Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 78

Thread: Rupert Murdoch takes on the internet

  1. #31
    Actually, some in the ad industry credit the reduction in pop-ups to major ad servers banning pop-ups on landing pages as a condition of doing business.

  2. #32
    If the ads are discrete enough people don't bother to block them - even with AdBlock I still get Google ads on Gmail.
    The problem with adblock in particular is that virtually all ads are blocked by default without any user interaction: pop-ups, intrusive animated gifs, unobtrusive static images: they're all blocked without the user ever seeing them and deciding whether they're annoying or not. Since many sites get paid on a per view (not per click), the prevalence of adblock can directly and severely effect the revenue stream of many sites.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Why ad blocking software? Are the ads really that offensive to you?
    They're actually security risks. Lots of malware gets sneaked into the content lists of ad-providing services.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Rather ironic to see someone who has no problems with torrents or numerous other types of thefts of intellectual property complaining about doing something that's completely legal.
    Are you trying to prove that your only debating trick is 'don't look here, look overthere?'.

    I will put up with adds, but what really bothers me are the flash adds that are difficult to close (closing button in a very unusual place and in a colour that makes it hard to find)
    Congratulations America

  5. #35
    Or ads with a fake closing button so you click on it to close and you've really just clicked on the ad.

  6. #36
    You use adblock because some ads confuse you?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You use adblock because some ads confuse you?
    I think the problem is that the annoy him, not that they confuse him. That's why I do, anyway. They make the ads as intrusive as possible to get your attention, and I dislike it. The worst are actually those vibrant in-text ads, though. They give you the option to turn it off, but it sadly doesn't actually work.

    If it weren't for adblock I doubt anyone would use firefox, because that is the only thing that makes it a better browser than IE.

    I also have to agree that it is odd that you are all worked up about costing poor mega-corporations their ad revenue, when you have no problem illegally downloading things to keep the mega-corporations from receiving their profits.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I also have to agree that it is odd that you are all worked up about costing poor mega-corporations their ad revenue, when you have no problem illegally downloading things to keep the mega-corporations from receiving their profits.
    As Steely already pointed out, and I already posted about. Adblock doesn't differentiate between mega-corporations and personally livelihood.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    As Steely already pointed out, and I already posted about. Adblock doesn't differentiate between mega-corporations and personally livelihood.
    You spend a lot of time going to people's personal websites, then? I sure as fuck don't. If I did, I wouldn't be wanting to enable them to make a profit.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  10. #40
    I think it's pretty weird that both Ominium Gamum and Randblade are on the sides they are on this issue.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    You spend a lot of time going to people's personal websites, then?
    I spend a lot of time on smaller scale game and review sites and forums. A lot of the techy crowd is based about personally owned sites that aren't owned by some huge company. Sites like hardocp.com
    If I did, I wouldn't be wanting to enable them to make a profit.
    and that only solidifies your status as a bitch

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    I spend a lot of time on smaller scale game and review sites and forums. A lot of the techy crowd is based about personal sites that aren't owned by some huge company. Sites like hardocp.com

    and that only solidifies yours status as a bitch
    I see. We've already learned from Wraithy that the costs of running a website are minimal. So these "smaller scale" game and review sites and forums don't actually need your ad-revenue. Luckily for all of them, though, there's a sucker born every minute.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I see. We've already learned from Wraithy that the costs of running a website are minimal. So these "smaller scale" game and review sites and forums don't actually need your ad-revenue. Luckily for all of them, though, there's a sucker born every minute.
    running, hosting, and content providing are not terms that are interchangeable. It might not cost Wraith much to run and host a forum for fewer than 100 people, but he also isn't providing any content (aside from the vB license [$160?]). Review sites have to afford content, because the last thing you want to do is trust a site thats given stuff to review for free.

    You're also confusing small scale to mean small audience; what is means is a smaller operational base. Like wikileaks, or hardocp's 4 man crew. Hardocp, which at times get more page views than Ataricommunity. Bandwidth and content create costs, and you're being very small minded about all this.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 03-29-2010 at 01:47 PM.

  14. #44
    If they provided a service worth paying for people would pay for it. Not that complicated of a concept, really.

    Gee, they have to buy things they would buy anyway to review. That's fucking rich, really. Like I said, it's really good that they have suckers like you to think they are important.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    If they provided a service worth paying for people would pay for it. Not that complicated of a concept, really.
    We know where you stand on net neutrality then.

    Gee, they have to buy things they would buy anyway to review.
    This doesn't make a damn bit of sense the way its written.

  16. #46
    If they provided a service worth paying for people would pay for it.
    ITT non-sequiter

    Also

    I also have to agree that it is odd that you are all worked up about costing poor mega-corporations their ad revenue, when you have no problem illegally downloading things to keep the mega-corporations from receiving their profits.
    ITT false dilemma between "site with trivial hosting costs" and "site run by evil global mega-corporation".

    I think we need Tear back here, because this is some pretty major scale cognitive dissonance we've got going on here. This is why it was better when he was around all the time, because then if we tried anything with the cognitive dissonance he'd be on to us right away.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    ITT non-sequiter
    Really?

    OG thinks it is necessary for his "oh so important websites" to be able to make a profit, so let them charge instead of using ads. If Symantec pays you to advertise on your site, aren't you going to be less inclined to think their software is garbage?
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    If Symantec pays you to advertise on your site, aren't you going to be less inclined to think their software is garbage?
    Many sites run ad services so the ad suppliers don't have any weight on what the website is able to provide discussion on. You may now refer back to LittleFuzzy's post.

  19. #49
    Yes, really. It's a pretty well documented trend that people do not expect to have to pay for stuff on the Internet. And if only one or a handful of sites charge for content, then people will just go elsewhere. So, no people won't pay for a service that is worth paying for, because they have an expectation that it 'should' be free because it's on the internet.

    If most sites start charging, then that of course would be different. But personally, I'd prefer it if most sites got revenue through advertising. I block anything especially irritating (flashing banners, etc) but I leave most of the rest: I'd rather have a few adverts on the article I'm reading than have to pay a subscription for the stuff. The specific problem with adblock is that that it doesn't allow you to be that targeted: it blocks everything and half the time you don't even know it's doing it.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    They're actually security risks. Lots of malware gets sneaked into the content lists of ad-providing services.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Many sites run ad services so the ad suppliers don't have any weight on what the website is able to provide discussion on. You may now refer back to LittleFuzzy's post.
    Sure, I'll refer back to Fuzzball's post.

    At least Steely is rational, even if I don't agree with what he is saying. You don't even make sense.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Sure, I'll refer back to Fuzzball's post.
    It was to show that websites don't commonly have control over their adstream, and thus their adstream doesn't control the website. LittleFuzzy may make it sound like a larger threat then it truely is, but even he knew of the relationship websites have with advertising.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Are you trying to prove that your only debating trick is 'don't look here, look overthere?'.

    I will put up with adds, but what really bothers me are the flash adds that are difficult to close (closing button in a very unusual place and in a colour that makes it hard to find)
    No, I'm attacking OG's self-righteousness on an issue he really has no grounds to be self-righteous on.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I see. We've already learned from Wraithy that the costs of running a website are minimal. So these "smaller scale" game and review sites and forums don't actually need your ad-revenue. Luckily for all of them, though, there's a sucker born every minute.
    It's already been said, but I'll repeat it anyways: this site is cheap because there aren't many of you and we don't have to pay anyone to keep you fuckers coming back.

    Also, all the ad-providing services are as secure as they want to be. The places on large legitimate websites rarely have any security issues.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    It's already been said, but I'll repeat it anyways: this site is cheap because there aren't many of you and we don't have to pay anyone to keep you fuckers coming back.
    The help also doesn't have to be paid either. That keeps the cost down too.
    . . .

  25. #55
    Now that Wrath showed up. Any reason you went with Domains by Proxy? And what were you doing with this place for the year before we moved in?

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Now that Wrath showed up. Any reason you went with Domains by Proxy?
    Because I knew sooner or later someone would do a lookup. Why make it easy?

    And what were you doing with this place for the year before we moved in?
    Telling myself I was going to get rid of it any moment now.

    This place was registered the first time Loki wanted to do a blog project thing, this is the name that won the vote (because Loki completely ignored my suggestion to do an instant run-off, because he couldn't understand the mechanics of it). When that never took off, this place just laid idle.

  27. #57
    He's not talking about large legitimate sites, though. He's already carefully explained that he's talking about sites run by 4 guys and whatnot. Why the hell should anyone think paying some guy and his friends to play video games to "review" them is useful? If I want to look into software before I buy it, I'm sure as hell not going to trust someone like that. Hell, he's all excited and defending websites right now that I doubt most people have never even heard of. The internet is not overflowing with geeks anymore; most people who go online would never wind up at someplace like 4guysandalaptop.com (if that really exists I'm sorry). These same people probably aren't even aware that it is possible to block the ad that tells them to "click here to see if you're a winner."

    A lot of the kid sites have really annoying ads that link them to places ... for example, my son found out about the nickelodeon website while playing Neopets games at my mother's house on IE without signing into his own (paid) account - he clicked on an ad for Spongebob something.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    He's not talking about large legitimate sites, though. He's already carefully explained that he's talking about sites run by 4 guys and whatnot. Why the hell should anyone think paying some guy and his friends to play video games to "review" them is useful? If I want to look into software before I buy it, I'm sure as hell not going to trust someone like that. Hell, he's all excited and defending websites right now that I doubt most people have never even heard of. The internet is not overflowing with geeks anymore; most people who go online would never wind up at someplace like 4guysandalaptop.com (if that really exists I'm sorry). These same people probably aren't even aware that it is possible to block the ad that tells them to "click here to see if you're a winner."
    Your argument here is basically that not all websites are worth the bandwidth, right? If you'd never go to sites like the one you describe then this is a non-issue, and irrelevant to the discussion.

    I know of all the sites that have been brought up in here, even if I don't go to them regularly. They're not tiny fly-by-night operations.

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    He's not talking about large legitimate sites, though. He's already carefully explained that he's talking about sites run by 4 guys and whatnot. Why the hell should anyone think paying some guy and his friends to play video games to "review" them is useful? If I want to look into software before I buy it, I'm sure as hell not going to trust someone like that. Hell, he's all excited and defending websites right now that I doubt most people have never even heard of. The internet is not overflowing with geeks anymore; most people who go online would never wind up at someplace like 4guysandalaptop.com (if that really exists I'm sorry). These same people probably aren't even aware that it is possible to block the ad that tells them to "click here to see if you're a winner."
    You problem is ignorance, its that simple. A large and dominant website doesn't need to be run by a huge corporation. HardOCP is one of the leading hardware sites out there. They've got the largest gathering of distributed computing power in programs like Stanford's Folding@Home. They blew the cover off of Infinium Labs for their bullshit gaming console. You've written them off as a garage attempt simply because its not in your circle.
    They are providing a service that is valuable. Why should I block their revenue stream?

    Theres a reason most forums ban users for spreading adblock. Its not about lining their pocket books, most forums operate on razor thin margins. Its the difference between being able to pay the next bill, or having to shut down. If Wraith wasn't as awesome as he was, would you foot the bill for the vB license, or the domain renewal fees due this year? Better question would be why would any of us have to, if a banner can cover the fee for us?

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Your argument here is basically that not all websites are worth the bandwidth, right? If you'd never go to sites like the one you describe then this is a non-issue, and irrelevant to the discussion.

    I know of all the sites that have been brought up in here, even if I don't go to them regularly. They're not tiny fly-by-night operations.
    The only discussion I am involved in is the one where OG seems to think using adblock is keeping the poor starving geeks from making a living by taking advantage of suckers.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •