Detecting ad blockers

[Shawn Gossman]

I just say the best way to deal with forums that block ad blocking software is to skip them and find another since that is you right Maybe they will learn but maybe they wont.

I think its a good idea to build technologies to work around them blocking you but still block their ads LOL technology is fun fun fun!

 

[sheep82940]

The best way to get back at them is to just not use the site. You don't waste their bandwidth, but you also don't earn them revenue. If enough people do it they'll be forced to look into why they're losing visitors.

 

[byeman]

Of course it is possible

Think about it, what do all adverts do? They take a piece of javascript on the page and either replace it with valid HTML (usually an iframe) or create some piece of dynamically created HTML (span, div, etc) on the page once the page is rendered and the javascript ad code is called.

All you have to do is write some custom javascript to check the page for this replaced advert HTML a few seconds after the page loads. If it is there, they are not blocking ads, if it is not, they are blocking.

 

[vlauria]

I just had an idea, is there a way to reverse this problem?

Let me explain, recently, we started running house ads on our forum, tips and such that would be useful and they are getting a lot of click throughs. What if you used house ads to offer something special, say a $25 bestbuy card every month as a house ad. Now you would have people always looking at the ad, and give a reason for ppl not to have an ad blocker on your site.

just food for thought...

 

[EthanJ]

It's not a bad idea, but it would only really work direct sold ads. As networks have very strict rules about click incentivising, and I have a feeling they would see that as a ToS violation.

 

[Sykoi]

It's not a bad idea, but it would only really work direct sold ads. As networks have very strict rules about click incentivising, and I have a feeling they would see that as a ToS violation.

Not to mention that ad blockers block the servers the ads are running on, so it wouldn't block the ads you host on your own server.

 

[Exologist]

It won't ever be the end of the world. If adblocking takes over everything, people would just go back to manually installing ads. Maybe someone should start a site to link publishers and advertisers for real instead of just automatically doing it based on page content in anticipation for the takeover of adblock.

Then again... I don't think it'll really happen that way.

 

[Xtreme2damax]

You could write a script which detects the use of ad blockers, then disallow access to certain content if visitors and members have an ad blocking program enabled. I know there are some websites which can detect if NoScript is enabled and ask you to disable it in order to view their content.

 

[EthanJ]

I know there are some websites which can detect if NoScript is enabled and ask you to disable it in order to view their content.

That's simply a <noscript> html tag I believe, because as far as I'm aware there's no direct way of detecting a specific Firefox add-on without it being designed to identify itself. Which NoScript pointedly doesn't do for this very reason, as it would allow a malicious person to detect and try to circumvent it.

 

[Alex.]

There are a few ways to get people to disable adblockers. It's the matter of devising a scheme to get them to do that.

 

[Wes of StarArmy]

As a site owner I do my best to provide users with a good experience. I only run text ads and nothing flashy or huge, just one or two text ads at the bottom of each forum thread (I know the top would get more clicks but I want them to be unobtrusive). However us site owners need to realize that we can only control the SERVER side of things and that no matter what our opinions are, the BROWSER side will be user controlled by browsers, browser settings, plugins, screen size, adblockers, script blockers, and greasmonkey scripts. It is not our place to tell users how to set up their machines.

Even in non-web media ads are now ignored as much as possible (TV ads for instance have less impact than ever before, which is why there are so many now). Ads are typically useless and unwanted. They're a brainpower-wasting detriment to people's lives. Worse yet, some ads are dangerous, foisting malware on users or spying on them. Of course they're being blocked. People with ad blockers are seeing the web, including our sites, free of content pollution.

For the above reasons I will always block ads on every site I visit (except perhaps Google text ads). The "lost revenue" the OP is complaining about is a myth. Users that block ads weren't going to click on those things in the first place.

The best we can do is keep ads very un-intrusive, relevant, and useful as possible, while kindly asking (not forcing) users to disable the block on your domain.

 

[MattF]

However us site owners need to realize that we can only control the SERVER side of things and that no matter what our opinions are, the BROWSER side will be user controlled by browsers, browser settings, plugins, screen size, adblockers, script blockers, and greasmonkey scripts. It is not our place to tell users how to set up their machines.

Well put mate.

This guy's right. Blocking all ads is morally wrong. The internet is mostly only free because of ads.

Complete and utter tosh. That's the type of bunkum which is only spouted by the people who use advertisements of any form on their site. There are those of us who would never consider using ad's, (no matter what the personal cost to keep our sites running), under any circumstances. If a person only runs a site on the provision that it will generate some income, that's their problem. The internet has survived, and will survive, without those of the same ilk. If people want income, use a donation link. If people think your site is worth donating to, they will. If not, they won't. It'll save the rest of us having to suffer that crap which keeps getting thrown at us and hogging the screen space any and every time we try browsing the internet.

People wonder why ad's get blocked? If they weren't either running shedloads of JS which made slow machines run like dogs or cramming more ad's into the space than actual site content, the overall opinion of people might change regarding ad's. As it is, however, greed, as always, has taken control and caused God knows how many sites to think that they have a damned right to prop up their crappy or even nonexistent content with ad's, and they then expect people to generate income for them from those ad's. Yeah, right. Dream on is my response to that one.

 

[Maxis010]

I block ad's but I block them because a lot of the sites I visit put their ad code BEFORE their actually content.
Either I sit there on my slow connection (Edge of the network) and stare at images I have no interest in while the content gradually appears or I block them and see what I loaded my browser up to see

 

[cheat_master30]

Okay, without even going on the topic of ad blocking (I don't do so any more only because I'm trying to keep used add ons down to a reasonable level), I'm fairly certain there's no good way of even detecting ad block that won't be easy to circumvent. For one, you can only detect them from what I know if the user has javascript active, and the solutions to that some obsessives propose will also kill their search engine rankings in the process.

But my honest answer? Why bother? It's not like such people would click ads anyway, and I think some networks would judge a higher percentage of visits with ads clicked as more valuable than lots of traffic which ignores them, so I can almost see some kind of monetary benefit for not doing anything in the first place.

 

[sunflyer]

This one works

http://adblockdetector.com

 

[cheat_master30]

^And fails if anyone has javascript disabled. Easy enough to circumvent.

 

[sunflyer]

well turning of javascript is not a very good choice anyway

 

[StarBuG]

The question is if people who block ads would click on them when forced or asked to deactivate the ad blocker anyway?

I focus my efforts on improving my site and my earnings are increasing steadily besides users who block ads.
But that also depends on the niche.
Forums focused on tech savvy users for example have a lot more to struggle with ad blockers then I do with my medical forums.

 

[Alex.]

well turning of javascript is not a very good choice anyway

It's pretty hard to use a forum with script blocking from an extension like NoScript! or any site that uses JS heavily.

 

[hari]

The thing is internet users want everything for free. I know they pay their ISP for connectivity but apart from that the vast majority of web users will never be willing to pay or support a website they regularly use through donations unless they have some emotional or sentimental reason to do so. For smaller websites and communities, people aren't exactly lining up in queues for subscriptions and/or donations. None of the smaller forums can afford to use a donation or subscription model because there is simply not enough regular visitors to make such a system workable. Besides a lot of us have pride and asking for donations from users feels a bit like begging. Whether you agree or not on that score, I think I would never go that route myself.

As a result a majority of us have no choice but to place ads on our websites. Simply put, it is the most convenient and consistent revenue stream even if it is not all that profitable. We all want to recover the costs of hosting and other things - not all of us have products or services to sell either. The vast majority of small-time webmasters are never going to become millionaires by placing ads on their websites. Most of us are lucky to recover part of the expenses of hosting.

I think in the long run, the general quality of freely available information will decline if people en-masse start using ad-blockers. It's not just a question of click-through rate as many advertisers also use other methods like CPM (cost-per-mille). The argument that people who use ad-blockers aren't going to click them anyway is flawed as clicking an ad is not the only method of revenue generation. Even merely viewing an ad is enough if it is an impression-based ad.

I use common sense personally. I have nothing against webmasters who choose to place ads on their websites. If I find ads in a particular website annoying I no longer visit that website unless there is compelling content. On the other hand, normal banner advertising no long affects me. I think we've all developed selective blindness to ads.

What I would never do is install 3rd party addons to block ads. It feels unethical to me personally as I am aware how much websites can pay to stay on-line. Without a steady revenue stream to offset costs, many of the smaller websites may well disappear in the near future. We don't want google and others to have a monopoly on content in the Internet.

Let us be realistic and support advertising whenever we come across useful and helpful information and get it for free on the internet. When we find very annoying or flashy advertising, let us no longer support such sites by visiting it.

Using a website in other ways and at the same time rejecting its advertising seems to me to be in bad taste. I respect the ownership rights personally of website owners and I think that in the case of non-commercial sites which provide useful info and services, I think that it is better to support them by not blocking ads altogether.

So what it boils down to is this: users may have every right to use ad blocker to stop receiving advertising from websites but I believe the content-publisher equally has a right not to serve their content without ads. It's not like television advertising where the channels are paid up front by advertisers. In the case of online advertising, we are basically paid after the ads get impressions, clicks etc.