I'm not sure what the problem people using adblockers have. If you don't like the ads don't visit. Not hard to understand!

You can vote with your eyes and go elsewhere, using a blocker is just freeloading.

If the content is not important enough for you to have to see some ads then surely you can read it elsewhere on some site with no ads...

Oh wait there isn't a host of journalists itching to work for nothing...

My view is you visit my site you put up with whatever I have on it, you don't like it then don't come but don't bitch about it and try sneak in the back without paying.

FattyB it's because some sites have so much advertising, or use extremely intrusive ads, that visitor browsers actually slow down or freeze. The same sites usually have some sort of exit popup and code to stop the back button and, and...

Nutterum I like that idea. If Google can put out a dominant browser then perhaps it should put out an ad blocker of their own which allows a site to have a limited number of ads.

I find this whole topic disheartening. (I think the Opera browser announced today that it has a built-in blocker, not just an add-on one.)
I can't imagine that web surfers don't understand the concept of ad supported content, and would consider it a "good thing".
On the other hand, when seeing stats about the percentage of bandwidth that ads eat up, I totally sympathize with users, especially mobile ones.
As a publisher, I'm stuck with Ad networks that just gang bang the s*** out of ads (heavy files, scores of calls out to servers with slow responses, abusive user tracking, the use of technologies (flash) that freeze my browser). I would dump these clowns in a second if I could.

It's a shame that there isn't some organization in the middle that could arbitrate this issue and set standards beneficial to both sides. But realistically, when looking at the movie and music industries where stealing content is more or less considered acceptable, the future doesn't bode well for content publishers.

People will always do what is cheapest and best for them, that's human nature. And doing so no doubt lowers the quality of what then becomes available (because people exit the field). But as far as people really caring about this loss, vs. their convenience and economic needs, I don't think anyone ever does.

With audio content (music, comedians) some still have the income possible from live concerts to make up for losses in "record" sales. But for web publishers, I don't see what alternative income sources we have.

The concept of building "community" for which people would pay to join and access information is certainly a possibility. But for websites that tend to provide "one-off" information (what's the best paint to choose, what's going on Friday when I go to Denver for two days, ....) the community model doesn't fit.

It's a shame that there isn't some organization in the middle that could arbitrate this issue and set standards beneficial to both sides.

Google with control not only over their own advertising network, but with control over a huge segment of the search network?

Although the pros and cons of ad blocking is certainly an interesting discussion, I wonder if there should be an entire board devoted to ad blockers here on WWW on the assumption that a large portion of the professional webmaster community is interested in exploring solutions to this problem. There are a lot of dimensions to this issue including: which ad blockers block what (images, affiliate links, analytics, social media buttons); other ways of monetization; the best blocking ad blockers tools; whether it's better to ask or demand a whitelisting, etc. Pooling our knowledge and experiences might help us save our business model.

@Bluejeans - while I agree there are always benefits to discussions, I disagree with putting yet more indexable, topic specific content about ad blocking choices out on the web for the education of the user.

The proliferation of these tools has been elevated in part by numerous forums across the web, alerting users who may have never otherwise known about them or even cared that much until they read about how they should install a simple add-on to get rid of the evil ads.

@keyplyr Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. My searches reveal much, much more for the users of ad blockers than for webmasters trying to cope with it. Reliable information and tools are extremely hard to come by.

The one thing that is obvious in this thread is that few show concern for their visitors' experience, rather it is all OMG! the sky is falling! How DARE anyone alter my site especially it's ads!

And then many (see other current threads in this forum) get giddy at the prospect of Google not only altering their site but hosting that version as well; of course the ads will be intact, Hallelujah!

What I'm not reading is an actual factual impact that illustrates the damage of ad blockers.
Note: I am not saying there isn't one, just that few if any are showing to what extent it exists.
Ask yourself (aka run analytics to tell yourself):
* what was third party ad network conversion rate for each of the last 12 quarters?
Note: yes, that is going back 3-years but a baseline over time is required.
---for desktop?
---for mobile?

* what was the ad fill rate for each of the last 12 quarters?
* what was the ad relevance to site/page content and/or visitor demographics for each of the last 12 quarters?

* if (also) serve ads directly what percentage of all ads served is that for each of the last 12 quarters?
* if (also) serve ads directly what is conversion rate for each of the last 12 quarters?

* if also have affiliate links what is conversion rate for each of the last 12 quarters?
* what was mobile traffic percentage for each of the last 12 quarters?

* what was the percentage of traffic using ad blockers for each of the last 12 quarters?
* exactly which ads/links/etc. are being blocked by various blockers?
---when did each start?

If you haven't asked and answered the above or similar how can you blame ad blockers or anything else for a given or continuing drop in revenue? Read the multiple threads in the AdSense forum about manifold problems other than blocking. What, if any, are their impacts? Are they more or less than that of blockers?

A question: as most sites convert a minority of visitors how might one prove that ad blockers are being taken up more/same/less by those least/most likely to convert?

Also:
Perhaps the most important point being missed by just about everyone in the ad blocker frenzy is that those people visiting with blockers so love your site that they found a way to make it palatable. Yes, they may not have got it because of YOUR site but because of some enterprise piece of excrement. But, we have no way of knowing that for certain, although if they come via SE they are probably new traffic so the blocker was triggered elsewhere.

Still:
* consider your site speed to connect, serve, render (especially third parties).
---consider ways to minimise and mitigate HTTP calls especially scripts and third parties.
* consider how best to communicate with visitors that doesn't simply reconfirm their blocker bias.
* consider directly served backup ads/content in place of blocked ads/content.

It may not be obvious but 'web' third party ad networks are in trouble as FaceBook and other 'walled garden' platforms suck them away. Google's AWP is their variation to counter/join this. Plus 'native' aka infomercial ads are increasing steadily. Have you been following where advertising is being spent? Perhaps you should, so that you understand why AdSense and similar have plateaued or even dipped as a percentage of available spend.

Things are changing. Stop being oblivious.
Adapt.
Or keep complaining.

Anyone who can't find something of value in iamlost's comment above is either blinkered (blind) or wishing desperately g will save their a$$. One of those won't happen, the other can't be fixed.

The one thing that is obvious in this thread is that few show concern for their visitors' experience, rather it is all OMG! the sky is falling! How DARE anyone alter my site especially it's ads! 

Right on point! A couple of months ago i put adsense on one of my sites to make it look more "professional". The ads were embarassing so i blocked everything adsense would allow and the ads were still horific. Adsense only made my site look anything but professional. So i took down the adsense, and this was before i knew about the ads serving up malware and tracking codes. In my niche, the user comes must come first if i want to capture that user.

Sorry for the duplicate

Adapt. Or keep complaining.

It works both ways:

Visitor: "Hey, webmaster, I cannot access your content because you're hiding it from visitors who use ad blockers!"
Webmaster: "Adapt. Or keep complaining."

Visitor: "Hey, webmaster, I cannot access your content because you're hiding it from visitors who use ad blockers!"
Webmaster: "Adapt. Or keep complaining."

If you consider such a reply a viable business model going forward, you have my best wishes.

If you consider such a reply a viable business model going forward, you have my best wishes.

I'm inclined to say "Rots of Ruck"

The NYT wrote:

"The best things aren't free. You currently have an ad blocker installed. Advertising helps us fund our journalism. To continue to enjoy the Times, please support us in one of the following ways: 1. Disable adblocker. 2. Pay us to read the content."

Adapt - Disable adblocker OR Keep complaining (if you don't want to pay). This is the viable business model to NYT; I've just paraphrased it.

Adapt - Disable adblocker OR Keep complaining (if you don't want to pay). This is the viable business model to NYT; I've just paraphrased it.

And I wish the New York Times and similar media the best of luck.

Unfortunately, if one looks back over the past 30 some years, ever since newspapers began investigating how the Internet would impact the news business and how they could best adapt they have dropped the ball and made the wrong decisions year after year after year.

Given that horrendous track record - and that of the equally luddite music enterprise companies - I would be tentative at best (personally, it'd be not touch with a 10 metre pole) at taking their business behaviours as a best practice going forward.

The one thing that is obvious in this thread is that few show concern for their visitors' experience, rather it is all OMG! the sky is falling!

That's the kind of sanctimony we've become accustomed to when discussing this issue. User experience and responsible use of advertising has always been a priority for me, as I'm sure it has been for other publishers who post here. I'd rather fold my sites and get a day job than turn them into garish, slow-loading eyesores where ads overwhelm content.

All what I read here is OK, different point of view.

What bothers me with an ad blocker is as in the installation of ad blockers all sites set to be blocked, which is arrogance and unacceptable. If a site has a handful of commercials or advertisements will open new windows, please block that site. This is significantly different view of the whole story.

Why all the sites affected by blocking by default. Therefore, we will all see you more often radical measures by the web sites that are funded by the display of advertisements on the sites.

I have no faith whatsoever that the genie is going back in the bottle on this one; I believe fully/mostly ad-supported sites are going the way of the dinosaur. The goal I and my partner are working towards right now is to be ad-free (except for direct banner ads which I sell myself) by sometime in 2017.

The hardest thing to remember is that people mostly don't care about how content is funded, because if they don't get it from you there's plenty of other places to get it. And if it's a little off or not quite the same quality content - <shrug>

A good portion of the print newspaper/magazine world was decimated because they didn't see the writing on the wall (and many still don't). When or if that ever happens to me, it will be time to hang up my keyboard.

I still read forbes articles with adblock when their article come up on my search query. Just click on view cache on search engine and you've full article :)

Interesting comments. Largest newspaper on my country are now disguising ads as content, so, ad blockers will hide their ads (and their long scripts) but will not hide the page saying "new benefits of old beer, brand X". The thing is, the quality and content of those pseudo articles, while not blocked, it-s easy for the brain to block not capturing any interest at all.

I worked on the largest newspaper in my country and things look terrible for them: Ive been getting a lot of people telling me "why paying" when most if not all international news say EFE, FAFA, BB, LALA, etc as the sources, it-s just copy paste of things "we can read elsewhere". Nice point.

i don't think the change will come from the publishers, or the advertisers, it will come from the advert providers (like google)

sure, the publishers are losing money -- but we are small fry. we just have to go along with it.
And the advertisers don't really care, because they have plenty of other places to advertise if they need to,
but the google's of this world must be losing an absolute fortune. they are the ones who will ultimately force a solution to it.

@Londrum - At first glance. it seems to be worth whatever Google needs to invest to find a way to circumvent the AdBlockers or come to a deal to exclude them, but if they do the users who care enough to avoid ads may start to flock elsewhere. Do you really think it's worth the risk to their market share dominance to get a relatively small amount of money (compared to the amount they'd lose if they lose market share)?

i don't think the change will come from the publishers, or the advertisers, it will come from the advert providers (like google)

I think this is the most likely path for the future of web advertising.

I think this is the most likely path for the future of web advertising.

Isn't this what AMP is about? First step in that direction?

Isn't this what AMP is about? First step in that direction?

Well that's basically for mobile (Accelerated Mobile Pages.)

However despite Google's efforts to champion this, just how many webmasters do you know that are recoding or even building new sites with AMP? I know one (and it's not me.)

I keep thinking, of the 644 million active websites on the Internet (according to Netcraft) do they all become "warning, this web pages is not safe..."

I would have to imagine that some of these publications like NYT are starting to rethink ad networks, Might be time to start selling their own ads space.

And there I was yesterday evening sitting in a library doing some research and using my tablet at the same time. I clicked on a link to a newspaper site and started reading the article, after about 20 seconds or so a self-loading loud video began to play ... thanks newspaper, awesome!

They only have themselves to blame.

Might be time to start selling their own ads space

Considering that's how print newspapers have traditionally operated, I'm surprised they're not already doing it. Surely it shouldn't be too much effort to transition from selling display ads from print to online.

It's a matter of economics. G built this thing that replaced the ad and classified departments with a plug and play script that allowed the axe to fall on "surplus employees" and a budget to run a department.

But if you do it yourself (seek out advertisers, bill them, display, report, and collect) you can usually make better money, never see an ad blocker, and not be embarrassed by some of the krap ads that are out there.