you can assess the damage that may be caused by this plugin. If you put an ad on a particular page on your site(with a particular chanel so you can watch it), that you KNOW will always come up, along with google analytics. Then match the impressions for that page on adsense + analytics. There will be a small difference always between thoes two figures, but if your showing 50,000 impressions on that page, and only 20k for adsense then you know you have problems. Pierce
Norton internet security also has ad blocker. I assume more people use that than the Firefox plug-in.
And copyright laws make it clear that you can't create other "versions" of someone's protected work without their permission. And I really don't see how something like this could constitute fair use, when its intent is to blatantly do something that can cause monetary harm to the creator (if they were only showing small portions of the site, it wouldn't be a big deal, but they're displaying an entire site that way). I don't think it really equates to things like Tivo either, although I can understand the comparison. Tivo won't ever be able to block everything earning income for the creators. Things like ad blockers do have that potential to a lot of sites (talk to me about it when Tivo's actually able to remove product placements and such embedded directly into the content of a program). Not all sites have the ability to monetize in the same way through private ad sales embedded in content. Well, if nothing else, if something like that ever becomes standard, I guess it's a push into the membership site business. If people don't want to be bothered with ads, they can pay for the content.
I'm glad my firefox blocks popups. I think advertisement has its place and time and popups and the link are not where it should be. Banners, links, buttons work great imo. We should instead get rid of popup advertising altogheter. No one wants popups. Instead of annoying your visitors, you should give them what they are looking for which may come in the form of a banner.
Also my opinion.. and I don't believe it will ever become a standard. Because someone like google earns too much money on adsense. Even Mozilla earns too much on adsense; like Opera had started, they link their adsense id to the search box included in the firefox browser.. they earn a lot from people searching through firefox and that pays for development. So if they would include it default in their browser, they could just as well close because it will leave the firefox/mozilla with almost no income left.
I'm an AdSense publisher, and of course I don't like the thought of people using AdBlocker, but I don't thing there is anything "wrong" with its use. What if someone had a subscription to a magazine, but before he read it he has his assistant cut out all the ads. Would this be some kind of copyright violation. I don't think so. The internet is a wild, untamed and crazy place. If you are publishing content on it, you have to expect people will use it in ways you don't want (like deep-linking or ad blocking). But that wildness is also the beauty of the internet. If ad blocking become too wide spread, there will be ways around it, like serving ads from you own domain. I would hate to see any type of legislation on this type of thing on the internet, it just goes against the openness and freedom that the internet allows.
exactly, and that's what's need to be yelled out loud! watch ads or free internet will die. but adblock will never be illegal, people will use it and it's ok for me. don't turn your customers into enemys, educate them
Ummm... if you had a subscription to a magazine, you would have paid for it. Big difference than demanding something for free while stripping the income abilities of the creator.
Are we being robbed? Only if it comes installed as default. Its not getting modifed at the server side, only client. You can't dictate what people do with stuff on there own computer.
that dog won't hunt. all current trends are pointing away from paid content... for instance, google video does not sell content anymore, and the wall street journal will stop selling online subscriptions, i believe. firefox has actually been losing ground lately, so this probably won't be much of an issue in the long run.
It's moving away only b/c companies can do it (making visitors happy) without sacrificing income (by making services ad-supported.... just look at AOL's move as a recent big example). If it got to the point of taking away that income potential, of course people would move to providing paid content. People aren't going to offer quality products, services, and content for nothing. Just because the users aren't paying for a lot now doesn't mean that someone isn't. Reality is that you have to pay in most cases... either directly or by dealing with advertisements.
Well, OK for the sake of example lets say it was one of those free magazines that made their money from advertising only.
Someone would still have to be personally exposed to that advertising (whether the ultimate reader or their assistant, as per your example), so the advertising could never be 100% ignored, and still serves a purpose. With something like ad blocker, they're removed before they meet a reader's eyes... that's not the same thing.
how about if you stop contradicting yourself, o.k.? first you provide the aol example of moving away from paid content, then you speculate about things that are NOT happening. not a flame, but please, we need to get back on topic
If the code was changed from javascript to JavaFX or any other similar scripting language, then the adblockers will have to adapt.