It depends on the sites that people visit and their reputability (and that of the ad networks they use). I must admit that those sites with the meta refresh that's annoyingly low (i.e. 20 seconds) can get troublesome (as can sites that have a lot of ads per page). The choice should be simple for visitors: don't visit those sites. (Not: punish all sites because of some networks/sites that can't keep ads under control.) However, I can't see where they'd be interested in blocking sites that are practicing legitimate advertising methods and not trying to banner (I guess what they say is true... you can verb any word in english) you to death. Despite what some people may think, banner ads are extremely important (some might even go as far as to say they *are* the net). All you have to do is compare the net pre-1994 with the net post-1994, and you'll see just how important ads actually are. (Without banner ads, the net would be nowhere near as expansive, informative, or popular as it is now... having a domain would still just be for the "wow" factor of a few friends, not the "necessity" that it is today.) As someone who depends entirely on banner ad dollars (unlike the ISP's out there, I don't make money from hosting, so I have to make it in some other manner), I'm strongly against the practice of blocking ads. I focus on making sure there is no more than one ad per page (many times, they are animated, but they don't reload on one given page visit, and the restrictions vary from 10-15k for max size) and restrict meta refresh to areas of downloads or chat (with a reasonable 150 second reload time in most cases). >From the work I've done with Burst, 24/7, and Flycast, I have not noticed any of the >practices that are mentioned below to be problematic (and these networks do cover >over half the net's visitors, which should give you an idea that the average net >surfer could expect something similar). Granted, 24/7 does sometimes have java ads >(but even with my 28.8 modem, it's not a problem, and they do load smoothly). As a result of the fact that my interest is providing the desired content to people who are willing to support the sites (and anyone using banner blocking software is just wasting bandwidth because they're definitely not supporting anything), I don't see much reason for the banner blocking. Just blocking one site like doubleclick.net isn't a solution that would make me approve either (they reach about 47% of the internet, so you're blocking some hugely commercial sites that have primarily 1-2 ads per page). It goes back to my last post... people need to use common sense (I hear it's available for a relatively low price). If a site is "annoying", don't go to it. If you like a site and want it to stay online, don't block the banners (or you could be helping it into the red, and potentially harming its ability to stay online). Of course, it's all a matter of choice, and (at least until the government intervenes and ruins everything), we can all make the choices about our internet habits. However, if people are practicing something that could potentially harm one of their favorite sites, they could just be shooting themselves in the feet (maybe some people like that...). Shane >From: John Aldrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Blocking Banner ads (Was - Re: Why reply to list and Cc author?) >Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:11:59 -0400 > > > >On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Mail Lists wrote: >> >> In terms of the banner blocking software, all I can say is that I'm glad it's >> not a widespread problem (yes, even though less than 1% of the internet uses it, >> it is still a problem). People wanting less loading time to avoid that "hefty" >> 10k banner at the top of each page are simply ripping off the web site publisher >> >Well, it has been MY experience that often it's NOT just a "10k >banner" it's that blasted ANIMATED banner that keeps reloading or >frequent reloading of the ads by the web site publishers that are the >problem. They reload so often that they have reloaded about 25 or 30 >times by the time that an average page loads! Sheesh! Can you REALLY >say that's good for business or good for the average consumer??? I >support banner-blocking software!!! >> >> (if they've got ads on the site, they're there for a >> purpose, and they don't want their business to suffer because >> someone isn't patient enough to let a banner load). And yet, some >> of these same people who refuse to let banner ads load (because >> they "take too long") are no doubt downloading huge files from >> these sites with no concern to bandwidth or expenses... >> >OK...my 2 cents' worth -- I work for an ISP so I have some idea of >how expensive commercial web space is. HOWEVER, as I pointed out >above, many of these "banner ads" have become so persistent that they >reload a dozen or more times before the page finishes loading, all of >which reduces bandwidth available for downloading the page. Now, I >wouldn't mind so much if it were just a static, single-image banner >ad. However, it's these animated, multi-reloading banner ads (or >those that alternate a dozen DIFFERENT banner ads in the space of 5 >minutes) that really bug me and make me WANT to block their ads! To >me, that's "Excessively Annoying Behavior" as we used to say back in >the days of FidoNet (I used to be a Fido Sysop <G>) >> >> I've noticed that some people really don't know how important banner ads can be >> in the past (and having consumers who are uninformed is a great way for the >> company you mentioned to do business), but the release of software to block >> banner ads is a completely despicable act that I wouldn't want to be associated >> with. (It's also good to see you didn't mention the name or the url.) >> >Well, you can do it with ipchains, which comes built into Linux. Just >block "doubleclick.net" and that other site <G> >Seriously, though....you probably haven't been to those sites that >have multiple, alternating banner ads, or worse, those <ahem> "adult" >sites that are almost nothing BUT banner ads! ------------------------------------------------------------ Goto http://www.vgf.net for the latest gaming info, updated daily.
