How Very So Sad It Is

[leehab]

Every day I visit this site to see what is new or what may be on the horizon .

Today when I visited the site I was forced to watch a video ad and then after a minute then another ad would start to play .

As it is this site is extremely packed with ads that it takes a long time to load which to me is almost disgusting . I understand they need to make money to operate the site but this is a simple forum but I guess people try to make money any way they can .

I guess I will read on Yahoo any news that comes out about Windows phone instead of being forced to watch a video .

 

[Dietrich Cleijne]

I don't see that many adds and video's, and certainly not video's that start by itself when i enter the site?
The add i see most of the time have somthing to do with my Phone, and i sometimes am interested in them.

 

[Laura Knotek]

I've moved this thread to the Site Discussion forum.

Would you be able to get a screenshot of this video ad?

Sent from my rooted Nexus 7 (2013) using Tapatalk

 

[ScrubbyXD]

This opinion is going to upset someone but I'll say it anyway. Disallowing scripts for the purpose of overcoming page crashes or avoiding malware is legitimate. Blocking ads because you cannot be bothered with them is stealing. Websites have a cost of operation that most support with ads. To consume the content without payment (being served ads) is theft no different than walking into a store and eating a snickers without paying for it. The legitimate answer is to vote with your feet as the OP is doing. Too many ads? Don't visit the site. Loosing hits sends a clear message where complaining but visiting does not.

 

[beman39]

^^^ ahaha that is the funniest post I have read in a long time... your analogy is just so wrong! there are some website that are so intrusive and greedy that you have no choice but to use an AD blocker, not saying this site mind you but others, so I feel and MANY others for that matter that AD blockers are a necessity!! I shouldn't be FORCED to have obnoxious ads or vids shoved in my face! and you going over board calling people thieves is just preposterous and insulting! seriously I bet you're one of those greedy website owners that feel you can bombard us with ads... your statement above is all the proof

 

[k72]

Referring to the analogy, which I guess is actually unrelated to the actual topic, I look at ad blocking as more like someone giving you something and then asking for a donation after you've got it, with you declining, sort of like the address labels charities send out unsolicited, hoping for a donation. The website isn't closed, and there's always the option for a subscription website if a site chooses, like newspaper websites, if they want to be certain every visitor is bringing in money. Additionally, they're not getting revenue just from people actually seeing the ad with their eyes. There are the cookies and various other sources that companies love to pay for, although I do understand your point. I haven't noticed any video ads on WC, but I typically use the app, and I use IE's tracking blockers on the PC (in large part due to specific news websites with around 50 trackers that can make the site unusable).

On an additional unrelated note of much more importance, @ScrubbyXD - your dog in your profile pic is adorable!

 

[ScrubbyXD]

seriously I bet you're one of those greedy website owners that feel you can bombard us with ads... your statement above is all the proof

I look at ad blocking as more like someone giving you something and then asking for a donation after you've got it, with you declining, sort of like the address labels charities send out unsolicited, hoping for a donation.

Very interesting replies indeed. The opinion and analogy are not mine but that of Leo Laporte, owner and show host of the TWiT.tv network. This was part of a discussion on the Security Now podcast Episode 512 and I found this post here on windows central a great place to explore the subject.

k72, I like your thinking but it doesn't ring true to me (again opinion) mainly because you are coming to the website. Be it by clicking a link, shortcut, or typing a URL it is not appearing on your browser unbidden as the mail is. Also the ads come to your browser with the page, there is no dialog asking "Would you like to view ads?", the website is giving you the ads (or more accurately scripted redirects) with the assumption you will partake in them. I like the idea as you say, of subscriptions, as long as they are reasonable and maybe to a degree optional.

Beeman39, I like your fire and I agree the ads and tracking have gone too far. Now while I would not begrudge a website from being profitable I would say they could be lazy if they are not vetting the scripted redirects and pop-ups to make sure they are inline with their vision of what their website should be. Then again is this something they can even do if they wanted? If they think a giant intrusive video auto-playing over the content is what the site should have then it should come as no surprise the ad is getting blocked. Maybe the middle ground starts with the webmaster verifying the ads are reasonable and by being transparent about what they are tracking.

 

[tgp]

Not that this justifies it, but either way I'm not going to see ads on this site. Without an ad blocker, the site is practically unusable, and I wouldn't visit it at all.

To consume the content without payment (being served ads) is theft no different than walking into a store and eating a snickers without paying for it.

No, I don't believe that's an appropriate analogy. For one thing, stealing from a store is against the law. Using an ad blocker is perfectly legal as far as I know. And at least in some cases, the website owners only get revenue from ad clicks. Using your logic, wouldn't that mean that you should be obligated to click on an ad? I think k72's analogy is a bit more accurate.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Let's leave this thread be about particularly annoying ads which the site owners can do something about and forget the debate about ad blockers, since WindowsCentral did write a blog post about how to block ads in desktop IE 11. Here is how to block ads in IE 11 for Windows 8.1 http://www.windowscentral.com/here-how-block-ads-ie-11-windows-81

Sent from my rooted Nexus 7 (2013) using Tapatalk

 

[ScrubbyXD]

No, I don't believe that's an appropriate analogy. For one thing, stealing from a store is against the law. Using an ad blocker is perfectly legal as far as I know.

Agreed, the analogy doesn't really fit and I cannot think of one that does.

And at least in some cases, the website owners only get revenue from ad clicks. Using Leo's logic, wouldn't that mean that you should be obligated to click on an ad?

Is it not the expectation that you would view the ad and click it if you were interested? I cannot comprehend any expectation beyond this.

 

[ScrubbyXD]

Sorry Laura, my particular side of the discussion is a general one and not directed at Windows Central. I honestly do not have a set opinion yet, but find the discussion interesting.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Sorry Laura, my particular side of the discussion is a general one and not directed at Windows Central. I honestly do not have a set opinion yet, but find the discussion interesting.

If you'd like to discuss the topic of ad blockers, you may start a thread in the Off-topic Lounge.

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk