Support NeoGAF

[CamHostage]

Maybe GAF should, Evilore said a while back that adblockers were becoming a problem for the site.

Adblocker software sometimes also screws up the site loading/performance. This is more a problem with video and rich media than standard graphic ads, but there are lots of cases where a site admin is getting complains about the website that can actually be traced to the blocking software, and then the admins have to make the decision about whether to fix the site so that 'pirates' can browse the site comfortably and not neg their reputation. If you're running crappy, draining ads (and sometimes that's beyond your control; you contract with a company that delivered one thing in the beginning but that also is feeling the crush of the dying market and has sold out its ad module,) that's one thing, but if you're trying to run a legit business and have to make compromises and do extra work in order to lose more money, that pretty much sucks.

It's up to gaming sites to make more intelligent lateral moves they need to make rather than pretend that band-aids like "limited articles" plans work. They don't. People will consume the content and move on without making a change to their browsing habits. Patreon and premium subscription content from strong personalities will be the future.

A) That market is new and untested; it's performing unusually well now, but it could crash so easily. And even per-site, you're so dependent on your audience that you may have to compromise content or be wary of controversy in order to keep subs up.

B) Sub/gifting seems to be working for Video and sometimes podcasting ... but try getting people to ever pay for written content! If people don't see somebody singing and dancing for their duckets, they don't feel as compelled to support them. And to me, great and well-prepared written content (like the Vice Halo History article, a recent discovery that I want more of and can't see working in the new "personality" market) is worth much more than off-the-cuff jabberjawing.

You're right, this is the direction the market is going, and you're seeing that move in your favorite sites. And to me, that direction sucks for the future of game journalism, a job that is already on the ropes.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

You said the main problem was they that had ads that weren't related to video games. Or rather, that everything would be fine if the ads were about video games.

I thought it was funny. Whenever some scandal pops up related to advertising, people suggest video game companies move away from video game focused ads so that there's less pressure to do from advertisers advertising products that you review.

They do this and the response is people getting mad about all this non-video game stuff showing up in ads.

I'd be fine with real ads, advertising products or services ect but I don't want click bait, shite like "Funeral Directors are Furious that People Know About This" or "10 Mega Pastors Bank Accounts You Won't Believe" lol but seriously I don't want that crap and will be blocking such ads.

 

[Mandoric]

Edit: to add a bit to this. If the problem is malware so much, then adblockers should block ads from certain exchanges, not ads served through websites own domains and networks. The whole "block everything" is the issue to me, and adblockers are doing little to change that and let through perfectly fine ads.

This is exactly how adblockers work, though. It's trivial to defeat them with self-hosted campaigns.

The ads will need to run through an ad program, but there are a ton of options for solutions that you run your own ads. You can set up a Doubleclick account and only run your own ads through it. I don't see why adblockers would need to block those, since there is little risk of malware that way from trustworthy sites.

How do I, the user, distinguish your entirely vetted and self-submitted DoubleClick ads from the wild west out there? Even if your site can be identified by API key, why should I trust that you'll never change your policy without notice?

Modern network-based web advertising is tantamount to auto-downloading software from randos and running it. It just goes wrong too often and too dangerously to be a reasonable ask of your users.
Can it also be the line between the business floating and sinking? Sure. I'm sure there are plenty of restaurants which could have stayed in business if only they could have skipped a refrigerator and just kept their meat on a shelf, too.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Each one of those reasons alone is worth using a ad-block. If a site blocks my access due to a Adblock, my solution = i stop visiting your site altogether.

While I understand what you're saying, and I use ad-block myself (disabled for GAF and other sites), it bears pointing out that your solution of not visiting their site, which you (and others in this thread) seem to imply as retributive, is actually a better outcome for the site, if you were going to block their ads anyway. You don't generate revenue either way, but at least if you're not visiting, you're not consuming bandwidth either.

Since the logical move for every site is to block adblock, the eventual conclusion would be that you wouldn't have any sites to browse. The only reason you have any such sites now is that (like NeoGAF) they graciously choose not to force you to disable adblock, even though this reports them no benefit whatsoever.

 

[UncleSporky]

While I understand what you're saying, and I use ad-block myself (disabled for GAF and other sites), it bears pointing out that your solution of not visiting their site, which you (and others in this thread) seem to imply as retributive, is actually a better outcome for the site, if you were going to block their ads anyway. You don't generate revenue either way, but at least if you're not visiting, you're not consuming bandwidth either.

Since the logical move for every site is to block adblock, the eventual conclusion would be that you wouldn't have any sites to browse. The only reason you have any such sites now is that (like NeoGAF) they graciously choose not to force you to disable adblock, even though this reports them no benefit whatsoever.

Well, to be fair, mindshare is a very important thing. Perhaps not as important as the money raised from ads, I don't know, it's up to the individual site to decide that.

But if enough users say, "I'm not disabling adblock to read your site, it's not that important to me," you absolutely can hemorrhage your overall relevance in any discussion. Yeah, you can always say "well Forbes doesn't miss your clicks at all because you wouldn't have earned them money anyway," but they are going to miss out on the mindshare.

If only people willing to run with no adblock can visit your site, that's the only population talking about stuff they saw there, sharing it with others, etc.

 

[nynt9]

While I understand what you're saying, and I use ad-block myself (disabled for GAF and other sites), it bears pointing out that your solution of not visiting their site, which you (and others in this thread) seem to imply as retributive, is actually a better outcome for the site, if you were going to block their ads anyway. You don't generate revenue either way, but at least if you're not visiting, you're not consuming bandwidth either.

Since the logical move for every site is to block adblock, the eventual conclusion would be that you wouldn't have any sites to browse. The only reason you have any such sites now is that (like NeoGAF) they graciously choose not to force you to disable adblock, even though this reports them no benefit whatsoever.

And I will say again that ad views are not the only way a site makes money.

* Sponsored content that the visitor will see
* affiliate links
* the visitor sharing the article to their friends, statistically 50% of whom will not have as blockers
* content/items the site sells
* the viewer developing brand affiliation and loyalty for the site which will make them spread the word about the site and be more likely to come back
* if the site ever decides to add other ways of monetizing, viewers who are on board with the brand are more likely to work with that model of funding. If viewers were blocked out by the site, they will not be likely to return and be converted into future customers.

In general, you can build a site in two ways. Either try to maximize the clicks you get per article. This way, if you run ads and publish clickbait, you will make money. But if you lose the ability to generate bait and the ad model collapses, you are out of business.

Alternatively, you try to build a brand. Develop a loyal following and community who want to come to your content. These people will be more likely to want to support you. Preventing adblockers from accessing your site only reduces your future reach.

Let me mention again that I run a website and am a partner in an ad exchange. A couple years ago, we reduced the amount of content we post, increased the quality of posting, and reduced ads from google + disqus to the network we curate. As a result, our brand has grown faster than ever, and we make more money. People are willing to pay us now. We could have blocked ad blockers and created more clickbait, but that's not feasible.

One big thing that's missing in this conversation is social media. Social media is eating very hard into views. People aren't clicking through to articles if it's just bait and the headline is the story. Also social media has gotten better at summarizing content. Because Facebook and twitter want to show you their own ads, they don't want you to look at the ads on the site that the article is from. They don't want you to leave Facebook to go read the site, they want to keep you on longer. This is a factor that many aren't considering yet.

 

[Durante]

Adblocker software sometimes also screws up the site loading/performance.

In my experience, adblocking generally improves loading speed and site performance.

 

[CamHostage]

Well, to be fair, mindshare is a very important thing. Perhaps not as important as the money raised from ads, I don't know, it's up to the individual site to decide that.

I guess so, and certainly it's the focus when you're young and hungry and striking deals and making moves ... but eventually, you've got to figure out how to pay the bills. It's sort of like Danny Bonaduce (?odd fact ratting around in my brain there?) used to say, being known is great but try feeding your family on "celebrity".

* Sponsored content that the visitor will see
* affiliate links
* the visitor sharing the article to their friends, statistically 50% of whom will not have as blockers
* content/items the site sells
* the viewer developing brand affiliation and loyalty for the site which will make them spread the word about the site and be more likely to come back
* if the site ever decides to add other ways of monetizing, viewers who are on board with the brand are more likely to work with that model of funding. If viewers were blocked out by the site, they will not be likely to return and be converted into future customers.

All good ideas. All high-level concepts that you're a lucky duck if you're able to make happen, for one thing. Also...
* I'm not sure what this sponsored content is that's not an ad? And if you start building sponsorships into your videos and content, you'll have people ejecting for that reason too. Plus, sponsors aren't plentiful, and you've got to be pretty big in order to get a lucrative sponsorship, so if you try to grow without ads to get to that level, you may break down beforehand from costs.
* Affiliate links still exist?
* Conversion rates on shares aren't great (most people will like a FB post just for the headline and move on.) So you're taking percentage of percentages.
* Commerce is a growing market, but it's also new and shaky. If Amazon ever decides to cut its percentages (and it has,) you're boned, because the alternatives are small.
* Brand loyalty is tough when even the biggest online brands are having difficulty connecting to and keeping the millennial audience. These are people used to getting everything from whatever comes up on the first page of Google, for free and without any advertising delay. The emerging audience tends not to see web brands, they see applications of content delivery. So there's Facebook and Twitter and Youtube and "Google", everything that comes from those destinations is "the internet".
* Future concepts of monetization sound great for the future, but you still need a bird in the hand before you can consider whether it's worth more than two in the bush.

Again, sure, if you succeed in other means of making money with your site, you're a winner. But diversification in monetization is tough with such difficulty making those streams start rolling and such potential for any one stream to dry up unexpectedly. Eurogamer has been in business for a long, long time, and has fought to survive. They have innovated, they have experimented, they have persevered. If they're flipping the switch on the adblock-ban, it's not just because they're bitter and dependent on old methods. It's pretty much because options are not looking good.

In my experience, adblocking generally improves loading speed and site performance.

...Until it doesn't.

Adblocking strips the stream down, yes, and that'll give you a performance gain; also, any ad that's more than just a graphic is code, and code can always go wrong on different browsers/set-ups, so a site producer can generate conflicts either way. So sure, you're mostly seeing the upside.

But just so you know, in web development, behind the scenes, there are meetings going on every day where engineers are fielding angry, "Fuck your POS site, it won't play my video!" or "My comment didn't go through, WTF?!" or some other complaint that the engineer has investigated to be caused by the blocker not working right for otherwise completely tested functionality. It's a piece of software designed to strip organized code arbitrarily (somewhat) out of rich media application streams from countless content providers. Even if an ad module is properly flagged/commented and there are no dependencies on the page, the idea that you'll 100% flawlessly toss out code is just not realistic. It'll mostly work, and it may even mostly make things better, until it doesn't.

 

[jholmes]

but all they have to do is get better ads 🤔

I don't mean to minimize the issue of intrusive ads, but I would say that a) people in editorial hate them as much as anyone, and they're the ones producing what you do want and b) advertisers are starting to catch on to how much they suck and how much they really don't want to be associated with them.

But I don't think this thread is about people who use adblockers only on sites that use really awful ads, now is it?

But if you always block how would you know if they did?

This is also true.

 

[cookie-monster]

eurogamer make most of their money from the expos anyway so this is a poor move. Rauper getting greedy.

 

[Silent Chief]

The only way to continue reading is to disable Adblock, they don't give a choice in the matter, even though it says "please consider whitelisting us so that we can continue providing editorial at no cost to you." like you have a choice, but the only choice is disable adblock or stop reading.

You seem to think that they added an ad policy, but they didn't. They added an adblock policy. If they were letting you read the content regardless of your adblock setting, it wouldn't be an adblock policy or an ad policy. It would just be an ad against adblock.

It looks like they don't get paid for blocked ads. It might not seem like a lot of money, but I'm sure it adds up.

 

[Adam Tyner]

Such a phenomenal post, CamHostage.

* I'm not sure what this sponsored content is that's not an ad?

I see it a lot on foodie blogs, like The Food in My Beard. A company will say "hey, make a recipe around my product!", presumably some very small amount of money will change hands, and there'll theoretically be a perfectly serviceable piece of content with a sponsor's certain something prominently promoted. Sponsored content can encompass all sorts of things, but it often seems to be more like product placement on a TV show than a traditional ad.

I can kind of see how something like that might work to a very limited extent for Eurogamer, but it's dangerous. If, say, Nvidia were to sponsor a video comparing one version of a game with a PC using their most bleeding-edge graphics card, that could taint readers' perception of Eurogamer the next time they write about Nvidia or AMD. They could have a column or video series sponsored by something outside of the gaming space to sidestep that -- like, This Week in Gaming, fueled by Mountain Dew! -- but it doesn't scale, there are only so many sponsorship dollars to go around, and, like you said, you need to have achieved a certain level of success before those sorts of doors open.

 

[nynt9]

Again, sure, if you succeed in other means of making money with your site, you're a winner. But diversification in monetization is tough with such difficulty making those streams start rolling and such potential for any one stream to dry up unexpectedly. Eurogamer has been in business for a long, long time, and has fought to survive. They have innovated, they have experimented, they have persevered. If they're flipping the switch on the adblock-ban, it's not just because they're bitter and dependent on old methods. It's pretty much because options are not looking good.

I'll just reiterate:

It's not an ad blocker, it's a malware vector blocker. We are neither the provider nor the client in this transaction, we are the commodity. Our security problem with malicious ads is a negative externality to the two parties in this transaction, Except, when we use a vector blocker to secure ourselves, it compromises their transaction. Instead of better policing of their ads for malicious or obnoxious ads, they demand we drop our protections.

The reason ad blocking is so prominent because ads are so obnoxious and malicious. If they weren't this big of a problem, ad blocking would be nowhere near this prevalent. The ad industry has brought people to this stage. It's not the fault of the reader that ads are actively harmful to them. Spiting users isn't the solution here. Ad providers are the real culprit. If they worked with ad companies to make ads better, less people would block ads. Instead, most seem to double down on more intrusive ads, because those ads pay more. It's just an arms race where the reader loses no matter what.

 

[MoonFrog]

I'll just reiterate:

It's not an ad blocker, it's a malware vector blocker. We are neither the provider nor the client in this transaction, we are the commodity. Our security problem with malicious ads is a negative externality to the two parties in this transaction, Except, when we use a vector blocker to secure ourselves, it compromises their transaction. Instead of better policing of their ads for malicious or obnoxious ads, they demand we drop our protections.

The reason ad blocking is so prominent because ads are so obnoxious and malicious. If they weren't this big of a problem, ad blocking would be nowhere near this prevalent. The ad industry has brought people to this stage. It's not the fault of the reader that ads are actively harmful to them. Spiting users isn't the solution here. Ad providers are the real culprit. If they worked with ad companies to make ads better, less people would block ads. Instead, most seem to double down on more intrusive ads, because those ads pay more. It's just an arms race where the reader loses no matter what.

Yeah, I started adblocking when it first came out because I find ads obnoxious and infuriating. I hate it when they make noise. I hate it when they provoke pop-ups. I hate it when they eat up page room. I hate it when they have trouble loading. Etc.

I hate ads in other media too.

But I'm also not going to take it off unless I really feel for a site and they aren't so bad about it and that is in part because the ads that have gotten through have sometimes been malicious.

Just this past week an ad crashed my computer and upon restart I could not even get to task manager. I ended up doing a lot to protect myself in case it was an attack.

 

[MarineMountie]

If I don't use adblock the pages take forever to load because of the sheer number of ads being used, and the type of ads. Video or animated ads for example eat away at data and slow down performance of both desktop and mobile mode.

