h a l f b a k e r yResults not typical.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
anti adblock
p2p ad hosting to avoid blocking of urls by ad blocking software | |
A lot of forums have complained about people using ad block
software cutting into their revenues.
I propose 2 solutions
hosting ads through the server
or
p2p distributed ads with revenue generation for p2p hosts
Skipping Adverts Is Stealing
http://www.freerepu...s/news/676651/posts
Shut up and swallow your marketing, Citizen. [Wrongfellow, Jan 14 2013]
adblock plus block list
https://easylist-do...us.org/easylist.txt
This is the filter list [lostmind, Jan 14 2013]
[link]
|
| |
//people using ad block software cutting into their revenues//
So how does the logic of that argument work then? |
|
| |
Same reason television stations have an issue with
people using DVR to skip ads. Remember, if a for
profit enterprise is providing content for free, the
viewer isn't the customer, they're the product. |
|
| |
From a business standpoint, they need the money
from those ad views (and click throughs). I'm not
saying you have an obligation to view the ads, but I
am going to point out that they are going to (have
to) do their best to make sure you do. |
|
| |
I don't really see how either of these things would work. If they are ads, I expect my ad-blocker to spot them and remove them. No matter where they come from, p2p, server, post-it notes stuck on the screen... idea... |
|
| |
//So how does the logic of that argument work then?// |
|
| |
On the one hand MechE describes the argument for - many websites are funded by ad revenue. On the other hand - if the consumer isn't going to click on the ads, for most web ad formats the site won't get paid anyway.
Although if the viewer is never even going to see any ads, it would be monetarily better for the site if the viewer were not to see the page at all - it costs money to serve the page (just a tiny amount, for the bandwidth). Of course there may be other benefits to allowing viewing regardless. |
|
| |
Fortunately, for most web-sites only a small fraction of their audience bother to install an ad-blocker. |
|
| |
// If they are ads, I expect my ad-blocker to spot them and remove them.// |
|
| |
You may want it to, whether it can is another matter. If the ads blend seamlessly into the content, it would be hard to do reliably. |
|
| |
I've no problems with ads on pages per se: what pisses me off is redundant ads with no cache retention time, and embedded market-research code, both of which waste bandwidth and time. |
|
| |
Common sense says that the longer a page takes to load because of ad and research components the more likely a person is to install an adblock. |
|
| |
I will agree with [FlyingToaster]. Remember the dictum that too much of a good thing is always a bad thing. |
|
| |
If there simply less greed on the marketing side of things, modest ads could be sparsely placed on each web page --no blatant pop-ups needed!-- and, simply by being part of the ordinary page layout, an ad-blocker could have trouble distinguishing them from things that the person viewing the page actually wants to see. |
|
| |
Basically, if you can entice the viewer to see enough of your web pages, then the viewer will also see enough ads to make it worthwhile to keep them sparse on each page. |
|
| |
//Common sense says that the longer a page takes to load because of ad and research components the more likely a person is to install an adblock.// |
|
| |
Since that machine then blocks all ads from all pages, there's no incentive to restraint here. For all but the largest websites, either ad-block is installed due to the ads at other websites, or not. It's very unlikely that any site will be the straw that breaks the camel's back - and if it is, the viewer is unlikely to return, anyway. |
|
| |
//Basically, if you can entice the viewer to see enough of your web pages, then the viewer will also see enough ads to make it worthwhile to keep them sparse on each page.// |
|
| |
Sure. But then again adblockers are presumably not discriminating - they don't pass through a certain number of ads per page, or give sites with just a few ads a pass.
So any sites which practice restraint are hit just as hard as those which do not. Actually harder - they're paying more to serve more content.
This also wouldn't be the case if the ad-blocker required the user to specificly request ad-blocking for each website individually. |
|
| |
I should stay that either of these assumptions may be generally incorrect, in which case your logic holds. |
|
| |
I use adblock in "light" mode: it only blocks the really abusive ads, and I've set it to block market analysis url's as well when I catch them, not because I give a shit if a marketing company knows I visited a page, but because most of them, and I include the 'G' megalopoly, can't be arsed putting enough servers online to handle the immense amount of traffic they get and the wait-time severely compromises page load time. |
|
| |
One of my favorite blog'ish sites has a long column of banner ads down one side of the page; places that I actually visit occasionally. But each and every time I revisit the site or click onto the next page (and they put up 4-5 long pages per day) the same fucking ads that were there last month, yesterday and a minute ago on the previous page, reload from the internet. |
|
| |
ad blockers use a list like the one linked to filter
using the browsers own systems. |
|
| |
Most of that link contains URL's which are blocked,
as well as a bunch of different element types I
guess. |
|
| |
hosting on the server would mean you'd have to
block the server you are trying to access to block
the ads. |
|
| |
p2p would mean you'd have to block the ip that
isnt related to the website you're accessing. I
guess you might be able to differentiate between
an ip that is an actual host and one one from an
ISP...seems tricky though. |
|
| |
Essentially the web server will have to run
software that requests the ads. Either it caches
the ad or receives a link to some peer that is
hosting the ad. |
|
| |
A lot of the element labels in the filter list in the
link could be random generated avoiding blocking
of the generic names. |
|
| |
Actually we are *paying to see* advertising; the broadband connection carry lots of bytes charged of publicity that increases the bill.
Some advertising it's tolerable, but sometimes it's so intrusive that you need to block.
In fact I could recycle some old computers for internet use, with the help of block advertising plugins because lots of CPU goes to show publicity embedded in flash programs.
My first fishbone, sorry [-] |
|
| |
//we are *paying to see* advertising// |
|
| |
Only if you're paying per byte. Even if you are, that's
the charge for the content. |
|
| |
Pay per byte or bps if you wish. |
|
| |
Does the ISP earn from the content and the advertiser doesn't see the money ? Seems to me doesn't work that way. |
|
| |
It works exactly that way. |
|
| |
I really mis-stated above. You pay the ISP for
access, it's got nothing to do with content. The
content provider is dependent on advertising. |
|
| |