Google Adblock shock a load of cock – users mock post hoc AdBlock Plus has denied Google has found a way of getting around its adblocking tool, instead blaming the problem on Chrome. Users complained that ads were loading on YouTube and not displaying a skip button. Initially it was thought the failure to use the adblocking tool was an aggressive tactic by Google to combat its …
I agree, I was shocked to the core by that statement, literally.
Okay, I might have been listening to too many sports commentators.
But my Chablis covered keyboard should be replaced at El Reg's expense, and my glass of wine.
BTW, it was really expensive wine, specially reserved for late night El Reg reading.
Just place the ad right into the stream of the video itself so that users either get both or neither. This whining about ad blocking is getting ridiculous and is hurting quite a few people. I suppose they wouldn't do something like that because lawyers are cheaper than processing power and they don't give a fuck about the collateral damage.
Just place the ad right into the stream of the video itself so that users either get both or neither.
I agree, they're doing that already and it has been of real benefit to me. You wouldn't believe how much time I have recovered by aborting YouTube videos the moment any ad shows up. Honestly, it's the best idea *EVER* so I'm all for it. I've already filled off Facebook, and now Youtube - heck, I may even get some work done now.
When is El Reg going to put ads inside the article texts?
What we really should be Download our new App for all your Computer Needs! worried about is when we get ads in the comments.
FTFY
This whining about ad blocking is getting ridiculous and is hurting quite a few people.
Other than the ad people, the PR people, the company the ad is for, and the site presenting the ad, who is being hurt? Maybe things need to change like less intrusive ads? I don't mind ads if they don't eat up the page, or flash, or make loud noises and/or music. I'll even click on them if it's something I'm interested in. Until things change, I'm sticking with a modified and updated HOSTS file and Adblock. I'm gathering that there's a lot more people who feel the same way.
Oh... and let's not forget malvertising, shall we? Blocking ads also stops that dead in it's tracks.
"Other than the ad people, the PR people, the company the ad is for, and the site presenting the ad, who is being hurt?"
When someone is killed, who's hurt other than the one stabbed and his/her relatives? When some things are stolen, who is hurt other than the owner of said good and anyone relying on that being available to them? Your question is stupid.
"Maybe things need to change like less intrusive ads? "
Ad blockers are the very reason why this isn't happening. As more and more people use ad blockers, publishers need to show more and more intrusive ads to earn the same amount of money.
"Oh... and let's not forget malvertising, shall we? Blocking ads also stops that dead in it's tracks."
That's like saying that we should ban cars, because this way we can stop traffic accidents in its tracks. Or ban knives, because this way we can stop stabbing in its tracks.
"Ad blockers are the very reason why this isn't happening. As more and more people use ad blockers, publishers need to show more and more intrusive ads to earn the same amount of money."
Really? So it's our fault that we're getting obtrusive ads? Who would have thought? Here have a downvote.
As more and more people use ad blockers, publishers need to show more and more intrusive ads to earn the same amount of money.
Just as when corn prices fall, farmers must plant more and more corn to earn the same amount of money.
Protip: Planting more corn is just going to make the problem even worse.
"Just as when corn prices fall, farmers must plant more and more corn to earn the same amount of money.
Protip: Planting more corn is just going to make the problem even worse."
Protip 2: Sometimes, because of the land or other issues, all you CAN plant is corn, meaning it's take it or leave it.
Advertisers brought it upon themselves.
I started blocking adverts when they invented pop up adverts, and hover over, and animated, and noisy ones.
Non animated quiet banner ads NEVER bothered me, I find the new craze of drop down menus stuck at the top of a web page much more irritating.
I find the new craze of drop down menus stuck at the top of a web page much more irritating
And questionnaires, *bloody* questionnaires. "We made your phone ring today, would you be willing to tell us what you thought of it?", with options such as "Loved it", "More please", "Keep it up", but my choice "F*ck off and die of a horrible infection brought on by an alien virus that has been sitting on your pencil until you licked it yesterday" is as if by magic always omitted.
"Ad blockers are the very reason why this isn't happening. As more and more people use ad blockers, publishers need to show more and more intrusive ads to earn the same amount of money."
That argument is nonsense, like saying we get so much spam because we use spam filters.
Ad blockers are in demand because the ads are so intrusive.
Companies often demand flashier, more intrusive advertising despite the advice of the people who actually produce it.
It would be interesting to know what the clickaway rate is for some sites where the advertising is so bad you can't actually read the page.
For me it's pretty big. I've also started closing tabs on the sites that offer list of "funny" things that end up being one per page, and 3/4 of each page is ads or random links to other lists of funny things and related content.
I seriously see some of them on my tablet where the content I want is in the top left quarter of the screen (landscape) and the other 3/4 are crap that takes ages to load. Going through ten pages of that is a major nope and it seems that there are way more of those being shared as clickbait on the ad free content network of late.