If ads weren't so intrusive in number and more relevant ads instead of just "sponsored" clickbait I would think about disabling it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Honestly, it's weird people have all these problems with ads causing issues on their computer. I've been on the Internet since the mid-90's, never used an adblocker, and have never had an issue with shady ads that I didn't deserve (ie. going on a porn or shady download site). I've never also had problems with ads slowing down performance, unless it's really important a webpage takes 5.3 instead of 5.9 seconds to load up.

 

[nynt9]

Honestly, it's weird people have all these problems with ads causing issues on their computer. I've been on the Internet since the mid-90's, never used an adblocker, and have never had an issue with shady ads that I didn't deserve (ie. going on a porn or shady download site). I've never also had problems with ads slowing down performance, unless it's really important a webpage takes 5.3 instead of 5.9 seconds to load up.

I mean, even large, reputable sites have served malware ads. This is well-documented. Maybe you should run a scan on your machine.

I think the big issue people have with online ads is that they're a common vector for malware.

Just last year major sites like MSN, AOL and BBC served ads that contained ransomware.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I mean, even large, reputable sites have served malware ads. This is well-documented. Maybe you should run a scan on your machine.

I run 'em regularly. Never had any issues aside from again, "oh, I went to this shady place on the Internet. My fault." Maybe I've been lucky. I don't doubt it happens. I just think it happens a lot less than people who treat ads like something they should never have to see do.

 

[rackham]

I browse on a netbook. If marketing companies made ads that were less cpu intensive, I wouldn't use adblock. As it is, fuck browsing without adblock.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

I think the big issue people have with online ads is that they're a common vector for malware.

Just last year major sites like MSN, AOL and BBC served ads that contained ransomware.

Exactly. I'm not about to give malware a chance to get on my computer if I can prevent that. More so when they can serve shit like ransomware. You had better believe I'm gonna protect myself.

If a business model is dependent on serving people fake news and malware, wasting their bandwidth and battery, and shaming those who want to keep their devices safe, then that business model deserves to die, IMO. I will go out of my way to financially support content creators in any way possible, but I'm not going to put my personal or business machines in risk because they decide to rely on a predatory model.

Exactly.

 

[nynt9]

If a business model is dependent on serving people fake news and malware, wasting their bandwidth and battery, and shaming those who want to keep their devices safe, then that business model deserves to die, IMO. I will go out of my way to financially support content creators in any way possible, but I'm not going to put my personal or business machines in risk because they decide to rely on a predatory model.

Thing is, while the ad model is dying, it didn't need to be this way. They dug their own grave by ramping up the intrusiveness of ads with no proper self-regulation. It's probably not possible to turn back now. In the end content creators and consumers get hurt by the greed of ad sellers and the sites that rely on these ads.

 

[CamHostage]

I mean, even large, reputable sites have served malware ads. This is well-documented. Maybe you should run a scan on your machine.

Er, but that's not them serving the malware ads, correct? That's them running ads, and malware designers taking advantage of security defects in browsers and applets to hook in mechanisms to deliver the garbage/damage. That's regularly the case that ad units get taken over by other services from cookies or whatnot, sometimes legitimately (you'll see your Amazon browsing follow you around and creep you out on places that use Amazon demographic targeting) and sometimes not, as in this case. We've seen on GAF people complain about ugly ads only to learn that they're not GAF's ads, they're somebody else, though I assume/hope that those were still standard consumer spots and not malicious material since GAF's ads are pretty simple ad units.

 

[nynt9]

Er, but that's not them serving the malware ads, correct? That's them running ads, and malware designers taking advantage of security defects in browsers and applets to hook in mechanisms to deliver the garbage/damage. That's regularly the case that ad units get taken over by other services from cookies or whatnot, sometimes legitimately (you'll see your Amazon browsing follow you around and creep you out on places that use Amazon demographic targeting) and sometimes not, as in this case. We've seen on GAF people complain about ugly ads only to learn that they're not GAF's ads, they're somebody else, though I assume/hope that those were still standard consumer spots and not malicious material since GAF's ads are pretty simple ad units.

You're correct on the terminology error I made, but that doesn't really change the overall point. Someone needs to be accountable for the malware and fake news being served. Blaming the consumer for wanting to protect themselves is not going to work. The sites and the ad providers share the blame. When a Chipotle served people pork with disease and got everyone sick, no one cared if their supplier was the source of the diseased meat. Chipotle took responsibility for it. Sites who serve ads also have the onus for the content in the ads.

 

[ScientificPizza]

What's the problem? How dare they be paid for their content.

You have NeoGAF white listed and there are non-video game ads here?

Right?

The problem is that instead of finding better ways to monetise their content they are just directly asking people to put up with intrusive and annoying ads. Adblock is a result of consumer needs, and instead of sites evolving they are just begging everyone to go back. It's like record companies saying please stop downloading albums and go and buy some CDs instead of evolving with the times

Banner ads and pop ups are outdated and have been for a long time

 

[Kawika]

There is a defense force for everything. I liked print media and I used to sub to many magazines before the internet basically killed them. I would do it again if that was the model to get my information. I have 0 issue paying for good content. The nice thing about print was, you could really just ignore the adverts but because most of the magazines had a target demo the ads typically were in your wheelhouse.

As someone who pretty much is embarrassed by our narcissistic pop culture, I have zero desire to see "what the Cast of Blossom is up to now" or "how much weight Rebel Wilson (is that her name?) lost". Who gives a shit?

Media in general is done, everyone knows it. We are entitled to a free press but are they entitled to get money to provide it? I suppose that depends on the consumer. Put up great content and find a new model (or even better, have more than one model).

