Google Explains Why Ad Blockers Aren't A Problem

from the refreshing dept

Reader jorshw was the first of a few who sent in this recent NY Times article questioning how Google would deal with the fact that people are now creating ad blocking extensions for Google's Chrome browser. What's really telling is the comment from a Google engineering director, Linus Upson, about why this is no big deal:
"It's unlikely ad blockers are going to get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying. So I think the market will sort this out."
This is the exact right response to this kind of question. It's a user-centric response that doesn't immediately rush to the "simple" answer that ad blocking somehow "takes money" away, but realizes that if people are so intent on blocking ads -- then the problem isn't with the people blocking the ads, but with the advertising itself.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Same as I've always said

    I don't hate ads - I only hate annoying ads.

    That includes almost anything graphical, and anything that gets in the way of what I'm trying to read/do.

    Ads that are carefully placed out of the main interface area, and are generally relevant (even if only tangentially) are okay in my books.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:10am

    "...that doesn't immediately rush to the "simple" answer..".

    But that is the simple answer !, it's the oter answer that takes more thought and contrivance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    scarr (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:11am

    Huzzah!

    We have TV shows (and a Superbowl) to highlight the best TV commercials each year. People will send YouTube links to people for all sorts of stuff. Heck, the "Will It Blend?" campaign became a bona fide internet meme ... and it's entirely a company's advertising. I still send people the Terry Tate: Office Linebacker ads (and I'm not even a fan of US football).

    Do advertising right, and people will *want* to see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:13am

    I run ad block plus on firefox 100% of the time. It isn't out of any "destroy the man" kinda thing, i just don't like ads and find them distracting and annoying. I would block other ads the same way as web ads if an automatic way of doing so came to TV, radio and life in general. As it is, i just try my best to ignore all other ads as much as possible, including not buying anything i see an ad for.
    i haven't switched to chrome because their ad blocking extensions are not up to Ad block plus on firefox yet. I will probably switch once a good, high quality ad blocking extension gets added.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:25am

    I just wrote about this a couple of days ago. After watching a college football bowl game where one of the cameras was "brought to you buy DirecTV"... I realize one of the reasons ad revenues are down is because we live in a world with too many ads.

    Of course Google is making great money with advertising, because they're smart about it. As the above quote shows. They don't throw up a ton of ads. They give users a limited number of ads which are usually related to what the user wants, which actually makes them helpful.

    It probably doesn't need to be said, but sticking an ad on a camera does not help me in anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:26am

    Re: Same as I've always said

    "I don't hate ads - I only hate annoying ads."

    Yeah, me too. Trick is, the annoying ones are often the most effective ones.

    "Apply directly to the forehead!"

    In advertising there's a distinction in the awards. The Clios are the best known, because they're the most entertaining (by definition.) However, sharper clients look at the Effies, because they're the most effective (again by definition.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Andrew F (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:27am

    Flash Ads

    I'd like to see something about ad blockers are partially a response to advertising practices that border on fraud.

    So much of advertising is about maximizing the number of impressions and clicks. That's why you see ads that are super flashy or expand to cover up content. An accidental click is still a click.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:38am

    Re: Same as I've always said

    I totally agree (except I tend to prefer graphical ads over text ads). In fact, there are times at which I like ads. I just started using Tweetie, for instance, which offers the option to pay for a no-ads version. After using it for just about a day or so, I actually like occasionally seeing an ad for something that I didn't know about.

    And for the most part, I block out ads mentally, anyway. It's the obtrusive ads that really bother me. There are some sites that are barely readable due to all the hypertext ads on arbitrary words. The second you try rolling your cursor across the page or try highlighting something, the article suddenly becomes unreadable. It amazes me that publishers can think such advertising methods are a good idea.

    It's good to see a company get this right and not freak out over ads. As Mike said, if ads are so annoying and irrelevant that people want to totally do away with them, you're doing something wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.

    This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising).

    Google ads are remarkably easy to block, they are all called in a similar manner, so it is pretty easy to make Google no longer be part of your online life.

    I suspect the story would be different if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads, both on websites and in the Google SERPs. There would be a rather large manure / fan interaction at that point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:50am

    Re:

    "This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising)."

    They're dependent upon serving ads, so obviously they'd prefer them to be less annoying. And, I would contend, they've largely succeeded.

    Your IE example is odd, considering how annoyed most people are by OEM distributions of Windows.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:55am

    *.doubleclick.*

    I only block animated ads because they make it hard to read.

