think. I've added space in the url just in case you can't post in links but thus guy makes some interesting points