
The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com - nkurz
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/the-devastating-effect-of-ad-blockers-for-guru3d-com.html
======
intrasight
I use uBlock Origin. I don't block ads - I block 3rd party requests. People
that complain about ad blocking are indeed missing the mark. I'm fine with ads
- really. But if you want them seen, you are going to have to serve them
yourself. There is no going backwards - for reasons spelled out by others in
this thread. So if your business depends on ads, then you are in the ad
business. Web sites are going to have to become like magazines. When I look at
a magazine, I don't see a page with the message "please go get this other
publication and look at the ad on page 3". I see the ad - in the publication I
am viewing. Really, stop wining and just create quality content and engage
with advertisers and ad firms that will create quality ads FOR YOU that will
be place IN YOUR web page. Nothing exists that I know of that can block such
ads.

~~~
intrasight
I just looked at the guru3d site. The content is the ad - there's no need to
add more ads. You just need to monetize the "ads" you already have. You are
promoting these products. Negotiate with the vendor or reseller directly to
get your fair share.

~~~
dikaiosune
That would have a deleterious effect on the editorial independence of their
content, I imagine.

~~~
intrasight
Yes it will. But if they are ad supported in the gaming hardware niche then
they probably never had independence.

~~~
dikaiosune
That probably depends on their ad model. For example, I would imagine that
Google ads would not cause them to change their editorial model, while a
referral-based network or a more niche banner network might exert some
influence.

Further, whether they were truly independent to begin with is beside the
question of whether it would make them less independent or not.

------
hannob
This is so common for the many anti-adblock texts you see these days - they
all avoid to talk about the major issues here. (I say that with the background
that a significant part of my income comes from ad-financed news pages.)

That is:

* Security risk through ads (malvertising, ad networks not supporting https etc.).

* Ads killing performance (70% CPU for a flash ad is not uncommon).

* Privacy (Ad vendors having mostly stated that they won't accept user wishes through DNT or similar technologies).

Privacy is a tricky one, because data is in part where the income comes from.
But the other two are fixable. I want to hear from everyone complaining about
ad blockers what they intend to do to make ads less of a security risk and cpu
cycle burner. That would be a good start of a proper conversation about the
topic. Every text that ignores these issues is usually not worth recognizing.

~~~
teddyh
Those are all valid reasons, but they are not the reason I first started to
block ads:

• They impose a surprisingly huge cognitive load.

Even if you (like most people nowadays) are used to them and hence “do not
notice them”, that very habit of ignoring them actually takes more brain power
than you’d think.

~~~
BogusIKnow
Not reading them is the same as blocking them. To gain moral high ground
people who compare adblocking to theft are required to read every ad on every
website they encounter. The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and
"I block ads" is an illusion.

~~~
cpeterso
> The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an
> illusion.

Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of
whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading
them is not the same as not loading them.

~~~
BogusIKnow
My prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them
as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.

~~~
RUG3Y
Right. We need a blocker that loads the ads and "sandboxes" them from the
user.

------
njharman
If your business model requires changes to reality, then your business model
is probably dead. [If you have lobbying power, you can extend your business
model for awhile, perhaps indefinitely ala content industry and copyright.]

In other words, adapt your business model to change or die.

It's not up to "reality", us, to change to support your business model. If
there is demand for whatever you produce, someone will create a "business
model" to supply it. If there is not enough demand to pay for any business
model then so be it, we didn't actually need/want your product after all.

~~~
jhall1468
It's exactly this kind of attitude that is going to lead to paywalls for
virtually every type of content on the Internet. And the people that use the
most heavy-handed approaches with ad-blocking are going to be the same people
that are screaming "NOT MY PROBLEM" while the ship goes down.

Their business model doesn't require changes to reality. Their business model
requires the end-user to accept reality for what it is: you can't get a bunch
of free stuff, ad infinitum, while simultaneously blocking the only feasible
revenue model for said free stuff.

> It's not up to "reality", us, to change to support your business model.

Did you pat yourself on the back while you said that, or right after?

We are not reality. The reality is, ad-blocking will be the absolute death of
currency-free content. This abuse of the word reality is truly odd to me.

You seem to think every choice we make as consumers is the current reality.
What you call reality, I call a house of cards.

~~~
imgabe
Most content is worthless. Content that has actual monetary value to someone,
market research data for instance, has no trouble finding people willing to
pay for it.

The fact is most "news" and other article type sites do not serve a purpose
other than satisfying some idle curiosity or passing time. Very little of it
has a material impact on anyone's day to day life. The purpose can easily be
filled by some alternate, free material. When the content can be easily
leveraged to some profitable goal, people are usually more than willing to pay
for it.

~~~
dwild
> Most content is worthless.

Which is why ads are the only way to monetize it and be able to actually have
it somewhere.

> The purpose can easily be filled by some alternate, free material.

Except nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. If it's not ad networks and
if it's not donations (again, mostly because most content is worthless, and
probably also because most people are greedy), who will pay for it?

> Very little of it has a material impact on anyone's day to day life.

How old are you? I'm 23, my youth was spent on the internet learning. I wasn't
able to pay any content at the time. The website I was reading from were
living out of ads, some of them made by minor, that were later able to make a
decent living out of it. Yeah we have a bunch of website getting enough
donations, but they need to be in the top 100 to actually survive from it.

When Youtube Red was announced, I was freaking happy (except about the fact
that I'm Canadian and I won't be able to enjoy it), most arguments I've seen
against ads was that there was no alternative... except now people are simply
complaining that Youtube is simply being greedy and that they can already get
that using adblock...

It's probably too late to make people realize that content isn't free, that
offering it isn't free either. We are in a world where ads and huge investment
gave us the opportunity to share and produce really cheaply and it seems like
it's all free... you remove the ads, you remove any way to pay for that cheap
but existing cost.

I still have a little hope on donations though, seeing the amount some live
streamers are able to make on Twitch, seeing how Patreon is a way to make a
living, seeing how some crowdfunding is able to produce some really decent
content (Tabletop, Conman, Fallout Nuka Break and VGHS to name a few), etc...
I hope it will grow and allow us to keep at least the same amount of content
as before.

~~~
imgabe
> Which is why ads are the only way to monetize it and be able to actually
> have it somewhere.

Why do we need to have it somewhere if nobody wants it enough to pay for it?

> Except nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. If it's not ad networks
> and if it's not donations (again, mostly because most content is worthless,
> and probably also because most people are greedy), who will pay for it?

People who want to disseminate information will pay to do so. Hacker News
doesn't have ads. YCombinator is paying for it because it serves their
purposes to have an online community for hackers.

People write and create other content for a variety of reasons. Usually the
best content is not created to maximize the amount of money it makes.

~~~
jhall1468
> Why do we need to have it somewhere if nobody wants it enough to pay for it?

Yes, because search engines are basically elitist.

------
JDDunn9
I remember a time on the Internet before ads, when the only websites were made
by geeks who were passionate about the topic. Then came the popup ads,
followed by the popup blockers, banners never worked, then came contextual
ads. Google made it quick and easy to profit from content and made content a
commodity. Currently they are the #1 financier of web spam, and pay off ad-
blockers to whitelist their ads.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Ad-supported media is not free, it's
costs are simply externalised. While we, the tech-savvy, may not click ads,
somebody is buying those payday loans, lose 30 lbs in a month with this weird
trick, get-rich-quick scams.

I'm more than happy to see ad-financed (mostly low-quality) content go the way
of the popup. I have no problem paying for quality content (Netflix, Hulu
Plus, Audible, etc.). The few high quality ad-supported blogs will then be
able to charge for their content, since there will be no decent alternatives.
As long as ad-supported content exists though, it will be a race to the
bottom.

~~~
sologoub
What you are describing is a world where only big, well financed, or well
known entities can survive. In order to keep the amazing internet we actually
have, we need to come up with a model that can be used by small upstarts to
either serve smaller markets or to give them time to figure things out and
become large over time. Requiring people to publish things for free will only
result in the most extreme of views. Look at any Wikipedia article that
remotely touches a controversial topic - it will likely present a strongly
biased message towards whatever side the maintainer of that article feels
strongly about.

~~~
JDDunn9
The world where only the big players can win is the one we live in now. It's
difficult for a small player to be heard when Buzzfeed-type click-bate
headlines dominate the landscape. Switch it around, who would pay for access
to Buzzfeed? On the other hand, I would pay for an expert's opinion on a topic
I'm passionate about. You only need 1,000 people paying $10 a month to make a
good living. To get $120k from ads, you'll need a whole lot of visitors.

~~~
icebraining
But Buzzfeed et all will survive, since their content is already ads itself
(see "native advertising").

And $10/month is a tremendous amount. Follow 10 sites and you've spent 1/10 of
the average wage in my European country, and more than 1/6 of the minimum
wage. It'll only lead to a balkanization of the web, with good sites pricing
for wealthy American and northern European visitors, and everyone else being
left out.

------
sputr
This reminds me of the copyright/piracy debate. The copyright industry was
screaming about lost profits , but would not change it business models. Well,
it turns out, all they had to do was change their business models to something
people actually wanted. Now piracy rates are falling where appropriate
services are available.

Patreon (and youtube community in general) have, together with projects like
gog.com, humblebundle etc. proved that people actually WANT to pay for content
even if they don't have to. But only in the way _they_ want to. Especially if
that means they'll get more _reader_ centric content, not advertiser centric.

~~~
johnchristopher
Do you have anything for me to read about falling piracy rates ? (e.g.
gamasutra)

------
Animats
From the site: _" We review the Voyager Air 2 from Corsair, this portable
storage unit allows you to connect it to USB 3.0 and WIFI. It actually comes
in a 1 TB HDD model as well, which we review. This great looking device might
be what you're looking for to move or stream your content from and with the
latest Corsair Smartphone it might just be what the doctor ordered."_

 _" One of the CPU cooler makers we do adore, Noctua today celebrated its
10-year anniversary. Since the introduction of the first generation NH-U12
heatsink in October 2005, Noctua's products have received more than 6000
awards and recommendations from leading international hardware websites and
magazines, making them a default choice for quiet cooling enthusiasts all over
the world."_

That's the _content_.

This is not someone who has a legitimate right to complain about ad blocking.

~~~
pc86
I'm sure you could find plenty of negative reviews on the site as well.

Just because someone says a product is great doesn't mean they are being paid
to do so, or even that they received it for free. It could just be that the
product is great for the use case they reviewed.

------
xorcist
"Blocking" ads is loaded language, and should be recognized as such. Not
viewing ads can be done in a multitude of ways, but it's not like users are
patching software to get there.

The web was always built to be adaptable to the end user device. The user
agent was intended to act as the decision maker how to render the markup. For
many years, browsers even respected the default foreground and background
colors and font choices (sadly not many respect X resources anymore). CSS was
designed to include an end user defined style sheet to override tiny fonts and
other things that made web pages hard to read.

Not viewing animated banners isn't at all different from changing your base
font, or not loading javascript. Had we chosen to call it "disabling" instead
of "blocking" it would have been much more clear that this is an action that
the user is and should be empowered to take. I do recognize that we're stuck
with the loaded word for now, I just feel it's important not to forget that.
The public discourse is dominated by media people, and their perspective is
important too, but not more so than the technical one.

~~~
adminprof
You bring up a terrific point. The ads are simply not loaded. The user is
accessing an external server, and it's up to them what to load.

~~~
ChrisGranger
Indeed, a user could likewise load only the HTML and ignore all images,
scripts, CSS and suchlike. The user is in control, and that's how it should
be. I am not obligated to view ads any more than I'm obligated to view any
other part of a website.

------
cm2187
I am amazed that their response to adblockers is more targetted ads. My main
reason for using an adblocker isn't to block ads, which don't bother me that
much. It is to block tracking accross websites. Telling me that they will do
more tracking in response isn't really going to change my mind...

~~~
junto
Sites need to consider going back to the pre-Double-Click world, where they
self hosted and self managed ads.

I'd accept that without issue. I don't mind ads, I just can't accept the
intrusive tracking, including being retargeted.

~~~
greggman
I don't think that's what will happen. Ad firms will come up with a server
side API you plug into your website so ads can come through your site. You've
just made the security problem worse not better as coming from the same site
they are allowed to read everything that site does vs coming from iframes from
different domains in which case they are allowed to read nothing.

~~~
cm2187
No, the tracking becomes specific to the site visited (same origin policy),
not cross-websites, and I don't have a problem with that.

Now there is also the debate of whether all sites deserve to be able to run
javascript. I say no. But some people here think that even rendering a blog
article should require a lot of client side scripting.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> No, the tracking becomes specific to the site visited (same origin policy),
> not cross-websites, and I don't have a problem with that.

You're assuming the server-side scripts won't share data with a central
server.

~~~
cm2187
They might but how would they correlate me on abc.com and me on xyz.com if
they don't have some form of cookie?

Browser fingerprinting is the only way I can think of, and between the phasing
out of flash, java and silverlight, and having javascript disabled by default,
browser fingerprinting is pretty much toothless.

~~~
jessaustin
If they're talking to a central ad server they can tell it what cookies
they're seeing.

~~~
cm2187
Yes but how do you correlate the two cookies?

I go on site abc.com, which gives me the cookie abc:111 Then I go on xyz.com
which gives me the cookie xyz:222

Because of the same origin policy, xyz.com can't access the cookies set by
abc.com. Abc and xyz can communicate as much as they want on the server side,
they will not be able to tell that abc:111 and xyz:222 are the same user
(absent additional information: browser fingerprinting, email address if you
have an account on both, etc).

~~~
tehmaco
Just a thought - if the ad network uses js code (hosted on abc.com and xyz.com
servers), which loads images from the same domain (but it loaded in on a
server-to-server link, and cached and served from the the domain you're
visiting). Can they not just set a tracking cookie for that domain that they
control with a unique ID, tied to browser fingerprinting, which is transmitted
to the ad network?

So you visit abc.com for the first time, get an ad image served from the same
domain (but was provided from the ad network), have the cookie set, the ID is
noted by the ad network.

You then visit xyz.com, a new cookie is generated, which can be tracked by the
ad network as the ID is the same.

So you now get tailored/tracking adverts without any third party domains being
accessed by your browser...

~~~
cm2187
Do you mean: I visit abc.com, abc.com serves me an abc cookie, then I visit
xyz.com, and xyz.com makes a call to abc from my browser, so that they can use
the abc cookie to track me?

Well, that is effectively using abc as a tracking server, and abc.com would
quickly be added to the adblockers lists. Effectively this is the current
model.

The other thing is that I may visit abc.com and xyz.com but this particular
combination may be unique to me, i.e. I may visit nytime.com and ford.com
which may use the same ad network, but you may not visit nytime.com at all and
instead wsj.com.

Browser fingerprinting is a different problem. It does defeat the same origin
policy. But I suggest you look at the sources of entropy:
[https://panopticlick.eff.org/](https://panopticlick.eff.org/) With javascript
off, there is virtually no entropy, just your user agent and HTTP_ACCEPT
header. You can't fingerprint a browser at all.

If you enable javascript but not plugins, then the Browser Pluggin details
give you some entropy, although looking at the list those a relatively generic
and would likely be the same on many machines.

If you enable plugins (flash, silverlight, java) then you have a massive
amount of entropy but realistically all of these plugins are almost gone from
major browsers.

~~~
tehmaco
That's not quite what I meant - the ad network provides abc.com with a js
file, hosted on the abc.com servers. That js file creates an ID from browser
fingerprinting, which is saved in a separate cookie, or an additional data
point within whatever abc.com sets.

The ad cookie/ID is then sent from the abc.com server to the ad network (along
with whatever data they need to determine what ads were seen/clicked), who
collate all the data from wherever their js file is running, thusly allowing
them to track you, without any requests from your browser being sent to any
other domains other than the ones you directly visit.

------
DrScump
Are you sure that ad blockers are the only variable in play here?

"(October 2014) we had nearly 4.5 million hits (read) on our articles. This
year (October 2015) we are at 4.4 million hits... Where a year ago we served
375~400K pageviews per day, we now register just over 200K pageviews a day."

Is _pageviews_ the actual metric, or is ads served the metric? Given the
recent discoveries in how many "ad views" were actually _never presented_ to
the reader and were just phony revenue ticks, could it not be that you are
also "suffering" from an ongoing reduction in phony ad presentations as the
trickery is discovered and addressed?

I block ads _primarily_ to limit tracking and bogus traffic, not to dodge
advertising per se. I heartily endorse jfoutz's suggestions here. If you
continue to serve quality content, it's the more sustainable business model
long-term anyway.

Years before the modern ad-network paradigm, many media sites were
subscription from the outset (e.g. WSJ, mercurynews). Some later went free,
using ad networks to pay the way. Now, the trend is moving back to a
subscription model. Those sites that do the punitive block-ads-and-we-block-
you (e.g. washingtonpost) will find that people just go elsewhere for those
stories.

~~~
rasz_pl
nah, I and many others directly block Google Analytics = no pageviews in
google dashboard. I refuse to be tracked by third parties whenever I go.

------
douche
I turned off AdBlock on their site. A clean, attractive site immediately
transformed into a supermarket sales flyer, except with animated ads. No
thanks.

I don't know what the answer is. Display ads are dead or dying, though. I get
a lot more revenue on my websites from Amazon affiliate links than I do from
AdSense. Probably it's going to look more like paid reviews and advertising
masquerading as content.

~~~
mozumder
Don't people go to their sites for shopping purposes anyways?

What's the point of these sites if not to tell you what to buy?

People used to pay money to buy magazines like Computer Shopper just for the
ads...

------
futbol
Don't care. Nothing shall be changed. You're on your own, guru3d.

~~~
alan_cx
Why is this down voted? Its what most people who use ad-blockers think. Its
probably the most honest comment in this thread. HN members might not like it,
but so what?

------
BogusIKnow
One of these websites:

"This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our
website."

instead of

"This website uses cookies to track your behaviour across this and other
websites to better target and retarget you with ads. Identifying and
segmenting you ensures higher advertising rates. Thanks."

Still waiting for the first website with an honest cookie warning.

------
tlrobinson
_" Where a year ago we served 375~400K pageviews per day, we now register just
over 200K pageviews a day. That's right, nearly 50% of the readers are
blocking ads."_

I'm not saying ad blockers had no effect on their business, but I find it
extremely hard to believe 50% of their visitors discovered and started using
ad blockers in the past year.

------
belorn
What would happen if I lazily assumed that Guru3D will follow the
advertisement laws that exist in my country, and if the ad-network which they
subcontract the delivery of ads breaks the law, Guru3D will then take full
responsibility?

As it stand, most web users block ads and most web publisher block legal
responsibility. Neither side want to take the hit when malware is spread
through ads, people personal information is being illegally stored, and when
laws that govern advertisement in news papers, radio, and TV is ignored on the
web. Both side want all the benefits with none of the draw backs, and
advertisement through websites will run closer and closer to the fate of
advertisement through email.

------
zamalek
AdBlock is one thing. However,

> Ghostery

These guys are complaining that users don't want to be tracked. I honestly
can't take a single word in the entire article seriously.

------
proactivesvcs
It's getting tiresome doing this.

"We understand perfectly that some of you might find ads annoying" "Our
pledge: we do not serve intrusive ads like pop-downs/pop-ups and takeovers."

From one page load of www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/guru3d-rig-of-the-month-
october-2015,1.html this list excludes the dozen or so trackers and adverts
that I don't have record of serving malware.

googletagservices.com (Angler, Neutrino exploit kits, to mention just the most
recent)

doubleclick.net (Angler, Neutrino exploit kits, to mention just the most
recent)

adnxs.com (Angler exploit kit, Flash 0-days on MSN.com)

openx.net (don't get me started on the cesspit of openx)

serving-sys.com

------
BogusIKnow
Main reason for ad-blockers for me: They try to distract you from reading the
text you came for.

While in print ads don't (can't) do this.

Online they open to the whole page after some time, they constantly animate
things to draw your attention from the text, some play sound, videos, left,
right, above, below and in the text between paragraphs and capturing links.

Main reason probably because they don't really work.

~~~
fromMars
I am also not a fan of annoying ads and maybe I am just a crotchety old guy,
but, IMO, using an Ad Blocker and viewing content is theft.

If one is concerned with privacy, there are alternative measures such as
cookie blocking options, legislation, etc.

If the ad formats are annoying then the right thing to do is to let the
publisher know and work out a way to pay for the content ad-free or just stop
using the site.

I also feel the same way about the bit-torrents and downloading copyrighted
content. But, maybe I am the only one who feels this way.

~~~
jwmerrill
> using an Ad Blocker and viewing content is theft.

Here's a different POV. Using an ad blocker is not theft: it's a negotiation.

When I click on a link to your site from a site like HN, I have not implicitly
agreed to whatever terms you would like to impose on me. I can't even really
know them ahead of time.

Instead, I'm sending my User Agent to negotiate fetching some resources. If I
decline to fetch your ads, you can feel free to decline to serve me your
content. Or you can give the content to me anyway. Your choice.

~~~
nwhitmore
Really? What header does your browser send to my server informing me that you
are blocking ads so that I know to deny you my content?

~~~
jwmerrill
Response 1: whether this question already has a technical answer that you find
satisfying does not affect whether using an ad blocker is theft.

Response 2: a few sites are already popping up messages asking you to turn off
your ad blocker, which is at least a partial existence proof.

Response 3: if you want to know whether I got your ads, use cookies or make
the request url unique to me, and then check that your ad servers served the
appropriate requests before allowing your content servers to serve me content.

But seriously, I shouldn't be required to solve all these problems for you as
a user in order to not be called a thief. If you want a more explicit
contract, then require a log in. If that adds too much friction, invent a
better a better solution.

*Edited to remove the inflammatory suggestion to go out of business if you refuse to negotiate.

~~~
nwhitmore
So, your viewpoint boils down to either I allow my content to be viewed solely
on your terms or I go out of business.

Sounds like the type of negotiation the mob engages in. But, hey, as long as
you get what you want, I guess it is ok.

~~~
jwmerrill
I edited my response because I realized it was inflammatory. But to be clear,
my viewpoint is that the client/server and viewer/publisher relationship is a
negotiation. The publisher should make content available under terms they find
acceptable, and the user should be free to refuse to view things that they
find unacceptable.

I don't think it's right that publishers seem to view me showing up at their
front door as carte blanche to abuse my network and system resources to the
full extent that JavaScript allows. And I think it's wrong to characterize
user pushback as theft. Other kinds of "theft" are criminal behavior. Pick
better terms.

------
Yuioup
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want some of my money you
need to get it from the people who charge me every month for accesing you web
page: My ISP.

They are the ones making money off the fact that I want to get on the internet
and access content.

Too bad there is no reliable, independent mechanism for taking some of that
money and putting it in a large pool to be ditributed to content creators. The
amount you get is based on how popular your site is. The ISPs know exactly how
popular your site is.

(Too bad I'm late to the thread. Nobody is going to read this)

~~~
Falkon1313
Sounds like a good idea at first, but... Who did we pay for TV content prior
to cable/satellite? No one. You bought the hardware and thereafter the content
was all free, supported by ads.

Cable access providers promised ad-free content, so people paid for it. Paying
the access provider worked well. So well that it mostly wiped out the ad-
supported over-the-air competition and left the cable cos as monopolies. Which
enabled them to raise their prices _and_ become filled with ads. While
controlling what you could see and when, charging extra for some content vs
other content, etc.

Making ISPs more like cable companies doesn't seem like a good idea for the
consumer. And it won't make the ads go away.

~~~
bigbugbag
Well in TV jargon "content" refers to advertisement and "feel" refers to what
you think as content.

Isn't public TV paid for by taxes?

Anyways, I second you, the ISP should not collect money for accessing content.

------
hyperbovine
Dude,

Just charge _money_. Have we all forgotten how commerce worked for ~5000 years
before the ad-supported model came along?

~~~
raddad
Websites used to ask you to click the links because they got a fraction of a
penny for your clicks. I'll send them my check for $0.001 to look at their
page.

------
jjuhl
If they can't survive without advertising then let them die. Personally I
don't see the problem. The few sites I care about that produce quality stuff
(like [https://lwn.net/](https://lwn.net/)) I pay for and that's just fine.
The rest are nice to have (without ads) but if they go away it doesn't really
matter - I'll just read something else or (shock, horror) nothing at all - I'm
sure my life will continue even if they go under. Can't honestly say I care a
great deal.

Edit: and as I guessed they would; the downvotes now flow in. Seems like
people never like to hear that one can just stop using "stuff" and do
something else.

------
LargeCompanies
I use ad blockers because certain streaming sites I visit are the worst in
terms of pop ups. I feel bad that using a blocker for these types of sites by
default blocks all other sites. Publishers need to get paid and we as
consumers don't want to pay for web content. Non intrusive ads and ads are
needed and should be respected in terms of allowing us the opportunity to make
a living creating content and or enjoying content.

If we continue down this path it's truly going to be a wall gardened app world
controlled a ton by Apple.

~~~
lisivka
Lost of their income due to their bad service is not a your problem. You are
just helping them to understand their mistake. Feel good.

~~~
lisivka
The anonymous coward, who silently downvoted me: read «Gemba Kaizen», please.

------
iagooar
Maybe you should start building a sustainable business model, instead of
whining because people who are annoyed with ads and trackers started
effectively blocking them.

If your content adds value to your visitors' lives, then charge for it. If the
only revenue stream you can rely on is ads, then probably there is a problem
with the stuff you offer not being valuable enough to people.

I don't want this to sound grumpy, and I don't mean to say your content is not
good or valuable. It's just that I've discussed this topic a lot of times with
friends and colleagues and there seems to be a common agreement that ads and
trackers have become so invasive (visually and privacy-wise) that people are
not wanting to see them anymore or to be tracked.

As always, it's about survival of the fittest and those who know how to adapt
quickest. Find a way to charge for your content and build a sustainable
business.

~~~
hcon

        > If the only revenue stream you can rely on is ads, 
        > then probably there is a problem with the stuff you 
        > offer not being valuable enough to people.
    

Not quite.

What people are willing to pay for has a large social/cultural/conditioned
element. It's a crux of the entire problem.

The vast majority of people still attribute zero cost to ads. When you start
charging $1 for your offering, now you're the one site among your competitors
that's charging money. Maybe some HN nerds will care. Whoopdee doo. Nobody
else does. The rest of the world isn't going to take their credit card out of
their wallet when they can endure a banner ad instead.

Oh wait, they can just install an ad blocker the day they actually do care. Or
maybe when their kid or significant other or buddy installs an adblocker on
their browser like I did for my parents and they won't even realize the
trouble it ever saved them.

See, I think that we will be soon on the cusp of a shift that needs to happen
before we can replace ads at all, and it's more than just something a website
can do by themselves by adding a paywall or whatever solution that doesn't
work for most websites that people seem to conjure up in response to these
issues.

~~~
hughperkins
So what they should do is, what Android apps do:

