backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by RagingDragon.. on Mar 13 at 4:45 PM

How many of you out there are using ad blocking software?

Do you use ad blocking software on your browser?
  • I use Adblock, Flashblock, NoScript, etc. for every site I visit. (2,854 votes)
  •  
    57%
  • I only use Adblock, Flashblock, NoScript, etc. for certain sites. (982 votes)
  •  
    20%
  • I don't use ad blocking software at all. (1,148 votes)
  •  
    23%

  • 4,984 total votes


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By beerhound on 3/8/2010 8:24:15 AM , Rating: 5
I chose this option, but it should really read: "I use Adblock, Flashblock, NoScript, etc, but whitelist the sites that I want to support.

That support is conditional on not getting pop ups/pop unders or the annoying flash movies that start playing automatically without my interaction. The more obnoxious the ad, the more likely I am to turn blocking back on. I understand the need for the ads and as long as they aren't getting shoved down my throat, I'm fine with that.

(BTW, Dailytech is whitelisted)




By DCstewieG on 3/8/2010 5:20:20 PM , Rating: 5
I just whitelisted DT only to get an ad fly in right to the center of the screen. Well, that was a nice 10 seconds.


By Mitch101 on 3/10/2010 12:52:26 PM , Rating: 5
I installed ad blockers shortly after they put popup ads in the words of websites. That was the breaking point for me.


By ebakke on 3/10/2010 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. The picture ads are fine. Whatever. It's the god damn popup ads when your mouse happens to roll over some random word in the middle of the article. If DT removes those, it gets whitelisted.


By tastyratz on 3/10/2010 4:46:22 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed with both of you.
This mouseover minefield is crap. Is there cheese a the bottom of the article maze that we get if we can navigate our mouse through all the ads?

I understand supplementing operating costs with advertising revenue but the more it gets shoved down my throat the more I am going to specifically intentionally avoid it. I would NEVER buy anything through a mouseover link, I don't care WHO it comes from.

If the ads have to be THAT obnoxious to keep a place running then a serious look needs to be taken at the revenue stream.


By karielash on 3/10/2010 5:52:41 PM , Rating: 2

!00% behind this, I answered that I block everything but I to whitelist what I consider to be responsible sites, i.e. sites with a policy towards ad's that is not invasive or downright obnoxious towards their users.

If anything pops up or starts screaming on a rollover the site doesn't make the whitelist.


By MrBlastman on 3/12/2010 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
I use a hosts file. Far more efficient than other software on the computer.

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Free, effective and the best solution.


By RagingDragon on 3/13/2010 4:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Blacklist "intellitxt.com" and "kontera.com" to kill the mouseover popups.


By toyotabedzrock on 3/11/2010 3:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
The text ads where also my breaking point, that and flash ads stepped up there annoyance level by flashing and beeping. Also some advertisers do minimal screening on the flash ads they accept, so viruses end up spreading around.


By atlmann10 on 3/11/2010 2:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I do Beerhound.There was an article/study that popped up the other day about this, and we were discussing it on another site. I am active with ABP as well like you are. The sites I support get green lighted the ones that I don't are red and auto blocked.

I also use flash and noscript like you, but they are actually very useful tools to me. I can edit what I want, and not have to deal with what I don't. I would say a large number of people just let it autorun though. Which to is really wasting half of the functionality of it.


Only flashblock
By altintx on 3/8/2010 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 3
I don't hide ads, I hide flash. If a site opts to show a graphic or text in place of flash, I'm not hiding anything. Because ultimately, I don't care about adblocking, it's the slow-scrolling, fan-spinning and ultimate lack of value add from flash that is being addressed.




RE: Only flashblock
By QuimaxW on 3/8/2010 5:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
This is my scenario. I do not mind most ads, and I understand why they are there. Not having flash applets loading on pages GREATLY speeds up my system.

My favorite add-on is flashblock, which allows the page to show as intended, and if I really want to see the flash, I click that one box or I can white-list an entire site.


