Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by Phil_Rees, Aug 13, 2009.
Yep in the meantime I did a bit of google research in those services, seems they are have a shrinking user base - prehaps because of lack of finance from commerce?
One of the reasons that search engines like google for example where able to grow to the magnitude that they are is because of paid advertising (low cost advertising at that) which in turn enables them to offer the multitude of free services that they do.
Remove that revenue stream from them and those services are going to suffer.
If it was only a small percentage of people using adblocker, your right it would not be an issue - no more than the telephone preference service or the mail preference service has become (little tongue in cheek statement there for you)
Yes I understand the need to protect people from intrustive marketing phone calls (I was a telemarketer for many years), yes I understand why people would prefer not to receive unsolicitated mail (I also dealt with direct mail for many years) however the internet is not about intrustion.
We are not forcing you to visit our pages - the consumer is choosing to visit, the same as you would choose to watch BBC1 or 2 in preference to ITV etc if you dont like adverts.
ADblock interupts the service that is being provided by the service provider. If an organisation tried to for example produce a piece of hardware that blocked adverts from your television or radio station - do you think Television companies would allow that.
NO and neither should web developers.
So seo will be too expensive and above the realms of us mere mortals who arent blue chip companies ? What a load of tosh, ive not spent a single penny on seo and still get results bringing me higher serps than companies with £100000 budgets for marketing.Knowledge is a powerful thing and the best bit is anyone can aquire it if they look in the right places.
If we start banning things because we dont like it where do we stop ? So you ban adblock but how about banning sites that display annoying adverts ? Oh, no need to adblock does the job already.
The reason google grew so quickly is because they gave those using it what they wanted which was relevant search results based on their algorythim.They gave the public what they wanted like adblocker does.
What a great feature - ADBLOCK.
I hope that all those poorly built sites with questionable content and third party ads will go down.
I also believe that one will have a choice to turn the adblock option on and off.
Of course those who do the research will gain a an edge on those who dont, but as the search engines become more complex and struggle for revenue, services will no longer be free to list and those companies able to spend more on SEO than others - hiring trained technicians will dominate the SEO rankings - no matter how hard amatuer SEO enthuisasts try.
If you dont like sites with adverts - dont visit them, the same if you dont like TV with adverts - change the channel.
However what is wrong is the development of software that delibraty hinders and harms economy. Thats why the sofware should be banned.
The reason why google grew so quickly was not only due to their search results it was also due to the vast amounts of investment they where able to invest in the technology becuase of paid adverts and sponsorship.
LOL nice - good find the curse grows even more
Well I dont wish failure on anyone (well maybe the exception is adblock software) what I would rather see is poorly built sites being educated and not penalised for making a living.
Yes you do have a choice to turn adblock on and off - but how many users once installed will do so unless web developers install systems to tell the user to turn them off so they can protect the free services they are providing.
In fact that is the only solution I see for the adblock problem, that providers of free services block adblock users and preventing them the benefit of there free content.
Oh for your information, i did a quick google search for you
Retractable security gates - great you come up rank three on google.com, and .co.uk
Security gates - you dont even enter the top five pages on google.com or co.uk
Limited success with seo does not mean high success.
Also if you wish I have a small easy to follow guide you can have that will show you how to remove the joomla copyright from the bottom of your webpage. Drop me a PM and ill email it to you.
If they chose this route, and it works for them, good luck, well done. A market solution to a market problem. No cries of illegality, of getting new regulations, just people moving in response to a changing world.
Get your facts right please link showing i do indeed rank 4th for security gates. So now your an expert on seo ? You know what search terms make me money ? With the sites optimised for a heck of a lot of keywords and phrases how can you pass such a quick judgement ? Try locksmiths bexley,at no 2 even locksmith bexley is on page one.
No need to try and make your arguement seem more important by trying to critic one of my sites in your crusade against adblocker.
The joomla thing is only on a couple of my sites and those sites do what they need to do so who cares if its says joomla on the bottom ? Im more interested in results and calls to action as ultimately they make me money not ads on my sites.
Wasnt judgement it was advice. Take it or leave it.
I only did a search on one of your sites - not all of them.
You actually did a search for a keyword or phrase not one of my sites and claimed i dont show in the results which is in fact wrong.Please stick to the facts.
So what was the advice, i missed that bit ?
Actually I did a key word phrase based on the domain you have in your contact profile.
The advice was making you aware of it. No Offence was meant.
Whilst I feel for the OP and others relient on advertising the 'ripping adverts out of a magazine' analogy is flawed.
The difference is the traffic that comes to your site and would see your adverts are doing so through a browser. The browser sees and renders everything prior to it reaching their eyes.
And clearly browsers have always and will continue to be more and more configurable. The key difference is is that your 'viewers' control over what content they actually see - and how, will only increase.
Firfox's move is radical and may well be slated or postponed but its only a matter of time before this sort of filtering is standard and used by the majority of surfers.
It's no good complaining. People are only using the features because they perfer not to see adverts. Web polotics and mechanics change very quickly, if you want to continue to make money as a webmaster you need to adapt even more quickly.
Firefox see this as an opportunity to make ther browser more popular by offering a useful feature first. They have taken the initiative.
What are you doing? What is your next big money making idea that is completely new? Did you think the you would always be able to make money the same way, that the web was not in conctant flux?
If the web moves on and you are standing there banging on about 'the good ol days' you have only yourself to blame.
A bit harsh but it bugs me when people see a change of circumstance as something to be fought, as opposed to negotiated. You cannot stop progress.
As stated before, we are already modifying our sites to counter the adblock problem, and the areas that adblock block are not the only sources of our revenue.
Your point out "progress" which i think has been addressed a few times before - not everything deemd as progress in the long term is beneficial in fact through out history there are many instances of when things have been claimed as "Progress" and "The Way forward" only to be later disclaimed. As my arugmenet said before, just because something is popular or fashionable doesnt make it right or even in the long term beneficial.
You say my magazine anology is flawed - how so?
When you read a magazine you purchase it do you not (well unless you read someone elses copy) or its a free magazine paid for by advertising. When you view those adverts your paying your dues the same as you would be when you purchase it.
By using adblock (and dont belive for a second it will stop at just third party advertising programmes) to view sites as they are not intended you are effectivly using that site/content without payment.
Can i stop the flow of adblockers - proberbly not, can the anti adblock movement encourage web developers to stand up to them and stop giving there content away for free - most likely.
In my mind, users of adblock are very close to being in the same bracket as movie and music pirates.
Removing an advert from Open Source software? Just a tad hypocritical, perhaps?
How on earth is the Joomla project going to survive if people do that?
However Joomla themselves give you permission to remove the copyright branding and supporters of Joomla (such as our selves) do acknowledge the project.
However I dont recall many websites giving people permission to remove or block the our sponsors content with the use of adblock
It is different to a magazine as a website is open to interperation by the users browser. it always has been. It is the nature of the beast. 100 people looking at a magazine see the same layout, content and features. Websites have always been more dynamic and browsers have always been capable of interfering with the designers intent. pop up blockers for example.
The reality is that you make money by providing content that is useful whilst mixing it with paid for adverts. The problem is the people that visit the site and, albeit indirectly, pay for that content don't care. They will block the adverts if they can and this will only continue to become easier for them.
The problem here is not the mozilla have made such a big impact, it's that people actually want the feature they have offered. Maybe they are shooting themsleves in the foot, maybe they will miss the free content which would dry up along with the ad-stream revenue.
My point is those people wil still be out there searching for content. It is your responsibilty to survive and find another way of satisfying the need for relevant content and monitising it.
You cannot blame people for using ad-blockers. They won't listen, they won't care. Your traffic are in effect your customers (in that their existance generates revenue). If they have decided they want to do things differently you need to adapt and find a new way of making money from them.
Can't blame people for blocking the ads as they don't care.
Can't blame Mozilla as it was always going to happen, even if they had to retract the feature it would be replicated overnight by hundreds of other plugin coders.
No one owes you money or traffic. you have to find new ways of bringing both to you. Invent a new method of achieving the old results. Thats surely what seperates business men and women from bandwagon jumpers?
Now that is i think the first well thought out counter arguement Ive seen to my point.
You are right, i cant blame people for WANTING to block adverts and yes we do have to evolve to counter it, the question is how is that to be achieved.
Remove all free content, or make clear statements on our sites (as suggested by the designer of the code in my first post) that if you want to use the free content, turn off your ad blockers, or even put up pay for view walls?
Of course in the long term (and this part of adblocker I do agree with) we will see less and less overcrowded made for adsense websites which can only be good for us all. However in the mean time honest legitimate sites with a handful of well placed advertising banners are being punished for it and many legitimate business's will close as a result.
So what do we do other than to campaign to protect what is an essential source of internet ecommerce or do we just give up throw our hands in the air and all join the dole queue?
No we look for a solution and restrict those who do not wish to use the sites to the full extent from having access.
The biggest problem you face is that free content sites paid for by advertisers make money indirectly. Thats very clever but now it's a problem as your visitors, the life blood of the site, largely never consider what was paying for their experience.
I think anyone with their head screwed on knows that you have zero chance of charging directly for content. Unless you have outstanding and highly individual content that is. Pretty much the only industry which made a decent go from charging for content was the porn industry, and even this has given way to web2 tactics and is now nearly all free as well (apparently...).
I would say advertising by review is more the way forwards. Review a product in depth and post a text link with a referral code to a place the specific product can be bought. This sort of link (if I understand correctly) should not be blocked. The adsense automated contextual ads are the lazy irritating stuff people are trying to block out. There are many other ways of advertising more subtly which could not be blocked.
The end goal is to make people sell things more intelligently online, rather than bombard 10,000 people with an advert that may be of interest to 100 people, only one of whom is in the market to purchase at that given moment.
Heheh. How about one that says:
"Sorry we cannot display a partial page, please remove your ad blocker and at least try to understand how the internet remains largely FREE..."