Adblock is freaking amazing!

[Raziaar]

Okay I just wanted to point this out... because I'm thrilled.

I've been using ad-block for a long time. Never had firefox without it. However, I've been doing it all wrong. I never used the beauty that is the wild card. The wild card is absolutely stunning! Before I was frustrated, clicking on image after image, hoping to rid sites I frequent of ads. My ad-block list was huge. So just the other day I tried to use a wild card. And boy was I amazed! One wild card eliminated tons of the ads, as long as you put it in the right place. Schweet!

 

[Lucid]

What is this wild card that you speak of?

My adblock has stopped working for some reason, stopped about a week or two ago.
I'm getting banner ads and pop-ups out of my ass again. D:

 

[Nemesis6]

Try using this list: http://pierceive.com/filtersetg/2007-06-02a-MERGED.txt

 

[Raziaar]

What is this wild card that you speak of?

My adblock has stopped working for some reason, stopped about a week or two ago.
I'm getting banner ads and pop-ups out of my ass again. D:

Wildcard is the * symbol.

It's amazing!

To use it, do this. Go to a website that has ads that you hate. Whether flash overlay or just pictures. If it's a flash overlay, go to tools, adblock, flash overlay. Click on one of the banners. Up will pop the adblock window. Instead of clicking okay like you'd normally do, look at the address.

I'll use gamespot for example. I click on one of their ads, and up pops that window.

The address it gives me is this:

http://adlog.com.com/adlog/i/r=7108&s=728542&o=1:&h=pi&p=&b=4&l=En_US&site=6&pt=2001&nd=1&pid=&cid=&pp=100&e=&rqid=00c17-gne-ad246F8DEF21C19FAF&orh=&ort=&oepartner=&epartner=&cpnmodule=&t=2007.09.28.16.21.36/http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/Ads/2443/10/DeveloperSeries_mpu.jpg

That's a very long address, and way too specific for my tastes. I used to just block this and then block the next one and the next one. Instead, you look at the address and back up to the most generic link. Since the website is adlog, and that sounds like a website you don't want since it only focuses on ads... then you remove everything except this:

http://adlog.com.com/

Now... you're down to the lowest most generic level. You simply plop the wildcard symbol which is the asterisk on the end... so it looks like this

http://adlog.com.com/*

and voila... all the ads coming from that website are blocked. Not individual ones... ALL of them. The beautiful part about this is... websites generally only use a couple of these to supply all of their ads... and its made better when the website itself has its own directory for banners... like this for example:

http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/Banners/*

That's a website I visit... it has incredibly annoying ads, but a majority of them are lumped up in their very own banners directory. I obviously don't want to block down to a more base directory, since those are the directories of content on the website I might care about.



Sweet huh? I can't believe I just now realized how to properly use wildcards.

 

[Lucid]

Nifty, tried it on here and it got rid of every single picture. D: Oh crap.

 

[Raziaar]

Nifty, tried it on here and it got rid of every single picture. D: Oh crap.

LOL. Goof.

It's easy to undo them... just go to tools, adblock, preferences... find the one near the bottom that you screwed up on, right click and delete it. Then reload the page.

 

[No Limit]

If you don't want to look at a sites ads don't visit that site. The site owners have to pay for that bandwidth somehow and you really don't have the right to take that away from them. With ad rates going down the pisser more and more you aren't helping the situation much.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Thanks, this is useful.

 

[Raziaar]

If you don't want to look at a sites ads don't visit that site. The site owners have to pay for that bandwidth somehow and you really don't have the right to take that away from them. With ad rates going down the pisser more and more you aren't helping the situation much.

Just my 2 cents.

No offense... but you're completely and utterly delusional.

I don't look at the ads with any sort of interest in the first place... I won't miss anything when they're not flashing obnoxiously at me.

I wouldn't even care about the ads if ads these days weren't incorporating sounds or the aforementioned annoying flash tactics.

You mention bandwidth... well guess what? When I get rid of the ads, I don't have to use up my bandwidth to display it. Ads are taking longer to load than the pages themselves these days. If ad makers and the people who host them wanted more sympathy... they'd produce ads that are less intrusive and less obnoxious. Some ads out there exist like that, and I don't mind them... but most... are horribly annoying.

 

[No Limit]

I wouldn't even care about the ads if ads these days weren't incorporating sounds or the aforementioned annoying flash tactics.

You mention bandwidth... well guess what? When I get rid of the ads, I don't have to use up my bandwidth to display it. Ads are taking longer to load than the pages themselves these days.

If you don't think the information the site you are viewing provides is worth you looking at an ad then close that site and move on to another one, there are billions of them out there.

Just because a web site is free for you to use/view it doesn't mean its free for people like Munro to privode it for you. Every thing in this world costs money, the cost for you to use this web site is your view of an advertisement however it is presented to you, that's a small cost. When you refuse to pay that small cost but still use the web site you are stealing from millions of small web site owners. I am by no means the ehtics police, I'm just stating my personal opinion.

I don't look at the ads with any sort of interest in the first place... I won't miss anything when they're not flashing obnoxiously at me.

Many ad buys consist off a CPM model which means the web site gets paid for every 1,000 impressions of an advertisement. So you don't have to be interested in something, the web site owner still gets paid. It works just like TV advertising where advertisers pay based on ratings.

 

[Gunner]

No Limit, you're not making any sense.

 

[Raziaar]

If you don't think the information the site you are viewing provides is worth you looking at an ad then close that site and move on to another one, there are billions of them out there.

Just because a web site is free for you to use/view it doesn't mean its free for people like Munro to privode it for you. Every thing in this world costs money, the cost for you to use this web site is your view of an advertisement however it is presented to you, that's a small cost. When you refuse to pay that small cost but still use the web site you are stealing from millions of small web site owners. I am by no means the ehtics police, I'm just stating my personal opinion.


Many ad buys consist off a CPM model which means the web site gets paid for every 1,000 impressions of an advertisement. So you don't have to be interested in something, the web site owner still gets paid. It works just like TV advertising where advertisers pay based on ratings.

Hey... I couldn't care less about the woes of small website owners. Here's my point of view. If you want to generate a revenue... put ads on your website. There will always be people either too naive or too sympathetic to be willing to put up with them. I view free websites, because I like websites to be free for me to use. There's only two websites on this entire internet that I pay to use.

If people like Munro are so very intent on people not viewing their ads... and finding means to block them, they have many options. I have provided two of the most logical.

Option number 1: Block access to internet programs such as Firefox that allow plug-ins to prevent ads. This can be done and has been done... don't believe me? Visit this website while using firefox... this guy makes a fuss about it just as much as you do, and he did something about it. Good for him. I won't be viewing his website. http://jacklewis.net/weblog/

Option number 2: Require users to pay a subscription fee. If you're that intent on making sure 100% of the people viewing your website are generating an income for you, make them pay money to use the site. Many websites do this. Many websites don't take a chance like Munro does when he hosts Halflife2.net. Munro is a smart guy, he realizes that people don't like ads. People will do things they have to do to remove ads if it bothers them so much. He realizes that the majority of people won't do anything to block the ads, and he'll still be able to achieve the same goal.

 

[kineaesth]

Just dl'd and installed AdBlock. Top notch, thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Qonfused]

Ads don't bother me enough to care.

 

[Stigmata]

Ads only bother me when they're animated or they increase the dimensions of a page for no reason other than to fit the ad. Naturally, I block a lot of them.

[edit] No Limit: If I'm smart enough to use Adblock and the wildcard feature within Adblock, I'm smart enough to resist advertisements. No ad revenue is lost because there wouldn't be any generated in the first place.

 

[Asus]

I think some of you guys overlooked what No Limit said. It isn't all about the clicks any more. A lot of ads pay from simply being viewed on the site. And with those, by blocking you are denying revenue.

Personally, I don't block ads from the main sites I visit (assuming they don't have annoying ads). I let them make revenue off me and I don't have to do a thing. Better than if that site switched to subscription to make money because the ads where all being blocked...
I mainly have adblock/noscript for those random sites I go to which have tons of flashy banners and ads with sound.

 

[Raziaar]

I think some of you guys overlooked what No Limit said. It isn't all about the clicks any more. A lot of ads pay from simply being viewed on the site. And with those, by blocking you are denying revenue.

Personally, I don't block ads from the main sites I visit (assuming they don't have annoying ads). I let them make revenue off me and I don't have to do a thing. Better than if that site switched to subscription to make money because the ads where all being blocked...
I mainly have adblock/noscript for those random sites I go to which have tons of flashy banners and ads with sound.

Is it a proven fact that a blocked ad via something such as ad-block actually prevents revenue? Are the ads smart enough to realize they've been ad-blocked?

And Asus, I'm the same way... I don't adblock sites I visit a lot if they don't have annoying ads. However, the sites I do visit have INCREDIBLY annoying ads. ******* is one that has tons of flashing and sound ads... c-sharpcorner is one that has crazy annoying flashing ads.

I haven't removed any ads from halflife2.net forums. I don't even see any ads on halflife2.net forums, the only part of halflife2.net I visit.

Could very easily be because of the annoying ads I blocked on a couple other sites were by the same vendors as the ones on this one.

 

[Kyorisu]

Adblock does just that block ads you are still downloading them, just not displaying them on the page. I run adzapper which stops the ads from even being downloaded in the first place.

 

[Gunner]

Some of you are assuming that we have some sort of moral obligation to view or click on the ads which we don't.

 

[Krynn72]

Ads don't bother me enough to care.

Same. I have Stopzilla which stops the pop-ups, which is enough for me.

 

[kirovman]

I thought Valve paid for hl2.net's hosting?

 

[Krynn72]

I thought Valve paid for hl2.net's hosting?

... Really?

 

[Asus]

Adblock does just that block ads you are still downloading them, just not displaying them on the page. I run adzapper which stops the ads from even being downloaded in the first place.

I think adblock has an option where you can select either or. (or so I've read)
But for adblock plus...
"Ever been annoyed by all those ads and banners on the internet that often take longer to download than everything else on the page?"
The first sentence on their page makes me thing it does stop downloading the ads.

I thought Valve paid for hl2.net's hosting?

The website is hosted on their server.

But what about Munro's TF2 server (UK)?

But tbh I'm not sure if ads here go by clicks or impressions.

 

[Fliko]

Adblock does just that block ads you are still downloading them, just not displaying them on the page. I run adzapper which stops the ads from even being downloaded in the first place.

I don't see a program working like that, it'd save resources to just stop you from downloading the ad, which in my world, would be what Adblock would do.

 

[The Brick]

I use this plugin for that combined with adblock plus
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1136


haven't seen an ad in years.

 

[No Limit]

Is it a proven fact that a blocked ad via something such as ad-block actually prevents revenue? Are the ads smart enough to realize they've been ad-blocked?

And Asus, I'm the same way... I don't adblock sites I visit a lot if they don't have annoying ads. However, the sites I do visit have INCREDIBLY annoying ads. ******* is one that has tons of flashing and sound ads... c-sharpcorner is one that has crazy annoying flashing ads.

I haven't removed any ads from halflife2.net forums. I don't even see any ads on halflife2.net forums, the only part of halflife2.net I visit.

Could very easily be because of the annoying ads I blocked on a couple other sites were by the same vendors as the ones on this one.

If the program prevents you from downloading the ad the revenue for that ad is not generated.

You might not care about small web site owners but the fact is small web site owners are the back bone of the internet. The options you posted are illogical from many points of view, including marketing. And like I said, I can't change what you are doing, I'm just pointing out how immoral it is, you can try to justify that in many different ways but you are still stealing.

 

[Raziaar]

If the program prevents you from downloading the ad the revenue for that ad is not generated.

You might not care about small web site owners but the fact is small web site owners are the back bone of the internet. The options you posted are illogical from many points of view, including marketing. And like I said, I can't change what you are doing, I'm just pointing out how immoral it is, you can try to justify that in many different ways but you are still stealing.

It's not immoral at all. Prove to me how it is immoral. It's kind of funny the many many things you claim are not immoral yet this somehow is.

Blocking ads is in NO WAY stealing. I can't believe you think it is. Ad makers are FORCING theirs ads upon me... if I ignore them or block them, that is not stealing... that's just not tolerating harassment. What you say makes no sense. If some some company were to shove thousands of games in my face, and thousands of other objects in order to pay for their mall store rental, if my reaction was to ignore them or hide from them it would not be stealing. Stealing would be ripping the items from their hands and running.

Just admit you are wrong when it comes to a moral standpoint. If some website is free to me to view and use, then it's free for me to view and use to a certain point. Certain legal restrictions apply... but none of those involve the ridiculous notion of it being stealing to block ads.

 

[No Limit]

You are not understanding me here. You visit a free web site. The free web site has to be paid for somehow. And I am not only talking about paying for the bandwidth/servers, I am also talking about paying for the man hours that go in to that web site. Your cost of visiting that web site is viewing an ad. If you refuse to view that ad by blocking it yet you use the content on that web site anyway you are stealing that content.

I have no idea why this is so hard for you to understand, its a fairly simple concept. I am by no means saying I am perfect, all I am trying to say is don't try to justify what you are doing by claiming to be a victim. You have a back button on your browser for a reason, there is nothing stopping you from using it when you see a web site with ads that you don't like.

Many people don't understand how ads online work, that's fine. But when you have been a webmaster since the mid 90s and have seen ad rates plummet down from $10 per 1,000 impressions to 10 cents per 1,000 impressions in less than 10 years you have a slightly bigger understanding of what kind of effect this has on the internet as a whole, and its not pretty.

 

[Kyorisu]

I don't see a program working like that, it'd save resources to just stop you from downloading the ad, which in my world, would be what Adblock would do.

Adzapper runs on my gateway rig, any machine connected to my network goes through it for internet access and hence you don't need adblock.

http://adzapper.sourceforge.net/

"This is a redirector for squid that intercepts advertising (banners, popup windows, flash animations, etc), page counters and some web bugs (as found). This has both aesthetic and bandwidth benefits. It's also easy to install."

Some users on my network have very strict bandwidth quotas and every god damn flash ad that wants to hop around a page chews what little they have very quickly.

 

[Raziaar]

You are not understanding me here. You visit a free web site. The free web site has to be paid for somehow. And I am not only talking about paying for the bandwidth/servers, I am also talking about paying for the man hours that go in to that web site. Your cost of visiting that web site is viewing an ad. If you refuse to view that ad by blocking it yet you use the content on that web site anyway you are stealing that content.

I have no idea why this is so hard for you to understand, its a fairly simple concept. I am by no means saying I am perfect, all I am trying to say is don't try to justify what you are doing by claiming to be a victim. You have a back button on your browser for a reason, there is nothing stopping you from using it when you see a web site with ads that you don't like.

Many people don't understand how ads online work, that's fine. But when you have been a webmaster since the mid 90s and have seen ad rates plummet down from $10 per 1,000 impressions to 10 cents per 1,000 impressions in less than 10 years you have a slightly bigger understanding of what kind of effect this has on the internet as a whole, and its not pretty.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong No Limit. Nothing you says makes any practical sense in the real world. I mean, sure, in an ideal and truly twisted world for some, everybody would spend all their time looking at and clicking ads to support the websites they visit.

I don't see any disclaimer that I have to view the ads in order to view the website content. I haven't seen that form of disclaimer in one single website I've visited. I see many however that encourage people to donate via paypal. But strangely, none that enforce the invisible rule that one has to view ads in order to earn the right to visit web pages.

When ads on television come on advertising their products, I frequently mute the TV and look away to do something on my computer. I don't often view a single full ad when I watch TV. I mean, sure I'm paying for TV now because I have satellite, but I used to watch public TV where I didn't have to pay anything but the electricity. Therefore the same exact rules you apply here, would apply there. Except for one fact... the rules are non existent and I'm not stealing from the television companies. They offered a free service hoping people would view ads so that they could pay for their service in one way. I'm not a villain by completely ignoring those ads.


If I see a site that I enjoy with ads that I don't like, I block those ads. I'm not victimized when I view those ads, but I don't want to see them irregardless.

Fact of the matter is, websites are a gamble. Either you draw enough people to view all your ads and earn enough to support the website and possibly save up enough to support it down the road, or you find better ways to support that website than just relying on ads alone. Because people are not obligated to view ads. I don't care what you say, people are not obligated to view ads.

 

[No Limit]

You are once again ignoring what I am saying. The web site owner does not get paid wether or not you refuse to click on an ad, they get paid simply for you to download that ad. When you don't download that ad they don't get paid for it.

And when you try to compare TV advertising to internet advertising you are comparing apples to oranges. When you skip an ad on TV the tv staion still gets paid. Their ad rates are not decided based on how many people watch an ad, they are decided based on what ratings that tv station or program gets. On the internet it doesn't matter how many visitors a site has, what matters is how many ad impressions are displayed, completely backwards of tv advertising. TV stations have lots of money to make sure you can't skip their ads. Viacom, Time warner, News Corp, all these people have thousands of lawyers on their side. So when TiVo decided to add a 30 second skip to their DVRs they had to back down shortly after because of pressure from these lawyers, in fact if I recall correctly there was a lawsuit against TiVo from these companies. In addition TV networks know you will catch some of their advertising, no matter if you claim you refuse to watch it by pressing the mute button. TV is a very passive activity, a lot of times its easier to just watch the ad than to mute it or change the channel. I have the same mentallity as you do regarding TV ads, yet I still watch many ads on a daily basis, I know you do too.

I am not going to sit here and claim that you having an ad blocker on your computer is the reason the net bubble burst around 2000, but you are certainly not helping. And as more people wise up to these programs the more impact this will have on internet revenue which is already shitty. When you take away the power of these small web sites you are giving more power to the big guys, the same guys that want to control what you can see and can't see online and which web sites will load faster for you while others load slower.

Keep doing what you are doing, I know I can't stop you. Keep justifying it however you want to, as you said, you don't give 2 shits about the small web site owner. I hope that doesn't come back to bite you in the ass a few years down the road when the big telecommunication companies have control of what you can and can't see online.

 

[Kyorisu]

Keep justifying it however you want to, as you said, you don't give 2 shits about the small web site owner.

It's ironic because a small web site owner gets jack all from ad revenue anyway and doesn't cost as much to run. No really how small are we talking? Small in my books means a simple site running on a shared server that would cost all of $10-$20 a month to run. There is no user agreement to view ads much like there is no user agreement to make you watch ads on TV. It's very simple. I block ads because they annoy the crap out of me and I'm never going to click one. Those who block ads are doing nothing wrong and you're doing a great job of trying to paint us as evil doers amongst internet society.

It won't work.

 

[Raziaar]

Please... clarify for everybody here how not liking and subsequently disabling ads supports the abolishment of network neutrality.

No please, go on... don't be shy. Lay out the framework of your opinion on the facts.

This will be interesting.

 

[Kyorisu]

I am not going to sit here and claim that you having an ad blocker on your computer is the reason the net bubble burst around 2000, but you are certainly not helping. And as more people wise up to these programs the more impact this will have on internet revenue which is already shitty. When you take away the power of these small web sites you are giving more power to the big guys, the same guys that want to control what you can see and can't see online and which web sites will load faster for you while others load slower.

Are you serious? I don't know too many quality online small businesses that require advertising on their site or others. But how do the get traffic you ask? Simple they sponsor community events that many people seems to enjoy. This works wonders in the IT world with Lanning events and the like.

Go try scaring the kids at your local playground.

 

[No Limit]

Please... clarify for everybody here how not liking and subsequently disabling ads supports the abolishment of network neutrality.

No please, go on... don't be shy. Lay out the framework of your opinion on the facts.

This will be interesting.

I think I layed it out perfectly in the post above. With each penny you steal from a small web site owner that web site owner has less control over anything in regards to internet policy. To answer Kyorisu's question when I say small web site owner I mean a web site that lives off ad revenue and doesn't bring in any other type of revenue. So sites like this one that probably don't make that much money of ad revenue is small or other sites that make a hefty amount of revenue but are still fairly small in size. Believe it or not there are people out there that live off ad revenue and it is their only source of income. Eventually sites like that do become big and gain control. If the ad rates stayed the same as they did pre-2000 millions of regular people would now be making a living strictly off internet revenue. The more ads you block the less people make it that far and the less control they have over anything. I think the stats show that something like 40,000 people download this program daily, if my math is correct thats around 14 million downloads a year, if you honestly don't think that makes any difference in revenue/control you are lying to yourself.

 

[No Limit]

Are you serious? I don't know too many quality online small businesses that require advertising on their site or others. But how do the get traffic you ask? Simple they sponsor community events that many people seems to enjoy. This works wonders in the IT world with Lanning events and the like.

Go try scaring the kids at your local playground.

You think the way to get traffic to a web site is to sponsor community events? Thank you for that wonderful marketing scheme, I'll get right on it. Now all I need is some money to sponsor those events, money I would probably have if all those people weren't blocking ads on my site.

 

[Kyorisu]

Again with stealing... When you put ads your site you should realize not everyone is going to be seeing them. There is an inherent risk involved when you rely on ad revenue.

You think the way to get traffic to a web site is to sponsor community events? Thank you for that wonderful marketing scheme, I'll get right on it. Now all I need is some money to sponsor those events, money I would probably have if all those people weren't blocking ads on my site.

It's merely one way. Advertising costs money too you know? Ads on your site won't work if you don't have any traffic. So in effect you need to pay for ads and have your own at the same time? Good work there. The reason I mention said sponsored events is because it works for several small hardware groups in Adelaide. If you cannot afford to live/run your site without ad revenue then perhaps you should have reconsidered running the site in the first place. So do please stop the argument that people cannot afford to run their sites without ads. Go become a productive member of your countries economy and earn enough so you can. The internet does not discriminate whilst this marginally helps people out it doesn't at the same time. You are and always will be competing with companies who have more money than you.

Really it comes down to me not putting up with sites that have a stupid amount of ads and I will not endeavor to waste my time unblocking sites which have a sensible amount. Bad luck to the sensible sites, someone went out and screwed it up for you by having a load of flashing crap all over their pages.

 

[No Limit]

Again with stealing... When you put ads your site you should realize not everyone is going to be seeing them. There is an inherent risk involved when you rely on ad revenue.

A risk that gets higher and higher with each year that passes thanks to these crappy programs.

If you cannot afford to live/run your site without revenue then perhaps you should have reconsidered running the site in the first place.

And that is exactly what is happening.

 

[Raziaar]

A risk that gets higher and higher with each year that passes thanks to these crappy programs.

And that is exactly what is happening.

You sound like you work for the Internet Ad Consortium.

 

[No Limit]

You sound like you work for the Internet Ad Consortium.

And you sound like the people that try to justify downloading music, games, and movies illegally by saying they are sticking it to the man when the fact is you aren't some kind of online warrior, they are just a theif. Do I download music once in a while? Sure I do, but I don't try to justify it with bullshit excuses.