Solutions to revenue loss from Adblocking - for publishers

JQP

Dork
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
279
I gave them both "agrees." Those are the biggest complaints I've had. I don't know if mobile hijacks count as malvertising but I had to remove ads from our mobile version because of them. Not happy.
 

esquire

Habitué
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
1,588
My post about malvertising got a downvote too. It's a legitimate reason for tech-savvy users to use an adblocker and advise non-tech savvy users to use one too
Is there really any "legitimate" reason to use an ad blocker? You have malware protection. The advertising is the quid pro quo - what you pay in exchange for the content. If you feel a website's advertising is too aggressive you have a remedy - don't visit.
 

JQP

Dork
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
279
In defense of a program I refuse to use, an adblocker is faster, "lighter" and easier than a malware blocker.
 

Jim McClain

Senior Citizen
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
1,984
Stop serving annoying video, audio, flashy ads.
Stop covering every single bit of free space with annoying video, audio, flashy ads. And people won't need to resort to ad blockers.
Jim McClain you can disagree all you like, old boy. The fact if the matter is, the reasons I stated above are why people resort to adblock in the first place.
People install adblockers because they think everything on the Internet should be free. I believe the technology was created because of annoying ads, but most people have an on-switch and an off-switch - they don't usually whitelist sites and they don't even bother to see if a site deserves to be whitelisted - everyone gets the off-switch.

But what I disagreed with is your accusation that the OP was serving "annoying video, audio, flashy ads." My guess is that you never bothered to visit the site.

My post about malvertising got a downvote too. It's a legitimate reason for tech-savvy users to use an adblocker and advise non-tech savvy users to use one too
Stop serving malvertising
You got a down-vote for the same reason I gave Merlin one. How do you know the OP is serving malvertising? You don't, but like most people, you might think the odds are that every website does. So many people think the same way. It's not being tech-savvy, it's being paranoid and selfish. I have no doubt there are many sites that deserve to be blocked - but that's just it for me. I block the sites, not the ads. A site that serves malvertising and other annoying behaviors doesn't have ANYTHING I want. I don't need an adblocker to stop visiting those sites.

I believe you have the right to bear adblockers, but I disagree that everyone should install them. Those that do, I wish they would take the time to use the whitelist.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,956
Is there really any "legitimate" reason to use an ad blocker?
While I certainly don't advocate using one as I said earlier I now use one myself because a number of sites I visit regularly crash or slow my browser to a crawl. Installing an ad-blocker provided a 100% fix for that but of course it's left me blocking at least 90% of advertising on all sites and I'm one of a small minority who actually finds some advertising useful :cautious:
 

Monkey Wrench

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
131
I don't think every website serves malvertising. Fact is more and more advertising networks (that work under Google Analytics Adsense) fail to filter the damaging ads. It's not being paranoid, but risking something like ransomware is no joke.

OP just puts the advertising code, shady person sends in some malvertising ad, advertising network doesn't filter it out, advertising network tells Google Analytics to server it to the more popular websites and visitors of those sites are likely to receive malware. It sounds farfetched, but this happens more often than you think. Who to blame? Not the OP right? Though visitors of his site might think otherwise and boycot the site. Average visitor finds out about adblockers, installs it and doesn't bother with the settings.

Last month, sites like BBC and New York Times were targeted: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-by-rash-of-malicious-ads-spreading-crypto-ransomware/

Not recommending adblock against malvertising, just saying if the advertising networks do a better job, than there will be one reason less to use an adblocker
 
Last edited:

Digital Phoenix

Coffee Ninja
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
1,803
People install adblockers because they think everything on the Internet should be free. I believe the technology was created because of annoying ads, but most people have an on-switch and an off-switch - they don't usually whitelist sites and they don't even bother to see if a site deserves to be whitelisted - everyone gets the off-switch.

But what I disagreed with is your accusation that the OP was serving "annoying video, audio, flashy ads." My guess is that you never bothered to visit the site.



You got a down-vote for the same reason I gave Merlin one. How do you know the OP is serving malvertising? You don't, but like most people, you might think the odds are that every website does. So many people think the same way. It's not being tech-savvy, it's being paranoid and selfish. I have no doubt there are many sites that deserve to be blocked - but that's just it for me. I block the sites, not the ads. A site that serves malvertising and other annoying behaviors doesn't have ANYTHING I want. I don't need an adblocker to stop visiting those sites.

I believe you have the right to bear adblockers, but I disagree that everyone should install them. Those that do, I wish they would take the time to use the whitelist.
I was talking about sites in general, it wasn't specifically aimed at the OP.
 

mysiteguy

Devotee
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
2,981
While I certainly don't advocate using one as I said earlier I now use one myself because a number of sites I visit regularly crash or slow my browser to a crawl. Installing an ad-blocker provided a 100% fix for that but of course it's left me blocking at least 90% of advertising on all sites and I'm one of a small minority who actually finds some advertising useful :cautious:
The Sandman said:
"TAZ wouldn't host any add-on which defeated the TOS/license agreement/branding free payment of any other legitimate software product. "
and
"clearly the "anti-TapaTalk signature" add-ons written by BoP and Daniel are intended to defeat TapaTalk's branding free option"

Since this is TAZ's position on the matter, and you're a TAZ admin: don't visit a site if presents it's content to you in a manner you don't like, rather than using software to circumvent a site's content. Note that Sandman also admonished a user for "inconsistencies" about his position on the TT signature plugin. Do as we say, not as we do?
 

mysiteguy

Devotee
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
2,981
I don't think every website serves malvertising. Fact is more and more advertising networks (that work under Google Analytics) fail to filter the damaging ads. It's not being paranoid, but risking something like ransomware is no joke.
Google Analytics is not an ad network.
 

The Sandman

Administrator
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
29,148
The Sandman said:
"TAZ wouldn't host any add-on which defeated the TOS/license agreement/branding free payment of any other legitimate software product. "
and
"clearly the "anti-TapaTalk signature" add-ons written by BoP and Daniel are intended to defeat TapaTalk's branding free option"

Since this is TAZ's position on the matter, and you're a TAZ admin: don't visit a site if presents it's content to you in a manner you don't like, rather than using software to circumvent a site's content. Note that Sandman also admonished a user for "inconsistencies" about his position on the TT signature plugin. Do as we say, not as we do?
Yeah, you're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,956
Since this is TAZ's position on the matter, and you're a TAZ admin: don't visit a site if presents it's content to you in a manner you don't like, rather than using software to circumvent a site's content
I'm not entirely sure what my use of an ad-blocker has to do with TAZ's stance on an add-on that may or may not break an app's terms of service but as I said more than once, sites I use regularly crash Firefox, that's my one and only motivation for using such a thing. I do however wonder what motivated you to make your post?
 

mysiteguy

Devotee
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
2,981
Yeah, you're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though.
One is a user blocking ads, the other is a forum admin blocking ads. Pretty close.

I do however wonder what motivated you to make your post?
Nothing more than wondering how consistent TAZ was. Now I know where things stand.

I have no skin in the game with the plug-in, I don't run TT on my XF forums.
 

ozzy47

Tazmanian Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
9,007
I'm glad you've got things straight because I'm confused to the point were I'm honestly lost for words and I've reread your post multiple times.
Maybe cause reading the post, it is all gobbledegook. :p
 

esquire

Habitué
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
1,588
Ad blockers are also causing the problem. The less advertising that is seen, the more aggressive some are getting with a need to shove it in your face. And all of this is headed towards the best content being either (a) hidden behind paywalls; (b) in apps; or (c) another pay for value implementation which will minimize the effectiveness of ad blockers. Leave it to humanity to abuse resources and screw up the offline environment until we're in a state of alarm. It's starting to happen online as well and was just a matter of time.
 

rafalp

Desu Ex
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
1,183
Is there really any "legitimate" reason to use an ad blocker?
Advertisement networks track and profile you and your habits as you browse the internet.* This isn't "guy from our headgear advert on gaming site XYZ came to our store to buy our headgear!". This is "guy who 47 days ago bought paid access to porn site YXZ (his user id: 123), bought paid access to warez site uiz 39 (his user id: 5124) days ago and bought womans lingerie at Amazon 26 days ago (his user id: 4214) is back for more!".

We've seen our pages hit by people with browsing history recorded by ad network reaching 2006. Thats 10 years of browsing history to data-mine!

And now imagine forum admin decides to maliciously target you. He can record known tracking cookies from your client and use them to investigate your browsing, searching and buying habits simply by pretending to be you when quering adservers and seeing what ads pop up, and what customizations advertised pages offer after following them. He can also use data you have posted on his board or other sites to find your real indentity from social networks, and then he can libel or blackmail you, because he knows you have returning customer's deal at five kinky pages or you are buying suspiciously great amount of weird stuff in internet.

* This also means that sites using them fall under EU's anti-tracking directive and if hosted or ran by EU entities, they should follow its regulations.


Shawn Gossman Any suggestions for implementing our own system. ?
There are open source adservers for you to use if you wish: https://www.revive-adserver.com/

This can be used to run your own advertising network, or run advertising space on your site.
 

mysiteguy

Devotee
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
2,981
And now imagine forum admin decides to maliciously target you. He can record known tracking cookies from your client and use them to investigate your browsing, searching and buying habits simply by pretending to be you when quering adservers and seeing what ads pop up, and what customizations advertised pages offer after following them. He can also use data you have posted on his board or other sites to find your real indentity from social networks, and then he can libel or blackmail you, because he knows you have returning customer's deal at five kinky pages or you are buying suspiciously great amount of weird stuff in internet.
Complete nonsense.

Stop the fear mongering, and the learn what a cookie actually is before you spread more misinformation. Learn how a browser sends it to the server, how the server sets one, and what they actually store.

A server/browser interaction sets/gets cookies for that domain only. A server cannot request and receive cookies intended for other domains, the browser simply won't give it. Even if you did manage to grab those cookies, you're only going to grab numeric or alphanumeric identifiers of a browser, not it's browsing history, the user's shopping habits or anything else like that... that kind of stuff is stored server-side by the ad companies.
 

rafalp

Desu Ex
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
1,183
Stop the fear mongering, and the learn what a cookie actually is before you spread more misinformation. Learn how a browser sends it to the server, how the server sets one, and what they actually store.
Your fingerprint within network leaks to website via cookies set within your domain by adnetwork's JS and querystring set on iframe inserted by it (and if you are running ads yourself, from ads pointing to your site).


that kind of stuff is stored server-side by the ad companies.
Once you have fingerprint, you just query same endpoints ads do from serverside and look what ads show up. Thats it, no need to back-end access to network's data.
 
Last edited:
Top