Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Marter]

Why can't we have a single thread where people are allowed to speak freely on this subject?

Maybe I edited that in and you read the post before I completed the edit. Anyway, this thread should be immune to the rule about adblock. If we can't have an honest discussion, then the discussion is worthless.

Sorry. I didn't see that. If it was edited in that would be why.

The reason is because of the advertisers. I'm (obviously) not in marketing so I don't know the specifics but it's something to do with that. It scares them off, or lowers the value of the ads, or something similar.

 

[DJamesBrett]

Whelp, after visiting this site for over six years, I've finally made an account. And, of course, I had to pick a topic which may get me into trouble within minutes of account creation. I don't even know if I'm crossing a line. Ah, well.


Okay, so I posted some of this is the Facebook comment section, under the video but I'd like to repeat it here.

I whitelisted the Escapist half-way through Jim's video. I immediately got a video-ad (no sound, thank God) bunched up against the video in the upper right corner. There is so much movement in my peripheral vision that it started making my right eye twitch and began causing a mild migraine. I am not kidding. We've got bright colours, with a sweeping camera shot, that changes every 1.5 seconds. I had to go to full screen to watch the rest of the video. Not a good start.

Then, while I was registering to post on this forum, I got bombarded with ads that directly got in the way of me completing the registration.

"What, why is there an advertisement in the captcha, how do I turn it off!? Wait, I've seen this before. Is this a trick to get me to click on the ad? Is the real captcha elsewhere on this page?

It's barely been over an hour, and already it has begun to seriously grate on my nerves. The obnoxious video-ads, the insulting pseudo-articles that frequently employ breasts, steroid grown muscle mass and gross-out shock imagery and the stupid animated advertisements for the virus-laden "games" that plague the internet.

I'm going to try to suffer through it, for the sake of the site, and am considering subscribing but sweet, merciful Jesus, guys! If you want people to stop using ad-block you really need to set up some form of quality-control with your advertisers so people visiting don't feel that they need to scorch the earth and salt the fields in order to protect their sanity.

To be blunt, if I hadn't been visiting this site for years, I would have been convinced that this was a virus breeding ground and would have left and never come back.


You are lucky that you're such a handsome man, Jim. We'd never even try to put up with it otherwise.

You only want people who have never used adblock to be discussing this?

How about we have a conversation about beef and only allow vegetarians to talk?

I didn't say that. I said you have no reason to admit that you're using an ad blocker. To my knowledge we've not warned anyone who said they did use adblocker and then stopped. Past history isn't getting people warnings. Current admission is.

That... doesn't make any sense. How is admitting you currently have adblock worse than saying you used to use adblock? How about the people, including myself, who say we've added the Escapist to our whitelist, isn't that implying that we use that-which-shall-not-be-named? I'd figure that the reason the Escapist forbids mention of the unmentionable in order to prevent flame-wars but that's clearly not the issue in this case.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I'm still puzzled about why that rule even exists. Do they think they'll scare people away from using that software?
Is banning people from your site really the best way of dealing with people who block your ads?

Warnings are just that, warnings. They don't do anything but collapse the one post (so others can see what not to hopefully) and send a message to the user. I'm sorry if that is unacceptable, but after many years of trying more lenient methods of dealing with large quantities of people having discussions and trying to get dissenting viewpoints banned, these policies tend to be the most reasonable/fair to all involved.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Well that's not true. Warnings stay on your profile for a period of time and they accumulate.

I would like to know from one you why you think auto playing video ads are ok. Not talking about the ads before a feature video but Jeep video ads that run while I am typing a post.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Why can't we have a single thread where people are allowed to speak freely on this subject?

Maybe I edited that in and you read the post before I completed the edit. Anyway, this thread should be immune to the rule about adblock. If we can't have an honest discussion, then the discussion is worthless.

Sorry. I didn't see that. If it was edited in that would be why.

The reason is because of the advertisers. I'm (obviously) not in marketing so I don't know the specifics but it's something to do with that. It scares them off, or lowers the value of the ads, or something similar.

I can see how advertisers (being the scumbags that they are) would want to censor discussion about their practices.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Maybe there should be an ad "cover" than block, just cover it up in stead of out right stopping the content.
Good vid Jim, you gave me a lot to think about.

 

[ZephrC]

I honestly don't think I'd be able to use the internet without adblock at this point. The horrible, annoying, intrusive, nonsensical ads are what drove me away from TV to the internet in the first place, and now the ads here have become worse.

That being said though, I do want to see creators to be able to make a good living off of their creations, so when there is a reasonable alternative I will certainly do what I can to contribute. That's why I joined the publisher's club here, for instance.

 

[Marter]

That... doesn't make any sense. How is admitting you currently have adblock worse than saying you used to use adblock? How about the people, including myself, who say we've added the Escapist to our whitelist, isn't that implying that we use that-which-shall-not-be-named? I'd figure that the reason the Escapist forbids mention of the unmentionable in order to prevent flame-wars but that's clearly not the issue in this case.

It indicates change. A bunch of people in this thread have said they've now turned off adblock/whitelisted this site thanks to the video. Why would we punish them? We haven't been punishing people who say they've whitelisted the site.

The reason has to do with the advertisers; it's not about preventing flame wars.

 

[Kross]

I would like to know from one you why you think auto playing video ads are ok. Not talking about the ads before a feature video but Jeep video ads that run while I am typing a post.

If those ads auto play with noise (or pop out without mousing over), they are not ok, please report them.

 

[RandV80]

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Websites needs adverts to survive, but people get annoyed with them and start blocking. Personally I'd lean towards sticking with the former, but when quality control slips and adds not only become overly invasive but also security risks for virus' and malware it becomes a bit more iffy. I work from my home computer so it is essentially my livelihood, so while I don't use adblocks I do block scripts to keep it safe. I can trust escapistmagazine.com, and get the adds it feeds me directly (banners, pre-video ads), but exelator.com or quantserve.com? Not a chance.

Really there needs to be a better way to do this, and I'm looking at the side of the equation that always seems to be ignored or overlooked whenever this topic comes up: the sellers. How does annoying a person with an autoplaying audio/video add when they're trying to watch another video help sell your product? Do you really need an interactive flash video take over the entire screen to let people know that a new Wolverine movie is out? These marketing people are basically running amok with this stuff but they seem to be the only ones available to pay a content creator like The Escapist money. We just need something that works better, kind of like what Valve did for digital distribution and DRM. Like rather than trying to track each person across the internet so you can profile them and feed them the same adds wherever they go, why not profile the websites themselves and deliver adds to the expected targeted audience?

And for the love of god I hope you guys at the escapist are receiving a cut when the friggen captchas starts sneaking in adds on you.

 

[Colt47]

I'm still puzzled about why that rule even exists. Do they think they'll scare people away from using that software?
Is banning people from your site really the best way of dealing with people who block your ads?

The core of why it exists is that people who block ads are leeching resources, encouraging/enabling someone else to do the same is close to directly stealing from those of us who make a living off of this website. While we would all like to have a mutually enjoyable discussion about our views on the topic, our rent money makes it less flexible then most topics. While there's plenty of misunderstanding or non-personal reasons for running an ad blocker, we're generally disinterested in spending money on resources for these self proclaimed leeches. Please respect this.

The core of why we still insist on enforcing the advocacy rule in a thread like this is because people who can't read and comprehend the rules, so still casually break them are not people we want cluttering up such a discussion. It's very closely related to low content rule tolerance - there's acceptable levels of "low content", but it very quickly erodes out of reasonable boundaries when exceptions are made. There's thousands of people here, the moderators do their best to filter out those who can't follow basic instructions or take the effort to adjust their important internet words to the topic at hand. There's no discussion spawned from such admissions, only cheer-leading, which does not help keep such a volatile topic readable.

If your argument vitally requires you to go against the policies we try to enforce for a readable discussion, please refrain from posting or maybe ask for assistance with phrasing your viewpoint from a neutral angle.

Also, moderators can make mistakes; because like most people, they are people. We do our best to be consistent (not having a litany of exceptions is part of that) Please make use of the appeals system linked in your warning message if you feel there was a legitimate error.

Warnings are just that, warnings. They don't do anything but collapse the one post (so others can see what not to hopefully) and send a message to the user. I'm sorry if that is unacceptable, but after many years of trying more lenient methods of dealing with large quantities of people having discussions and trying to get dissenting viewpoints banned, these policies tend to be the most reasonable/fair to all involved.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Thanks for taking the time to make the post. I understand the escapist staff have their livelihoods at stake when large numbers of people are deliberately utilizing tools to block ads, and therefore revenue.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It appears that The Escapist's mods currently also have an "advocating vs. discussing" problem. Many of the people given warnings in this thread, were only mentioning that they used Adblock. They were not advocating.

Admitting and advocating is both against the rules.

I'll link the relevant section again, for convenience:

Did you even read the post and the one I was responding to? That statement was made in the context of an Escapist admin saying that people had a problem distinguishing advocacy versus discussion.

So, instead of understanding my post for what it is, you post a boilerplate link to the rules. Good job. Are you a real person or a script?

I know the rules. I have read them. I was having a discussion about them. Not to mention that Jim said there would be some kind of armistice on this topic. One would think that would at least allow people to admit to using the evil forbidden thing we must not speak of.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I would like to know from one you why you think auto playing video ads are ok. Not talking about the ads before a feature video but Jeep video ads that run while I am typing a post.

If those ads auto play with noise (or pop out without mousing over), they are not ok, please report them.

Wait, mouse over?

Oh I see, the Jeep ad plays when you so much as mouse over it. That is still not ok. I do not consent to watch a video ad just because my cursor floats over it. This is the kind of shit that gives advertisers a bad name.

 

[Solo-Wing]

Why can't we have a single thread where people are allowed to speak freely on this subject?

Maybe I edited that in and you read the post before I completed the edit. Anyway, this thread should be immune to the rule about adblock. If we can't have an honest discussion, then the discussion is worthless.

Sorry. I didn't see that. If it was edited in that would be why.

The reason is because of the advertisers. I'm (obviously) not in marketing so I don't know the specifics but it's something to do with that. It scares them off, or lowers the value of the ads, or something similar.

Sifting through this thread made me think that this kinda of discussion should actually be embraced by the advertisers. They would actually be able to use it to learn where the line is on the amount of ads people are willing to deal with when it comes to the ads as well as how to properly distribute them. If they would learn where that line is and how to avoid crossing it discussions like this would not really be necessary as Jim pointed out in the video.

 

[Marter]

Sifting through this thread made me think that this kinda of discussion should actually be embraced by the advertisers. They would actually be able to use it to learn where the line is on the amount of ads people are willing to deal with when it comes to the ads as well as how to properly distribute them. If they would learn where that line is and how to avoid crossing it discussions like this would not really be necessary as Jim pointed out in the video.

The point is more that if a site is to permit (or encourage) its users to admit to or advocate adblock then advertisers aren't going to want to go there, because they know their adverts aren't being seen. It's more an image thing than a practical one, as far as I understand it, but that's why.

 

[IceForce]

/

Many thanks. That explains things very well. Appreciated.

Sifting through this thread made me think that this kinda of discussion should actually be embraced by the advertisers. They would actually be able to use it to learn where the line is on the amount of ads people are willing to deal with when it comes to the ads as well as how to properly distribute them.

That was pretty much my point. Instead of being silenced, the complaints are actually valuable data for the site owners / advertisers.

 

[BeerTent]

This is one of those subjects that you don't really think about. I've been thinking of jumping on the "lets play" bandwagon, but when you realize where the money comes from, you're hit with a few expressions. Mostly negative ones at yourself for being selfish, and not quite bright for not figuring it out earlier.

My main concern with adverts are the ones that have been pointed out already. Those goddamn smileys, and some more, less scrupulous adverts drive me away. Furthermore, I don't want information saved on my computer from these advertisements, hence the need for Spybot's immunization function, which is likely driving some revenue from anywhere you go. Furthermore, some functions on these websites gather a bit more about my system than just my week-night pornography habits.

I'm sorry, but unless I know what modules are the ones that generate revenue without compromising my system, I have to take the blanket solution. Watchguard AV systems are worse than the virusses they protect you, and I prefer to keep my two month cleanup schedule at two months, and not once a day.

 

[Neta]

Is it okay to discuss (or admit to using) javascript blockers such as noscript?

From what I understand, noscript is completely different to adblock but some people still regard them as the same thing.

 

[stickmangrit]

thread is extremely long, so sorry if i'm repeating what anyone else has said, but here's my two cents:

i use adblock constantly, and evidently i've been using it on this site long enough that i haven't noticed the particularly obnoxious autoplay ads. thing is , i started using it on this site back when the pre-video ads started up. understand, i didn't use it out of some utter hatred of ads, but because i didn't always get to catch all the videos the day they came out, so whenever i'd go on a binge i'd get to see THE EXACT SAME F#$%ING AD FOUR TO FIVE TIMES IN A ROW. i feel the same way about TGWTG where i'd have to sit through the exact same verison ad twelve times in a night(three per episode on those videos these days) just to catch up on all my favorite reviewers. all i'm asking for is some damn variety in the pre-video ads, and i'd happily sit through them to support the content creators i like. but it just gets grating to see the same ad three times a video over four or five videos in an afternoon.