|
| Webmaster Forum Rules | Posting Guide | Contact Us | Testimonials | Contributing Geek Program | Advertise on Geek/Talk |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
06-01-2003, 08:53 PM
|
#46 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Saint Louis
Posts: 101
|
I just got through looking at my Fastclick stats and noticed that income from pop-unders is now dropping a little each month (about 10%) since January. The other two campaigns (468x60 & SkyScraper) that I run from them have grown during this time making up for the loss.
Wow... this is happening faster than I thought it would. I wonder what the ad companies like Fastclick are going to come up with to counter this? I'm sure this must have a major impact on their bottom line. My problem is that I actually make most of my income from text links that I run so it would be foolish to block out the visitors that stop my pop-under ads. I don't run the InVue ads but that may be my only alternative. Last edited by jiminsd; 06-01-2003 at 08:55 PM. |
|
|
06-26-2003, 11:48 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 42
|
Quote:
One possible future problem, of course. If many sites start doing this, then popup blockers will actually download and execute the code but not show the popup. This is 10 times worse than not showing at all because it totally screws up the stats--now you have no idea how many people have viewed your ad. Actually, this may be the way all popup blockers may go so watch out. Owen |
|
|
|
|
07-01-2003, 03:39 PM
|
#48 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4
|
I know some popup blockers prevent automatically spawning windows but allow user-driven clickthroughs on links and forms to open a new window.
Maybe we could find ways to fool these popup blockers. Last edited by ebrake; 07-01-2003 at 07:04 PM. |
|
|
|
07-18-2003, 12:06 PM
|
#49 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 90
|
WARNING,
A lot of these blockers won't let ANYthing load in a new window, even if the surfer clicks a link. It's killing a lot of affiliate commissions IMHO. |
|
|
|
07-22-2003, 10:15 PM
|
#50 | |
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 198
|
Quote:
I guess the cure will prove to be even worse that the dis-ease. Kat |
|
|
|
|
08-08-2003, 03:57 PM
|
#51 | |
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Planet Zeekois
Posts: 1,289
|
Quote:
Disallow: / User-agent: grub-client Disallow: / User-agent: grub Disallow: / User-agent: looksmart Disallow: / User-agent: WebZip Disallow: / User-agent: larbin Disallow: / User-agent: b2w/0.1 Disallow: / User-agent: Copernic Disallow: / User-agent: psbot Disallow: / User-agent: Python-urllib Disallow: / User-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: / User-agent: NetMechanic Disallow: / User-agent: URL_Spider_Pro Disallow: / User-agent: CherryPicker Disallow: / User-agent: EmailCollector Disallow: / User-agent: EmailSiphon Disallow: / User-agent: WebBandit Disallow: / User-agent: EmailWolf Disallow: / User-agent: ExtractorPro Disallow: / User-agent: CopyRightCheck Disallow: / User-agent: Crescent Disallow: / User-agent: SiteSnagger Disallow: / User-agent: ProWebWalker Disallow: / User-agent: CheeseBot Disallow: / User-agent: LNSpiderguy Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla Disallow: / User-agent: mozilla Disallow: / User-agent: mozilla/3 Disallow: / User-agent: mozilla/4 Disallow: / User-agent: mozilla/5 Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows NT) Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95) Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 98) Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows XP) Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 2000) Disallow: / User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / User-agent: ia_archiver/1.6 Disallow: / User-agent: Alexibot Disallow: / User-agent: Teleport Disallow: / User-agent: TeleportPro Disallow: / User-agent: MIIxpc Disallow: / User-agent: Telesoft Disallow: / User-agent: Website Quester Disallow: / User-agent: moget/2.1 Disallow: / User-agent: WebZip/4.0 Disallow: / User-agent: Web******** Disallow: / User-agent: WebSauger Disallow: / User-agent: WebCopier Disallow: / User-agent: NetAnts Disallow: / User-agent: Mister PiX Disallow: / User-agent: WebAuto Disallow: / User-agent: TheNomad Disallow: / User-agent: WWW-Collector-E Disallow: / User-agent: RMA Disallow: / User-agent: libWeb/clsHTTP Disallow: / User-agent: asterias Disallow: / User-agent: httplib Disallow: / User-agent: turingos Disallow: / User-agent: spanner Disallow: / User-agent: InfoNaviRobot Disallow: / User-agent: Harvest/1.5 Disallow: / User-agent: Bullseye/1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; BullsEye; Windows 95) Disallow: / User-agent: Crescent Internet ToolPak HTTP OLE Control v.1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: CherryPickerSE/1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: CherryPickerElite/1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: WebBandit/3.50 Disallow: / User-agent: NICErsPRO Disallow: / User-agent: Microsoft URL Control - 5.01.4511 Disallow: / User-agent: DittoSpyder Disallow: / User-agent: Foobot Disallow: / User-agent: WebmasterWorldForumBot Disallow: / User-agent: SpankBot Disallow: / User-agent: BotALot Disallow: / User-agent: lwp-trivial/1.34 Disallow: / User-agent: lwp-trivial Disallow: / User-agent: BunnySlippers Disallow: / User-agent: Microsoft URL Control - 6.00.8169 Disallow: / User-agent: URLy Warning Disallow: / User-agent: Wget/1.6 Disallow: / User-agent: Wget/1.5.3 Disallow: / User-agent: Wget Disallow: / User-agent: LinkWalker Disallow: / User-agent: cosmos Disallow: / User-agent: moget Disallow: / User-agent: hloader Disallow: / User-agent: humanlinks Disallow: / User-agent: LinkextractorPro Disallow: / User-agent: Offline Explorer Disallow: / User-agent: Mata Hari Disallow: / User-agent: LexiBot Disallow: / User-agent: Web Image Collector Disallow: / User-agent: The Intraformant Disallow: / User-agent: True_Robot/1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: True_Robot Disallow: / User-agent: BlowFish/1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: JennyBot Disallow: / User-agent: MIIxpc/4.2 Disallow: / User-agent: BuiltBotTough Disallow: / User-agent: ProPowerBot/2.14 Disallow: / User-agent: BackDoorBot/1.0 Disallow: / User-agent: toCrawl/UrlDispatcher Disallow: / User-agent: WebEnhancer Disallow: / User-agent: suzuran Disallow: / User-agent: VCI WebViewer VCI WebViewer Win32 Disallow: / User-agent: VCI Disallow: / User-agent: Szukacz/1.4 Disallow: / User-agent: QueryN Metasearch Disallow: / User-agent: Openfind data gathere Disallow: / User-agent: Openfind Disallow: / User-agent: Xenu's Link Sleuth 1.1c Disallow: / User-agent: Xenu's Disallow: / User-agent: Zeus Disallow: / User-agent: RepoMonkey Bait & Tackle/v1.01 Disallow: / User-agent: RepoMonkey Disallow: / User-agent: Microsoft URL Control Disallow: / User-agent: Openbot Disallow: / User-agent: URL Control Disallow: / User-agent: Zeus Link Scout Disallow: / User-agent: Zeus 32297 Webster Pro V2.9 Win32 Disallow: / User-agent: Webster Pro Disallow: / User-agent: EroCrawler Disallow: / User-agent: LinkScan/8.1a Unix Disallow: / User-agent: Keyword Density/0.9 Disallow: / User-agent: Kenjin Spider Disallow: / User-agent: Iron33/1.0.2 Disallow: / User-agent: Bookmark search tool Disallow: / User-agent: GetRight/4.2 Disallow: / User-agent: FairAd Client Disallow: / User-agent: Gaisbot Disallow: / User-agent: Aqua_Products Disallow: / User-agent: Radiation Retriever 1.1 Disallow: / User-agent: WebmasterWorld Extractor Disallow: / User-agent: Flaming AttackBot Disallow: / User-agent: Oracle Ultra Search Disallow: / User-agent: MSIECrawler Disallow: / User-agent: PerMan Disallow: / User-agent: searchpreview Disallow: / User-agent: * Disallow: /gfx/ Disallow: /cgi-bin/ Disallow: /QuickSand/ Disallow: /pda/ Disallow: /zForumFFFFFF/ Source.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2003, 01:38 AM
|
#52 |
 Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 9,507
|
Any idea why the Mozilla agents and ia_archiver are in there?
Alexa may block pops, but I thought ia_archiver was the crawler for the Internet Archive.
__________________
Czar Follow Geek/Talk's Twitter Feed and Facebook Page to stay up to date with new discussion threads and online ad industry highlights. Important GeekVillage Links: Home | Rules | Posting Guide | Report Trouble | Feedback | Advertise on GV |
|
|
|
11-06-2003, 09:12 PM
|
#53 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 614
|
...And isn't Scooter the crawler for AltaVista?
|
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 08:03 AM
|
#55 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 80
|
This topic has been debated in length previously...
IMO, there would be no reason to "fight back" unless there were several contradicting reasons. e.g. Pop-blocking software abounds, so scripts and programs arise that circumvent those. It's a case of push and shove! The debate over whether blocking pop-ups and circumventing users settings in order to gain financially is ILLEGAL! There are several Acts that can and should be administered. Including unfair business. If you couldn't afford to buy a car, you wouldn't just go out and take money from any unsuspecting walker-by. If you can't afford to run a website, there are other ways to make profit legally and morally correct. But, looking through the rest of the posts since I started writing, it seems I will be a little out of my element. It doesn't seem this is going to be a discussion at all, it's just a thread to share code that circumvents user settings... 
|
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 10:23 AM
|
#56 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
This debate is far from over.... That anology is false how are websites stealing by saying viewing ads is price for the free content we provide. If people starting blocking all TV commercials and TV networks went under would it be the networks fault for not diversifying. Advertising is the price people have to pay for content otherwise the people are just stealing. BTW there are banner blockers too are showing banners "unfair" |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 11:21 AM
|
#57 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Colorado Springs, CO USA
Posts: 549
|
While I wouldn't try to find a way to circumvent a user's settings, I might not be opposed to blocking access to my site if a user was using an ad blocker.
Some webmasters may be out to just put up a site just to have people enjoy it, but once traffic starts increasing, and the costs of maintaining that site increase, serving ads (whether they be text or banner) become a necessity, not just a choice. (Unlike buying a car, where you pretty much know what the "costs" will be, besides the occasional large repair.) Other webmasters (I'd venture to say at least half of those on this board) are putting up web sites as a business. And businesses must make money. Therefore, businesses must show ads of some type. Some can use Adsense, others text links. Some can use subscriptions. Others must use the plain old banners. Unfortunately, a lot of people (most of them probably within the US) are stuck on the "free" craze. Everything must be obtained for free. Yet, there is *rarely* anything that is absolutely free. And the internet is partially to blame. It takes a few seconds to visit a page. Yet, can that person see the hours, weeks, or years of work that a webmaster put into that page? That would be a negative. My jokes site--in its present form--is the accumulation of *six years* of work, sweat, thought, trial-and-error, and investment. I think that's why a lot of people say, "forcing the visitor to view ads is unfair," because they think that the effort that it takes to endure a few seconds of ads is equal to the effort that it takes to view the page. Yet, for every second that a person views a page, it usually takes me ten to twenty times (or more) that amount to find content, upload it, make sure that the content fits the site, format the page, test the page, update keywords, etc, etc, etc. And the best part of it is, the user doesn't have to click a banner! Advertising (given that it shouldn't be the advertising that kills a user's browser, blocks the window, or pop 16 windows), in its "natural" form is something that is put there to interest the surfer. If it's something interesting, fine. They click. Just as if I see something on a commercial that I like, I buy it. If I don't I can still enjoy the show I'm watching. But that's why ad blockers are coming into the picture. Ads just aren't "showing" themselves to the user. They're popping 16 or more windows in front of the content, adjusting homepage settings, crashing the browser, etc. This--to me--is not advertising. But neither should we take the other extreme and say "all ads are evil," because that is denying that webmasters like myself put their sweat and work into these sites. It also amuses me that most "free hosting sites" have been forced to insert one type of ad or another (from popup/under windoes to layer ads to banners to text ads) to keep from going under. It just shows that you can't get something for nothing. Someone, somewhere, has to pay the price. And it's my thought that--as long as you aren't showing ads and popunders down someone's throat--they should be obligated to view a few ads. It's unfair to ask the webmaster to pay the double price of putting together the site *and* footing the entire bill for the upkeep of the site. If he or she is like me, the webmaster has already paid a far higher price in time and effort to get his or her site where it is today. </ end rant  >
Last edited by Gracklor; 11-23-2003 at 11:24 AM. |
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 12:23 PM
|
#58 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 80
|
Awesome post Gracklor!!!
I admit to the use of ads on some of my websites, but I had the sense that this thread started out and continued to endorse code that circumvents user settings... Last edited by DiamondStorm; 11-23-2003 at 12:25 PM. |
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 12:55 PM
|
#59 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 156
|
i know what im gonna do, gonna test if my pops pop, if they dont i will make the page install gator, trickler, offercompainion and a couple of dialers on their comp. Oh and Real Player, just to make sure their computere is really frelled.
Sorry, i have a really really bad sence of humor. |
|
|
|
11-23-2003, 04:33 PM
|
#60 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London
Posts: 282
|
Oops, looks like I opened up the same can of worms again
 I'm not going to get into a long rant, but I, too, have spent thousands of hours of blood, sweat and tears on the site I mentioned above in which I have tried to enable a DHTML pop-up ad. The movie reviews take DAYS to write: they are not written by some spotty teenager in his bedroom. The one on the page I linked to (of 'Kill Bill') was edited and resent to me by the reviewer about six times. He had to go all the way to the cinema, pay £7 to get in, spend two hours watching the movie, and then write/edit the detailed review for several hours. I had to spend several hours finding movie stills, trailers, formatting the page etc. etc. The revenue from the UKHotMovies.com site is minimal relative to how much work goes into the reviews etc. 98% of people visit the site, read the world-class reviews, and then leave without earning me a penny. Therefore, I don't see any harm with presenting the visitor with a DHTML ad on every few pages... If you buy a movie magazine then by my reckoning at least 60% of the space is advertising or advertorial - and you are paying £3/$5 for that! My site is less than 30% advertising space and is free. If people don't like that 30% advertising, they should not steal my revenue by installing banner and pop-up blockers, software which overwrites my affiliate links, and instead go down to Borders and *buy* a movie magazine - or visit some other site. It's their perogative. I have never forced them to visit my site. Why should me and other hard-working webmasters sacrifice our time for nothing. I have been working 70-100 hours on my websites for the last five years, in which time I have no social life. Tomorrow is the Muslim Christmas and guess what I'm gonna be doing - spending the whole day on the bloomin' PC updating one of my sites, not having the time to meet a single person. Like somebody posted above, if all adverts were filtered out from between TV shows (the technology is there because advertising uses a different signal, but companies won't allow such TVs to come onto the market), then there would be no more 'free' TV programmes. Ditto the internet. Last edited by 1lit; 11-23-2003 at 04:37 PM. |
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Lycos fight back vs spam | Sashman | Anti-Spam Talk For Webmasters | 3 | 12-02-2004 07:25 PM |
| [Blocking our Pops] Let's fight back [Solution] | Dave1 | Making Money with CPC and/or CPM Programs | 80 | 10-02-2004 11:37 PM |
| Blocking every ad type let's fight back | njpete | Web Design and Webmaster Issues | 16 | 12-11-2003 06:26 PM |
| Let's fight back | Dave1 | Archives of the best threads | 5 | 07-27-2001 08:12 PM |
Linear Mode
