[Done] Criteria for "acceptable" advertising

[maybee]

Why do we block ads?
the answer is simple. the reason is that ads make users experience inconvenience.
but all the ads are not obtrusive and annoying. In other words there are some ads we don't need to block.
and good ads is useful and A win-win Approach to both users and websites. Some ads enable websites to make a base for providing countinously and Quality contents.
So we should distinguish good ads from bad ads and then with blocking bad ads we should protect good ads to the maximum.
we need to take a carrot and stick approach.

[fanboy]

But good ads? to me they don't exist, ads are ads, delivery method might be different (text ads vs object/image), but ads are ads. Whats the point of an adblocker if we allow any ads through?

[Till]

The point is that some users might feel differently than you. I personally think that some ad-formats aren't annoying and I also want to support some websites. Again: If you don't want any ad, thats fine too. But what is wrong with letting the users decide how much they want blocked?

[fanboy]

Users do have the ability to whitelist there favorite sites if they feel the need to do so, that said, those same sites might not be good for whitelisting for everyone else. The status quo works pretty well. Its a pity we're even discussing the merits of limiting an adblocker.

[Wladimir Palant]

@fanboy: People are lazy, they don't like to tweak settings. Whitelisting a website every now and then is too much work for 95% of the users. My old blog post suggested asking the user to make a choice occasionally but the ideal solution would still be one where the user only needs to make a choice once and never again.

[maybee]

Users do have the ability to whitelist there favorite sites if they feel the need to do so,

users can whiteliste their favorite sites. but I think It is actually difficult for them to do it.
what is the reason users can't allow good ads with ease when good ads are blocked exessively by filter subscriptions?

there are 3 steps for allowing excessively blocked good ads.
1. problem finding ------> 2. Motivation and seeing necessity for solving problem ------> 3. problem solving




1. problem finding

the issue of blocked good ads is not exposed to users easily unlike the issue of false positives or missed ads.
when looking at a computer screen users can't notice something blocked by filter subscription on a webpage.
It is difficult for users to know what is blocked, how many ads are blocked.
For knowing them users should deactivate the status of Adblock Plus or check out each blocked items in list of blockable items one by one.
Only after users was interested in the content on a website they can notice blocked contents.
especially when users first visit to a website, it is difficult to find blocked good ads.

2. Motivation and seeing necessity for solving problem

this step is about Motivation and seeing necessity for solving problem after users find the problem of blocking good ads.
that is a decision for action of solving problem. fortunately there are some users find blocked good ads with the sense of balanced blocking.
but There is a good possibility that most uses of them use contents on a website continously without allowing ads.
because users don't feel uncomfortable with the result of excessively blocking ads. users like the status of excessive blocking all the better for enhanced browsing speed and cleaned page.
thus There is a good possibility that users don't have motivation and necessity for allowing good ads.

3. problem solving

users have a limitation of solving problem. that is an ability and enough conditions to write proper filters.
the function of "disable a site or specific page" can allow good ads with ease. when good ads mixed with bad ads on a webpage, User might not want to use the method.
writting specific filters for allowing ads need a ability and basic knowledge. and although some users have enough conditions they might leave it out in excessively blocked ads due to being lazy and not having enough time.


Many users of Adblock Plus just depend upon filter subscriptions.
the reasons I mentioned make users disturb to allow blocked good ads exessively by filter subscriptions.
and filter subscriptions are used at other platforms and browsers.
So I think the level of blocking/allowing ads in filter subscriptions should be adjusted in advance.

[p2u]

what is the reason users can't allow good ads with ease when good ads are blocked exessively by filter subscriptions?

there are 3 steps for allowing excessively blocked good ads.
1. problem finding ------> 2. Motivation and seeing necessity for solving problem ------> 3. problem solving

Why not ask the users themselves through a survey? I think the arguments in favor of this solution operate too much with terminology that webmasters and advertisers themselves use. I clean out infected computers in Moscow (mostly for free by the way). I can tell you from a survey I conducted in Moscow among owners of computers that were infected that users feel they are being abused and deceived all the time and they hold webmasters and advertisers responsible. "Missed ads", "missed opportunities" and the like are not in their vocabulary. Since Adblock Plus is not pre-installed in the browser, people deliberately install it to avoid all kinds of trouble. They will only disable it if other functions cease to work.

Paul

[Wladimir Palant]

I actually meant to do this survey but it requires significant effort (particularly formulating questions in a psychologically correct way) and so it got postponed all the time

[p2u]

I actually meant to do this survey but it requires significant effort (particularly formulating questions in a psychologically correct way) and so it got postponed all the time

Let's not waste time any longer and make it a joined effort to think of the right questions, huh?
P.S.: I think one of the questions I would include is whether ABP-users combine AdblockPlus with other "anti-solutions" like NoScript, RequestPolicy, cookie managers etc. Those alone kill off a huge percentage of on-line business if they are installed and may weaken your position in possible negotiations with webmasters/advertisers, willing to make a deal.

Paul

[Till]

Paul, thanks for offering your help. Let's discuss this via email, you can contact me at till@adblockplus.org.

[Wladimir Palant]

P.S.: I think one of the questions I would include is whether ABP-users combine AdblockPlus with other "anti-solutions" like NoScript, RequestPolicy, cookie managers etc.

That isn't a question that needs to be asked - the answer is "No". You get there already because by far the most popular of these extensions (NoScript) has six times fewer users than Adblock Plus. Also, various data sources (crash reports, Adblock Plus issue reports) indicate that there is no significant intersection.

The important questions are how people use Adblock Plus (in the "automatic" mode or adding filters manually), why they do it, how they stand to statements like "Adblock Plus kills the free internet", whether they whitelist any websites, whether they would be willing to do it if these websites used only text ads, what kind of ads they feel are acceptable.

@Till: I think it is better to keep the discussion in the open. I created a forum topic for it: forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7630

[Morbus]

I think we should all consider a few points about the current state of internet and general advertizing:

• (these) advertisers seem to believe that annoying potential buyers into buying their products is a good business practice. I think if we look into the future of the internet and the future of advertising, any sane person can see that that's not an appropriate solution, specially when we consider the rising ability of the users to block adverts (not just unconsciously but actually physically blocking adverts, this is a constant throughout history). Look at the approach of Red Bull, for instances. I have never seen an advert for them in the television or in outdoor screens (not in the internet because I'm an Adblock Plus user). They sponsor sportsmen all around the globe, have their own Formula 1 team, their own sporting events and all that. As a result, Red Bull, the drink, is awesome (the fact that it's forbidden in Italy where YouTube is also forbidden makes it all the more awesome). They don't annoy me with stupid intrusive ads. They sponsor stuff that I like, like F1, and ensure that it has a future and is good. It's a much healthier approach for the end user (if I drink Red Bull, I'm drinking F1 and acroplanes, not annoying adverts), and it's way way more productive, because they generate something worthwhile, and don't simply waste bandwith and their potential buyer's time and money. Again, if we look into the future, twenty or thirty years from now, the current model of advertizing that Adblock Plus is fighting is simply not feasible;

• if you ever designed a website, you will know that, generally speaking, and although good compromises do exist, there's a more or less clear relationship between ad effectiveness and ad intrusiveness. Simply put, the less intrusive, the less the user will notice it and the less effective it will be. In this light, it's fair to conclude that there is an inherent flaw, a fundamental design fault in the current internet advertising architecture that denies the notion of "acceptable" advertising, because the most acceptable advertising is the one that isn't there in the first place, and it'll be lesser and lesser acceptable the more prominent it is in the web pages;

• pay per pageview is a sham. Plain and simple. Any publisher that complains about how Adblock Plus is hurting them by having users using up their bandwidth and not giving them anything in return is wrong. There's no other word. Ars Technica asks their readers not to block their ads, and fair enough, I whitelisted them, as per their request, because I'm like that, and if, in the end, their adverts annoyed me significantly, I'd stop reading their articles, which aren't all that interesting anyway, most of the time. But what happened after I whitelisted them is that no ads appeared, because their ads come from third parties. Well, tough.

[Mike Rosoft]

I am going to give the same answer as I gave for the suggested feature (more like misfeature) of allowing advertisers to place a "meta" tag ("our adverts are not annoying, honest") which, if encountered by Adblock, would cause it to occasionally display a message asking to whitelist the site - effectively, an advert for adverts. ("This page contains ads. Do you want to view them?" - Duh! No - that's why I had installed Adblock in the first place.)

It's futile to look for objective criteria of acceptable adverising. What is acceptable for one user may not be acceptable for another one, and some (like me) simply don't want to view any adverts at all. An advertiser has every right to offer ads to me; I have every right not to view them. (Just like when there are adverts on TV, I have every right to mute the sound, switch to a different channel, or record the programme on a video and fast forward through them - and when I do, the TV station has no one to complain to, even though they make money of the advertising.)

There's nothing wrong with maintaining a less inclusive list of filters; I am not going to use it, though. At the moment, EasyList blocks all adverts on English websites (I use a separate list for Czech ones) - should its scope be changed to only block some ads, I am going to switch to a different one (or block the remaining ones manually); and should Adblock itself be changed to remove the ability to block some adverts and/or to deliberately allow some of them to slip through (!), that would completely defeat its purpose and I expect that a fork of the project without this restriction would appear in no time.


Mike Rosoft

[Till]

I expect that a fork of the project without this restriction would appear in no time

Again, this is not going to be a restriction, we are talking about adding a feature that can be disabled easily. Why would anyone switch to a fork instead of just turning the option off?

[Hubird]

Why would anyone switch to a fork instead of just turning the option off?

It is a question of trust. This "feature" will be sprung on a great many unsuspecting users, users who set it and forget it will all of a sudden be at your mercy (that to me is unacceptable).

ABP is heading in a direction that a great many users are not happy with, a direction that that would not have even been considered in the not too distant past. It started with a facebook button, now whitelisting pages (whole adservers ??) and receiving money for it.

People will be asking themselves where is it going to stop...

I for one would be willing to wait longer for a forked build free of all objectionable code.