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

BDFL - Memuneh
79297 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#721094 22-Nov-2012 08:27

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

True. And we offer a $25/year subscription that is even better than ad blocks (because we simply don't send any code, making everything even smaller and faster) and the take up is really low. That tells me a lot about how the users perceive the service we provide...

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#721680 23-Nov-2012 09:11

NonprayingMantis:
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.

oh look. somebody else who considers that there may be a case for ad-blocking becoming likened to copyright.

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/opinion-is-ad-blocking-the-next-legal-battleground

a lawyer advising on commercial and IT law!

"Could a legal attack be launched on browser ad blocking?
Two areas of law that could potentially be used in efforts to attack the legality of browser ad-blocking are:

1. Copyright law: it could be claimed that ad blocking constitutes copyright infringement, by causing unauthorised modification to a web page (which in many cases will be protected by copyright) – that is, it creates an unauthorised adaptation of the page. As mentioned above, this has been the basis of television commercial-skipping lawsuits, and has received supportive comment from US courts.

2. Trade practices / commercial laws: it could be claimed that the use of third party software to remove paid advertising constitutes interference with contractual relations, eg an advertiser and a website have entered into a contract whereby the site will display an advertisement in return for a fee or commission, but this arrangement is being intentionally stymied by ad blocking software. Alternatively, it could be claimed that ad blocking software induces the breach of website terms and conditions that prohibit ad-blocking (if such a term is present, which currently is relatively rare).

Both of these scenarios have significant legal and practical challenges in the context of browser ad blocking, but are not inconceivable if the targets are the identifiable distributors of the ad blocking software or the maintainers who update “filter lists” that the blockers commonly rely on, as opposed to targeting end users. Likewise, if a browser distribution started to bundle and enable ad-blocking features by default, it could become a target for legal action.

Another possibility is specific regulation, where a law is passed that specifically bans the use or distribution of ad blocking software.Similar precedent is found in laws banning the sale of digital rights management “circumvention devices” (ie in New Zealand, s 226A of the Copyright Act 1994 bans the sale or distribution of such devices in certain circumstances).

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#721697 23-Nov-2012 09:42

Cool article. Nice to see some informed comment in CW.

Likewise, if a browser distribution started to bundle and enable ad-blocking features by default, it could become a target for legal action.

Most browsers provide pop up blocking by default. Popups are just so horrible no reputable advertiser uses them and maybe there is nearly a generation that has seen very few.

Relevant advertising is good and useful but irrelevant advertising is just annoying and blindness quickly develops to everything in that position including the useful stuff.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#909597 7-Oct-2013 23:57

These guys seem like they are pretty serious about pushing this device.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#909707 8-Oct-2013 10:14

gcorgnet: I wonder what would happen when everybody has one of these and as advertisers realise this we all have to start paying for previously free content...

I never minded paying for the BBC.

Quality programs and no ads? Nirvana.

gundar

488 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#909726 8-Oct-2013 10:56

Seems like it might be time to start a topic about how people would like to pay for GZ and how they expect it to be paid for?

In general, I'd like a mixed model when it comes to websites - one that allows me to view for free (but with relevant ads), subscribe for a low cost (with fewer ads) and possibly contribute or partake for reasonable cost (and have no ads). If my contribution generates income or traffic, then I'd expect subscription credits like YouTube does on popular content.

The other side of the argument is that there is such an abundant source of information on the web, it's hard to make users pay for something that is just as easily available for free elsewhere (in varying levels of quality and value). So the subscription has to offer some value other than - no ads.

I think that the prolification of ad-blockers will result in other forms of advertising. One way or another, like when you watch Under the Dome and everybody has a Winphone and Win8 tablet device, only the Prius' are working etc. So may be blanket blocking all ads should carry a penalty or it eventually will since, as has been pointed out - the advertisers are paying more than the consumers.

Edited for more awesome grammar.

gundar

488 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#909731 8-Oct-2013 11:06

gundar: Seems like it might be time to start a topic about how people would like to pay for GZ and how they expect it to be paid for?

In general, I'd like a mixed model when it comes to websites - one that allows me to view for free (but with relevant ads), subscribe for a low cost (with fewer ads) and possibly contribute or partake for reasonable cost (and have no ads). If my contribution generates income or traffic, then I'd expect subscription credits like YouTube does on popular content.

The other side of the argument is that there is such an abundant source of information on the web, it's hard to make users pay for something that is just as easily available for free elsewhere (in varying levels of quality and value). So the subscription has to offer some value other than - no ads.

I think that the prolification of ad-blockers will result in other forms of advertising. One way or another, like when you watch Under the Dome and everybody has a Winphone and Win8 tablet device, only the Prius' are working etc. So may be blanket blocking all ads should carry a penalty or it eventually will since, as has been pointed out - the advertisers are paying more than the consumers.

Edited for more awesome grammar.

I just remembered - HowToForge does this and I subscribe intermittently. With their site, you can look at anything for free, partake in forums (ask advice etc) for a small sub and download their own custom written manuals and support data for a small sub. They seem to be fulltime people and the cost is small, although, in their defence, they are part of a large community with a bigger population base.

Limiting write priviliges in the forum to paying subscribers certainly does something for the quality of the content.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

trig42

5814 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#909744 8-Oct-2013 11:21

This finally got me around to subscribing - I have been meaning to do it for ages - sorry about the delay Mauricio...

mikerussellnz

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#909747 8-Oct-2013 11:24

I don't mind ad's normally as long as they don't pop up over the content and are not animated.

Animated ad's usually chew up CPU usage and drain your battery. That is the part that annoys me.

richms

28191 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#909752 8-Oct-2013 11:39

Seems expensive for what can be done on a pi for less - http://learn.adafruit.com/raspberry-pi-as-an-ad-blocking-access-point/overview

Richard rich.ms

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#909754 8-Oct-2013 11:44

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

True. And we offer a $25/year subscription that is even better than ad blocks (because we simply don't send any code, making everything even smaller and faster) and the take up is really low. That tells me a lot about how the users perceive the service we provide...

I agree - and I have not seen a web ad in years on any site really because I run AdBlock in my Safari browser.

However I really like GZ - I'm not an actual geek (well, OK I am when it comes to photography but not computers!) but so many people here know so much that I can get answers to anything almost, so to pay the equivalent of 2 beers and a bowl of fries per year to support the site seems outstanding VFM to me.

EDIT: If I see Mauricio driving through town in a GZ-branded Bugatti Veyron I might be asking to pay for one less beer...! ;-)

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#909756 8-Oct-2013 11:48

gundar: Seems like it might be time to start a topic about how people would like to pay for GZ and how they expect it to be paid for?

In general, I'd like a mixed model when it comes to websites - one that allows me to view for free (but with relevant ads), subscribe for a low cost (with fewer ads) and possibly contribute or partake for reasonable cost (and have no ads). If my contribution generates income or traffic, then I'd expect subscription credits like YouTube does on popular content.

The other side of the argument is that there is such an abundant source of information on the web, it's hard to make users pay for something that is just as easily available for free elsewhere (in varying levels of quality and value). So the subscription has to offer some value other than - no ads.

I think that the prolification of ad-blockers will result in other forms of advertising. One way or another, like when you watch Under the Dome and everybody has a Winphone and Win8 tablet device, only the Prius' are working etc. So may be blanket blocking all ads should carry a penalty or it eventually will since, as has been pointed out - the advertisers are paying more than the consumers.

Edited for more awesome grammar.

Your mention of product placement in television is interesting. It has existed for decades now and proliferated among all forms of media (movies, music, music videos, etc...). Consider how long it has been since you were able to sit down and watch a film or television program without being bombarded with advertising both during breaks and the program itself.

I personally do not mind how website owners choose to make money. I do mind being told what I must allow through the series of tubes I pay to access, however, and when the two collide my right to control what I download trumps any others' rights.

The fact is that the vast majority of malware creep is either the result of compromised advertising servers or exploits on found in technology much advertising makes use of. If I can avoid unwanted advertising and thwart the number one source of malware in one move does it not make sense?

Information has always wanted to be free and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future and forcing viewers to absorb epileptic-fit-inducing banner advertising is just awful. One only needs to take a moment to see what happens to online communities when monetisation becomes the primary focus (Digg, YouTube, etc...). Interestingly, usenet, IRC, and free forums remain some of the best spots for engaging discussion and idea sharing online and have existed for a lot longer than the web in some cases.

Another fact to remember when it comes to Web 2.0+ site and content is that the website itself is not the content. You are. The primary engaging content are discussions by other people. None of these people receive payment for their time, knowledge, and contribution so demanding that users pay for the privilege if they do not want to see advertising is similarly distasteful.

The solution to this problem is not mine to solve and will probably require some lateral thinking but I know that demanding I pay for something that is inherently free unless I allow garish security risks to settle on my computer systems is not it.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#909759 8-Oct-2013 11:50

The ads can make real money of course - there is a photo site that engenders polarised reactions in the photographic community called www.kenrockwell.com

People love Ken or hate him.

However, his site is the single biggest source of referrals for US photo giants Adorama and B&H and I know (because I know someone who knows Ken well) that he makes well over US$1 million a year from just the referrals on thats site!!

Ragnor

8223 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#909837 8-Oct-2013 13:25

Unfortunately when publishing on the public internet you have no control over how your content it consumed by end users.

I subscribed to support the site because Geekzone is awesome, but I used to block ads that were annoying and generally block ads on many sites.

Personally I don't think using a browser plugin like AdBlock+ is morally any different to throwing out the junk flyer in the middle of the free local suburban newspaper or skipping ads in recorded tv, that's life.

Alternative models to ad supported content will naturally emerge to counter the ease and increase in ad blocking online and ad skipping in media. Tech Dirt has some great articles on connecting with fans and giving them reasons to buy.

I do however think blanket ad blocking for your network via a proxy/router/server is a mistake, this should be done at the browser level so it can be turned on/off selectively not at the network level.

gundar

488 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#909845 8-Oct-2013 13:34

All of this discussion, all of the reasons not to use an adblocker or to pay $250 for a hardware one - if you subscribe to 10 sites like this a year, it'll cost the same price and you get all the benefits without having to use new fiddly hardware or software.

I'd like to change the answer to - simply pay $25/year or $5/mo, problem solved, one less piece of hardware to lug around in your laptop bag - that's right - it needs to travel with you and one less appliance to run if you choose to leave it at home.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5