Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Advertising News

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option 373

Posted by Soulskill
from the polarizing-issue dept.
Many readers have submitted news of a week-old announcement from Wladimir Palant, creator of Adblock Plus, about a change to the addon that will allow unobtrusive ads to be displayed. The change has been controversial because most people who run the addon strongly dislike seeing any ads. Palant hastens to point out that this is a toggle-able option, and by changing one setting, users can resume ad-less website viewing. Many are upset, however, that the setting defaults to allowing the display of "acceptable" advertisements. The description of "acceptable" ads includes the following criteria: "Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar); Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images; At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

Comments Filter:
  • by InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) on Monday December 12, 2011 @06:52PM (#38348968)
    Adblock developers have previously tried to monetarize the addon in very shady ways. I bet this is just another one of those. The announcement quite clearly reads as "we will still block ads, but we will not block Google's ads". I can bet that Google is directly paying them not to block their ads, but still keep continue blocking everyones else. This means increased income to Google, which now suddenly is the only provider whose ads aren't being blocked. This isn't new from Google either - they're currently under monopoly abuse investigation in EU after their contracts with advertisers said that advertisers cannot advertise on competing ad networks, like those from Yahoo and Microsoft.

    Shady people, shady deals.
    • by jlechem (613317) on Monday December 12, 2011 @06:56PM (#38349034) Homepage Journal
      Totally agree, and I'm sure someone will nerd rage and create the next adblock plus plus that will block all ads again until they decide to take the money and run. Kind of a vicious cycle but as long as someone picks up the torch I am happy. Hell I might even be motivated enough to get off my fat American ass and do it myself.
      • by Riceballsan (816702) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:10PM (#38349242)
        Why re-invent the wheel? The option of a full ad-block is within the program, you just have to tick one extra box to enable it, at which point it will most likely stay for every update until you chose to disable it. IMO this is not a horrible idea, The reason people started using ad-blockers wasn't because they abhorred the idea of their free sites having the nerve to post advertisements to fund themselves, it was because the advertisements kept getting more and more obtrusive as they went from small images, to large images, to images with popups to obnoxious sounds, at least a few people aren't opposed to a middle ground where they revert back to small banners on the page. One thing that would be nice is if ad-block could be designed to adjust the loading order however, IE the advertisement loads after the page.
        • by hedwards (940851) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:15PM (#38349324)

          People who aren't tech savvy aren't likely to be installing adblock, and those that are can handle the changing of a single option. The people that are likely to be the most annoyed though are either nerd raging or are in the habit of manually installing huge numbers of installs.

          • People who aren't tech savvy aren't likely to be installing adblock,

            I disagree. I point naive people to adblock plus all the time, I tell them just click the big green button to install it and then restart firefox. On restart it asks about adding extra subscriptions, but they can safely ignore that.

            In the past it "just worked" - now it won't.

    • by Threni (635302) on Monday December 12, 2011 @06:58PM (#38349066)

      You're speculating they're shady - you have no proof Google pays them. Besides, even assuming that they're accepting money from Google in the first place, offering a free add-on which users optionally install and run is hardly a problem, is it? Haven't Google been paying Mozilla to work on the browser this plug-on runs under? Is that shady too?

    • by trunicated (1272370) on Monday December 12, 2011 @06:58PM (#38349074)

      I remember NoScript, the other addon people install when they're trying to prevent large attack vectors, updating for very minor changes, and automatically loading their home page. Those loads translated to ad hits, which generated revenue. They eventually added an option for this, and I'm sure the people that cared enough turned it off.

      However, I don't remember anything similar happening with AdBlock... Can you site a specific incident?

      • by hedwards (940851)

        TBH, most people that install noscript want bugs and functionality worked on regularly. Plus, I have a hard time imagining that they get much money like that as I don't recall ever seeing any ads on that page.

        I'm personally more comfortable with that than silent upgrades and having to figure out why something is suddenly not working the way that it had been.

        • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:30PM (#38349576)

          TBH, most people that install noscript want bugs and functionality worked on regularly. Plus, I have a hard time imagining that they get much money like that as I don't recall ever seeing any ads on that page.

          Then you have never looked at the page. It's full of ads. That's why the asshole that runs noscript silently killed ad-block without telling users, so that his ads would be seen.

          http://www.schillmania.com/content/entries/2009/adblock-vs-noscript/ [schillmania.com]

          • by shellbeach (610559) on Monday December 12, 2011 @08:27PM (#38350218)

            That's why the asshole that runs noscript silently killed ad-block without telling users, so that his ads would be seen.

            "Asshole"?? That's an awful lot of hate for someone who's probably just trying to pay for his development time, and gives an excellent extension away for free. I dislike internet ads as much as the next guy, but come on -- was loading the noscript home page what, at most once every week, really going to hurt you in any way, shape or form?

            Sheesh, sometimes I feel bad about not maintaining my own software projects, as I never have enough time and don't make any money from them; and then I read comments like yours and suddenly I don't mind as much. Some people feel way too over-entitled.

            • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Monday December 12, 2011 @09:59PM (#38350936)

              Anyone who screws with the configuration or other software on my system without my permission or knowledge deserves hate. If you feel otherwise feel free to support him, buy software from Tax-Cut, etc. If someone screws with other software on my machine without permission I'll boycott them and make sure to inform others of the issue. I've gladly unblocked ad sites to support Hulu, etc, because they asked. I've got no problem supporting folks who ask for it. I have a real problem with folks who muck with my machines without asking.

          • by artor3 (1344997)

            I just went to noscript's page and disabled ad-block. There's one small, non-animated banner ad running down the right-hand margin of the page, for something called Babylon -- which appears to be offering an over-excited girl hugging a browser window. Beyond that, there are a few very small text ads for pieces of software, such as FlashGot. Slashdot has more ads.

            Seriously, why lie about something like this? Did you think no one would check? Did Giorgio Maone kill your dog?

    • by makomk (752139) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:12PM (#38349296) Journal

      Google ads apparently aren't unblocked (yet), but someone on Hacker News asked the developer earlier and apparently monetization is part of the plan [adblockplus.org]:

      I don't think that we get anything yet but we indeed hope to get some income this way to make the project sustainable. This doesn't mean that paying us is the requirement to be added to the exceptions list - the requirements a formulated here and they will probably become more precise as we gain experience (suggestions are welcome). As to Google: no, they have nothing to do with it. We didn't talk to Google, we didn't take money from them, there is no conspiracy here. We did look at Google Ads as a typical example (unblocking them is the most common request we get yet most people lack the knowledge for that) but they don't meet our requirements at the moment. Google's search ads are a different thing and they can meet our requirements depending on how the website configures them - and we did add an exception for them on one particular website.

    • IF this will cool the inevitable arms race between advertisers and adblock and possibly forestall the advertisers creating ads that are more difficult to block then it's worth the extra few clicks. Additionally, this may have the added effect of making advertising on the web (it ain't going away, folks) less flashy, bandwidth/CPU intensive and less of a potential vector for malware infection. However I, for one, will be clicking the little box that says no ads whatsoever.
    • by syousef (465911) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:50PM (#38349822) Journal

      Adblock developers have previously tried to monetarize the addon in very shady ways. I bet this is just another one of those.

      *long whistle* Nice ads you have there! It'd be a shame if someone were to come along and block 'em. *extends hand*

    • by shellbeach (610559) on Monday December 12, 2011 @08:17PM (#38350102)

      Shady people, shady deals.

      ... or it could simply be an acknowledgement that -- like it or not -- the web runs on advertising and allowing a bit of it in might not hurt you if you wanted to be more ethical. Ever thought about how small non-profit websites can afford to keep their domain names? In any case, the Adblock Plus devs have long been clear [adblockplus.org] that one of their aims was to change advertisers' behaviour. This is clearly a move to drive change to a point where advertising is present but less intrusive (and also more ethical, i.e. not using psuedo-OS dialogue boxes to fool the gullible).

      Anyway, as long as the option to turn all advertising off is present (and it clearly is) then I can't see how this hurts you or anyone else. But hey, if you don't like it, don't use AdBlock Plus.

      • by dzfoo (772245) on Monday December 12, 2011 @09:02PM (#38350514)

        This is clearly a move to drive change to a point where advertising is present but less intrusive (and also more ethical, i.e. not using psuedo-OS dialogue boxes to fool the gullible).

        No. It is clearly a move to attempt to make money [adblockplus.org] from what is perceived to be a captive audience that will not notice.

        I don't mind people wanting to make money. However, I see a clear conflict of interest here, when then interests of the source of such money are orthogonal to the actual users of the product.

                  dZ.

      • by Splab (574204)

        Personally I don't mind advertisements, what I do mind is having to wait for some third party site to deliver the ad before I get to view the page. I also hate the fact that advertisements aren't vetted by the site owner, thus allowing it to be a method of virus delivery etc.

        Want me to view ads? Host them and vet them yourself, my adblock only blocks external sites (The daily wtf for instance shows ads).

      • by T Murphy (1054674)
        I've actually been hoping for an option like this, and loaded the comments expecting to see many sharing my sentiment. I was very surprised to see so much raging over a checkbox. For a geek website, people seem surprisingly ready to ignore the costs of running a website.

        Ideally, they would have a number of ad categories and you pick which can load, that way it is up to the user to define "acceptable".
    • by icebike (68054)

      I can bet that Google is directly paying them not to block their ads, but still keep continue blocking everyones else. This means increased income to Google, which now suddenly is the only provider whose ads aren't being blocked.

      Wait, Those people who hate ads are not likely to click on any of them, so there is unlikely to be much increased income to google.
      They don't get paid by impressions, only by clicks. This is probably more of an admission that content related ads are something user actually DO want and use, and flashy in your face display advertising is NOT.

      But more importantly, if you install something that is supposed to block ads, and then find some getting thru even a clueless newbie will find that opt-out feature in n

    • I know hardly anyone sees ads anymore, but Google has moved on quite a bit. While the original "list of links" ad is still in use, they frequently have big animated image banners now. These criteria cannot be applied without blocking a considerable part of Google's ads too.

      And if the only ads not blocked are a subset of Google ads, then that is no fault of Google, but the fault of the other advertisers who are determined to abuse customer's computer resources and attention. I will most likely continue to bl

  • by bonch (38532) * on Monday December 12, 2011 @06:56PM (#38349038)

    The summary fails to cite some of the core reasons for the complaints, which are that this feature will be enabled by default as well as the fact that the Adblock project is hoping to make monetary agreements with advertisers [adblockplus.org].

    • by Synerg1y (2169962)

      I rtfa and I could care less, noscript > adblock anyways, so if you like opting in to website, noscript still does this I hear, there's also other ad blockers out there. Can you really blame the guy for wanting to make money w his app? If you got a problem go make your own especially on something as trivial as this ad blocker that ppl seem to be bashing left and right.

      bonch: consider your signature owned after reading:

      http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/the-texas-sharpshooter-fallacy/ [youarenotsosmart.com]

      is the real reas

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Myopic (18616) *

        I've tried noscript a couple times, and each time it rendered the web useless. Almost all websites use Javascript to build the page or for the pages to function. Do you really use noscript without problem? Is there something I need to change (a setting, or an expectation) which could make it work for me?

        • by hedwards (940851)

          I'd recommend allowing scripts by default and using request policy to limit the scope of the jabascript. I can definitely understand the annoyance, I used to run noscript with scripts disabled by default, but most of the sites I'd go to would be completely broken unless I allowed a half dozen scripts from places that I'd never heard of. Most of them would turn out to be Content Delivery Network scripts, but annoying nonetheless.

          If they'll allow only tasteful ads with adblock, I'm probably going to install i

        • by Synerg1y (2169962)

          Lol, ya, it requires patience, if you keep browsing new websites say as with stumbleupon, your best bet is to temporarily disable it for your browsing session. If your like me and 90% of your browsing is done between 19-20 websites, I add exceptions for those websites and sometimes for the stuff that the website runs in the background to make it work. The last part is tricky and 99% of the time I just toggle the exceptions till it starts working, to test functionality I do disable all temporarily on this

        • by Synerg1y (2169962)

          You can also use noscript in reverse and that is "allow all permanently" I believe and then block on a per website basis everything you don't know / want that website to access. So in this case I would blacklist google-analytics.com ONLY ONCE the first time I can across it, but something like 3cxxn.net, 3czxn.net, I'd have to blacklist individually also. This is why the reverse approach can get cumbersome, it's really [0-9][a-z][a-z][a-z][a-z].net that's running on the ad server probably. 100% depends on

        • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Monday December 12, 2011 @08:00PM (#38349926)

          "I've tried noscript a couple times, and each time it rendered the web useless"

          Some websites are entirely reliant on scripts--poorly constructed websites, for the most part, but mostly because the website is trying to slip something past you.

          If you pull up the context options for NoScript (right-click anywhere on the webpage) you'll see that you can allow scripts individually. Start with the script that looks like it applies directly to the website, usually a domain that matches the one in the address bar, and the page will automatically reload with that script running. Keep doing this, one script at a time until the page works. You can do this just for the browsing session, or set it to permanently allow those particular scripts. Keep in mind that at some point you may have to start allowing stuff that is bad or the website still doesn't work--this is the point I usually leave the site.

          The hard part is determining which scripts you don't need. This is something you learn over time (my youngest daughter has been doing this on her own since she was 12 yrs old). Does that Googlesyndication script REALLY have anything to do with your local newpaper? No? Then don't let it through. Some are obviously from 3rd parties. Don't let them through.

          The biggest problem, you will come to see, is that sometimes allowing one script to run will trigger more scripts, and NoScript will simply block those as well.

          I have a rule for myself that makes things pretty easy--I block any script that isn't obviously from the website I am visiting. If it breaks the site, I go elsewhere. Another good rule of thumb is the fewer scripts the website requires you to run, the better.

          NoScript is no panacea--it is just a tool. Unlike AdBlock (well, as it is NOW), NoScript still requires user input to function according to the users preferences. I suppose the biggest difference between the two models is AdBlock uses a subscription to determine what to block and what not to block, while NoScript blocks everything and relies on YOU to decide what to let through.

          A combination of AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery seems to protect me, and my senses, pretty well. But, there are also a LOT of websites I cannot view as a result of those add-ons...a good thing, I am sure.

          I, for one, will continue blocking all the ads I can, for numerous reasons--lower bandwidth usage, no unexpected sounds, no questionable embedding in ads, etc. When AdBlock doesn't allow me to do that anymore, someone will make another add-on that does and I will move to that add-on.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Hatta (162192)

          Few sites require javascript for basic functionality. Less than half easily. Of those, most are shit anyway. Of the few that remain, nearly all require only one domain to be whitelisted, the same one the page is on. That's got to account for at least 95% of the web.

          That's about my experience, roughly one in 20 websites don't work readily with NoScript. For those, it does take some thinking to figure out which domains to whitelist temporarily. But once you figure it out you can make it permanent, a

      • by bonch (38532) * on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:23PM (#38349454)

        Can you really blame the guy for wanting to make money w his app?

        Absolutely. I will criticize an ad-blocking project for making revenue agreements with whitelisted advertisers.

        • by Synerg1y (2169962)

          I don't think his code is GNU licensed though? If it was his intent to keep it free, that would be the project's home.

          It is open source though
          http://adblockplus.org/en/source#build [adblockplus.org]

          You can grab a build w/o the feature, build it ??? no more opt out. '

          I can't help but compare the ethics of this case to that of firefox's and that's because we use it for free, what I learned from those threads is it's free, use it if you like, we aren't forcing you, you can bitch but you get no say in the features so just acce

    • by Spad (470073)

      If said agreements result in a reduction in the number of increasingly ridiculous, full screen, flashing, animated adverts that people are using, then I don't really have a problem with it.

      I'm not against advertising on websites, I'm against advertising on websites that's distracting, breaks up articles, makes noises, slows down page loads, etc.

      My only suggestion would be to have the option to turn the feature off pop-up on first install of the addon, so that people are aware of its existence.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        Some control over what constitutes acceptable ads would be nice too. Personally running any kind of script is out for me (and anyone who runs NoScript). Cookies and tracking too, although I don't know how AdBlock can verify that the server isn't collecting your IP address and tracking your browser via HTTP headers.

    • by makomk (752139)

      Also, it appears the main ads to be unblocked so far are Sedo domain-parking ones. You know, the annoying ones you see when a domain squatter has noticed a useful website's domain has expired and decides to make a cheap buck off their traffic by sticking up a content-free page of irrelevant ads. They technically meet Adblock Plus' new definition of "acceptable ads", mostly because they don't need to draw the viewer's attention - there's nothing else on the site for them to look at!

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        Well, if you go to a page that contains nothing but ads, while using a browser that blocks ads, wouldn't you just see a blank page?

    • This was my first thought when reading the headline. I wouldn't actually mind seeing some unobtrusive ads, but knowing ads are unlikely to be deemed "unobtrusive" if the company behind it does not pay for the service makes ad block plus an ad provider, not an ad blocker.
  • fork time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Monday December 12, 2011 @06:56PM (#38349040)

    There's no such thing as "unobtrusive ad", just like there is no "unobtrusive DRM".

    With a toggle or not, it's the thought and default what counts, and we need something to recommend to non-technical friends to make their www browsing palatable. I for one go with several partially redundant layers of anti-crap defense and put some time into maintaining them, but ordinary people deserve to have something decent out of the box.

    • Re:fork time (Score:5, Informative)

      by rmstar (114746) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:08PM (#38349220)

      There's no such thing as "unobtrusive ad", just like there is no "unobtrusive DRM".

      I disagree. You can have a small pic and a bit of text. That's pretty unobstrusive. I'm willing to put up with that in limited amounts (I don't klick on it anyways, but that's a different matter). Loading a huge flash animation is a completely different beast.

      And I truly do not understand your DRM analogy. A pic with a bit of text to the left or the right of the main webpage is like DRM how?

      • Re:fork time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Myopic (18616) * on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:16PM (#38349340)

        I agree with you. I don't hate advertisements in theory; I hate advertisements in practice. In theory, I'm quite happy to be informed of useful and pertinent products and services; but in practice, all I get is screaming, flashing, interrupting, annoying bullshit that blocks my enjoyment of the content I came for. There is an incredibly tiny minority of ads which I block, which I wish would come through (maybe 1 in 10,000 of today's ads), and if we can convince advertisers to conform to certain criteria, then that would make the world Better, and I support that.

        But, I think that's pretty unlikely.

      • by hedwards (940851)

        Precisely, I've had to block most advertising because it's a pain to block just certain types of ads. It's mostly those intelletext ads and the huge honking flash animations that cover up elements on the screen that I most want blocked. Sometimes a tasteful text only or simple GIF ad at the side of the screen does advertise something that I'm genuinely interested in.

      • by Nimey (114278)

        I agree. I've taken to deblocking ads on sites I frequent and then only re-blocking if there's a really annoying ad, like sometimes comes up on Wikia with those full-screen slideovers.

        At least that damned Evony ad campaign with the scantily-clad women advertising a completely unrelated game is over.

    • by Fjandr (66656)

      There is such a thing as unobtrusive advertisement, because "unobtrusive" is a subjective term.

  • TANSTAAFL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vanyel (28049) * on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:02PM (#38349150) Journal

    I don't have a problem with this, even if Adblock is getting revenue from it. I want them to be able to continue to support the product, and I want the sites I go to to be able to afford to continue to exist, and I am happy if they are able to make a profit even. We all win. The only reason I started using adblock is because of all the disruptive, distracting, ads that interfere with the actual reason I came to a website in the first place. As long as they're able to keep blocking those, and sites that do tracking, I'm happy...

    • Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PCM2 (4486) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:19PM (#38349382) Homepage

      I don't think TANSTAAFL really applies. I mean, so my lunch isn't free. OK. What's the price? I suffer? Because, ads or no ads, no money is changing hands here. People who cry that Web sites get money from ads always make the false connection that merely by having me look at ads, the advertiser benefits. That simply isn't the case. That seems like the same argument as the people who claim that every time someone downloads a copy of CS 5.5 from BitTorrent, Adobe loses $1,200. No, it doesn't quite work that way.

      Example: Car ads. I don't have a driver's license. No matter how many ads for cars they show me, I won't be buying a car. It might not even be legal for me to buy one (I'm not sure). So watching a 20-second video clip of a CG car driving around some fictitious Autobahn is not only wasting my time, it's also wasting the advertiser's money to show it to me.

      Also, maybe I get so tired of seeing the same car ad every 10 minutes in a Hulu video that I start to hate that car and its manufacturer?

      I'm sure some Web site owners say, "I don't give a shit about any of that. My contract just says I have to show you the ad." But to me, that's shortsighted thinking. In the long run, advertisers are only going to want to advertise where it's effective. If some people are so hostile to advertising that they use AdBlock, why not leave them alone? How is wasting that person's time and causing them more frustration going to pay for that Not-Free Lunch? The only people who really benefit are the middlemen -- the ad agencies -- and you know what Bill Hicks said about them. [youtube.com]

      • Re:TANSTAAFL (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rob Y. (110975) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:41PM (#38349720)

        Well, some of us hate most ads, but understand that something's got to fund the content. Still, I use Adblock Plus, and would welcome a way to have it allow non-obtrusive stuff through. I don't feel good about freeloading - I do it because I can, and because the ads tend to be overly distracting.

        Google seems to have found the sweet spot in web advertising. Their text ads are unobtrusive, and in fact, can be quite useful. They mainly show up when I'm looking to buy something, and are profitable for both Google. What they don't do is try to manipulate my feelings - and that's the main reason I don't mind them. I guess Google's lucky to be in a business that lends itself to such a 'clean' ad-based revenue stream. I don't know if non-search websites can manage this.

        Anyway, much as I hate ads, I'd rather control their methods than try to eliminate them. I pay for home delivery of the ad-stuffed New York Times and subscribe to Public TV and radio. Those are habits I made before the web and AdBlock and 'information wants to be free' came along - I'm not sure I'd make them today. And ultimately, that's a shame. I want there to be a New York Times, a PBS and an NPR - and a slashdot...

      • I'm sure some Web site owners say, "I don't give a shit about any of that. My contract just says I have to show you the ad."

        Actually, as far as I know virtually all ad networks have moved to PPC (pay per click), so showing the ad by itself gets them nothing.

    • by Fjandr (66656)

      ^ This.

      It's incredibly arrogant of people to block ads simply because they dislike advertisements on an idealogical basis. They want free websites, but they don't want them to be able to make any money to pay for all the work that goes into it. Like it or not, advertising is the primary way websites fund themselves, and punishing all of them instead of targeting specific misbehavior (like Flash advertisements that destroy usability of a site or consume lots of system resources, or ad networks that track cro

      • by tftp (111690)

        It's incredibly arrogant of people to block ads simply because they dislike advertisements on an idealogical basis.

        I block each and every ad because I will *never* click on any of them. Serving them to me would be a waste of bits, and it would annoy me too. I don't buy things because they are advertised. I buy things that I need, and when I do my research I never ask the manufacturer about quality of his product.

        Perhaps some people can sustain a thoughtful conversation while reading a newspaper while l

  • Security? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pushing-robot (1037830) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:05PM (#38349188)

    I don't have a problem with ads on web pages (hosting isn't free, y'know) but I don't like putting my systems at risk to plugin and browser vulnerabilities. If an ad company promised no flash or potentially dangerous scripts or images I'd add them to my whitelist.

  • by milbournosphere (1273186) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:06PM (#38349204)
    I'll turn it off and move on. Setting it to this option as default is a little shady, but I'll pick up my pitchfork when they remove the off switch entirely. Adblock is a wonderful plugin, I don't fault its creator for trying to make a little bit of money off of it. As long as the plug-in allows me to keep blocking any ad, I'm happy.
  • I could go for this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:09PM (#38349230)

    My main reasons for using adblock+ is not to kill adds, but to protect my systems from hosts I consider hostile. Ad networks are a major malware vector because most ad network providers are mostly sleazy scum that can't be bothered to secure their networks. Either that, or they try to exploit javascript and other mechanisms to extract information I don't feel that they are entitled to. I'm sure as fuck not going to execute any script that comes from them.

    Second comes browsing improvement, because some ad networks are so badly performing that they hinder the use of many web pages. I also found adblock plus the absolute best way to improve browsing performance on low-end netbooks. (Noscript helps a lot too)

    Maybe this new option will enable a real no-bullshit way to enable advertisements that respect instead of exploit end users. I would would not mind that at all. Really, though, I don't want to execute any scripts from ad networks at all. I probably would not mind enabling Google's ad services either. As far as I know they're reputable as far as security is concerned.

  • I don't use an ad blocker. When I got to a site (usually via google), and I get confronted with an annoying ad, I click back ASAP, increasing the bounce rate for that site. Google DOES note this. Some might argue that a bounced visit is worse for a site than no visit at all. At least from an SEO point of view.

  • by jiriw (444695) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:11PM (#38349264) Homepage

    Actually I try to filter my adds through adblock to not block the unobtrusive text based adds (which Google became 'famous' for). If this option is able to do the filter work for me instead of me opting out every single add I find annoying manually, I'd actually very much like the option. If it has this as intention, I'm willing to try it out, see if it can get the job done. I can always put back my original filter list, can I?

  • I don't like the incentive that the addon maker should decide what ads are "acceptable" or not. I will choose which sites to allow ads on, if they are in the way of content, I will get rid of them, otherwise I will usually allow them.

    Heres an example: ads on youtube. I use noscript to block the in video ads, because I am not waiting through 15 seconds of wasted bandwidth and time to get to a video. Ads on the side? Those are fine, and I allow them under adblock. Does your site pop an ad up when I load

  • we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?

    • by dbc (135354)

      Quite true. The ability to control what ads I see would go a long way towards training the advertisers. If they learned that people will block you unless you play nice, they will play nice.

      By-and-large, I don't mind a static picture that doesn't gobble up screen space. Animations I absolutely hate. Sound, I hate even more absolutelier. Tracking creeps me out. I usually run with flashblock and adblockers in place. On one lab system, I haven't bothered to install all that crap -- it is always jarring to

    • by Surt (22457)

      we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?

      There are ads on the Google search page?
      <Turns off adblock to check it out>
      Hey, you're right!

  • by viperidaenz (2515578) on Monday December 12, 2011 @07:50PM (#38349816)
    I can see this as only a good thing. There is now an insentive for ads to be less intrusive and "acceptable"
  • by markdavis (642305) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:05AM (#38351780)

    Regardless of the motives on the part of Adblock Plus or conspiracy theories in other postings- the whole reason I started blocking ads was EXACTLY because of ads that:

    1) Contain animation (of ANY type)
    2) Contain sound
    3) Use Mouseovers or now page floating/etc
    4) Are unreasonable numerous or large
    5) Delay page loading

    If I could use Adblock to stop only the above and allow reasonably sized and fast loading, relevant, text based, or static image based ads, I would do so. I have said that for years.

    I am actually just as distressed now by things that are NOT ads, but contain constant or time delayed scrolling and other animations on sites. It is EXTREMELY IRRITATING while trying to read something (not to mention battery draining). But web designers seem to think it is cool and mandatory now. Used to be easy- turn off Flash and animated GIF. But since they are all Javascript now, there is no effective way to stop them without breaking the needed parts of pages (and don't EVEN suggest greasemonkey or the like... far to complex and/or time consuming). I wish there was a Firefox plugin that could auto detect Javascript animation or loops and just stop them.

Real computer scientists don't comment their code. The identifiers are so long they can't afford the disk space.

Working...