    However, if I see one animated ad, I usually adblock the entire domain, because I figure they're going to have more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Esahc (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:04pm

    Re:

    I use the two top Add blocking extensions for chrome, they have already improved drastically, not %100 the level of firefox but getting there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Re:

    Mike has stated repeatedly that Ads are a minor supplemental income for him and his company.

    Of course, he has never disclosed actual numbers, but for anyone who's dealt with website ad-revenue before this statement is very much the norm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    wirtes (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Ad disabled when warranted

    I run AdBlockPlus in Firefox, but I'm careful to unblock it on the sites that give me real value, like TechDirt.com.

    Seriously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:10pm

    Re:

    "I suspect the story would be different if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads, both on websites and in the Google SERPs. There would be a rather large manure / fan interaction at that point."

    This issue here is who is blocking the ads - if it's the user that's blocking (or controlling the blocking) then that's entirely different from another company doing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Esahc (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:11pm

    Re:

    I believe Mike has stated in the past that this site does not rely on add dollars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re:

    Richard, legally, it's ALWAYS the user who blocks it. Microsoft just sets up the tools and allows the user to install it. It's the user's computer doing the blocking, not Microsoft. Heck, they could offer a checkbox hidden 9 menus down that can turn it off on a per session basis or something like that.

    Tucker: I used IE as an example because it still had the vast majority of users, and would significantly impact Google in a very short amount of time. Imagine Google losing 50% of their ad revenues overnight. That would be pretty scary for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Funny related ad issue. I was browsing a local news site, and came across a homicide story. The ridiculous part is that suddenly red, blood-like splotches were flung across the display, followed by an ad for McDonald's McRib (it was supposed to be barbeque sauce).

    So, not only was the ad irritating, since it covered much of the story, but it was also really distasteful.

    This kinda crap is why people make ad-blocking software.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    good god, you are on a roll. another logical and frank discussion.

    But you are wrong.
    you are taking ie traffic including all versions. the latest, ie 8, is barely at 25%. ie# is at 60%, but not the majority are the latest version.
    but yea, other than that, great argument. see, its awesome being not hated isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Josh (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

    Re:

    "a rather large manure / fan interaction" I'm gonna have to start saying that, thanks AM! Also Google is awesome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Ad disabled when warranted

    the problem i have with that is this:
    i will never click an add. And i have never (intentionally) clicked one. Unblocking it for one site just so i can see the ad i won't click is dumb. i prefer supporting a site directly as seen by the fact that i am an insider to techdirt. (or will be if i haven't claimed this comment when you read it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Jimr (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:30pm

    I had regular site I went to until they start some stupid ads that periodically appeared and took over the whole screen... always a chore to find the very small X box to close it.

    Got Ad blocker and blocked most of those ads. But still that site seems to come up with new ones all the time. So now I do not even go to that site because of the ads it hosts.

    I do click on small Google ads that appeal to me. Not often but it depend what I am searching for. Sometime the site I find will have an ad for exactly what I am looking for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike has stated repeatedly that Ads are a minor supplemental income for him and his company.

    There's ads on this site?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    scott, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    ads?

    ads? there are ads on web pages? (a very statisfied firefox user!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:47pm

    Re: Re: Same as I've always said

    "In fact, there are times at which I like ads."

    Good, post your email address here and I'll make sure you get plenty. You can then peruse them at those times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:54pm

    So?

    Engineers often have views that are out of line with the top management's and lawyer's. Let me know when Google's CEO says ad blockers are OK and they remove the part of their terms of service that lets them go into your computer to delete them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:54pm

    Chrome adblocker

    Hi,

    I use Firefox with adblock plus, i will never surf without it. Chrome has an adblocker that works almost as good as adblock plus. It is called adsweep (one word). There are two versions of adsweep, you want the one released under the MIT license. Just occasionally does an ad get through. HTH

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Same as I've always said

    Yep. The things that made me get around to installing AdBlock Plus in Firefox were those idiotic ads that cover half the page after it loads (with an often hidden close button). Animated ads can be annoying but I didn't mind them for the most part. I started blocking ads when they started thinking they were more important than the content I was trying to read.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike has stated repeatedly that Ads are a minor supplemental income for him and his company.

    Enough income that he's willing to annoy potential readers rather than get rid of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You seem to have contradicted yourself here:

    "if Microsoft launches IE9 with an ad blocker built it that filters out all Google ads"

    "Microsoft just sets up the tools and allows the user to install it. It's the user's computer doing the blocking, not Microsoft."

    So, which is it? An ad blocker specifically set up to block Google's ads and turned on by default, or an optional tool that the user may install and configure as they wish?

    If the former, Microsoft would be successfully sued for that lost revenue. If the latter, the vast majority of people would not use it, as even the generally more tech-savvy Firefox users mostly don't use ad blocking tools.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:16pm

    Re:

    "if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising should get less annoying.

    This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising)."

    Why? Advertising is useless if it's that annoying. People will avoid the ads, close the page or click the back button and will never consider buying from such an ad. In other words, it's useless.

    I consider it a very logical thing for a person dependant on click rates to want ads that encourage people to click on them. A person who wants the ads blocked is never going to this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    But not enough where if all his readers installed ad-blockers that Techdirt would go dark.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:28pm

    Re:

    "This is a pretty interesting opinion for a guy working in a company that is entirely dependent on advertising (specifically click rate advertising)."

    I would say it's particularly intelligent. They are advertising to people ... if people aren't receptive, then their advertising is useless. Getting people to see an ad isn't the main purpose of advertising, it's getting to people to ACT (to get off the sofa or computer chair and do something, either purchasing a product, ordering a service, participating in an event, etc).

    If the answer is to stop ad-blocking software, then they may force more people to view their ads, but they aren't doing anything to make people ACT on the ads. The solution they prefer is the right one ... make the ads compelling to people so that they are called into action instead of forcing people to view an ad just to get another pair of eyeballs on it to say you did.

    You also have to realize intentions. Someone who actively installs an ad-blocker isn't going to be receptive to ads in general. They've consciously made the decision to not care for ads. Forcing them to view an ad isn't going to force them to act on an ad, and in fact they are more likely to resist and act defiantly to direct advertising.

    So, in essence, Google has it right. Don't fight ad-blockers, fight crappy ads. Make ads more compelling and interesting and give users a reason to want to view the ads because they are getting entertainment out of it, or information, or whatever it is that is missing and driving them to not want to be exposed to any more marketing messages at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:29pm

    Re: So?

    The fact that I'm using Chrome with an ad-blocker lets me think that Google's CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Paul, picture it like this:

    Microsoft sets up a system that blocks ALL major ad networks, removing pretty much all of the big end ads that you might see. That would include all google ads, advertising.com, etc. It would come standard on the browser, and be able to be disabled, perhaps a whitelist of companies you accept advertising from.

    It would be entirely up to the user, but by default, it would be on. Part of the claim would be to disable flash ads, which are often infected with viruses, which would give them a valid reason to do. Heck, they could even offer an updating system that goes out and gets an up to date list, including known spyware sites (surf safe style).

    Suddenly, it's not just an ad blocker, it's part of the move to surf safely on the net.

    Google is entirely dependant on ads. Remove the ads, Google disappears. Microsoft wins, and does it above board.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If all his users left because of them I bet it would.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 2:56pm

    Re: Re: So?

    The fact that I'm using Chrome with an ad-blocker lets me think that Google's CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it.

    Really? For how long? Have you ever read the Chrome TOS? If so, what part of the TOS gives you that idea?

    And continuing with your reasoning, if you were to access kiddy porn with Chrome, would you conclude that "Google's CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 4:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "good god, you are on a roll. another logical and frank discussion. "


    Dunno 'bout you, but I preferredhim as a troll...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 4:38pm

    Re:

    Well now I feel like a McDonald's McRib.

    And committing homicide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 4:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: So?

    Is disabling ads against the law!?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Jason Buberel (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Ad disabled when warranted

    wirtes:

    I'm glad to hear that I am not the only person who follows that practice - block everything by default, and un-block selectively on those sites I enjoy where the ads are their only source of revenue, or where the ads are not obtrusive.

    However, I suspect we are in the minority. Once a user installs AdBlock Plus (or AdThwart on Chrome), it probably remains 'enabled' everywhere, all the time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    nelsoncruz (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 6:53pm

    The problem is annoying ads

    I generally dont use ad blockers, but I have used a Flash blocker on Firefox for a long time. Flash ads are annoying and memory intensive and I usually have a ton of open tabs.

    I switched to Google Chrome almost on launch day, and I love it. But a few months ago I REALLY REALLY wanted a adblocker or flashblocker. There was a flash ad with a VERY annoying laughter upon mouse over, that was everywhere here in Portugal. I ended up blocking the server URL with an entry in Roots file.

    Annoying ads are the real problem. Get that under control people!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 9:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

    Is disabling ads against the law!?!

    Whatever gave you that idea?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 9:38pm

    Re: The problem is annoying ads

    "I generally dont use ad blockers, but I have used a Flash blocker on Firefox for a long time."

    Then you are indeed generally blocking many ads, despite your claim to the contrary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Rooker, Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:35pm

    I don't go out of my way to block ads, however I do block obnoxiousness. I've used pop-up blockers since before all browsers started including them by default. Whoever invented pop-ups should be set on fire.

    I've also used NoScript for Firefox for a long time. Every time I turn it off and forget to turn it back on, I'm absolutely shocked and appalled at how obnoxious the web becomes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    MediaLibMan (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:42pm

    Re: The definition of irony

    If you would turn of Ad Blocker for one moment (I did inspired by this conversation) you would see McDonalds on the top right hand corner advertising a new tortilla wrap.
    I have to cop to not being up on the ad network programming, so perhaps it's related to our conversation. Just found it a bit ironic.
    PS: I'm not a McD's plant, in fact their food makes me ill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    MediaLibMan (profile), Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:42pm

    Re: The definition of irony

    If you would turn of Ad Blocker for one moment (I did inspired by this conversation) you would see McDonalds on the top right hand corner advertising a new tortilla wrap.
    I have to cop to not being up on the ad network programming, so perhaps it's related to our conversation. Just found it a bit ironic.
    PS: I'm not a McD's plant, in fact their food makes me ill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

    Disabling ads is like accessing kiddy porn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 3:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only way I could see a legal battle over this going in Microsoft's favor is if it also blocked all of their ads.

    So, if their new browser blocked all of the ads on Bing as well as on all of the other major search engines, they would have a leg to stand on. If it didn't, they would find themselves on the losing end of a huge anti-trust suit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 4:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It would be entirely up to the user, but by default, it would be on."

    That would be the part that would invite a valid lawsuit. Especially if the new version was installed as a standard Windows update (which other versions often are). It would probably fall afoul of anti-trust laws, especially since that means Microsoft was sabotaging its competitors in other areas. Yeah, Microsoft could block Bing in addition to everybody else, but that wouldn't matter for anti-trust concerns.

    It's highly demonstrable that most users will not change default settings, even with IE8's prompts to do so. The anti-trust issues would outweigh any virus/spyware concerns. If the default option is "always block ads", most people would use that and MS would be rightfully attacked, even if their internal reasoning is noble.

    You're coming up with an extremely half-assed hypothetical concept to try and attack Google for no good reason. At least come up with logical examples if you want to attack the general "Google=good, MS=bad" opinions. There's very good reasons why MS is generally viewed in this light, and MS making such an ad blocker mandatory and activated by default is a good example of behaviour we might expect from them and not Google. The issue you're attacking is pretty much the opposite - an optional component for an optional browser. Quite different from a pre-activated update for a browser that comes installed as a component of Windows. On is fine, the other is not, and the company making the bad decision would be rightfully criticised, as would Google if they did such a thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

    Disabling ads is like accessing kiddy porn.

    Only in that by Alan's reasoning "Google's CEO, top management, and lawyers are ok with it" because they haven't stopped it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Alexander Davidson, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 12:10pm

    Love it

    That's the best response I've heard in a while, if only other large companies could take the 'adapt' attitude instead of blaming innovation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

    Not really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Jan 8th, 2010 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Probably not. The comments section would be a lot emptier, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

    Not really.

    Yes, really, which highlights the defectiveness of the reasoning. Sorry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 8th, 2010 @ 9:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Probably not. The comments section would be a lot emptier, though."

    I seriously doubt that Mike would keep it going with no traffic. Of course, you're free to think otherwise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Eric Blade, Jan 9th, 2010 @ 8:18pm

    lolz...

    This, on a site where the ads take up more than 2 times the screen space of the article...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Idobek (profile), Jan 12th, 2010 @ 3:28am

    To block or not to block

    I used to always use adblocker, but I no longer have a problem with most ads. However, some ads are very intrusive: anything with sound; ads that expand when you so much as brush them with your mouse pointer; and, most annoyingly of all, ads that are mis-sized for their allocated space on the page - which then block actual page content.

    FYI: Techdirt's sponsors' sidebar has a (I think) Nokia ad which is a nice example of the latter of these which was plaguing me yesterday.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Ben Mordecai, Dec 31st, 2010 @ 9:04am

    The ads themselves don't bother me as much as the performance cut that comes from having flash animations on half of all my tabs

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This