Price is one thing that should be taken into consideration.įree versions usually allow some form of acceptable ads, which also allows websites to make money. With a number of different products available on the market, competition is too fierce.
This stops inappropriate content from being displayed.
This allows non-intrusive ads to be displayed.Ĭontent filtering is another useful feature that you might want to look into. Acceptable ads and whitelisting are the features that are worth considering. However, in certain cases, these ads can interfere with the usability of the website or the application.Īd Blockers can restore the user experience of such websites and applications by withholding ads from being displayed.ĭue to the competitive market of ad blockers, many come with a lot of added features. To make money, the publisher displays adverts as a way to generate revenue. Many websites and applications offer their content for free. Whether its a website or your favorite mobile game, Pop Up Blockers can stop ads from showing up.
None of this is to say that adverts aren't often annoying, intrusive or unwanted - but it's an argument that isn't made enough by publishers, and even so it may not brook much sympathy with you.An Ad Blocker is a software product that blocks internet ads. But I accept that it's an argument that isn't made enough by publishers - and that it may not brook much sympathy with you. It would be more than a little two-faced to want people to pay for my content with their attention and then effectively remove my attention from other peoples' sites. I don't, not only for these reasons put forward by Ars Technica, because money made through advertising pays a good proportion of my wages and other reasons. Indeed, a few weeks ago during a discussion here about the iPad, somebody in the comments asked me if I used AdBlock, and if not, why not. Well, ad blockers are popular online - I certainly know from the comments that plenty of you use plugins like Adblock plus. It's an interesting dilemma in a world where publishers are increasingly looking at paywalls, but users remain far from enamoured by the concept of having to pay for website subscriptions. The analogy they make is to a restaurant: ad blocking users are dining for free, even if they don't think they are. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. Last week the site, part of the Conde Nast empire which includes magazines such as Wired, Vogue and the New Yorker, tried an experiment so that users running ad blocking software also had the content blocked. That myth has been exploded by Ars, which ran a post yesterday called "Why ad blocking is devastating to the sites you love". Now, the common argument put forward by users is that it makes their online experience better and that since they were people who would never click on adverts anyway, it doesn't make any financial difference to the site they visit.