Does anyone else look at the Advertisement?

Dat Nibutani avi alt.

Best eConomy girl.

No, I'm not, love, and saying ads will go away if you ignore them enough is lunacy. With popularity and being free-to-access, ads are there. They'll always be there, and if you move to another site because this one, or any one, gets too many ads, then that one will become popular and *also* require more ads. It's how a ton of Internet revenue works, you can't make it go away by ignoring it with that kind of dead-end logic.

Look how well that's working on any huge free site, like CNN, CNET, or YouTube. How do you account for those places still existing, when they have an astonishing amount of advertising? There isn't an alternative to those sites, and if there ever is, when people migrate to it, then that will require ads to handle the cost of traffic. That's how Internet traffic works.

And don't be a patronizing jerk-off while you're busy calling people ignorant and making absurdly short-sighted generalized statements about the most basic function of Internet advertising.

Never once did I say they would "go away" and I'm actually having a little trouble finding how you derived that from my words. I was stating the liability of making ads more intrusive often hurts companies more than they help, meaning that universally more obtuse ads would be unlikely, and that the method you cited to support a page (clicking an ad and then closing the page quickly) wouldn't work very well.



The sites you cite are are huge monopolies, something most sites will likely never enjoy. Just because 0.1% of sites can essentially do whatever they want (Youtube seems to be doing that a lot as of late...) doesn't mean all advertising outlets will become more obtuse. You can't generalize based solely on how things work on the highest tier. Sites will only advertise what they perceive to be the amount users are willing to put up with for the content they have; more essential content, more ad viability (with the inverse being true as well).

I'm still not saying they will "go away" or anything like that (in fact, a lot of that paragraph is agreeing with you, saying large sites like Youtube can advertize greatly if their content is essential due to no practical alternatives).



I question exactly where I was being a "patronizing jerk off" by citing business school 101's and a wiki page on how cookies work. My only points were: universally more obtuse advertisements are unlikely, and don't close a page too fast or your banner click won't count. I don't know where you're getting a lot of this other stuff from...

I think you're short sighted if you think simply clicking on an ad banner and exiting right away would help either the advertisers or the content producer/website.

And who are you to call others a patronizing jerk-off?

A retard who's butthurt.

So basically add block take away from website's income, depending on how lenient you are I guess determines whether you use it. I personally don't use it, because I don't use any websites that have an abundant amount of it.
Fakku only has that 1 pop up when you first enter the site anyway so its not even that big a deal.

I use it because it's more than something that just blocks ads. Also, the most popular ad block extension/whatever is coming or already a whitelist of approved non invasive ads they don't filter.

You can also whitelist certain sites.

One thing that doesn't make logical sense is to think that such an abuse-able system like clicking on ad and the exiting is viable or still in place.