Adblock and Google?

[IFeelYourPain]

Does Adblock still block Google Adsense?

[oracleguy]

I'm not sure but I think it does. At the very least I can't remember the last time I saw them and I use ADP.

[Apostropartheid]

It did so last time I used Firefox. Why?

[IFeelYourPain]

Is there a way to disabled Adblock for Google Adsense or just in general?

[Apostropartheid]

No. That'd be silly. Then everyone would do it.

[IFeelYourPain]

No. That'd be silly. Then everyone would do it.

Yea, but google adsense isn't malicious. People that are in the website business can't make an honest living without some form of living. Ever since that stupid addon came out my profits decreased 49% over fold.

[tspek]

Yea, but google adsense isn't malicious. People that are in the website business can't make an honest living without some form of living. Ever since that stupid addon came out my profits decreased 49% over fold.

That's not how capitalism works, unfortunately.

Is there a way to block content if that addon is being used? Are you sure that your profit decrease has to do with the addon? I can't think of a single person I know in the real world who knows what that is.

[IFeelYourPain]

That's not how capitalism works, unfortunately.

Is there a way to block content if that addon is being used? Are you sure that your profit decrease has to do with the addon? I can't think of a single person I know in the real world who knows what that is.

Still the creator stated that the whole reason he created it was to get rid of malicious content, yet no matter how many people say to unblock Google Adsense, he refuses.


Yea... I'm positive. My active members went up 127% and my profits went down 35%.

[tspek]

Still the creator stated that the whole reason he created it was to get rid of malicious content, yet no matter how many people say to unblock Google Adsense, he refuses.


Yea... I'm positive. My active members went up 127% and my profits went down 35%.

Correlation isn't causation. How do you know those new members are using ad blocking software?

[Rowsdower!]

My active members went up 127% and my profits went down 35%.

Profits or revenues? There is an important distinction to be made as we don't know anything about your costs. Besides which we are in a global recession... That might account for some of your dip in revenue.

yet no matter how many people say to unblock Google Adsense, he refuses.
OT (as is much of the thread so far :D): I can't blame him.

Google ads are a nuisance at the very least anyway. Even if not "malicious" I'd be upset if they weren't blocked by an ad-blocker - especially since Google ads are probably the most prevalent in the industry. My reason for blocking ads in the first place is that I can't stand looking at them - not because I'm afraid of security breaches. I'm also not a big fan of Google tracking my every move anyway, but that's another topic all together.

Anyway, it's pretty similar circumstances here as it is for my disabling flash. It's not because I'm afraid of a flash security issue, I just hate the horrible content (obnoxious banners and such) that flash tends to bring to my browser. If your users don't want to stare at text ads designed to blend into the page as if they were actual content (which is supremely annoying and very intrusive to the web experience, in my opinion) then don't force it on them. Most of the clicks you suppose you have lost were probably accidental clicks that irritated your users when they landed on the target page anyway. Don't expect your ads to be the exception - that users installed the ad-blocker wanting to block all ads EXCEPT yours.

Now, somewhat more on-topic: Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Google Adsense has just made developers lazy about their marketing. If you want ads geared toward your users then you should probably be getting ads based on the subject/content of your site rather than asking Google to track your users' browsing history. If they're using your site then they would presumably be interested about related topics and purchases which is what would make them click on the ad to begin with. Rather than over-saturation, try infusing a little quality and relevance into your ad space and then you won't worry much about ad-blockers.

[IFeelYourPain]

Profits or revenues? There is an important distinction to be made as we don't know anything about your costs. Besides which we are in a global recession... That might account for some of your dip in revenue.


OT (as is much of the thread so far :D): I can't blame him.

Google ads are a nuisance at the very least anyway. Even if not "malicious" I'd be upset if they weren't blocked by an ad-blocker - especially since Google ads are probably the most prevalent in the industry. My reason for blocking ads in the first place is that I can't stand looking at them - not because I'm afraid of security breaches. I'm also not a big fan of Google tracking my every move anyway, but that's another topic all together.

Anyway, it's pretty similar circumstances here as it is for my disabling flash. It's not because I'm afraid of a flash security issue, I just hate the horrible content (obnoxious banners and such) that flash tends to bring to my browser. If your users don't want to stare at text ads designed to blend into the page as if they were actual content (which is supremely annoying and very intrusive to the web experience, in my opinion) then don't force it on them. Most of the clicks you suppose you have lost were probably accidental clicks that irritated your users when they landed on the target page anyway. Don't expect your ads to be the exception - that users installed the ad-blocker wanting to block all ads EXCEPT yours.

Now, somewhat more on-topic: Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Google Adsense has just made developers lazy about their marketing. If you want ads geared toward your users then you should probably be getting ads based on the subject/content of your site rather than asking Google to track your users' browsing history. If they're using your site then they would presumably be interested about related topics and purchases which is what would make them click on the ad to begin with. Rather than over-saturation, try infusing a little quality and relevance into your ad space and then you won't worry much about ad-blockers.

Well if you get to choose to disable my ads I should at least get to choose if you are allowed to view my site without advertising enabled.

Google should just check to see if the ads loaded successfully and if they didn't deny them access in the first place.

[tspek]

Well if you get to choose to disable my ads I should at least get to choose if you are allowed to view my site without advertising enabled.

That's what I suggested earlier. There has to be a way for a website to check whether or not the program is running I would think.

I agree with you 100%. If a website is supported by the ads it shows and the people behind that website don't want some people to get free content without viewing the ads that allow that content to be free, then so be it.

Now you just have to figure out how to program that in.

[Rowsdower!]

I'm sure people said the same thing when popup/popunder blockers became standard in browsers - I wasn't paying attention then, but the arguments must have been similar. Also, you still haven't answered regarding profits vs. revenues (and was that 49% or 35%). If your traffic more than doubled then your hosting costs likely went up which can account for part of the dip if we're talking strictly about profits.

And OK, so there's plenty of sarcasm in this post but seriously consider the following:

Well if you get to choose to disable my ads I should at least get to choose if you are allowed to view my site without advertising enabled.

Sure but at the same time no, not really. You're the vendor - you have something to gain by my presence whether I click or not. I'm the customer - I can take my "business" (traffic) elsewhere. If I want to disable ads, images, flash, cookies, or javascript I have that right. I can open and edit your source code to make every sentence of your content into recipes for apple pie. I can run my own javascript on your page. I can invert colors. I can change my screen settings to make the browser appear upside-down. I can set the background color or font size to be different than you wanted. I can minimize, resize, or close my browser window any time I like. It's my machine and I can run it how I like - that's life. I agree that you have the right to try meddle with the customer's access to your content - but - you deny service to the customer at your own peril. You may also try to restrict user controls at your own peril (think of right-click blocker scripts, ugh!).

That said, the type of person who would use an ad-blocker is PROBABLY not the type of person who would be purposefully clicking on ads anyway. You're looking to target the caliber of people who buy from spam mail, telemarketers, and infomercials and these people usually lack the brains to do anything more than point, grunt, give out their credit card information, and clap their hands with wild excitement. Addons are usually over their heads.

Google should just check to see if the ads loaded successfully and if they didn't deny them access in the first place.

You're right, that's a great idea. :rolleyes:

If you want to make money that way (based on the consumer's demand and passion for your content) then why not just create a paid membership system and shake people down at the door? If your content is really so solid, unique, and valuable that it can't be found elsewhere with less hassle then you really should protect it. I'm skeptical about that level of value though. My guess is that what you are presenting is pretty basic information or opinions that people probably wouldn't pay for. If I'm wrong about that then you should be seriously looking at premium member services for generating revenue - not to mention Paypal donation buttons. I know I'm a million times more likely to donate or sign up for membership to sites that I value than I am to shop through in-page ads.

Moreover, what's your overhead for this service? $6-$9/year for domain plus hosting costs? Hosting costs can be free, depending on what you're doing, but I'll assume that you have at least a basic paid package - probably $80/year for starters. That's $7.00/month unless you're running a pretty darn big & popular site. How large is your site's audience? Do you have enough traffic that you need a dedicated server? Dedicated IP? SSL certificate (probably not if you're relying on ad revenue to stay afloat)? If the answer to each of these is "no" then you probably shouldn't even begin to complain since the costs for a small site are practically nothing. Given that your traffic increased by 127% (more than doubling itself) over the last few months or year then you're probably not big-time enough to have high overhead - or any real inherent value. This is all guesswork on my part but the answers to these questions should be carefully considered before going off the deep end.

What is not guesswork is that there will always be casual users who are "freeloaders" (hint: they're there already). Trying to exclude them will only lose your hard-earned traffic, of which they are a large part. Even freeloader traffic has its value. With traffic goes your page rank, your word-of-mouth, and any shred of professionalism you have. I don't see the benefit of belly-aching about it, but if you must...well, go ahead.

That's what I suggested earlier. There has to be a way for a website to check whether or not the program is running I would think.

Sure there are ways, but they don't work on adblock plus anymore:
http://adblockdetector.com/
http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/how-to-detect-adblock-plus/
http://www.adblock.org/2004/07/adblock_detection_script/

Plus if JS is disabled then these detectors are to no avail. That leaves a pretty big loophole.

Now if you are truly determined to shoot yourself in the foot then you can make the whole page content javascript based (since adsense runs on js and you want to exclude everyone who isn't using adsense you won't mind excluding people with js disabled as they are one-in-the-same for your needs). The <noscript> section can just say "up yours!" or something similarly snappy and then your script can run the detector, capture the adsense response just to make sure it worked, and then only write the rest of the page after google adsense has successfully completed its mission.

Voila! Perfection is realized! Of course, you will also be excluding search engines since they don't use adsense. Do you think that might be a problem?

So I hope that this is all taken in good jest. I mean no offense but the whole argument is just silly if you have quality content.

P.S. How often do you click through the ads here on CF - and don't BS me on this. Be honest at least with yourself if nobody else. Under your model should you be blocked from participating in this forum for lack of advertising support?

[oracleguy]

If you want to make money that way (based on the consumer's demand and passion for your content) then why not just create a paid membership system and shake people down at the door? If your content is really so solid, unique, and valuable that it can't be found elsewhere with less hassle then you really should protect it. I'm skeptical about that level of value though. My guess is that what you are presenting is pretty basic information or opinions that people probably wouldn't pay for. If I'm wrong about that then you should be seriously looking at premium member services for generating revenue - not to mention Paypal donation buttons. I know I'm a million times more likely to donate or sign up for membership to sites that I value than I am to shop through in-page ads.

Paywalls add huge issues in themselves and once you add one, if you ever decide to remove it, you may never get people back. But you are right, if you feel that your content is so unique and valued that you would block people using an ad blocker, your only recourse is a paywall.

There was an interesting article about removing a paywall not long ago: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/1658230/Saloncom-Editor-Looks-Back-At-Paywalls


P.S. How often do you click through the ads here on CF - and don't BS me on this. Be honest at least with yourself if nobody else. Under your model should you be blocked from participating in this forum for lack of advertising support?

That is a good point, I'd suspect a high percentage of people here block the ads.

As an aside, on Slashdot if you have good karma, after a while they give you the option of disabling the ads on their site without having to be a paid member. I thought it was a cool idea for a forum type site to do.

I agree with you 100%. If a website is supported by the ads it shows and the people behind that website don't want some people to get free content without viewing the ads that allow that content to be free, then so be it.

Now you just have to figure out how to program that in.

It is a wasted effort on your part. Even if someone devised some way to do it effectively, the next version of the ad blocking software would compensate for it. It is like copy protection schemes in software, for every 1 programmer working to build one, there are 10 working on circumventing it.

Plus if your site did block people with ad blockers but a competitor's site didn't, they would just leave your site and use your competitors.

[tspek]

It is a wasted effort on your part. Even if someone devised some way to do it effectively, the next version of the ad blocking software would compensate for it. It is like copy protection schemes in software, for every 1 programmer working to build one, there are 10 working on circumventing it.

Plus if your site did block people with ad blockers but a competitor's site didn't, they would just leave your site and use your competitors.
[/QUOTE]

My websites don't rely on advertisements anyways so I really can't relate. But it is his prerogative after all.

[oracleguy]

It is a wasted effort on your part. Even if someone devised some way to do it effectively, the next version of the ad blocking software would compensate for it. It is like copy protection schemes in software, for every 1 programmer working to build one, there are 10 working on circumventing it.

Plus if your site did block people with ad blockers but a competitor's site didn't, they would just leave your site and use your competitors.


My websites don't rely on advertisements anyways so I really can't relate. But it is his prerogative after all.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't referring to you personally per-se but more to anyone that would use such an approach.

[IFeelYourPain]

That's what I suggested earlier. There has to be a way for a website to check whether or not the program is running I would think.

I agree with you 100%. If a website is supported by the ads it shows and the people behind that website don't want some people to get free content without viewing the ads that allow that content to be free, then so be it.

Now you just have to figure out how to program that in.

What about if you made your own advertisement around 1 by 1 pixel and then used PHP to check if it runs? If I am correct then this should detect adblock plus along with other adblocking software.

http://www.consolediscussions.com/ads.php

[oracleguy]

What about if you made your own advertisement around 1 by 1 pixel and then used PHP to check if it runs? If I am correct then this should detect adblock plus along with other adblocking software.

http://www.consolediscussions.com/ads.php

Interesting idea but I doubt it would actually get people to turn off the ad blocking software. They'd be more likely to just leave after being annoyed.

You never responded to the question of if you use ad blocking software yourself.

[IFeelYourPain]

Interesting idea but I doubt it would actually get people to turn off the ad blocking software. They'd be more likely to just leave after being annoyed.

You never responded to the question of if you use ad blocking software yourself.
I use no script. I have google adsense enabled, but other annoying ones I block. I can understand how Adblock could block persistant adverts, but not Google Adsense. I've never had any problems out of them, and as long as that happens they will be on my white list.

I'm not wanting them annoyed lol. I haven't worked on the above script at all. Add in a cookie system and a little message alerting them as to why advertisements are important and they will only see the message once. Least until they clear their cookies. You can also redirect them to an error page, but that's only if you want to lose members. I just want them to add Google Adsense to their whitelist. I will alert them to it and hopefully they will listen. If not, that's probably when you start blocking those members with Adblock, but that's a last resort, like when you see no profits.

EDIT: See, I set it up on a cookie system and now it will only display the alert once. =]
http://www.consolediscussions.com/ads.php

[tspek]

Interesting idea but I doubt it would actually get people to turn off the ad blocking software. They'd be more likely to just leave after being annoyed.

You never responded to the question of if you use ad blocking software yourself.

What effect would that have on bots searching the site?

[Apostropartheid]

Well, I didn't get an alert, but I'm using a different advertisement-blocking software for this specific reason.

[waseem.here]

That is too bad that people started to use ad blockers. I think if we webmasters provide the people contents, we have right to atleast show advertisement in return. I think all webmasters should together launch a campaign against such plugins and should block access to those pcs who have ad blockers. Even some how this trend progresses, soon every thing on internet will be paid not free.

[Apostropartheid]

Actually, no: the Internet will die if that happens. People don't want to pay. They're used to not paying and you're never going to get rid of that mentality. If you block people with adblockers, they are going to go elsewhere. It's happened to me.

This is an interesting article: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/1658230/Saloncom-Editor-Looks-Back-At-Paywalls

[IFeelYourPain]

Well, I didn't get an alert, but I'm using a different advertisement-blocking software for this specific reason.

You switched adblockers to test if it would work with that one? I've already stated it would probably only work with Adblock. Though a few line changes and conditionals I could probably get it to work with any of them, though most use adblock since it's the most heard of.

[IFeelYourPain]

Sure but at the same time no, not really. You're the vendor - you have something to gain by my presence whether I click or not. I'm the customer - I can take my "business" (traffic) elsewhere. If I want to disable ads, images, flash, cookies, or javascript I have that right.
That's like buying a console and modifying it to play games. Just because you play backups doesn't mean it's still legal. You are modifying copyrighted content.

As far as the consumer goes... If I don't make money the site doesn't stay up, so if I had to choose from a member viewing my site for free, using my resources, and making me pay more for my hosting, or a member who clicks an advert every now and then... I think I'll take the every now and then, the others if they leave, good riddance. More server CPU for the rest of useful members. In all honesty... All my site needs is more leachers coming to my site and copying my **** word for word only to post it on the competitors anyhow...

That said, the type of person who would use an ad-blocker is PROBABLY not the type of person who would be purposefully clicking on ads anyway. You're looking to target the caliber of people who buy from spam mail, telemarketers, and infomercials and these people usually lack the brains to do anything more than point, grunt, give out their credit card information, and clap their hands with wild excitement. Addons are usually over their heads.

I actually like your point there, but there are still some smart stupid people lol.


Moreover, what's your overhead for this service? $6-$9/year for domain plus hosting costs? Hosting costs can be free, depending on what you're doing, but I'll assume that you have at least a basic paid package - probably $80/year for starters. That's $7.00/month unless you're running a pretty darn big & popular site. How large is your site's audience? Do you have enough traffic that you need a dedicated server? Dedicated IP? SSL certificate (probably not if you're relying on ad revenue to stay afloat)? If the answer to each of these is "no" then you probably shouldn't even begin to complain since the costs for a small site are practically nothing. Given that your traffic increased by 127% (more than doubling itself) over the last few months or year then you're probably not big-time enough to have high overhead - or any real inherent value.


I have 27,000 members. I run a 512 VPS offshore which runs me about 400$ a year, plus the 150$ VBulletin.

I get around 400 active members on per day. Not counting bots I've had 3,713 hits in the past 30 minutes.

I do run donations and paid services along with paid memberships. I make more money off of those than advertisements, but still I'm just a small little company that needs every bit of money he can get to cover the server fees and other things website related. I usually don't make a big profit and what I do make I usually spend on something new and spiffy for the site. I believe in bring fresh content to the users everyday and I just want to help out the community. Is it so much to ask for to just leave the advertisements viewable? Cause to me it seems like some users download a music to try it before they buy it, but never buy it... I feel like I'm getting pirated here.

[oracleguy]

That's like buying a console and modifying it to play games. Just because you play backups doesn't mean it's still legal. You are modifying copyrighted content.

:confused: Why buy a console that doesn't play games? Or do you mean pirated games? Oh by the way, making backups of legal purchased content is protected under fair use laws (at least in the US).


In all honesty... All my site needs is more leachers coming to my site and copying my **** word for word only to post it on the competitors anyhow...


If people are stealing your content, that is an entirely unrelated issue to advertisements.


Is it so much to ask for to just leave the advertisements viewable? Cause to me it seems like some users download a music to try it before they buy it, but never buy it... I feel like I'm getting pirated here.

People only use ad blockers because people that wanted to use advertisements took it too far. And now the damage is done, people are sick of it. (I'm not blaming you, I'm speaking about web advertisers in general)

Just like TV commercials are getting so bad people fast forward through them with their DVR or watch them on a less ad ridden format (DVD, Hulu, etc). Eventually someone is going to have to figure out a more effective way to make money on the web.

So it sounds like your site is just a forum (like CF is), I would imagine it would be hard to make a forum self sustaining from a monetary point of view.

[Apostropartheid]

IFeelYourPain, I highly recommend the article I posted for you to read. The guy who wrote it did the exact same thing, and put up a paywall. Blocking ads is similar to this.

PS: I sympathize, I truly do, with your plight: but blocking users isn't the way to do it. You're going to drive users away and you're never going to get them back, and, however you look at this, this will wreck your model. Maybe a heartfelt pledge on the top of your page (NOT in an alert, because those are spammy and will get dismissed) if the user has adblocking software which can be disabled. You have to remember that you're working on a medium where the user has control, not you, so you're going to have to use different tactics.

PPS: Your anology is bad: there is evidence to suggest pirates buy more music.

[oracleguy]

Maybe a heartfelt pledge on the top of your page (NOT in an alert, because those are spammy and will get dismissed) if the user has adblocking software which can be disabled. You have to remember that you're working on a medium where the user has control, not you, so you're going to have to use different tactics.

I like this idea. If you have a core user base, they are likely to understand and sympathize with you and it has a good shot at working.

[IFeelYourPain]

:confused: Why buy a console that doesn't play games? Or do you mean pirated games? Oh by the way, making backups of legal purchased content is protected under fair use laws (at least in the US).
Yes I know this, but it is illegal to modify or download the firmwares in question to do this, because it contains copyrighted material. The only way to do the legal is to do something illegal.

If people are stealing your content, that is an entirely unrelated issue to advertisements.
I was using it as a point, I wasn't trying to relate it to the ads.

PS: I sympathize, I truly do, with your plight: but blocking users isn't the way to do it. You're going to drive users away and you're never going to get them back, and, however you look at this, this will wreck your model. Maybe a heartfelt pledge on the top of your page (NOT in an alert, because those are spammy and will get dismissed) if the user has adblocking software which can be disabled. You have to remember that you're working on a medium where the user has control, not you, so you're going to have to use different tactics.
I wasn't planning on blocking their access at the moment. It's not too big of an issue, this was more of a curious topic, but after some research I figured out how to do it if needed. For now I am developing the research I have found into something greater. You say alerts will annoy them, but I said previously, the alert is displayed one time thanks to cookies. However I may distribute the cookie system into the page itself, so instead of using a javascript alert, I can run a conditional within the page and if the cookie is not found show an html message somewhere in the page alerting the users that Adblocking software is mean lol.

[Apostropartheid]

I meant alerts will get dismissed without being read. They are typically used for virus scams or stopping people leaving the page when they don't want to. A HTML message would be lots more effective, in my opinion, but a modal dialog could be used if you want to keep the "feel".

[Rowsdower!]

I like this idea. If you have a core user base, they are likely to understand and sympathize with you and it has a good shot at working.

Hmm. Yeah, but if they still aren't clicking because they're ad-averse in the first place then we're still just talking about getting income based on the number of times the ad loads. My understanding is that the rates for this are supremely low anyway. I guess every little bit helps but for the effort it takes you'd probably be better off focusing on affiliate links. That way you avoid annoying ads (flashing banners, blend-into-the-content text ads, mouseover a word and get a popup ad, etc.) and give users sensible ads for services or goods they might want based on the content of your site. Since it's a "static" or at least server-side-driven ad that you control it's in the HTML and not ad-blocker-relevant - thus it won't be blocked. Users get your content, you get more users, dedicated and more profitable ads get clicks based on actual relevance - everyone's happy.

That's like buying a console and modifying it to play games. Just because you play backups doesn't mean it's still legal. You are modifying copyrighted content.

That's not even in the same league, really. Console games aren't publibly broadcast by their copyright holders. We're talking about me locally editing and privately viewing a publicly broadcast medium. There is nothing illegal about that. I can, for instance, record live TV and insert home movies in place of dramatic plot points, then play it back for myself on my own TV at home and there is no infringement issue. Likewise, I can edit your page on my PC/browser as much as I want as long as I am not passing your work to another party and representing it as my own.

As far as the consumer goes... If I don't make money the site doesn't stay up, so if I had to choose from a member viewing my site for free, using my resources, and making me pay more for my hosting, or a member who clicks an advert every now and then... I think I'll take the every now and then, the others if they leave, good riddance. More server CPU for the rest of useful members. In all honesty... All my site needs is more leachers coming to my site and copying my **** word for word only to post it on the competitors anyhow...

I understand your line of reasoning but as far as I'm concerned this highlighted part is exactly where you're wrong. This is especially true now that I read that your site is primarily - or at least in large part - a forum. I can safely say that I have NEVER clicked on an ad here. Not once. It's nothing personal against CF. I just hate and disregard all ads. By and large I have accepted their existence but I absolutely never click on them and I probably never will. This almost makes me one of those "persona non grata" in your book. I don't happen to have ad-blocker enabled yet or else I would find myself squarely in your cross-hairs. :D

Even so, I have still added value to this site. I regularly offer solutions to problems (though perhaps not in this case ;)), I interact with new members to promote and encourage their involvement, and so on. This creates relevant search hits when search engines crawl the site (user posts) and propels the page rank higher down the road when people are able to find specifc posts resolving what they needed. This means better search relevance and more content, which leads to better page rank, which in turn leads to better exposure. Better exposure means more "cattle" passing through to click on ads but also means more contributing writers/posters, and thus potentially more people who would create their own content and might even consider using a "donate" button if offered. My first experience with CF at all was finding them on a google search for a problem I had. The post had a useful answer. Then, a week later I searched for something else and boom - CF had the answer again. At that point I signed up and became a regular member: First asking one question and then providing hundreds of answers. All of this serves to help expand CF's influence, readership, and potential ad revenue.

Using the presence of an ad-blocker as a yardstick for "good" users vs. "bad" users is folly. You can't cleave the "useful" member from the "deadbeat" so easily. The benefit of freeloaders is not as evident because it is extremely indirect at times but it is still substantial. You really shouldn't discount them entirely. After all, their activity is part of what brings in the ad-clickers you so deeply desire.

And that's really the basis of my point. I'll climb off of the soap box now...

[IFeelYourPain]

I meant alerts will get dismissed without being read. They are typically used for virus scams or stopping people leaving the page when they don't want to. A HTML message would be lots more effective, in my opinion, but a modal dialog could be used if you want to keep the "feel".

What you mean modal dialog?

[Apostropartheid]

Have you used Facebook before? They use modal dialogs for pretty much everything--notifications, viewing of other people's friends lists.

Here's an example (http://flowplayer.org/tools/demos/overlay/modal-dialog.html). Similarly, you can use a lightbox-style overlay.

[oracleguy]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1436257/Google-Says-Ad-Blockers-Will-Save-Online-Ads

This just from Google.

[godofreality]

dang that was a long thread i had to give up half way through cuz it was taking too long