Well, as I said, I don't mind ads, and if something looks interesting, I will click on it. Sites that use a lot of flash and pop-ups to get my attention, I don't go back to. This includes my own ISP. Haven't been back to that site since the day after I signed up for the service. I also don't watch TV because the programs aren't good enough to make me want to listen to 1/3 advertising and 2/3 show.
I agree, Mark. Here, Vistax64, Technet and the local weather are the only sites I regularly visit other than if I'm actually shopping for something or comparing products for something I plan on buying.
I don't mind advertising either - and I don't like to block it - but there are definitely rogue advertising agencies out there and I will block them in the interests of self preservation. I am not saying that blocking in and of itself is wrong - but I *am* saying whiners about advertising for the sake of whining, without any sort of contributions that would help allay the cost, are, IMO, intolerable.
So does selling drugs, pimping prostitutes or a being a TV evangelist. Not a fan of that either.
But do you regularly visit establishments that offer these vices on a daily, hourly, even on a minute by minute basis every minute that you are online?
So unless your a paying member - time, effort and input are worthless then? Good to know.
I know you are more intelligent than that to try to twist my words into something that I am not saying. If you are contributing and you are whining, it can';t mean all that much because you're still coming back - but if you are here at all hours of the day, not contributing not paying and whining about advertising, as is the wont of numerous netizens all over, then you need to re-examine the facts.
I think people missed the point of my OP.
Conventional advertising (like on parts of this / other sites) can easily be tolerated -- I'm not arguing about those. You can read or ignore at will and these aren't of the "invasive" kind where the user has no control or very limited.
The other "Active" kind such as POPUPS which give the user no control (or limited control) are the big culprits. They also make you lose your thread of concentration - even if you "block" popups there's still a yellow bar on top of IE saying Popup disabled or Blocked.
The 3rd kind which is what my OP was about are the worst of all the evils as they can't be stopped via conventional popup blockingl and IMO are totally counter productive.
At least with TV breaks you can Read the paper, have a drink, do something else etc --you aren't forced to view the commercials.
When I am in the UK I do most of my TV viewing via a SKY TV Plus box. Great invention by SKY TV BTW and really easy to use. This is so simple to use that "even an adult can program it". Then when I watch a program I just forward wind @30X past the commercial breaks if watching a commercial channel
Internet advertising whilst being welcomed with open arms by business IMO will never deliver the zillions of dollars people said it would make.
If I'm LOOKING for a specific item then as a search engine and world wide catalog the it can't be beaten -- but for "general purpose advertising" -- no way.
Incidentally beware of the next phase in Internet advertising -- Subliminal Advertising.
"You Will use Windows 7 -- Resisitance is Futile" .
Cheers
jimbo
I didn't miss your point - but apparently my point did get missed.
Why were there uncircumventable advertisements developed? because the status quo was already being circumvented.
Think about it - most punishments are not only used to exact some sort of reparation from guilty parties but also to serve as deterrents for others who might wish to do the same. When the system gets too easy to circumvent, the system gets changed, upgraded, what have you, so that the new system is less circumventable. In convenience stores all around, security systems including such things as security guards, security lights, camera systems, live video monitoring, etc. were unheard of in all but the very large scale stores 30 years ago. Thievery existed - but the system overall worked for the vat majority of store owners to watch for thieves and to get them caught when victimized. Fast forward about 15 years and video surveillance is proliferating at an alarming rate - and the costs of having those systems, along with other security devices, security lighting, security guards, etc. eventually trickles down to the consumers - raising the prices of the goods being sold to offset the cost of the additional overhead the store owners and conglomerates have to put up with. This, in turn, makes more items more unavailable to greater numbers of the public - which seems to perpetuate a vicious cycle of more thieves --> more security --> more thievery. However, the security also serves as a deterrent to those that would consider turning to thievery in the first place, as would the consequences. Getting caught is a lot easier, even if you massacre all the occupants of the store at any give time - and police response times are getting faster and faster as more police force is out on the streets, thereby increasing the chance that you get caught.
I know it seems odd to try to use crime as a metaphor for complaining about advertising, but the principle remains the same - the more the system gets circumvented, the more the system is adapted to address the circumvention. These advertisements that cannot be controlled by conventional means exists *solely* because methods exist today that allow even the most novice of users to circumvent the previous generation of advertising. Things like NoScript, local HTTP servers combined with hosts files, GreaseMonkey, JavaScript blocking at the OS level, HTTP filtering, etc all allow for blocking a lot of advertising, for whatever reason, be it my self preservation, your annoyance at the intrusion, or someone else's self-righteous misapprehension about their right to advertising-free web sites. Therefore, these new variations on advertising are developed to circumvent the circumvention techniques currently in use - and when the system begins to fail again because these new methods are easily circumvented, rest assured that the system will again be adapted to deal with that next generation of circumvention.
