On 23/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Surely the content wouldn't exist to link to without the adverts being present - paying for the publishing of the content. Ad blocking is short-sighted and selfish - you are costing the publisher money and preventing more content being produced in the future. Pretty unethical. <blogpromo type="blatent"> http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2005/10/ad_blocking_and_why_its_a_bad_thing </blogpromo> J
I whitelist sites that I use regularly, and find useful; I just don't like ads intruding on my every click. If a site gives me good service, not only will I unblock the ads, I'll even pay. For example I have whitelisted pages that firefox extension developers use for feedback etc. and regularly click them in order to help generate revenue. I have also unblocked pvponline as I read it everyday and it gives me pleasure. I even payed $20 (well £10.37) for extra content. On the other hand I refuse to unblock slashdot as the ads are overly intrusive, if they were google ads, or other text only ones I would gladly unblock them. I happen to use a firefox plugin, but there are many pay for products that block ads are the people who sell them "unethical"? Personally think making me click next half a dozen times to artificially increase your page rank is unethical; but that's just me. Vijay
