In Defense of Defense: Why Ad Blockers Are Essential (Op-Ed)

[Unolocogringo]

My solution that seems to work well for me and the websites I visit.

Turn off flash, this stops all of the annoying pop up video ads and you just get the simple static picture ad. Saves on bandwidth and anoyances of screaming video adds.
Install Abine Do Not Track me/ Blur, which does a good job of blocking tracking cookies.

This way sites still get to display their adds and receive revenue, but at the same time, I do not have hundreds of tracking cookies that constantly report back to their masters.
Sites receive less revenue, because they do not display "targeted" adds, but I never gave them permission to track me and my surfing habits to begin with.

 

[whiteruski]

I mainly agree with this article. I think that the onus (hehe funny work) should be on on both the site and the advertiser. They should work together on a specific ad package (no flash or no sound or specific genre of ads) that makes sense for the site.

Its not just the advertiser. The site should also provide input into the type of ads that relate to the content. This will yield ads that add to the readers experience and will likely lead to more click-throughs.

I think the substance of this article is better thought out. I wish mention of bandwidth was also part of the discussion as other comments also stated. It is an important point for people's pocket and also for increasing the longevity/relevance of older devices that would still be sufficient if not for the resource load on the device (my iphone 4 over wifi makes for a horrendous browsing experience for example).

 

[rpjkw11]

As you stated, Mr. Pishgar, "ads are frequently disruptive" is the understatement of all time. Worse than disruptive, they most all smash-mouth, in-your-face obnoxious. I understand the need for ads. Advertising has always been the fuel for, first, radio and print, and later for TV. Yes, it's essential, but advertisers AND websites fail to display any respect for the audience they target. For that reason I will continue to keep my ad-blocker(s) on at ALL times.

 

[Puiucs]

adblockers are an essential part of the internet now. whitelisting your favorite websites is how you should use it.

 

[kaptu100]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments of this article and to a certain degree the one preceding it. I feel it is my duty and obligation to support the sites that I value such as Tom's, however that may be. Having said that though, I'm not quite prepared to white list any site let alone switch off my ad blocking software just yet.

The problem is that the advertisers rely on third party ad services which have huge portfolios of clients and it seems little purview regarding the content of those adverts. I understand that the purpose of these services are ostensibly to ensure relevance and reach but I just don't trust any online adverts since their provenance is questionable. Just having an ad displayed let alone clicking it will lead to cookies being saved and thus allow tracking across sites. I don't think I'm alone in that this makes me a tad uncomfortable, never mind the possibility that clicking on anything will expose you to something malicious..

Surely the companies wishing to advertise their products or services would be better served by consumers firstly feeling that clicking on an advert will have no more dire consequences than being presented with innocuous information and secondly that the company or organisation involved is actually the ones communicating with them.

So what I suggest is that sites themselves have to be involved in selecting and placing the adverts shown, just like the design and layout team in any newspaper does. Regarding ensuring relevance, the article itself can inform which adverts should be presented where: If its an article dealing with, say, storage devices then slap in a couple of SSD deals from a major retailer. There are already categories under which all articles are categorised.

If the website in question is trusted by its users and the site states that it is responsible for ensuring the safety of the advertising presented therein then I would actually click on everything that seems even remotely pertinent as a matter of principle (thus supporting the site). It might sound a bit harsh but websites need to do more than just write good articles given the mess that online advertising has become. Sure it seems like a mammoth task curating potentially hundreds of adverts from many different companies but the benefits could potentially be greater than the cost of the extra staff. For years now I haven't seen any ads, sitting pretty instead behind ad blocking extensions. That would change the second I'm sure that I don't run the risk of being taken for a ride.

One other thing, Tom's really needs to secure its log-in page. No https when I have to type in my email address is just poor form.

 

[jpishgar]

Seems like the heat on Avram post forced tom to use some form of damage control. Personally Im not falling for it. I think its just an article written to take the heat off from the previous article on this subject.

I'm the community guy. I don't take marching orders from Editorial - at all. The op-ed was my idea, because I felt the other side needed to be spoken for, and it's how I happen to believe. If you take a look at previous pieces I've written here, you'll see they are either about PC games that were marketed falsely and compelled me to blast with a suborbital word-cannon (SimCity, Elder Scrolls Online), or about issues critical to our community's well-being (the SOPA/PIPA call to action). They don't pay me to put pen to paper, and like the other pieces I wrote this in my own spare time after working hours.

You can get away by selling crap with good ads, the right actor backing up the company in their ads and so on, but you will do that once.

The worst is with movies. They show you a trailer and set the movie up as something you can see it clearly is not when you start watching it. But by then, they've got your ticket and concession stand money. Critics and reviewers get a bad wrap sometimes for their role in society, but the duplicity in marketing is why we have them - and why sites like Tom's exist. The reviews are incredibly valuable in time and money, and a lot of people don't have the luxury of extra dough laying around to get fooled on which smartphone is better, or which graphics card is crap.

For example, many projects have attempted things like micropayments or user credit for viewed ads.

"To read page 2 of this power supply review costs 4 Tomcoins. To earn Tomcoins, invite your friends." Cue the full-body shudder.

As an example, selling World of Warcraft gold for real money is illegal and I don't want to see any ads for an activity I believe harms the game, and some of the sites that rotate ads do nothing to stop such things from being displayed.

I wrote this ten years ago and I feel it still applies. http/overmoderated.blogspot.com/2006/11/dollars-to-donuts-quick-look-at-rmt.html You'll notice in the case of RMT, I advocate for the impetus of control on the part of the designer/developer, rather than the user. The user as like with ads, will take whatever means necessary to ensure they are provided for and their experience is optimal, and it isn't a moral thing - it's a human thing.

Oh and THANKS Joe for your Op-Ed here, and your respect for me and the rest of the readers!

Welcome!

We could reconcile the two if we had some ad-blocking software that blocked most advertisements but had the ability to let through advertisements from trusted advertisers. Oh wait ....Trouble is, I guess, that some hack journalist would label this simple solution as "extortion".

Now on that, I'm not sure where I come down. Avram may well have been justified in using the term extortion if a singular company gets to decide the difference between valid ad, sponsored content, and who is trusted and who is not. The way it is theorized to be set up runs pretty damn close to a protection racket. "You wants those ads seens, don'tchas?" says the guy with the baseball bat and universally adopted ad-blocking software. Blanket filtering is one thing, picking and choosing out of a lineup practically incentivizes abuse. And probably would make it difficult for the little guy to compete as well. You realize to get a "Verified" Twitter account, you have to drop $10-50k on an ad buy on Twitter? On the user end, the impact is negligible, but on the content provider and product end, it's a horrifically slippery slope.

 

[jabliese]

The fact that this is even a discussion shows how far Tom's has fallen.

 

[thrus]

Very well written and pointing out the need for ads without insulting your audience. But I have to admit that I started reading biased that this was a response to the community that had been upset by the prior article. Now there is nothing wrong with responding to an upset community, in fact it is the right thing to do, however after these two pieces I would love to see an article on what the process is like for a website to deal with an ad company, I have no knowledge on that subject.

Regarding ads I will say my top 3 hated ones would be: 1 anything that makes sound by default, screw it I don't care what the content is I am closing the page I won't even look for a mute button. 2 ads that block out or delay the article loading, pop up windows gray out or click continue to get to what you clicked on type ads. oddly the click continue don't bug me on downloads if they only are 3-5 second delay for an image (not video) ad. 3 is the ones that turn text into things that pop up a small ad blocking you from reading things around it.

 

[McHenryB]

If AdBlocker abused the ability to omit advertisers from their filter users would soon catch on that it wasn't doing a good job. I'd prefer to trust a relatively uninterested third party to determine which ads are acceptable than either the advertisers themselves (no brainer) or th e websites (who tell us it can't be done).

But if the only alternative is just a blanket block on all advertisments, I'm good with that too.

 

[markdm53]

Finally someone who makes sense after that fiasco of a commentary by Avram.

 

[das_stig]

Shame who ever designed the TH web layout hasn't read this article, how many adverts and auto-start videos (which restart if you mouse over them, even after a pause) do we have to put up. They freeze the page and general make the format look and amateur mess, must be a mate of Avram

 

[Onus]

Marcus52, you pretty much perfectly captured what I also think on this subject, although I found it necessary as a Moderator to remove the personal attack which didn't add anything and is not allowed. I do agree with the gist of your post, and plan to keep my ad blockers on until advertising is honest, forthright, unobtrusive, SAFE, and informative. Show me what you're selling, suggest why I might want it (if not obvious), tell me the real price and where I can get it, and I'll decide for myself. You do not have permission to track my browsing, interrupt my focus, and certainly not to lie to me, about anything.

 

[bikerepairman1]

I have a few sites whitelisted. They serve non-intrusive textbased ads with the url as ONLY clickable part. They don't serve from the major ad companies and therefor I trust them enough to let the ads pass the adblocker. I can fire up an old computer with a live cd and without harddisk to view the site in all it's glory (read including ads) if the site in interesting enough for me. Then I decide IF I whitelist (some parts of) the website.

Since most/all sites won't take resposibility for damage by malicious ads, the adblocker stays on for nearly all sites. My personal data is more important for me than some ads shoved down my throat.

 

[razor512]

I wonder why some websites say that it screening all ads cannot be done. It is done everywhere else. For example, in many radio productions, advertisers will first contact the show manager with an ad request (managers will also reach out to companies of products that they like in order to pitch a sponsor slot).
Changes to an ad requires approval from the manager.

Many podcasts and highly popular web TV shows will also function this way.

For a website implementing this model, there are some that do it, for example, https/www.freetalklive.com/

They have an entire column ads on the right side of the website, but none of the ad companies have scripting permissions or div elements which they can control. instead all ad changes are emailed to the owner of the site, and then the owner makes the change after verifying it.

Overall, it can be done, it just requires the site owner to put a little bit of work into their own website, and if that it too much to ask for, then they should not be running the website.

If tomshardware wanted to move to this model, then they just need to sell the ad space, and put specific guidelines for the size and shape of the ad, data usage,and other characteristics. They must then have the ad company send the ads over to them for review and ultimate placement on the page.

this will largely solve the trust issue as if we didn't trust the people running the site then we would not even be here to begin with, thus if the people we trust, displayed ads that they them self have verified to be safe, in addition to safe digital downloads, then there will be very little reason for anyone to block the ads.

For dynamic ads that are based on tracking data. They need to go away until they can fix them. I have looked at the tracking scripts and cookies that many major ad companies use, and the detail is enough that they can see every single website that I have gone on, as well as the specific pages within the website. This means they know exactly what I was looking at.

With that info, why do they waste good ad opportunities?

For example, if I was looking for a GTX 970, and the lowest price I saw was $330, then the ad network should go through their database and check for an ad for a GTX 970 that cost less than $330. If that was done then there is a very high chance that I would click on the ad (provided they take steps to keep the ads safe), because at that moment, I am about to buy something. That money is getting spent, and will wind up in the pocket of who ever gives me the best deal. By not providing me with a relevant ad, they literally lost a sale.

I do not mind a little tracking if it directly benefits me. The tracking can be made mutually beneficial if they can filter out the malicious ads, and then make the ads overall more intelligent.

For example, if you were searching for specific product, and there were ad networks tracking you, and using that info, they displayed an ad saying something like "hey, we saw that you were looking for a GTX 970 SSC, and the lowest price you found was $330 including taxes and shipping, we found a better deal of $315 total, click here, or head to *store website* to take advantage of this offer"

Something like that will would be mutually beneficial, as a user already planning to spend money, has been pleasantly surprised that they could save even more money, while at the same time the store that paid for the ad, got a successful sale, thus everyone got their moneys worth.

They have enough info to do this now.

 

[ctsvette]

I would consider whitelisting Tom's if they got revenue based on the "per view" model. However, since they are almost guaranteed to be using the "per click" model, and there's no way in the universe I'm actually clicking on any ad on any website, there's no reason for me to whitelist them or anyone else. Even if your ad had a good price on hardware on Amazon, Newegg, or wherever, I'm perfectly capable of finding those deals on my own.

 

[plwww]

For example, many projects have attempted things like micropayments or user credit for viewed ads.

"To read page 2 of this power supply review costs 4 Tomcoins. To earn Tomcoins, invite your friends." Cue the full-body shudder.

Hehe, way to envision the worst possible solution. I said there's room for innovation, not insanity. ;-) I think it's fair to say that any system that relied on each site creating their own currency would be quite terrible; but there are plenty of other options. The entirety of digital advertising in the U.S. equates to about $35 a month per household(a bit more when you limit it to the 70% or so of broadband households). Since much of that spending goes to the ad networks and entities other than the content providers, the actual value needing replaced for a full ad-free internet experience is somewhat less(and some of the advertising wouldn't need replaced, as not all of the digital advertising is in-browser ads). We've been accustomed to everything being free for users, but ultimately there is a price attached to each page load. If users continue rebelling against ads, then something will have to change. If users want to run adblock, what's wrong with giving them the option to pay instead? For example, when a site pops up the nag screen saying, "Please support this site by turning off your ad blocker", create the system that allows you to also add, ", or press the pay button to to automatically transfer 5cents from your browser's bitcoin store". Ultimately those of us who run adblockers are freeloaders. We know it, you know it. We justify it because of the abuse by advertisers, but we are still getting something for nothing, paid for by those poor souls who still allow ads. Once we become a big enough percentage, the decision will have to be made to either fold up shop, block us, or come up with a different pay structure(subscription, micropayment, etc). Whitelisting trusted sites is a good start, but it can't fix the issue for the more general browsing where you neither know nor trust the websites yet.

 

[pasow]

My solution that seems to work well for me and the websites I visit.

Turn off flash, this stops all of the annoying pop up video ads and you just get the simple static picture ad. Saves on bandwidth and anoyances of screaming video adds.

that wont work for long. Googles Doubleclick just started advising against Flash ads in favor of all HTML5.

 

[Math Geek]

Now, I will say, the best way I've seen monetization done is on the links to products being recommended in the forums by other users, or being cited in articles. A link to Newegg, or Amazon, or wherever, that contains a referral code that provides the originating site a small commission for sending that traffic (and potential purchase) their way is the least obtrusive and doesn't affect the user in the least.

this is probably the most intelligent sounding way to help monetize the site some. more often than not, novice users/builders ask for a direct link for a product so they know exactly what they should buy. i assume most of these forum users buy that specific product linked to and move on. if amazon, newegg and the other major etailers could provide a bit of kickback for those purchases, what a difference that would make for the site as well as the user base being able to read ad free.

only problem i could foresee would be the world wide nature of the forum users. every country has different etailers to buy from and setting up partnerships with so many different countries would be a HUGE undertaking. i have a long list of bookmarks of sellers from all over the world i have built up in helping forum users. if they are in india, i know where to look for them. EU nations, got those....brazil?? no problem got links there as well. i believe i have 20 different countries (possible more) represented in my bookmarks to be able to directly help users shop for the best part for their budget/needs.

the forum attracts people from all over the world and surely such an audience can be monetized better than simply spamming my screen with ads, like the old school free web pages offered by geocities and others from the golden years of the dial up intertubes.

 

[Tanquen]

I don’t like the fact that my very fast PC with a very fast CPU/GPU can no longer scroll a number tech news sights as there are always trying to download the internet of ads while I’m trying to read.

<Edit: Removed curse word>

 

[Titillating]

GRRR, sorry for double post, comments are still buggy, and there is no edit button like with tomshardware. Will a mod please remove the double post?

Editing can't be done in the article comments, but can be done if you visit that article's forum thread, which is an exact mirror. Link for your convenience: http/www.tomsguide.com/forum/id-2661633/defense-defense-blockers-essential.html