Google Updates Algorithm To Punish Websites With Excessive Ads

[rhd]

Hey guys -

For all those of you who are blocking the ads, perhaps now is a good time to go donate $5 to LPF.

Avery may not actually feel like donations justify us blocking the ads, but I know that for me personally, it relieves any personal moral guilt I might otherwise have. This is a good reminder that I haven't donated in a while - so I'm heading there now.

If you're going to block ads, why not donate a few bucks?

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Meh... this issue gets brought up with regularity.

It's not going away.

If it's a bother, well, there are any number of ways to circumvent the problem.

IMO it would make sense to revise the Advertisement contract terms to not show them to registered members. As I understand it, that's not currently an option.

If you take a look though, most visitors are not actually registered, so the cpc/cpm would not really be affected, but it would be a thank you to actual members and content creators.

Of course personally I just started using adblock... too annoying to wait and have the page jump around like mad.

 

[xoul]

Yeah, there's alot of ads, but there's only one in particular that really bugs me...

:tsk: :tsk: :tsk:

 

[DTR]

Personally I don't have a problem with ads being used to support the site. I would prefer that the really annoying ones on the bottom only show up when you are not logged in like some other sites do so that only unregistered users get the blunt of it.

What I do have a problem with is government waste of tax dollars. If you look at the ads at the bottom obviously there is some loop hole that Avery has found where you put the same ad 400 times on a page it pays 400 times per load. Well that can not be the intention of those ads and it does not make them any more effective. That is an obvious abuse of whatever already stupid government program making it even more of a useless waste of much needed tax dollars than it already is.

 

[Ghostchrome]

Topic should be locked aaaaany minute now...

 

[Tech_Junkie]

Have been running ad-block for so long, now I know why there is a large black void at the bottom of each page...

Same here. A couple of times I've recommended a web site I thought was ad, and pop-up clean to friends. And then later people bitching at me that the site hijacked their browser. It never occurs to me that in this time of massive security threats that people people still dont have their systems protected. Ad/pop-up blockers are a no brainer these days.

Sorry if that offended anyone, but come on, its 2012. The tools are so easy to find/use these days that no one has an excuse.

 

[sopark4000]

Personally I don't have a problem with ads being used to support the site. I would prefer that the really annoying ones on the bottom only show up when you are not logged in like some other sites do so that only unregistered users get the blunt of it.

What I do have a problem with is government waste of tax dollars. If you look at the ads at the bottom obviously there is some loop hole that Avery has found where you put the same ad 400 times on a page it pays 400 times per load. Well that can not be the intention of those ads and it does not make them any more effective. That is an obvious abuse of whatever already stupid government program making it even more of a useless waste of much needed tax dollars than it already is.

Yea I don't mind the banners at the top of the page either and I didn't even remove them, it's the stupid ads on the bottom that I got rid of and now my pages load in under a second.

But yea there is clearly some kind of profit loophole with those "save energy" ads because there is no other reason to have so many of them load each time. The only conclusion I can come to with those ads is this. I checked and the Pictures themselves aren't hosted on LPF so I have the feeling that every time one of us loads a page it is sourcing that picture like 20 times thus making it look like 20 different people are opening a page. Usually how much advertising banners pay out depends on the number of people that actually clicked on them but I guess that is not the case here. Although it's rare I have seen the same thing on a few other random sites, where the same ad was loaded over and over. Smart scam honestly and if an advertiser is stupid enough to fall for it they deserve it.

 

[Trevor]

I suspect that the enormous pile of ads at the bottom probably violates some sort of advertiser policy. Just saying.

Trevor

 

[sopark4000]

Sorry if that offended anyone, but come on, its 2012. The tools are so easy to find/use these days that no one has an excuse.

It's weird because depending on which browser program I am using some things are blocked and some aren't. For example the 2 main browsers I use are safari and firefox. On firefox when I set the default anti popup setting that was enough to block the ads at the bottom whereas on safari I had to input the banners/ads I wanted blocked manually, and vice versa sometimes safari will block something but firefox wont. So even if you are using ad block you may get different results. whodathunkit

 

[sopark4000]

I suspect that the enormous pile of ads at the bottom probably violates some sort of advertiser policy. Just saying.

Trevor

Like I said IMO if you are paying your advertisers based on how many times the banner is loaded as opposed to how many times people click the banners than you are just begging for it.

 

[Trevor]

Like I said IMO if you are paying your advertisers based on how many times the banner is loaded as opposed to how many times people click the banners than you are just begging for it.

And if Avery gets himself banned from using Google ads...

Trevor

 

[Tech_Junkie]

So even if you are using ad block you may get different results. whodathunkit

Mine blocks everything, except when a new banner is hosted on the web site I'm looking at at the time. Any banners hosted off site are automatically blocked. The ad blocker keep an update list of what it considers bad banners. Maybe you need to update the software regularly.

 

[csshih]

inb4 av locks this thread.

 

[jcranmer]

I think this is a record. Ave must be sleeping.

 

[rhd]

It's funny, there are two reasons I've been motivated to use ad blockers:

1) LPF (as mentioned previously)

2) DinoDirect

BUT, not to block DinoDirect ad banners, but rather to block real site content once I'm there! I filter out their stupid auto-playing videos, and the annoying-as-frak "moving resize" flash content on their legitimate pages. Talk about a site that makes itself un-usable, has anyone tried to spend any time on DD? It's a nightmare.

 

[Bluefan]

I use a flash blocker that blocks everything except my whitelist, that's usefull for any site as usually flash is either youtube or advertising. I use an add blocker but I leave some add unblocked, for example the WL add. I won't buy from WL anyway, and if they pay a part of the costs of this forum I'm more than happy.