MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Wednesday, August 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 75.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
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 dave esmond » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:30 am

TAsunder wrote:Nor has anyone offered a single link that would demonstrate that animated banner ads are effective enough to warrant their use.


No link needed.

Anyone can run this very simple experiment.

Focus really hard on something, anything. Without moving your eyes tell me what's next to it. Tell me what's the furthest thing away from it that you can still see.

Humans can't focus their eyes on one thing not still see everything else around what they're looking at. Our eyes and brains are drawn to animation and movement. That's what makes humans good at hunting and gathering. Claiming that people don't even see banner ads is silly. It can't be done.

Human evolution has made are eyes and brains work together very, very well. We're way better at looking at stuff and knowing what they are then we are at reading. Reading is a very recent human idea. That's why we use basic easy to understand symbols to communicate ideas quickly.

Does anyone not instantly know what these mean?

Image



So when you see an eye tracking chart that shows that people spend more time looking at text blocks then graphics we need to ask ourselves why.

Could it be that we read the graphics and understand them much faster? Could it be that reading something simply takes longer?
Is it possible that the results actually show the opposite of what Neilsen says in that the taking longer to look at the text shows it's less effective then the graphic that people "read" much faster?
Are you willing to ignore everything we know about how humans see the world around them?
Do we have to believe that the web is some magical place that somehow makes humans experience it differently then anything else we look at?
What reasons can you think of for an expert, who's spend decades charging clients millions of dollars to tell them graphics don't matter, to decide that what matters is how long someone looks at text vs graphics ignoring everything designers and artists know about how people "read" what they see?

Again while you're reading this did you somehow not still see everything on your desk next to your monitor? If you did please explain how's it's possible that someone could then not even see the banner ads on this site? Do you believe that advertisers would still use banner ads if they didn't produce the desired results?

I choose to use what we know about how humans see, how they "read" the world around them, the lessons that artists have taught us for 1000's of years, the sociology of how people react to what they see, the evolution of how our eyes and brains work together, what we know about good graphic design.....and what usability studies tell us.

Of course you're still free to believe whatever you want. And I'll defend your right to have personal preferences about how you'd like the web to look even if I think the reasons behind them are wrong.
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 » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:53 am

TAsunder wrote:
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?

Well, forgive me if I misinterpret blathering nonsense like this:

If TDP didn't model their advertising methodology after invasive, virus-riddled, illegal advertising campaigns we see on the rest of the net, then I at least would be willing to whitelist it.

Sounds like somebody needs to power-down and trade his computer for a telegraph. I've tutored senior citizens whose attitudes toward technology can only be described as way less pussy than yours.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to equate your misinformed paranoia with reality. I don't know how many viruses you've had to contend with, but I think your distrust of all things flashy stems foremost from user error and/or ignorance.

P.S. People don't call you a whiner because they disagree with you. They call you a whiner because you're a huge fucking whiner.
Uncle_Leaver
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby acereraser » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:26 pm

Did anyone else watch the Daily Show interview with Marc Theissen? This thread reads like that.
acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby jjoyce » Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:06 pm

How exactly is ad effectiveness defined in your world? In mine, it's defined differently for just about everyone. One client wants to sell tickets to multiple concerts, another wants to use it to reinforce his brand, another wants people to click through to see that week's open houses.

All of those are examples of ads that would not be *effective* if rendered as text links. Plus, if you're actually dealing with paying clients, you know that a certain level of success comes simply from making them happy.

Finally: On the topic of offering an ad-free site for those willing to pay, I actually have a study in hand that addresses this very issue.

Image
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby Peanutbutter » Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:24 am

Do any of the ads on TDP come from a network?

Arrington acknowledged on Thursday that there had been malware-laden ads on TechCrunch on Wednesday. It's unclear which ad network served up the malware and what type of malware it was, although it was determined to be an ad running JavaScript, he said.

"We suspended a bunch of (ad) campaigns in the meantime. We're only running ads with static images right now," Arrington said in a telephone interview. "This happens and it sucks and I don't know what we can do except for what we've done--just serve static images."


http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20000353-245.html
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby jjoyce » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:55 am

Some. A network of other alternative weekly newspapers.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:42 pm

dave esmond wrote:Anyone can run this very simple experiment.

Focus really hard on something, anything. Without moving your eyes tell me what's next to it. Tell me what's the furthest thing away from it that you can still see.


I just performed the following experiment: I turned on ads here, then looked at the text on the forums. I tried to discern what was in the banner area which is roughly 1/3 screen length away. Here is what I noticed: somebody's face, something blue, a few icons, and something that looked like the front of a car. Wow, you are right... those were effective ads in deed. Now I know the color blue exists, there's something in the world that resembles a car, and someone has a face somewhere. Oddly, in order to understand what was actually for sale, I had to read text, which I can't do without looking at it and reading the text.

So it seems that your science experiment has failed. I didn't recognize the products, and I had to read some text anyway to figure out what was for sale. Now please provide some sort of link which disproves what I just experienced.

Again while you're reading this did you somehow not still see everything on your desk next to your monitor? If you did please explain how's it's possible that someone could then not even see the banner ads on this site? Do you believe that advertisers would still use banner ads if they didn't produce the desired results?


On my desk next to me is a blob I recognize as my phone only because I remember putting it there, and a blue disc which, upon looking at it more closely to discern what it is, turns out to be a blue plastic container with kosher salt.

Same failure.

jjoyce, you forgot about the google ads that don't seem to have anything to do with alternative weekly newspapers as far as I can tell. And your graph is meaningless without knowing how many people responded, how much potential revenue that is, and how much it would cost to implement that as an alternative to ad-sponsored (i.e. free) accounts.
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 TheBookPolice » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:42 pm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9EER3LG0

NEW YORK — Getting people to pay for news online at this point would be "like trying to force butterflies back into their cocoons," a new consumer survey suggests.

...

About 35 percent of online news consumers said they have a favorite site that they check each day. The others are essentially free agents, the project said. Even among those who have their favorites, only 19 percent said they would be willing to pay for news online — including those who already do.
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 john_titor » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:02 pm

Shouldn't everyone that posts here get paid as well? If no one were to post, then no one would come to the forum (and see the ads).
john_titor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:18 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby acereraser » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:56 pm

john_titor wrote:Shouldn't everyone that posts here get paid as well? If no one were to post, then no one would come to the forum (and see the ads).


Excellent point. How does the value of the content, provided by the users, balance with the costs of the bandwidth, paid by the host? The host is certainly within its rights to recoup costs, but the users don't have much hope of getting compensated for their efforts.

Maybe, a point could be made that an individual user is receiving an unpaid good in the form of a broader audience for their posts, when compared to having a personal blog in the vast sea of blogs. However, and especially in the case of the DPF, with the limited shadow it casts against the canvas of the internet, the value of that broader audience is nearly equal to the value of the users as a group. So, there you go.

Will there ever be a superforum where the posts are so sublime and scintillating that people will pay to belong, whether posting as well or not? I doubt it, but something similar already exists, usually focused on certain topics, such as a computer game, or ice fishing, and they usually require recommendations, rather than money.

How does Twitter make money?
acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:49 am

TheBookPolice wrote:About 35 percent of online news consumers said they have a favorite site that they check each day. The others are essentially free agents, the project said. Even among those who have their favorites, only 19 percent said they would be willing to pay for news online — including those who already do.


19% is much higher than I would have expected. If we assume for TDP it's only 10% of the 6900 users, that's still almost 700 users. Seems like a lot to me - more than a lot of other sites I go to which have a membership option.

I'm not proposing that ads have to be eliminated entirely. Many sites offer two tiers: Ad-sponsored versions where users get content for free and see ads, and "membership" versions where users pay $x/year, see no ads, and get a few additional benefits. Many of the sites I frequent use this model. I don't know how TDP is coded so I have no idea how much work it would be to implement such a model, how many users there are here, or what percentage would subscribe. Typically I see this on vBulletin sites, where it may be easier (perhaps even built-in) to differentiate.

I for one would probably subscribe (assuming it weren't outlandishly priced), and I hope (for jjoyce's sanity) that the site has been refactored adequately that this wouldn't mean changing every page on the entire site.
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 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:22 am

Here's what Nielsen says:

“We call this banner blindness — people won’t see ads at all"

Turns out you saw them.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:41 am

I saw some shapes, sure. Semantically, his wording may be inaccurate. The effect described is still accurately portrayed - at least, in my experiment it was. One web ad method that definitely works on me is dummy forum posts that are ads (either text or images). I almost always look at those, when they are visible. I would imagine a lot of people do. I would prefer that style here, since so much real-estate is wasted on TDPF.
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 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:01 pm

TAsunder wrote:I saw some shapes, sure.


And a person and a car. Even trying really, really hard not.

Semantically, his wording may be inaccurate.


It's not just semantics. I thought you'd read his work. He claims people don't even see the ads and you repeated that. Did you mean something different and just used the wrong words? Because you just you proved that even someone trying really hard not to, still sees 'em.

The effect described is still accurately portrayed - at least, in my experiment it was.


True enough you didn't read them. Given your position I wouldn't have expected anything different. But you saw them and that's the claim I've called nonsense.

Wags and I saw his text ads and didn't even know they were ads nor read them.

So we found out none of us read the ads.

As an advertiser I'd rather you at least know it was an ad and maybe see something like a car that might interest you.

Maybe, just maybe, the truth isn't as b&w as Nielsen claims.

I think we're done. No need for me at least to waste any more forum real estate.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Ars Technica to adblockers: STOP HITTING YOURSELF

Postby TAsunder » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:14 pm

dave esmond wrote:It's not just semantics. I thought you'd read his work. He claims people don't even see the ads and you repeated that. Did you mean something different and just used the wrong words? Because you just you proved that even someone trying really hard not to, still sees 'em.


Again, it's just semantics here. I was aware that there were ads for things involving a face, the color blue, and something related to cars. You call that "seeing the ads" and I call it "knowing they exist." I call "seeing an ad" what happens when you actually look at it and mentally comprehend at least what product, company, logo, etc. is being advertised. I can all but guarantee you that the people with the ads containing the color blue, a face, and a car shape would agree with the notion that their ad wasn't really "seen" since the fact that I was aware of some shapes is of practically zero value to them.

So, yes, it's semantics. And you haven't proven tiddly twat with this experiment, unless you think that vaguely knowing that the color blue is over to the right is an effective ad. Since you can't offer a single reputable link to support your claims that his point about banner blindness is false, and choose to harp on moronic semantics of what it means to "see" an ad without admitting that knowing a face exists in an ad wouldn't constitute an effective ad, I'm going to say that you are completely full of crap and agree that this conversation is over until you can provide any legitimate, science-based evidence instead of some VW print ads and a failed experiment.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

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