advertisement


OS X High Sierra

Tony L said:
What you are asking is the equivalent of my asking you to publish the entire code for your medical programs in full online
Click to expand...

i actually do that and am working on a brand new system now which will be fully documented for even the most basic user/coder. that said, the analogy you are making just isn't a good one. it would be more so if people hired you as a consultant/musician/speaker/juggler on the basis of pfm, which served as a marketing platform. btw -- i never really earned very much money off photography (in fact, embarrassingly little) -- made the choice about 15 years ago to just pursue it for artistic interest.

i do understand the situation facing you and i am sympathetic: you are getting caught in a "web" of forces not under your control. people are used to advertizing and published content (like news) is quickly losing intrinsic value. i would prefer to buy newspapers with properly-funded journalism and subscribe to websites, but that's hardly the consensus in the world. i'm not so sure you would be a fan of advertizing and what it's done to the web if it didn;t benefit you directly, the way it does now. most of us would probably have similar reactions/views in those circumstances.


vuk.
 
vuk said:
there is no way for a website to know if i am blocking/hiding/masking their ads. that is impossible and for good reason.


vuk.
Click to expand...

No it's not, many websites use it and ask you to turn off adblocker before proceeding (or allowing you to view their content)

The Guardian certainly says something like "we noticed you are using an adblocker would you like to donate instead"

Another recognised that I was using the chrome adblocker plugin and even posted instructions on how to disable for just their domain/url.
 
thebiglebowski said:
No it's not, many websites use it and ask you to turn off adblocker before proceeding (or allowing you to view their content)

The Guardian certainly says something like "we noticed you are using an adblocker would you like to donate instead"

Another recognised that I was using the chrome adblocker plugin and even posted instructions on how to disable for just their domain/url.
Click to expand...

that is if you are using known, detectable add blockers. if you are using your own bit of javascript (through something like greasemonkey), it is impossible for them to know what is happening. also, i am sure the known, detectable ad-blockers are constantly improving to avoid the nagging.


vuk.
 
I think it is the intrusive full page pop up advertising that drives people using blockers, so rather than blaming Vuk and Co, Tony should be venting at the sites that use them and drive take up of ad blockers.

Consumers who may be paying for data have a right not to have to pay for a video advertising download that they maybe weren't expecting when first visiting a site. Also it is far from unheard of for malware to spread using adverts. Do people not have a right to minimise their chance of infection?

Basically Tony, you're sounding like TV companies who want the ability to skip ads on PVRs stopped, or the ability to change channel or mute the sound during ad breaks removed.

(Disclaimer, I don't use an ad blocker. I do FFWD ads on my PVR. My better half is a demon with the mute button when watching ads on live TV.)
 
vuk said:
there is no way for a website to know if i am blocking/hiding/masking their ads. that is impossible and for good reason.


vuk.
Click to expand...

vuk said:
that is if you are using known, detectable add blockers. if you are using your own bit of javascript (through something like greasemonkey), it is impossible for them to know what is happening. also, i am sure the known, detectable ad-blockers are constantly improving to avoid the nagging.


vuk.
Click to expand...

Well previously you stated "that is impossible"

What are the vast majority of users going to do, download a well known adblock app or create their "own bit of javascript"

It's pretty safe to say that 90+% would be detectable against your previous "it's impossible" statement.
 
I do use adblocker, I donate directly to sites including this one. In fact, I'm due another and will do that now. But no way would I abandon it - some places are unusable without it. Tony's isn't and I see the ads on mobile devices but my main lappy would be a problem to use without a means to stop pop ups and other crud.
 
thebiglebowski said:
Well previously you stated "that is impossible"
Click to expand...

i said it was impossible to do reliably. the attempt to do it also really, really stretches the bounds of ethics. they control what the y publish and present. they have no business telling a user who to configure his/her browser, including plugins, customizations, etc.

given your windows-centrism, i accept that the notion of something working 90% of the time may seem highly reliable.


vuk.
 
You seem to lack any sense of accuracy, flip flopping between impossible and "if" then flailing about trying to justify your mistakes with ethical distractions.
 
There will always be people like Vuk stealing content. It is nothing new, in fact it existed online before the web even existed with alt.rec.warez or whatever the software piracy usenet group was called, it existed with Napster etc for music theft. It still exists and those of us who try to make a living online just need to accept that and sadly others end up paying for it with ever-more intrusive adverts.

I do accept Richard N’s point above and some newspaper sites are so bad they actually crash my iPad. The thing people need to understand is well run websites do not happen by accident, it takes considerable time and effort to run a site as busy as this one. I run with as few adverts as I can get away with to make a living that I could better staking shelves at Asda or whatever (I’m lucky as I have so few outgoings I can live happily on a low-wage and I like doing this so I’m not complaining, only pointing out Vuk etc are in cloud cuckoo land). Other sites have far larger overheads and have to employ lots of staff, so it is inevitable their advertising content will be heavier. Don’t like it? Then don’t use them!

The simple reality is all the sites I use run on this kind of model. All the independent audio and music forums have adverts as they need them to survive. The only ones that don’t are obviously affiliated to a business (Naim, Harbeth, Steve Hoffman etc etc), and that is fine. If Apple and others end up denying their advertising income they will one by one die. That is a simple fact.
 
thebiglebowski said:
You seem to lack any sense of accuracy, flip flopping between impossible and "if" then flailing about trying to justify your mistakes with ethical distractions.
Click to expand...

when we talk about impossible in the context of browser based programming, it means be able to do it perfectly, every time, not through hack that will only work sometimes (or for the time being), like you are suggesting. sorry for the confusion. the point is still valid.



vuk.
 
Tony L said:
There will always be people like Vuk stealing content.
Click to expand...

you can't let go of that sean hannity propaganda phrase, can you?

yeah, that's what my opposition to corporate control of the internet is all about -- promoting theft. i also can't imagine any other kind of economic model for things than advertizing, so let's all continue to be enslaved by it.

the irony is that you are witnessing the perils of basing your "enterprise" on this method. (i thought it was mainly record sales) . as i said, if you want me to fund the site, i am glad to do it. whether or not i see the ads, i am never going to click on them.

in the meantime, feel free to steal this content.



vuk.
 
Annoyingly it fell off at the last software update! There is a stickied thread explaining at the top of this room, but ‘donations@‘ the website url is the PayPal address.
 
tony.

are you able to "inject" your own / custom javascript into the forum software? if so, it would be very easy for me to write you some code to get a donation button back into the site.


vuk.
 
Can I just make it very clear that I do not want to impose a subscription model. It would IMHO be a disaster. The closest to that I’d ever get to it would be to put the classified area on a subscription model, i.e. those who sell kit would pay an annual fee to do so, but again I don’t want to do that either. I far prefer the current benign ad model along with voluntary donations. The business works fine on this basis, all I am pointing out on this thread is if Apple and others continue on the trajectory they are it will break this model and place the future of the thousands of forums, blogs etc like pfm in jeopardy. Members and readers do need to understand this and help place some pressure on Apple not to deny website income. The hypocrisy annoys me hugely too, e.g. I bet iOS apps will still be allowed intrusive ad banners etc, just not folk on the wider web!

PS Vuk made a nice donation so I now feel bad about some of my earlier comments. The above paragraph is really all I’m trying to say here, nothing more, and I apologise if I got overly defensive. I do however need to make the basic point, not only for pfm, but all the other little independent sites we all enjoy. We are all in the same position.
 
I looked at the ad on the top right of the pfm page and saw one for Burlington Estates, a property management company based in London. They are who I pay my service charges to.

Personally I find the way such adverts follow you around the web incredibly creepy. It is like being stalked.

This seems to be the fault of Google as much as anybody else, because it appears that I can tell Google that I don't want to see the ad.

Jack
 
jackbarron said:
Personally I find the way such adverts follow you around the web incredibly creepy. It is like being stalked.
Click to expand...

The thing to understand is that the ads do not know who you are, your name, your details etc. They are anonymous. All they know is that the computer you are using has been to site x, y, z etc, and they know this by storing a cookie etc. As stated upthread, and I guess as I fully understand and am comfortable with this, I really like it as if I’m going to be looking at ads (and I am as I support independent websites) then I’d far prefer to be targeted with stuff I’m genuinely interested in rather than payday loans, gambling, sportswear or other stuff I’d not touch with a bargepole. As an example at present I’m seeing an ad for ‘LED Event Technology’ as I have fairly recently bought a couple of LED bulbs, but I also get musical instruments, CDs, bike parts etc. I can live with that as even if I’m not in the market for that actual thing, it does correspond to something I have some purchasing history and interest in. I’ve often found these types of ads a useful memory jog and have bought as a result.

PS I’m now getting a B&W ad, which is great. Exactly the sort of thing that should be here.
 
jackbarron said:
Personally I find the way such adverts follow you around the web incredibly creepy. It is like being stalked.

This seems to be the fault of Google as much as anybody else, because it appears that I can tell Google that I don't want to see the ad.

Jack
Click to expand...

It often means you're bombarded with ads for stuff you've just bought too.

You're probably also being tracked by the MAC address of the wifi chip in your phone too... Won't be long until you start seeing the same ads while you're travelling up escalators on the tube.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top