Wily_One

December 16, 2011 at 1:31am

While I don't agree with the concept of "acceptable" ads, I must give kudos to AdBlock for making it plain what the change is, and just as plain and easy to tell it "no thank you, I still want you to block everything."

Once the latest version was installed, a window opens that lets you immediately go change the option.  Right on.

 

bpstone

December 13, 2011 at 9:06pm

There are other options out there:

○ AdBlock.
○ ScriptNo.
○ Keep My Opt-Outs.
   Et cetera.

Incognito

December 13, 2011 at 4:56pm

If you don't mind paying for it, Ad Muncher kicks the crap out of AdBlock Plus.  AdBlock is unbeatable for a free solution though.  The only problem I see with this idea is that sometimes it's the amount of ads on a page that can be a problem, even if they aren't animating and playing music / sounds.

Asterixx

December 13, 2011 at 4:24pm

I block ads more because my internet connection sucks (1.5 Mbps at the best of times). True, I also do it because I loathe flashing, spinning, animated crap dancing about on my screen, but the main reason is bandwidth preservation. It was even more important just two short years ago when I was stuck with dialup because high speed (if you can call 1.5 Mbps high speed) was even available. Back then I even used ABP to block legitimate elements of sites that were not ads but weren't necessary either (such as background images, banners/logos, etc)

Bandwidth caps would be another legitimate reason to block ads. Sorry, but if I'm paying by the gigabyte, every byte I download is going to be meaningful. I ain't paying to download any stupid ads...

tenchymuyo2

December 13, 2011 at 11:33am

OK, I just installed 2.0 and looked at EVERY site I have Bookmarks for.  I noticed out of over 150 sites, two showed a tiny bit more info on them.  They were ads, but they were directly related to the info on the page.  One was a local news channel's site, and the other was a real estate search site.  The real estate site showed a small ad box for checking your credit score.  I don't think you have to fear this one.  I saw the checkbox option to disallow the new ad blocking parameters. 

luusyphre

December 13, 2011 at 11:24am

I don't mind it so much.  I understand that ads are the price we should pay to browse.  I still use Adblock because ads are usually too disruptive.  If everyone were to just have static ads, I wouldn't need to use Adblock.  For example, I don't use Adblock on Gmail because the ads don't grab my eye when I'm trying to read my goddamn email.  But I have it on for all the Gawker sites because things are always flashing and flickering all over the place.

tenchymuyo2

December 13, 2011 at 11:11am

(I COPIED AND PASTED FROM ADBLOCK'S SITE)

Are you stupid? Nobody wants this!

The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some users are even asking for a way to enable Adblock Plus on some websites only.

What is this about?

Starting with Adblock Plus 2.0 you can allow some of the advertising that is considered not annoying. By doing this you support websites that rely on advertising but choose to do it in a non-intrusive way. And you give these websites an advantage over their competition which encourages other websites to use non-intrusive advertising as well. In the long term the web will become a better place for everybody, not only Adblock Plus users. Without this feature we run the danger that increasing Adblock Plus usage will make small websites unsustainable.

Why is this feature enabled by default?

Because that's unfortunately the only way to reach the goals outlined above. If we ask users to enable this feature then most of them won't do it — simply because they never change any settings unless absolutely necessary. However, advertisers will only be interested in switching to better ways of advertising if the majority of Adblock Plus users has this feature enabled.

But I hate all ads!

No problem, you can disable this feature at any time. Click the Adblock Plus icon and choose "Filter Preferences" from the menu. Uncheck "Allow non-intrusive advertising" and you are done.

Which ads are "acceptable"?

We currently have the following requirements:

• Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)
• Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images
• At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)

These criteria are not final, we are working on improving them. In particular, we want to require that user's privacy is respected (mandatory Do Not Track support). However, we are not yet in a position to enforce that requirement.

Will all "acceptable" ads be unblocked?

No. Unfortunately, it isn't technically possible to recognize "acceptable" ads automatically. We have agreements with some websites and advertisers that only advertising matching our criteria will be used, their ads will be unblocked then. We hope to grow our list significantly over time.

What if an ad is allowed that doesn't meet the requirements?

Please report it as you usually would. If an advertiser abuses his placement on the exception list we can always remove him from the list.

How can I see what you are allowing?

The "Allow non-intrusive advertising" checkbox simply adds one more filter subscription to your list. You can view the filters here. Also, the special treatment of this filter subscription (which was added for reasons of usability) can be disabled by going to about:config and changing extensions.adblockplus.subscriptions_exceptionscheckbox preference to false. This will allow you to view the filters for this subscription as usually.

Do you have questions or suggestions concerning this list? Feel free to contact us.

 

ApathyCurve

December 13, 2011 at 10:38am

Did that sell-out come with a blowjob?

unsunghero225

December 13, 2011 at 8:11am

How can they still call it Ad Block when they're about to start allowing ads.... Dumb

I have to agree with Engelsstaub below that although theres a lot of people who know about and use ABP, theres still an overwhelming amount that probably don't even know what an "extension" is....

So why not keep it the same and keep the loyal userbase happy??

TechLarry

December 13, 2011 at 7:40am

Oh, goody.  Thanks for re-opening that malware channel for us ABP.

 

I hope ya got paid well for this.

MrFluffyThing

December 13, 2011 at 5:56am

To be honest, I think this is a good move. I run my own personal website and I rely on ads just to break even, so that I may pay for the hosting and the registration of the site. The rest of the work I do myself, and don't make a profit, so I'd like to see things like google ads that follow Google's guidelines to be allowed through for a site.

d3v

December 13, 2011 at 4:50am

It looks to me like the creator of adblock plus has been bought off by publishers or ad networks. I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. If he continues down this path someone else will create a plugin that blocks all ads by default like its supposed to.

Engelsstaub

December 13, 2011 at 4:19am

I suppose the problem with a site/magazine like MPC is that its users are (generally) a bit smarter than others when it comes to things like extensions and ABP and such. (You'd be surprised how many people know nothing about such extensions. I literally know no one who uses it or wouldn't just stare blankly when I tell them about such things.)

The companies who buy ad-space (which in turn supports the existence of sites like this) probably don't factor in much of the possible ad-blocking when deciding on advertising. They're more like the 98% that wouldn't even think to do it.

Be that as it may, I seriously doubt people would pay up for a web-based subscription. Times are tough right now. If people were expected to pay for every site they frequented they would likely go elsewhere. I know there's some people further below indicating that they'd pay, but most would not. This is, after all, the days of BitTorrent. People don't want to pay for any of their entertainment/information.

Tell you what: I won't ad-block this site anymore. For as much shit and criticism I've given you all in the past (there may be more...wait for it,) maybe I should be among those who "pay" for my usage.

B.A.Frayd

December 13, 2011 at 2:05am

I'm actually willing to allow this and see what happens. It sounds reasonable to me.

But I guarantee you this: the first time I hear an ad, see an ad animate, pop-up (including revolving ads in the same frame), intrude by moving content out of it's way, forces me to look at it before it lets me access content, or does ANYTHING but sit there in it's corner keeping to itself, I will switch back to FULL BLOCK in a nanosecond.

JohnP

December 13, 2011 at 12:00am

As far as I know, I have NEVER EVER clicked on an ad banner in my 60 year old life. Yeah, they make me aware of stuff I might not have heard of but the lure is never enough for me to pursue it. It is kind of a reverse herd mentality that I somehow connect banner ads with poor quality stuff.

 Want me to buy something? Do a decent review of it on the site or in the magazine. I have bought tons of stuff that way. My computer is full of the best of the best list from MPC. Now if only folks could make an advertising model on that without compromising their integrity. Oh wait, that is called a subscription...

The last point is that on certain subjects, there are dozens of sites covering the same ground. It is only habit that I come here on a daily basis. Throw a lot of fuss or clutter on the site and I will go elsewhere to a site that DOES NOT HAVE ADS. PC Mag has completely lost my eyeballs because of this very reason. What good is ads if I don't go to the site at all?

As for paid web subscriptions, I bought the WSJ online and print for $140 recently which shows that I am willing to pay for extremely competent and timely content.

noobstix

December 12, 2011 at 10:13pm

The only issue I've run into using ABP is that I can't use Yahoo Radio and listen to podcasts from my favorite radio station.  However, those sites have ads that start up before the actual content so I can understand why Adblock flat out prevents those two things from working.  For all of the times I've used ABP, it's saved me from a few infections from ads (I got bitten at least twice from DeviantArt) as well as some of the other sites that have ads when trying to transition to different web pages (MaxPC, IGN, Gamespot, etc.).  I'm currently not running ABP because I'm trying to figure out why Firefox is taking too damn long to close out at times (the few times I've ran ABP recently, FF has had a hard time closing itself out).

rawrnomnom

December 12, 2011 at 9:36pm

So far the only ads that don't make me mad are google's text only ads, with no flashy colors, and nothing more than a simple text phrase, thats not too bad.

cownaetion

December 12, 2011 at 8:58pm

Considering Firefox 3.6 and almost all the plugins for that version work great, I still do not see any incentive to update anything.

roadshow41

December 12, 2011 at 7:44pm

A couple of thoughts on this. 

First, you guys that are whining about 'your' monitor space ... you pay for access and your machine, but you do not pay for content on most sites directly.  Anyone who moans and groans about advertising but is unwilling to pony up and pay a sub fee is immature and doesnt understand the economics of running a content based business.  You want content, you pay for it indireclty through  ads or you pay for it directly out of your bank account.  Personally, I prefer the ads.  I suppose they could always use the begging model that the wiki has adopted.  Can you imagine Gordon muggin for money above all the articles?  Please. God. No.

Second, I think there is some serious merit to policing the type of ads we see while not restricting ads alltogether.  In a consumer driven economy ads are a part of life, but rewarding companies with ethical practices is a reasonable way to encourage self policing.  You know why those idiot companies use video, audio, overlays, and popup ads?  Because they work.  But just because something works doesn't make it ethical.  Since it's not likley that we can effectivley legislate advertising guidelines on the net (thankfully), we have to learn to counteract the sheeple who click the bright shinies with intelligent handling, like ABP is.  Basically, if you want to get rid of the garbage, you have to make it more profitable for the companies to do the right thing.

jkroeder

December 12, 2011 at 7:39pm

I've used Admuncher for a couple of years now so this doesn't even affect me. However, I don't even see what the big deal is. Until ABP actually prevents you from blocking these so-called "non-invasive" ads then the product still works as intended. 

I get the train of thought that the ABP author may have sold-out but let's give him some credit for his work here. ABP is easily one of the biggest reasons people even use Firefox. I also find it weird that some people will put up with using Noscript and yet find that having to opt-out of this ABP fiasco is so difficult or offensive.

Slurpy

December 12, 2011 at 7:33pm

The biggest problem I have with ads is that they usually cause sites to render slower, due to shitty off-site image hosting, and even shittier Flash implementation (but Flashblock has that covered).  I have no problem with APB whitelisting a certain subset of ads in theory - I certainly understand webmasters' needs to pay for bandwidth and buy ramen, but as soon as I get annoyed, I'll put it back on full blocking.

kixofmyg0t

December 12, 2011 at 7:32pm

So this blocks ads that use animation and redirects you say?

 

So this will block the 900,000 Battlefield 3 ads here at maximumpc.com? I MUST HAVE! 

 

Nimrod

December 12, 2011 at 7:27pm

I work with two web sites that we get money from based on ad clicks, theres also our youtube channel thats works in a similar manner. I also run Ad Block and dont plan on looke back. Ill stick with the version that blocks most of them.

Datrappert

December 12, 2011 at 6:42pm

As long as an ad doesn't jump up in my face, take over half my screen, or start playing annoying audio or video, I'm OK with it. Banners at the side or small banners at the top or bottom can be easily ignored.

Teeebs

December 12, 2011 at 6:41pm

Funny, I didn't think there was such a thing as a "non-invasive ad".  I find ALL of them pretty repulsive!  Needless to say, I want my ad blocker to block as many as possible, and any that do make it through get added to the block list manually.  So if ABP is going to decide which ads I'm now going to be subjected to by default, I guess it's time for a new ad blocker.  You know, one that actually does what it's name implies....

Budman_NC

December 12, 2011 at 6:33pm

IMHO, advertisers only have themselves to blame for the responses here. I'm sure we all understand the importance of ad-supported revenue in keeping our favorite web sites alive and kicking, certainly including this one. But ads have gotten so obnoxious and resource dependent that we've gotten to the point where enough is enough already. It's cause and effect. I drink too much wine, I must take a p***. Couldn't resist that Matrix quote. LOL It will be interesting to see if the advertisers will respond to this peace offering.

0ly1r3m@1ns

December 12, 2011 at 6:32pm

i see why this is but sorry ive quite enjoyed not having ads and i will continue to do so i understand that i can hurt but unfortonatly this is the fucking internet not some bilboard im an old fashion internet person and i hate ads they made my computer slow as fuck gave me viruses so ad block sorry im opting out.

Scatter

December 12, 2011 at 6:12pm

I'm assuming that this is only with the default filter.  3rd party filters I would assume still allow you to block all the spam and if they don't then its only a matter of time before someone creates another addon to replace Adblock Plus. 

Svetty Parabols

December 12, 2011 at 6:08pm

Until there is an "opt in" model for advertising on websites, I don't want to hear the boo hoo stories. I pay for my electric, internet, and computer, I think I have every right to block any ads or all of them. Advertisers pay for air time, billboards, and newspaper ads, yet expect to take up free real estate on my monitor .. I don't think so.

Ad Block Plus has sold out..what next? Macafee telling us that some viruses are ok?

livebriand

December 12, 2011 at 5:39pm

The ONLY ads I will allow are ones that consume an unmeasurably low amount of CPU cycles, are static images or text ads, contain no animation, audio, tracking, or redirects, that do not slow down the page loading, and that consume very little bandwidth (maybe 5KB/page if not cached?) (due to data plans), and that do not use adobe flash (which sometimes slows my browser to a crawl, on a quad-core i5 750 desktop with a geforce 550ti gpu, 8GB RAM, and windows 7 64-bit). This may be a bit tough, but if they don't want to meet those requirements, I'll keep blocking ads.

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

December 12, 2011 at 5:19pm

I use NoScript, and that has been enough for a couple years now.

 

I don't mind ads that can behave, but most do not. Certainly, if there hadn't been a problem, Adblock would never have been created.

georgec

December 12, 2011 at 5:04pm

How much did the ad companies pay AdBlock?

Ridiculous.

Holly Golightly

December 12, 2011 at 4:47pm

Wooow. Well... I will not update AdBlock then. If it forces me, then I will opt out. I am sorry but I do not like looking at any ads! Who cares if some corporation loses a little money? I want a clean browsing experience. Heck, I am willing to pay for it but nobody offers such a premium service. Sorry, but no ads for me!