Blocking ads will force online publishing to change

[DarthCat]

I use add blocker on all sites

 

[Space_Chief]

Well no, hopefully Google will just add a sub option where users can opt in to receive an ad free experience for a small cost split to publishers. Rather than force everyone to a paywall

Google won't force everyone to use a paywall. People will stop using them and use Yahoo or MSN who will just continue with ads.

What Google can do is just have better placement by payment. That means a site which pays and which has the same content as a non paying site- rated as the same- gets to go ahead of this one in results. This would be done transparently so that Ad Blockers can't block the site. At the end Googles' search integrity may be affected but then again they've been speaking of censoring results based on "reliability" anyway.

 

[Chevron]

No. You suggested forcing people who block ads to pay. That implies sending them an invoice after the fact. Paywalls are upfront. You pay and you get to enter. Or there is a free trial.

By all means maybe do create paywalls. Most people will not subscribe. And online promotion will die completely.

How in the world could you force someone to pay after the fact?

You're being silly now. Of course I'm talking paywalls. :erm:

If the internet changes because of it, then so be it. Already many sites like game trailers are suffering heavily because of adblockers. It's a change that needs to happen.

Obviously it affects the sites that cater to a tech savvy audience first.

 

[Chevron]

Well no, hopefully Google will just add a sub option where users can opt in to receive an ad free experience for a small cost split to publishers. Rather than force everyone to a paywall

Good idea.

Google won't force everyone to use a paywall. People will stop using them and use Yahoo or MSN who will just continue with ads.

What Google can do is just have better placement by payment. That means a site which pays and which has the same content as a non paying site- rated as the same- gets to go ahead of this one in results. This would be done transparently so that Ad Blockers can't block the site. At the end Googles' search integrity may be affected but then again they've been speaking of censoring results based on "reliability" anyway.

Terrible idea.

 

[Space_Chief]

How in the world could you force someone to pay after the fact?

You're being silly now. Of course I'm talking paywalls. :erm:

What you said implies this. I don't want to argue with you. Yes one could send people invoices via their ISP, it would be retarded and they'd probably be ignored but I'm sure some desperate people have thought of that too.

If the internet changes because of it, then so be it. Already many sites like game trailers are suffering heavily because of adblockers. It's a change that needs to happen.

You know, if sites like Polygon close, it will make the web a better place. Or maybe they should just go the SomethingAwful route and charge people money to use forums, and then ban them from those forums.

 

[Space_Chief]

Good idea.

Terrible idea.

Why? Because you don't like it?

Opt in ad based website can still be blocked by Ad Block. And if Google bans ad block, many people may stop using them entirely. Then again there are services such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage and Disconnect.me.

 

[supersunbird]

I wonder how http://www.bdlive.co.za/ subscription thing is working out for them?

http://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/74619-sa-news-websites-to-implement-paywalls.html

 

[Chevron]

Why? Because you don't like it?

Again. Stop being silly. Google will never let payments of any form affect organic search results. If they do people will stop using them.

Opt in ad based website can still be blocked by Ad Block. And if Google bans ad block, many people may stop using them entirely. Then again there are services such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage and Disconnect.me.

Lol. Google the search engine has nothing to do with ads. Google runs the biggest ad serving platform on the internet. Sites like http://www.anandtech.com/ use Google for their ads.

That's why the other suggestion was actually awesome. More than half the internet shows Google ads.

 

[Space_Chief]

Again. Stop being silly. Google will never let payments of any form affect organic search results. If they do people will stop using them.

Google use secret algorithms to decide how pages are ranked. And Google has been saying they want to favour sites which share a consensus view over sites which rank better for conventional reasons or are more popular. Paying to be ranked higher is not a big deal at all in that setting.

Lol. Google the search engine has nothing to do with ads. Google runs the biggest ad serving platform on the internet. Sites like http://www.anandtech.com/ use Google for their ads.

Google also generate revenue from their search engine. Duh.

That's why the other suggestion was actually awesome. More than half the internet shows Google ads.

It would then be up to the site owners to decide to show ads or not, and not Google.

 

[Space_Chief]

Publishers will just have to become more creative. For example sites like AnadTech can review products for a fee or promote/name products inside the text of their articles.

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

Publishers will just have to become more creative. For example sites like AnadTech can review products for a fee or promote/name products inside the text of their articles.

/agrees

The hit rate on these online ads is actually quite low. There was a discussion on SAFM a few months back on this.

Me, I see the online ads the same as the spam and unwanted snail mail.

That aside, AB and ABP are one of a host of solutions ,,, and google has a page to assist in cutting advertising so .......

https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180609?hl=en

 

[Chevron]

It would then be up to the site owners to decide to show ads or not, and not Google.

Huh?

What are you talking about?

The discussion is about sites that already show ads, and users that decide to block them. So the site owners have already decided to show ads.

Any maybe I need to make this simpler for you. Since so many sites use Google ads, it would make life so much simpler to just pay Google a flat fee and all sites that use Google ads don't show ads anymore. A simple and elegant solution.

 

[Chevron]

Publishers will just have to become more creative. For example sites like AnadTech can review products for a fee

IGN does this already. All EA/Activision games they give 10/10 for are paid. Great way to promote journalistic integrity.

or promote/name products inside the text of their articles.

Tom's Hardware already does this and it's irritating as I actually read the article. This is basically asking for ads to be more obtrusive.

Really starting to sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Space_Chief]

Huh?

What are you talking about?

The discussion is about sites that already show ads, and users that decide to block them. So the site owners have already decided to show ads.

Now you see this type of logic I don't understand. If I run a site and I see that I don't generate money from the ads, I then may shift my strategy and either run different ads or have paid for content, or go for something else. Ok, maybe I'm a Mickey Mouse operation, in which case maybe it's simpler. But usually these sites don't provide much of value.

Your logic is a little strange above.

Any maybe I need to make this simpler for you. Since so many sites use Google ads, it would make life so much simpler to just pay Google a flat fee and all sites that use Google ads don't show ads anymore. A simple and elegant solution.

That's one solution. But why consolidate more power in Google's' hands? And why have it as a middle man? And have it collect more info, especially as knowing your real details (credit card) they can track you more and know you for real. And it's not like most people visit 1000s of sites, they usually visit one or two or would be willing to pay for one or two and so they can pay directly to the owner of the site even using PayPal or some other processor.

 

[Space_Chief]

IGN does this already. All EA/Activision games they give 10/10 for are paid. Great way to promote journalistic integrity.

You do know that most scientific research is sponsored, right? You also know that most media outfits are owned by corporations, right?

You heard about disclosure statements? "This article sponsored by Nvidia".

Journalist integrity need not be compromised. If it's seen that a site gives a free pass to its sponsors, it will lose respect and people won't visit. These ads will then not sell. And journos can have integrity, I know, maybe it's a bit more difficult, but they'll be able to do it if they try harder.

Tom's Hardware already does this and it's irritating as I actually read the article. This is basically asking for ads to be more obtrusive.

Really starting to sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Great-- some sites do this already-- so it can't be done in other sites.... again poor logic.

Tell me, outside of gaming and computer/gadget tech sites do you actually visit and pay for other sort of content?

Because creating a sub at a site like f1000 or stratfor is very simple.

 

[Wasabee!]

Maybe not look like a fscking christmas tree and being so intrusive its a bloody prostate exam?

+1

Blocking ads on sites that use ads to generate revenue is basically piracy.

You're obtaining content without paying for it.

Lol your reasoning is really ridiculous. The website is there for the reader, not the reader for the website. So websites devs or owners should make their website to attract readers. Not harass them like a car guard for small change (eg pop up ads).

Most of the time, the content is not worth paying for. That's also a problem. Sites with premium content, such as Statfor charge for it, but it's premium content, most web stuff online is garbage, recycled from free sites such as CNN, BBC, science journals, wikipedia or what people post themselves.

+1

 

[2026]

Again. Stop being silly. Google will never let payments of any form affect organic search results. If they do people will stop using them.



Lol. Google the search engine has nothing to do with ads. Google runs the biggest ad serving platform on the internet. Sites like http://www.anandtech.com/ use Google for their ads.

That's why the other suggestion was actually awesome. More than half the internet shows Google ads.

Google search has everything to do with ads, I'd say 75% of the page is fulled with ads.