Please ATS Members and Non-Members alike, STOP Blocking Ads- Or there may be NO ATS at ALL

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Since everybody seems to know the owners business better than he.

Here's my two cents...

Hold a live event in the middle of nowhere.

Have Bands, sell crap, hell why not try and contact ET ?

Here's the hook...make giant pillows. Build a giant ring.

Cause, I would pay a bundle to pillow smack the crap out of a few members.

That would only work if everybody was forced to wear a little name tag saying "hello my name is..............."

You are right, I would pay good money to "meet" some of the "members" on here.

I would pay to have access to the trash bin as well. That would be worth a tenner a month.

originally posted by: whyamIhereCause, I would pay a bundle to pillow smack the crap out of a few members.

Seems you know their business better than they do.

telling someone to stop using ad blocker is really the same as telling them to buy a product. its their choice if they wish to or dont.

Not to be disrespectful, I've enjoyed the last 15 or so years on ATS, but I've had my fair share of explicit advertisements on this site - I also believe we have the choice to disable internet adverts, forced advertising in general is a thing of the past anyway.

On the cost side: I'm used to engineering web apps that get several million sessions a month and the hosting costs are minimal... around $100 a month, and that's with redundant infrastructure sitting around not doing much.

At the end of the day, inefficient site code (I'm assuming the forum software hasn't changed that much over the years...) and lack of proper caching / other performance optimising techniques are going to run the bill up massively, no doubt.

I'm happy to offer some help if the right people PM me.

Phil

So, I took a small (seriously small) niche discussion board website and revitalized the core technology (several times), integrated new advertising methodologies, applied innovative community management strategies, and in six years grew it from a site with 200,000 ad impressions a day (and 50,000 monthly unique users) to one with 12 million ad impressions a day (and 3.8 million monthly unique users).

www.linkedin.com...

With 1 million impression per day and only banners you should get ~300-1000$ per day.
With interstitials and banners ~700-2000$ per day.
Multiply those numbers by 12....

ATS will be OK, no need for the melodramatic thread. Just a case of enough not being enough for the owners.

a reply to: fill0000

I never implied our actual costs were close to $3,000/month. Only that quotes from VPS providers were in that range, when someone was tossing around $5-$10 to host ATS.

Our dedicated sever solution is indeed much less.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: StallionDuckThe only thing I have yet to notice is the ability to upload pictures. I haven't seen anything else as of yet. Funny though... If I REALLY needed to upload the pictures, I could just turn off AB then turn it back on right after the upload. Seems kinda a pointless thing to take away from AB users.

Mm.. just testing.. uploading proof..

Yup. Seems to work just fine. So, perhaps somebody came to his/her senses and switched it back on.

Not sure what you're using but I get this message when I click on the drop down tab and choose the uploads link:


You're blocking ads, so cannot upload images on ATS.

If you disable ad-blocking, it will take a few minutes for uploads to reappear.

It seems that other sites have introduced this too, so it looks like a concerted effort...who is pulling the strings?
S.O., who 'told' you to introduce this anti adblock initiative, as it is too coordinated to be coincidental?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Well, what can I say. Either the ATS admins have granted me a special privilege or my setup is different from yours (or both, possibly).

originally posted by: aorAki
It seems that other sites have introduced this too, so it looks like a concerted effort...who is pulling the strings?
S.O., who 'told' you to introduce this anti adblock initiative, as it is too coordinated to be coincidental?

I direct your attention.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The business of ad-blocking extensions/plugins for your browsers has turned into that of extortion. I went through significant pains to revise our entire ad delivery system to use delivery technology that qualifies for white-listing from these companies. Meaning, the way we place ads onto ATS should qualify AboveTopSecret.com to allow "approved" ads to appear. Next, nearly 70% of all our ad providers have white-listed alternatives -- meaning, if an ad-blocker is detected, they select a (lower paying) pre-approved ad to appear.

And even the ad networks that show unapproved ads in the ad-blocking companies eyes are the best of the best. I've spent time reviewing their code, their policies, how often they scan for malware/viruses, what code they disallow, etc.

Good. I did everything a site owner/publisher can do. So I applied for White-Listing.

Given our traffic, that would cost us over $5,000 per month.

Yup.

White-listing from these shake-down artists is not specific to the ads, it's specific to the domain on which the ads appear. So even though we have ad alternatives available to use that would comply with their "behaving ads" standards, we still need to pay in order for those to appear.

In fact, their code has gotten so strict over the past few months, I can't even swap out a static image (JPG/GIF/PNG) to replace an ad they block.

Maybe that's it?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a fine explanation why SO decided to block the blockers, but does not answer aorAki's question why (as he suggests) there seems to be a concerted effort to block adblockers.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a fine explanation why SO decided to block the blockers, but does not answer aorAki's question why (as he suggests) there seems to be a concerted effort to block adblockers.

So imagine that you, me, and Aaorki live on the same street. If someone tried to set fire to my house last night, would it not make sense that the three of us would work together to keep each others houses from being burned down???

What I don't get: how S.O.'s explanation doesn't become an obvious connection here.

im already a member of fabletics

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexanSo imagine that you, me, and Aaorki live on the same street. If someone tried to set fire to my house last night, would it not make sense that the three of us would work together to keep each others houses from being burned down???

Er.. well, no. In such cases you try to put out the fire and if that does not work you alert the firebrigade and the police. Roughly in that order

But - we're not discussing the malpractices of arsonists here. Setting a persons house on fire is illegal. Blocking ads is not.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexanSo imagine that you, me, and Aaorki live on the same street. If someone tried to set fire to my house last night, would it not make sense that the three of us would work together to keep each others houses from being burned down???

Er.. well, no. In such cases you try to put out the fire and if that does not work you alert the firebrigade and the police. Roughly in that order

But - we're not discussing the malpractices of arsonists here. Setting a persons house on fire is illegal. Blocking ads is not.

I suppose I could think a little harder to create a different metaphor....but the point was pretty well laid out.

Not all forms of extortion are illegal. That is what S.O. states is at play here. You asked a question, and it was answered. If you want to argue the validity of what S.O said, you will need to take that up with him.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a fine explanation why SO decided to block the blockers, but does not answer aorAki's question why (as he suggests) there seems to be a concerted effort to block adblockers.

So imagine that you, me, and Aaorki live on the same street. If someone tried to set fire to my house last night, would it not make sense that the three of us would work together to keep each others houses from being burned down???

What I don't get: how S.O.'s explanation doesn't become an obvious connection here.

I don't understand the comparison with burning a house down and an ad blocker.

It's more kin to virus protection than a house fire.

Let's say 'Crime Society Black Hat Pirates' hacking group has a forum where you go to find all sorts of neat stories and 'how to' on coding. Now, this site may be ran by hacker nuts but they're reputable for their content. Except... They decided to put out a virus that affects everyone that goes to their site that locks your system down, forcing you to pay them money to unlock it. Instead of doing this, you decide to use a virus scanner.

Oh no... You can't do that. It goes against the TOS of the website!

Still you continue to go there because you love their guides and stories their forums provide, even though those guides and stories are made up of 99% of their member's time and searching spent finding the content. The site merely holds the content and the members who contribute get only the privy of posting what they know and find to the site. The site is a reservoir of other peoples hard work, time and effort. But not only do the owners of the site charge the readers but the contributors also by trying to infect them all with a virus that locks your system and holds it for ransom.

Now... Another website that is similar in every way except that instead of hosting information about coding, they host a site on sailboats. Also, instead of hacking your system and locking it down demanding money from you, they use analytics that track your every move and produce intrusive ads that annoy you as well as follow you around based on those same analytics. The ads also track you and steal your history (YES they DO) to see where you've been, what you've bought before and where you're going to go from there on out. They're intrusive and invasive.

To stop this, you use an ad blocker. NO! You can't do this... it goes against the TOS.

Both sites want to get paid. Both sites intrude on your personal property and information. Both sites try to use you to get money for their own sakes when their members are the ones contributing the content they use to sell you, or simply trade you for your time, your information, your privacy and/or your locked down system. Both sites take over your computer and demand that doorways are opened that they should have access to. They even check your side of the system to figure out if you're using an ad blocker. They're doing the SAME THING against you that your ad blocker is doing to them.

We the users, the owners of said systems, are simply closing those doors and choosing what we want to see and give up. Websites like this enjoy dictating what we should and shouldn't do because we're on their turf... their little piece of dirt on the infinite expanse of internet. They deem information should NOT be free. If they pay, so should you.


How dare anyone tell me what software I put on my computer. How dare anyone tell me what I should do with MY information about ME and MY personal browsing habits. How dare anyone tell me that I must submit to their will because they need me as a contributor of time, money or resources when I only wanted to be a reader. I believe I'm doing them a great deal of worth just by being a poster on this site. If they cant get credit because of my 'fire wall', then they can get it from someone else who doesn't care about the ads. I feel I contribute enough.

The alternative...

Lets just say that everyone has a choice. I mean, you're pretty much saying it with the blocking of picture uploads....

Don't use an Ad Blocker and be able to post content (remember, they use this content to pull in money to be able to host this content).

Use Ad Blocker and not be able to post content (the same content needed to lure people in to help pay for the content that they use to pull in money to be able to host this conent).

Damn that's a hell of a catch 22.

I remember the days when people ran websites because it's what they loved and they were grateful for the people who enjoyed their content. That's like asking someone to pay you just to let them see your art work.

Bill: Hey! My friend Sara created a beautiful work of art...
Bob: Let me see!
Bill: Not until you pay me 100$
Bob: Wha...? Hell no...
Bill: ok... what about you let me show you a few advertisements for new cars.
Bob: I don't want to see ads about cars
Bill: How else am I going to pay for the paint that was used to make this art?
Bob: You didn't paint it! Someone else did!
Bill: Well, I rent the building so you can see the art.
Bob: Maybe she has her own home she can display it and show it to me.
Bill: She does but I have a copy of the art in mine along with a bunch of other art copies from other people.
Bob: Wait.. This is getting stupid! So you just copy art from others and display it in your building and charge people to see it?
Bill: Yeah but not only that, when you look at the art, there is a camera and computer that takes a snap shot of you and picks up your credit card history so it knows where you've been. They sell that to other........
Bob: Are you frigging kidding me right now? WTF is wrong with you?




You want a compromise? Go back to posting image ads instead of code. Go back to the OLD way of ads that weren't so damn intrusive. My ad blocker wont block those... Oh wait... the ad companies wont pay you for that?

Sounds like the problem is with the ad companies. Not me!

Nuff said!

originally posted by: theySeeme
a reply to: TrueAmerican

This is total B.S. As a computer programmer and web developer with over 13 years of experience I can without a doubt say that a site on the traffic and size (of database/text) could easily be hosted on a 15-25$/monthly plan.

This is not about ATS closing, it's about someone wanting to make a profit off of the website, nothing more.

So it's bad for them to pay for (and build) the site and then want to make money off of it, but it's OK for you to shame people for "wanting to make a profit" while utilizing the thing, that their labor created, for free?

All of that aside, all of us are able to freely use web services such as ATS because of advertising. Why is generating a profit a bad thing??

originally posted by: theySeeme
And personally, I think people should be concerned that this is happening considering anything good that has ever headed in the direction of profit has never lasted or remained a thing of quality.

Except every single thing that you have ever purchased in your life that you deemed as having quality.

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

originally posted by: theySeeme
a reply to: TrueAmerican

This is total B.S. As a computer programmer and web developer with over 13 years of experience I can without a doubt say that a site on the traffic and size (of database/text) could easily be hosted on a 15-25$/monthly plan.

This is not about ATS closing, it's about someone wanting to make a profit off of the website, nothing more.

So it's bad for them to pay for (and build) the site and then want to make money off of it, but it's OK for you to shame people for "wanting to make a profit" while utilizing the thing, that their labor created, for free?

All of that aside, all of us are able to freely use web services such as ATS because of advertising. Why is generating a profit a bad thing??

They didn't create the content. They created the house to hold it. You should really read more posts here then you'll get an idea about what ads really do.

It's like asking a bunch of carpenters to build you a house for free then charge them to live in it so you can pay the taxes on the land. While you're at it, you take all of their personal information and sell it to someone else so you can reap a little more reward. But... It's YOUR house.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexanI suppose I could think a little harder to create a different metaphor....but the point was pretty well laid out.

Well, just to help you out a bit here, you might Google 'pizzo'. A well concerted effort to protect somebody from coming to harm.

Not all forms of extortion are illegal. That is what S.O. states is at play here.

I'm sorry, but you are utterly wrong: ALL forms of extortion are illegal in all parts of the civilised world. Wikipedia explains this fairly well: "Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, individual or institution, through coercion. "

I did not coerce anybody into anything, let alone I used coercion to obtain something. Actually it's more the other way around: ATS offers me a Smörgåsbord - and I don't want to grow fat, so I simply decide to limit myself to the healthy stuff.

Now, dear sir, if you or anybody else who reads this feels I'm guilty of extortion, I urge you to immediately contact ATS staff so they can call the police. Staff have my e-mail address and it is not very difficult (and especially not for the police) to find out who I am and where I live. Take me to Court, I dare you! Actually: you MUST because if you don't in many countries you are guilty of the offense of not reporting a crime.

You asked a question, and it was answered. If you want to argue the validity of what S.O said, you will need to take that up with him.

I did not ask a question. I did not argue about anything (though I could and with good reason). If you really want to know what my stanza is on the idea of ad blocking, you may want to read this article by a fellow of Oxford University I agree with most of what he says.