\- when you first go to the website, you get the ad-infested website

\- you can pay for the app, and now, no more ads. In Android apps, the amount
tends to be crazy low, like less than a cup of coffee. Pay that and get no ads
is a no-brainer really...

~~~
shabble
This assumes the app isn't ransacking your device for as much personal or
saleable information it can find, in addition to the nominal purchase fee.

Information leakage between sites and apps on mobile no doubt varies wildly
based on your configuration and willingness to accept apps requesting
outrageous permissions, but I'd suspect web-apps to be easier to protect
yourself from, as a user.

------
jveld
I'm in favor of a move from ad-based to paywalled content. It just feels more
honest to sell your content than your readers (or viewers, visitors, etc).

There's also a mental hygeine aspect: I've noticed a pretty distinct
correlation between my total exposure to online advertising and my ability to
reach states of deep focus. For example, I've been finding it extremely
difficult to finish books for the past few years. But since February or so, as
my exposure to online ads has dropped to nearly zero, I've knocked half a
dozen challenging non-fiction works off my hit list, and a few novels to boot.
And it's not just mental stamina -- my moment to moment engagement and
comprehension is also much higher.

This observation is anecdotal, and furthermore, poorly controlled, so
establishing causality is pretty difficult. But I have noticed that when I DO
browse facebook or other ad-heavy sites, I experience a significant drop in my
level of mental energy, often for hours after I'm off the internet. It's as if
viewing ads, which are designed to grab one's attention, forks a process in my
brain whose task is to react to the ad content, thus depleting my brain-
hardware resources. The social hooks make facebook a particularly bad culprit.

BUT, there's a big caveat. I don't want subscriptions -- at least, not on
every site that sometimes puts out content that I like. That would cost me
hundreds of buxx a month that I simply can't afford. There needs to be a
decent micropayment solution so that people can buy the content that they
actually _want_ without the overhead of paying for a bunch of stuff they don't
care about. I speculate that this would be a pure win for content companies.
Right now, paywalls are more like "go-away-walls." If there were buttons on
paywalls that said "Read this article for 50 cents," I would personally be
paying for a lot more articles. There's probably even a good business
opportunity in mediating these transactions to centralize signups and
aggregate purchased content.

------
robgibbons
Note to website operators: Ad blockers are not just a way of disabling
annoying content. They prevent intrusive tracking and spying. If you can find
a way to monetize my views without tracking my habits and sharing them with
third parties, I'll happily disable my extensions.

~~~
mozumder
I have no idea what the practical ramifications of this complaint means...

What exactly is the fear of "intrusive tracking and spying"? What does it
mean?

Are you scared that you're now going to get ads that target your demographic,
such as motherboards, instead of ads that don't target your demographic, such
as Alzheimers drugs?

I don't understand the problem with this.

If that's not the fear, then state the ultimate practical effect of what you
fear, because right now it sounds a lot like a "made-up-in-your-mind problem
that will never, ever affect you negatively".

~~~
robgibbons
I don't need to justify my right to privacy. All you need to know is that I
don't want my browsing habits tracked and correlated across virtually every
site I visit, by a small handful of companies that have nothing to do with the
content I am seeking. The burden is not on me to justify why I disagree with
these practices.

~~~
mozumder
The burden is on you to justify your right to privacy. Otherwise it just makes
you look bad, as if you're trying to defend indefensible actions. Remember,
you're visiting THEIR sites. They aren't visiting your sites. They have
something you want when you visit their sites, and you have to offer something
in return.

If you're unable to justify yourself, then companies (both advertisers and
media publishers) will proceed as they wish. Your privacy is not their
concern. You need to make it their concern.

Right now ad blockers are just a mere stepping stone for these companies to
track you. When they proceed with native ads (among many other options), it's
going to be really difficult for you to block them.

Do you want these companies to move forward to their next step in tracking
you?

~~~
M2Ys4U
>The burden is on you to justify your right to privacy.

Privacy is a human right. I am the only one who gets to decide what
information I divulge about myself, except in the very small set of
circumstances where my right to privacy has to be balanced against the human
rights of others.

Nobody should ever have to justify one's right to privacy.

~~~
mozumder
> Nobody should ever have to justify one's right to privacy.

You always need to justify you rights, since you should never assume those
with power over you - the ones that grant you your rights - are willing to do
that.

There is no such thing as natural rights.

~~~
RUG3Y
Wrong.

------
seanwilson
Is there a reason more sites don't do self hosted ads? Is there a general way
these can be blocked as well?

If the ad is coming from their own server and displayed with their own custom
HTML/CSS, I can't see an obvious way these could be detected and blocked in
general.

~~~
hcon

        > Is there a reason more sites don't do self hosted ads?
    

Google Adsense (for example) is a live auction clearing house where you paste
a snippet of code into your site that resolves into the highest bidder for the
keywords on each page. You're done.

Meanwhile, hosting your own ads entails finding advertisers, wooing them,
developing a relationship with them, maintaining that relationship,
negotiating a contract, settling that contract, building an ad-serving system
somehow, automating it somehow, etc. And that's if you're even big enough to
attract anyone or even warrant the work to begin with. And the second you try
to generalize it (which is what ad networks do), then you're back on every
adblocker's default blocklist.

~~~
nsomaru
Why not build a generic system where ads are served to the server serving the
website (which maintains a cache of relevant ads and serves them
appropriately)?

That way you can get the benefits of a network + the benefits of serving from
the same server that is serving the content

~~~
hcon
Yeah, I'm sure Adsense will let you proxy requests through my server soon or
release some similar offering.

It would come at the massive expense of high-quality tracking and thus incur a
massive reduction in ad revenue, but it's an imminent trade-off that beats
unconditional adblocking.

I think everything is just waiting for the actual tipping point that forces
everyone's hand like we always do. Adblockers are still the minority.

------
jensen123
I think we really, really need cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. Buying
access to stuff online with a credit card is totally inconvenient, and even
worse, you have no privacy then. I guess this is part of the reason why sites
financed by advertising have become so prevalent.

Personally, if there was an easy and private way to do so, I'd much rather pay
for content than getting "free" stuff financed by ads. Inevitably, sites will
be extremely reluctant to write anything negative about products from
companies that buy lots of ads. For this reason, I consider many of the
reviews on tech sites, for example, kinda worthless.

So, I'm glad to see this ad financed business model break down. Buying access
to content with a cryptocurrency could be real easy (and relatively private).
But it does not help that many governments want you to calculate capital
gain/loss everytime you make such a purchase.

