[Rainer]

Of course, ads consume bandwidth and load on your systems. However, coming back to the core of all this - PZ is, just like all the other content sites, not a free service. That is a misconception. The ads and all their related costs (bandwidth, power consumption and, yes, also the annoyance) are the price tag. It's an implicit price tag but nonetheless a price tag.

Regardless of the reasons behind all this, the ad blocker battles are part of a "war" that cannot be won by either side because most of the relevant sites will either have a paywall (which is what no publisher wants) or are gone forever. At the end of the day, ad blockers are a lose-lose technology.

 

Is this so?

 

And if, are viruses and other malware distributed via the so beloved ad-channel

also part of the payment the "customers" must be willing to pay?

 

Which responsibility do you as a content-provider take?

Are you liable for the damage your ad-content does on the 

computers of your readers?

 

Honestly Klaus, you have a very very biased view. A view that I do not share.

A view that will likely force me to end my time in PZ sooner or later.

 

If ad-blockers are a lose-lose technology ... so are ads!

 

Rainer

[Klaus]

Is this so?

 

And if, are viruses and other malware distributed via the so beloved ad-channel

also part of the payment the "customers" must be willing to pay?

 

Which responsibility do you as a content-provider take?

Are you liable for the damage your ad-content does on the 

computers of your readers?

 

Honestly Klaus, you have a very very biased view. A view that I do not share.

A view that will likely force me to end my time in PZ sooner or later.

 

If ad-blockers are a lose-lose technology ... so are ads!

 

Rainer

 

If ads were a serious security problem then big enterprises would have been among the very first to have ad blockers in place. Enterprises have A LOT more to lose than any private person. 

Yet I have never experienced nor heard that this is common practice. In my other life I'm working for a company that is nothing short of mad about internal IT security and ads are not blocked. So you really think that you know more about web security than the combined security departments of the Fortune 500? 

I've surfed the internet since the dawn of time and never caught a single problem from web browsing (emails are a different topic).
 
Even if we assumed that ads were a major security threat these days, then any site could inject them. Ads are javascript or flash-based and these technologies aren't exclusive to ads. So if I had the criminal energy to do it (assuming that this is still easily possible), I could implement an exploit and, most likely, hide any traces. So following your hypothesis all websites impose a security risk and should not be visited. But obviously ad-blocker users have no issues surfing the web.

 

The real threat in the web are not viruses or trojans anyway. These are very obvious big bombs that are easily detected these days (on OS level) and as such barely worth an effort. The real threat is mass surveillance and mass data accumulation - this is where the money is.

 

Now I give you one thing - disable flash. Flash is outdated and not well maintained. Software (including browsers) is never bug free. Bugs can result in security threats. Browsers and their built-in Javascript engines are extremely well maintained and updated (except on Android). Flash is not. The ad companies have to learn that flash in no longer a viable option in the year 2016 (the use of flash in ads is already rapidly decreasing anyway). And yes, even I have a flash blocker in place that lets me choose whether the flash content should be executed.

 

If you are paranoid, disable cookies (which, curiously, is also something that ad blocker users rarely care about) in order to limit the ability of Google & Co to generate a profile about you (they already got it anyway ...).

 

Regarding your statement that you'd to never visit PZ again - we welcome all readers that help us to keep the site up and running. Now if you don't allow ads nor donate nor pay a future subscription (with ad-free option), what remains exactly ? If nothing whatsoever remains then ad blockers are a lose-lose technology.

[Guest]

There was a problem on yahoo (I forget how long ago but I think in the past 12 or 18 months) where an ad did carry malware. I forget it i was in the javascript or if you had to click on it; I didn't really pay attention to the details but rather just skimmed it. As a general rule as much as possible i disable javascript and I don't click ads unless I am trying to support a cite and am actually making a purchase.

-

I don't want to enter the debate because both sides are 'right'; I.e, it cost money (both people and material) to run a site and ads can be annoying depending on how they are handled (there are a couple of site I dropped because they became overly aggressive with ads to the point that the site was no longer pleasant to use; I'm pretty close to dropping yahoo news which I used to think was fantastic). I do not use ad blockers beyond disabling java-script (btw i was pissed off when the newer browsers disable the ability to disable javascript).

-

My personal opinion is if the site is expensive to run and the only way to add new content is via asking for payment (i.e, ads are not sufficient); then you have to ask for payments. The next step would be how to ask for payment; whether it is via donations; to do certain things (like upload images;  view reviews; comment in forums) or general access as a whole is your choice. If I find the model acceptable I can meet the terms and if I don't I can walk away. There are a lot of sites and they have made different choices (fredmindra, photo.net, dpreview, (and tons of non photo site)). I can't say which model is correct where correctness mean users will find terms acceptable and you will meet your financial goals; I can say the wrong choice might have a negative impact but you won't know till after the fact and if the impact is mild you can always adjust. These are tough decisions and I'm glad I don't have to make them. I do like your forums because they are low traffic and mostly sane and I do like your reviews though sometime I would like a bit more data (lens by self as well as lens+specific body and different distances) but there are other sites that provide other pieces of data (slrgear, dpreview, lenstip, ...) so most of the data it out there in some form or other.

[Rainer]

If ads were a serious security problem then big enterprises would have been among the very first to have ad blockers in place. Enterprises have A LOT more to lose than any private person. 

Yet I have never experienced nor heard that this is common practice. In my other life I'm working for a company that is nothing short of mad about internal IT security and ads are not blocked. So you really think that you know more about web security than the combined security departments of the Fortune 500? 

<div>I've surfed the internet since the dawn of time and never caught a single problem from web browsing (emails are a different topic).
</div>

 

Is this what it comes down to?

 

Of course Klaus, you certainly know a lot more of whatever it takes to operate a website than I do.

 

However, in my other life, I am a member of a team developing and operating a large (I mean a LARGE)

remote-service platform for a big player in the top 500 ... and, yes, derived from that, I can without

any understatement say, I do indeed know a little bit about security issues. We have about 300.000

systems connected to our platform (each of these of a value between a few thousand bugs and

many millions).

 

And to the other thing you appear to have never heard of ... how easy do you think it is to inject

junk into the farms that ad-distrubutors use and from which they feed the readers of all platforms

that allow the distribution of ads by just refering/including stuff from other websites.

How do you think, the really big networks of private computers that silently participate

in massmailing of spam or DDOS attacks (without the knowledge of their owners) were build?

By sending personal invitations by mail? Get reasonable! A good share of these computers were

infected by malware injected via malicious ads ... not genuine ads by the original ad-provider

however by malware that uses this channel. By forcing your readers to allow this

channel unfiltered, you are not making their lives easier.

 

Rainer

 

PS ... I already used Tcp/Ip years before there was such a thing as a world-wide-web.

[Klaus]

Again, Reiner, any site owner can all do that what ads are doing.

The risk potential is identical because the used technologies are identical.

 

You may argue that serious sites would never do that. However, just enter photozone.com or .net and you are already visiting sites that are not quality controlled in any serious way (at some stage photozone.com showed porn images for instance). Thus it can happen accidentally at any time. The secondary sites that are piggybacking on typos for the real targets are all over the place. Very simple example. Hacked sites, DNS highjacking - there are a gazillion ways to turn websites into potentially evil places.

 

At the end of the day you have to trust the security mechanisms in your browser and operating system or stop surfing altogether.

 

I can understand that readers are using ad blockers - who loves ads after all - but the security argument is a weak one really. If security was the primary concern, you would run a security plugin but not an ad blocker.  

It's not as if security plugins don't exist (Avast Security Online, 360 internet protection, security plus). These plugins are much more efficient than an ad blocker. 

 

FWIW, the company that I am working for in the other life is using network scanners. Thus all webtraffic is analysed for viruses and trojans. THIS is the serious way to do it at scale.

[Rainer]

Late to the thread... I will state I do use adblock (abp + ghostery combo) as standard on my personal computers, but on my work ones ads get through. If I load the front page on my work laptop (can't remember exact CPU, it is a dual core Broadwell with HT) with all ads showing I hear the fan spin up and CPU usage goes to 30%. Close the page, it goes away. So I'm in the group "I'm not against advertising, but I'm against intrusive advertising", and my threshold of what counts as intrusive might vary from others.

 

I just did a quick check with my android tablet (small x86 dual core HT cpu plus opera browser and ad-block).

I  surfed various sites (not PZ) that are notorious for their ads.

 

If i switch off ad-block and I switch opera to desktop mode, some pages get loaded up

with so much ads that the tablet becomes entirey unresponsive ... and that is just the blinky-blinky-

and the poppy-uppy-stuff ... the flashy-flashy stuff doesnt get executed due to a missing

flashplayer ... in mobil mode its by far not that bad.

 

With ad-block activated i do not notice any load in either mode.

 

But according to Klaus, its ad-block thats from the dark side ... not exessively resource consuming

ads. These greedy ads are just as bad. But if the number of page-hits goes down, the only

compensation the ad-makers are comming up with is more ads per page ... rather than 

more intelligent and/or better made ads.

 

And btw ... there are indeed ads that I really like to see ... well done, informative ... even funny at times ...

far too few of them are arround these days.

 

Eventually we should use a browser on Windows that claims to be in mobile mode?

Ok the page layout gets ugly ... thats why I switch my opera to desktop mode.

 

In the end, Klaus is right ... someone has to cover the costs.

So, PZ will either become a site with pay-content (which would be fair enough)

the danger is, that the number of remaining readers might become marginal.

Or PZ will enforce users to switch of ad-blockers ... again, some readers

will go away then.

Or PZ will close down.

I do entirely agree with these arguments and the conclusion that follows from them.

 

I do NOT agree with the strongly biased judgement against ad-blockers.

 

Localy, unwanted ads by mail or by telefon are often a case for legal 

action against the one who sends the ad ... and these cas are often won.

 

However, if I go into a local mall, there will be ads on the display ... if I do not

want to see then, I should not go there. But ... I do not have to color my hair,

or wear a pointy hat to go there ... so everything has its limits.

And misuse of recources on my computer belongs to this. If 

the usual content of a page would be displayed ok, and the additional ad 

brings the browser into a state were it only can be killed, something has gone too far.

 

Rainer

[Klaus]

Hey, I never said that ads aren't evil in terms of resource consumption.

I only stated that ads are a necessary evil. 

I mean let's be serious - other than running this site I am also just another average Joe surfing the web.

It's not as if I don't see what ads are doing to the battery life of my laptop. 

But other than disabling flash, I accept them because I am enjoying to read the wealth of information out there and very few things in life are for free.

[Guest]

Just an additional comment. I suspect that problems with viruses/trojans will get worse.

A major newspaper's online portal in Switzerland was targeted, twice in a few days.

http://bazonline.ch/digital/internet/ern...y/19684342

 

[popo]

I've just signed up to access my first paid platform: Vessel. I hadn't heard of them until recently but they do ad-free videos for US$20/year, and some of my fav youtube channels are on there. In addition you can get a time advantage in seeing new content as they post there in advance. But note this is a platform, not a single channel, or site. I think that is the pain barrier that needs to be overcome for subscriptions. I don't want to think about paying small amounts for lots of small sites. I don't mind a bigger amount for a collaboration of multiple sites through one system. Note ad-free is from the platform, creators can still do inline ads in their content.

 

In a quick search of the thread I also don't recall seeing Patreon mentioned. I kinda looked at this but I'm unconvinced on the value of it yet, but still interesting regardless. They try to come up with a system where you can make a regular payment (taxed, with fees) and in exchange the receiver may offer various perks depending on what they're doing. I follow some artists (in general, not through Patreon) and for example, they have some exclusive content, or early access. But the flaw I see in this system is the overhead. At small payment levels it is proportionately painful. I think they do lump together anything you participate in, so it should get much better as the total increases, but at my interest levels I still find myself supporting directly e.g. purchasing of merchandise or commissions.

 

And finally, I asked before but don't recall an answer. Is there still an amazon affiliate system at Photozone? I can't find it if it is still there. I do buy random junk from them fairly regularly so would redirect some of those through the link if there is one. I do support other sites through this method already.

[soLong]

Deleted.