MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, August 29, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 65.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Wiis, PlayStations, iPads, blogging platforms, Facebook and anything else worthy of buzz in the digital world.

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TheBookPolice » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:47 am

TA, I'm not talking about assumptions and expectations. I'm talking about my thoughts and behavior.

This is your fundamental flaw: you're stuck in this control model, where theory and hypothetical is an acceptable stand-in for reality. Advertising is a protocol, where each person interacts differently and there's no set standard for the behavior of either participant.

I don't really care what studies have shown. I care about what works for me, and what works for the websites I value. The handshake here is that is the website provides something I value, and I in turn work with that website to make sure it sticks around.

TDP doesn't offer a no-ad subscription site, probably because that would require more man-hours, but also because they just don't have to. Therefore, I leave the ads as they are. They don't bother me, they don't detract from my user experience, and they help TDP stay in business. Win-win-win, handshake done.

If you want to block their ads, that's your part of the handshake--go for it. But don't be shocked if the other side leaves you hanging, because that's not an acceptable way to complete the protocol. I'm sure they'd accept a personal check, though, if you're so committed to supporting TDP financially in the roundabout way of blocking revenue-generating ads and then making a monetary donation anyway.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:52 am

I've already offered now four times. If they want me to donate they need to tell me how.

And sorry for misunderstanding the intent of your prior post. In my opinion, I've expressed a dislike for a particular tactic employed here but willingness to participate in other ways. I've got my hand sticking out here, but instead of completing the handshake and/or suggesting that maybe I actually do care about the site and my disdain for a particular form of advertising may be worth listening to, I get called a whiner/hypocrite.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby dave esmond » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:12 am

TAsunder wrote:Best implies that there's more than one. So yes, there are multiple kinds of "effective ads"


So how do you figure which one is "best"?

Seems you'd have to know the intended outcome.

In a completely different medium. You seem to repeatedly assume that all forms of media are the same. It is a huge mistake.


Nope. I do know that the science shows the web isn't a unique and special place tho'. All media have things that are unique to them. Print doesn't move but you can take it anywhere. TV moves and has sound. The web let's you interact. And one and on. Of course they're different.

The part that's the same? People. They still react the same way. They're drawn to bright shiny objects. They like blue better then black. They're more likely to buy something they've seen the name of before even if they don't know where. And on and on. Advertising theory get's tweaked for the web, not thrown out.

Most people still respond to pictures of babies, boobs and small animals no matter where they see 'em.

The big mistake is thinking none of what we've learned about other media or how people interact with other media doesn't apply to the web.

Explain exactly how it is flawed to actually record where users look.


Because all it shows you is where people look. It doesn't tell you how the person reacts to what they're looking at. It doesn't tell you what they think about what they look at. All it tells you is what draws their eye. People will look at a car crash, doesn't mean they're gonna react well to what they see. And we know from THE SCIENCE that people reactions to the same images aren't the same so we therefore know we can't draw specific conclusions about what it means that someone looks at something.

All you've done is link to stuff about paper advertising and other nonsense which is not necessarily relevant.


Show me the science that everything we know about advertising (print, radio, television) goes out the window when it comes to the web.

If all the web had to offer was text and banner ads and the only metric for determining effectiveness was a click thru I'd totally agree with you. That's not how advertising is always meant to work tho'.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby dave esmond » Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:27 am

TAsunder wrote:....you have yet to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your users, who have told you directly that they don't like certain things, could be worth listening to.


It's kinda like this. Jason has heard you. I've heard you. We've all heard you. We simply don't agree. Listening to you doesn't mean someone then has to agree with you. Again that's a very Sarah Palin model to assume someone who disagrees with you hasn't heard and understood you.

God answers all prayers. The answer is usually no however.

But knock yourself out to get people to agree with you. If most TDP users felt like you do I'm sure Jason would react. The thing is you keep coming back and using TDP so you're not sending quite as strong a message to Jason as you think you are. Jason will put up with a ton of bitching. Users leaving? That he's gonna react to.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:42 pm

TAsunder wrote:
So you looked at a section on the right referring to conferences and thought that if you clicked on that, it would just be some diatribes and not any information about a conference? And, similarly, if you clicked on a link under reports or books, you figured, those probably aren't actually reports or books, but instead diatribes? Interesting... :roll:

For someone complaining that Isthmus and their staff don't listen, you sure don't seem to pay attention when others tell you things.

For the last time, I had no idea there were ads on that page!
I didn't even read those links, so no, I didn't know some were conferences and some were reports. I just saw long lists of links and nothing to catch my eye. It's a lousy, lousy website which interested me not at all. I glanced over the page, didn't see anything pop out as being of any interest, and I moved on. An effective website -- and by extension, one with effective ads -- draws my interest. This one did not. I made an (incorrect, admittedly) assumption that what I was staring at was just links to more information akin to what you'd linked to earlier. I stayed just long enough to find the link that explained why the author doesn't heed his own advice and continues to advocate for a practice which he admits is no longer of any relevance.

Going back now to look again, even knowing that you claim the page is loaded with ads, I still don't see it. The right-hand column is headed "News". So yeah, although I now see there are conferences under there, I wouldn't assume they are ads for conferences, but rather, news links about conferences. Science mags/websites often report about what will be happening at upcoming conferences without directly offering you a chance to attend. There's no reason whatsoever for me to assume that those are links to sign up. On the left, it says "Reports". Again, it doesn't say, "click here to purchase reports", it just leads me to believe that the links are reports. There's a link for books by the author, but no indication they are actually for sale on this page. For all I can tell, they're summaries or links to book reviews.

It's becoming quite evident that you don't even know what an advertisement is, let alone what an effective way to deploy them would be.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8830
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby dave esmond » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:31 pm

Just one, of many examples of what other people in the usability field think of Nielsen*.

http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article603.asp

This stuffs not new to me, but it seems like it might be to a lot of people. Designing for the web/print/tv means I need to know this stuff. I think it's in my best interest to find out as many ideas as possible. Just not the ones that get said the loudest.



*I think I misspelled his name a few times.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby Uncle_Leaver » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:44 pm

As someone who's actually had to deal with concepts of web usability and accessibility in his professional life, I'd just like to say that TAsunder is completely full of shit.

Yeah, I know it's irksome when someone shows up with something other than an ass-borne opinion around here, but just try to suck it up.

I'd also like to say that if you honestly believe your computer is at risk from animated gifs, I don't want to know what sites you're surfing. I will say, however, that they sell paper-based porn now that's completely hardware independent. Look into it.

Oh, and on an unrelated note, anti-virus software is a fucking joke as well, but I guess there's big money to be made in selling a sense of false security. Spend freely, chumps!

Have a nice day!
Uncle_Leaver
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TheBookPolice » Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:55 pm

Uncle_Leaver wrote:Oh, and on an unrelated note, anti-virus software is a fucking joke as well, but I guess there's big money to be made in selling a sense of false security. Spend freely, chumps!

FWIW, I use a free one (Avira). No skin off my ass if it's window-dressing.
TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:09 pm

Uncle_Leaver wrote:I'd also like to say that if you honestly believe your computer is at risk from animated gifs, I don't want to know what sites you're surfing.


Where did I say that?
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:14 pm

Where did I say that?


He's right. He never said he was afraid of the big bad gif he's just morally opposed to them for some reason. Much more rational.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:17 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:For the last time, I had no idea there were ads on that page!


I know you didn't. Where did I say you did? I said you clearly saw that the items being advertised existed if you had actually read the text of the links.

Going back now to look again, even knowing that you claim the page is loaded with ads, I still don't see it. The right-hand column is headed "News". So yeah, although I now see there are conferences under there, I wouldn't assume they are ads for conferences, but rather, news links about conferences.


But you acknowledge that they are now, correct? Or no? Does it matter who was hosting the conference? The fact is, it was an announcement/ad for a conference, which happens to be, more or less, HIS conference.

It's becoming quite evident that you don't even know what an advertisement is, let alone what an effective way to deploy them would be.


I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Which of definitions are you using exactly?

Those links are definitely: "a public promotion of some product or service" and "a form of communication used to influence individuals to purchase products or services" and "communication whose purpose is to inform potential customers about products and services"
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:29 pm

dave esmond wrote:
TAsunder wrote:....you have yet to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, your users, who have told you directly that they don't like certain things, could be worth listening to.


It's kinda like this. Jason has heard you. I've heard you. We've all heard you. We simply don't agree.


You don't agree with my tangential assessment of usability ethics, fine. But I don't see how you can disagree with me over what I like and dislike, which was the primary point I was raising. Since you enjoy likening behavior to hated conservatives, I'd like to point out that calling someone who doesn't like your policies a "whiner," "hypocrite," and one who is willfully harming the site is very much the George W Bush model.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:52 pm

TAsunder wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:For the last time, I had no idea there were ads on that page!


I know you didn't. Where did I say you did?


Uh...
TAsunder wrote:...you saw the ad, and you were made aware that the product existed (whether you knew it was an ad for the product or not).

TAsunder wrote: I said you clearly saw that the items being advertised existed if you had actually read the text of the links.

So I saw what I didn't see because if I'd clinked the link I would have?
Are you listening to yourself?
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8830
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:56 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
TAsunder wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:For the last time, I had no idea there were ads on that page!


I know you didn't. Where did I say you did?


Uh...
TAsunder wrote:...you saw the ad, and you were made aware that the product existed (whether you knew it was an ad for the product or not).

TAsunder wrote: I said you clearly saw that the items being advertised existed if you had actually read the text of the links.

So I saw what I didn't see because if I'd clinked the link I would have?
Are you listening to yourself?


Since you didn't actually quote everything or address it, I'll ask the following. Please state where you disagree.

Nielsen has some conferences and reports for sale.
Nielsen advertises these conferences and reports on his home page without mentioning that they aren't free or are his product.
You saw these advertisements.
You were made aware that there were conferences and reports.
You didn't realize that the conferences or reports were his products, but you recognized that they existed.

BTW, regardless of what one thinks of Nielsen in general, no one has offered a shred of evidence to counter the contention that animated ads reduce website usability by their very nature. Nor has anyone offered a single link that would demonstrate that animated banner ads are effective enough to warrant their use.

And I don't know why jjoyce or others are focusing on the High Noon Saloon ad when there's an obnoxious flash-based ad that actually legitimately slows load times in the lower right.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby dave esmond » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:04 am

TAsunder wrote:You don't agree with my tangential assessment of usability ethics, fine. But I don't see how you can disagree with me over what I like and dislike, which was the primary point I was raising. Since you enjoy likening behavior to hated conservatives, I'd like to point out that calling someone who doesn't like your policies a "whiner," "hypocrite," and one who is willfully harming the site is very much the George W Bush model.


Maybe I should have drawn you a picture.

I never called you any of those names. In fact I defended your right to dislike anything you want.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Technology & Video Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar