What is Digg?478 Comments
- pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -8/+320One of the comments on the post just about sums it up for me: "If advertisers would stop using techniques like popups, overlays and auto-play sound then we wouldn't need adblock. These aggressive techniques are counter productive to everyone's interests, including the advertisers."
If it was ever truly mainstream, the advertising industry would shift to websites getting advertisers on their own. Say, the publisher doesn't use an ad provider at all. That would be better for the said publisher in the long run. But there will always be a community making an app to get rid of all advertisements on the internet. - twrife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+279I disabled ABP last night and was amazed how many ads I miss every day.
Then I re-enabled it. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+179It basically started with the addition of the animated gif to the browser. At first, you saw all of the kids playing cute animations, and then ten seconds later you got the obnoxious yellow and red blinking advertisements on every page. Then to further escalate the wars, they go and add Flash to the browser; 80+% of the Flash used out there is an advertisement of some kind, no wonder at all why Macromedia made cross-platforming it a priority. (And don't even get me started about how the advertisers turned Java into a popup launching machine.. I miss having Java enabled).
Google's text ads are the only ads left unblocked for me; text is unobtrusive, most of the time it's relevant to the topic (other than the eBay "Looking for Nuclear Holocaust? Find it on eBay!" ads), and they're not wasting my computer's cycles or ADD-inducing. If every company looked at what Google was doing with advertising and approached it similarly, there'd be a lot fewer people using Adblock. Hell, newspapers and magazines could learn a lot from them too. - devjunkie, on 10/10/2007, -19/+152I hate how advertisers think we're obligated to view their stuff.
We're not.
If I don't wanna see ads, then I don't have to - plain and simple.
Bitch about the "well it costs x to run the site", well, that's not my problem now, is it?
As long as your site is freely available to the public, I can manipulate the data coming back to my own machine however I want to. If that means stripping out your ads, so be it.
I'm sick of this mentality that we owe companies something. They've been ripping consumers off for years, and karma is a bitch. Enjoy. - inactive, on 11/01/2007, -3/+123I only want obnoxious ads banned. Sometimes Google Ads help me find what I am looking for.
- bootle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+106The first rule about adblocking is: you don't talk about adblocking
- Leach, on 11/01/2007, -4/+106"there's no evidence that the masses view online ads as a nuisance"
I laughed when I read this. - pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -4/+91You are kidding, right?
- mookiemookie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+81Everyone, say hello to the webmaster of whyfirefoxisblocked.com
- thechr0nic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+76So by your logic, I assume it would be stealing from content providers, if I divert my eyes and fail to see the advertisement? What if I see the ad, but then fail to click on it?
I do not EVER click on advertisements, if I want it, ill find it myself. By using adblock, I dont waste my bandwidth or screen with ads.
When I listen to the radio, and commercials come on, I switch stations. The same with TV.. so this is not a new concept. - kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -8/+69STFU and stop pointing out hypocrisy.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48"By blocking ads, you are essentially stealing from the content providers. Its basically the same thing as using a fake credit card to buy things at a store."
What an ignorant comment. Unless I have to agree to some sort of "terms of service" that state that I will not block ads, then I'm doing nothing at all wrong by blocking them. All my browser does is ask for an HTML document. My browser then parses the document and decides to request (or not) individual images. Is the onus on *me* to make sure that I issue requests for all embedded ads? Of course not! That would be like finding an FTP site that had images, a few of which are obviously ads, and accusing me of stealing when I only download a one or two of the images, and none of the ads. If your web server will obligingly serve me ad-free content at my request, then that's your own problem.
And to equate it with buying items with a fake credit card? Are you insane?! Requesting data from your server, and having your server behave *as you instructed it to*, to supply me that data, is nothing *like* stealing. At all. It's more similar to me waiting until after the commercials are over before going into a movie theater. Are you going to tell me that I'm somehow morally obligated to watch the pre-movie ads? I think not. - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+48"I'm a married guy and would rather not see pictures of half naked women on every other page I click on."
In other words, your wife is standing behind you watching you type your comment. - admdrew, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43Well Bob, with AdBlock I wouldn't say I've been *missing* them.
- strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42That's how it used to be, and it was a total pain in the ass. There is value in having a middle man working to connect advertisers and publishers. Yeah, that sounds like an annoyingly lame platitude, but it's true. Most advertisers have no clue whether or not a specific site is worth advertising on and they're not going to scour the Internet to find sites. It's just too time consuming.
- michal64, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39its the main reason to use firefox,
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -13/+50If that was the case, why does software like Adblock remove AdSense ads, possibly the most unobtrusive ads there are?
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -7/+42By showing ads, advertisers are stealing from me, by filling my valuable screen real-estate with junk.
- indyGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32With Adblock Plus AND a modified HOSTS file (see http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm), I NEVER see ads, even those embedded in flash movies, etc.
- signal15, on 10/10/2007, -13/+44Go ahead and Digg me down, but if everyone started using Adblock then I'd have to finance a valuable community resource that I run out of my own pocket. I agree that popups and other such things suck, and I don't do them. But seriously, where's the harm in Adsense? You barely notice them.
I agree that it's everyone's right to run whatever adblocking technology they want to. But people need to keep in mind that they may be contributing to the demise of the sites they frequent. I *rarely* click ads, but once in a great while, I do. Some of the google ads that run on my site pay me $6-12 per click. And while I don't get a lot of clicks, the huge number makes for some checks that pay for the hosting costs, and hardware upkeep. - silenceHR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33because some webmasters have VERY different idea what _unobtrusive_ means .... AdSense is unobtrusive when used with good measure, but when you can see them above content (2 rows x 3 colums), inside content and under the content ... well, meet my friend Mr. AdBlock you stupid greedy ***** of lame excuse for webmaster
THAT's why ;) - spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Advertising is out of control. Computers become riddled with spyware which often shows fraudulent and/or sexual ads without any context or user intervention. The web still has the flashing ads of the 90's but now sports Flash-based popup and even video. Movie theatres show ads preceding films we pay top dollar to see. TV shows not only show ads during breaks but also during shows, featuring actors holding a product or annoying flashing and scrolling text at the bottom of the screen.
Can you blame us for wanting to minimize all this intrusion? All we want is the content. - jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27I watch shows on NBC sometimes (30 rock, this specific time) and I watched one on a computer without ABP, and I was amazed to see they shove commercials in between scenes, and ABP blocks them out. That's freakin' awesome! Not just a blank screen either, it just goes right to the next scene.
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -12/+37>>>"if everyone started using Adblock then I'd have to finance a valuable community resource that I run out of my own pocket"
How exactly do you define "valuable community resource"? If it is so valuable to the community, then perhaps you should ask the community to donate money for hosting fees and such. If you say "well, I can't get enough money that way", then perhaps you should consider that the resource is not all that valuable to the community.
If you can't make enough cash to pay for it, then you can either a) pay for it yourself, b) find some way to get other people to pay for it or c) shut it down. You're not immune to financial issues just because you run a website. And it doesn't give you the right to say that your viewers are stealing from you when they don't have to view you at all. If your business model don't work, find one that does. Either way, your financial problems are your own, don't blame others for your lack of business savvy. - chilekillr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Find "the" at eBay.com!
- andregriffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I used to be an IE7 proponent, because I never had any real problems with it, even in web development. I only ever used Firefox to double check sites in development, as i unfortunately had to in IE6 as well. What got me to switch to Firefox was the mass amount of annoying flash ads that I was getting, although IE7 caught all the popups. ABP makes me not hate the internet anymore.
No I wasn't paid to say that. - sparkleyflowers, on 10/16/2007, -1/+24My husband is a married guy too. I think it's safe to say he would prefer seeing pictures of half naked women on EVERY page he clicks on.
- arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24I don't visit sites that thrust ads in my face. Their content is not worth it if they want to do that. I also use Firefox and don't use Adblock on pages with ads that don't spoil the experience. Google Ads are usually cool. Besides, some of them are useful.
- zcatacz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22no ads = faster page loading + saves bandwidth.
- tmohan26, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21people don't realize the power of this plugin until they stop using it ..... just disable it for a day to find its value
- doddilus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22you can remove the icon
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27This seems like an overly harsh analysis in my eyes. Not wrong perhaps but extremely harsh. If advertising on the internet stops working effectively then the money generated by the internet will disappear and the sites that utilise it. ***Digg!!!***, You Tube and basically all Web 2.0 sites make their money just off ad revenues. I wouldn't "chip in" for digg. I'm sorry, I just wouldn't. (I'd just go somewhere else). This site is a great community site with great value but if it can't pay for it's own hosting fee on godaddy and it's own account on cachefly then it just isn't going to work. Those ads allow us to have digg.
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22If everyone use AdBlock, that means everyone doesn't want to see Ads. This mean that the Internet and you need to change your business model to adapt to the consumers' wants and needs.
Remember, the reason ads exist on the internet because people want to see them. - VVho, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25A pretty hypocritical article: the guy wanting to 'destroy the industry' is profiting from the ads on his blog! If this WAS to get mainstream adoption then we would have to start paying for our web content - I'd rather see relevant text adds, personally.
It alarms me how short sighted articles like this are... blocking aggressive ads is fine, blocking all ads, and encouraging everyone else to do so, can only lead to things like sponsorship of websites (read bias) and other, more pernicious attempts to advertise to you, or paid content. I don't want any of those options.
Subtle ads (like Google's) are a way of the internet - it depends on them. Either you should tolerate them, or only use add free sites and pay for the content! Remember, it isn't just big corporations that profit from adds - the work because so do small-time bloggers or start-ups.
There's no such thing as a free lunch! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18waffles.com?
- robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19 Bootle's got it right. STFU people! If enough people stay unaware, and continue to receive the ads, that leaves us FF/ABP users to skip off into the daisies! Silly Diggers...
- chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17The way I see it, if you block ads, you weren't going to click the ads in the first place. You don't earn anything based on views alone. The people that click them are the people that aren't smart enough to block them.
- strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Say you have a new premium waffle maker. Now, you want to place ads for it on the websites that cater to people who enjoy cooking, have incomes of $75k+ a year, and spend $500 - $1000 on kitchen gadgetry annually. Where, exactly, would you start?
- oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -9/+25Kiss my ass. Seriously. No I do not feel bad because some ***** site operator with crappy content goes under. In fact I'm probably pissed that I landed on his page to begin with. You are seriously screwed in the head if you think capitalism has anything to do with me feeling bad about not getting suckered into watching ads. Come up with a new revenue model. Your free lunch is over.
- Rinsan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17shhhhhh
- GuyeNoir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16If you listen closely, you can hear the crack of a whip.
- fotbr, on 10/10/2007, -13/+28Because some people have had enough of advertising being shoved at them that they've said 'enough' and don't want to see ANY of it, no matter how unobtrusive it is.
Or they just get tired of the ebay ad-spam. - fotbr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17If everyone sees your ads, but no one clicks on them because they simply ignore them, how does that help you?
Yeah, it doesn't. Figure out how to pay for your "valuable community resource" some other way. - gibsonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17ABP + NoScript = Interweb speed increase/less clutter/more privacy/less spam/etc.
- stalefries, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I think it was version 2.0.0.5 (or maybe .6) which added this ability specifically for Adblock Plus. They changed it so that Firefox exposes connection attempts by plugins, allowing Adblock Plus to filter those out as well.
- Jholder112233, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Dugg for waffle reference.
- sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15i can hardly even go to movies anymore. i despise making an 8:30 movie which then proceeds to start at 9:15 after FORTY FIVE ***** MINUTES of ads.
and yes, i've timed it. :( - apotropaic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Not to mention the people that just want to block the ronchey/dating websites. I'm a married guy and would rather not see pictures of half naked women on every other page I click on.
- javaroast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I will use an addblocker only when
- I use my web browser - MajorD, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Internet Rule #1. You will probably NOT get rich if web advertising revenue is your primary revenue stream.
I see ads all the time and I use a number of ad blockers - Adblock just removes the aggressive *****. -
Show 51 - 100 of 476 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is