I can see most people who use adblock will just move on to another site or find the same information on youtube or social media. Adblock really isn't the problem (or the solution) but like some said before its up the site's management to curate the content users are subjected to.

Digital Foundry alone is worth paying for and I hope Eurogamer figures out how to stay afloat.

 

[nynt9]

There is a defense force for everything. I liked print media and I used to sub to many magazines before the internet basically killed them. I would do it again if that was the model to get my information. I have 0 issue paying for good content. The nice thing about print was, you could really just ignore the adverts but because most of the magazines had a target demo the ads typically were in your wheelhouse.

As someone who pretty much is embarrassed by our narcissistic pop culture, I have zero desire to see "what the Cast of Blossom is up to now" or "how much weight Rebel Wilson (is that her name?) lost". Who gives a shit?

Media in general is done, everyone knows it. We are entitled to a free press but are they entitled to get money to provide it? I suppose that depends on the consumer. Put up great content and find a new model (or even better, have more than one model).

I can see most people who use adblock will just move on to another site or find the same information on youtube or social media. Adblock really isn't the problem (or the solution) but like some said before its up the site's management to curate the content users are subjected to.

Digital Foundry alone is worth paying for and I hope Eurogamer figures out how to stay afloat.

Yeah, I have immense respect for the content DF create, especially the newish retro series John started doing. If there's a Patreon or any other way to support, I'll be there day 0. I also watch their youtube videos without blocking and share their content whenever I can. Hope they can find a way to succeed past the ad model.

 

[blame space]

I'd be fine with real ads, advertising products or services ect but I don't want click bait, shite like "Funeral Directors are Furious that People Know About This" or "10 Mega Pastors Bank Accounts You Won't Believe" lol but seriously I don't want that crap and will be blocking such ads.

Honestly these are the easiest ads to ignore

 

[Chris FOM]

This really is a tough situation without any real bad guys (well, except fort the ad networks, of course). Websites need money and ads supply money. Direct funding is a great idea, but it doesn't scale. There simply isn't enough money to go around to directly fund every website. That may ultimately mean a bunch of websites shut down but until then I'm hardly going to fault them for taking an available revenue stream. So sure, look for and develop alternative revenue streams but for now ads keep the lights on.

But I'm also not going to fault consumers who use ad blockers either. Malicious ads are a very real problem with real consequences. It's hard to claim that someone has no right to defend themselves from malware. Tracking and privacy issues play in as well. Even if you claim that visiting a website gives them a "right" to serve ads (which is not as absolute an assertion as it might first appear) how far does that right extend? Does visiting Eurogamer give their ad network permission to track my entire browsing activities and build up a profile on me? And if not how do you prevent one but not the other? Consumers have legitimate interests at play as well and while sites can take a binary "this is our sites, we use ads, take it all or get out" approach I have a hard time believing that will ultimately work to their benefit. And in all this I haven't even touched on how an ad blocker will get you an objectively better experience. Faster loading, more responsive sites that consume far less bandwidth. On current mobile plans an ad blocker can save encouraging them data to allow you to get on a lower cap, saving a hundred dollars or more a year. That's real money.

The fundamental issue is this. Websites need money to stay open. That money is very hard to come by. While alternatives exist, they're specialized and for most sites in most cases the only realistic way to make money is via ads. However even then ads are hard to come by and manage on a site-by-site basis. So websites outsource their ads to third-party ad networks; networks that have proven utterly undeserving of the trust those sites have put in them. In a race for clicks ads are getting more obtrusive and invasive while also engaging in very questionable tracking in order to profile everyone they can and maximize "engagement." Consumers put up with these abuses (and yes, modern ad networks are absolutely abusive) for years until a breaking point was hit. The tools to push back against those abuses was given to them and consumers used those tools to start protecting their own interests. But here's where the sites did screw up. Rather than acknowledging the very real problems with ads or, even better, start holding their ad networks accountable for their bad behavior, instead they blamed users who turned to ad blockers instead. There was no introspection, instead they lashed out.

It's interesting to contrast this with bad ad behavior 15 years ago. Then the scourge of bad advertising were popup ads. Then also consumers pushed back, this time with popup blockers. But there was no shaming of consumers, no insistence on a right to display popups. Instead it was obvious that popups crossed a line of what was acceptable behavior and eliminating them was fair game. It's surprising to see today how many people are now saying that consumers have no authority to push back, to draw lines of what's acceptable, and instead are obligated to blindly accept ads as they are, 100%, or simply not visit a site at all. What really need to happen is for ad networks to fix their ads, but that will only happen if websites hold them accountable. And that will only happen if consumers in turn hold websites accountable. Until then the stalemate will continue.

 

[Trup1aya]

It actually does. A non-ad user can still share your article, click on sponsored links and buy merch/support you on patreon etc. But if they're completely locked out, they can't do any of this.

Seriously?

What percentage adblocking visitors do you actually think share articles and/or buy merch? A fraction of a fraction, surely.

I'm willing to bet that that the influx of begrudging whitelisters would more than offset this.

It does in a way, because you have less and less impresions per article, what means that you get paid less for publicity on that page (because it has no readers)

The value of the impressions isn't how many people are reading the article- it's how many people are seeing the ads. without people seeing the ads, there is Currently no value extracted out of the page being popular.

 

[megathor]

My problem isn't with ads, it's with the implementation.