"Other than the ad people, the PR people, the company the ad is for, and the site presenting the ad, who is being hurt?"
The content creators themselves. Plenty of channels rely on AD revenue. The bulk of the channels I follow are of scientific, educational and political slants. I spend vastly more viewing time on YT than the TV, as do all 3 of my (now adult) offspring and it's got to be funded somehow. When YT comes up with a subscription based AD free option, I'll most likely take it.
Maybe things need to change like less intrusive ads?
Ads can be, by their very nature, intrusive, though sometimes we don't actually realise we are being pumped. A recent alternative to the traditional ad makes use of news-like presentations that are literally no more than cleverly acted out ads, and companies are making more use of these as the general public finds more and more ways to filter out the dead space that ads generally go into.
Not that I totally disagree with what you are saying. If we take the YouTube model mentioned in the article, we get ads on the page, ads before the video (sometimes these pre-video adverts can be several times longer than the actual video), popups during the video and in plenty of cases product placement in the video itself (though that often depends on the video subject).
With the over-the-top mentality of the advertising in this situation, it is no surprise that so many users will make use of ad-blocking tools; some do it because they are using company machines where the company may take a dislike to other companies, including direct competitors, advertising on their bandwidth, others do it because the amount of advertising is so overwhelming that it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of what they are doing. Even those that don't block ads pay less attention to them than they might once have done, hence the pretend news articles.
Google and others need to accept that advertising has its limits and going past those limits can actually dissuade users from using those services - at least people are still watching YouTube. If they can tone down the advertising to an acceptable level, perhaps ad blocking tools will become less of a problem.
Maybe not so simple.
First, the format may not allow for the insertion without a lengthy re-encode, which would have to be done PER AD (one reason they do it their way is so that the ad can be changed each time you watch it). Second, each of these videos is in a different format which means to do that the AD has to be encoded in any number of formats: both audio and video. Lastly, this could present a legal hurdle for Google as they're now messing with the original file, and doing so without a legal precedent (such as censoring) could put them in a lawyer's crosshairs.
Why do they always say "stay with us" / "don't go away" or similar?
Actually I'm glad they do because as soon as I hear one of the stock 'there's an ad break coming' phrases I switch to another channel or the same CD I've had in my car CD player (Lana Del Rey: Born To Die) for the last 6 months (yes, I'm lazy!).
After 5 minutes of the CD it's usually safe to go back to the radio.
My thoughts on Classic FM are that their ad breaks are less frequent than other stations but go on for longer, often requiring two tracks of my CD. No scientific analysis done on that though.
I used to frequent a TV listings site. The owner redesigned his site so that it would break if you used an adblocker. People complained but he felt smug and boastful of his genius idea. I just left the site and found another one without all the hassles. There is no sure fire way to force people to do things they don't want to.
I've been blocking AD's at the host file level for year's, ABP is a new fangled tool that also gets used.
If you want an AD displayed host it on the site its displayed on, no flash no animation and I will see it but simply ignore it. When i'm on a site im almsot always reading some content and ignoring anything thats not directly related to what im after.
If you try to force ad's down my throat I will find a way to block them or find another source for the information I want (which ever is less effort).
What the industry has yet to realise is their business model is dieing, people like myself who don't and wont accept ad's are growing. Just like back in the 90's at the dawn of mp3, it was the geeks that adpoted it and ran with it then the masses followed and it became the norm. That's what ad blocking is now its becoming the norm no matter what the industry thinks about it and they need to adapt or die.
"If you try to force ad's down my throat I will find a way to block them or find another source for the information I want (which ever is less effort)."
So what happens when the ads can't be blocked without blocking the content...that happens to be exclusive and not available anywhere else?
So if we block the anoying turds, and just simply ignore the less smelly ones that are otherwise by design benign. How else do you prose to make Ads work?
And, even if I were to belive that rooting my device was the security risk tha Samsung, and Co. make it out to be, Knox, Android Pay etc... That shalln't stop me from rooting anyway if only to be able to install and run... Of all things AdAway.
This thing is so awsome it even blocks the shitey Ads in Spootify, and for that, alone I'll take my chaces on root!
I never gave my permission to use up my electricity, consume loads of CPU cycles, fill up my RAM, and heat up my CPU. If I can stop that from happening, I will. It's their problem, not mine. I couldn't care less if any media corps go under. If their site doesn't work when cleansed of evil, I mostly don't bother using it.
BTW, Adblock is massively resource hungry as well, so I don't use that particular plugin any more.
I couldn't figure out why my browsing was so extremely slow.
It turned out it was ABP's fault. The cure was worse than the disease.
I just use NoScript and ClickToFlash for now, and it removes pretty much all annoyances, and keeps the CPU cool (fan off).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
