| I think they can say they feel it borders on unethical (which is the impression I got from it). Along the lines of: "ok so you can block our ads, but that's a bit sucky guys :(" On the topic of your article (I assume it's yours?): I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads, no distractions. A few pages at the back maybe, but I can ignore those. Books are nice. I assume you can see the difference here? In terms of forcing you too look at the ads. I dont think the ars article tries to imply that either. They are saying they would appreciate it if you looked at their ads. Please. I dont know if you have seen the ars site with ads but they are one I personally unblock: they aren't particularly in your face, are generally aesthetically pleasing and I also like their content (some of the best on the web). Encouraging that approach is a plus IMO. If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down. Seems a "shoot yourself in the foot" scenario. Chances are people wouldn't actually pay monetary cost for your content - people hate doing that generally. Adverts are "zero cost" to a consumer :) most are happy to swap free content for a few adverts. Why is it unethical, as your seemingly suggesting, to do that? :) |
I looked at the ads on Ars briefly, both animated Flash ads, one for razor blades and the other I couldn't even tell what it was selling. I admit to being very emotional about this, and I can understand how some people can tolerate these, but I can't.
I'm uncertain I see your point about books. Are you asking why I can ignore the ads in the back of books, but not ignore the ones on websites? Because it's possible to read the book start to finish without any knowledge whatsoever that the ads exist. It's trivial to ignore them. If the ads on websites were all relegated to some page I had to deliberately navigate to, that'd be similar.