C:\PROGRAM



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    AdBlock Plus's default configuration is to allow unobtrusive, text-only ads. I'm ok with this;
    I was too, until I had a rash of customer boxes infected with fuck knows what because Google's top search results for whatever they were trying to install were sponsored links to a bunch of scummy foistware-bundling download sites. Unobtrusive or not, there is no upside to fetching that shit.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    The HMTL for an ellipsis is "…", use it for bonus points.

    I use AltGR+; in my HMTLs.

    Which is considered best practice for these things? I'd assume the unicode characters would end up making slightly smaller files, but that the HTML entities would have slightly better compatibility (which is probably not a concern nowadays.)



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    I wasn't referring to the proposed bot, but to blakey's claim that ad blocking is fraud in general.

    I never claimed that.

    Is there a forum kind of like this one, but populated with literate people? I'd like to visit that forum.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Is there a forum kind of like this one, but populated with literate people? I'd like to visit that forum.

    But then it wouldn't be populated with literate people anymore :/



  • Also, serious questions: do you watch ads on tv? Do you listen to radio ads? Do you read newspaper ads? (Or, if you learn to read, will you?) Do you listen to robocalls? Do you read ads along the side of the road?

    I mean, I know you've never been close to morally consistent (which is why I still assume "blakeyrat" is an account half the forum uses to troll), but if you answer no to any of those (at least, any where you consume content) then we at least know you can be safely ignored for the duration of this.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @HardwareGeek said:
    AdBlock Plus's default configuration is to allow unobtrusive, text-only ads. I'm ok with this;
    I was too, until I had a rash of customer boxes infected with fuck knows what because Google's top search results for whatever they were trying to install were sponsored links to a bunch of scummy foistware-bundling download sites. Unobtrusive or not, there is no upside to fetching that shit.
    Yeah, I can see where I might agree if I had to administer boxes for lusers. Fortunately(?), the only admin rights I have are to my own machines, and I know enough not to do that. In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result. Google makes enough money; why make $randomWebSite pay Google for my click when the ad had absolutely no effect on my decision to visit?



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    That logical leap is what he is reffering to when saying you argue in bad faith. You assume others are as dumb as you, and that their logic is as flawed as yours.

    That's not quite what I'm assuming he's assuming. I'm assuming he's assuming that I'll assume that there is some sympathetic reading of the bullshit he spouts that would gyp me into taking it as a serious attempt at argument rather than mere point-scoring, and that he's also assuming I'll feel some kind of obligation to do the kind and supportive lefty thing of bending over backwards to explain myself until I start to see some tiny indication that he's actually stopped to think outside his own preconceived boxes for five seconds and given some non-asshat viewpoint a ghost of a chance at a fair hearing. But he shouldn't assume that any more, because I've given that method a pretty good run and got nowhere at all with it.

    Boomzilla's quite articulate for a right winger, so for a long time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was actually capable of doing more than parroting Fox talking points. Can't be arsed to do that any more. It's more fun just to mirror his own arrogant dismissiveness and condescension or wind him up with the occasional straight-up insult. Sad but true.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?



  • @flabdablet said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    That logical leap is what he is reffering to when saying you argue in bad faith. You buttume others are as dumb as you, and that their logic is as flawed as yours.

    That's not quite what I'm buttuming he's buttuming. I'm buttuming he's buttuming that I'll buttume that there is some sympathetic reading of the bullshit he spouts that would gyp me into taking it as a serious attempt at argument rather than mere point-scoring, and that he's also buttuming I'll feel some kind of obligation to do the kind and supportive lefty thing of bending over backwards to explain myself until I start to see some tiny indication that he's actually stopped to think outside his own preconceived boxes for five seconds and given some non-butthat viewpoint a ghost of a chance at a fair hearing. But he shouldn't buttume that any more, because I've given that method a pretty good run and got nowhere at all with it.

    Boomzilla's quite articulate for a right winger, so for a long time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and buttumed he was actually capable of doing more than parroting Fox talking points. Can't be buttd to do that any more. It's more fun just to mirror his own arrogant dismissiveness and condescension or wind him up with the occasional straight-up insult. Sad but true.

    Careful now, that's an awful lot of buttumptions.


  • Considered Harmful

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    The HMTL for an ellipsis is "…", use it for bonus points.

    I use AltGR+; in my HMTLs.

    Which is considered best practice for these things? I'd assume the unicode characters would end up making slightly smaller files, but that the HTML entities would have slightly better compatibility (which is probably not a concern nowadays.)

    Best practice is UTF-8 everywhere and send a Content-Type (and meta tag) indicating its usage. Most of the modern web specs mandate UTF-8 support, and I've really never seen a client from the past decade that couldn't interpret it.

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @flabdablet said:

    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Bear in mind that click-through isn't the only reason for a web-ad to exist. “Building potential customer awareness” is another, which boils down to “tell people that you exist and are cool and maybe they'll ‘spontaneously’ choose you when they want that sort of thing”. It's a major basis for a lot of advertising, and it definitely seems to work. (Either that or virtually all those damn adverts for watches and perfume coming up to Christmas are a total waste of time.)


  • Considered Harmful

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    Filed under: s/a[rs]se?/butt/gi

    Maybe s/a(rse|ss)/butt/gi. Otherwise it might turn you into a Buttmbly Coder instead.


  • Considered Harmful

    @dkf said:

    @flabdablet said:
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Bear in mind that click-through isn't the only reason for a web-ad to exist. “Building potential customer awareness” is another, which boils down to “tell people that you exist and are cool and maybe they'll ‘spontaneously’ choose you when they want that sort of thing”. It's a major basis for a lot of advertising, and it definitely seems to work. (Either that or virtually all those damn adverts for watches and perfume coming up to Christmas are a total waste of time.)

    I'd actually believe this for things like sponsors for eg sporting events.

    Uneducated Consumer 1: "What kind of TV should I buy?"
    Mindless Hipster Wannabe 2: "That SONY brand seems legit, I see that name all over the place."



  • @dkf said:

    “Building potential customer awareness” is another, which ... definitely seems to work.
    That's certainly what the ad agencies will tell you. Mind you, there's another empty suit working one cubicle away and he's telling your competitors the exact same thing.

    @dkf said:

    Either that or virtually all those damn adverts for watches and perfume coming up to Christmas are a total waste of time.
    Now you're getting the idea.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    Filed under: s/a[rs]se?/butt/gi

    Maybe s/a(rse|ss)/butt/gi. Otherwise it might turn you into a Buttmbly Coder instead.
    s/arse|ass/butt/gi is both shorter and more obviously correct.


  • Considered Harmful

    @flabdablet said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    Filed under: s/a[rs]se?/butt/gi

    Maybe s/a(rse|ss)/butt/gi. Otherwise it might turn you into a Buttmbly Coder instead.
    s/arse|ass/butt/gi is both shorter and more obviously correct.

    Aha! So you concede default!



  • @flabdablet said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    Filed under: s/a[rs]se?/butt/gi

    Maybe s/a(rse|ss)/butt/gi. Otherwise it might turn you into a Buttmbly Coder instead.
    s/arse|ass/butt/gi is both shorter and more obviously correct.

    Is that just because s/a(rse|ss)/butt/gi wastes a capture group it doesn't capture?

    I mean, really, we need to account for case here too, something like s/rse|ss/butt/gi;s/A/B/g;s/a/b/g;


  • Considered Harmful

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @joe.edwards said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    Filed under: s/a[rs]se?/butt/gi

    Maybe s/a(rse|ss)/butt/gi. Otherwise it might turn you into a Buttmbly Coder instead.
    s/arse|ass/butt/gi is both shorter and more obviously correct.

    Is that just because s/a(rse|s{2})/butt/gi wastes a capture group but doesn't capture?

    s/a(?:rse|ss)/butt/gi


  • Goddammit people. Fuck this.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Goddammit people. Fuck this.

    Not my fault!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Goddammit people. Fuck this.

    It's like Slashdot, except you can't downvote the assholes.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @HardwareGeek said:
    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Genuine answer: I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I keep track of, but I would be rather surprised if I had intentionally clicked more than one or two ads in the last year. Most likely reason for having done so: Curiosity, "WTF is that weird stuff they're advertising?" Least likely reason for having done so: Wanting to actually buy something that was advertised.

    I probably clicked more ads accidentally. Likely reasons for having done that: 1) It was masquerading as a content link, 2) A pop-up ad had a fake "dismiss" X that really clicked-through.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Goddammit people. Fuck this.

    Not my fault!

    You're still the "worst of the worst" in my heart.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @HardwareGeek said:
    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Genuine answer: I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I keep track of, but I would be rather surprised if I had intentionally clicked more than one or two ads in the last year. Most likely reason for having done so: Curiosity, "WTF is that weird stuff they're advertising?" Least likely reason for having done so: Wanting to actually buy something that was advertised.

    I probably clicked more ads accidentally. Likely reasons for having done that: 1) It was masquerading as a content link, 2) A pop-up ad had a fake "dismiss" X that really clicked-through.

    CTRs aren't always that big of a deal, either. Sure, for the "One Weird Trick to Cure Aliens Parasites!" ads, they care, because they're more-or-less black market anyway.

    But a lot of brands just want brand awareness. Coke and Lexus care less if you visit their site and more if they get you to see their latest thing. (And before someone says "That still doesn't work on me!" you are wrong, advertising absolutely does work on everyone with a brain. What's interesting about that is that "smart" people often think they're too clever to be tricked by the plain ads like all the "great unwashed masses". But those are precisely the people who are easily manipulated by more insidious forms of advertising. Good ads teach you what to want. Great ads teach you how to want.)

    Look at all the anti-consumer people who have matching skinny jeans ($170, Urban Outfitters), Priuses, "tribal" tatts and more shitty Apple equipment than a Cupertino public school during tax season.

    Look at Whole Foods: this is a store founded on the idea that people will pay four times as much for broccoli so long as poor, unfashionable people aren't allowed in the store. Pseudo-scientific products which all claim vague health benefits and which subtly imply you will die without them? That shit flies off the shelves. Macrobiotic toilet paper that's packaged slightly differently from what working-class people can buy? You can feel the elitism with every ass-wiping!

    If all of this sounds bad to you, I suspect you are very naive and have a very high opinion of yourself. Manipulation is everywhere, and at least ads are only trying to get kids to smoke cigarettes and not something evil, like selling people on racism or socialized healthcare. Well, in that last case Obamacare has had some really shameless ad campaigns.. and Obama has actually been sold by a massive, coordinated ad campaign. So that's shitty.

    But that's my point: if ads are selling you on dish soap, it ain't so bad. It's when they're selling you other things that you should worry.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @HardwareGeek said:
    @flabdablet said:
    @HardwareGeek said:
    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Genuine answer: I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I keep track of, but I would be rather surprised if I had intentionally clicked more than one or two ads in the last year. Most likely reason for having done so: Curiosity, "WTF is that weird stuff they're advertising?" Least likely reason for having done so: Wanting to actually buy something that was advertised.

    I probably clicked more ads accidentally. Likely reasons for having done that: 1) It was masquerading as a content link, 2) A pop-up ad had a fake "dismiss" X that really clicked-through.

    CTRs aren't always that big of a deal, either. Sure, for the "One Weird Trick to Cure Aliens Parasites!" ads, they care, because they're more-or-less black market anyway.

    But a lot of brands just want brand awareness. Coke and Lexus care less if you visit their site and more if they get you to see their latest thing. (And before someone says "That still doesn't work on me!" you are wrong, advertising absolutely does work on everyone with a brain. What's interesting about that is that "smart" people often think they're too clever to be tricked by the plain ads like all the "great unwashed masses". But those are precisely the people who are easily manipulated by more insidious forms of advertising. Good ads teach you what to want. Great ads teach you how to want.)

    Look at all the anti-consumer people who have matching skinny jeans ($170, Urban Outfitters), Priuses, "tribal" tatts and more shitty Apple equipment than a Cupertino public school during tax season.

    Look at Whole Foods: this is a store founded on the idea that people will pay four times as much for broccoli so long as poor, unfashionable people aren't allowed in the store. Pseudo-scientific products which all claim vague health benefits and which subtly imply you will die without them? That shit flies off the shelves. Macrobiotic toilet paper that's packaged slightly differently from what working-class people can buy? You can feel the elitism with every ass-wiping!

    If all of this sounds bad to you, I suspect you are very naive and have a very high opinion of yourself. Manipulation is everywhere, and at least ads are only trying to get kids to smoke cigarettes and not something evil, like selling people on racism or socialized healthcare. Well, in that last case Obamacare has had some really shameless ad campaigns.. and Obama has actually been sold by a massive, coordinated ad campaign. So that's shitty.

    But that's my point: if ads are selling you on dish soap, it ain't so bad. It's when they're selling you other things that you should worry.

    So why exactly should I want to expose myself to this garbage? To be "educated" on how to want? "Demented" indeed! Wanting is literally the opposite of the mental development.

    Thanks for yet another reason to block all ads!



  • @Captain Oblivious said:

    Wanting is literally the opposite of the mental development.

    This is probably the stupidest thing any person has ever written here. Congrats!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Captain Oblivious said:
    Wanting is literally the opposite of the mental development.

    This is probably the stupidest thing any person has ever written here. Congrats!

    Damnit, now I have to win my title back.

    Here goes

    Black people are made of toaster water!

    No, it's just not the same :(



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And before someone says "That still doesn't work on me!" you are wrong, advertising absolutely does work on everyone with a brain. What's interesting about that is that "smart" people often think they're too clever to be tricked by the plain ads like all the "great unwashed masses". But those are precisely the people who are easily manipulated by more insidious forms of advertising.
    I thought you were in the pro-advertising, anti-blocking camp. You sure seem to have flip-flopped in that post. The most positive thing you said about advertising is that some ads "ain't so bad." And that bit I quoted, if ever there were a reason to block ads, that's it on a silver platter.

    I also find it interesting that you chose to use the word "insidious" to describe advertising, as that word cannot in any way be construed in an even slightly positive light. Yes, I realize you only described some advertising as insidious, but I would say definition 1 applies to pretty much all advertising.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And before someone says "That still doesn't work on me!" you are wrong, advertising absolutely does work on everyone with a brain. What's interesting about that is that "smart" people often think they're too clever to be tricked by the plain ads like all the "great unwashed masses". But those are precisely the people who are easily manipulated by more insidious forms of advertising.
    Thank you. That's as good a summary as any of advertising's most fundamentally vile characteristic, and seems to me to be more than sufficient justification for considering advertisers to belong in the same moral category as loan sharks and other practitioners of the less refined forms of coercion.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    But that's my point: if ads are selling you on dish soap, it ain't so bad. It's when they're selling you other things that you should worry.

    I do worry, which is precisely why I choose to limit my own exposure to advertising, and that of my kids, to the greatest extent that I can. If that strikes you as "naive", perhaps you might care to reflect on how you might have come by a belief that having your preferences manipulated by people whose best interests have no reason to be aligned with your own is a necessary or desirable feature of life in 2014.

    The first product the advertising industry needs to sell is itself, and "there is no alternative" makes a very effective exploit carrier. In my view, TINA is a belief that every free human being is better off not holding.


  • Considered Harmful

    @HardwareGeek said:

    @flabdablet said:
    @HardwareGeek said:
    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Genuine answer: I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I keep track of, but I would be rather surprised if I had intentionally clicked more than one or two ads in the last year. Most likely reason for having done so: Curiosity, "WTF is that weird stuff they're advertising?" Least likely reason for having done so: Wanting to actually buy something that was advertised.

    I probably clicked more ads accidentally. Likely reasons for having done that: 1) It was masquerading as a content link, 2) A pop-up ad had a fake "dismiss" X that really clicked-through.

    3. I was viewing the site on my phone and it either a) misinterpreted my swipe as a click, b) had a 800x300 ad next to a 40x12 link and I missed, or c) it decided randomly to open the App Store with no apparent interaction whatsoever. Seriously, browsing on my phone is a constant reminder just how infuriating advertising can make the web.

    Speaking of infuriating UX on the web, this post took nearly 20 minutes to compose due to what seems to be a new XBox One bug: space, caps, and backspace now have a 2-5 second variable delay and if you just keep typing the space/capital/deletion goes in the wrong place.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @HardwareGeek said:
    @flabdablet said:
    @HardwareGeek said:
    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Genuine answer: I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I keep track of, but I would be rather surprised if I had intentionally clicked more than one or two ads in the last year. Most likely reason for having done so: Curiosity, "WTF is that weird stuff they're advertising?" Least likely reason for having done so: Wanting to actually buy something that was advertised.

    I probably clicked more ads accidentally. Likely reasons for having done that: 1) It was masquerading as a content link, 2) A pop-up ad had a fake "dismiss" X that really clicked-through.

    3. I was viewing the site on my phone and it either a) misinterpreted my swipe as a click, b) had a 800x300 ad next to a 40x12 link and I missed, or c) it decided randomly to open the App Store with no apparent interaction whatsoever. Seriously, browsing on my phone is a constant reminder just how infuriating advertising can make the web.

    Speaking of infuriating UX on the web, this post took nearly 20 minutes to compose due to what seems to be a new XBox One bug: space, caps, and backspace now have a 2-5 second variable delay and if you just keep typing the space/capital/deletion goes in the wrong place.

    There's this amazing new technology called a "computer" which does not have that problem.

    There's an even newer technology called a "TelligentZimbra Community Server" which has that problem, even if used with a "computer".


  • Considered Harmful

    @Ben L. said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @HardwareGeek said:
    @flabdablet said:
    @HardwareGeek said:
    In fact, I make it a point never to click a sponsored link in Google results, even if it is the actual site I was looking for; I scroll down to the "organic" search result.
    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?
    Genuine answer: I don't know. It's not the sort of thing I keep track of, but I would be rather surprised if I had intentionally clicked more than one or two ads in the last year. Most likely reason for having done so: Curiosity, "WTF is that weird stuff they're advertising?" Least likely reason for having done so: Wanting to actually buy something that was advertised.

    I probably clicked more ads accidentally. Likely reasons for having done that: 1) It was masquerading as a content link, 2) A pop-up ad had a fake "dismiss" X that really clicked-through.

    3. I was viewing the site on my phone and it either a) misinterpreted my swipe as a click, b) had a 800x300 ad next to a 40x12 link and I missed, or c) it decided randomly to open the App Store with no apparent interaction whatsoever. Seriously, browsing on my phone is a constant reminder just how infuriating advertising can make the web.

    Speaking of infuriating UX on the web, this post took nearly 20 minutes to compose due to what seems to be a new XBox One bug: space, caps, and backspace now have a 2-5 second variable delay and if you just keep typing the space/capital/deletion goes in the wrong place.

    There's this amazing new technology called a "computer" which does not have that problem.

    There's an even newer technology called a "TelligentZimbra Community Server" which has that problem, even if used with a "computer".

    Meh. My computer machine is all the way upstairs. The typing problem occurs on all sites, not just this one; and just about every space I typed ended up three letters late, and then I ended up erasing the wrong character. Indescribably bad. But stairs.


  • @HardwareGeek said:

    I thought you were in the pro-advertising, anti-blocking camp. You sure seem to have flip-flopped in that post. The most positive thing you said about advertising is that some ads "ain't so bad." And that bit I quoted, if ever there were a reason to block ads, that's it on a silver platter.

    I.. I really hope we find or invent hyper-intelligent lifeforms soon so I can stop having to deal with people who can't read. First off, I never said all advertising is bad. What I said is that the people who claim straight-forward advertising doesn't work on them are the ones who are most easily manipulated by companies like Whole Foods, Apple, the Democratic Party, etc.. Personally I find those companies and their deceptive advertising repugnant but: 1) they have a right to advertise; and 2) it's a wonderful bit a schandenfreude to see hipster douchebags like flabbydablet manipulated so easily.

    Second, none of that has anything to do with blocking ads. If you want to see my content, you will look at my ads. End of story. Don't like it? Get the fuck out. I'm in favor of deliberately serving malware to people who block ads.

    @HardwareGeek said:

    I also find it interesting that you chose to use the word "insidious" to describe advertising, as that word cannot in any way be construed in an even slightly positive light. Yes, I realize you only described some advertising as insidious, but I would say definition 1 applies to pretty much all advertising.

    I used it to describe a particular form of advertising used by specific companies that target mentally-defective assholes who claim they aren't affected by ads, but who are so easy to wrap around my little finger I could probably convince them to kill themselves. (In fact, that's more-or-less what the people advertising Obama did. Not to mention the people who have pushed "global warming climate change disruption chaos" and convinced people to sterilize themselves or commit suicide.)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I think you're missing the previous context.

    And I think you can't (read as "don't") read.

    @boomzilla said:
    I said he was using a derogatory word to unfairly give something a negative connotation.

    You did not say that, actually, but that's irrelevant

    When you get to 2nd grade, you'll learn about synonyms and how there is often more than one way to say something, and probably how you should read the whole sentence. In this case, instead of "give something a negative connotation," I originally said, "think bad thoughts about things that aren't bad."

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    He pointed out that was not specific to lefties, by using an example of a term given a negative connotation by righties.

    He used a negative term for something that I say isn't negative. Definitely not in the way the term implied. He came up with an example of a negative term for execrable behavior (welfare queen).

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    @boomzilla said:
    At the very least, he's saying there's nothing wrong with fraud.

    That logical leap is what he is reffering to when saying you argue in bad faith. You assume others are as dumb as you, and that their logic is as flawed as yours.

    The logical leap was keeping track of the conversation. That neither of you are apparently capable of this would explain a lot.

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I think my interpretation of words was right on here.

    And I think you should consider going to google for definitions more often.

    Deal. If you consider reading the thread more often.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Snooder said:

    So, if you listen to the radio and change channels when ads come on, you are defrauding the ad network. If you drive down the highway and avoid looking at highways signs, you are defrauding the billboard company.

    No, the right analogy for flabdablet's ad downloader would be to inflate the radio station's listener estimate, as I believe that's how these things get priced.

    @Snooder said:

    And yeah, that business model breaks down when people start using adBlock. No shit. That just means that the consumers really don't want to see ads.They may have a social obligation to keep the status quo going, but they have zero legal or contractual responsibility to do so. And if enough consumers reject the "implicit" social obligation, it quickly ceases to be one, and it becomes incumbent on the content creators to find a new way to get someone to pay for their shit.

    Yes, this is ultimately the main reason I stopped using ad blockers. I don't see it as fraud, but I prefer to help out the sites I use, and having their ads display is usually a reasonable trade off for me, especially since I seem to have blocked out the guys with the fakey popup flash links.

    I haven't kept up on ads and how people are paid for hosting them. But I could see how blocking annoying ads and not blocking less intrusive ads could make the annoying ads less profitable. This assumes that sites get paid for their site displaying the ads or for getting clicks. Either way, if an ad is blocked, it produces no revenue for the site. If a large enough proportion of site users block the annoying ads, wouldn't this be noticed, giving an incentive for less annoying ads? Of course, some would take that as impetus to produce more intrusive ads to overcome the reduced response. But, doesn't this at least give the site owner the incentive to host less intrusive stuff, ceteris paribus?

    I bring this up, because the most aggressive anti-ad blockers tell us that blocking ads sends the wrong signals to advertisers and those who depend on them, and it doesn't seem quite right. But I neither host nor serve ads, so I could be under the wrong impression.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @flabdablet said:

    Boomzilla's quite articulate for a right winger, so for a long time I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was actually capable of doing more than parroting FoxKoch talking points.

    FTFY. You're way behind. But I like the irony of accusing me of using talking points.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    ]I thought you were in the pro-advertising, anti-blocking camp. You sure seem to have flip-flopped in that post.
     

    Pay attention. That was a well-reasoned morbius post.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Genuine question: when was the last time you were actually interested in a web ad enough to click through it, and after having done so did you end up better off?

    Once. Bought a book.

    @dkf said:

    It's a major basis for a lot of advertising, and it definitely seems to work.

    Brand awareness is a strong and valuable effect.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    If a large enough proportion of site users block the annoying ads, wouldn't this be noticed, giving an incentive for less annoying ads?
     

    What if the ad producers don't realize it's because the ad is annoying? All I can say with blocking is Aye or Nay and leave the witless advertizer to divine my motivations.

    Still blocking flash, though.

    @boomzilla said:

    But, doesn't this at least give the site owner the incentive to host less intrusive stuff, ceteris paribus?

    Can they do that? Is there a poorly programmed control panel dashboard somewhere, where content creators can log in and check a box "no flash ads pls"?

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:
    If a large enough proportion of site users block the annoying ads, wouldn't this be noticed, giving an incentive for less annoying ads?

    What if the ad producers don't realize it's because the ad is annoying? All I can say with blocking is Aye or Nay and leave the witless advertizer to divine my motivations.

    In theory, if people are only blocking annoying ads, smarter advertisers should catch on and dumber advertisers would go out of business. Like anything else, nothing is perfect. And the effect of a single user is small, whether positive or negative, but I think this gives positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement where it should be.

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    But, doesn't this at least give the site owner the incentive to host less intrusive stuff, ceteris paribus?

    Can they do that? Is there a poorly programmed control panel dashboard somewhere, where content creators can log in and check a box "no flash ads pls"?

    It could be just using different ad networks. I'm honestly not familiar enough with it. If there isn't this capability, there's probably a market opportunity for an ad network.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @dkf said:
    “Building potential customer awareness” is another, which ... definitely seems to work.
    That's certainly what the ad agencies will tell you. Mind you, there's another empty suit working one cubicle away and he's telling your competitors the exact same thing.

    @dkf said:

    Either that or virtually all those damn adverts for watches and perfume coming up to Christmas are a total waste of time.
    Now you're getting the idea.

    Are you seriously trying to pretend that advertising doesn't work? People can disagree on the moral side of things, but advertising factually works on humans.

    @flabdablet said:

    gyp me

    Racist :'(



  • @KillaCoda said:

    People can disagree on the moral side of things, but advertising factually works on humans.
     

    I just wish the whole field hadn't evolved from "Hey I got this. Buy it?" into an arms race to SHOUT THE LOUDEST AND LOUDER AND WITH MOVE VOICES IN MORE PLACE AND LOUDER AND LOUDER Because frankly that's how advertising in general is nowadays: shouting for attention. And my ears are getting tired.



  • @dhromed said:

    @KillaCoda said:

    People can disagree on the moral side of things, but advertising factually works on humans.
     

    I just wish the whole field hadn't evolved from "Hey I got this. Buy it?" into an arms race to SHOUT THE LOUDEST AND LOUDER AND WITH MOVE VOICES IN MORE PLACE AND LOUDER AND LOUDER Because frankly that's how advertising in general is nowadays: shouting for attention. And my ears are getting tired.


    With web banner ads, sure, and I'm not sure what poor, misfortunate people are actually clicking on those "One weird trick to win at life!" ads... but I think things like radio, TV, youtube, and billboard ads are pretty fine. There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum, showing a chap in 5 different outfits (Businessman, punk rocker, pirate, etc). In all 5 he's smiling a huge grin, and the tagline is "No matter what you do, do it well". I enjoy seeing that ad every day honestly. It makes me feel happy. More ads could be like that.



  • @KillaCoda said:

    There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...

    What brand?



  • @dhromed said:

    @HardwareGeek said:

    ]I thought you were in the pro-advertising, anti-blocking camp. You sure seem to have flip-flopped in that post.
     

    Pay attention. That was a well-reasoned morbius post.

    Have your parents had any success in getting a refund from the Dutch school system? Because it seems like your teachers were guilty of gross negligence.



  • @KillaCoda said:

    With web banner ads, sure, and I'm not sure what poor, misfortunate people are actually clicking on those "One weird trick to win at life!" ads.
     

    It's not about clicking, it's the in-your-face-at-all-times thing.

    @KillaCoda said:

    I enjoy seeing that ad every day honestly. It makes me feel happy. More ads could be like that.

    Glad you like it. I personally prefer not to have my horizon (also metaphorically) polluted with a constant stream of bullshit.

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    I just wish the whole field hadn't evolved from "Hey I got this. Buy it?" into an arms race to SHOUT THE LOUDEST AND LOUDER AND WITH MOVE VOICES IN MORE PLACE AND LOUDER AND LOUDER Because frankly that's how advertising in general is nowadays: shouting for attention. And my ears are getting tired.

    Some television commercials are really entertaining. And now I know that there's a decent market for catheters due to advertising.



  • @boomzilla said:

    And now I know that there's a decent market for catheters due to advertising.
     

    I could have died quite happily without knowing that.

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    And now I know that there's a decent market for catheters due to advertising.
     

    I could have died quite happily without knowing that.

    You say that now, but in 40 years you'll be singing a different tune.



  •  O mortal coil


Log in to reply