I think governments ought to make an exception in the capital gains tax for
small personal purchases. Maybe promoters who loudly proclaim that
cryptocurrencies will soon replace "legacy" government fiat currencies are
part of the problem. No wonder governments are so negative. But I don't think
cryptocurrencies necessarily will replace fiat currencies anytime soon.
Cryptocurrencies work great for small purchases online, but I wouldn't want to
put my lifesavings into one - oh no! My computer got hacked - my life savings
are gone!

Edit: replacing the entire capital gains tax with a wealth tax would probably
be even better.

~~~
danieldk
_I think we really, really need cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin._

Or just something where I could pay, say 10 Euro per year, and every website
that participates gets a fraction to my number of visits or reading time.

As far as I understand, Google is trying to do this. But it does not provide a
'no ads' guarantee and there are other ad networks with even more obnoxious
ads.

~~~
ac29
> Or just something where I could pay, say 10 Euro per year, and every website
> that participates gets a fraction to my number of visits or reading time.

The problem with this is you must allow a third party to track every page
visit and/or page view time, which is unacceptable to many people that use ad
blockers.

If you are OK with persistent, pervasive tracking, I think this is probably
the best solution.

~~~
jessaustin
You've described the situation pretty accurately here I think. I wonder,
though. What if a browser extension generated tokens and stuck them in
headers, and then sites sent those tokens on to the central authority after
some appropriate transformation? It seems possible to set it up so the central
authority would have enough information to remunerate sites without having
enough information to know what users are doing.

------
hardwaresofton
While there's obviously nothing wrong with directly asking users to not
adblock guru3d, the long-term solution is definitely to find another business
model.

I'm not a regular reader of Guru3D, but would it be a stretch to imagine that
the community would willingly pay $1 a month to see the content you put on the
site? Maybe you can shuffle only people with adblockers to the paid version of
the site, and allow people with ads to view for free.

~~~
intrasight
I pay to use the Consumer Reports content. I think if Guru3D became the
'Consumer Reports' of gaming hardware, then they could probably get paying
viewers. Here's some other ideas. As long as they are doing test builds, how
about selling detailed instructions for those builds. And if they get all this
hardware donated by vendors, how about selling the rigs they build. Perhaps
they can get a "brand" markup - sort of like selling NASCAR pace cars.

------
chippy
"Guru3D.com is a costly operation."

Well now how costly? Just one dedicated server? multiple? Usage of AWS?
Distributed data centres?

Staff? accountants, designers, moderators? Or automated scripts and
volunteers?

If an organisation appeals to me to support them, I will, if they outline
where and why they need it. Like Wikipedia for example or like OpenStreetMap.
To say "oh it costs too much and we have lots of hits" is not an appeal to
rationality.

------
jordanpg
For the record, I don't want to hear or see any ads, ever.

The internet is great because it provides a channel for information to cheaply
get from creators to consumers at global scale.

Sadly, all of that infrastructure and creation takes time, energy, money, etc.
It's not free.

I don't take it for granted that advertising is the only way there can be an
internet. I'm pretty confident that if everyone starts using adblockers, the
internet will continue to exist. But will it be the internet I want?

The internet that gives me Netflix and Amazon Prime I can take or leave. The
internet that gives me endless blog posts, reviews, and Q&A sites I can take
or leave.

The internet that gives me API documentation, etc., chat, email, and Wikipedia
I will fight for. I will pay for it. I will pay higher taxes for it. The rest
I just don't care that much about, and I really doubt that many other people
do either.

------
lucaspiller
I disabled uBlock Origin and decided to see what ads they have on their site.
Pretty much all of them were retargeting sites or products I'd looked at
before, but had no intention of buying.

Only one was really relevant to their site, which was a gaming keyboard. The
same screen real estate could be used to to link to their articles and reviews
of products from their sponsors, which would be a lot more relevant and
actually provide value to the reader.

Oh and whatever uBlock Origin blocks, made scrolling really laggy when it was
enabled. I think I'll stick to using it thanks.

------
z3t4
When running a business, you need to spend 50% of your time on the business-
part and the other 50% on providing content, serving your customers, etc.

With ads, you let the ad-network do the business-part, while _only_ taking
10%-50% of your turn-over. You can spend 100% of your time making content,
etc. Especially small businesses are happy with that model.

The ads where good for content, as more content was created. But it's now
leaving a huge gap of opportunity!

Then there's also product discovery. We need new ways for people to discover
more content that they are interested in.

------
jo909
Potential buyers want sources to learn about products, compared them, have
uninfluenced and honest reviews to help them make decisions.

Vendors want their products reviewed. And I think they understand that
reviewers need to be financially independent to be believable, so directly
paying reviewers does not work.

Both sides will find a way to get what they want, there is clear financial
motivation to keep the review business alive. Money is not the problem here,
only how to distribute it. I do not worry about this kind of content.

------
bashinator
Until security experts stop recommending ad blockers as a first line of
defense against malware, I consider it the obligation of content providers to
fix the system.

------
jgoewert
I barely remember Guru3D, but what I still remember was the full page animated
ad for something that made the site completely unusable. It was a while ago,
like 8+ years and I remember it being some huge green slime dripping all over
and blocking the content and the whole animation ran for like 30 seconds
before you could read the page.

I added a rule in my hosts file to not load that ad as it was before client
based ad blockers.

------
nekopa
Can anyone here tell me how much a site like Guru3D makes if I visit and read
one article?

Is it like a fraction of a cent?

~~~
putlake
RPM (revenue per 1000 pageviews) varies wildly by site, geo and platform
(desktop/mobile). If you're a site with cat photos it's about $1. If you're
about mortgage refinancing or roofing, it could be $15. The first pageview in
a user's session is more valuable than subsequent pageviews on the same site.
So if your 1000 pageviews are from 900 users, your RPM will be $4 but if they
are from 200 users (5 PVs per user), then it'll be $.90.

RPMs on desktop/tablet are much higher (about 2x) compared with mobile. RPMs
for U.S. traffic are also much higher (4x) compared with say traffic from
India.

Interstitial ads pay much higher (about 3x) compared with standard banner ads.

Over the past 2 years, RPMs from Adsense have fallen about 40%.

EDIT: All of the above applies to 3rd party ads sold on exchanges via ad
networks like Adsense. Direct-sold ads have much higher RPMs, usually in
double digits. But small publishers either don't have the traffic volume or
the sales staff to sell ads directly.

------
mattwar
I have hated ads from the time of dialup Internet when I was paying by the
minute for access, ads increased my bills - I was paying for them.

The same now where o pay based on my internet usage, on mobile it is not
cheap, and the cost of ad's is again on my shoulders.

So, I don't want ads. Simple.

------
lazyjones
It would be a little bit more convincing if they had actually tried
alternative revenue sources (paid subscription, associate links to Amazon,
donations with a variety of providers like Flattr or using Bitcoin) and found
no other viable solution.

------
vosper
I tried what they're asking - the linked article is noticeably less responsive
than the same one without ads. Especially scrolling - it skitters visibly.
It's definitely less pleasant to use the site this way.

------
snksnk
This is the Internet, whose users tend to be highly innovative. If your
business model is built on serving (good) content with ads and people don't
like ads, then you will have a problem. It is a pity for some, but inherent to
the Internet.

I have seen many web sites turn from a hobby into a small business funded by
ads, who are now feeling the pinch. They either need to find a new way to
monetize what they offer, or turn into a hobby project again. (Which often
saves a lot of money on horrible UX. Generally after 2007 / the uptake of
smartphones a lot of good features were eliminated and sucked into the black
hole of UX and dumb simplifications to accommodate the average Internet user.
Everything is tailored now for the average user, and the power user is left
out.)

------
Mz
Related post, inspired by this discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10488967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10488967)

------
SapphireSun
How much benefit does tracking and personalization actually provide in
clickthrough percentages? Is it very large or is this companies grasping at
threads to stay alive?

------
RUG3Y
Times are changing, again. I block any and every ad.

------
jarradhope
or you know, change your business model to suit your market.

~~~
tsujamin
what would that business model be if their primary goal is to write
interesting tech articles? Is producing this sort of content sustainable at
all?

~~~
teddyh
Ask LWN, they seem to be doing fine.

------
SimeVidas
Ad blockers block Google Analytics? Why?

~~~
KJasper
User tracking

------
snambi
the real issue is the pages are getting slower when ads are served. it is
really annoying.

------
WizardlySquid
Whenever I read something like this I feel really bad and turn off my ad
blocker, as soon as I do that I'm usually greeted with 2 minute long
unskippable ads, sites re-skinned with ads, targeted ads, ads that are just
straight up spam, ads that play in the background and ads that require me to
fill out a survey. I want to support these websites but online ads don't pay
nearly as much as TV, radio or print ads but that are 10 times more annoy,
detrimental to my privacy and if I ever click on them I know their almost
certainly going to be some sort of phishing scam or virus from eastern Europe.
You know it sucks that people are blocking ads but online ads are the absolute
worst, if online ads functioned and payed as much as print advertisements than
I don't think anyone would have a problem with seeing ads but we all know they
don't. Only thing I can recommend is that these sites change their business
model or at least augment it with a mixture of merch, internet begging
(patreon), premium memberships and being more choosy with what ad networks
they choose to partner with.

------
sunni2sunni
well nkurz pull the plug before it is too late. ads suck, no one ever wants to
look at them.

~~~
Oletros
But we want to read their reviews and participate in their forums.

~~~
SixSigma
How much in $ terms is that worth to you?

Work it out and send guru3d a payment

~~~
hcon
Obviously nobody does that.

My favorite example is when you see a popular github repository with a donate
button (Flattr, Bitcoin address, etc) only to realize they've made a whole $14
in the past year. Wow, thanks world!

It turns out that ads worked because the user didn't actually have to do
anything. They didn't have to get their credit card out of their wallet,
something they rarely do on the internet.

And when they do, it's to give money to a large corporation like Netflix or
because Jimmy Wales managed to beg for donations in a more invasive annoying
way than a banner ad ever was. (You know, I never once had to see the face of
the founder of AdultFriendFinder in one of their ads.)

I hope we find a next-coming middleground that changes the culture of what
people are willing to pay for and how they do it. But the fact that giving
your credit/debit card number to someone gives them (and anyone else)
unlimited charge license on your account is not helping.

~~~
SixSigma
You say "nobody" but I know that's not true because I am "somebody" who
donates.

Ad blockers mean one isn't prepared to pay for your product. Personally when I
am prevented from viewing content because my Privoxy has been detected I tend
to just go elsewhere. I find ads a significant burden on my concentration and
well being.

Yet in print media I don't mind. Often I read trade mags specifically for the
ads, they are great market research.

~~~
hcon
I mean "nobody" in the sense that it doesn't scale and people like you, god
bless, do not replace ads for the vast majority of websites.

At least not until some sort of shift happens in how we pay for content which
I think is imminent.

> Ad blockers mean one isn't prepared to pay for your product.

Perhaps rather: "Your product is not worth taking out a credit card and paying
for" which applies to most websites. There are massive barriers to explicitly
paying for things, even just psychological.

In an abstract sense, ads are like vignette windshield stickers that let you
cruise past tollway checkpoints when the alternative is to have to stop at a
tollboth even if it's just to pay 10 cents.

People have tried to create services that replace ads in that abstraction, but
so far nothing has stuck. I think the post-ad solution needs to be just as
mindless as ads if it's going to replace them.

