AdTrap - The best Kickstarted project I have seen yet.

Forums › Off topic › AdTrap - The best Kickstarted project I have seen yet.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4583 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#717662 15-Nov-2012 13:30

freitasm:
CYaBro: Cool but you haven't answered my question.

I did.

CYaBro: People who use ad blockers may only visit Geekzone a couple of times a week too.

Don't assume you know our numbers. The only person who really knows our numbers is... myself.

Where did you answer my question about whether you watch or skip the ads?
You've just said that you don't watch a lot of recorded or live TV, only a couple of shows a week.
So when watching those shows do you skip the ads?

Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#717668 15-Nov-2012 13:38

CYaBro:
freitasm:
CYaBro: Cool but you haven't answered my question.

I did.

CYaBro: People who use ad blockers may only visit Geekzone a couple of times a week too.

Don't assume you know our numbers. The only person who really knows our numbers is... myself.

Where did you answer my question about whether you watch or skip the ads?
You've just said that you don't watch a lot of recorded or live TV, only a couple of shows a week.
So when watching those shows do you skip the ads?

he said it here:

"We really don't want recorded TV. We actually don't watch much live TV at all, except for a couple of shows a week. "

Breaking that down into the salient points:

1)he doesn't watch recorded TV at all.
2) He watches a little bit of live TV.
since he only watches Live TV, and you cannot skip ads on live TV, it stands to reaons that he does not skip ads at all. QED.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#717669 15-Nov-2012 13:39

I don't watch recorded TV shows. If I watch then it's either live or rental. I thought this was clear.

And as said before, the analogy between TV ads and online ads is flawed anyway.

[punched]

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#718426 16-Nov-2012 18:50

CYaBro: freitasm I just have to ask you, as I know you have a HTPC, do you skip over / fast forward the ads when you watch recorded TV? <br>If you do isn't that basically the same as people using an ad blocker?

Personally, I block flash and popups/unders because they are just too annoying, and let other ads through. I don't have a problem skipping ads on TV - I record most TV I watch (which isn't much) and use the 60-second skip button aggressively. Then again, I watch almost no free to air TV, so I don't feel guilty as most of what I skip is sky ads (mostly promos) - and they get plenty of revenue from my subscription.

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#718434 16-Nov-2012 19:05

freitasm:
And as said before, the analogy between TV ads and online ads is flawed anyway.

I do agree with this.... though IMO equating ad blockers to piracy^H^H^H^H^H copyright infringement is far more flawed.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#718450 16-Nov-2012 19:43

sidefx:
freitasm:
And as said before, the analogy between TV ads and online ads is flawed anyway.

I do agree with this.... though IMO equating ad blockers to piracy^H^H^H^H^H copyright infringement is far more flawed.

Which I never did, someone else did - read the thread again :)

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#718460 16-Nov-2012 20:05

freitasm:
Which I never did, someone else did - read the thread again :)

I didn't say or think you did. But I brought up the TV ad analogy as a tongue in cheek response to what I considered to be a borderline ludicrous assertion that ad blockers were like piracy. I didn't really expect anyone to take either analogy seriously. :)

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#719241 19-Nov-2012 00:41

sidefx:
freitasm:
Which I never did, someone else did - read the thread again :)

I didn't say or think you did. But I brought up the TV ad analogy as a tongue in cheek response to what I considered to be a borderline ludicrous assertion that ad blockers were like piracy. I didn't really expect anyone to take either analogy seriously. :)

How is it borderline ludicrous? Sure there are lots of differences, but at it's heart piracy involves the 'pirate' accessing content without accepting the price of that access as set out by the content owner. A cost which takes the form of either ads or direct payment. By running an ad-blocker the medium is different, but fundamentally it is a very similar thing.
And yes, avoiding adverts on free to air TV also falls into that bucket. Clearly there is no way to ensure people watch the ads, but you can bet your life that if there was a way, TV stations would do it.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#720912 21-Nov-2012 18:51

freitasm:
1080p: If I buy a newspaper and dump the flyers inserted into it instead of reading them, is that conceptually the same as copyright infringement? The advertisers have paid the newspaper company to provide the advertising to me and I choose not to view it. I think your argument is reaching and although they may appear similar there is a reason copyright infringement is forbidden by law and blocking advertising is not.

Not really. You're buying the newspaper anyway. You are entitled to dump the advertising. If you subscribe to Geekzone you can visit the site with or without ads.

1080p: Nearly no advertising carries malware. The problem for me is that I cannot and do not know which advertising does carry malware. With the prevalence of malware able to easily attack computers via a number of routes and the software companies being slow to update and patch (I'm looking at you Microsoft, Apple & Adobe) I am forced to take matters into my own hands. A whitelist approach is the only safe solution.

Nope. You should be looking at Adobe, Apple and Oracle. Microsoft is not even one of the top 10 Kasperski vulnerability list. Actually Microsoft has done a very good job in the last five years of getting their act together in this area. They issue patches on a monthly basis, interact with the security community (unlike Apple for example) and release emergency out-of-band updates if a zero day exploit exists.

1080p: Are you willing to pay me for my time to reconfigure my computer due to something your advertisers sent me? I didn't think so.

I'd like to ask you not to visit Geekzone again in the future then. I risk event having to pay you to read forum posts here.

1080p: I'll just ignore the ad hominem this time.

It's not ad hominem attack. It's a rethorical question. An ad hominem is a personal attack. These very different things. Read it again.

1080p: When, however, you serve a page to me and the advertisements are twice the size of the HTML content I download and take more than twice the CPU cycles to render then we have a problem. The one thing you can count on with a free market is that it will change with or without you.

And that's the thing. As yourself I don't like using more resources than needed. That's why I spend so much time changing the things around here to optimise pages. That's why I try to use the best resources to load ads in an efficient way (Google DFP Single Request Mode for example) and fighting with ad agencies for my users. Obviously none of this makes the news...

As per "CPU cycles to render them" is this really what comes down to? A resource that is so abundant that most of the time sits idle, unused?

My point about Malware still stands. There is no way to guarantee I will not run into any other than making all advertisements text advertisements which I would probably be OK with.

Your point regarding people who use Bittorrent was an ad hominem attack. It attacked people who block advertising and labelled them as likely (copyright infringing) Bittorrent users. It may be true that there is a base correlation between blocking advertising and copyright infringement but it bears zero relevance to the discussion.

A rhetorical question, by the way, needs to be phrased as one. Yours was not.

What I do with my CPU cycles is my choice. I think that was my point rather than arguing about how many the advertising use.

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#720917 21-Nov-2012 19:10

NonprayingMantis:

but at it's heart piracy involves the 'pirate' accessing content without...

Nah at its heart piracy involves sailing the sevens seas committing acts of violence and robbery while saying "Yarrr!" a lot.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#720920 21-Nov-2012 19:14

1080p:
freitasm:
1080p: I'll just ignore the ad hominem this time.

It's not ad hominem attack. It's a rethorical question. An ad hominem is a personal attack. These very different things. Read it again.

Your point regarding people who use Bittorrent was an ad hominem attack. It attacked people who block advertising and labelled them as likely (copyright infringing) Bittorrent users. It may be true that there is a base correlation between blocking advertising and copyright infringement but it bears zero relevance to the discussion.

A rhetorical question, by the way, needs to be phrased as one. Yours was not.

It was a rethorical question, "asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply". As I said an Ad Hominem would have a direct implication, not a question.

1080p: My point about Malware still stands. There is no way to guarantee I will not run into any other than making all advertisements text advertisements which I would probably be OK with.

My guess you also block scripts then?

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#721081 22-Nov-2012 08:01

I fully support the serving of ads to pay for a site, however it also comes at a cost to the user.

When I view a site then I am paying for all the content I see. If I dont wish to pay for some of the content, then I block it. Thats the simple reality.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79270 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#721082 22-Nov-2012 08:09

SpookyAwol: I fully support the serving of ads to pay for a site, however it also comes at a cost to the user.

When I view a site then I am paying for all the content I see. If I dont wish to pay for some of the content, then I block it. Thats the simple reality.

This is an interesting comment. I read many people before in other discussions saying "digital content should be free because I already pay for my broadband" - in the cases I read this people were justifying the torrenting (yes, here we go again) of content that was otherwise available via other (paid) channels.

I think of that as the "Amazon Dilemma"... For example if you buy a book (content) at Amazon, would you expect it to be free because you are already paying the shipping (broadband)?

There is a distinction between content and distribution. Shipping (broadband) is just one cost of the whole "package". Other physical costs (in the case of a book) involve creation, wholesale distribution, storage, etc...

In a digital world costs involve colocation, hosting, bandwidth, domain names, SSL certs, software, hardware, etc. Then there are costs depending on the business such as development, database administration, postage (shipping samples back), time negotiating contracts, finding sponsors (pizzas don't come free), promoting events, etc, etc...

It's all costs and people who think a web site can be run on a $20 a month connection is not considering everything.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#721085 22-Nov-2012 08:13

Perhaps that is the better way to think of it - shipping cost :)

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#721092 22-Nov-2012 08:24

At the end of the day, the user pays for it some way or another and the site owner has to justify the sites existence.
I webmastered a site back in the late 1990s for about 10 years and the likes of google adwords wasnt even considered or available when we started. The forum site made money through direct selling of product (web design)
Later in its life, adwords and other forms of advertising were used.

I know exactly where you are coming from and this type of discussion will always pop up :)

For me, until the cost of distribution comes down then the acceptance of ads or not is a personal choice. Until mobile data is plentiful like normal data then I pick and choose what to accept.

As you mentioned, only you can see the true figures of how that type of user impacts on you and your site

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5