Sad News: The INQUIRER reaches end-of-life

[GEWB]

Posted this morning on The INQUIRER:

"IT IS WITH A HEAVY HEART we must announce that The INQUIRER has reached end-of-life. Our publisher, Incisive Media, has made the decision to shut down the website, which has come as a huge shock to everyone here at The INQUIRER."

I have followed this site since 2002 (it's on my bookmark toolbar) and will miss it when it is gone.

The INQUIRER reaches end-of-life

 

[file3456]

Is this the same Inquirer that was the newspaper? I remember people back then said inquiring minds want to know.


I like this headline: Vladimir Putin is still using Windows XP

 

[GEWB]

Is this the same Inquirer that was the newspaper? I remember people back then said inquiring minds want to know.

Totally different. This was UK based focusing on technology, similar to The Register (The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World).

 

[RoWin7]

You might want to try Wired.com instead, similar content.

 

[RoWin7]

Is this the same Inquirer that was the newspaper? I remember people back then said inquiring minds want to know.
I like this headline: Vladimir Putin is still using Windows XP

Unfortunately, that National Inquirer is still alive in supermarkets.

 

[file3456]

Oh, that's what it was called. The National Enquirer.

Bat Boy Lives! LOL

 

[z3r010]

The is going to happen more and more over the coming year, sites that have been around forever are no longer financially viable to keep online, not through lack of traffic but the massive adoption of adblockers, I know for us adblocking is now around 50% up from 25% two years ago, we have pretty low overheads compared to sites like the Enquirer who had offices and employees, but if things carry on the way they are currently then in 5 years time the only thing left will be tiny hobby sites and ones run by huge companies.

 

[file3456]

I never detected any Ads on this site. Looking at this page now I see the following blocks.

 

[file3456]

My website allows for donations. Either PayPal or cryptocurrency. Better than nothing. I feel if people like the content they can buy me a coffee.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

People wouldn't use ad blockers so much if so many websites didn't use so many intrusive, obnoxious, loud, and/or malware riddled ads so the websites only have themselves to blame.

 

[z3r010]

And publishers wouldn't need to add as many ads to cover running costs if people didn't use adblockers.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

And publishers wouldn't need to add as many ads to cover running costs if people didn't use adblockers.

This circular argument could go on forever except that it was the websites and their sponsors who made the decision to run the objectionable ads in the first place. If they hadn't and just ran nonobjectional ads in the first place, far, far less people would use ad blockers.

I resisted using an adblocker for the longest time because I knew they were needed to pay for the websites. And, I don't mind and an ad that just sets there and let's me decide whether to look at it or not. Not all products and services are going to be of interest to me. For example, what use would I have for male enhancement products? I'm a Lesbian, for crying out loud. I would look at the ads that had products and services I'm interested in. But for same insane, irrational reason, advertisers got it into their pea sized brains (ok, I may have been generous there) that loud, tacky, distracting, intrusive, ads for any product or service, especially ones I do not need or want, would endear me to them and their products or servces. To this day, there is no way in hell I'll give one, red cent (or even the time of day) to Netflix because of the years of the popups and popunders they plagued me with in the past, even going to the extent of finding ways to bypass my popup blockers! Then there is the actual harm inflicted by ads with malware embedded in them, some of which do not require clicking on the ad to get infected. None of this mentions the creep factor of targeted ads.

If the websites cleaned up their ads, ad blocker use might go down. However, the damage has been done and people have become anti-ads, no matter what form they appear in. And, franky, I don't blame them. I would disable my ad blockers if the industry cleaned up its act (though we know darned well that won't happen) but only after a year or two to make sure it actually happened. Most people won't even bother with that and, again, I wouldn't blame them.

 

[file3456]

On my phone I don't use an Ad blocker. Used to. Have to reinstall it. But when I go to a page the Ads are so bad that I can't even see the content that is there to begin with. Then sometimes you can't back the hell out. God only knows what kind of malware might be packed in an Ad for a smartphone. Even though I use Avira on the phone.

I'm a firm believer in the donation method like how I have it implemented on my website. But, a lot of people are cheapskates and don't even send one dollar your way. I won't throw Ads on my site because I know how intrusive they are and the possibility of a malware laden Ad. I certainly don't want that for my users.

 

[file3456]

I use the browser Pale Moon and they use this site. Best way for artists and creators to get sustainable income and connect with fans | Patreon


Hak5 uses it as well.

 

[unifex]

This circular argument could go on forever except that it was the websites and their sponsors who made the decision to run the objectionable ads in the first place. If they hadn't and just ran nonobjectional ads in the first place, far, far less people would use ad blockers.

I don't buy the argument being circular. I have yet to see a paid service that does not show ads. On TV the only difference is that paid channels do not interrupt shows with ads, however the time between shows is full of them. Same goes for on-demand services - you get ads before and after your content (well, once you're done you can turn it off, but before - you can't skip it). This is of course a huge improvement - at least one can watch a game or a show without interruptions. But the ads are still there. In fact, in Germany we have to pay for the state TV - regardless whether you watch it or not - and it still shows ads.

Finally, I don't believe that as a consumer I have to worry about the business model of a producer (publisher, retailer, etc.). When I buy a product, I don't "support" anyone, I just buy the product. If I don't want to see ads, I honestly believe it's my right to do so.

 

[file3456]

That would be apples to oranges. With a website and depending on the company, their sole source of revenue could be Ads. In the case of Google or even YouTube this is the principal case. Ads are what made Google so rich. In fact, Ads drive the TV market and how it exists today.

Now here in the U.S. we have a huge ISP/cable TV and phone provider called Comcast. They really don't have to show Ads on their website's because their main income comes from subscribers. If they have any Ads or promotions from companies that's there way of making even more money.

I always thought it was BS that a cable provider that you pay for has channels with Ads, but I guess it's because the cable provider is just the means by which to get the content and the channel is a separate company altogether. Like here in the U.S we have the Discovery Networks channels which encompass the Discovery Channel, History Channel, TLC and maybe others. Then there's the huge company Time Warner. I think they own CNN, TBS and other crap.

Get to know Comcast: YouTube Caution NSFW

 

[RoWin7]

I don't buy the argument being circular. I have yet to see a paid service that does not show ads. On TV the only difference is that paid channels do not interrupt shows with ads, however the time between shows is full of them. Same goes for on-demand services - you get ads before and after your content (well, once you're done you can turn it off, but before - you can't skip it). This is of course a huge improvement - at least one can watch a game or a show without interruptions. But the ads are still there. In fact, in Germany we have to pay for the state TV - regardless whether you watch it or not - and it still shows ads.

Finally, I don't believe that as a consumer I have to worry about the business model of a producer (publisher, retailer, etc.). When I buy a product, I don't "support" anyone, I just buy the product. If I don't want to see ads, I honestly believe it's my right to do so.

Public TV (PBS) which I watch most of the time, has no ads, nor does National Public Radio (NPR,) which I play daily.

I'm not a shopper. I wouldn't click on ads even if I saw them and they were non-intrusive. WIRED.com wouldn't make any money from me even if I saw their ads.

I've heard there's now an anti-anti adblocker