Google says ad blockers will save online ads(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Google says ad blockers will save online ads
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/google_on_adblockers/
12 comments
Agreed. Google should really be applauded. I'm bored of all this "Ah but google have access to all my data. What if they turn evil".
There was a recent story about Google adding a cookie so that people without google accounts/not logged in, got some extra functionality. Instead of being applauded for improving the product, people started moaning that they were harvesting data from everyone. Tracking peoples movements on the web so they can sell that data. I don't know why there's this recent "But what if Google start being evil" meme, but I think I'll trust them until they do show signs of abusing that trust.
There was a recent story about Google adding a cookie so that people without google accounts/not logged in, got some extra functionality. Instead of being applauded for improving the product, people started moaning that they were harvesting data from everyone. Tracking peoples movements on the web so they can sell that data. I don't know why there's this recent "But what if Google start being evil" meme, but I think I'll trust them until they do show signs of abusing that trust.
OT, but why do people keep saying "Google have too much power," "Google have 60 billion dollars", etc. ? It's a singular noun. The circle is round. Google is powerful. It is turning evil. We are hungry. etc.
This is not meant to flame, I'm really curious why/when the usage shifted.
This is not meant to flame, I'm really curious why/when the usage shifted.
Companies are treated as singular nouns in American English and as plural nouns in British English.
I don't know about axod, but some of us don't have English as our first language. Its not always easy to have perfect grammar that comes naturally to a native speaker, but I personally try to be as correct as possible often going through 4-5 edits and going back to it to make sure that people, other than me, can read what I am typing. Still, mistakes slips through. Its a work in progress, some do better than others.
I waited almost a year before I decided to register an account (this place and other forums) and contribute to the discussion, when I was sure that I can put words together in a sentence that people can understand; only to find out that the best way to write proper English (or any language for that matter) is to write often and make mistakes so that others can point them out and you learn from that.
I waited almost a year before I decided to register an account (this place and other forums) and contribute to the discussion, when I was sure that I can put words together in a sentence that people can understand; only to find out that the best way to write proper English (or any language for that matter) is to write often and make mistakes so that others can point them out and you learn from that.
British English
Really?
I would have written those sentences as: "Google has too much Power", "Google has 60 billion dollars"
The usage of have seems wrong to me
I would have written those sentences as: "Google has too much Power", "Google has 60 billion dollars"
The usage of have seems wrong to me
Both are common/valid, at least in the UK, but the plural is more common here than singular afaik.
Excuse my ignorance, but that this ad blocker block google ads in search results, or rather Flash ads?
I'm asking because, if you push this argument further, you could think that it's good for Google to have all ads served by competitors disappear, to leave only google ads everywhere.
I'm asking because, if you push this argument further, you could think that it's good for Google to have all ads served by competitors disappear, to leave only google ads everywhere.
I haven't used privoxy in a while because I don't want to globally block ads and I want to have site-wide filtering system which is easier in extensions and a bit of a work with privoxy. There are supposedly better alternative to privoxy someone once mentioned, I can't remember it.
Blocking google text ads with privoxy: http://www.willamowius.de/privoxy.html
The thing with privoxy and most other good ad blocking extensions/software is that you can edit the filter list to block almost everything you could possibly think of. So no matter whatever your argument is Google can not stop you from blocking whatever ads you want to block, regardless of the operating system you use (yes even Google Chrome OS, which is a debain/ubuntu based system. Emphasis on Ubuntu because Canonical/Ubuntu developers actively worked on it prior to the official Chrome OS announcement. Not to mention Chrome OS is opensource and you can rip it apart and do whatever you want to do with it).
Blocking google text ads with privoxy: http://www.willamowius.de/privoxy.html
The thing with privoxy and most other good ad blocking extensions/software is that you can edit the filter list to block almost everything you could possibly think of. So no matter whatever your argument is Google can not stop you from blocking whatever ads you want to block, regardless of the operating system you use (yes even Google Chrome OS, which is a debain/ubuntu based system. Emphasis on Ubuntu because Canonical/Ubuntu developers actively worked on it prior to the official Chrome OS announcement. Not to mention Chrome OS is opensource and you can rip it apart and do whatever you want to do with it).
They could make life a lot harder for AdBlock plugins if they wanted to, but site usability would take a hit and it would always be a cat and mouse game.
I don't buy it. The assumptions seem to be that A) annoying ads work in the short term and B) annoying ads cause people to use ad blockers. Sure, it follows that it is in the ad industry's long-term interest to avoid destroying themselves through annoyance. However, individual advertisers still have the incentives to be annoying, since the costs (more adblock) are distributed to all advertisers, but the benefits accrue entirely to them.
Maybe individual advertisers can avoid being annoying and hope that adblockers only target the biggest offenders.
Maybe individual advertisers can avoid being annoying and hope that adblockers only target the biggest offenders.
At the moment I use ad block in manual mode and zap only ads that flash or move.
It's a pain though and it's a constant temptation just to turn on easy list and kill everything.
If there was a filter list subscription for those which still permitted 'responsible' ads I'd probably use that instead.
It's a pain though and it's a constant temptation just to turn on easy list and kill everything.
If there was a filter list subscription for those which still permitted 'responsible' ads I'd probably use that instead.
It's a straightforward collective action problem. However, annoying interruption ads work only when they can successfully interrupt people - through pop-ups, flashing, grabbing focus, and all the other annoying things they do.
It seems to me that the widespread adoption of adblocking software can only hurt the annoying, short-term thinking advertisers and help the not-annoying, long-term thinking advertisers.
As it gets easier to avoid annoying ads, the PR cost of being annoying will continue to rise until it starts hurting annoying advertisers in the short term - in effect, internalizing the negative externality of their activities.
It seems to me that the widespread adoption of adblocking software can only hurt the annoying, short-term thinking advertisers and help the not-annoying, long-term thinking advertisers.
As it gets easier to avoid annoying ads, the PR cost of being annoying will continue to rise until it starts hurting annoying advertisers in the short term - in effect, internalizing the negative externality of their activities.
I don't believe the market will balance itself at all. Online publishers are reliant on advertiser revenue, and there's far too much ad space to fill solely with useful ads for useful products. At the same time, the vast majority of AdBlock users block almost everything - including the 'useful ads for useful products' and the high-value branded advertisements that pay by the impression and really don't care whether you click on them or not, just as long as you see them.
Right now, online publishers view ad blocking as an annoying evil not worth combatting - under the assumption that <5% of all users block advertisements, that the users that do often aren't advertisers' most desirable demographic, and that playing cat-and-mouse with ad blockers is more annoying than it's worth. But as the percentage of users using ad blockers rises, more online publishers will be open to technical solutions to this problem. I know of multiple projects that incorporate server-to-server ad calls (so the ads are served from the same domain as the content) and slicing of ads into multiple smaller images (so the ads aren't standard IAB image sizes, but chunks of the key content are.) Other projects I've seen tie the presence of advertising to key site functionality, making it impossible to use the site effectively without referencing a visible advertisement. As ad blocking increases to the point where it's material to publishers, blocking ad blocking will spawn a lot of startups.
There's already a good example of this: the increasing use of Local Shared Objects (also known as 'Flash cookies') to store data formerly stored in cookies and even to respawn data in deleted cookies. Use of Local Shared Objects for advertising purposes was extremely rare several years ago. As the proportion of users regularly deleting the cookies that contained unique IDs for ad targeting and frequency capping crept up, the market didn't 'balance' by forgoing unique identifiers in cookies - it found a technical workaround by repurposing rarely-deleted LSOs.
I never really understand it when ad-blocking advocates evangelize to the general public - the more there are, the more likely it is that their blocking will in turn be blocked.
Right now, online publishers view ad blocking as an annoying evil not worth combatting - under the assumption that <5% of all users block advertisements, that the users that do often aren't advertisers' most desirable demographic, and that playing cat-and-mouse with ad blockers is more annoying than it's worth. But as the percentage of users using ad blockers rises, more online publishers will be open to technical solutions to this problem. I know of multiple projects that incorporate server-to-server ad calls (so the ads are served from the same domain as the content) and slicing of ads into multiple smaller images (so the ads aren't standard IAB image sizes, but chunks of the key content are.) Other projects I've seen tie the presence of advertising to key site functionality, making it impossible to use the site effectively without referencing a visible advertisement. As ad blocking increases to the point where it's material to publishers, blocking ad blocking will spawn a lot of startups.
There's already a good example of this: the increasing use of Local Shared Objects (also known as 'Flash cookies') to store data formerly stored in cookies and even to respawn data in deleted cookies. Use of Local Shared Objects for advertising purposes was extremely rare several years ago. As the proportion of users regularly deleting the cookies that contained unique IDs for ad targeting and frequency capping crept up, the market didn't 'balance' by forgoing unique identifiers in cookies - it found a technical workaround by repurposing rarely-deleted LSOs.
I never really understand it when ad-blocking advocates evangelize to the general public - the more there are, the more likely it is that their blocking will in turn be blocked.
the vast majority of AdBlock users block almost everything - including the 'useful ads for useful products'
Is there such an option in AdBlock? If there is, I wouldn't mind seeing those ads. Currently they get blocked along with the rest, though.
Is there such an option in AdBlock? If there is, I wouldn't mind seeing those ads. Currently they get blocked along with the rest, though.
No, not really. You can subscribe to different block lists, but last I checked the goal of all the lists (or at least all the default lists) is to block all ads.
And anyway many of the block rules target ad networks and platforms. One site may use doubleclick.net's ad servers to serve up great, well-targeted ads and someone else may use the same system to server really obnoxious ads.
Personally, I don't subscribe to any lists and add all the block rules by hand. I really just don't want anything that moves or talks to me. But it ain't easy.
And anyway many of the block rules target ad networks and platforms. One site may use doubleclick.net's ad servers to serve up great, well-targeted ads and someone else may use the same system to server really obnoxious ads.
Personally, I don't subscribe to any lists and add all the block rules by hand. I really just don't want anything that moves or talks to me. But it ain't easy.
If ad-blocking got popular and sites tried to get past it I believe those sites would likely lose some of the customer's respect as they would be disrespecting the customer.
Which site do you want to go to:, the annoying one that forces you to watch an ad, or the one that just has a few less-obtrusive ads that you might block? Which one is going to benefit more from network effects and draw in more users?
Which site do you want to go to:, the annoying one that forces you to watch an ad, or the one that just has a few less-obtrusive ads that you might block? Which one is going to benefit more from network effects and draw in more users?
I don't want to see graphical ads with tits (I'm looking at you Evony), ripped bodies, or oral cavities (teeth whitening). All of that stuff is, just like porn, opt in. Its also why I sign new PC users up to Gmail and not Yahoo Mail. Anything else, and especially contextual text ads, is fine by me.
That's why I agree with Google's position.
That's why I agree with Google's position.
I don't care about tits, skin or toofs, but I am incredibly easily distracted, and a single blinking flash ad can totally plummet my concentration.
I can't have a real conversation at any restaurant that shows sports or the like. I find my eyes wander to the bright and active pictures too often. I usually try to position myself facing away, but it doesn't always work. I blame a huge part of it on not having a TV, so I'm not used to tuning it out.
The same thing occurs on the web. I find it very hard to read text if there is something flashing right next to it. For this reason I install NoScript as one of my first add-ons on new systems. It blocks the worst offenders and adds a layer of security to boot.
Simply blocking unauthorized scripts is usually good enough for a while, but eventually I'll get to a few pages with non-flash, non-javascript ads that are so annoying I go out and install AdBlock anyway.
I'm happy to meet in the middle, but I don't intend to waste my time.
The same thing occurs on the web. I find it very hard to read text if there is something flashing right next to it. For this reason I install NoScript as one of my first add-ons on new systems. It blocks the worst offenders and adds a layer of security to boot.
Simply blocking unauthorized scripts is usually good enough for a while, but eventually I'll get to a few pages with non-flash, non-javascript ads that are so annoying I go out and install AdBlock anyway.
I'm happy to meet in the middle, but I don't intend to waste my time.
This is the historical Google line and a pretty fair one at that. Those of us that are extremely savvy enough to use ad blockers everywhere are also rather cognizant of where ads appear and usually consciously ignore the ads. Most average users won't find the ads so objectionable as to warrant blocking them or dealing with the hassle of installing extensions.
Firefox has over 90M active daily users. The Adblock Plus plugin is by far the biggest and most compelling Ad Blocker - it has 11M active daily users right now. Google seems willing to live with this 12% opt-out in effect. I suspect of those 12% of users, most of those wouldn't click ads anyways, so it's not a big deal in the end.
- http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/firefox-hits-27... - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1865
Firefox has over 90M active daily users. The Adblock Plus plugin is by far the biggest and most compelling Ad Blocker - it has 11M active daily users right now. Google seems willing to live with this 12% opt-out in effect. I suspect of those 12% of users, most of those wouldn't click ads anyways, so it's not a big deal in the end.
- http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/firefox-hits-27... - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1865
I've never minded Google ads at all. In fact I quite like them. The reason I have an ad-blocker is because of the many sites featuring sexually explicit advertising with no warning - a big no-no when you use the internet as a reference at work.
I'm not sure if I trust their motives entirely, but Google's theory about the market balancing itself is right on, IMHO.
I'm not sure if I trust their motives entirely, but Google's theory about the market balancing itself is right on, IMHO.
"There will always be some group of people who want to block ads for personal reasons. But if we do a good job on the advertising side, people won't want to block ads. People will find them actually useful.
"I think there will be a nice equilibrium. If people get too aggressive with ads, then ad blockers will become more popular and companies will get less aggressive with ads. The market will sort itself."
As an Adwords advertiser, I agree. Maybe it's because I am selling a B2B product, but I have no interest in 'aggressive' ads that trick gullible people clicking them (the phrasing from this post last week: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=989729)
P.S. The headline seriously distorts Google's argument. Saying that the market will balance itself out as aggressive ads and ad blockers play off each other is not 'ad blockers will save online ads.' In fact, the Google rep doesn't make that statement at all.
"I think there will be a nice equilibrium. If people get too aggressive with ads, then ad blockers will become more popular and companies will get less aggressive with ads. The market will sort itself."
As an Adwords advertiser, I agree. Maybe it's because I am selling a B2B product, but I have no interest in 'aggressive' ads that trick gullible people clicking them (the phrasing from this post last week: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=989729)
P.S. The headline seriously distorts Google's argument. Saying that the market will balance itself out as aggressive ads and ad blockers play off each other is not 'ad blockers will save online ads.' In fact, the Google rep doesn't make that statement at all.
>> "But the truth of the matter is that most people won't install ad blockers on Chrome because people are fundamentally lazy."
BS. Most people don't install ad blockers because they don't want them. Not everyone is a new age hippy anti consumerism activist.
If an advert annoys you, don't visit that website again. Vote with your feet. That's being honest.
I not lazy, and I won't be installing adblock. I don't think doing so is good for the web.
BS. Most people don't install ad blockers because they don't want them. Not everyone is a new age hippy anti consumerism activist.
If an advert annoys you, don't visit that website again. Vote with your feet. That's being honest.
I not lazy, and I won't be installing adblock. I don't think doing so is good for the web.
I rather think it's because a lot of people don't really know how. Like a lot of others, I don't mind advertisin in principle; indeed, I think they have utility and sometimes click on them because I'm actually interested in what's being sold.
...BUT not the ones that float in when I've already started reading the page, or that take over my screen when I unwittingly roll over them with the mouse (and obscure their close button), or that feature hot pink silhouettes of people dancing in a .gif loop to sell me car insurance, or use what's apparently some guy's mugshot to tell me about some shady mortgage refinance scheme.
For every informative, polite, and compelling advertisement that represents a meaningful commercial communication, there are about 99 that are equivalent to being shouted at via megaphone.
...BUT not the ones that float in when I've already started reading the page, or that take over my screen when I unwittingly roll over them with the mouse (and obscure their close button), or that feature hot pink silhouettes of people dancing in a .gif loop to sell me car insurance, or use what's apparently some guy's mugshot to tell me about some shady mortgage refinance scheme.
For every informative, polite, and compelling advertisement that represents a meaningful commercial communication, there are about 99 that are equivalent to being shouted at via megaphone.
Absolutely not my experience. Also do bear in mind that most people also have TVs. And weirdly, out of choice!!! So they're quite used to adverts.
My approach is from the other angle: I run an Adblocker but set it to permissive. That way if I find a really annoying site I can tap the right button and ads are blocked.
To me that seems the fairest approach.
To me that seems the fairest approach.
That's cool, although it doesn't send a message to the site owner that their behavior is unacceptable.
They still get the hits, and just think the ads are performing worse, so they better make them even more irritating.
They still get the hits, and just think the ads are performing worse, so they better make them even more irritating.
Not visiting the site anymore doesn't send the message either. Why would they assume it was obnoxious ads, rather than decreased interest in their content, competition, etc? The only way they'll know is to actually tell them.
You don't piss during commercials then, I take it?
I believe this other article was posted about a month ago and may be very germane: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArtic...
In brief: only 32% of Internet users clicked on at least one ad in a month, and 8% of users accounted for 85% of ad clicks.
The people using ad blocking software are not the people often clicking on these ads, and most of the clicks come from people who click on a lot of ads and are (I'm guessing by this behavior) unlikely to install an ad blocker. In other words, ad blocking is not a threat.
In brief: only 32% of Internet users clicked on at least one ad in a month, and 8% of users accounted for 85% of ad clicks.
The people using ad blocking software are not the people often clicking on these ads, and most of the clicks come from people who click on a lot of ads and are (I'm guessing by this behavior) unlikely to install an ad blocker. In other words, ad blocking is not a threat.
I agree with Google that advertisers will eventually sort themselves out. I have no objections at all to discreet banner ads, but irritating/puerile animations or anything which obscures the text I'm trying to read or forces me to click on a close button I find unacceptable. For the foreseeable future I'll continue to use Adblock/Ad-Art, but if advertising becomes more sensible and restrained I may have no need to use those.
I'm not sure if advertisers will sort _themselves_ out... but I hope websites that care about their readership will learn what ads to refuse.
Irony: http://imgur.com/4QOPv.png. Note that the only ads so blocked are flash ads.
I don't have flash installed in my primary browser (Opera). When I want to view flash, I boot up Firefox and paste the URL over.
I also have a shellscript to download Youtube videos and feed them to mplayer, since my computer is too slow for most Flash video.
I also have a shellscript to download Youtube videos and feed them to mplayer, since my computer is too slow for most Flash video.
The fact is that Google, a multi billion dollar company which make ~90% of its revenue through ads, not only allows ad blocking extensions to be installed in its browser (which is rapidly gaining market share) but also not-so-evil enough not to tinker with the Top 10 extension list and allow an ad blocking extension to be listed as the second most downloaded extension. (2 of the top 10 extensions are ad blockers: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/list/popular).
To top it off, they are forthcoming about the ad blockers and how they view it and discussed it openly with everyone, by justifying it as a good thing. They agree with something most of us already know is that the single biggest reason we use ad blocking extensions is because of the intrusive and extremely annoying ads. If ads were non-intrusive and fast and targeted most people wouldn't bother with ad blockers. Google, the biggest online ad company gets it. This is good news.
And this is what the author writes?
"And of course, there's no guarantee that Google will always allow ad blockers."
Is the author really this ignorant? You don't even have to rely on extension to block ads. Hello privoxy: http://www.privoxy.org/