To me, that would be a sign that you are winning the battle. If enough websites fight ad blockers, especially big sites, and the people behind those ad blockers make clumsy mistakes, then users will reach a point where they uninstall the blocker.
> people behind those ad blockers make clumsy mistakes
What "mistake?" That the developers couldn't foresee and block the exact elements against ad-blockers before they became real?
Reading the parent comment, it seems users are not opposed to reporting specific instances for the greater good. This is obviously more energy consuming than uninstalling, so where do you get the idea people will all of a sudden stop using an adblock because it failed to get passed one or two sites?
We're already seeing anti-ad-blocker-blockers being developed to remedy this problem. And if they don't come fast enough, users can just turn off their adblock for one page and be done with it.
Direct advertising is a dying legacy tactic. The most successful ads these days are the ones you can't tell are ads. They're also the stronger poison of the two.
It sounds like the people behind the ad blocker broke Ajax for that website while trying to block the ads - that's the mistake I am referring to.
You mention that native ads are gradually replacing direct ads as if it's a good thing. The good guys in the publishing industry go out of their way to prevents ads affecting content, they don't allow their writers/presenters etc to touch advertising and everything is clearly separate.
In the long term, ad blockers will just push out those people who are driven by ethics and you'll be left with the sleazy publications that are driven by PR. This is coming from someone who has dealt with PR agencies and constantly turned down proposals.
Does it matter if they stop visiting the site? Considering that they are using resources without giving something back in return? I guess it could be argued that they might be promoting the site to other users.
Other than that, they are essentially freeloaders and if a website has too many freeloaders it has to either get rid of them or convert them to something else. Or, I guess, the website could shut down completely.
For informational sites, I'll block sites that violate my preferred conditions, and load them up in third-party tools, e.g., Archive.is, on the rare occasion I find an interest in their content.
stagbeetle|9 years ago
What "mistake?" That the developers couldn't foresee and block the exact elements against ad-blockers before they became real?
Reading the parent comment, it seems users are not opposed to reporting specific instances for the greater good. This is obviously more energy consuming than uninstalling, so where do you get the idea people will all of a sudden stop using an adblock because it failed to get passed one or two sites?
We're already seeing anti-ad-blocker-blockers being developed to remedy this problem. And if they don't come fast enough, users can just turn off their adblock for one page and be done with it.
Direct advertising is a dying legacy tactic. The most successful ads these days are the ones you can't tell are ads. They're also the stronger poison of the two.
Drumlin|9 years ago
You mention that native ads are gradually replacing direct ads as if it's a good thing. The good guys in the publishing industry go out of their way to prevents ads affecting content, they don't allow their writers/presenters etc to touch advertising and everything is clearly separate.
In the long term, ad blockers will just push out those people who are driven by ethics and you'll be left with the sleazy publications that are driven by PR. This is coming from someone who has dealt with PR agencies and constantly turned down proposals.
df5t0rw|9 years ago
pavel_lishin|9 years ago
illumin8|9 years ago
Drumlin|9 years ago
Other than that, they are essentially freeloaders and if a website has too many freeloaders it has to either get rid of them or convert them to something else. Or, I guess, the website could shut down completely.
dredmorbius|9 years ago
Almost universally, it's not worth it.
majewsky|9 years ago