• 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by AngriGhandi (773 posts) 1 year, 3 days ago

Poll: Do you use Adblock? (564 votes)

No - I've never used it 15%
No - I formerly used it but stopped at some point 7%
Yes - but I only use it to block "bad" ads with malware and such 4%
Yes - I block ads by default, but I make exceptions for sites I like 39%
Yes - block 'em all, let God sort 'em out 36%

This question has been asked before. Yes.

But in light of the recent strange announcement of Adblock running a crowd-funding campaign

to pay for... advertisements, promoting their ad-blocking program(??), I think now is the right time to see just how many duders 'round the Bomb use the program, and more importantly, how we/they use it.

You know, for science!

Here's their video, which you can tell is a crowd-funding video because it has music with chimes in it.

I can't wait to see what we can learn, Giant Bomb! Together!

*whimsical music*

#51 Edited by Whitestripes09 (401 posts) -

I only unblock sites that prevent me from using it with it on. Is that bad?

#52 Posted by Subjugation (4720 posts) -

I have it on by default. When a site has proven to me that it deserves ad revenue from me I white-list it.

#53 Edited by afrofools (1341 posts) -

I disable it occasionally. What makes me reactivate adblock is those F! annoying sites that put the ad in the background of the page so if you click the page you go somewhere. Also, the advertising networks track you more effectively than the NSA, which can affect your credit score. I remember a few years ago I looked up fitness on the net once, and the ad networks incorrectly determined me as overweight and everywhere I went on the net I had to look at ugly shirtless fatasses. Targeted advertising is good when they get it right. I have been going to game sites my whole life, why couldn't the behavioural ad-targeting networks realise that from the data they had collected on me that I had only searched for fitness stuff once, but had searched for games every week since I was nine years old. Show me the right advertising. Alas, it may be too late unless someone has a filter specifically for blocking the ads that show up on the backgrounds of some sites. <I know I wrote engrish.

#54 Posted by Nux (2331 posts) -

Nope.

#55 Posted by BaconGames (3371 posts) -

@angrighandi said:

Huh. That's a lot more people than I would have thought! Although, I guess this being a tech-related website probably skews things a bit.

Not to mention the whole self-selecting sample thing. Hmm.

...Good science is hard to come by.

Fascinating and harrowing all at once!

#56 Posted by jasius (136 posts) -

Giant Bomb have had some really bad ads, especially the ads they had for Arrested Development which transformed the site to show one of the characters lick a sandwich, that was very invasive.

#57 Edited by MOAB (374 posts) -

I Adblock the shit outta the internet!

#58 Posted by Patman99 (1579 posts) -

I honestly do not see the point in using it. The whole "ads run scripts that will kill you" thing seems overblown. Maybe it's because I am not adventurous in my internet surfing but I have never encountered an ad that damaged my computer (e.g. installed viruses/malware) if I did not click it.

Sure, some sites go overboard but most legitimate sites do not. Torrent sites are crazy from my little experience but facebook and the random game/news/other sites I visit are generally fine.

Of course the ads could be better. Another poster mentioned getting a tv show spoiled for him through an ad. That sucks but I do not see how that justifies blocking ads from all sites (regardless if you "white-list" or not).

Then again, I am a person who is also anti-piracy. I do not see any sort of justification in pirating music, movies, or games. So maybe I am missing the whole bit about how I am entitled to something that is digital part that some people have. That sounds mean, but I do not know how else to describe it.

#59 Edited by billymagnum (801 posts) -

only use them on bad ads...i dont really notice them otherwise...

#60 Edited by TehBuLL (607 posts) -

I block em all. I subscribe here. You are welcome.

#61 Posted by TehBuLL (607 posts) -

I block em all. I subscribe here. You are welcome.

#62 Edited by MEATBALL (3194 posts) -

I use adblock but in the last year or two I've been disabling it for sites I enjoy. I don't feel guilty about it at all.

Ads are a part of life just as people looking for ways to avoid them is, I guess. I don't even really feel a need to justify it, if somebody wants to get all uppity and label me an awful person or "pirate" (lol) for it, whatever, I'm not going to lose sleep over it and they're not entirely unjustified anyway.

The crowdfunding campaign totally seemed like a hilariously terrible move on Adblock's part, though.

#64 Posted by jimmy_p (278 posts) -

Adblockin it up, bro

#66 Edited by SharkEthic (1043 posts) -

I block ads by default, but I make exceptions for sites I like/frequently use. I'd feel guilty consuming content for free when, with a simple "Disable for this site", I can make sure the content creators gets paid.

That being said, I don't believe that it's the consumers responsibility to keep companies business models profitable, and telling people that use Adblock to "Die in a fire" is way out of fucking line. Oh, but it was a joke! Just like the Phil Fish suicide-thing was a joke? Well, ha-fucking-ha, good one! I'm glad @patrickklepek came to his senses and apologized, but he seriously needs to get his shit in check before future outbursts like that. Especially since his rebuttals to people with reasonable arguments for the use of Adblock, seems to only come from a place of "FUCK YOU, I'M SO FRUSTRATED, DON'T USE ADBLOCK, ASSHOLES!" i.e. not very well thought out or put together.

#67 Posted by TobbRobb (4603 posts) -

I can't fucking stand ads in almost any form. So if there is any way to avoid them I will do it.

That said, I do want to support sites I frequent and I do feel bad about the little man. So I pay for things as often as I can. Which in the end is a terrible economic decision, but hey. Never any ads.

#68 Edited by TobbRobb (4603 posts) -

I can't fucking stand ads in almost any form. So if there is any way to avoid them I will do it.

That said, I do want to support sites I frequent and I do feel bad about the little man. So I pay for things as often as I can. Which in the end is a terrible economic decision, but hey. Never any ads.

#69 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Of course not.

#70 Posted by AlexanderSheen (4969 posts) -

Yes, I use Adblock Plus and whitelist the sites I like and has reasonable amount of ads.

#71 Edited by PenguinDust (12493 posts) -

Not Adblock per se. I have Chrome and Firefox installed on my PC and I use both depending on what I am doing on the internet. My Chrome is clean and free of ad blocking software, but my Firefox runs "No Script" which is a sort of ad blocker. What it comes down to is some sites have too many intrusive ads that keep you from navigating the site easily. The choice becomes block some of the ads and utilize the site or don't visit it at all. Some may say that if you aren't clicking past a dozen pop-up ads, you're stealing, but that argument has never held much reason to me. Why would a website want to me more difficult to enjoy? Why would it want to be frustrating? I believe when webdesign becomes impractical or malicious, I should be allowed to block those offending scripts.

#72 Posted by Arabes (338 posts) -

@patman99: It's not about being feeling entitled or trying justifying anything. It's very simple. I do not want to see ads. Therefore I install adblocker. Therefore I do not see ads.

#73 Posted by Arabes (338 posts) -

@patman99: It's not about being feeling entitled or trying justifying anything. It's very simple. I do not want to see ads. Therefore I install adblocker. Therefore I do not see ads.

Oh and on a general note for Patrick and Alex - if your busy model doesn't work in the real world, that's your fucking problem. Not the consumers. No one gave a shit about the music industry sucking it up and changing how they do business. Or TV shows for that matter. Or PC games moving to steam etc etc. It's on you to come up with a way to make money out of playing and talking about video games.

#74 Posted by Sinusoidal (1420 posts) -

In twenty years of browsing the Internet not one ad has prompted me to willingly click on it. Bring on the adblock. Anything to make my web browsing experience at least a little bit less insulting to my intelligence. Go punch your own fucking monkey Internet!

#75 Posted by atomic_dumpling (2469 posts) -

Absolutely, no exceptions. I even removed that dumb-ass nrelate-thing (promoted links) on Giantbomb. I don't want to check out the "Top 10 nekkid gaming bros" or similar click-bait bullshit, thank you very much.

#76 Edited by probablytuna (3617 posts) -

I block everything.

#77 Posted by probablytuna (3617 posts) -

I block everything.

#78 Posted by Fattony12000 (7302 posts) -

My website doesn't have any ads. So, there's that. It does have pictures and videos and words on it.

I'm fucking crazy up in this place, yo.

#79 Edited by GTCknight (693 posts) -

I read a lot of video game news, Manga and watch a large amount of videos, and having an Ad that makes noise or gets in the way of what I'm trying to do makes me VERY PISSED OFF! I don't give a dam about some car or ANYTHING they want to show me at all.

Having said this, any site that knows how to keep their Ads in check (out of sight, out of mind) then I don't mind them as much.

#80 Posted by charlie_victor_bravo (993 posts) -

Adblock and no-script all the time. I just don't want your junk.

#81 Posted by Ravelle (1251 posts) -

Yes, because I don't want animated ads, hot ladies in <your location> or flashing things or full windows sized ads popping up over my websites while I'm reading.

#82 Edited by Shaunage (700 posts) -

Yes, but I pay a subscription at every site I like that allows for it.

Online
#83 Posted by Shaunage (700 posts) -

Yes, but I pay a subscription at every site I like that allows for it.

Online
#84 Posted by ToTheNines (712 posts) -

if I continuously go to the same site or channels, it must be a quality product to me. So at that point, I turn off ad block. But if I stumble over something new, I check it out for a bit first.

#85 Edited by TheLegendOfMart (245 posts) -

On most sites, the ones I frequent a lot I usually whitelist.

Sites piss me off when they place adverts that usually break up content, or have ad in header, then ads down the sides of the content, ads in the side bars, ads at the bottom of pages of things "related" or you "might like" that are usually nothing related to the content you are reading, flash ads, ads with sound, ads that spread malware.

I get that content creators have to be paid but this passive aggressive bullshit they spout on twitter is trés annoying.

Why should I support a business model that doesn't adapt with the market, the music industry nearly went under because they refused to adapt to the shift in the market, if sites are stubborn and they plaster more and more ads or put content behind paywalls I will find another site that doesn't, cutting off your nose to spite your face just means you will lose out, not the internet.

#86 Posted by CaLe (3959 posts) -

Remorselessly.

#87 Posted by Osaladin (2515 posts) -

Absolutely, my internet browsing experience would be way worse if it wasn't for adblock. I haven't seen an ad in ages.

#88 Edited by Ekpyroticuniverse (144 posts) -

I use it as websites don't curate the ads they have. As such I used to end up with really gross content, sexist stuff and the like. I have a five year old who often will be in the room while I am online and therefore I want to control what appears on the screen. Since website creators including giantbomb don't curate the quality of content of ads I block them. If people want me to view ads they need to make sure they neither interfere with my experience or contain sexist imagery.

#89 Posted by Carousel (418 posts) -

Yup.

According to some people, I should "die in a fire."

#90 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1569 posts) -

I only use adblock to block twitch ads because, for some reason, they hardlock my browser, and sometimes PC.

#91 Edited by DaveC524 (86 posts) -

I use AdBlock and block the vast, vast majority of ads with the exception of a few sites that I whitelist.

#92 Edited by LackingSaint (1788 posts) -

No, I find it really gross when people are willing to deny content-creators a salary because of a mild inconvenience.

Out of interest, how long have the majority of you guys been using the internet? Ads are pitifully unintrusive compared to how they were 5 years ago.

#93 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Yes. I deactivate it on all sites I favorite. Even if the ads are a nuissance, like pop-up movie players and such.

#94 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Yes. I deactivate it on all sites I favorite. Even if the ads are a nuissance, like pop-up movie players and such.

#95 Edited by leebmx (2238 posts) -

@arabes said:

@patman99: It's not about being feeling entitled or trying justifying anything. It's very simple. I do not want to see ads. Therefore I install adblocker. Therefore I do not see ads.

Oh and on a general note for Patrick and Alex - if your busy model doesn't work in the real world, that's your fucking problem. Not the consumers. No one gave a shit about the music industry sucking it up and changing how they do business. Or TV shows for that matter. Or PC games moving to steam etc etc. It's on you to come up with a way to make money out of playing and talking about video games.

All that means is that instead of ads on site you are going to get Jeff reading terrible messages from sponsors in the middle of the Bombcast.

I just don't get this argument. I assume you like Giantbomb which is why you are here. Yet you are not prepared to subscribe and you block their ads. If everyone was like you, how do you expect sites such as this to keep going? You say that's their fucking problem, but in the long run its yours, because the sites you enjoy will vanish from the internet.

What makes you think you are entitled to all this content, without giving anything in return? What else in the world works like that? Why should it be that way just because it is on the internet? That's where the accusation of entitlement comes from.

#96 Posted by EXTomar (4687 posts) -

When a site has demonstrated they properly vet their ads and they ask nicely I white list them. Until then, I am not interested whatever "plight" they have with advertising which seems to be a fair stance.

#97 Posted by Christoffer (1798 posts) -

The only logical solution for Giantbomb is gratuitous product placement

#98 Edited by Jeust (10552 posts) -

@jasius said:

Giant Bomb have had some really bad ads, especially the ads they had for Arrested Development which transformed the site to show one of the characters lick a sandwich, that was very invasive.

@billymagnum said:

only use them on bad ads...i dont really notice them otherwise...

@ravelle said:

Yes, because I don't want animated ads, hot ladies in <your location> or flashing things or full windows sized ads popping up over my websites while I'm reading.

I've experienced some really bad ads in giantbomb and everywhere else that irritated me to the point of installing an anti-ad software. Advertisement with blinking animations, sounds, repetitive sounds, or the ones that accompany the scrolling of the page are really irritating, and I don't care if the website content provider isn't paid for showing that kind of ad. I'd sooner leave the website than be blasted by that stuff regularly. When I come a recreational website, I come to be amused, not bothered and pressured to sign up for some free mmo or any other stuff.

I can stand normal advertisment that stays in its place and only comes to mind when I turn my eyes to it. The rest I can't stand, especially because it breaks my concentration.

@lackingsaint said:

Out of interest, how long have the majority of you guys been using the internet? Ads are pitifully unintrusive compared to how they were 5 years ago.

I've been using the internet for about ten years, and I can say that the most intrusive ads I've seen were in the last few years. Ads with sounds and sounds that loop are a new trend especially annoying, the ones that use vibrant colors or animations in a loop, the ones that mimic the scrolling motion along a page and especially the ads that freeze the content of a page before you click on it or wait a few seconds. The last ones are especially bad because in tablets and smartphones many of them don't work properly and you can't remove them from the screen, being the only option to deal with them to close the website.

I've whitelisted Giantbomb, but to remain this way depends only of the kind of ads it shows. I don't want to be bothered while in leisure.

#99 Posted by Patman99 (1579 posts) -

@arabes said:

@patman99: It's not about being feeling entitled or trying justifying anything. It's very simple. I do not want to see ads. Therefore I install adblocker. Therefore I do not see ads.

Oh and on a general note for Patrick and Alex - if your busy model doesn't work in the real world, that's your fucking problem. Not the consumers. No one gave a shit about the music industry sucking it up and changing how they do business. Or TV shows for that matter. Or PC games moving to steam etc etc. It's on you to come up with a way to make money out of playing and talking about video games.

That is the definition of entitlement. You feel you have the right to view the website without supporting it in any manner. In other words, you feel like you are entitled to view the website. I never said that the system should not change but I do not understand why people feel like if they can subvert the system (i.e. install/use adblock) then they have the right to do so. It's on the same level as pirating.

Just because I like to drive cars does not mean I should be able to get any car I want without paying for it. Every car has a "pay-wall" associated with it. Yes, I would like to drive a Ferrari, but I can only afford a Camry. In this case the product is the car. Apply this to websites now. The product is the content they produce. The only difference is that most websites let you view their website for free. To gain money (the thing that people need to survive) most websites opt for an ad-based revenue model. So rather than paying money, you have to suffer through a few ads located either along the sides or top of the webpage you are viewing.

If you do not like the monetization system that the company (be it a car company or website), does not mean you can subvert said system. Instead, simply do not visit the website. But you won't because you feel like you should have access to the company's product without paying. Hence, the use of the word: entitlement.

Giant Bomb has given its users a choice: suffer through ads, or spend $50 a year to remove ads and get extra content. If you say that you cannot afford $50 a year, then you should be happy to view ads. If you like something, you should support it any way you can.

#100 Edited by Jeust (10552 posts) -
@patman99 said:

Giant Bomb has given its users a choice: suffer through ads, or spend $50 a year to remove ads and get extra content. If you say that you cannot afford $50 a year, then you should be happy to view ads. If you like something, you should support it any way you can.

The thing is that kind of view doesn't work. Generally no one is happy to view ads. At most they have a neutral position about the affair. So for a website to get the most income concerning ads, they should select them in order to minimize the discomfort of their audience. Because otherwise while some people might be righteous and bear with them, most will just block all the ads and be done with it.