RE: Only flashblock
By zephyrxero on 3/11/2010 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Same here...I only block Flash ads. Text & images are just fine...my number one gripe is when an ad has audio...super annoying. Plus new video ads are bandwidth wasters :/


RE: Only flashblock
By B3an on 3/11/2010 1:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
I find adblock will block most of the flash ads anyway as they are normally on the same ad servers, so why bother with flashblock? With flashblock it's annoying having to turn it off or change settings when you visit a site that uses flash to display content or video - which is the majority of the most popular websites on the net.


RE: Only flashblock
By Oregonian2 on 3/11/2010 8:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
I only just recently discovered flashblock and it's wonderful. It probably depends where you go on the web. I hate the stupid flashy moving ads made with flash, drive me crazy. If they were fixed stable ones it'd be okay, it's the flashing made to get my attention that I hate and why I now love flashblock (and I've found ABP not to block very much of the flash that bothers me on the sites I frequent).


Pretty Narrowly Defined Poll
By mindless1 on 3/7/2010 11:39:59 PM , Rating: 4
... it basically excludes anyone running that dubiously most popular browser from Redmond, and all those arguably bloated 3rd party security suites from Symantec et al.




Just stopped using adblock...
By Fox5 on 3/8/2010 5:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
For the longest time, I always had adblock installed on all my computers. However, Arstechnica's recent post about how it harms sites caused me to remove adblock. Flashblock stays however, flash ads are annoying and put a heavy load on the computer (though now that I'm running 10.1 beta it doesn't seem as bad).

I also don't like mouse over pop up ads in text. I already know they contain nothing of value (spammy search results). Ads are fine, as long as they don't obscure the content, once in a while I even click on banner ads, or sideline ads such as those on gmail.




RE: Just stopped using adblock...
By rudy on 3/10/2010 2:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
if a site makes ads over obtrusive like DT does they get blocked because to many sites have done thie that is now the default for me. Ads are good so long as they are flat in the page and not causing slow loading or popping up in the middle of what I want to read. But when they start to make it hard to read or move through a site they are counter productive. I also try not to support companies who purchase such ads.


Hmmm
By Frallan on 3/9/2010 3:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
I feel the neeed to comment on this since I said I block everything. I find most of the flash ads ok however somwhere like 10-20% are so "in my face" that I either block or quit going to the site.

For the record DT and AT are almost without those irritating ads but I have been lazy and not whitelisted them - I will change that.

/F




RE: Hmmm
By Jalek on 3/11/2010 9:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
I toggle them when I think about it.
Then I go to another site and get a floating frame blocking the tiny bit of text content buried among dozens of ads, and the blocks go back on, but not before something stupid like "You have 32 malware infections, click OK to install Malware-Away" pops up.

I'll whitelist this and a few others I use while I'm thinking about it. I'd rather not need to run the plugins by default, but it's been made necessary.


Blacklist bad advertisers
By Xenoterranos on 3/8/2010 1:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
I actually blacklist certain *horrid* ad-serving companies (small, annoying ones that only really serve porn and horridly distracting ads).

So, if a site decides to use any of those particular ad companies, then they don't get my support for those ads. Otherwise, doubleclick and google are 98% of the time OK. (I will disable individual adds if they're too distracting).

As far as I know, I don't have any ads on Anandtech blocked.




By Thats Mr Gopher to you on 3/11/2010 2:58:47 AM , Rating: 1
I only started blocking ads when DailyTech (and maybe AnandTech? I can't recall), which I frequently viewed, started using the in-text, mouseover ads. That was quite a while ago now.

I don't think many people were particularly concerned about blocking ads until they became so obnoxious. The mouseover ads and annoying flash ads seem to be the biggest offenders. It's like having junk mail thrown in your face rather than just placed in your letter box.

The ones to blame are the advertisers for creating these horrible advertising methods and greedy/desperate webmasters who allow too much advertising on their sites.

It seems to be a growing problem with more and more people blocking ads and I think that once someone starts blocking ads it is difficult to get them to stop, even if you change your advertising methods (with the users blocking them any way they come, they will never see the change).

I don't know how this trend could be reversed but if it isn't I can easily see it becoming a major threat to many websites revenue stream. Perhaps some revolutionary change in the way they handle advertising, maybe we all sit down and have a big chat about it, I don't know.

I do feel a little bad about blocking ads but only really when I think about it. I feel annoyed every single time I use some websites if I don't though, so overall, much happier blocking ads.




By Morphine06 on 3/11/2010 10:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I only started blocking ads when DailyTech (and maybe AnandTech? I can't recall), which I frequently viewed, started using the in-text, mouseover ads. That was quite a while ago now.


This drove me crazy, but I never did anything about it. I just came to the site less frequently and didn't click around as much in fear of being annoyed.

The irony is that I tried all three of these addons when I saw the poll. I kept AB and couldn't be happier. The last time I tried AB it didn't work quite as well. I guess the filters are more up-to-date than they were before.


I'm a user
By nafhan on 3/8/2010 9:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
There's a lot of sites I just wouldn't go to without adblock.
My other thought: It might not be cost effective, but if sites like dailytech or ars technica personally vetted and then displayed only text or simple (non-animated) picture ads, that were not annoying, it would get past adblock, it wouldn't bother me, and I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to block them.




hmm...
By ZaethDekar on 3/8/2010 11:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
I actually just use the built in IE blocker on my gaming rig, then on my netbook I use SRware Iron (Google chrome minus some stuff) and don't use any special settings. I don't ever had popups unless its something that I need to popup.




Never block ads
By monomer on 3/8/2010 12:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
I never use an ad blocker since I know that many sites depend on ad views (no just clicks) for their revenue, and that just by visiting their page, I am using their bandwidth. If I don't like the ads, I don't visit the site, though I'm pretty tolerant, and the only ads that really bother me are the ones that make sounds o their own.

That said, at times I will check out some pages from work during my break, and we have an ad-blocker integrated into our content filter, so only some ads get displayed.




jflsd
By NullSubroutine on 3/8/2010 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
Truth is, I used to not mind ads, as they were simple, not pushed into your face, and didn't ruin your experience of a place. Any more it is nearly impossible to NOT have the above occur without blocking the ad content.

I also have had near computer infections because of virus in advertisements and since adblock+ and no-script I haven't had to deal with it.

I understand the need for advertising revenue but, most cites advertising makes me want to not only not come back to that site, but also not buy any of the products that are being advertised.




Adblock plus Flashblock here
By SeanFowler on 3/8/2010 4:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
I started blocking ads once they started making noise, although the distracting animations were a big factor too.

Before reading this I hadn't considered allowing ads on certain sites, but now I'll give it some thought. If the ads are too intrusive they'll get disabled again though.




Opera has built-in ad blocker
By Motoman on 3/8/2010 9:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
...no need for something else. That option is missing from your poll...




Blocking Flash Ads
By Dread Ire on 3/9/2010 12:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
I started using ad blocking when looping flash ads made reading the content very difficult. I understand using ads and I use on my site too. However I made a point to avoid intrusive ads and crafted the placement of the ads so that the content and ads flow together and don't become jarring or distracting.

Another reason I continue to adblock, is that my ISP injects ads into the stream and unless I have adblocking on, I get these fly-through ads that won't let me do anything until I dismiss them.

I have started whitelisting sites like Ars that keep the Flash animation down to one loop, though getting rid of flash ads altogether would be a huge leap forward.




2cents
By invidious on 3/9/2010 11:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
Only thing I use is the Opera's built in "block unwanted popups". I dont know if you would consider that ad block software, I dont. Its on by default I believe.




A more fundamental issue
By davidellis101 on 3/9/2010 9:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is not whether to block or not to block it is more fundamental.

There is an implicit assumption that advertising in its current format will continue as it has always done. In other words an industrial-age concept of billboards can be successfully grafted onto the information superhighway.

This is working at the moment only because an alternative has not yet emerged where vendors can meet with consumers in a more efficient, less intrusive and more cost-effective environment.

advertising mediums are inevitable and are starting to appear right now. One example is the Customer Satisfaction Monitor which has recently been launched.

This Customer Satisfaction Monitor (http://www.customersatisfactionmonitor.com) answers the three most important pre-purchase questions and introduces a new step into the sales process. Advertisers can now target prospects at a very crucial point in the sales process much more cost-effectively and less intrusively because the consumer is in control.

As an advertiser it will be increasingly uneconomical to advertise elsewhere because potential customers will be ambushed by competitors at services like the Customer Satisfaction Monitor. Industrial-age advertising will, as a result, wither on the vine.

For those services relying on advertising it is time to rethink your revenue model.




Only use Flashblock..
By ummduh on 3/9/2010 11:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely can not stand flash. Most due to flash ads. It's utterly ridiculous now a days. Whatever happened to good old fashioned, 10-15kb animated .gif?? No noise, no popping into the whole freakin page and forcing you to close it, no 100% cpu utilization..

I'm sick of it. I can't wait until youtube/hulu convert away from flash, it will get uninstalled ASAP.

I've got no problem with ads. If you put normal ads on your page I won't block them. But flash gets blocked 100% of the time!




Adblock/Noscript
By piroroadkill on 3/10/2010 6:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
I use Adblock plus and Noscript at all times, only temporarily allowing sites I intend to visit once/rarely




By Jackattak on 3/10/2010 5:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Internet without AdBlock sucks. I cannot stand when I get behind someone's computer running IE with no AdBlock.

FF & AdBlock makes the Internet a better place.




IE here
By Spivonious on 3/11/2010 10:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
I don't mind the banner ads, since they support the sites I visit, but those ones that pop up when you hover over certain words are very annoying. I added that site (intellitxt.com) to my list of Restricted Sites in IE8 so they no longer load.




no need to block
By wordsworm on 3/11/2010 10:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
To be frank, I simply do not seem to have the issues that many others have mentioned here or at Arstechnica, where the discussion seems to have started. I don't have any annoying artifacts from accidentally rolling over an ad or anything like that. I haven't had a virus or worm infect my computer since I switched to FF around 2005. I don't have performance issues from browsing most webpages. Maybe if I had a dozen or two open at one time, rather than just a few for the most part, then it would be different.

Writers get their paycheques from ads, so it's a small burden in my estimation to leave it on so that the owners, investors, and writers can make a bit of money and I can have a bit of geek speak.




no need to block
By wordsworm on 3/11/2010 10:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
To be frank, I simply do not seem to have the issues that many others have mentioned here or at Arstechnica, where the discussion seems to have started. I don't have any annoying artifacts from accidentally rolling over an ad or anything like that. I haven't had a virus or worm infect my computer since I switched to FF around 2005. I don't have performance issues from browsing most webpages. Maybe if I had a dozen or two open at one time, rather than just a few for the most part, then it would be different.

Writers get their paycheques from ads, so it's a small burden in my estimation to leave it on so that the owners, investors, and writers can make a bit of money and I can have a bit of geek speak.




Gotta come prepared
By scrapsma54 on 3/7/2010 7:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
Interwebs needs to stay protected from a minority report era.




For me, there is no reason to use these programs
By Qi on 3/8/10, Rating: -1
By mindless1 on 3/8/2010 4:34:30 PM , Rating: 3
Remember it has little to nothing to do with how fast YOUR internet connection is, the site does not have bandwidth equal to the aggregate bandwidth of all visitors.

A lot of websites don't load in a second or two during their busy periods each day.

When ads end up consuming over half the bandwidth served, I can totally understand someone blocking them to speed up access. After all, someone tends to do that only after noticing things are going a bit slow.


RE: For me, there is no reason to use these programs
By Qi on 3/9/10, Rating: 0
By mindless1 on 3/9/2010 6:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
You seem to be overlooking or ignoring my point. Websites, including Dailytech do not have as much bandwidth as the aggregate bandwidth of all simultaneous users.

We can pretty much throw dial-up users out the window since they know easily what is needed to have faster page loads.

Fasterfox does not speed up page loading, it slows down page loading because it's making multiple simultaneous requests to pages other than the one you are trying to load first.

I'm sorry but you have no grasp at all on the issues.


RE: For me, there is no reason to use these programs
By Qi on 3/10/2010 6:19:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You seem to be overlooking or ignoring my point. Websites, including Dailytech do not have as much bandwidth as the aggregate bandwidth of all simultaneous users.
No, and I'm not disputing that at all. I'm saying that available bandwidth is still high enough to serve all users at peak time, and still high enough to load the entire website in a couple of seconds. That is, if your internet connection is fast enough. A websites can serve its content super fast, but if your home internet connection is slow as hell, page loading is slow too.

quote:
We can pretty much throw dial-up users out the window since they know easily what is needed to have faster page loads.
So now you agree that the home internet connection indeed matters? What you said before, "it has little to nothing to do with how fast YOUR internet connection is", is indeed nonsense. It's part of the equation. Note that I'm not the one disputing that site bandwith matters, I'm merely pointing out that a sufficiently fast home internet connection matters too.

quote:
Fasterfox does not speed up page loading, it slows down page loading because it's making multiple simultaneous requests to pages other than the one you are trying to load first.
If you really believe this, I'd suggest that you turn your maximum simultaneous http connections down to '1' and see how much of a difference it makes to have more than one connection to a website open at the time. Opening multiple connections is one of the things that Fasterfox is doing to speed up page loading.

quote:
I'm sorry but you have no grasp at all on the issues.
This is ironic, coming from someone who says that the speed of your home internet connection is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to page loading.


By mindless1 on 3/11/2010 6:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
... because the speed of your internet connection IS irrelevant under the assumption that if you care at all about page loading speed you already have a reasonable tier of broadband.

Did that REALLY need to be stated or can't we skip over the Class 101 obvious stuff?

Available bandwidth at MANY popular websites is not high enough to serve all users within 1-2 seconds. Maybe it used to be, but then we started seeing more and more flash animations and advertisements.

Perhaps your ISP is using some caching so you aren't realizing this.


RE: For me, there is no reason to use these programs
By Qi on 3/12/2010 6:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
Lets be clear about this. I'm not disputing that sites have limited bandwidth, I'm merely stating that the speed of your home internet connection matters as well. It's part of the equation and cannot be discounted. And it had to be stated, since you ignored this fact in your very first post:

Remember it has little to nothing to do with how fast YOUR internet connection is, the site does not have bandwidth equal to the aggregate bandwidth of all visitors.

This is nonsense. 1.) If your home internet connection is slow, page loading will be slow too, even if the page you are visiting serves its content very fast. 2.) Most popular websites have more than enough bandwidth to serve content swiftly to all users, even at peak time.

And no, I'm not using a proxy. Despite not using a proxy, most websites that I visit still load in several seconds. Sure, websites will load even faster with some ad blocking software, but that very slight speed increase is not worth it. Ad blocking software can, and will, screw over site layout, and sometimes advertisments are worth seeing. Furthermore, if everyone blocked site advertisement, site revenue would drop dramatically.


By mindless1 on 3/13/2010 12:15:36 AM , Rating: 2
... and I'm saying the whole argument is a non-starter, that it's pointless to mention anything at all relating to such issues if a person doesn't yet have broadband.

The fact is, many popular website do not ACTUALLY serve content "swiftly", depending on your subjective interpretation of what threshold that is, at peak times with all ads loading.

Insist it all you like, but I've been to far too many locations with broadband and seen that it is simply not true. Broadband should improve page loading speeds, not give websites a margin to let pages get more and more bloated.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki