[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by lettice

Why do you not like the ad supported model?

Because you can.
As you state 'in the capitalist world', I have the freedom to choose.
To stop those loud, irritating and annoying ads, ruining my surfing experience.
Do not see this as any different to using a remote to change channels during ad breaks and zooming through them on a recording, or ignoring an ad in printed matter.

Ad Blocker software is also another way to make money, through donations or with paid 'Ad blocker' apps and tweaks.

I agree with loud intrusive ads being over the top and most definitely you should chose to use sites that have relevant, well done and acceptable adverts. But by using an ad blocker you're denying those sites a chance to make money.

The problem with donations is very few people make them.

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by lettice

Why do you not like the ad supported model?

Because you can.
As you state 'in the capitalist world', I have the freedom to choose.

that choice is supposed to be, "pay for product x, use product y for free with ads, have neither". Not "I'm gonna use the one paid for by ads but let someone else have the ads for me"

or ignoring an ad in printed matter.

Ignoring the ads is different, as I'm sure you're aware.

Ad Blocker software is also another way to make money, through donations or with paid 'Ad blocker' apps and tweaks.

You seem to be implying to be under the impression that all the costs associated with 'the Internet' all go in one big pot (as have others)....how would DS pay for their costs out of paid Ad blocker products?

[Bungitin]

As said earlier in the thread. Excessive time loading webpages is the main issue with me. I use a netbook and FF both of which can be nuisances in their own right and certain sites including DS are heavily advert dependant. Using Adblock has certainly made web browsing a lot easier in my case. Do not get me started with Java, Flashplayer and Silverlight, all of these contribute to the web-browsing 'experience' or displeasure.

[s2k]

I have Adblock for Firefox, and whilst I have generally come to accept over time that I am probably a terrible person, I only have it enabled on a per-ad/provider basis. ie.

Technically broken ads - overlapping text or other site content
Ads that have sound that plays automatically
Ads that have been coded badly and causes the browser to lag
Popups and dialogue boxes - thankfully these are quite rare nowadays
Ads of a questionable nature - eg. malware (imitating windows dialog boxes etc) or marketing scams

Anything else is pretty much fair game IMO as long as it doesn't distract from the actual content.

Also to add I would be unlikely to use a site that went behind a paywall as I believe this is not following the nature of the way the web was intended to be. Plus most of the content can be found elsewhere with generally minimal effort. Thats not to say I wouldn't be completely against small/casual donations to sites that I regularly use though.

[skunkboy69]

Originally Posted by LION8TIGER

Well, in my opinion the man that made it all happen could have made himself one of the richest people on the planet if he decided to copyright.
Luckily he gave it to us for nothing, good on him.

The market will always try and extract money out of a good idea, that's how they make their money.

If everyone ran things like Adblock+ and maybe a hosts file then sites like DS would suffer dire financial loss. It is really down to the percentage of people that visit with no Adblock which is probably fairly large/enough to keep the ball rolling.

Another site I used to moderate on (one of the biggest in UK and independently owned) Has NEVER had one advert on it's site in 15 years and is still getting 250000 hits a day.They ask for donations no matter how small.They've NEVER went offline due to having no money.It can be done but greed is a powerful emotion amongst corporate companies and advertising salesmen.I use adblockers on here after their stupid virus scare a couple of years ago.Ghostery is blocking 11 trackers on here as I type.Theres no way I'm taking chances because they feel they can drop whatever "adverts" they want on my personal computer.If they go under because of me,well,thats just tough.

[Tassium]

I've noticed it's always those who have an internet business based around advertising who complain about ignoring adverts.

If you don't like it then start a business with a different payment model.

What's that sonny? Your product is so pointless, tatty and trivial that no one in their right mind would pay for it, is that ITV1 you're talking about...


Far from being a social benefit, advertising-funded online product has produced a stack of lowest-common-denominator rubbish. Almost having no value whatsoever. If ad-blockers cause some to go under then that's a good thing.

[The Rat]

The problem I see is one of balance. Consider the advertising model on TV, there is one of relative balance, adverts every 15 minutes or so and for a reasonable length. This is an example of where I dare say most people accept the need for adverts. Would people accept the advertising model for funding TV channels if the adverts were every 5 minutes or littered all over the screen as your watch you program? The problem many websites have is that they use advertising to the extreme, it is obtrusive and annoying to the extent that it actively inhibits your consumption of the content the content provider is serving up; couple this with security and bandwidth concerns you have a model that many people will not tolerate.When tools exist to circumvent ads and "improve" the experience then people will seek to do it - this also happens to a lesser degree with TV where people use PVRs to pre-record and then blitz adverts.

My view is when the advertising inhibits the content it devalues it and incentivises people to seek ways of reducing or eliminating its effects and it is the responsibility of the content providers who use the advertising model to fund their businesses to implement methods to strike this balance.

Dave

[skunkboy69]

If DS took away the adverts and went to donation only (do they still charge a fiver for webmail addresses?) they'd see how much people really cared about their "community".Or would everyone head for the hills and free forums ?

[Sandgrownun]

I don't have a problem with unobtrusive text adverts (like Google AdWords) at the top, bottom or sides of a page and I don't block those. What I do block are brightly coloured, animated or flashing ads. I also block any that sit in the middle of content and any large distracting ads, and those awful ones that drift across the content. I go to a website to view the content, not to struggle round adverts.

[Tassium]

Originally Posted by The Rat

The problem I see is one of balance. Consider the advertising model on TV, there is one of relative balance, adverts every 15 minutes or so and for a reasonable length. This is an example of where I dare say most people accept the need for adverts. Would people accept the advertising model for funding TV channels if the adverts were every 5 minutes or littered all over the screen as your watch you program? The problem many websites have is that they use advertising to the extreme, it is obtrusive and annoying to the extent that it actively inhibits your consumption of the content the content provider is serving up; couple this with security and bandwidth concerns you have a model that many people will not tolerate.When tools exist to circumvent ads and "improve" the experience then people will seek to do it - this also happens to a lesser degree with TV where people use PVRs to pre-record and then blitz adverts.

My view is when the advertising inhibits the content it devalues it and incentivises people to seek ways of reducing or eliminating its effects and it is the responsibility of the content providers who use the advertising model to fund their businesses to implement methods to strike this balance.

Dave

I concur, blocking adverts takes people out of a social sphere in some ways. Adverts can actually be helpful.

People block adverts because it's overkill in ad land. Makes the whole thing so pointless.


Just spend a few minutes watching ITV3 and no drama is watchable because of the adverts every 8 minutes.

The online world is far worse. No wonder the ad-supported model is failing when those involved have no restraint.

[whoever,hey]

I cant believe people actually thought ISP money goes to pay for companies websites!

[skunkboy69]

I can say hand on heart that I've never clicked on any ad knowingly on any website.If I'm looking for a product I search it out.I don't need to be told I "need" things.

[whoever,hey]

Originally Posted by skunkboy69

I can say hand on heart that I've never clicked on any ad knowingly on any website.If I'm looking for a product I search it out.I don't need to be told I "need" things.

Its irrelevant whether you click on them or not though. Even you seeing the ad gives revenue to the site holder. Its called an ad impression.

[skunkboy69]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

Its irrelevant whether you click on them or not though. Even you seeing the ad gives revenue to the site holder. Its called an ad impression.

I don't see any at all now.Theres blockers out there that do actually download the ad but don't display it so I guess that keeps the corporate happy.I like everything nuked at source to be on the safe side.

[psionic]

Originally Posted by Sandgrownun

I don't have a problem with unobtrusive text adverts (like Google AdWords) at the top, bottom or sides of a page and I don't block those. What I do block are brightly coloured, animated or flashing ads. I also block any that sit in the middle of content and any large distracting ads, and those awful ones that drift across the content. I go to a website to view the content, not to struggle round adverts.

I agree. I don't mind unobtrusive ads.

[Fried Kickin]

For me there's 2 reasons

1.Malware injection .. A website won't fix my PC if they mess it up.
2.I don't like them and don't want them,I can block them so I do.

[archiver]

Originally Posted by flagpole

in the nicest possible way that is nonsense

You're too kind.

i have to buy my car and you want me to put petrol in it too? the car manufacturers should pay for the petrol or something like that, i don't really care exactly who, possibly the tyre manufacturer.

Your car, the petrol it uses and indeed the tyres are all required for you to make a journey by car. You could do the trip some other way and not have to buy any of that. It may be that you can use your car and petrol for other things, but that only complicates the comparison. Say you just want to use DS forums. Nothing else on the Internet interests you and you have nothing more than a house and electricity. You find a working public phone box and call DS Mansions.

"Hello - I'd like to use your forums please..."

(I don't need to spell out the rest, do I?)

Now that's "nonsense" of course, but we've accepted paying all the incidental product manufacturers and service providers and forgotten that the actual content providers need paying as well. Probably because they initially attracted us to the end product with claims that it is free. And really; we, not DS, are the content providers here. How should we be paid? But that's probably heading towards complete nonsense now, wouldn't you say?

you block ads because you can. don't make out it's for some ideological stance. you know that a lot of sites you use are entirely ad funded but you don't care, it's for some other mug to worry about.

You really don't get it at all, do you. I don't want advertising.

[whoever,hey]

Originally Posted by archiver

You really don't get it at all, do you. I don't want advertising.

But DS as an example is advertising funded. So without it, it couldn't exist.

[archiver]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

But DS as an example is advertising funded. So without it, it couldn't exist.

Sad, but true. Luckily for me, many visitors endure, or don't mind the adverts and I'm indebted to them, in a way. It's nonsense that something as exceedingly good as DS and similar forums can only seem to fund themselves through ads. If wikipedia can do without, there is hope.

Following up on the 'ideological stance' question; it isn't really a stance. Just a personal quest to shave pennies off the leccy bill where possible. I've seen (and complained about) flash adverts which will run all cpu cores near 100% if left active for long. I do hope they are all more efficient now, but it could be interesting to do some actual comparisons between the processor usage with Adblock off against having it on multiplied by the visitor numbers.

[Beachcomber]

I started blocking ads when they became intrusive and CPU consuming not to mention the viruses that many of them contain. If a web site started to charge for access I just wouldn't bother at all.

[tealady]

Originally Posted by DotNetWill

Why do you not like the ad supported model?

Intrusive, distracting, badly laid out, slow down the loading of a site.
At work, I sometimes give up on a webpage if it is slowed down by scripts and ads, so all parties lose.
For my phone, I use the paid for apps rather than an ad blocker, although DS can be a nightmare at times.

[whoever,hey]

I personally like the ad supported model of the internet, because it means a "free" internet.

On my phone i normally go for the ad supported apps too. However if i've paid for an app i do NOT want ads. This is why i have NEVER bought into a Sky subscription.

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by tealady

Intrusive, distracting, badly laid out, slow down the loading of a site.
At work, I sometimes give up on a webpage if it is slowed down by scripts and ads, so all parties lose.
For my phone, I use the paid for apps rather than an ad blocker, although DS can be a nightmare at times.

What do you propose instead? Subscription based sites? Something else

[DotNetWill]

I have tried to several time to monitize sites that have 5k+ uniques a day and never made much so I'm geunienly interested in what it would take for you to part with cash.

[Apprentice 2 SA]

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

But DS as an example is advertising funded. So without it, it couldn't exist.

And therefore should have ads. Fair enough. What isn't fair enough is when those ads banner across the bottem of the screen, taking up the screen, and actively have to be closed. That's a style of ad too far.

A reasonable display of ads = fair enough.

Unreasonable ads and posters will start finding ways of blocking them.