Timeline for answer to What's the point of a delayed popup on a webpage? by Dmitry Grigoryev
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 7:43 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @Ryan I have a subscription to YouTube. I'd quite possibly also have a subscription to Stack Exchange. But it's up to them, not me, to decide how they want to make money. For all I know maybe they could make enough money selling T-shirts and rubber duckies. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 2:43 | comment | added | Ryan | @immibis And how much do you think it costs Youtube or a even moderately popular Stack Exchange site to run a month. How much do you think it costs the company to flat out power that server Joe is renting (which is probably running 24/7), and how much they pay for business class internet access, DNS, and even the domain name. Forbes says the internet costs over 100 Billion a year to run right now (100-200B in the article). Right now, advertisers are fronting most of that bill. Googles number one revenue is their Ad service. Who do you want to take over paying that bill? | |
| Jan 27, 2017 at 23:54 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @Ryan Suppose that hypothetically ads were illegal (this is the worst case scenario possible for ads). Do you think Joe Random will pull down his blog to save $10 a month or will he just leave it up without ads? | |
| Jan 27, 2017 at 16:38 | comment | added | Ryan | @immibis obligation or not, Im sure you like being able to comment such things without paying $5-10 a month. Someone has to pay for it. Even a medium sized website can cost hundreds a month, and that's not including the people maintaining or updating it. I hate ads as much as the next guy, But if done right (like Stack Exchange), Then I don't care at all. I actually like the idea of Stack Exchange existing in the future, which it seems is a foreign concept to people who block all ads regardless. | |
| S Jan 27, 2017 at 14:17 | history | suggested | Travis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
The $ sign goes IN FRONT OF THE VALUE
|
| Jan 27, 2017 at 13:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 27, 2017 at 14:17 | |||||
| Jan 27, 2017 at 0:48 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Broke The Law | @Ryan I stopped worrying about that very same thing when I realised that nobody is obligated to give a damn. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 20:49 | comment | added | Nzall | @Ryan blocking ads for me is purely a UX and security concern. On one hand, advertisers have resorted to increasingly drastic measures to show ads, with such gems as redirecting me from a T-rated game fansite to a fake App store page showcasing adult content, showing ads on videos that are longer than the video itself, and hiding the content I want to see behind a popup that doesn't have a close button. On the other, ads have been used to spread malware, ransomware and similar nasty things. Until ad companies only show responsible ads, I will keep blocking ads. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 20:32 | comment | added | Ryan | @Nzall If everyone used ABP, then everyone would have to pay to visit websites in some way. Ads make the internet work, and ABP admits that it is a bad program for the internet and actively shows its trying to improve the internet as a whole with acceptable ads. Also, they allow you to turn that off and block the ads anyway if you really want to screw over even the good websites you like that don't have subscriptions/donation methods. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | Nzall | @DmitryGrigoryev I cannot recommend Adblock Plus to any users anymore. They have an "acceptable ads" system that effectively just comes down to extortion and accepting bribes. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 16:05 | comment | added | Dmitry Grigoryev | @Nzall Thanks, I'll dig that addon up. Apparently, ABP is not the best thing out there anymore. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | Nzall | @Steve-O After a couple of bad encounters, I would probably add the domain to Ublock origin so it warns me when I try to go there. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 15:27 | comment | added | Steve-O | @Nzall But the next time you're googling for related articles, will you really avoid going back to this domain? Or will you click the link with the promising headline in search results, and not realize it's the same domain until after you get hit by the same annoying ad a second time? As far as the advertisers are concerned, the latter is still mission accomplished. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 12:10 | comment | added | Nzall | What is also possible: A user who didn't want to describe is annoyed, leaves and never comes back even if they are made aware of an article on your site that might be of interest to them, costing you ad revenue: 0.01$ loss. | |
| Jan 25, 2017 at 13:15 | history | answered | Dmitry Grigoryev | CC BY-SA 3.0 |