I'm not talking about a simple pop-up blocker, but do you regularly use a web browser or plugin that blocks webpage ads?
Actually just the other night I downloaded AdBlock for Safari. Stupid thing is..I couldn't find it anywhere after I installed it, and the AdBlock settings were nowhere to be found in Safari's preferences. I read somewhere that it only works if you run Safari in 32 bit versus 64 bit, but that doesn't sound good
Ads manage to make me a sad panda. So, yes, i´m using the Firefox Addon "AdBlock Plus". I´d never surf without it.
I sometimes do. I have an ad block plugin for FireFox, but I don't use that as much as Chrome now, which I don't have it for.
Ad-blocker are used to stop those annoying popups from flooding your screen. Firefox came with a popup control by default. I doubt if I would block any onscreen advertising. They may get obstructive but doesn't justify why I should stop the people who put on the hard work on the website from earning what they deserve.
A better solution is to simply not visit sites that feature obnoxious advertising instead of penalizing sites like ours that go out of our way to make sure we don't have annoying ads to support us.
AdBlock Plus for SeaMonkey. Never will go without it. Also, who hear surfs with Web Of Trust or SiteAdvisor?
I'd go further than calling it mere penalizing… It costs money each time someone makes a single visit to toucharcade.com; bandwidth, hosting, and staff costs are all paid for through its ads. If someone is specifically not viewing those ads, but they're still reading the website's content and using its bandwidth, I see it being more akin to stealing. If someone using ad-blocking disagrees with that notion, let my ask you this: If everyone on the internet used an ad-blocker, how would toucharcade, or any other website, be financially viable? They couldn't… Thus it would lead to one of three changes: (1) ads would become considerably more intrusive and be intertwined with the content; (2) websites like this would need to rely on a donation model; or (3) we will all need to pay a monthly subscription to view the site. Personally I like the system we have right now with seeing a few banners here and there and I'd like us to keep that. But if it came to it, I wouldn't have a problem paying a regular subscription fee to use toucharcade; if you're using ad-blocking software I hope you'll be just as happy in paying a regular fee, that's all I'll say.
This is actually a very serious problem for sites that have a tech savvy userbase. I'm good friends with a few people who run one of the bigger tech blogs, and they waste an insane amount of man hours trying to constantly wage war with ad blockers to circumvent their filtering to get people (who are viewing their site for free) to see ads so they can pay their staff, keep their servers running, etc. I don't think it's as big of an issue for us, since a lot of our traffic comes from iPhones and iPods.
Yes I do, but I am kind enough to exclude any sites that deserve the money, a.k.a. don't show inappropriate images in the ads. I don't mind ads, it's the lude images in said ads that kill me. Which means that I use Firefox for one purpose only, when I need to use one of those certain websites.
I did tried out Chrome and realised most of the sites I visit nowadays have really tamed the ads down to things that are relevant and sometimes even worthwhile so turned it off
That's not a better solution, a better solution would be something requiring less work, not more. I'm not gonna research every link I click so find out if it's gonna annoy me in advance. I pay for internet access. There's nothing there that says I have to let it piss me off. Ad blockers are legal, optional and available to anyone, morals shouldn't even come into it at all, it's nothing more than personal preference. I switch TV channels when advertisements come on too, does that constitute stealing as well? How about stepping onto a bus and refusing to read all the crappy posters they've got along the sides because they're totally boring and never apply to me; stealing? I understand that websites need money to run, but it's not my duty to pay for it, clicking on ads are basically just the same as donating, which I would choose not to do either. No offense, but I'd rather just go without than start paying for my internet usage on a site-by-site basis, that's a total step in the wrong direction.
Once again I guess I just find it to be amusing that you spend most of your day here yet staunchly oppose doing the one thing that actually supports the site.
I don't block anything now I'm on OSX and Safari, but like somebody said it doesn't seem as bad as it used to be. Maybe we all got used to it. When I'm using Windows and Firefox and visit a new site I block anything that's immediately annoying (i.e. popups) but banners and other similar advertising - as long as it's subtle and doesn't take up too much screen space - is fine. The ads on TA are perfect - don't popup, don't have flashing lights, don't have roll-over effects - they don't interfere with normal use of the site.
Make it a rule and I'll follow it, keep it an option and I'll treat it as an option. The whole point is we're being given the freedom of choice, and I assume that in many circumstances you'd support it, but since it's TA's income we're talking here, anyone who chooses the wrong option suddenly becomes somewhat uncaring and evil.
