it appears that you are using an ad blocker, how internet adverts should work

[hayden_horn 11365]

so recently, websites have figured out adblocker plus, at least on my current browser add-on.

the thing is, i wouldn't mind advertisements on websites if they weren't so goddamned disruptive. sites like the daily mail will throw the ads so far up your ass, you can't even see half the screen for the ads. other sites are like this as well. deadspin's demise came in part of disrupting auto-play video ads. 

so what's the answer to this? youtube seems to get it - watch 5 seconds or a 15 second clip of a commercial, then onto your content. an app i play on my phone has "commercials" that last 15 seconds or so and rewards you with items for the game. i don't mind this either, as it is totally voluntary.

i DESPISE any auto-play video, even non ad content. i simply do not understand why websites are designed this way. 

those of you in the know, please educate me on the advert economy of the internet. because right now, it seems grossly broken to me.

[workswithseed 2111]

I thought the Deadspin adverts was only playing on something like 6% of people who clicked on their site. 

 

[52-80 19246]

They also make money from affiliate referrals, and selling personal/behavioral data, no matter how insignificant.

But yeah, fuck autoplays and the like to death.  Good thing is, the gateway keepers of the web (i.e. the browser companies) are being friendlier and friendlier to consumers, by allowing sophisticated adblocking plugins, and in some cases building adblock capabilities themselves. 

Firefox seems reasonably privacy and annoyance conscious right now. Although their autoplays blocker isn't fully effective with ESPN.  So....fuck ESPN.

 

 

[DoobieWah 1460]

I think internet advertisers still typically pay based on a "clicks per page" basis.

Once you have clicked on a page, they count your visit. If they then throw a block up wanting you to register or subscribe, so much the better. Even if you immediately hit the Back button, your click is still counted.

I've noticed recently that a lot of British media websites linked by Drudge are doing that. They're getting the clicks even if you're not reading their story.

Edited November 7, 2019 by DoobieWah

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

They also make money from affiliate referrals, and selling personal/behavioral data, no matter how insignificant.

But yeah, fuck autoplays and the like to death.  Good thing is, the gateway keepers of the web (i.e. the browser companies) are being friendlier and friendlier to consumers, by allowing sophisticated adblocking plugins, and in some cases building adblock capabilities themselves. 

Firefox seems reasonably privacy and annoyance conscious right now. Although their autoplays blocker isn't fully effective with ESPN.  So....fuck ESPN.

 

 

 

Any website that autoplays a video never gets visited by me again. I haven't been to ESPN's website in many years.

[Beau Vine 54429]

35 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Any website that autoplays a video never gets visited by me again. I haven't been to ESPN's website in many years.

If you had, you'd realize they don't autoplay any more. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

Slideshow pages make me want to kill puppies.

[clapclapclap 9000]

There are so many newspaper articles that I end up not reading or quitting after the first few sentences because the website insists on bombarding me with tons of popups and autostarts.  All the major papers do it now, and then have the gall to complain that people aren't reading as much news these days

You want people to read more news, don't act like online gypsy pickpocket mobs.

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

53 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

If you had, you'd realize they don't autoplay any more. 

 

Oh well. No biggie, honestly.

[hayden_horn 11365]

32 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

There are so many newspaper articles that I end up not reading or quitting after the first few sentences because the website insists on bombarding me with tons of popups and autostarts.  All the major papers do it now, and then have the gall to complain that people aren't reading as much news these days

You want people to read more news, don't act like online gypsy pickpocket mobs.

 

 

this is what i ado not understand. how has the industry not realized how to properly monetize the internet without actively irritating its customers? pop up autoplay videos are one thing, but cnn does this thing where you're reading a news story and they flash up something that blocks the story you are reading, suggesting you subscribe to an anderson cooper newsletter of some shit. no, fucker, i haven't clicked that the last 20 fucking times you interrupted my experience on your website, and i'm not gonna now. fuck off with that shit.

and they are just an example. they are far from the only ones doing that. 

when you actively disrupt my experience on your website or app, i realize that i need to get back to work and x your shit out. 

[AggieFactFinder 31]

my favorite is ESPN expecting us to suffer through a 30 second ad to watch a 10 second highlight.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

8 minutes ago, AggieFactFinder said:

my favorite is ESPN expecting us to suffer through a 30 second ad to watch a 10 second highlight.  

This. I stop the commercial out of principle. CNN does this as well.

I get that news sites have to earn income, and I want them to earn income.  But create more options for me that don't involve you chasing me away from your site. Doesn't help either one of us.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Blotto 23575]

It is an interesting phenomenon....actively trying to piss off every visitor to your website. Just one more thing I dont understand about the world we live in today.

I think the root cause is that 95% of the population is fucking retarded, so you can pretty much count on questionable business decisions at companies where that 95% work. Basically everywhere.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

+rep for admitting that you visit Daily Mail

[Blotto 23575]

2 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

+rep for admitting that you visit Daily Mail

While their overall value as a news organization is questionable, their coverage of US teachers banging students is top notch. If slutty pics are available on social media, you can count on our friends at the Daily Mail to deliver the goods.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

5 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

this is what i ado not understand. how has the industry not realized how to properly monetize the internet without actively irritating its customers? pop up autoplay videos are one thing, but cnn does this thing where you're reading a news story and they flash up something that blocks the story you are reading, suggesting you subscribe to an anderson cooper newsletter of some shit. no, fucker, i haven't clicked that the last 20 fucking times you interrupted my experience on your website, and i'm not gonna now. fuck off with that shit.

and they are just an example. they are far from the only ones doing that. 

when you actively disrupt my experience on your website or app, i realize that i need to get back to work and x your shit out. 

I was a journalist for 20 years. One thing I learned: never underestimate the stupidity and short-sightedness of the morons on the ad side of the building. 

[Bill Lumbergh 7186]

I work in this industry. Blame dumb ad buyers and publishers.

No one wins when experiences are disruptive and piss users off. It makes the user dislike the publisher and the advertiser at the same time.

Unfortunately too many advertisers are really bad at measuring the quality of what they're buying, so they keep paying for eyeballs and ignoring the fact that their ad was served beside 20 others on a page that took so long to load that most users bail before ever seeing the page content (much less considering their ad). Most online advertising isn't bought by targeting publishers directly, so your ads end up all over the place and you have to know how to spot this stuff in your data and do the work to weed this type of shit out since you really don't want to be buying it.

What's surprising to me is that publishers aren't smart enough to see that this short term cash grab is going to kill their business. I also refuse to visit sites or close videos when they have absurdly intrusive ad experiences. I hope most people do and I hope the businesses that refuse to change these practices go under. It feels like flashing, music playing, full screen banner ad takeovers of the 90s again, which is something publishers purposefully pulled back on in favor of better user experiences. Why they're testing the waters of how annoying they can be before users start jumping ship again is beyond me.

Publishers, give users good experiences and place ads minimally beside those experiences unobtrusively.

Advertisers, target your audiences well and make compelling creative that grabs the attention of your well targeted audiences even when ads are placed unobtrusively.

This shit should not be that hard, but instead of doing it right it feels like we're in a race to the bottom.

[Captainant 27771]

JavaScript blockers are the way to go, my man. Don't like sites hiding their articles behind a paywall? Just turn their JavaScript off. Sure, the page looks like it's from the mid 2000s (because you turned the JS off lol), but you can read all the static content at least. 

It's a bit of a hassle when you're going to new sites or when you're trying to get a video to load and you have to find the right JS sources to whitelist (normally just look for "cdn" in the source name), but it's not bad if you're familiar with site design and internet "stuff". It's also really nice because it helps claw back your privacy and get slightly less datamined just for loading a page.

I'm a big fan of noscript, but there's lots of extensions out there that are pretty good

[52-80 19246]

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

JavaScript blockers are the way to go, my man. Don't like sites hiding their articles behind a paywall? Just turn their JavaScript off. Sure, the page looks like it's from the mid 2000s (because you turned the JS off lol), but you can read all the static content at least. 

It's a bit of a hassle when you're going to new sites or when you're trying to get a video to load and you have to find the right JS sources to whitelist (normally just look for "cdn" in the source name), but it's not bad if you're familiar with site design and internet "stuff". It's also really nice because it helps claw back your privacy and get slightly less datamined just for loading a page.

I'm a big fan of noscript, but there's lots of extensions out there that are pretty good

Firefox mobile has a "read mode" that smartly strips down a website to bare text and basic supporting images, meant for reading articles.  Would be great if they implement similar thing on their desktop browser

[Elvis 3374]

[Samson's Wig 3194]

Everyone bitching about this should have kept their newspaper subscription. Avoiding those ads was easy.  Now we all suffer.