these forums have lots of ads

I've only been here a short time, but haven't really noticed, which means personally I can live with them.

At least they aren't those adds where if your mouse clumsily points over it it expands over half of your screen! - those are the worse ads. And those popups that don't open in new windows are pretty bad too.

My primary problem is with the streaming video commercials.

They should ask if I'm able to devote the throughput to them.

I open maybe 6 tabs in Firefox - throughput nearly stops on the web traffic because a video is on each page.

if you have a firefox plugin called stylish, you can use this style to remove nearly all the ads

I just made this yesterday, and it blocks some other stuff too, like post times, ill probably need a few more iterations with this style before everything is blocked perfectly

-- begin cut here --

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain("dev-archive.com") {
/*
blocks annoying stuff on the dev-archive forums
as a side effect also blocks some other content, i need to see
if this content is important enough to unblock.
by koryakm
*/
embed, iframe, .rss_box, .forums_box, #collapseobj_forumrules, center table, td[bgcolor="#f1f1f1"], a[href="http://www.dev-archive.com/"], td.vbmenu_control, a[href="http://www.dev-archive.com"], body center {
display: none !important;
}

tbody tr td span {
display:none ;

}
span.navbar {
display:inline;
}
}

Blocking ads is against the Acceptable Use Policy ( http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/privacy/aup.html) of dev-archive and will be punished by banning. Do not mention blocking ads.

Blocking ads is against the Acceptable Use Policy of dev-archive and will be punished by banning. Do not mention blocking ads.

Where is it written?
The only statement regarding ads I see is about not posting ads.

BTW: Is it forbidden not to install the Flash plug-in or to have a browser that doesn't "support" Flash, or supports it in an alternative way (e.g. require a user action to play the animation)?

my style blocks much more then ads, it also blocks some other parts of the site... so perhaps i am accidentally blocking the ads? ah crap... oh well.

I see an IP address being killed off...

Ads is a revenue generating venue for dev-archive. If we block the ads, we are slowing killing off dev-archive. Nowadays, tell me which site doesn't have any form of ads. Support dev-archive by not blocking the ads and also clicking the ads if the ads's products interest you! I do read the ads sometimes, and inform my Boss of any products which might help us in our work.

As per Brad...the forums are an intricate part of dev-archive. Attempting to block ads is a "bypass" of these features.

It isn't clear what bypassing means.
HTML is a declarative language, not an imperative language.
This can be used to render documents, extract data from documents in various ways.
Among other things, any CSS 2 browser let the user chooses the style, because CSS 2 is designed towards user customizability.

Is it forbidden to change the background from blue to white?
Is it forbidden to use Opera's "accessibility" layout?

If none of these two are forbidden, then, I don't see why setting display:none to divisions that the user isn't interested in would be forbidden.

Is it forbidden to use FF or Opera "see links of page" features which can be seen as a feature that blocks *everything* except links!
Are pop-up blockers forbidden? This is an ads blocking feature enabled by default in IE7.

I think there should be a much more detailed policy.
A list of allowed and forbidden browser features should be listed.
You may say something like:
"
You cannot download any page of this forum without rendering it entirely either on screen or on printer, with a CSS 2 conforming user agent, with the default stylesheet, with an ECMAScript binding that supports all features used by dev-archive. You cannot view/use the document in ANY other way. You mustn't look at the source code. You mustn't do any statistics on it. You mustn't bookmark any page (that would allow you to bypass ads). You mustn't separate iframes from their enclosing page. Flash animations must be rendered before there's any user interaction. You must SEE all the ads (be careful with browsers which have scroll bars and make it easy to jump over an advertisement without seeing it). Disabling Flash or ECMAScript is strictly forbidden.
"

To avoid problems, a very restricted list of allowed browsers should be listed, with a description of how to browse without violating the rule.

This is against the spirit of the Web. The Web is flexible, declarative, and permits features you would never have thought of!

dev-archive is free of giving the policy it wishes for people who suscribe. I just think that I'll delete my account.

You didn't see this one?

http://www.gainesville-rent.com/Images/Win100Header.jpg ;)

We can't do much against that.

Our brain is used to ignore ads.
If you want some text on your site to be ignored... Simply make it looks like ads. Most people won't "see" it.

Agreed,
I don't much notice the ads anymore, even if they're supposedly "subliminal" they don't seem to be affecting me much in terms of my purchasing choices or what I think about or want to buy. I suppose you do become sort of immune to them over time.

...or neuronal exception suppression
We can't do much against that.

Our brain is used to ignore ads.
If you want some text on your site to be ignored... Simply make it looks like ads. Most people won't "see" it.

Granted, I may have exaggerated a little :D :wave: ... But, I've heard news about MS reading brains, MS's patent that allows them to charge every time a hospital performs an ECG ("obtaining body informationby electric reading of nervous components" or some other blah-blah, maybe in Miami), Wifi radiation killing birds in their eggs, and Tobacco companies wanting to short-range broadcast in a frequency that interferes brain waves, so... I'm being left thinking and a great plop...

(Note to self: stop watching "X-Files" and the such for a while... :D )

Blocking ads cuts off dev-archive's revenue stream. The revenue pays for servers and the costs of running a web site.

Granted and in full concordance with the precept, but...

Just like television - don't watch the ads, the shows and series you like go away -- or worse - the ads become more intrusive. Did you see the Mountain Dew ads in the Transformer movies....

Granted, again, but with a HUGE difference: TV ads are "merged" with the conten and blend to provide their value without unbalancing the scenes they appear into. That's the essence of product placement. You see a nice SUV? Then the SUV does what SUVs do. That's in "24" or in "CSI", not in "Gilmore Girls" or "The L Word". You see a Coke? Then the coke's being drought, it's not a flying parrot. Drink a bystander, one more of the crowd, character, not for the President during his videoconference with his Russian simil.

(Note to self: stop watching "24" and the such for a while... :D )

Web ads are making the effort, but surely they are not hitting the jackpot if the ads is, as are in some sites, a p0rn ad in an anthropology archive site. In our case, with specialized content comes specialized, targeted ads, but targeting value is somewhat lost when, again, the ad takes 1/3rd of your content.

Ads are a pain. I don't like them either, but I understand that a site has to pay its bills. I also am of the frame of mind that blocking ads is equivalent to theft. As such, I've choosen to never block ads. I've seen some of the alternatives sites can use to make money. I'd rather put up with annoying ads.

I don't get where, how or who from did you get that idea, but, despite its backwards-utilitarism sense I will concede to it for now and as follows: If blocking ads equals theft, then those who block ads are thefting from a theft, ala Robin Hood, because the intrusion of the ads are forcibly, unquestoinably, and unauthorizedly taking their bandwidth for which they have to pay for. I'd rather steal back something that has been stole from me, that just "accept" to be a sitting duck, cordial victim, who can be played along with it at all times.

Also, this idea comes against the very basic economics of third party services. Let's check Service Trade Markets 101 and Market Law 101: if you're A and you're being paid, by B, everytime A offers a potential client, C, a pamplet about B's products, which C receives, then:

it can't be theft if the potential client C walks to A, and says, "wha, wait, before we begin our biz, don't hand me B's stuff" and acts accordingly. You're not handed the offer, and if you've, the client has not accepted it anyway, so it can at most be a potential sale lost, never a theft.
Not only that, it must not be theft if A forces the pamplet into C's hands despite C trying to resist, which is how currently web ads operate. If for a legal standpoint, that should be harrasment and probably bribing from A's part (and on a minor term colusion from B's part), never theft from C's part.
What can be considered theft, or at most evasion, is if the client C accepts B's offer from your hands but will publicly deny having ever done so. Which is not the case here.

Of course, that's under the assumption that B is a legally enabled agent that willingly and ethically acts on the market under no conditions of offerent-side stress (understocking and the such). Which in our case I want to believe.

The AUP maybe enacts not being able to block ads in any way, but it does not say, and it can't say, that I'm legally enforced to have the ads violently shoven up my, and also that I can't comply about it. That's harassment at least, legally.

It can be argued that the individual loss is minimal for end user in terms of ad-generated traffic, but if you multiply for a couple visits a week, easily some share participation a month, and with, again, 1/3rd of cotent view lost, then the opportunity cost of bloking the ads become SO important.

Brad!
<< One last comment - the irony of this whole conversation is that we don't look for ad blockers. As such, the only way we'd know you are blocking ads is if you tell us. It is kind of like being a shop lifter at a store and yelling at the store manager on the way out to tell him you are stealing something under your shirt... If you simply don't say anything, we'd never know. Of course, posting instructions on how to shoplift on the store's front door is likely to get the store to ask you to never come back. >>

Yeah, that was that made ad-related therads so fun to me, you never knew wether you were whistling or screaming your ways in and out of it...

On the note of CG and the stance you guys have taken about this (I mean the administrators and all that stuff) I have to say I congratulate the CG staff for being the most ad-serving/targeting/blocking/adapting-aware staff in a LOT of forums I've run into. No one besides CG will at least give the option to "Expand Forum to full width" to begin with :D. So let's hope those efforts go to the better.

Luchin_plusplus -
Nice reply.

Thanks.

One thing I think your points leave out -- As a user you choose to come to this site. That is similar to walking into a mall, a store, or a fast food restaurant. In walking into a store -- or signing onto our server, you made a choice to come into 'A''s place of business. If A stated that to come into his place of business you have to accept his pamplets about 'B', then once you walk in, you need to be ready to accept the admission price of 'B'. That isn't harassment and such, it is simply the ticket price.

I hear so many people say that sites 'forceabley' make them accept ads. In truth, those sites didn't make you come to them. You chose to go to those sites. If we were pushing ads to people that didn't come to our site (aka Spam) then I would agree with your argument; however, you didn't get our ads until after you choose to go to http://www.dev-archive.com. ;) :)

I agree that the terms of service are enacted upon the user ("C" in my examples) enters the site, however, you should consider what it is to the visitor, if upon the first time he enters a site (or store), you tell him that they've been legally enforced to take up pamplets about a third party. Specially if those terms were not printed on your store's windows and front door (equivalent to say that the ads terms of service are not printed in the CG main page, before the user actually reaches content), as you talk about "A stated that to come into his place of business you have to accept his pamplets about 'B'", which for most web sites is simply __NOT__ how they are working.. The only known, almost well implemented exception I can think of righ now is Devianart... Otherwise, is just like poeple in the suburbs that are already living their happy lives and then "by decreet" they are forcedto pay a road/train company a monthly fee because their houses are in the route plan and therefore they are "consuming the company's resources" (here in Chile, this happens everyday).

Furthermore, it is true that one only gets the ads once one visits the content, and it is true that the ads in this site are the most content-aware of all forums I've been revisiting, so you guys have done an already great job vy holding the ads in sync with the content in terms of presentation, sans the infamous 1/3rd width ad.

...Rather, it is a web issue.

The key to a successful ad-supported web site is to make sure the content and community are more valuable than the annoyance caused by the ads. My job with this site is on the content -- not the ads. I fight the constant battle of trying to raise the standards in order to offset what our ad guys do to us.... They don't always make it easy.... :eek:

Anyways, that's why I was talking about what things can not be, not about what things are. If I were this informed about things "are", I may be prompting myself to Jupitermedia's staff... :D:D:D Just to make sure we were not viewing the current state of things under a point of view that is actually damagin for the relationship between B and C.

But I see things are quite advanced and for the most part the right choices are being made and being fought for, so I can calmly walk aside and let things flow for the time being. I'v already monopolized this thread with my views on the subject, it's the time to proove I have the confidence in yours' ability to handle things as fits best for the comminuty, after all you've been doing quite well inmy so ad-unfriendly opinion.

Thanks for all the effort made and for listening and debating my perspectives. I'm off to enjoy the site for now.