Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp
Ads by Google

stop ad blockingLeaving ethical discussions aside (since I made my views on that AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery - The Trifecta Of Evil AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery - The Trifecta Of Evil Over the past few months, I've been contacted by a good number of readers who have had problems downloading our guides, or why they can't see the login buttons or comments not loading; and in... Read More quite clear last time), it is nonetheless true that ad-blocking is a real problem for bloggers and site owners the world over whose only source of income is ad revenue. With that understood, let’s look objectively at some tactics you can use to deal with ad-block users, and the effects those tactics might have.

Don’t Do Anything

It should be considered that things are not so black and white when it comes to ad-blocking. Even though ad-block users are using your server and bandwidth resources, your site might still be able to extract value from them in other less obvious ways. They may share your article or content with friends, for instance, who will in turn visit your site and are perhaps not ad-blocking. The ad-block user may also contribute to the comments, which can have a benefit to the SEO authority of the page if they’re relevant as well as possibly being useful to other readers or the article author. If you think this applies to your site, not doing anything may well be the best approach to take.

On the other hand, ad-block users typically run a myriad of script and cookie blocking plugins that also prevent share buttons from loading (and some script-based commenting systems, analytics counters etc), so it could be argued that these kind of ‘invisible’ users add absolutely zero value to your site and exist solely to leech bandwidth.

Ask Users Politely To Stop

Ad-block users can in fact be detected through the use of ‘fake’ ad-scripts (which if not found on the page, would indicate the presence of ad-block), and a suitable action can be taken. One surprisingly effective method is to politely explain to the user that ad-blocking prevents you from continuing to produce the content you do provide free of charge, and request that the user ‘whitelist’ your site Please Whitelist MakeUseOf In Adblock: A Plea From a Former Adblock Filter Developer Please Whitelist MakeUseOf In Adblock: A Plea From a Former Adblock Filter Developer It’s no secret that we’re not huge fans of Adblock here at MakeUseOf. But we know that some of you won’t let go of Adblock until it’s pried out of your cold, dead hands. If... Read More thereby allowing your ads to load. When users are alerted that you’re aware they’re using ad-block and your site is being damaged a result, many will quite happily make an exception for you.

In WordPress, the anti-adblock plugin can be used to do just that. It presents a variety of options such as how many pageviews before a user is shown a message (which can be off-putting to a first time visitor), as well as whether to show a discreet message at the top of the screen or a page-blocking popup.

Here’s an example message that I chose to display to users, feel free to save it and use for your own site.

Ads by Google

stop ad blocking

If you are going to ask your users to specifically whitelist your site, then I would strongly suggest you consider what they’re going to see after enabling ads. Try it on your own site, and if you think it looks considerably better with ads disabled, you should probably make some changes. Personally, I believe that being more selective about ads is the way forward, which brings me onto my next point.

Use A Curated Ads System

On my own iPad boardgames site, I use an advertising system called BuySellAds. Rather than serving up random promotions that Google Adsense pulls from it’s vast library of shockingly bad and deceptive ads, BuySellAds allows me to individually approve each advertiser to ensure they’re relevant to my readers and not trying to scam them into a work from home job, a free iPad, or a random DOWNLOAD NOW button.

Although I rarely see those kinds of ads at all on the BuySellAds network anyway, I have in the past chosen to reject offers because they were related to gambling online – the ad itself wasn’t flashy or particularly offensive, but I felt that it wasn’t something I wanted to support, or see on my sidebar.

stop ad blocker

I do think that we as site owners and developers should be more responsible with regards to which ads we do choose to display. Advertising may be a necessity, but deliberate deception is not.

Redirect Them

The final and most heavy handed tactic is to simply redirect them elsewhere – thereby blocking them from the intended content – either to a page explaining why you don’t think they deserve to view your content, or for those of you who are particularly malicious, a shock site might be more desirable. This is of course the least recommended approach because it’s going to really, really annoy the ad-block users, and not only will you have lost the revenue from blocked ads, but you’ll lose a potentially loyal user. Some site owners will be happy with this approach, since the ad-block users really have no right to view your content without giving something back in return – especially if what they are refusing to give back is as insignificant as an impression count and 100k of additional page download.

Though there is no specific plugin for WordPress to achieve this (or rather, none that actually works), I have written a small jQuery script that detects the size of your ad container after the page has loaded. If the ad container is 0 pixels, it means the ad hasn’t loaded and some form of blocking has occured. To use the script on your own site, first ensure that one of your ad containers can be set to a specific css ID, or simply surround the ad code with a new set of div tags with that particular ID.

In the example code (pastebin), I’ve used the ID of ‘myAdContainer‘, and set it to redirect them to Disney.com . This script should be placed anywhere in your theme files, but I suggest either the header or footer.

stop ad blocker

Bonus: Dealing With NoScript Users

Note that any ad-block detection method and whatever action you choose to take on that is going to be dependant upon Javascript or jQuery. If the user has also disabled Javascript, these won’t function. In this case however, we can use a clever meta-refresh hack to redirect them.

Place this code snippet (pastebin) in the section of the page (this will fail validation checks for anything other than HTML5 though, but doesn’t otherwise affect actual functionality).

stop ad blocking

If you have any suggestions about these methods, or perhaps need help implementing them, then I’d love to hear about it in the comments. Please let’s keep the discussion on the technical side of this though, I think we’ve discussed the ethics of using ad-blockers and indeed blocking ad-blockers quite enough already.

  1. Me
    September 14, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    The last option sadly also deals with us text-based browser users :(

    /sadpanda

    *disclaimer: this message is written from work computer and not text-based browser for that exact reason*

  2. Gary
    September 3, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    In my google adsense account, when google does not have an advert to show, it promises to display an advert or my choosing, since I run a book website, it just shows one of my authors books but due to the advert getting blocked my content does not get shown.
    The ad blocker is changing my website by denying my content, it also blocks a competition from being viewed which is run entirely onsite, again it is changing my code which is not an advert. Apparently I can ask them to stop blocking my legit stuff but why should I ask a 3rd party with absolutely nothing to do with me, to allow me to show my content on my website.

  3. Gary
    September 3, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Why does everyone without a website think they have a right to tamper with that website. Do they go cutting out adverts from newspapers before taking it home for the other half to read!
    If you do not like the adverts on a website then do not visit it again, add it to your block list.
    If you go to a website that starts displaying a million ads then close the tab down.
    But to think you have the right to read the content without viewing the adverts is plain stupid, you want to live in the commercial west, you do not want anything denied to you but yet you think you should be allowed to change the rules.... Guess what in a few years if you get your way there will not be a internet worth viewing.
    Oh and while you think your on a crusade, you are not, you are just making the people that make ad blocker rich..... fools.

  4. donoghu
    August 30, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    The main reason why Adblock Plus is used is misconceived. Less than 10% of the people actually use it for blocking advertisement. What it's used for is for security measures. Today, more than 1/3 of ALL the ads registered into ads-venues (it's how we call the ads databanks) includes something that should not be there.

    While many times, it's a script that tries to access browser's data, it's not uncommon that it's virus or trojan of some kinds. I'm using Adblock and whenever I turn it off, many blog or site I'm visiting are automatically blocked by my antivirus or firewall with a clear explanation about the location and description of the threat.

    The way to allow bloggers to display ads to adblockers is simple to explain : Build your own website app or advertisement content directly within the website. This means you got to do the actual job of a professional news station :
    A) Getting statistic from your website's visitors like the number of visitors, their general location when visiting, etc. All those are not intrusive because you don't dig deep, but can simply get the information for the visitor registery (which save IPs and some simple data from each users).
    B) From this data, find an common ground of interest depending on your main market target.
    C) Contact companies that might be interested in that share of the market and offer them visibility placements on your website.

    If you wish to make it even more easier, you could create a sub-FTP account for your customers where they can put a file for their add (jpeg or gif with specific names) so that they can update it as many time as they wants.

    You might think "This is too much work. Why doing it when GoogleAds/BuySellAds/whatever does it for me for free?". The answer is simple... By using their services, you agree to use their methods which can easily be countered.

    Redirection or Pop-up systems is actually not advised... And I mean it legally. Basically, having a hard-coded message that appears behind the ads that tells users "If you're seeing this, you're using adblock, etc. etc. etc." is not illegal because it's "part of the page" and only appears if the user block the content above it. But using something that detect Adblock as a user's browser component and act depending on it IS illegal as it's a attempt to counter the privacy of your visitors. It's considered in Canada, US, UK, France, Australia and many other countries as much of a crime as stealing (taking by force) the browser history data or encrypted passwords.

    This is why you should NEVER use a redirection or pop-up. Sure, the risk someone sue for such a thing is low... but if your website is popular and some people with huge monetary capacity do visit it, you're in for a lot of problems.

  5. Unaiza Khalid
    July 28, 2016 at 6:09 am

    Hello there James,
    Thanks for the info. Quick question:
    The ads from BuySellAds would still be blocked, right? So, why do we have it in dealing with ad block users list?
    I might be missing something here.
    Thanks :)

    • James Bruce
      July 28, 2016 at 8:40 am

      Well, yes, but the idea is that you could ask them to disable adblock, then they'd see you only run high quality ads (or wouldn't be tempted to install it in the first place).

    • Unaiza Khalid
      July 28, 2016 at 8:59 am

      Thanks for the prompt reply. You got a very valid point, thank you so much for the reference.

  6. Mike
    April 15, 2016 at 1:22 am

    I use adblock and anti tracking wich comes up as adblock on many sites so companies don't track my wearabouts and steal every small amount of information they can and put it all on some database that hackers can get into and learn everything there is about anyone in that database.

  7. Mike
    April 15, 2016 at 1:18 am

    Someone created an anti-anti-adblock extension that disables all protocalls that block ad-block. Doge ad-block is undetectable as well because it just covers up the ads.

  8. Chris
    April 13, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Ironically 14 adds were blocked on this page. The fact that Adblock blocks a PayPal banner advertising Financing or Free Shipping which is on my checkout page it's dumb because it's hurting more than it's helping both me and my customers.

    • Jen
      April 22, 2016 at 3:24 am

      Right? I'm writing a paper for school about Adblock and I had to print this article out and turn it in for my professor, but the browsers at school don't have adblock and I didn't think about installing it, and when my printed copy came out, it was covered in ads! I circled all of them to prove my point about why I use adblock.

    • James Bruce
      April 22, 2016 at 6:47 am

      Do you circle the ads in newspaper articles too?

  9. tonygreene113
    March 29, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Plenty azzholeness in this comment section

  10. Hugh Janus
    March 29, 2016 at 5:34 am

    The point here is that adblock allows many ads to go through. Just not the insane ones that make your surfing experience a pain in the ass,.
    Your site/blog/crap will die out soon enough if you insist on forcing ads down a surfer's throat.. If I EVER got re-directed because you wanted to get a few more pennies from an ad, I would never come back to that site. I have done it many times.
    I am not the only one. The site dies, and so what? There are a million others out there.

    • James Bruce
      March 29, 2016 at 7:38 am

      Just so you're clear, the only ads that Adblock allows through are the ones that PAY them.

  11. Charles
    March 27, 2016 at 9:32 am

    I started using ad-block because of one specific advert that sent my (then single) CPU to 100%. Every time it popped up, the web browser became unusable. Adblock meant problem solved. However I only blocked that specific advertising platform.

    Then came the infiltration of poor quality adverts. "Tooth whitening breakthrough invented by a Mom!!!!", "This one weird trick.....". Now, as you mention, "iPads" for 20% of the price apparently. I tried blocking individual advertising platforms but it was too much work ultimately and blocked everything.

    Blocking adblock users just sends me elsewhere. I don't visit Forbes or Wired magazine anymore. I could get round the anti-ad-blocking but I can't be bothered. If that works for those sites then fine, no problem to me. Plenty of other places to go.

    I think you have the answer in your article. Web site owners should curate their ads to get rid of the junk and reset the relationship with the visitor.

  12. cédric
    March 9, 2016 at 9:29 am

    To those who say such phrase
    "Only the most quality sites with the highest quality services will ever get me to pay for content"
    If your boss would decide to not pay you because some people with the same experience are working better than you, would you accept it? I don't think so, you would likely make a scene.
    Anyway I invite all adblock users to have a black list instead of a white list (because almost no adblock users take time to whitelist the websites that don't put a lot of ads.). But not saying all those bullshit hypocrite excuses.

    To website owners: I think the problem with ad block users is that it is often a psychological thing. In this world very few people today behave as a real man / woman. A man / woman takes the whole or nothing. But not 50%. It's true with everything in like life partners and friends...
    But some people unfortunately have the mentality of wanting the most possible from what's around them (the sites, but also the government, the president, the economy, their life partner and everything). The more they get, the more they want. They are ok to give back...but the very minimum. That's how ads perform very better than donations or how most long relationship get worst and worst.
    They are exceptions for some old people that have adblocks installed by their children because that protect them from scam (they often don't understand what's happening on the web). In my opinion, that's the only good and legitimate
    adblocks users (instead of all of the other excuses that are purely hypocrite).

    So in my websites with a lot of inexperienced old people, when a user have adblocks, I replace adsense with amazon affiliate ads (I create image slider with affiliate amazon links). This performs pretty well, but it takes time to setup the first time.

    To my websites for user that know how to use internet and likely install addblocks on purpose, I ask them to kindly disable adblocks to view the entire page.
    I also add a button "I don't know how to do it" which displays the entire page, to the people that lkely don't know what is adblocks...

    What I will never do is to get my website whiltelisted by adblocks. On a businesss point it would be a better idea. But by doing that I would feel as submitting to a sheep. My values forbid me to do that.

    • No
      May 1, 2016 at 1:59 am

      "If your boss would decide to not pay you because some people with the same experience are working better than you, would you accept it?"

      That's called getting fired, and it isn't my decision to 'accept' it at that point.

  13. AO1JMM
    March 9, 2016 at 1:24 am

    I have no issue with ads but what I do have issue with is those highly intrusive ads. You know the ad that either pops up square in the middle while you are trying to read an article or the ad that pops up a whole new window/tab or the audio/video ads that opens up in some hidden area on the page.

    So until website advertisement divisions learn not to do shat like that they will not get my business.

  14. Bryan
    February 24, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I will never disable my adblock plugin, and I will not pay for the majority of content that is on the web. Any site that disables my viewing of their content until I disable my adblock — will simply lose me as a viewer. Only the most quality sites with the highest quality services will ever get me to pay for content, and any assessment of quality I make will come from my experiences on the site. So, if you block me as an adblocker, there is never any possibility of having me as a subscriber. Produce high quality content and charge for extended viewing and use of that content and you don't have to badger me with unwanted solicitation. Alternatively, develop an improved business model that takes advantage of services offered, sponsored content, reviews or affiliate referrals — none of which have to be as annoying as raw unwanted solicitation.

  15. Chad Merriman
    February 13, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    quote--- "since the ad-block users really have no right to view your content without giving something back in return"

    This idea alone is the reason all the sites that rely on ads for funding will go down, and Good reddens

    If you have to have ad money to survive then your site isn't worth its weight on the internet.

    THAT is how ad-blockers feel. We like to surf the web. We/I don't want to be caught on a page that stalls/crashes our browser or takes 5 min to load because you feel your site is worth money sucked from your users time.

    IF YOUR SITE IS WORTH SOMETHING MAKE US PAY FOR IT WITH OUR CREDIT CARD.

    That will be the true test of what your "publishing" is worth.

    Im guessing its not much since your here trying to find ways to suck more money from the ad companies.

  16. Sujit
    January 12, 2016 at 7:16 am

    The valued US visitors all using adblock , hurting the site badly.
    mine medchrome.com magazine

  17. Ray MacMoure
    December 16, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    I have ad-block and using it makes me feel horrible because I know the effects of blocking them. After I read a plea from someone that I was fond off I ended the 'block everything' function. Since then I've only blocked sites that have so many ads that make it impossible to load on my little connection, as was my original reason for downloading the app.

  18. daniyal141
    December 9, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    The "Politely ask them to stop method" will never work on me. That, and also the "Use a curated ads system" one and the "Just do nothing" method. I'm not going to fall for those.

    • Name
      December 17, 2015 at 3:03 pm

      It's not about tricking you or making you fall for something lol It's about empathy, but alot of people really just don't have that

  19. Potentially Loyal Reader
    December 8, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    A simple browser setting can prevent the meta refresh as well, and frankly, if you want something in exchange for your content, you might consider becoming a paid article author instead of putting your content on a free-to-view domain and then expecting something in exchange.
    I haven't seen ads in my browser for years and when I do see one (if using another browser for some reason), I lose interest in the page very quickly.
    So as one of those potentially loyal visitors, I recommend that you find a less intrusive way to solicit funds from me - I don't know, maybe make something worth paying for? Just a thought.

  20. Frederick T. Balroni
    November 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    also i have to use adblock on firefox because i don't know how to play videos on firefox yet and so when i want to play a game video ads on the game won't begin and end so the game won't start so i have to block the ads

    • Boobs
      January 22, 2016 at 5:07 pm

      Disable flash

  21. Frederick T. Balroni
    November 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    I only use it because of a virus that puts millions of ads all over the websites and also to get rid of the retarded youtube ads btw don't use the google extension block site i got it trying to stop sites from being able to open themselves in a new tab like this one site every time i clicked on a button in a game i was playing it tried to open a site called jack in games in a new tab and when it did it forced me on to that tab so i got site block and it blocked the site from going to the site but it just opened a new tab and forced me into it anyway to say the site was blocked by block site

  22. Bharat Jaiswal
    October 2, 2015 at 3:36 am

    #myAdContainer which ID should I mentioned

    • James Bruce
      October 2, 2015 at 7:18 am

      The ID of the container around one of your ads. You can add a container if you don't have one.

      YOUR AD CODES
  23. Mark Newman
    September 30, 2015 at 2:05 am

    The problem is that no website is really important enough or interesting enough to warrant the risk of annoying potential viewers.

    Like most people, if I am threatened, redirected or even asked nicely, I simply ignore the notice and carry on about my day.

    NOTHING on any website on the internet is worth suffering adverts for.

    The world doesn't owe webmasters a living. If you can't make money then do the right thing - STOP!

    • Garrison “Taylor” Hutcherson
      October 10, 2015 at 3:10 pm

      I'm really baffled at your comment. You expect a webmaster to
      + Purchase dedicated hosting, sometimes at thousands per month depending on the size of the website
      + Program the website with functions specifically for you (the user), like user registration, email subscriptions, message boards, etc
      + Build a team to create great content for you. Articles, videos, reviews, photos. All things that you, the user, were searching for on the internet and found at this website.
      + Maintain that website and take measures to prevent spam users, hacking attempts, etc and keep your information secure such as your user registration information

      That's just the tip of the iceberg but I don't want to go over your head. You expect someone to do all those things above, spending hundreds of hours of time outside of the financial aspect. All to create content that the world can have, for FREE!!!! It's on there and there's no subscription fee to access to content on MY server for YOU to see.

      But wait, that's not enough for you? Someone works and works and works to create this awesome content for you, the stuff YOU were searching for! And all they ask is to place some advertisements on their page. Advertisements you don't even have to click. And even if you do click them - you don't have to buy something. Advertisements do not force you to purchase something, I'm sure your own free will is strong enough to decide what's interesting to you or not.

      And that's just still not enough. You want someone to pay for everything I listed above for free. You want them to work so many hours they can't maintain a day job, and just live off of crumbs so you can view what you want to for free.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 5:57 pm

      Hello, Garrison...

      You misunderstand me and that's because you haven't read my reply correctly. I don't expect you (or anyone) to work hard making content for the Big Wide Web without being compensated for it. If you want to pour all your resources into doing this then good for you. I certainly don't want you to.

      And, by the way, you are working too hard. Running a website is easy these days and very very cheap, too. This isn't the old days of the 90's where you actually had to hand code your HTML and go into debt to buy server space and bandwidth.

      All professional sites are now 'content managed' and can get by on just about unlimited bandwidth for almost free. Please spare us the tired old cliche that webmasters work hard to make my life better. It's simply not true.

      Also - you have inflated the value of your contribution to your viewers by describing your content as 'awesome.' If it truly is as good as you say, then people will find you and pay you for it. There's no need for ads at all.

      The truth is that your content isn't awesome... it's just content.I can get similar content anywhere on the internet so I don't need to wade through your ad infested websites.

      Your awesome content that you sweat blood to provide is just NOT that crucial to my life or anyone's life. If it was then I'd PAY FOR IT.

      And I can prove it, too.

      Some websites will block you entirely if you have Ad-Block' installed on your browser. How many people do YOU think will uninstall Ad-Block or even disable it temporarily, in a desperate attempt to see that website? I'll tell you - NO-ONE! They can find what they want someplace else. No need to do anything, just move to the next website.

      People have missed absolutely NOTHING OF REAL VALUE by having Ad-Block installed.

      I wish you luck in your future professional endeavors, but I suspect that this internet malarkey is not for you. You work too hard and have a sense of expectation from your potential readers that is misplaced and un-warranted.

    • Garrison “Taylor” Hutcherson
      October 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm

      I don't believe I misunderstood you, as you are replying to my comment and reading the content on a website that is 100% free of charge for you to use and you are, in fact, using it.

      And no, this isn't the 90s anymore - anyone who still use ONLY HTML to make a website wouldn't even get noticed in today's time. Aren't you familiar with PHP? ASP? Probably not. Actual programming takes a long time and a lot of testing to get something to work properly. It's not "just HTML". And if you're really that guy who actually believes shared hosting that has "unlimited bandwidth", I'd love to have whatever is in your pipe and smoke it myself. Read the terms of service at ANY shared hosting company and see how quickly they shut down your site for using more bandwidth or resources than anyone else on the server. Absolutely ANYONE who is in the business of creating websites knows a dedicated server, or at the very least a virtual private server, is the only modern solution you can go with, which does in fact cost money. So please, don't kid yourself talking about HTML and the 90s, this is 2015. We use dedicated hosting solutions and dynamic programming languages. You can't have anything that involves variables (comments, user registration, etc) without some sort of dynamic programming language.

      And no webmaster "works hard to make your life better" - webmasters work hard at what's important to them and what they are passionate about. People like you just obviously have no idea what actually goes into that. And I have on idea what you mean by "content managed", I think you're just making up terms at this point..

      I'm not the one who judges if my content is awesome or not, its by the amount of people who are satisfied at it. And I reject the notion that if it were good enough people would pay for it. Have you been under a rock for 15 years? Google. Facebook. Twitter. YouTube - do you have to pay for any of those sites? No. And what do those sites earn their money from? Advertising revenue. Without this model of revenue generation, you wouldn't have ANY of those websites and millions of others. In 2011 alone, 96% of Google's revenue came from advertising. So while people like you walk around talking on your Android phones, searching for questions you have using Google, you at the same time try to say 'oh well I use your products each and every day but I could just go find the content somewhere else'.

      The bottom line is people like you don't appreciate what you have. You have so many great websites you can look at, free of charge, but that's just not enough for you. According to your own words, you'd rather everyone just charge a monthly rate to view content online. Ha. Let's see how that works for you. Think about how many websites you visit a day and if they EACH charged monthly fees for their content, you'd be broke in no time. But rather than these websites support themselves, you'd rather them charge money? Haha

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 9:58 pm

      A few things...

      Why on earth are you paying out for shared server hosting bandwidth. A dedicated server is very inexpensive these days. I can put you in touch with some great companies if you need help.

      Next...

      A content management system (CMS) is an application that allows publishing, editing and modifying content, organizing, deleting as well as maintenance from a central interface. You really should make use of what's out there. These things will save you a lot of time. Again, this is something I can help you get started with.

      My software company provides many small business with their first foray into this arna of content management. With a little training and patience you'll soon have weekends off and lots of time to create awesome content.

      Moving on...

      It's a shame that you are rejecting the notion that people will pay for 'awesome' content. I pay $200 a year for the NFL Sunday Ticket (Game Pass) to watch football games where I live. It's great because I get to watch every NFL game, whenever I want with NO ADVERTS! It's awesome!

      Your business model is failing just as magazines are closing down due to lack of interest. Just as networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) are being driven into a corner by companies like NetFlix and Amazon. Just as CDs are almost obsolete because the copyright owners have failed to embrace the way consumers think and react and buy.

      If you really need to rely on advert farms to make a living then you are destined for failure. People won't stop using Ad-Blocker Plus or the Epic Privacy Browser, just to keep you up at night creating 'awesome' content!

      By the way - 'people like me' (I'm not sure who we are!) actually DO appreciate all the fine websites there are out there. But if they disappeared overnight I wouldn't miss them and nor would anybody else.

    • Christopher Lathrop
      October 30, 2015 at 7:32 pm

      Garrison, the guy is too thick to understand. Wouldn't waste your time.

      As a prime example of amazing content allowed only by ads, youtube would not exist had it not been for advertising. When I think of how useful that site has been, i'm confident that the model works. Oh, someone might then mention youtube red but that would make them look even more foolish, it might be a great thing but it never would have been an option in the beginning. Only now, after ads have allowed the site to grow to tremendous proportions can they offer a paid ad-free version.

    • Potentially Loyal Reader
      December 8, 2015 at 5:00 pm

      Who asked anyone to spend thousands a month on dedicated hosting? If you're spending that much, you are making a lot from your products.
      I run 6 websites for $150 a year and the hosting has been epic.

      It's always your choice to create a project and dedicate time and effort to it.
      If you need money, get a job. If you want to create something to share with the world, do that. Don't expect people to help you just because you did something. Naive.

    • Janeen Theresa Schubach
      December 25, 2015 at 9:22 pm

      After understanding how things work and that in life it is a case of give and take, I have turned off my adblock to view sites on numerous occasions. I only feel it is reasonable.

    • Shadohz
      November 25, 2015 at 11:16 am

      I love this post. It's like trying to explain why you should ban the tipping system in the food service industry. The content providers are mad at the consumers and vice versa. Meanwhile the puppetmaster is background laughing over the division and discourse.

      Let's dispel the one of those talking points that you couldn't get free content without ad revenue. That's a load of hogwash. Youtube, Facebook, and the like are server-based applications. You could just as easily create a peered or client data-sharing program that does the same as those services with ZERO ad support. Other than cost of programming and updates, your costs are limited unless you're also providing technical support and server solutions. You could offer both free and member/pro editions of your product. Will it make you the next bigillionaire? I dunno, ask Bill.

      The real argument that all ad-revenue supporters are trying to make it "I rely on that income to feed my kids and pay my mortgage". To that I say: "Find a new career path or business model to follow. It's not secure." The commercial industries have been bottlenecking IT hardware and software progression for the last 20 years. Most of us got into this field to share information, make life better for each other (and average users) and one-upmanship. We're like the science community except creation is our motive instead of discovery. I don't begrudge anyone having a more capitalistic motive but that comes with a price (incompatible proprietary systems, etc). There is nothing stopping the next up-start from going over to "No-IP.com", setting up a webserver, and building his company from the ground up. The ad revenue system is just a method for many people who a) have no business sense b) have no or cannot afford a business/financial manager or agent c) have no idea how to get capital investors d) lazy e) looking for fast cash (yes, I'm including YT and the like).

      I'm not disputing that these companies haven't created small business opportunities for non-technical people. However I would also argue that with greater emphasis in open source projects and technical improvements in decentralized wireless solutions (WISPs, regional public wireless access) you could lift the base for all users mitigating the need for mainly server solutions and reducing cross-platform noise.

      By the time you're doing reading this I will have helped another friend setup an ad-blocking DNS using an old Xbox and X-DSL (damn small linux). Isn't technology fun?

  24. Ben Stutts
    September 8, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    The ad companies want to blame the people using ad blockers when it is actually their own fault for not policing the ads they serve. I have white listed sites in the past and within minutes have been hit with a really obnoxious ad. - LOUD audio, flashing or moving video, FREE i PAD!!!! if u just click this!!!, x rated ads on family orientated sites - On complaining to the site. I am told they are not supposed to be serving those kind of ads. So, Back to the ad blocker. You lose. And then blame the user for blocking those obnoxious ads that are not supposed to be served on that site. The ad companies just don't put enough money or effort into doing anything about the problem, because they make their money no matter what ads you get stuck with. Find a way to make it cost the ad server to allow bad ads and miraculously, those bad ads will stop. And fewer people will use ad blockers. In the world of commerce, money is the only thing that matters.

    • James Bruce
      September 8, 2015 at 1:11 pm

      You know, I'm starting to agree with you, but it's wrong to blame the sites. We have literally zero control over the ads on the page.

      One of our own video ad networks claims to not allow autoplaying ads, yet I see them at once a week, and their only response is that the advertiser must have hacked their system and that they'll fix it immediately. Granted, they do fix it quickly, but it's obvious they don't put any effort into preventing it as the autoplaying ads make more money. We can only swat them down as we find them.

      Personally, I only use ad networks which require every single ad to be approved manually. And those only serve images - not silly flash or video content.

      I think you're right: we should be writing terms into the agreement that state if any offending ads get through, they're fined for not doing their damn job properly.

    • Ben Stutts
      September 8, 2015 at 2:10 pm

      Yup, because you have no control, the ad companies have no incentive to clean up their act.

  25. Nadia R. McNamarra
    September 2, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    I block all ads directly in router. As this will became more popular than adblock plugins , what you will do about?

    • James Bruce
      September 8, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      That won't be more popular, but regardless, the effect is that you'll see more unblcokable ads, like "advertorial content" and sponsored articles.

  26. Justin Munce
    August 15, 2015 at 2:12 am

    Two options I am considering (because adblock-blocker plugins seem to be able to be blocked by adblock). If anyone can provide code for these, it would be appreciated. Our site is already free and ads unobtrusive. All Adblock does is deny our hardworking writers any chance of earning any income.

    1. Conditional statement. IF ad not displayed, don't show page / use alternate css / show massive image that blocks page)

    2. CSS. Two options in CSS. If ad displayed, fine. If ad not displayed, display a massive image (which blocks page).

    3. Wrap content in script of the ad.

    • Armand P Jonte
      September 11, 2015 at 1:33 am

      I came here with adblock on, but happily turned it off after seeing the top two recommended approaches.

      I also visited a sire just before this one which immediately blocked me because of my adblock. I immediately left and will probably never visit it again.

      Asking nicely works best.

  27. Carlos ElSueco
    May 22, 2015 at 9:44 am

    I think most people don't really realise they defend a model they don't want.

    I have to be honest, I do use adblock plus always even thought my work involves the smart serving of ads. I do whitelist sites I think they deserve it, but this stuff makes all pretty difficult. People often have problems emphatizing with their neighbours, why would they spend their time doing so with webmaters they have never and will never see?

    I think ads are an absolute need for the internet model we know nowadays. Still, they are only starting to become less annoying. If we really want ads to be "useful", then they must become much more relevant. We call it smart ad targetting but we're still a long way to go.

    And here we have the second and utmost problem. Privacy. It's such a heated discussion how unfair is for companies to gather so much "personal" (just an id, if done in a fair way it shouldn't relate to any real personal data) data tracking from your browser experience. But then, that info it's the only way businesses can try to deliver you ads you will really appreciate.

    Once I was tired of looking on ebay, amazon, and other marketplaces for an article I required. I had found it but wanted to pay less for it, but was starting to become too much a lenghty search. Then whilst browsing google for more web candidates, a magical add sprang on the paid resuts. Just the item I wanted, much cheaper, and on ebay. I had already searched there,not finding it but, wew! here it was.

    THAT is an example of useful advertising. The day just 10% of the ads you are served gets to be so relevant, people will feel different about them.

    Still until then, I understand there's going to be damaged users on both sides, consumers and developers. I just think the best we all should try to build around this is UNDERSTANDING. User understanding developers for doing what they have to do to get their living, and developers understanding why they opt out of advertising.

  28. tm
    May 18, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    This is something google should be providing us. I have tried many of the sample scripts and they don't work with with plugins like Blur.
    If the user blocks the cookie like blur does google just doesn't display a add They are not blocking the adds just the 3rd party cookies, Google really needs to provide us with a option to display a alt block built in the code.

    • Justin Munce
      August 15, 2015 at 2:14 am

      Totally agree. Google itself relies on ads to continue business.

      Browsers should not permit adblocking. Or they should allow webpages the option of admitting /not admitting users who have adblock.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:11 pm

      Seriously? Browsers should tailor their programs for the benefit of content providers? This must be some kind of joke.

      https://www.epicbrowser.com/

      The above browser does all the work for me and I don't have to tolerate annoying tracking or adverts. It's brilliant!

  29. Henry Waller
    May 17, 2015 at 6:59 am

    These two are not always the best idea:
    "Redirect Them;
    Bonus: Dealing With NoScript Users."

    Why? Because that may p off a user enough to spoof his I.P. in case it's been blacklisted and then come back with a tool such as Metaproducts Offline Explorer and download the entire site, perhaps even numerous times if they're having a bad day already.

    "Ask Users Politely To Stop" is the best choice in my opinion. If I see something like that then I am likely to trust the site not to spam MY WIFE, MY CHILDREN or myself with porn, gambling, and / or other morally objectionable or morally unacceptable links, etc..

    If more site owners were aware that many responible parents don't care to have their children exposed to adult vices and other things that parents don't want their children exposed to, there would probably be a lot less people using blocking software.

    While it is not fair to site owners that don't throw those kinds of smutty ads at whoever is on the keyboard, what else is a parent to do when the safe surfer software packages are all crap that technically astute children can and do get around easily?

    It would be nice if there was software that actually worked at blocking only the objectionable sites but to date, I have not found such software.

  30. Rick McCargar
    May 17, 2015 at 1:39 am

    I have a blog on which I do no lecture guitar licks/solos and songs. I let them download the tab I write at no cost to the visitor.

    In the past year, though over 100K tab downloads occurred, my ad revenue plummeted. The zazzle and Amazon affiliate links for shirts and music related items also dropped to nothing.

    So while my view count is holding steady, and growing, I'm now making almost nothing. People have become so entitled that they don't even bother to say thank you for the tab, much less the video.

    I'll hit one-million youtube views in a few months, and I'm beginning to wonder what's the point. Thanks for the info.

  31. A web user.
    April 28, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    So, I just turned my adblock off on your site as a little test. What I found is a sidebar FILLED with ads and -in article ad- (I personally hate those as I'm trying to read. It's so distracting) as well as a top level header ad that repeated itself 3 times. This is not good form and my adblock is going to be turned back on on this site. I personally disable my adblock on sites where ads are non intrusive. I'm lately deciding if I want to the CW's website anymore since they blocked adblock users. I only use it to watch stuff I miss on TV anyway. However like here their ads are highly intrusive. Their are way too many of them and the make a one hour show on TV take 1hr 30mins online. Smarter ad design means I will whitelist your page bad design means i turn on adblocker but i do not avoid the page. Redirecting me on the other hand will result in your URL/IP being added to my hosts file to block it.

    • Justin Munce
      August 15, 2015 at 2:18 am

      So what? Don't visit.

      The ads on TV are not watched by MANY people. However, if you blocked the ads, there would be no TV shows for you at all.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      Absolute RUBBISH! Where do you think HBO and Netflix get revenue from? PAYING CUSTOMERS! NO ADVERTS! OK, if you want to watch rubbish then stick with the networks.

      There are loads of new content providers coming to TV and making brilliant programs... ALL ADVERT FREE!

      And why? Well, I'll tell you - people ARE prepared to PAY REAL MONEY for great content that they value.

      It's the same with the internet. Why would I want to watch stupid ads and deceitful 'advertorial content' when the value of the real content is next to nothing and available somewhere else.

  32. Tyler
    April 24, 2015 at 10:28 am

    I am using AdBlock on your site as I read this, it says that it is blocking 14 ads, and sometimes this number (on other sites) gets to triple digits. If sites put up ads on a more reasonable scale I would be less inclined to use it.

  33. Jinn
    April 15, 2015 at 3:23 am

    Ads are the most worthless endevour a human can undertake. Our race spends countless billions of dollars and millions of man hours attempting to sell that which does not need to be purchased.

    I am not a leech because I won't look at your ads. I am someone that doesn't want to be sold something unless I am interested in buying it.

    You provide nothing with your pixels. Don't act like I owe you something becuase you can type.

    Arrogant prick.

    • Justin Munce
      August 15, 2015 at 2:19 am

      Yes, you are. You can not click on ads. Most people don't. But denying the site whose service YOU USE, FOR FREE already, any chance to make money ever, you are definitely being a leech.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:23 pm

      Sorry, Justin... you're wrong. These ad farms use MY bandwidth to load up their porno ads. If I'm on a data plan they are leeching on MY paid for time and bandwidth to shit on my screen. I'd rather not use a site than see ads.there is NOTHING on the Big Wide Web that is important enough for me to tolerate ad farms being sick on my screen.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:19 pm

      I agree with Jinn! And so does the rest of the internet! :)

    • Christopher Lathrop
      October 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm

      Troll ^^^^^^^ If he is providing nothing, why are you here, dipshit.

  34. Minime
    April 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Best way to avoid adblock is to let more people to your site..Check your stats, see how many people are coming back, how long they are spending on your site.. If majority of users coming back like 4 times a day to your site, then there is no problem just to ask them to turn off the adblock for your site if they want to continue using your site...
    Other thing is that you would have your private ad route or create one without any words like ad,banner,advertisement etc.. then adblock just wont detect it.. And even easier way is to contact adblock and tell them to add you on the whitelist considering that you have a website where is only like 1 proper banner showing in the bottom etc..

    • James Bruce
      April 24, 2015 at 11:05 am

      Are you aware that Adblock only whitelists you if you agree to share about 1/3rd revenue with them?

    • Annonie
      May 6, 2015 at 3:44 am

      Got a source for that? From the ad-block website:
      "Whitelisting is free for all small- and medium websites and blogs. However, managing this list requires significant effort on our side and this task cannot be completely taken over by volunteers as it happens with common filter lists. That's why we are being paid by some larger properties that serve non-intrusive advertisements that want to participate in the Acceptable Ads initiative. "

      Looks like only people who can afford to are paying to me.

  35. Jon
    April 10, 2015 at 6:00 am

    The two scripts you included at the end are heavily flawed. The first one can be bypassed by disabling JavaScript through their browser(most browsers include this feature) or by using NoScript. The second one only works if the user is running NoScript. As stated above, the user can disable JavaScript through their browsers. However, assuming they are using NoScript, you can easily stop meta redirects by disabling auto redirects(this is also found in most browsers) Alternatively, there is an extension for chrome and Firefox to disable auto redirects.

    • James Bruce
      April 10, 2015 at 6:35 am

      It's true, some people will go to extremes to destroy their internet experience.

    • Jon
      April 11, 2015 at 11:42 pm

      I wouldn't say that disabling auto redirects is extreme. Nor would I say that it destroys someones internet experience.

  36. Chuck
    April 1, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    Peoples right to use adblock is no different than a sites right to serve ads. If you use anti-adblock methods you are worse than scum, no different than a slave owner.

    • James Bruce
      April 1, 2015 at 6:52 pm

      So anti-ad software is fine, but anti-anti-ad-software makes you scum? Well, that's logical.

    • Christopher Lathrop
      October 30, 2015 at 7:07 pm

      Just stumbled across your site, James. Thanks for the info. It really seems to have brought out the freeloading trolls. This mark newman and chuck being at the top of that list. Probably freeloaders in life any chance they get. The entitlement mentality just seems to keep getting worse and worse. Either that, or, the logic is too complex for them to follow. I personally prefer the ad sponsored way, as long as the ads are appropriate. Can you imagine being constantly billed and nickel-and-dimed like that? Without ads, the Internet would be like farmville, you'd be getting micro-transactioned to death.
      If you follow through their logic to the end then all sites beyond hobby level would be pay to use and you'd probably end up with only giant corporations running everything. Oh, also, how the hell do they think the pay sites would announce themselves, let's say the next Netflix or HBO, how would they become known without advertising?

      Hey, freeloaders, every time you block an ad you're stealing from that site, maybe stealing food off that guy's plate. I suggest if you want to stop being a freeload then forget about ad-blocking, just simply stop going to ANY site that has advertising, better yet, you should only be going to sites you've already paid for.

    • Chuck
      April 3, 2015 at 3:04 am

      Sir, you cannot speak of logic as you clearly did not process the comment.
      It doesn't start with anti-ad, it starts at ads. The site owner chooses to use ads, why then can a user not choose to use anti-ads?
      Yes the sites are free, but no one NEEDS them, if they want to force people into giving them ad revenue, they should just make it a paid access site.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:25 pm

      EXACTLY! Well said, Chuck.

    • James Bruce
      April 3, 2015 at 5:17 pm

      Yes, and the site owner should feel completely free to implement anti-adblock methods as well. You're free to try and block them, why shouldnt they be free to try and block your blocking?

    • Justin Munce
      August 15, 2015 at 2:21 am

      What a joke. Do you earn money doing anything at all? What if people wanted to accept your service, but not allow you to ever earn money at it. Would you continue?

      If you value content on the internet, allow ads.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      "If you value content on the internet, allow ads."

      I've got a better idea, Justin... If you value content on the internet - PAY FOR IT!

  37. Mike Van PElt
    February 23, 2015 at 5:36 am

    I don't block ads. I don't mind most ads. But I very much *DO* block scripts. You DO NOT need to run programs on my computer, programs that I have no way of vetting, to show me your ad. (Assertions of Javascript/Flash/Java/etc being safe drop-kicked to /dev/null; there are vulnerability announcements practically daily.)

    There's a reason I never get viruses.

    (On the other hand, that "Turbo-Charge Your Organ" ad with the guy holding a geoduck clam, implying... ergch. There's not enough brain bleach on the planet to erase that image.)

    • James Bruce
      February 23, 2015 at 9:40 am

      Given that every ad network runs off javascript, blocking scripts also blocks ads. There is no inherent security risk from running javascript in a sandboxed browser session.

    • Jacob
      April 12, 2015 at 4:56 am

      You do a great disservice to your user base when you suggest that sand boxing removes all danger from the internet. Running flawed software (in relation to security) even in a sandbox is still dangerous, even if it slightly reduces risk of your computer getting a persistent infection. It also does nothing to protect from CSRF exploits... further more a lot of the information being targeted by malicious scripts... is actually contained in the browser. I mean, browsers have sandbox's built in, have for a bit.... and it didn't suddenly solve the problem.

    • Annonie
      May 6, 2015 at 3:41 am

      A sand box is NOT infalliable. They have security holes just like every other piece of software. Even dedicated programs like Sandboxie in fact state this in their FAQ's

  38. Edwin
    February 20, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Thanks for the Tutorial, Can you please tell me a way of detecting if the user is using ad block in code because i don't use wordpress. btw the Meme was awesome! :D

    • James Bruce
      February 20, 2015 at 1:51 pm

      Hi Edwin - look at the section on "redirect them", the code block there detects if they are using adblock, but you can change the line about redirecting to whatever you want - fire an analytics event perhaps, or create a screen overlay asking them to enable ads.

  39. tom
    October 9, 2012 at 12:10 am

    I am success with antiblock.org php script. I added music payer embed code into this script and those who visit my website will run away from my website because of this annoying sound & never come back. So that I can save my bandwidth. It is working for me. I recommend everyone to visit http://www.antiblock.org/?p=script

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:28 pm

      Brilliant... entrepreneur of the year!

  40. Fawn Drescher
    October 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Thanks for this article. i was directed here from google after questioning if websites still get income when you use ad block (i mean does it give to the site what it needs and just make it appear like the ads aren't there) or does it completely remove them/and access to the ad software/sites.

    i found this blog article useful because it provided me a way to deal with this problem in the future with my website/blog advertising.

    i have been on the other side though too: on a perfume website (where they analyse the different scents/ list the smells/ingredients, etc) I sometimes visit they have a 3-article limit before an annoying 'screen cover' shows up saying please sign in and or click on a sponsor or something request to keep the contact free, yada yada--i always find it annoying and just clear my cache (it resets the limit).

    I do think if I did that I would introduce that "Please sign-in/visit a sponsor/whitelist us" but then allow them to 'close' the dialog box. So it basically does both the things you listed: Ask them but then give them an option to ignore it--it will make them hopefully feel guilty but really you will always have "selfish" users who like you mentioned at least will hopefully provide traffic and comments and such to make your content more coveted/popular and thus show up more in Google. Still, by providing them a request but then option to close the 'request', you risk not alienating your visitors--this way they also won't be turn-ed off by your site and go find their needed info for free somewhere else.

    Another option could be to have some useful content offered in an 'ad form'--for instance, I have noticed a lot of flyer websites I go to (legit ones for grocery store chains like Safeway, Saveonfoods, etc), will not show up so you kind of have to white-list them, to see their content. So, maybe you can have some or part of the content as visible but to 'expand the article' perhaps you would have to open a flyer-formatted page that the user would have to white-list your website to view it.

  41. Janner
    September 25, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Thank you for your informative explanation of why i shouldn't use adblock. i placed this on my google chrome just today and i am now very seriously thinking of taking it off. I watch alot of youtube channels and can now understand why me blocking ads would hurt the people i subscribe to. I also like the way you begin to explain why someone might use adblock especially someone like me who didn't really understand the inns and outs of it before tonight. However there is one point if you have a very good internet connection unlike me you didn't mention, is that many adverts (not so much on youtube) but other sites you may be looking at such as the ones on fb which you open to show you a funny picture have so many ads that many times the picture never gets to load because your pc is clogged up trying to buffer the ads. I know this is not a valid excuse to keep adblock, but to people who don't understand what adblock actually does then it does seem like a perfect solution. Again thanks for the knowledge i am going to take ad block off right now.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:30 pm

      This post is brought to you in part by the nice people at the Internet Advertising Council and from a grant from Google.

  42. Ivan Antochiw
    September 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Hi, If you have a script or plugin that lets you know if a user is adblocking, you could make some parts of your posts only available if the user has whitelisted you site. The same as when you land on a site with nice content, but to see the interesting parts you need to be a (paying) suscriber.
    For an instance, if you own a cuisine site, you can show the plates pictures, descriptions and ingredients, but the quantities of each ingredient are only visible if to the user if he's not using any adblockers.

    • James Bruce
      September 5, 2012 at 8:22 am

      An excellent idea Ivan; I wonder if we could apply that here somehow.

    • Ivan Antochiw
      September 5, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      You're welcome. I just landed in your site yesterday for the first time... it seems like I'll be coming back regularily...

    • good luck
      September 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm

      right, it's impossible to install greasemonkey and extract function without triggering yourawesomedetector.js

  43. Graham K
    August 11, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    As a site owner, I understand the frustration of those who run websites and are visited by those greedy individuals who steal content without at least being courteous enough to view the ads too.

    Here's a few points to shut you all up from whining against anti-adblock protocols.

    1) Every TV channel which airs ads gives you no way to skip them short of using PVRs such as TiVo or Sky+ - why should this be any different when viewing websites??

    2) Many websites are run by people wanting to gain a reputation from running a website, but who do not have money to maintain a website indefinitely - presenting google ads and infolinks ads for example provides a decent amount of money to pay for server costs.

    3) Viewing websites without the ads when ads are there is considered stealing. If you are so selfish that you cannot spare a few KB extra bandwidth space for a few measly ad impressions then shame on you - you shouldn't be visiting that website anyway as you are only looking out for you and not that the site may actually be able to continue going

    4) as mentioned in 3, you viewing ads gives impressions to the advertisers - this in turn gives revenue to the website, and this in turn makes sure that the site can continue to deliver content to you. Would you honestly be happy if a site came along with no ads, you liked the content and became a regular user but then the site disappeared? NO YOU WOULD NOT!!

    5) Ads are a way of delivering content to you without charging you for it. Would you really expect people to sit behind a computer writing content for your entertainment and yet they get nothing from it? Put yourself in the content writers shoes for christs sake! You wouldn't do it for nothing and neither do we!

    Bottom line - shut the hell up and stop whining.

    ~ The only script I can condone is flashblock because I too know flash ads can be intrusive - especially when they are video ads that autoplay and cause havoc with loading times.

    • Graham K
      August 11, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      Oh and as an extension to point 1 - any channel that doesn't show ads charges you for the right to not see ads such as the BBC with the Television Licencing in the United Kingdom.

      Unless you want to be charged subscriptions then the alternative of viewing ads seems a lot friendlier to me!

    • Jacob
      April 12, 2015 at 3:03 am

      To your point 1
      This is your problem, not ours. If i talk over an ad on the television no one accuses me of stealing, in fact... the ad is still paid for. No one tracks my eyes to make sure i don't blink and miss the previews in a movie. That's part of the problem, you as advertising websites have accepted a bad deal. You sell me not yourself, on TV advertisements are valued because of the association, and the content creators are being paid simply to affiliate with them. On the web your selling a direct peek hole into my computer. And your only being paid when i click. Don't sell my person information for less then penny's and then claim I'm stealing from you when i decide I'm not down for that deal.

      I feel for webmasters for sure, they have been sold on this idea that they had a static system. That you could easily make a living off websites, that it was nearly a guaranteed win. But the internet is changing, it always has been. And the thing is, if you believe in capitalism, and you can't make enough money on your website.... then your product has failed. You need to start over, start something different, or trick people into needing your product, but That was your bad bet not mine. My going to your website does not give you the right to run whatever code you want on my system. My going to your website doesn't give you the right to to ping 150 different websites around the internet with my information. Even if that's the only way that you can see to make money.

      I mean, i would rather advertisers and webmasters be honest about the exchange and instead of claiming they have a free website had me fill out a bio that they sold upfront. Id expect both webmasters and users would benefit from such a model change.

      Now i know im probably commenting on the wrong article, and i don't actually have a negative response to people being aggressive on the side of anti adblocking, but what does tick me off from time to time is the emotional argument being made, the "guilt trip" attempts, which is why i actually like this article in some ways, it avoided the "guilt trip" tone and provided useful information. The comment I'm responding to, did not. It reaks of the "i bet that id be able to make a living off this and now i cant, so its your fault" atleast until the end when they talk about how the support it for themselves when they really want it.

    • Mark Newman
      October 10, 2015 at 6:36 pm

      Well said, Jacob. You have saved me the trouble of answering this arrogant and mistakenly entitled poster.

  44. Hoq
    July 4, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    NoScript has support to bypass these ridiculous "tactics" - "Forbid META redirections inside elements" is a feature in NoScript.

  45. Iizy
    May 12, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Most of content-readers don't even imagine how hard it may be to create content. Nights of writing, creating pictures, videos, etc. The working day is not limited by 9-5, and most of bloggers don't have weekends. Cause Fri-Sun is just another chuck of traffic from people at home.
    Add to this constant idiotic stuff like search engines banning sites, crawl errors, fighting for rank, infridiment suits from copyrosexuals (esp. on Jewtube), hosting problems, etc,etc...
    Yes, there is abuse, but that's mainly on warez and porn sites. Just don't browse there.
    Google adds are usually on quite decent sites, and are limited to 3 per page. Most webmasters place even less. Besides, quite often the ads are really interesting, as they relate to the site's content. I personally is sometimes curious about the ads, but can't click own ads by Google agreement. So I gave to google the information in the ad to have a peek.
    Don't see why google ads should be blocked.
    And I also do not agree that a good _anyone_...a good doctor, a good punk punk musician, a good blogger... should be broke. He has talent and usually a lot of knowledge, whuch cost him health and time. And all a blogger asks in return is just to enable the ads.
    And don't be ridiculous, it is not _your_ money which pay for the ads.

  46. Ewebpedia
    May 7, 2012 at 7:13 am

    I think, the ad-blocker plugin is not compatible with wordpress 3.3.2

  47. Thrawn
    May 1, 2012 at 5:47 am

    If you ask your readers to allow advertising, then you are asking them to trust the advertising networks. I like the stance that Giorgio Maone (author of NoScript) takes on trust: trust = accountability.

    If an advertising network makes a mistake, and a tainted ad downloads a virus onto my machine, is the network going to take responsibility and compensate me for the damage caused? To myself and to anyone else who catches the virus from me, or whose bandwidth is 'stolen' to process the spam emails that the virus might send, or whose site might even get taken down by a botnet that I inadvertently join?

    How about MUO? You admit that you can't perfectly vet your ads. So, if I take your recommendation and disable ad-blocking, are you willing to be accountable for whatever gets served up? If my machine were compromised, and had to be reformatted, would you pay me the value of whatever data I lost? Or if a keylogger were installed, and my bank account credentials were stolen, would you compensate me for the amount stolen from my account?

    If you really want my trust, then that's how you can earn it. Until then, sorry, shields are up.

    • muotechguy
      May 1, 2012 at 9:29 am

      Would you hold Microsoft accountable for making an insecure OS? How about your browser? Or how about if noscript failed to stop a script?

      How about this: just use a secure browser than keep sites and scripts sandboxed. Suddenly, malware via javascript isn't an issue anymore - even in the extremely slim offchance that one snuck into some ad network.

    • Thrawn
      May 1, 2012 at 11:14 am

      Hmm...you could say that I hold Microsoft accountable for their operating system's flaws: I use Linux instead :).

      If I found that Firefox wasn't secure enough, I would probably hold it accountable in the same way, jumping to Chrome's sandbox or IE's SmartScreen filter. In the meantime, I lock it down with addons, like NoScript and RequestPolicy, that in my opinion make it the safest browser around.

      If NoScript failed to stop a script...well, first off, I'd report it to the author and expect a fix (which is a form of accountability), and given his aggressive update schedule, I'm sure he'd quickly sort it out. But without NoScript, *all* scripts would be running - disabling JavaScript is too heavy-handed for me - so NoScript wouldn't be responsible for that one script executing.

      When I use the internet, I accept that there is some risk involved, and that I'm the one wearing it, but I do what I can to lock things down and minimise that risk. Part of that means blocking active content from untrusted parties. If you want my trust, you have to give me confidence that you're handling the risk for me.

      By the way, sandboxes are good, but there's still a lot of scope for malware to execute inside the sandbox. Cross-site scripting, cross-site request forgery, keylogging (until you flush the sandbox), sending spam...

      Don't get me wrong, by the way; I'm actually sympathetic - in principle - to your desire to keep your site up, which of course needs a revenue stream. I would like to support that, if I felt that it was safe to do so. But without a guarantee of that safety, I'm opting out.

  48. geek4real
    April 27, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    I appreciate the author's attempt to simply put the information out there, without encouraging site owner's to prevent no-script users from viewing their page.

    If I really like a site and visit a lot, I go out of my way to click some adds and help them out.

    By entering a site I'm asking to view their content, not everybody else's around the internet from who knows where.

  49. geek4real
    April 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    Some people use no-script because they have a disability and cannot handle obnoxious flashing distractions, startling sounds, or information overload. The scripts may also interfere with Accessibility tools they are using. I am one.

    I also don't like offensive material randomly forced in my face, nor do I want my children seeing it. No-script is simply the easiest way to prevent it before it's exposed.

  50. themainliner
    April 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Trueblock, the Adblock fork, blocks even more ads. Use it instead.

  51. Darren
    April 24, 2012 at 12:29 am

    How about the top things you can do to stop annoying ads on sites?

  52. PSK
    April 23, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Right, for those who just jump straight to comments and start raging about redirects, can you PLEASE keep in mind that the OP is advising AGAINST it, and MUO isnt gonna do it. Period. Secondly, Ads Need to be unobtrusive and IMO Using A Curated Ads System (ensuring ads dont obstruct content) combined with A request for whitelisting (NO, DONT MAKE THAT WHITELIST REQUEST INTO A POPUP!!! sigh) works best. Thirdly, i dont like such kinds of articles simply because they leave a bad taste in my mouth, but since its here anyways, theres another option: remove ads and ask for donations. Believe me, if the content is good enough people do donate.
    Thats my two cents.

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:40 am

      Thanks for the input PSK, I'm glad you took the time to comment and back me up somewhat here. Removing ads and asking for donations as an alternative is something we will be discussing soon.

    • Thrawn
      May 4, 2012 at 2:46 am

      Ironically enough, I've actually donated before to NoScript development :D.

  53. Lawrence Sim
    April 23, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    If you force me to do anything I don't want to do, I just go to another more useful website. The purpose of me using the internet is to view and procure free content, I refuse to pay unless really necessary.

    Sorry, that's the reality of the world out there. If your website really delivers real value to me, I would pay, I'm sure. Don't force me to whitelist your website. Remember, there are millions of good websites out there willing to replace you.

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:46 am

      Thats a valid point, but another way to look at it for some webmasters might be "well, if youre not going to support this free site by unblocking our ads, then I dont really want you here, using the bandwidth we have to pay for and reading the articles we paid authors to write", which is also quite valid. Why should they let you view their content if you're not contributing? If you don't think the content is good enough, then by all means go use another site's bandwidth.

      (ps, I'm not saying this is how we think at MakeUseOf, I'm just saying that there are webmasters who think like that, and it's not unreasonable logic by any means)

  54. lamar
    April 23, 2012 at 10:06 am

    What you are conveniently forgetting is that third party ads may be used to compromise your visitor's computers, e.g.: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/. Even if a user trusts your website, why they should trust random ads? (obviously this doesn't apply to the curated ads, that's the only viable option IMHO)

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:48 am

      I'm not conveniently forgetting it, it's completely off topic. This article is about how web authors can deal with adblockers. Don't just read "adblock" in the title, and jump straight to the comments, please.

