Hacker News Reader

> why do we not see simple ads, static images with no java script, implemented in such a way that ad blockers cant really block them?

I've posted about this before as I've actually been involved in a site that does just this. It has basic text ads, side graphical ads, and banner ads. There is no JavaScript used for any of it, all the site images including the ads are served exactly the same way. The text ads are completely embedded in the page text. No 3rd party ad services are used at all.

Ad blockers have no problem blocking every one of them.

> Ad blockers have no problem blocking every one of them.

that's interesting. how would they block a comment like this: This post was made possible by McDonald's (I'm lovin' it), if it were embedded this deeply in post content?

I'm interested only because i have briefly entertained the idea of ad content embeded directly into a db query via a sproc, for example, so that the ad and the post content are basically one and the same... if the entire content is blocked, maybe that's the desired outcome? never bothered to try it though.

If all you wanted to do is embed " This post was made possible by xyz co." Most blockers would miss this. However most advertisers want to have a link provided to track results . It's trivial to block the links to xyz.co/partner=123 . With the above knowledge and some trust a retailer could gain customers and bypass adblockers by bypassing links in their ads and focusing on views.

I'm not a lawyer and I doubt it would be that big of an issue for some random blogger who can barely cover hosting costs with advertising revenue, but I remember there being some regulations (FTC rules?) regarding the separation of advertising and content.

For example if I recall correctly... you can be sued and heavily fined for conflating the two and not explicitly delineating the different types of information. Hence why Facebook and Google advertising can be pretty easily blocked by figuring out the meaning of div labels. Of course to thwart ad blockers, these div labels usually are cycled through pseudo-random characters forcing a cat-and-mouse game in maintaining block lists, but the intent of separation has to be there.

This is similar to the surprising effects of regulation in news reporting that ultimately gives minority viewpoints ample screentime in the spirit of 'fair coverage against bias', leading to viewers' false perception of systemic disunity.

The perverse incentives for mixing in deceptive ads or product recommendations is still there so people find rather interesting ways to sidestep the rules: e.g. hyping up stocks or spreading FUD either 'anonymously' or through intent-obfuscated 'press releases'. But then again these shady counterings are also regulated in other ad-hoc ways such as securities fraud law, fiduciary duty to shareholders, compensated spokesperson laws, libel laws, etc.

The other side of the coin is that we do, actually, want to highlight what is advertising and what is content. You can disguise an ad as content so well that it becomes deceptive.

From a technical perspective AdBlockers use a variety of techniques to identify ads: blocking certain domains, css selectors, id elements, etc.

There are a few core lists of domain strings that most of the blockers pull from, Easylist is one of the most commonly used: https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt

Layered on top of that are some general sorts of behavioral rules, things like:

- Is this image an IAB size

- Does the id or class of this HTML element contain 'ad' (yes, some are this blunt a tool and followup yes, they definitely mess up legit content. Try building a site about Active Directory and not use 'ad')

I'm deeply conflicted about the whole thing. If you want a crisp example of what a mess we are in look at Reddit. They have the cleanest, least intrusive ads imaginable, they don't do 3rd party tracking, they work with publishers to try and make ads that are relevant to their audience etc and yet their ads are still blocked by AdBlockers. What are they supposed to do? Who do they appeal to?

> They have the cleanest, least intrusive ads imaginable, they don't do 3rd party tracking, they work with publishers to try and make ads that are relevant to their audience etc and yet their ads are still blocked by AdBlockers.

Well of course. And ad is an ad. And the point of an Adblocker is to block the ad. The main reason I install an Adblocker is because I don't want to see any adverts. (preventing malware, and slow page load times is just an added bonus for me)

I don't share your sentiment. The reason I have adblock is to block intrusive, annoying and misleading ads, e.g. lots of animations, sounds, popups, not letting you leave, claiming that you have a virus, etc. I do not mind traditional Google text ads or simple honest image ads, at all. The fact that my adblocker blocks "good" ads too is because I didn't bother to configure it, not because I have a vendetta against all ads.

Some of us just hates ads, and there is noting to do about that. There is a reason so many people are cutting the cable tv too.

As long as content is on the open web I am free to chose how to display that content on my own computer as I see fit.

I do pay for some sites to get rid of them were I find the content valuable, but 99% of sites do not offer that choice.

If a site serves only static ads and doesn’t overuse them, its owners would be in a rare position where they can appeal to the technically and economically literate subset of their active user base, asking them to leave the ads to support the site.

There are some sites that just use images, but in dollar terms the overwhelming majority of ads are served by ad networks, especially Google AdWords. Ad networks create a large and standardized ad market with low transaction costs. By using a network, the content site and the advertiser don't have to spend many hours to find each other, negotiate terms, and figure out how to trust each other. Further, ad networks provide quantitative analytics and targeting information based on sophisticated models of user behavior. These features represent huge investments of data and expertise, which individual sites and advertisers don't have.

A local business can spend 1 hour and $500 on Google AdWords or Facebook Ads and be fairly confident that their ad was seen by X number of real people in their community. A larger brand can pay $500k to run very sophisticated campaigns, where they can drill into detailed demographics, A/B test their ads, and mock up ads to get real-time feedback on products they haven't even made yet. Even with rising adblocker rates, ad networks are still more efficient for most advertisers and content websites.

(I'm not affiliated with Google or Facebook.)

One of the best explanations for how this came to be and what to expect next:

http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#fatads

With just images/text it'll be very hard to track/target people - especially if the image is served from the same website hosting the content (and made to be truly impossible to block). Not to mention ad companies dont seem to care about making it super impossible for ads to be blocked. You basically need to do deals with companies wanting to place ads yourself if you want to get away from the normal ad practices (please do tell me if im wrong) - which is just impossible as a small website

How much you get payed as publisher varies a lot depending on how valuable your traffic is and how much you do to optimize your revenue. AdBlocking is one variable, e.g. techy sites will have more people using AdBlockers.