I currently maintain a couple e-commerce websites that themselves do not contain third-party ads, but do run trackers for Adwords and Google Analytics and are also the subjects of Adwords campaigns; I suspect that my particular audience is less well-versed in the ways of content-blocking, because we do get plenty of clicks and end up spending plenty of money on our campaigns. I also run a small website devoted to, among other things, hosting experimental Tracking Protection Lists based on the popular Adblock Plus lists; I currently spend a small amount of money per month to host the site, and although I don't run ads, I do run Google Analytics, and plenty of visitors haven't blocked it. Basically, I am a Webmaster of sorts (not on a large scale, and I only did a small amount of design on my own site and one of the e-commerce sites), but I do not rely on ads; however, I understand the needs of people who go that route.Jax2 wrote:I do not know, and I won't assume one way or the other, if you are, or are in anyway involved with, a web designer or not.
This is the heart of that blog post:Jax2 wrote:however, I will tell you this: I have been reading very many horror stories on the adsense forums as well as other places, from webmasters of small websites who have, like me, been counting on the money that is generated by ads. Perhaps the creator of the concept you pointed to (Ads do not make money) had a bad experience? I do not know, and to be honest, I have not read the link yet, but I can assure you, they do make money. It is not enough to live on by any means unless you're incredibly lucky enough to have a massive following on your website, but it is enough to help offset the costs, at least some of them in any case.
Wladimir Palant wrote:There is no rich Uncle Goo who gives everybody a penny for each ad just for the fun of it. The money comes from somewhere else and it is important to keep this in mind.
So, where does the money come from? Basically, there are two possibilities. One is purchases done on the Internet. The other is investments by companies who usually hope that these investments will help their products sell better.
That's actually a major figure: For small websites, that more than covers the hosting costs; I am interested in the time-frame over which this happens, the demographics of the visitors, and the usage of annoying animated "Ads by Gooooooogle" rather than text-based AdSense ads.Jax2 wrote:Many of these stories I have read all sound the same: I still have all my visitors, but instead of making 5 dollars a day, I'm now making 50 cents.
People may laugh when they hear that figure: $5.00 a day, and say oh, what a loss, but to many people, especially owners of small websites that do not generate income from other sources, that $5.00 a day is very important. It may, in fact, even determine if that person continues to blog, or to update their content, or whether or not they even keep the site active anymore.
So all visitors must pay tribute? This depressingly common mentality may lead to the rise of micropayments, which I have been warning about on this very forum whenever the ad-blocking hardliners have complained about Palant's Acceptable Ads initiative (I can send you some forum links to lol about).Jax2 wrote:Sorry, I will not agree that people who block ads wouldn't click anyhow. That is an excuse to not have to take responsibility for taking money out of the pockets of webmasters.
It's not always the scummier sites and advertising agencies; look below at notable examples of major sites infected with malvertising...Jax2 wrote:I fully agree with you on the point of malware and other nasties being transmitted over advertising. REPUTABLE advertising agencies, again, such as adsense, do not have this problem. It is when webmasters decide to go with companies of a lesser caliber. Translation: Webmasters need to be aware of what is on their page and who is providing the content. There is a definite need to make webmasters aware of these problems, point out what companies are allowing malicious ads to go live, and put them out of business. Simply blocking ALL ads is not the way to do it.
The only time you would need to directly ask anyone is if you want to join Palant's "Acceptable Ads" initiative; the automatic mechanisms to either ask people to turn off their ad-blockers or make your site break unless ads are allowed will instead indirectly lead to the subscription authors whitelisting you, with no interaction between you and them.Jak2 wrote:As for whitelists, why should webmasters have to ask ANYONE whether or not they can display advertisements on their website? That is simply ridiculous. In order for me to make money now, I need to go to the company that is blocking my ads from showing and ask them to please allow me to show ads to my visitors? What gives them the right to determine what I choose to show my visitors? No, I do understand that I still have the right to show it, but that is meaningless when they're blocked, unless I gain some special form of approval to have them not be. Censorship.
That is indeed what could happen, which is why Wladimir Palant is deliberately softening the impact of his own extension; he does not want to end the viability of the free, ad-supported Web and see a system of micropayments or similar direct extraction of money from visitors.Jak2 wrote:So, again, I still feel this is just as bad as I claimed above. I read the stories every day from people who are losing money, and I, too, am one of them. Frankly, I think it's wrong. If I continue to make less than 50 cents a day because my ads are not being displayed, I will take my site down. Sure, maybe only 500 or 600 people will notice it's gone, the point is that it is still gone. What happens when this begins to happen on a regular basis? Only websites with another income source will survive?
Sorry, but that just isn't right.
The vast majority of those sites are absolutely legitimate and trusted by all Web surfers; only 4shared is really questionable, as a one-click file-hoster commonly used for piracy.Kimberly from StopMalvertising wrote:List of known affected websites as of Tuesday, 10 April 2012
As of today we now know that several major advertising networks such as Google / DoubleClick, Yahoo / Right Media, Zedo are plagued by this rogue ad which is distributed around the globe as seen below by a huge amount of fake advertisers.
lewisje wrote:It's sad but true: Many aspects of poor website design can cause any browser to lock up; fast multi-core processors, loads of RAM, high-performance SSDs, and ultra-fast broadband with gigabit Ethernet won't always prevent a poorly designed script from causing the browser to hang.
It's like the old joke that some processor can "execute an infinite loop in 5 seconds"; in reality, an infinite loop just runs forever unless interrupted.
Jax2 wrote:Sorry, I will not agree that people who block ads wouldn't click anyhow. That is an excuse to not have to take responsibility for taking money out of the pockets of webmasters.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests