SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An anonymous coward writes:
"Three weeks ago, video game reviewer and online columnist Jim Sterling used his weekly "Jimquisition" video column (warning: NSFW) at The Escapist to address 'the ever thorny issue' of viewers using ad-blockers while watching his content.
As Mr Sterling relies entirely on ads on The Escapist and his YouTube channel for his income and isn't exactly known for pulling punches regardless of topic, it may have come as a surprise to many that he expressed considerable understanding for those who choose to block ads [transcribed and slightly censored by the submitter]:
"No, I don't like it when someone views my work with Adblock, but I get it. I absolutely understand it, and I find it hard to judge anybody who does it. If I'm p---ed off at anyone, it's the advertisers; those reckless buffoons who brought up intrusive pop-ups, auto-playing video ads, and those f---ing banners with the smileys that scream "SAY SOMETHING" at you.
'There is this horrible cycle in place, if you didn't know, where the less ads that get viewed, the worse the ads are, because the less scrupulous commercial companies will go after the more desperate venues. What this means is, the more you ad-block, the worse the ads actually get.'
After asking his viewers to 'kindly consider' viewing his videos with Adblock disabled (and expressing some considerable distaste for those who publicly state that they block the ads and still insists on criticising his work), Sterling willingly conceded that ads on web sites can represent a real problem for users:
'When ads break web sites, when they ruin your browsing or are offensive to you on some level, how the hell can I blame you for wanting to obliterate them? I can't!'
Whether one likes Mr Sterling's videos or not, he no doubt has a point. Ads are the only available source of revenue for many web sites and content producers, but they have little or no influence over the kind of ads the ad provider serves through their site. As we all know, intrusive ads can significantly degrade the browsing experience and even be a malware vector. Besides asking their users to please endure potentially obnoxious ads, are there ways for web sites (like, say, SoylentNews) and content producers to make money from advertisements?
The story ends with an interesting twist: For those who wanted to support him but just couldn't stomach the ads, Sterling briefly published the URL to an Amazon wishlist as well as his P.O. box address at the end of the video. Last week he revealed that although he had done so in jest, several viewers had indeed sent him gifts (from 7:02 onwards)."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:35AM
Same here. Back in the olden days, I might actually notice relevant ads. The old Google text ads were cool, and there were some very clever small banner ads -- I even saved a few of them for my own amusement. But then the text ads became a drag on performance (took forever for the server to respond, and meanwhile the rest of the page wouldn't load) and banners started to sing and dance and grow to fill the page, and swoop across the page or leap out in front of the actual content, and in short order they all entered the depths of my HOSTS file and suffered various forms of death-to-javascript.
It's their own damn fault. I had nothing against the original ads, and other than occasionally turning images off because 14.4 dialup sucks, they were allowed to do their thing. But when the annoying type became a significant fraction, they all suffered for it, because I don't feel a responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff when it's all being blown in my face.
I use one site that has several basic banners. I've become pretty much blind to them, except for the first day that a new one appears, then I will often notice it. This is as it should be -- the ad does its job, but lets me ignore it when I don't care to be bothered by it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.