Consider this:
I deliver adverts from my own webserver - not using any known adserver (like DoubleClick, AdTech etc)
The url and path of the served ad - in this case an image - is hosted in the /images folder along with all other non advert images on my webserver
The ads are being rendered just like any other article or piece of content on the page. From a tech analysis point they are identical.
There would not be any client side JavaScript interacting with the ads
There would be no identifiable CSS class names or element attributes e.g <div class="ad" data-ad-id="12345" data-ad-tracker="1234">
There would not be any red flagged ad specific keywords in the file name, file path or nesting HTML element.
The image file name and file size changes at random unknown intervals. So next time you come back to the site, it looks like the same ad in the same place, but the image name and path has changed.
The image does not have any standard ad dimensions (like mrec 300x250)
The image dimensions are slightly altered plus / minus a few pixels at random unknown intervals - basically serving up a new asset
If you manually blocked the image advert by selecting the right click > 'Block Element' function, it would only last until the asset changed (e.g file name, path, dimensions, file size)
In fact, the only sure way of telling it is an advert is when a human interprets the image and goes: "Oh, that's a Coca Cola advert, because I recognise the product".
How will you block this?
Server Side Ad Injection (SSAI)
Re: Server Side Ad Injection (SSAI)
If your site can still be used reasonably well without viewing any images, we could go hardcore with a filter like ||example.com^$image
There's a buzzin' in my brain I really can't explain; I think about it before they make me go to bed.
Re: Server Side Ad Injection (SSAI)
That's like curing cancer by killing the patient.lewisje wrote:If your site can still be used reasonably well without viewing any images, we could go hardcore with a filter like ||example.com^$image
The holy grail of ad blocking is being able to distinguish editorial contents from adverts.
The point of blocking ads is to create a better user experience. Blocking all images will create a worse user experience than seeing ads. So this is not a good option. It's more like you're trying to punish the user for having adblock installed.
Re: Server Side Ad Injection (SSAI)
unless, as I said earlier,Dodger wrote:That's like curing cancer by killing the patient.
like some news or blog site where the text is the important thing; it's not common, however, for sites to be usable without images, and I don't have a better solution for blocking ads like the kind mentioned in the OPlewisje wrote:your site can still be used reasonably well without viewing any images
There's a buzzin' in my brain I really can't explain; I think about it before they make me go to bed.
Re: Server Side Ad Injection (SSAI)
Thanks for getting back to this topic.
This was just a thought experiment and I wonder how much ad serving will be moving server side in the next couple of the years.
Ads vs adblocking has definitely not seen the end yet.
This was just a thought experiment and I wonder how much ad serving will be moving server side in the next couple of the years.
Ads vs adblocking has definitely not seen the end yet.
Re: Server Side Ad Injection (SSAI)
Until obviously a blocker comes around that can interpret page formatting and block content according to its location on the page, which would be difficult to bypass, given the way ad placement works.