They're invasive, obtrusive, and overly aggressive in tracking. They're also bloated, and have a massive negative effect on the load times of the page. As a test, I did a fresh reload (ctrl + F5) on the tokyo 42 review. With adblock enabled, it took 14 seconds, and downloaded 3.6MB. Without adblock, it took almost 40 seconds to load fully, and downloaded 13MB.

Worse, when the page _is_ loaded, it's almost impossible to use. The scrolling is janky and unresponsive with ads, and the full page clickable ad in the background is just distracting.

Note, this is on a very high end machine (xeon processor, lots of ram and a 980Ti GPU), so I can only imagine what it's like on a laptop

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Honestly these are the easiest ads to ignore

They are because I don't see them thanks to Adblock

 

[t_wilson01]

This seems to me like a good way to lose readers. I'd definitely go to a different site to get the info I wanted. I still have it bookmarked even though it's been years since I last visited the website. I'll remove it today.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

This seems to me like a good way to lose readers. I'd definitely go to a different site to get the info I wanted. I still have it bookmarked even though it's been years since I last visited the website. I'll remove it today.

They have changed their policy a little since they enabled it, clearly people were not happy, so they are not forcing anyone to turn off Adblockers now, just asking if you would but people have the choice at least now.

 

[dealer-]

I browse on a netbook. If marketing companies made ads that were less cpu intensive, I wouldn't use adblock. As it is, fuck browsing without adblock.

Yeah. I do most of my browsing on a Toshiba Chromebook and pages slow to a crawl without adblock. Pretty much unusable for me.

 

[Wiped89]

How dare Eurogamer staff try to pay their mortgages and feed their kids! Fuck those guys! Those ads are a minor inconvenience for me!

 

[nynt9]

How dare Eurogamer staff try to pay their mortgages and feed their kids! Fuck those guys! Those ads are a minor inconvenience for me!

Thanks for boiling down a conversation full of nuance to this. What would we have done without you.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is exactly how adblockers work, though. It's trivial to defeat them with self-hosted campaigns.

Self-hosted campaigns that are put directly in the page. But that is unworkable and does not provide reliable statistics.

How do I, the user, distinguish your entirely vetted and self-submitted DoubleClick ads from the wild west out there? Even if your site can be identified by API key, why should I trust that you'll never change your policy without notice?

Modern network-based web advertising is tantamount to auto-downloading software from randos and running it. It just goes wrong too often and too dangerously to be a reasonable ask of your users.
Can it also be the line between the business floating and sinking? Sure. I'm sure there are plenty of restaurants which could have stayed in business if only they could have skipped a refrigerator and just kept their meat on a shelf, too.

Can be done through users that report bad stuff. Or the adblocker can work with Google for it. And of course in the end there is a certain level of trust needed. If a website owner wanted, they can put malware directly in their website also, but we kind of expect that not to happen.

My problem isn't with ads, it's with the implementation.

They're invasive, obtrusive, and overly aggressive in tracking. They're also bloated, and have a massive negative effect on the load times of the page. As a test, I did a fresh reload (ctrl + F5) on the tokyo 42 review. With adblock enabled, it took 14 seconds, and downloaded 3.6MB. Without adblock, it took almost 40 seconds to load fully, and downloaded 13MB.

Worse, when the page _is_ loaded, it's almost impossible to use. The scrolling is janky and unresponsive with ads, and the full page clickable ad in the background is just distracting.

Note, this is on a very high end machine (xeon processor, lots of ram and a 980Ti GPU), so I can only imagine what it's like on a laptop

But you can choose not to visit that website then, can't you? That is a trade off you are making. Do I get the content and deal with the ads loading, or do I not get the content.

 

[wrowa]

Wait, sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. Seeing the thread now and again I thought Eurogamer was blocking access to the site for people who are using ad blockers. But instead they just show a closeable pop-up at the bottom of the screen asking you to consider whitelisting the site?

Is their a limit to how many articles you can read ad-free before they block access to the site entirely? Or is all of the fuzz really just about that innocent little pop up that you can easily ignore if you want to?

 

[nynt9]

Wait, sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. Seeing the thread now and again I thought Eurogamer was blocking access to the site for people who are using ad blockers. But instead they just show a closeable pop-up at the bottom of the screen asking you to consider whitelisting the site?

Is their a limit to how many articles you can read ad-free before they block access to the site entirely? Or is all of the fuzz really just about that innocent little pop up that you can easily ignore if you want to?

They changed their policy in less than 24 hours. Originally they were blocking people off completely after a set amount of views. They removed that since, realizing that it's not the best of ideas, despite some posts still arguing otherwise here. You can still turn someone into a reader and they can still benefit you even if they block ads, so completely cutting them off only limits your brand.

 

[Weltall Zero]

And I will say again that ad views are not the only way a site makes money.

* Sponsored content that the visitor will see
* affiliate links
* the visitor sharing the article to their friends, statistically 50% of whom will not have as blockers
* content/items the site sells
* the viewer developing brand affiliation and loyalty for the site which will make them spread the word about the site and be more likely to come back
* if the site ever decides to add other ways of monetizing, viewers who are on board with the brand are more likely to work with that model of funding. If viewers were blocked out by the site, they will not be likely to return and be converted into future customers.

In general, you can build a site in two ways. Either try to maximize the clicks you get per article. This way, if you run ads and publish clickbait, you will make money. But if you lose the ability to generate bait and the ad model collapses, you are out of business.

Alternatively, you try to build a brand. Develop a loyal following and community who want to come to your content. These people will be more likely to want to support you. Preventing adblockers from accessing your site only reduces your future reach.

Let me mention again that I run a website and am a partner in an ad exchange. A couple years ago, we reduced the amount of content we post, increased the quality of posting, and reduced ads from google + disqus to the network we curate. As a result, our brand has grown faster than ever, and we make more money. People are willing to pay us now. We could have blocked ad blockers and created more clickbait, but that's not feasible.

One big thing that's missing in this conversation is social media. Social media is eating very hard into views. People aren't clicking through to articles if it's just bait and the headline is the story. Also social media has gotten better at summarizing content. Because Facebook and twitter want to show you their own ads, they don't want you to look at the ads on the site that the article is from. They don't want you to leave Facebook to go read the site, they want to keep you on longer. This is a factor that many aren't considering yet.

Well argued, and point taken; I didn't consider all these variables. Thanks.

 

[megathor]

But you can choose not to visit that website then, can't you? That is a trade off you are making. Do I get the content and deal with the ads loading, or do I not get the content.

I can, and in general I do. I avoid most websites that have ads I don't particularly like, even if I like the content, and I use their competitors. I whitelist sites I regularly visit for ads too. With eurogamer in particular, none of the alternatives are any better. My choices are; get the content and deal with the ads loading, don't get the content (at all, because kotaku, polygon, destructoid, ign, Giantbomb etc all have the exact same problem; full screen ads, autoplaying videos, using three times the bandwidth required for ads alone, invasive tracking)

So, instead, I can use an adblocker, get the content that I want, and repeatedly tell eurogamer (which I do) that if they tone down the ads, tone down the tracking (I'm on a gaming website, just show me gaming ads), I'll turn off my adblocker. In the meantime, I'll watch their youtube videos with my adblocker turned off(deliberately) so I do try and support them.

 

[Fuz]

If a business model is dependent on serving people fake news and malware, wasting their bandwidth and battery, and shaming those who want to keep their devices safe, then that business model deserves to die, IMO. I will go out of my way to financially support content creators in any way possible, but I'm not going to put my personal or business machines in risk because they decide to rely on a predatory model.

This.

Just yesterday my mother called me and told me that "the pc has a problem, says that I need to install an update".

Went there, it was just a malware popup that occupied the whole screen and kept reloading (at this point, I think I'll need to install her NoScript too).

And you guys tell me that I need to support those poor sites by disabling AdBlock/uBlock?
Fuck them all. If we're at this point it's entirely their fault.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This.

Just yesterday my mother called me and told me that "the pc has a problem, says that I need to install an update".

Went there, it was just a malware popup that occupied the whole screen and kept reloading (at this point, I think I'll need to install her NoScript too).

And you guys tell me that I need to support those poor sites by disabling AdBlock/uBlock?
Fuck them all. If we're at this point it's entirely their fault.

Are you seriously saying it is the individual websites fault that certain ad networks can't control the ads they serve a 100% of the time?

I get the issue, but damn. I guess NeoGAF deserves to die then because of the issues on mobile.

The problem is, Adblock also hurts the websites that have no bad intentions and do their checking.

 

[ElFly]

Er, but that's not them serving the malware ads, correct? That's them running ads, and malware designers taking advantage of security defects in browsers and applets to hook in mechanisms to deliver the garbage/damage. That's regularly the case that ad units get taken over by other services from cookies or whatnot, sometimes legitimately (you'll see your Amazon browsing follow you around and creep you out on places that use Amazon demographic targeting) and sometimes not, as in this case. We've seen on GAF people complain about ugly ads only to learn that they're not GAF's ads, they're somebody else, though I assume/hope that those were still standard consumer spots and not malicious material since GAF's ads are pretty simple ad units.

but that's precisely, precisely the problem

bbc, gaf, or whatever site won't take responsibility if their site loads malware onto one of their visitors' computers/phones

who is going to pay for whatever damage the malware will do to you? the wasted time, possibly the wasted battery/cpu if you loaded a bitcoin miner back in the day, and nowadays, a ransomware that locks your files?

even if you got to point out where you got the malware, the site will just shift the blame somewhere else. there was a vulnerability in your browser so is the browser maker the culprit?

in reality nobody is to blame. the sites are taking money to serve ads and potentially load malware on your computer. gaf tries to filter the ads they serve but even that gets some bad ads past some times, and that is only one site in the internet. if the fucking BBC can get malware on their site, what is left for everyone else?

Are you seriously saying it is the individual websites fault that certain ad networks can't control the ads they serve a 100% of the time?

I get the issue, but damn. I guess NeoGAF deserves to die then because of the issues on mobile.

The problem is, Adblock also hurts the websites that have no bad intentions and do their checking.

why are you trying to play the blame game here. oh poor websites with no bad intentions. will the site with no bad intentions pay for whatever problems the ads they serve cause?

ads in newspapers do not distribute malware 100% of the time. why ads in computers get a pass because they are safe 99% of the time

 

[Plumpbiscuit]

This.

Just yesterday my mother called me and told me that "the pc has a problem, says that I need to install an update".

Went there, it was just a malware popup that occupied the whole screen and kept reloading (at this point, I think I'll need to install her NoScript too).

And you guys tell me that I need to support those poor sites by disabling AdBlock/uBlock?
Fuck them all. If we're at this point it's entirely their fault.

I can vouch for your story. I've had a similar thing happen to me as well and it's because of ads. Installing Adblock prevented this from happening again, so this is why I'm never turning Adblock off under the circumstances that a website is forcing me to do it... that's a red alert to me.

 

[ClosingADoor]

why are you trying to play the blame game here. oh poor websites with no bad intentions. will the site with no bad intentions pay for whatever problems the ads they serve cause?

ads in newspapers do not distribute malware 100% of the time. why ads in computers get a pass because 99% of the time they are safe

It is a response to the "fuck them" attitude, as if all websites conspired together to make the shittiest experience possible here. Which is not the case. People are dealing in extremes here about an issue with a lot of causes and reasons for it appearing.

And that is the problem with Adblock. It is an extreme measure that blocks everything by default (unless you bribe them these days, which is even more fucked up) instead of contributing towards an actual solution.

 

[EmiPrime]

It is a response to the "fuck them" attitude, as if all websites conspired together to make the shittiest experience possible here. Which is not the case. People are dealing in extremes here about an issue with a lot of causes and reasons for it appearing.

And that is the problem with Adblock. It is an extreme measure that blocks everything by default (unless you bribe them these days, which is even more fucked up) instead of contributing towards an actual solution.

It's not up to users to find a solution, it's not our responsibility to come up with some way to guarantee non-malicious ads can still be served while blocking malicious ads. If ad networks and websites are not able to be held legally accountable for damages to devices and data because of the ads they serve why should users go out of their way to figure out a solution?

Not my problem mate. uBlock Origin stays on.

 

[ElFly]

It is a response to the "fuck them" attitude, as if all websites conspired together to make the shittiest experience possible here. Which is not the case. People are dealing in extremes here about an issue with a lot of causes and reasons for it appearing.

And that is the problem with Adblock. It is an extreme measure that blocks everything by default (unless you bribe them these days, which is even more fucked up) instead of contributing towards an actual solution.

the websites with ads conspired together! that's exactly what happens when a website joins an ad network. they are letting a third party load code from their website, from their address -at least the address the browser shows on the address bar-.

then you go to another website and it can track where you visited because the first one loaded cookies on your browser that can be tracked. rarely will websites let you know they are serving you ads -you will notice by the ads themselves-, pushing random cookies on you -altho european websites will alert you that site uses cookies whoooo-

ok conspiration may not be the right, precise word for it, but clearly it is not the wrong word for it

you have to blanket block by default, because websites rarely have any control on what ads they serve. how the fuck do you discriminate. oh maybe you should unblock the BBC since that is such a reputable site. oh wait, they served malware. you got fucked

this is like being a promiscuous guy in real life. do you wear a condom with everyone or just with people you distrust? you _have_ to wear it with everyone, because the people you "trust" also have people they trust. in this case, the trust they have is in ad networks that have some incentive to keep their ads safe, but somehow have historically failed to do so

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's not up to users to find a solution, it's not our responsibility to come up with some way to guarantee non-malicious ads can still be served while blocking malicious ads. If ad networks and websites are not able to be held legally accountable for damages to devices and data because of the ads they serve why should users go out of their way to figure out a solution?

Not my problem mate. uBlock Origin stays on.

the websites with ads conspired together! that's exactly what happens when a website joins an ad network. they are letting a third party load code from their website, from their address -at least the address the browser shows on the address bar-.

then you go to another website and it can track where you visited because the first one loaded cookies on your browser that can be tracked. rarely will websites let you know they are serving you ads -you will notice by the ads themselves-, pushing random cookies on you -altho european websites will alert you that site uses cookies whoooo-

ok conspiration may not be the right, precise word for it, but clearly it is not the wrong word for it

you have to blanket block by default, because websites rarely have any control on what ads they serve. how the fuck do you discriminate. oh maybe you should unblock the BBC since that is such a reputable site. oh wait, they served malware. you got fucked

this is like being a promiscuous guy in real life. do you wear a condom with everyone or just with people you distrust? you _have_ to wear it with everyone, because the people you "trust" also have people they trust. in this case, the trust they have is in ad networks that have some incentive to keep their ads safe, but somehow have failed to do so

You guys are missing a grasp on the working of internet publishers and how all your free content is being paid for. And that is OK, just don't visit their websites if you don't trust them.

Like someone said earlier. Newspapers are 100% malware and cookie free. Go ahead and read the news there I guess.

The problem is, the incentive to keep ads safe is not a good one. It blocks ads also if you manage to keep your ads safe. It even asks for a bribe if you manage to keep your ads safe to show them to users! By all means, make a plugin that warns you for unsafe websites. But adblock in its current form is not a good thing.

 

[PMS341]

You guys are missing a grasp on the working of internet publishers and how all your free content is being paid for. And that is OK, just don't visit their websites if you don't trust them.

Like someone said earlier. Newspapers are 100% malware and cookie free. Go ahead and read the news there I guess.

The problem is, the incentive to keep ads safe is not a good one. It blocks ads also if you manage to keep your ads safe. It even asks for a bribe if you manage to keep your ads safe to show them to users! By all means, make a plugin that warns you for unsafe websites. But adblock in its current form is not a good thing.

'We Have A Product For People Who Can't Access The Internet, It's Called Xbox 360'