Filed under: Google, Browsers, Web
Adblockers to save online ads? Google thinks so
Google -- the granddaddy of internet advertisers -- says it's not worried about extensions for its Chrome browser that block or eliminate ads on websites. Well... that's interesting. Apparently Google feels that advertisers will make an effort to ensure their ads are less annoying and people will soon see their benefits. Or at least that is the hope over at Google headquarters:
So will "less annoying" ads be enough to stop people from using ad-blocking browser extensions? I'm not sure. I am inclined, however, to agree with The Register's Cade Metz. Metz believes the effort required to download an ad-blocking extension and properly use it might be too many clicks for the average user."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."
| Yes, I already use one. | |
|---|---|
| Nope, too much work. | |
| I just ignore the ads. |
I don't really see this working out in Google's favor (or in the favor of any ad company). With the exception of a few elegant ads that I've come across, I think most people won't bother to install ad-blockers, instead they'll just do what they've always done - ignore them. Online advertisements is a hot button issue to begin with and Google allowing ad-blocker extensions in their browser has almost no correlation with their desire for people to use it. As long as the extension doesn't violate any terms, they have no grounds not to accept them.
Be sure to check out our weekly Chrome Corner posts for other Google Chrome news, tips, and extensions.
The Illusionist's Dream is a simple platformer; you play as a magician who needs to get through each level by transforming into any number of animals that you encounter along the way.
Each animal can do different things; the butterfly can obviously fly, but if it encounters a frog, the frog eats it, and you have to start over again. There's also a fox that runs fast and leaps far, but it eats any rabbits that cross its path. That means that, if you may need to be a rabbit later on, you need to take that into account ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
octoberasian said 4:52PM on 1-01-2010
The problem is not only the annoying ads, but the reason why AdBlock and NoScript work well together as well as Flash Block is because of the exploits that can be hidden within those banner ads.
In this one MMO I play, there has been a rash of accounts hacked and stolen because users didn't block ads and iframes that contained those malicious javascripts, iframes, and Flash ads. When we the consumers stop blocking ads is when advertisers make them:
1.) Less annoying
2.) Less intrusive
3.) Take more responsibility in what gets displayed on a website
4.) In addition to #3, immediately remove ads that contain malicious and hidden exploits; a sort of review the ads first before they get distributed.
Until then, myself and many others that use AdBlock, NoScript and similar will continue to use these add-ons and extensions.
There are ONLY a few websites I will whitelist to display banner ads, and those I can count on one hand.
Reply
216 said 5:03PM on 1-01-2010
I saw a pringles ad one time that was so awesome, I actually did go out and buy more pringles as a result of viewing it.
It was an ad where if you clicked it, it would have a gradual conversation with you about why you continued to click it, and it was overall hilarious and made fun of people that clicked ads. +1 to Pringles for that Ad
Reply
awesomehumza500 said 5:31PM on 1-01-2010
I know what you're talking about. the ad is on here http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/06/pringles-banner-ad-worth-a-few-dozen-clicks.html
awesomehumza500 said 5:31PM on 1-01-2010
the ad is here http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/06/pringles-banner-ad-worth-a-few-dozen-clicks.html
216 said 5:51PM on 1-01-2010
yep that's the one
awesomehumza500 said 5:32PM on 1-01-2010
try adthwart for chrome. https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb
Reply
Foiled said 6:03PM on 1-01-2010
Try Admuncher. best software for ads.
Jabbathewocket said 6:55PM on 1-05-2010
adthwart DOES NOT BLOCK ADS, it hides them from view.. this is NOT THE SAME THING..
Since the browser is still downloading and running the javascript etc even if you do not see it.. it can still be doing things it shouldnt in the background..
Until google gives up and allows proper blocking within chrome, NOONE should be using it.. (would be REALLY cool if they could get it to render even a basic uncomplicated webpage properly as well.. but hey why should we ask for working product from an evil empire ?
guttsy said 5:53PM on 1-01-2010
I don't really mind advertisements unless:
1) It immediately doubles in size just because my mouse happened to graze the flash banner.
2) It makes noise by default.
3) It moves across my screen and blocks other content on the screen.
To be honest, installing an ad blocker in Firefox is straightforward. It doesn't take that long. I've done it in the past, but I don't now. I think I stopped when there was that whole fiasco about a website blocking Firefox users because of ad blocking.... the owners of websites do deserve to make some money to pay for their services, but they need to keep the level of intrusiveness down.
Reply
MxxCon said 9:39PM on 1-01-2010
Your 3 points regarding annoying ads should be taken up to the owners of those sites. They are the ones that specify what kind of ads are allowed to run on their sites.
dOgBOi said 6:02PM on 1-01-2010
I have an ad blocker now. I only installed it a few months ago. Normally, I keep it shut off on most sites. However, if a site's ads automatically make sounds, run flash, or open up because a mouse cursor crosses over it, I turn on the adblocker. I don't mind ads. They pay for the content. I'll even click on them from time to time. But don't interfere with my browsing experience. Do that, and I'll block your ads. Simple as that.
Reply
kai said 6:24PM on 1-01-2010
People install adblockers because Google does nothing about the rogue antivirus ads or those ones redirecting you to scam websites. I'd be happy to support any website with ads but the risk is too high nowadays. Those ads are not only annoying, they're truly dangerous.
Reply
Sinani201 said 6:54PM on 1-01-2010
I don't block ads, because I know that free services depend on advertising to stay up. They can be easily ignored. However, I do block Gmail ads (there is a very good Greasemonkey script for this) so that I can get the full width of email viewing. Google has enough money, anyways.
Reply
not yay said 3:15AM on 1-02-2010
Obviously you do not grasp the definition of the word 'free'.
Sinani201 said 12:08PM on 1-02-2010
No. If everyone used ad-blockers, free services would not gain any money (except from donations, which few people do). That's why I'm supporting them by not using an ad-blocker and being a good person.
SilverWave said 7:11PM on 1-01-2010
Couldn't get the poll to work...
1st checked RequestPolicy... wow what a lot of hangers on at this site... didn't look like any of those though...
Hmm don't use NoScript as I don't trust it.. so, whats left...
Oh yes! ABP with third-party script blocking
(*$script,third-party,domain= ~flickr.com|~youtube.com|~imdb.com).
Turned it off and the poll works - it must need some third-party script :)
Heh ho - at least I know the script blocking works!
tbh with Greasemonkey stripping a site to the bone, sometimes I will surf for a while with ABP turned off by mistake... its surprising how long it takes for me to see an advertisement :D
Reply
not yay said 3:41AM on 1-02-2010
The cogent reasoning for NoScript distrust is what?
Are you aware of ABE in NoScript?
(you can disable NoScript's ad laden changelog page firing post-update with an extension preference.. also consider un-whitelisting noscript.net)
RequestPolicy + ADP != NoScript
(the combination of those two do *not* replace NoScript functionality)
GreaseMonkey cannot act until the page is rendered: it blocks nothing, but it can hide like Stylish, or you can ease re-arrangement with Platypus.
SilverWave said 7:12AM on 1-02-2010
Not trusting someone who betrayed you is normal behavior.
Quote:
IMPORTANT UPDATE FOR ADBLOCK PLUS USERS_ NoScript 1.9.2.6 automatically and permanently removes the controversial _NoScript Development Support Filterset_, with no questions asked. Not including a prompt asking for permission beforehand from the start has been a very wrong thing to do, and I want all the ABP users who felt betrayed to know how much I'm sorry for that. As a sign of good will, current NoScript 1.9.2.6 completely removes the filterset itself, if found there, on startup with no questions asked. Thanks for your patience. -- Giorgio
----
1. NoScript quietly added a whitelist subscription to AdBlockPlus to enable supporting ads on the NoScript site. That was sneaky, underhanded and despicable. 2. NoScript _patched the AdBlockPlus code_ to enable supporting ads on the NoScript site. This goes _way_ beyond the pale. One plugin modifying the code of another_ Suddenly, NoScript looks like malware!
SilverWave said 7:55AM on 1-02-2010
RequestPolicy + ABP does the job...
If you use the following....
Details: - For EasyList & EasyPrivacy go here: http://easylist.adblockplus.org/ and add to ABP.
- Add a filter to ABP: "*$script,third-party" to stop third-party script. - More info here: http://adblockplus.org/blog/third-party-javascript-yes-it-is-a-security-risk.
Mine is *$script,third-party,domain= ~flickr.com|~youtube.com|~imdb.com
:D
Fyrewerx said 9:14PM on 1-01-2010
Has anyone here gone out and bought a SONY product because of that annoying (in my opinion) full page ad that comes up when clicking to go to the "Next" page on many sites, including Download Squad???
Reply