[Rejected] An approach to fair ad blocking

[Maciej Szajna]

I'm not saying that it should be default mode, but just option. Many people don't use full bandwich and would not mind. At least the advertising companies will see that they're being fooled and will look for more user friendly ways of advertisment.

[Maciej Szajna]

I don't like your idea of someone getting "paid" for selecting the good ads. He can easly be paid by advertising company. Lists should remain non-benefit.

[tom]

An approach to fair ad blocking could work like this:

1.) by default block all ads on all sites
2.) when a user frequently* visits a site allow all ads on that site and show a notification to the user (e.g. "since you regularly visit this site, its ads are shown in order to support it - you can still block the ads if they are annoying to you")

* "frequently" could be defined like: the site is one of the x percent most visited sites of the user

That means that ads are blocked on infrequently visited sited by default and allowed on frequently visited sited by default. On the sites where ads are allowed by default the user still can block ads if she wants to. This solution would probably anger those ABP users who never want to show any ads anywhere but imo ABP should get rid of those "I want everything for free" users anyway. It does not matter if these users then use another extension which blocks everything by default because that's not what this discussion is about. It's about how ABP can implement a fair solution to this problem and currently it really isn't fair to web masters.

[Philip Goddard]

That still implies some sort of moral obligation on the user to see ads on websites, albeit ones that are visited frequently, and thus doesn't make sense to me. I suppose, if particular users wanted their ad-blocking to work in that way they could have that as an option, but for that to be default behaviour of Adblock Plus would make a real mess of what that ABP is supposed to be doing, and would very likely lose me as an ABP user.

I simply don't accept this argument that ad blocking is unfair to webmasters. This again implies that there is a moral obligation upon people to see advertisements - which there is not. That is a separate issue from wanting 'free for all', and it's unhelpful when people confuse the two issues.

[Guest]

[quote="Philip Goddard"]That still implies some sort of moral obligation on the user to see ads on websites, albeit ones that are visited frequently, and thus doesn't make sense to me. [...] I simply don't accept this argument that ad blocking is unfair to webmasters. This again implies that there is a moral obligation upon people to see advertisements - which there is not.[/quote]

That's a perfect example of what I can't understand. How can you say you have no moral obligation to see ads? That's not your decision. If you buy something you pay the price - or do you say I don't pay the price because I can see no moral obligation for that? At least be honest and say that you don't care if you hurt the web master.

Another user said that he blocks all ads - I visited his website. No ads, but an online store. You know, an online store is nothing else as advertising. I don't think he would be happy if ABP would filter his products.

[Philip Goddard]

...and that again is completely confusing the two issues - just what I remarked about in my previous post!

[IceDogg]

I just don't get how people can honestly think/say that because I look at something that is wide open to be looked at by the public (another words not something you subscribe to) obligates me to 'pay' for that view by viewing ads. It's just bull pure and simple. You can't afford to keep your site up/open if ads or some other support isn't given to you, then by all means put your site behind a password and only admit those willing to view ads or pay a subscription. This isn't cable TV where I AM obligated to pay for viewing it. What if I made you pay me for viewing what I'm typing here right now?? I posted it openly to the Internet therefor I'm not 'due' any pay. If I feel my words/content is worthy of pay I would find a job that pays me for it, or open up my own business that pays me for my content. You by posting info openly online are NOT doing that. You are posting it to the public. No more then if you stood at a public place and starting telling info and then ask where is my pay. Makes the same amount of sense to me. I can't stand this since of entitlement that so many peoples seem to have. I live so I should have free health care or food or whatever. You are entitled to NOTHING!! Period! get over it and move on. You can't afford to have a website up without pay.. then shut it down. Just like the guy at the public place that ask for pay for giving out info, you would tell him to shut up if he is expecting pay. I'm not obligated to view ads unless I have said I would. You act as if I have said I would view the ads for visiting your site and then I'm blocking them. This is incorrect. I have even heard it is assumed, and that is incorrect also. When I was first online there were no ads, so how did an unwritten rule come about that I'm obligated to view your ads. Here is an idea. Make your home page that ask do you agree to view ads for visiting my site.. answer yes and you get to see the site no you point them to google or some other site. THEN and ONLY then are they agreeing to view your annoying, lying, virus infected ads!!

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of people saying that by viewing their site I owe them something. I should be the other way around if you ask me. with so many sites begging for visitors. Then again if they got no money from ads maybe they wouldn't be. And by the way if you really feel like my viewing your site means I owe you.. then where is my money for you reading this??? Or since you view this I should be able to infect your PC with a virus. Laughable huh??

[Failb0t]

The problem with ads is that most, if not all blatantly insult our intelligence.

The majority of ads I spot on the websites I visit regularly are one or more of these:
- Fake boobs for Evony / Civony / whatever the hell they're calling it now
- Various MMO gold, account, cheats and bots selling websites
- Random Flash "games" that redirect to a US Green Card Lottery website (are they *really* that desperate?)
- Various poker, lotto or other online gambling websites
- "Localized" ads for products and businesses in my country that I wouldn't support in a billion years

The quality of online advertisement has gone down the drain. If I'm to be really honest here, I'd still block all ads no matter what extra features are added into ABP, until such a time that ad providers pay a little more attention to what they're forcing billions of users around the globe to see. Maybe blocking them all would send a strong message when they see their profits begin to dip.

[nitinmz]

Wladimir,

I like the idea, though I admit I'm not a representative user by any means.

[woolwit]

What if AdBlockPlus were to 'partner' with another development team to bring us an elegant adblock/tipjar solution? I want to support great content providers but I want to benefit them directly. The eyeballs-for-ads model is creating a (shitty content, seo) race to the bottom. Why can't I fund an online account and then distribute it, in sums of even a few cents a click, to the sites I feel are providing great content? And if the site is an aggregator, why can't my tip automatically be distributed between the aggregator and the original content provider, i.e. the author?
So that, when I installed AdBlock Plus, I would be given the option of putting a TipJar in my toolbar. Perhaps I'd set a default amount, say $.06, and whenever I hit it, the account of the site I was on would instantly receive my tip. You wouldn't even have to sign up the content providers, just have their tips accruing and send them an email once in a while. They'd soon enough come running. I could easily spend a couple of dollars a day (say the price of a newspaper) thanking the people who provide the quality content I enjoy. And knowing that this was an option, perhaps more publishers would opt out of the Adsense model.

[dmmcintyre3]

Ok, I have an ad blocker installed on my computer. I ama pretty knowledgeable webmaster too. (Not AdBlock Plus, as I don't use firefox. It's actually a proxy server and works in all browsers) I think that an "Only block intrusive ads" filter would be good (Only blocks flash and motion ads) because that was the main reason I installed adblockers in the first place. Old computers cannot take 15 flash ads at once. In fact that bogged down a 3 GHz (P4) computer to the point the web browser crashed. One site I go to often half the bandwidth used is for the stupid flash ads. Oh, I would like you to try to stop me from viewing your site because I have a computer that cant take 15 flash ads. (It's 5 years old and a laptop, and can't even run the current OS).

Google Adsense (the text ones) I don't mind, but when it comes down to the rollovers with flash inside you are gone in five seconds if you even show up (usually the back button, just like the flash intros on websites). And CPALead, and similar things, you are so easy to block if you use a better ad blocker. (one that can replace a website with anything you want unlike adblock plus) IE 8 even includes an ad blocker if you know how to use it

[Tom]

If you really want to make a change to how the internet evolves, please stop dancing with all the ad advocates. Bottom line is that we, meaning most probably majority, DO NOT want to be harassed by ads. If we end up by paying for content we want to see, let it be.

[autoclic]

The Webmaster's income is mostly related to clic-rate, and Ad servers also want to increase this clic rate.
Why not ad an autoclic option to fake some clics on the banners we considere not too intrusives : the effect will be an increasing value for non intrusive ads
hence a decreasing of the other ads.

[MonztA]

Why not ad an autoclic option to fake some clics on the banners we considere not too intrusives : the effect will be an increasing value for non intrusive ads
hence a decreasing of the other ads.

As discussed many times before - this isn't going to help anyone. There is no money in ads that nobody sees. Even if the website is paid for views rather than clicks (most are not), advertisers want to achieve something with their advertisements. They aren't stupid, they won't continue paying money for nothing - if they notice that a large proportion of views doesn't result in anything the website will be paid less (or even kicked out of the program entirely, keyword: fraud). In other words: you cannot help your favorite website "for free". Either whitelist it and accept the ads or look for a different way to give it money.

[IceDogg]

As MonztA pointed out, that is fraud and would get the webmaster not only kicked from the advertising program, but probably blacklisted with other advertising companies as well. Technically they could even be sued or charged with a crime, but I doubt that would actually happen. More likely they would just be blacklisted.