# Adblock Countermeasures



## Michael Morris (May 29, 2008)

Yesterday I let my temper lash out and I hinted that adblock countermeasures may be used to stop adblock programs. I want to clarify some things about those statements and hopefully put some of the outcry to rest.

First off, while this should go without saying, *no change to the code or site is made without Russ' explicit approval*. While Russ hasn't commented on my tirade yesterday you can rest assured that if he's opposed to it then it will never come to be.

With that out of the way, I'm going to try to explain what the big deal is about ad blocking anyway.

ENWorld's total page views are it's 'inventory' of possible exposures. In a typical month this is around 8 million.  Ads are sold through two means - Click thru and exposure.  We only use exposures - so our only obligation to the advertiser is to actually show the ad.  If the ad fails to entice a click that's not our problem.

Ads are sold in 1000 unit lots.  The cost to ENWorld of ads being blocked by a single user is insignificant.  However be mindful of the old truism - "No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the storm."

When many users block the advertisements it adds up after awhile.  Colloquial estimates are that perhaps 8-10% of users block ads. I would guess that ENWorld is slightly higher because more of the users here are technically astute enough to look into ad blockers and implement them. 

Ten percent of 8 million is still 800,000 "lost" pages.  I call them lost because there is no way to recoup the cost of sending those pages. However, the pages remaining should be able to run enough ads to make up for the loss.

The problems truly start as that percentage increases. If the inventory drops below a certain point we are rendered unable to raise enough money to pay for the bandwidth the site consumes. When that happens ENWorld closes it's doors.

No - it is not in danger of happening.

Adblock countermeasures use a variety of means to detect and defeat adblockers.  The simplest measures are to avoid labeling the image size in the HTML or the css, not using id and style tags containing "ad" at the start or end and the like. Having the ad image delivered from the same machine also helps a great deal and defeats a majority of the adblockers out there since the blocker can't tell if the ad is a legitimate image or not.

More invasive than this would be using javascript to inspect the dom on page load complete.  Ad blockers work by stopping the loading of the image tag - so if the tag never completes loading the javascript can be instructed to do some form of behavior in reaction. One possibility is to nag the user about the adblocker.  

More invasive still is to set the page css to display: none and then toggle this property back to display: block once the ads are confirmed to have loaded.  Browsers won't display the content in this case - google spiders are unaffected because they ignore css anyway. Defeating this is possible, but beyond the time most people are willing to spend.

For what it's worth before any such plan would go into effect I'd need proof that it would be effective and worth time to create and maintain the block code. As long as the block rate is lower than around 10% not including google spiders I really could care less. However if it's crosses over 40% or more then yes, I will consult with Russ and with his permission install countermeasures. We know the page serve rates and can compare them to the ad serve rates.

Will that drive people off the site? Damn straight it will - but such with such users gone the bandwidth usage will decrease and the hosting rates will drop. I'd rather not see costs offset that way, but given the choice of seeing the site go down because it can't be funded any longer I'll settle with being a villain and driving off users who don't want to view ads by force.

If there was another revenue stream available I'd use it.  I hate the ads too for what it's worth and they annoy me everybit as much as they annoy everyone else.  As an added bonus I had to spend 2 hours of my time installing the code for them that I would have rather spent doing **anything** else. But until such a stream is discovered and implemented (I am working on one possibility) or someone with a couple million dollars around to put into a trust to permanently fund the site shows up there will be ads.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 29, 2008)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> If there was another revenue stream available I'd use it.  I hate the ads too for what it's worth and they annoy me everybit as much as they annoy everyone else.  As an added bonus I had to spend 2 hours of my time installing the code for them that I would have rather spent doing **anything** else. But until such a stream is discovered and implemented (I am working on one possibility) or someone with a couple million dollars around to put into a trust to permanently fund the site shows up there will be ads.




For many people, myself included, it is not that we don't want any ads. The issue that seems to have come up was rather the placement of the ad on the page and how it interfers with the layout of the rest of the page. 

Perhaps what needs to be explained better is not why we need ads or how adblockers work, but rather why a vertical ad was added to the layout.


----------



## blargney the second (May 29, 2008)

If I may make a suggestion..

The most effective ads are the ones that make so much sense in context that they don't even seem like ads to the audience or their adblocking software.  For example, when the 4e box was up at the top, I *always* at least glanced at it.  It was relevant, current, and useful information for a site like this.  If the ads being displayed were given a similar treatment (as opposed to outdated but standardized banners) I'm sure it would be more beneficial to this site's owner, the advertiser, and the audience.

It might be easier and more profitable to change the way you handle ads (no, sponsors!) than to control the way people surf the internet.


----------



## Thanee (May 29, 2008)

You are doing an amazing job here with the site administration, Michael, don't let the outcries make you think otherwise. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> For many people, myself included, it is not that we don't want any ads. The issue that seems to have come up was rather the placement of the ad on the page and how it interfers with the layout of the rest of the page.
> 
> Perhaps what needs to be explained better is not why we need ads or how adblockers work, but rather why a vertical ad was added to the layout.



Yeah, basically this. Because before that ad came, ENWorld was even an exception on my list. But since CS will get the benefit of turning'em off... I'm happy. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 29, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> For many people, myself included, it is not that we don't want any ads. The issue that seems to have come up was rather the placement of the ad on the page and how it interfers with the layout of the rest of the page.
> 
> Perhaps what needs to be explained better is not why we need ads or how adblockers work, but rather why a vertical ad was added to the layout.




I also completely and without reservation suport having ads on the site.

But I would also like to voice my opinion that the vertical ad takes up a LOT of space and is really quite intrusive. I would hope that it's a temporary feature.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 29, 2008)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> ...or someone with a couple million dollars around to put into a trust to permanently fund the site shows up there will be ads.



 I've been trying, but there are these meddling kids and their dog which keep showing up and foiling my nefarious plans.


Neither of the current ads bother me very much - although it would be nice if we had a different ad on the top banner if the side one is essential.  

As long as you don't start running those incredibly annoying ads that automatically expand and cover content for 30 seconds or so before retreating back to a banner, I won't have too much of an issue with ads on the site.


----------



## Umbran (May 29, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Perhaps what needs to be explained better is not why we need ads or how adblockers work, but rather why a vertical ad was added to the layout.




I find it a little surprising that you need to ask that one.  

Consider: We've had the top ad for ages.  No advertiser with a brain will buy the bottom ad banner (that one is done by Goggle, so it isn't directly sold to someone with a brain, but also will yield less money).  

Given those ads, we still have had to have fire-drill funding drives in the past.  So, clearly the current ads plus the Community Supporter accounts wasn't reliably cutting it.  

Then, when the single largest potential advertising customer, the one with the deepest ad pockets - WotC - has a desire for a type of ad... what else do you expect a responsible website owner to do?


----------



## Arnwyn (May 29, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Perhaps what needs to be explained better is not why we need ads or how adblockers work, but rather why a vertical ad was added to the layout.



Extremely well-said. The above bears repeating. I'm still quite surprised there's any confusion on this matter. 

In any case, if ads are so important as to spend time and resources trying to control how people surf the internet (as blargney the second so astutely said), then I look forward to the proper placement of ads in the future.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 29, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I find it a little surprising that you need to ask that one.
> 
> Consider: We've had the top ad for ages.  No advertiser with a brain will buy the bottom ad banner (that one is done by Goggle, so it isn't directly sold to someone with a brain, but also will yield less money).
> 
> ...




Actually I would have preferred another fire-drill funding drive to messing up the layout of the site. At least let the community know that revenues were running short and that more intrusive advertising was being considered unless more community supporters signed up.

Edit: Brainstorming idea: I don't know if it is feasible, and it may not be, but how about banner ads between every 5 posts or so. I don't mind seeing the ads, its just when they mess up layouts.


----------



## FickleGM (May 29, 2008)

Well, I prefer the sure money that the ad brings in to a fire-drill fund raiser.  Even with the inconvenient layout...

EDIT:  I hate sites that have ads in between every X number of posts and actually prefer the sidebar add to that idea.


----------



## Thanee (May 29, 2008)

What is the main cost factor for this site, anyways?

Bandwidth?
Dedicated server cost?
Something else?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Morrus (May 29, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> For many people, myself included, it is not that we don't want any ads. The issue that seems to have come up was rather the placement of the ad on the page and how it interfers with the layout of the rest of the page.
> 
> Perhaps what needs to be explained better is not why we need ads or how adblockers work, but rather why a vertical ad was added to the layout.




That's the most simple question of all:

WotC: We'll pay you $X for a side banner.
Me: OK.  I ain't getting that money from anywhere else.


----------



## Morrus (May 29, 2008)

Incidentally, folks, we won't be having java blocking thingies (whatever it is Mike was describing - I'm not familiar with the technical terms) on the site.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Me: OK.  I ain't getting that money from anywhere else.



 Is the site in trouble?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Thanee (May 29, 2008)

I think he meant that the other way... 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I find it a little surprising that you need to ask that one.
> 
> Consider: We've had the top ad for ages.  No advertiser with a brain will buy the bottom ad banner (that one is done by Goggle, so it isn't directly sold to someone with a brain, but also will yield less money).
> 
> ...



By the way (I know that wouldn't be employable in the short-term), I think the biggest problem with the side add is the empty space below the add. If you'd add more ads and/or stuff (like current polls) or ANYTHING there, it would look so squashed and much more acceptable. An interesting side effect would be: Adblockers would then mess up the layout a bit. If that's good or bad... well, there are different takes on it.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 29, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Actually I would have preferred another fire-drill funding drive to messing up the layout of the site. At least let the community know that revenues were running short and that more intrusive advertising was being considered unless more community supporters signed up.




The problem is that a fund-raiser isn't a solution - it's a stop gap.  It's all well and good if once a year, the site has a fund raiser (I think it's a good idea, in fact).  However, that means the site is still losing money on a daily basis.  In fact, as time passes and the site grows, that rate of money bleeding increases, so that once a year may not be enough.  Having a fund-raiser every three months wouldn't work - people get donation fatigue.

The optimum is that the site makes money.  Actually, realistically it's that the site at least breaks even.  That way there's no need to worry about having emergency fund-raisers.  Additionally, it could mean that fund-raiser money could go to upgrading the site rather than maintaining it.  Ads by impression (versus click-through) are the way to go in this case - as more people use the site, there are more impressions, and thus in theory more revenue from selling ads.


----------



## Greylock (May 30, 2008)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Incidentally, folks, we won't be having java blocking thingies (whatever it is Mike was describing - I'm not familiar with the technical terms) on the site.




Thank you, Russ.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 30, 2008)

Something I thought of in reading some of the threads about buying the core books online versus in a FLGS: Since I don't have a FLGS I wish to support and so pre-ordered the books from amazon.com, I will use the money I saved to renew my CS account.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 2, 2008)

Personally, I would welcome such adblock countermeasures, especially if there were a community supporter option to turn the ads off.  It seems to me that those who use adblock are just parasites, leeching bandwidth and outright refusing to support the site at all for nothing more substantial than some nebulous aesthetic preference.  It's not like you have to sit through it like a TV commercial.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 3, 2008)

Reading this discussion has given me an idea that I thought I would throw out here for consideration:

Some people posting here have banner ads in their sig. How about putting paying banner ads in non-member's sigs? Or give each poster the option of letting ENWorld put a paying ad in their sig? Or automatically attach a banner ad in any/all sigs? Or give a discount for membership for allowing an ad in your sig? Or some other set up/arrangement for putting paying ads in sigs? (You might need to also take away the option of letting viewers turn off sigs.)

And to add to the sort of unofficial poll: I don't mind the ads at the top or on the side. Hell, at least the ads on this site are relevant to the readers' interest. The only thing about the WotC ad that bothered me was when it was going on at the top and on the side *at the same time* (especially out of sync).

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit


----------



## Thanee (Jun 3, 2008)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> Personally, I would welcome such adblock countermeasures, especially if there were a community supporter option to turn the ads off.  It seems to me that those who use adblock are just parasites, leeching bandwidth and outright refusing to support the site at all for nothing more substantial than some nebulous aesthetic preference.




Uhh... yeah, right... 



> It's not like you have to sit through it like a TV commercial.




No, it's worse! 

I generally don't mind ad banners, but that side banner is just super annoying (or was, anyways).

Bye
Thanee


----------

