Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Aug 2010 14:02 UTC
Internet & Networking We're still in the slow news period, so let's talk about something we discussed before: blocking advertisements on websites. Up until, well, today, I didn't block ads - not because of some ethical objection or whatever, but simply because I couldn't be bothered to setup AdBlock. Today, after taking a closer look at some of the websites I frequent, I decided to take the plunge and install AdBlock on all my machines. The following set of screenshots should pretty much explain why.
Thread beginning with comment 437441
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But you said...
by runjorel on Thu 19th Aug 2010 13:39 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

I can't remember when it was, but it wasn't too long ago that Thom was asking everyone to not use ad-blocking software on this site. I mean as I am writing this, there is a huge ad above this comment block for Jimmy Johns. And OSnews is making money off of it. Granted, OSnews isn't banking a million a day, but it's helping OSNews pay for the server costs. So, I am really not meaning to be a troll or even trying to be spiteful, but if you feel that way, take the ads off of OSNews.

Having said that, you may argue, "OK, but OSNews doesn't have as many ads as Engadget or Gizmodo." My response to that (and again, not in a spiteful way) would be, "OK, but I don't think OSNews is generating the same kind of traffic that Engadget or Gizmodo is." So, more traffic+more server load+more bandwidth used=more $$costs$$.

The weird thing about writing this is, I hate ads. I don't know why all of a sudden I am coming to the defense of those sites with all those Ads. Because at the end of the day, I do agree with Thom that the content of these sites are getting mixed in too much with ads.

However, if the content is still visible to the best of a web designers ability, do I mind having ads that do not block the content from me and that support the content providers without my personal financial contribution (i.e. enjoying the content for free)? No. I will gladly have Ads on the page so I can enjoy the content for free and still help the content provider gain some type of financial contribution from a 3rd party. And I understand the more high-traffic sites I vist, the more ads.

There used to be a time where you couldn't enjoy content for free...you had to buy the newspaper or a magazine AND it still had ads. Having ads on a site is a good alternative to paying for internet content. I agree with Thom that it sucks, but I don't think we should just shut down the ads. Maybe, we just need to let those sites know, "Hey, stop showing me ads of XXXXXXXX.".

Reply Score: 2