    • lamar
      April 24, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      So you say that exposing your website visitors to malware is off-topic? Good to know. And, by the way, I read the article, to quote my comment "(obviously this doesn't apply to the curated ads, that's the only viable option IMHO)"... see... I read your article, looked at all options presented them and evaluated them. You didn't bother reading a short and relevant comment and you are dismissing it as off-topic.

    • lamar
      April 24, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      typo, should be "presented there"

  55. Simon
    April 23, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Have you hear about the Acceptable Ads initiative (http://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads)? You could just stop using annoying ads and you can get whitelisted by Adblock Plus.

  56. carie
    April 23, 2012 at 4:44 am

    Perhaps bloggers should consider if ad blockers are the problem or ads? A useful discussion would be "viable revenue models for blogs".
    The days of mindless ad insertion are over, it is time for blog owners to accept this and move on.
    The reality is, readers are becoming more discerning and if you don't adapt you will find your self part of the "way back when machine" anyway.
    As for this particular article, the only option worth considering is "Use A Curated Ads System". The last option of redirecting non cooperating readers is just nuts!

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 7:24 am

      I'm actually nearing completion of a guide about blog monetization and revenue models, but generally it's not a topic we are allowed to cover on the main blog articles because it's tends to leak into "how to make money online" type articles.

      Anyway, I agree. Curated ads are the best, though you do need to prompt adblock users to take a look with the site whitelisted.

    • Peter
      April 23, 2012 at 10:35 am

      I'm fairly savage with individuals/organisations/sites who implement these sorts of schemes; I block them at a variety of levels, including the DNS provider where appropriate, by making entries in the AV system or the firewall system where appropriate. When I watch television I mute the adverts and do something else until they are over. If the provider found a way to over come this, by diverting me to a test card or something similar, I'd push them off my list permanently.

    • carie
      April 23, 2012 at 11:37 am

      As a web designer and blog owner, I am a big believer in allowing the user decide how they wish to interact with my sites. Thus the idea of redirecting people or inserting scripts to exempt people goes against what I believe is correct practice.That said the commercial sites I maintain are not reliant on web based revenue to run and my blogs are hobby based from which I have no intention of generating income. That said I do understand that if you have a site with thousands of visitors every hour, there are costs involved. Further, if you want people to write good articles, money does get better results. Thus I believe that blog owners have to look towards a new business model. The ad model is broken. While I understand the point of this article and its intended audience, I do believe we have reached a point where we need to consider the way forward and accept changes need to be made. Further to this, the need for the web community to be accountable for the content they provide is becoming increasingly important. As responsible people we can not say that governments do not have the right to sensor content and at the same time say that content providers need not take responsibility for what they feed the masses. Consider the following: If a misleading ad or an ad that promotes pornography or some other form of degrading content is on your blog, then you are accountable for that content because you agreed to have it on your site. If bloggers accepted that this is their responsibility I seriously believe the need for addons like ad-blocker would cease to exist.

  57. otojunk
    April 23, 2012 at 4:14 am

    Hey, James Bruce-- Although I do not understand the mechanics of making money with websites, I think that there is another option for websites to maintain a revenue stream and not upset readers.

    Instead of ads, have LINKS to sites selling something, and make these links something the readers will WANT to click on. For example, whatsonmypc.wordpress.com/ has a daily link to Amazon's Gold Box deal of the day. So in addition to checking out what's new at whatsonmypc, I always check out the daily deal at Amazon.

    Although whatsonmypc doesn't do this, it would be a good idea to have a non-intrusive request close to the link asking the reader to help pay for the site by clicking on the link.

    Of course, the site has to be kept interesting so the readers want to come back - something that makeuseof.com is doing a good job at.

    Out of curiosity, there are an increasing number of ways to visit websites anonymously. Does this affect the revenue stream?

    Keep up the good work.

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:37 am

      The links you're referring to are affiliate programs, and generally do not perform very well at all in my experience. At most, replacing ads with affiliate links for amazon and itunes would bring maybe 5% of the revenue from regular ads. We also feel it would detract from editorial authority - are we highlighting this app because it's good, or because we get a kickback from a sale? We've actually fired authors in the past who placed affiliate links inside their articles.

      As for "asking readers to click on links", that's against the TOS of all affiliate and ad networks, and would have us banned in no time.

      For anonymous users, it depends on the kind of anonymity used. If it blocks analytics, but not ads like built in browser "do not track" functions, then it doesn't particular harm our revenue - just gives us an inaccurate picture of the number of users. However, if it prevents ads from displaying (such as ghostery plugin) then of course, it has the same effect as adblock. Increasingly we will be moving towards offering registered users (free registration, via social network) benefits over anonymous or adblocking users. Core content will always be available to everyone though.

  58. Gloopy
    April 23, 2012 at 3:22 am

    These articles are getting rather whiny. If ads aren't cutting it for you or anybody else, find a new way to earn money or find an alternative way to deliver ads.

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:31 am

      Like making them an unblockable part of the content? That doesn't seem like a good alternative.

  59. GodSponge
    April 23, 2012 at 3:21 am

    I'd be willing to use a whitelist of inoffensive sites or even just blacklist a few sites if that were possible. It's just generally better to block first since many places use bad code or random or offensive ads. If all ads were tactful and not shoved in the middle of content or other terrible places, I'd not even use adblock.

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 7:22 am

      Can I thank you for whitelisting makeuseof?

    • GodSponge
      April 23, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      I did initially but found out that this is one of the worst offenders of the ads in the middle of content. There are like 3 or 4 throughout the article plus huge ones on the side...

      When ads INSIDE content are nearly equal to or greater than the content in the page is why I use adblock in the first place. Talk to the people putting ads in your page and make them unobtrusive and less obnoxious and I'll consider it. I like makeuseof a lot but the ads are too much.

  60. J.P. Howde
    April 23, 2012 at 1:55 am

    Anybody know of a site that uses the kind of meta-refresh hack suggested here?

    I'd like to see if I have to alter my browser settings to avoid this or if my current add-ons will handle it on their own.

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 7:21 am

      I haven't actually seen it in the wild, but no add-ons nor browsers will be able to prevent in theory it because it's fairly fundamental/core HTML - no scripting involved there.

    • J.P. Howde
      April 23, 2012 at 10:46 am

      Interesting.

      I was expecting that changing say IE's "Allow META REFRESH" option to Disabled would - well disable the meta refresh (I'm naive like that).

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:30 am

      You're right, that would work. I guess we have literally nothing we can do about noscript users then ;(

    • GodSponge
      April 23, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      There is also an option in Firefox 11 (don't know when it was added) under Options->Advanced->General that says "Warn me when websites try to redirecct or reload the page" Having that enabled shows me when a site is attempting a redirect or refresh and allows me to accept or deny it.

  61. Colin
    April 22, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    There are millions of blogs/sites. I can seek out those I think are of interest, but in doing so I have to wade through tons of dross - badly written sites whose popups freeze my browser, bloggers who try to lure me in by using misleading headlines, sites using devious methods to take cash from me - "I can sell you this for small amount of money x, but postage is large amount Y (but I won't tell you that until the very end ;-) ], sites that steal my hard drive by posting non-expiring cookies, multiple large images, etc.

    And all the time this is going on, I am downloading dozens and dozens AND DOZENS of annoying flashy adverts I don't want nor need. To paraphrase you, I get "...add absolutely zero value" from " sites which exist solely to leech MY bandwidth".

    You write "bloggers and site owners the world over whose only source of income is ad revenue." That's part of the problem right there - if you are relying on writing a blog to feed your family, then
    1. Given the size of the competition, that's really daft, and
    2. The temptation is there to beast your readers with more ads and more ads and more ads, because ads = cash. Sadly, a large number of sites now apply that "business model". Even hotmail loses one third of every page, unless you pay them an ongoing fee. I don't use an ad-blocker, but every day I come closer to installing one. So every time a site redirects me they simply get added to my list of sites I will never visit again.

    I can appreciate why you might feel you needed to write this article, but the sensible parts of this discussion (write quality articles and don't force people away from your site) are just lost in the annoyance caused by many of your fellow bloggers tricks. So if you write an article offering those idiots suggestions like "Here's a redirect script you can use", then you really shouldn't be surprised that some of that annoyance becomes redirected towards you.

    "or for those of you who are particularly malicious, a shock site might be more desirable." Wow! Absolutely zero kudos for that.

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 7:20 am

      Thanks for the elaborate and well thought out comment Colin, it is a rarity on adblock articles.

      First off, I agree. Scam ads, flash ads that kill my browser and whack my fans up to full speed are terrible, and are entirely to blame for the adblock generation of users. I believe we need to curate ads, and that is what I do myself for precisely that reason. I don't control the revenue streams on this site, but I can assure you I'm being particularly vocal to get things changed, soon.

      I don't agree with your sentiments on blogging for a living though; for some it's a far more demanding job than your typical 9-5. I don't earn my living by only blogging, but I know some who do. However, as a site owner there is always the temptation to ad more ads, because as you say it's an easy way to just up the revenue with a few lines of code. I think Google's latest ranking updates go some way to address that though, by degrading ranks of sites who have 3 or more adblocks above-the-fold. Plus, if the user experience degrades because of it, then obvious changes are needed~ so it really all balances out and we can continue with blogging for a living.

      I did want to present a balanced spectrum of possible responses to adblockers though, and I know some bloggers will want to redirect even if I strongly recommend against it. Ultimately, that will only be good for my own sites though, right? ;)

    • GodSponge
      April 23, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      I appreciate you being vocal about the ads on this site. They are definitely overdone. If you haven't already mentioned this somewhere (https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads) adblock plus has an acceptable ads list enabled by default. Sites can get themselves added to the list if they prove their site meets the guidelines. Because this list is enabled by default, many adblock users won't even know it exists.

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:25 am

      Trouble is, that list is very restrictive, and simply wouldn't suffice to generate enough revenue. I appreciate the sentiment, but I think we all need to draw our own lines as web authors. I find the idea that only *text* ads are acceptable to be laughable, honestly. I think static image banners should be acceptable too, for instance. Otherwise the list seems fair.

      One emotional problem for some webmasters is that they simply don't like the idea of an adblock company dictating what ads they may or may not show, though I do applaud adblocks efforts. The creators have explicitly said they never intended the plugin to be used on such a wide scale and actively admit it's harmful to the open web, which was the motivation for making that list in the first place.

    • GodSponge
      April 25, 2012 at 6:08 am

      True. I actually hate text ads more than small banners anyway. There are plenty of websites that I'd be willing to support by turning adblock off (including this one). Problem is most of the site's I'd be willing to disable adblock on are ones I wouldn't because of the abundance of ads (including this one).

    • John Penland
      April 23, 2012 at 5:33 pm

      One response that you left out was to simply have a replacement saying if you use adblock, would you mind donating?

      In the "don't do anything" category, I personally prefer seeing one space that ads could be used occasionally to thank the user for not blocking ads. It makes me feel appreciated, and makes me feel more like coming back to the site(I've found myself visiting MUO less and less since whitelisting the site, the content is still good, but the ads detract a lot).

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:29 am

      Like random kitty pictures on Reddit? Yes, pretty awesome idea, though probabaly not possible when you dont curate your own ads - MUO has no way of approving ads right now, for instance - we can only remove them if we find them offensive after the fact. It's a bad system, and I want it changed.

      I think we are warming to the idea of donations, whereby users could pay/donate to *officially* remove any and all advertising. Either that , or a simple one-off popup asking to donate would be good. It's difficult getting people to accept we need to change though~

      Please stick with us!

  62. smaragdus
    April 22, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    If a site is destroyed by AdBlock+ and NoScript it has never deserved to exist.

    There are enough good, clean and unobtrusive blogs that do not contain any ads and that are being maintained with no intention of getting revenues. In fact these are the better ones.

    In fact web developers do not need cheap advices if they have experience and professional skills. This article is not directed towards site owners but towards readers that care about their privacy, trying to make them feel guilty. A poor attempt, really.

    It is hight time that I delete MakeUseOf my RSS aggregator.

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 7:00 am

      No, in fact it was directed to site owners. Please don't presume to tell us (speaking as a developer) what makes a good developer or why sites don't need revenue.

  63. User
    April 22, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    I use Ad-Block, no-script and flashblock. If anyone makes it difficult for me to access their site. I simply leave and don't return. How much ya makin' from that? When I can visit a site without being assaulted by ads and possibly unwanted software, I will turn them off.

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 6:56 am

      Note that point 1 is "do nothing".

  64. LD
    April 22, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    One group of people who usually disable scripts are the visually impaired. Redirecting them seems particularly cruel.

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 6:55 am

      That's an excellent point, thanks for adding that LD .

  65. roberto
    April 22, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Let's get this right, YOU want ME to read your blog, view YOUR webpage etc yet you're throwing your toys out the pram for ME not wanting to be bombarded with ads and tracking cookies?

    Get over yourself dude.......

    And before you make another smartass comment, yes I DID read this page, and yes I DID view it with ABP & NS, would it have said anything different without those tools?

    • muotechguy
      April 22, 2012 at 10:14 pm

      I didn't particularly want you to read this article, no - it is aimed at site owners who have seen a reduction in their earnings due to adblock. I thought I made that clear in the opening paragraph, but I guess not.

      If you did actually read it, I'm a little confused as to why you're taking so much offence here. I presented 3 different approaches - strongly recommending *against* blocking or redirecting adblock users, and instead curating your ads for a better user experience that doesn't annoy them with intrusive ads.

    • Joe
      September 11, 2012 at 4:31 am

      Roberto, you act like it's makeuseof.com's privilege to have you on this site. You are dreaming dude.

      If you are not contributing to the website by viewing ads then you are 100% useless to the website. If you left, the website owner would be pretty happy because you are just costing him bandwidth.

  66. Ummmm....ya think?
    April 22, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Sheesh. How about making your blog or whatever so compelling that we want to willingly subscribe, donate, etc.?

    Trust me, you start redirecting people, begging or using some other heavy-handed method, you'll quickly be talking to yourself.

    Hey Makeuseof? WTF?

    • muotechguy
      April 22, 2012 at 9:40 pm

      You didn't actually read the article did you?

    • Joe
      September 11, 2012 at 4:28 am

      How many people on the internet are willingly ready to donate? Maybe .001%? Versus the click through rate of ads - you won't get anywhere close to how much you'd get if you used ads instead.

      And you want people to subscribe? Really? Is that really how you want the internet to be? The internet is free - and I suspect that you want to keep it that way. The internet wouldn't be what it is today if you have to subscribe every time you need information.

      Websites cost money - a lot of money. It costs time - research. Website owners have to make a living too you know? Do scientists do research for free? No - they get grant money from the government or organizations. If they did it for free, they won't have anything to eat.

      Think about it. Stop being an idiot and realize that websites are legit businesses.

  67. AnonAnnie
    April 22, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Really, you propose to hi-jack my browser by redirect because I choose not to donate my cookies and other personal data by clicking on an ad on your page, and then block me from viewing your content because of my choice to guard my privacy? Wow. Even television is not so greedy. I, myself, would rather pay a small fee for membership if I needed the information so bad, versus selling my browser's "everything" data. Quickly and daily I lose my respect for MakeUseOf.com.

    • Hippiechick
      April 22, 2012 at 9:06 pm

      Agreed!

    • muotechguy
      April 22, 2012 at 9:31 pm

      Which part of makeuseof.com is redirecting you for being an adblock user, and did we EVER say we would do that? I wrote this for the benefit of other site owners, not for use on this site specifically. And note I presented a selection of methods and reasons - including *dont do anything at all because maybe adblock users aren't all that bad*.

    • Matt Hawkins
      October 12, 2012 at 12:41 pm

      AnonAnnie, you do realise that blocking ads doesn't really protect you from anything? Viewing ads doesn't result in your "personal data" being given away. You are allowed to guard your privacy just as a site owner is allowed to not show you web pages. If you don't like ads on a website then don't visit it. Easy.

    • Annonie
      May 6, 2015 at 2:13 am

      100% Wrong, ad's grab your ip address at a very minimum when the get request is made to the ad server for the ad content.

  68. Joe Schmoe
    April 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    There's another way as well. You can bug the living PaJesus out of your readers with anti-ad articles. Maybe some of the readers will finally get tired of the constant whining and white list your site.

    • James Bruce
      April 22, 2012 at 8:11 pm

      Did you actually read this "anti-ad" article? Because it was kind of my way of saying "you know what, you're right, we need to change the revenue model because the current one isn't working, regardless of my feelings about Adblock". I'm sorry you chose to take this article as annoying, because I was trying to be genuinely helpful to any site owners out there seeing their sites destroyed by Adblock. You may not be a site owner, but hundreds of our readers are.

    • oss
      April 23, 2012 at 10:40 am

      I read your article inside my email client, using the feed delivered by mail that you offer to your readers. So, do your tactics envisage to block my email account?

    • muotechguy
      April 23, 2012 at 11:06 am

      No, why should it? RSS is a great way to read our articles, and as a service to our readers we offer them in full, not partial feeds like some sites do.

    • Jclock
      April 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm

      I understand everyone has to eat! If websites whom only motive is to put a few lines of text and fill the rest with ads, they get block! It's good Makeuseof is talking about this topic but this ad blocking generation was created by bad web administrators.

      Anyone who remembers surfing on a 56k modem will tell you the amount of pop-ups and banner ad to no end! I feel it's up to websites to earn the right to be "white listed". "Trifecta Of evil"? No, "A God sent".

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:21 am

      True. We've come a long way since 56k modems and flashy annoying popups, but gaining that trust back seems impossible right now.

    • Tom Brady
      October 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      I've run so many websites now, it's tiresome to see people trying to justify the grubby tactics of ad based revenue. It turns out if you actually have anything to say that is worth while, you are published and earn a real salary.

      Oh and btw, companies are still willing to billboard style pay for advertising space. It ends up being better for you in earnings and no data is sent to the company. Win win. But you don't really care about that do you ;)

    • Muo TechGuy
      October 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm

      "you are published and earn a real salary" - paid for by what? An anonymous benefactor? What a redundant point to make.

    • Joe Schmoe
      April 24, 2012 at 12:13 am

      I do own a site, actually two. No 3rd party ads.

    • muotechguy
      April 24, 2012 at 8:20 am

      Well, do you mind telling us how you monetize them? Or are they purely operated on a hobby basis?

    • Joe Schmoe
      April 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm

      They are just sites that essentially advertise my business - name, contact info, services offered, etc.

    • MrE
      April 22, 2012 at 9:16 pm

      Or simply stop visiting your site :)

    • Joe
      September 11, 2012 at 4:24 am

      Then you should stop visiting the internet because the majority of websites have ads.

      As a website owner, I can attest to the level of frustration that adblock plus brings.

      Users will whine and complain that we don't like Adblock plus. But are they writing professional content that could cost hundreds of dollars per article? No. They are just leeching off of it.

      Yes flash ads are annoying, I hate them too. But Google ads are fine and most decent websites like this one have no intrusive ads.

      To those that say site owners shouldn't live off of ad revenue - how the hell do you think Google/Facebook/Twitter make money? Ads.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *