https://thestack.com/world/2016/04/21/s ... suffering/
Most people who block ads, do so just to make the Web annoyance-free. Those statistics shows that websites can and are making money without openly pissing off their users.
But let's give some more context here: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... #p14576129
How good is this news really?
Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-
Re: Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
And anti-adblock software illegal in EU? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/23 ... hallenges/
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-
Re: Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
Of course, the question must be asked, when sites do allow adblockers, what fraction of their traffic is ad-blocked and therefore of little (or even negative) value?
======
Thrawn
------------
Religion is not the opium of the masses. Daily life is the opium of the masses.
True religion, which dares to acknowledge death and challenge the way we live, is an attempt to wake up.
Thrawn
------------
Religion is not the opium of the masses. Daily life is the opium of the masses.
True religion, which dares to acknowledge death and challenge the way we live, is an attempt to wake up.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
Re: Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
The point I was trying to make about this is sure people may block ads, but it's possible that the "real" money is in analytics, so turning away users who block ads but not tracking is turning away the revenue the site would get from analytics on those users. Only the somewhat educated Internet users realize that tracking is out there; anyone who dislikes looking at ads (regardless of how Internet-educated they are) can decide to block ads. Not everyone who blocks ads blocks tracking; not everyone who blocks ads even cares about being tracked anyway (some actually are happy about it!).
So it's potentially bad news if that's really true and it becomes widespread for site to blocking users who block analytics.
So it's potentially bad news if that's really true and it becomes widespread for site to blocking users who block analytics.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:49 pm
Re: Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
But it may (eventually) be good news in another way: this move (blocking users who block tracking) may be kinda of an outing, making more and more people finally aware of what is really going on here - meaning that in all likeliness the real deal isn't so much about throwing in your face obnoxious and ridiculous ads, it's rather about something way more dangerous and pervasive, namely persistent and accurate user profiling.barbaz wrote: So it's potentially bad news if that's really true and it becomes widespread for site to blocking users who block analytics.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:46.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/46.0
Re: Sites that block adblockers seem to be suffering
Actually, I recently saw a comment about this on another site, can't remember where but it was something to this effect: users who use adblockers share link(s) on a site with users who don't block ads, who in turn share the same links, etc.. and without the initial ad-blocking-user(s) visiting the site, these other non-ad-blocking users would never have visited the site, thus that much less ad-revenue for the site. This "cascading" is of the nature it can be exponential.
*Always* check the changelogs BEFORE updating that important software!
-