[backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
This is all my personal point of view. you're possibly saving them money by not downloading their assets, saving them a (fractional) amount of transit costs. Ad serving costs are usually bore by the advertiser or an agency. Anyhow - this cost is cost of revenue so the higher it is the better it is, assuming your business model is viable! I've just skipped some ads on my PVR. Is that unethical? I turned over the centre-ad-spread in a glossy mag - ditto? PVR - yes. Mag - not so much. The magazine has a multiple revenue streams. Blocking ads on websites is particularly nasty because of the cost-per-user. If 1 person watches a TV programme the cost of transmission is the same as if 1000 people watch it. On a website this isn't the case - there is a relatively high cost per user. Just ask anyone that has been on the front page of Slashdot or the like. What I look at on my own computer is surely up to me. Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back. If banner-ad doesn't make companies enough money to survive, isn't that up to them - and whether I block the ads or not, isn't that up to me? The problem here is that you are seemingly disconnected from the effects of ad blocking. I run a fair-sized website that employs people. If everyone blocks the ads the website wouldn't exist, the people running it wouldn't have jobs, and the users wouldn't get their content. In the shorter term - advertising will always get to you as there is too much money involved. Banners are one of the least evil ways of doing this. Block them and you'll get crap spammy websites, flogs [1], and advertorials. Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food from people's tables. J [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flogdefid=1084732#108473 2 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
At 08:27 + 26/2/07, James Cridland wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Morris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Ian has been bugging me to delurk, so I thought I'd post something I put together the other day that should be interesting and/or useful for the Londoners on this list... http://blogs.opml.org/tommorris/2007/02/22#twitterTubeTracker http://blogs.opml.org/tommorris/2007/02/22#twitterTubeTracker I developed it because I wanted to scratch an itch - to know before I get to the Tube station whether the Circle line is running okay - and because I don't like premium rate text services where you pay like 50p to find out only a couple of bits (in the Shannon sense) of information. This is very cool; though for the Londoners here, you should also know about http://alerts.tfl.gov.uk/http://alerts.tfl.gov.uk/ - an email/text-alert system run by TfL and BBC London. It's very good: and is customiseable for your journey times. Emails - and texts - are all entirely free. Not to say this doesn't live on Twitter, though. - And doesn't work underground on the Tube? It would of course work in cities which allow mobile phone use on their underground railways (e.g. Stockholm). Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
It's coming, by next year apparently... http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-con tent.asp?prID=58 J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon Joly Sent: 26 February 2007 09:56 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; James Cridland Subject: Re: [backstage] Tube on Twitter At 08:27 + 26/2/07, James Cridland wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Morris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Ian has been bugging me to delurk, so I thought I'd post something I put together the other day that should be interesting and/or useful for the Londoners on this list... http://blogs.opml.org/tommorris/2007/02/22#twitterTubeTracker http://blogs.opml.org/tommorris/2007/02/22#twitterTubeTracker I developed it because I wanted to scratch an itch - to know before I get to the Tube station whether the Circle line is running okay - and because I don't like premium rate text services where you pay like 50p to find out only a couple of bits (in the Shannon sense) of information. This is very cool; though for the Londoners here, you should also know about http://alerts.tfl.gov.uk/http://alerts.tfl.gov.uk/ - an email/text-alert system run by TfL and BBC London. It's very good: and is customiseable for your journey times. Emails - and texts - are all entirely free. Not to say this doesn't live on Twitter, though. - And doesn't work underground on the Tube? It would of course work in cities which allow mobile phone use on their underground railways (e.g. Stockholm). Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food from people's tables. Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads... (That being an option of Adblock) Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to click. J [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Through_Rate - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] HD-DVD how DRM was defeated
Andrew Bowden wrote: A less cynical way can be explained on the subject of web usability. Usability experts will tell you that many users get rather daunted by very long pages full of text, so the way round it is to split the article over several pages. Which is something I've always found odd - I prefer all the content on a single page (especially as having the content spread across multiple web pages makes it difficult to review earlier material). It's why I find IBM's DeveloperWorks one of the better developer sites on the net, as each article is on a single page. I tend to dislike the ones that separate their articles into several pages (webmonkey would be an example, but there are countless others). Maybe it depends on your target audience, or maybe it's old advice from when looking at long pages of text on a computer was a fairly new experience to a lot of people. However, it is difficult not to get cynical as it does seem like the sites that use a single page are the ones that are less dependent on advertising. Scot
RE: [backstage] HD-DVD how DRM was defeated
Aha! Back in the day (about 4 years ago) BBC Web producers were measured on Page Impressions, rather than the now current Unique Users. On older sites you'll find a lot of areas like galleries, articles, and quizzes that split content in to lots of subpages, and encouraged repeated clicking. This is not a coincidence... (This was, however, 4 years ago, and isn't something that goes on any more.) That's a slightly cynical way of looking at paginating a story over several pages. A less cynical way can be explained on the subject of web usability. Usability experts will tell you that many users get rather daunted by very long pages full of text, so the way round it is to split the article over several pages. Which is the correct answer in this case, well I don't know. However at the BBC we've done the latter a few times. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 2/26/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Out of interest, how do you stand on hiding ads... (That being an option of Adblock) Probably even worse. Your hurting the website even more - lowering the CTR [1] by registering an impression, yet user has no opportunity to click. For Google AdSense, the website owner (normally) only earns from PPC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_per_clickhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_per_click - so hiding the ads is just as bad as blocking them entirely. As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser). Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be, though). J
RE: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
And doesn't work underground on the Tube? Despite its name, about 55% of the network is above ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground It would of course work in cities which allow mobile phone use on their underground railways (e.g. Stockholm). Coming in 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4373015.stm :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] A couple of things including Arrington
On 2/23/07, Sebastian Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Michael said] you're not a for-profit entity and you're screwing it up for everyone else. He then referenced the recently-announced CBBCWorld: you just launched some stupid kids social network, well you didn't actually launch anything, you just announced it with some screenshots. Apparently CBBCWorld has already disrupted 4-5 startups who will not now receive VC funding. Except CBBCWorld isn't a social network. It's a single-player 3D game. Oops. Well, ignoring the detail and getting on to the charge he makes: ITN and The Guardian would certainly claim that the BBC disrupts the online news marketplace. The BBC's childrens stuff clearly disrupts the childens' market. Similarly, it's certainly true that there are many things the BBC appears to do that harms commercial radio, since it doesn't have to follow the same rules, nor the same funding structure. I'd love to know how much money my employer was getting in next year: the BBC knows until 2012, which is an enviable position to be in. There is some truth in what Arrington says. But this probably isn't the place to have that discussion. However, I do object to people opining without knowledge. On Cranky Geeks this week, one of the studio guests said how splendid oscartorrents.com was, because by running this, the Oscars have finally shown what the power of the internet can do. Sheesh. Hello?! -- http://james.cridland.net/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
James Cridland wrote: Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be, though). And if those content blockers proliferate, so will Greasemonkey scripts to counter them. It's an arms race. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
At 10:12 + 26/2/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: It's coming, by next year apparently... http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=58 Or more succinctly http://tinyurl.com/2yx3oa Thanks. Very interesting. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back. If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me, including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC If banner-ad doesn't make companies enough money to survive, isn't that up to them - and whether I block the ads or not, isn't that up to me? The problem here is that you are seemingly disconnected from the effects of ad blocking. I run a fair-sized website that employs people. If everyone blocks the ads the website wouldn't exist, the people running it wouldn't have jobs, and the users wouldn't get their content. If your only revenue stream is adverts, then you're doing something wrong. Unless you're an ad agency of course (i.e. google). Why not sell something; extra content for example? If it's good, and you have a strong community people will pay. Infact if your ads are non-intrusive (eg. some small google, or other text ads) and you have good content for free, I'll white-list you and click on your ads without reading them. In short you shouldn't build a website around ads, build it around good content; then put a few small ads in to generate revenue. In the shorter term - advertising will always get to you as there is too much money involved. Banners are one of the least evil ways of doing this. Block them and you'll get crap spammy websites, flogs [1], and advertorials. Nobody can stop you blocking ads, but by doing so you are taking food from people's tables. If a website is crap and spammy or is astroturfing I won't go to it, so that's not a real problem. Secondly I'm not taking food off any one's table, it's a bad business model that's doing that. I'm happy to support sites that give me good content as long as they don't force me to gouge my eyes out. The advertising companies (double-click et. al.), and those who support them however, can take a running jump, or develop a sustainable bussiness model. Their choice. Vijay
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser). Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be, though). J As was pointed out, Adblock can download the ads then hide them client side. You're making a rod for your own back by doing that as I'll put a heavier load on your server yet still not see the ads, and as Jason pointed out it supposedly lowers the CTR (I'm unconvinced, I've never seen an ad that I wanted to click anyway) as well. So let the various content blocking scripts proliferate, as long as I can do what I like with my client they will not only remain pointless, but actually harm you. Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; if they have an adblocker, and your stuff is good, you should have no need for said scripts as your community will *want* to support you. Vijay.
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads Most ad programs prohibit publishers from asking readers to click on ads as a way of showing support. Advertising pays for a lot of work on the net and it doesnÂ’t hurt to show a bit of support by visiting an advertiserÂ… if only for a second or two. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 4:30 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated) On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a point of interest, larger website owners *do* pay for the serving of the ads (as well, in most cases, as the advertiser). Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be, though). J As was pointed out, Adblock can download the ads then hide them client side. You're making a rod for your own back by doing that as I'll put a heavier load on your server yet still not see the ads, and as Jason pointed out it supposedly lowers the CTR (I'm unconvinced, I've never seen an ad that I wanted to click anyway) as well. So let the various content blocking scripts proliferate, as long as I can do what I like with my client they will not only remain pointless, but actually harm you. Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; if they have an adblocker, and your stuff is good, you should have no need for said scripts as your community will *want* to support you. Vijay.
[no subject]
On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back. If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me, including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one. At this point someone usually says something along the lines of as soon as you start paying Tim Berners-Lee a license to use the internet, or that information should be free at the point of access etc Tony TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
[backstage] Re:
Please remember to leave subject headers as they are, so users can organize properly. Thanks. On 26 Feb 2007, at 17:12, Anthony Green wrote: On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back. If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me, including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one. At this point someone usually says something along the lines of as soon as you start paying Tim Berners-Lee a license to use the internet, or that information should be free at the point of access etc Tony Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's Adsense policy. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182topic=8423 In particular: May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as click the ads, support us, visit these links or other similar language Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back. If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me, including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one. -- Peter Bowyer What's that supposed to mean? You're either publishing your content (in whatever format) on a public network or not. Making an exception for a specific person or group of people doesn't make it any less public. If you don't want your users to do with it what they like (i.e. not look at your adverts) don't host it on a public network, host it privately or on a VPN and make the terms of viewing it that people have to watch the ads (not that that will stop people, as already mentioned they'll just download the ads then hide them). Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 26/02/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: vijay chopra wrote: Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's Adsense policy. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182topic=8423 In particular: May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as click the ads, support us, visit these links or other similar language Scot Well I admit that I've not seen a site explicitly ask for support by saying click the ads but I've seen many say we depend on the ad revenue or similar, usually in threads on forums. Also, if there's no other noticeable form of revenue, it's a safe bet that project x depends on money from Adsense. Even if they don't clicking on ads it an easy way to show your support for a project. So that's what I do for good sites; I would recommend others do the same. Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked.
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/02/07, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, however if you are using other people's server juice and bandwidth then you should pay for it on their terms. Not a big ask. If the banner or whatever payment terms they have annoys you, then don't go back. If you don't want me to look at your site, on my terms, don't put it on a public network; otherwise I'll do what I like with what you serve me, including not taking content (aka adverts)on my PC Perhaps you'd care to publish a list of the IP addresses you're likely to use a web site from, in order that the owners can comply with your requirements, then. I'd be glad too, for one. -- Peter Bowyer What's that supposed to mean? You're either publishing your content (in whatever format) on a public network or not. I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Tube on Twitter
At 11:04 + 26/2/07, Kim Plowright wrote: And doesn't work underground on the Tube? Despite its name, about 55% of the network is above ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground It would of course work in cities which allow mobile phone use on their underground railways (e.g. Stockholm). Coming in 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4373015.stm :) In time for London Olympics 2012 then! Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So you think the ToU of a website could legitimately say if you want to view this site you must view it all? Because that's what it sounds like (after all my proposed use is just not using some of it at all), and without taking control of my eyeballs I don't see how that's possible. Even when on the web away from my home PC, and thus expose to adverts, I take no notice of them and just scroll past them, what would any ToU have to say about that, or would you say to view this site you must view the advertisements? In which case how would you enforce it? Vijay.
Re: [backstage] A couple of things including Arrington
HI James! On 26/02/07, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Cranky Geeks this week, one of the studio guests said how splendid oscartorrents.com was, The fact you deliberately linked to a torrent site - thus removing the chance of the oscar winners to earn money from their films, and/or effectively market them as physical products, is very telling. I am deeply sorry that you don't want people to earn money from creative work; and disappointed that you promote the idea that content-creators need to control the distribution of their content, yet casually pull stunts like this. You've made your point very clearly on this list a number of times. It's now turning from charmingly naive discussion to something rather more hypocritical. ;-) -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Cheers, Rich. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking (was: HD-DVD how DRM was defeated)
On 26/02/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/02/07, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I completely disagree. The ToU of my website could preclude its use in the way you're proposing. I can take proportionate steps to enforce my ToU - which in this case could include preventing your proposed use. So you think the ToU of a website could legitimately say if you want to view this site you must view it all? Because that's what it sounds like (after all my proposed use is just not using some of it at all), and without taking control of my eyeballs I don't see how that's possible.Even when on the web away from my home PC, and thus expose to adverts, I take no notice of them and just scroll past them, what would any ToU have to say about that, or would you say to view this site you must view the advertisements? In which case how would you enforce it? Of course it's not 100% enforceable, and the cost of enforcing the edge cases would be too great. But my point is that you don't have the right you seem to be claiming to use my (theoretcial) website's content in any way you choose - I have the right to restrict your use by ToU, and to take technical steps to enforce that ToU if I choose. Ad blocking by a small minority isn't a problem, but as has already been pointed out here, as it increases, it starts to affect the commercials of the site owner. A large site, as you've correctly pointed out, has other forms of revenue, monitors the effectiveness of all such forms constantly, and is able to shift its focus as and when it needs to. But it's the smaller site which relies on its ad revenue to stay cost-neutral that would be badly hurt if a large proportion of its users blocked its ads. Those sites at least have the right to say 'if you want to take my content, take my ads', and to take technical steps to enforce that. The user of course has the right to say 'no thanks' and go elsewhere. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
-Original Message- From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 February 2007 07:22 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking Until you show me that your site isn't just a waste of bandwidth, however, you're Adblocked. If a site's a waste of bandwidth, what are you doing visiting in the first place? Making his evaluation? Don't criticise something without first knowing what you're on about, etc etc. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
