Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . . . 29 NEXT
 

Marter:
If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thanatos2k's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Aardvaarkman:
So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thantos2K's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Perhaps they weren't reported. We go through the mod queue when warning posts. You're now asking me to mind read. I can't do that.

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

None of our moderators are intimidating, though.

So, what is "License to Ban" supposed to convey then, warm friendly hugs? A potential poster could easily be intimidated by that display into not speaking freely.

It's meant to be casual and jokey, which is something I value over professionalism.

lacktheknack:

It wouldn't be secret. You'd have to use a .sig or similar to indicate that you were also a mod or an employee.

...so you immediately ruined the point of removing the moderator account. Cross that one off the list.

No, it doesn't remove the point. It separates the user's personal account (with no special privileges) from the employee's account (which represents the company).

...and then immediately associates the mod with the user account again. You may think that this distances the actions between the two, but you'd be wrong.

lacktheknack:
Nope. Just nope. Jesus Christ, where does the internet FIND all these people who mistake police for soldiers with assault rifles?

In many countries, the police are soldiers with rifles.

You are not in one of those countries. 99% of us are not in those countries. I'd estimate that 30% of the users here conflate the two, despite not having grounds for it.

lacktheknack:
A policeman standing on a street corner is not threatening at all.

How about a policeman standing on every corner? How about a squad of police dressed in full riot gear with shields?

We have less than ten mods, all but three of which rarely even appear. That's not "every street corner" by any means. Hell, I wouldn't describe the three mods we see often as a "squad". And how do you drag riot gear into this?

lacktheknack:
A policeman relaxing is NEVER threatening.

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

False. Utterly false and wildly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you think that's a "regular" thing, please leave the internet and join the real world for a bit.

"Regularly assault people", my massive fucking ass. A policeman has to go through multiple background checks, tons of training, and then are put under extremely tight rules, as well as get tracked in the field, in the office, and even get GPS units attached to their car so there isn't an inch of wriggle-room for error on the job, all so they can experience the glory of dealing with massive shitheads and/or high-stress situations daily for the rest of their career. And then someone breaks under the pressure in a completely different department and suddenly they're the bad guy. Because fuck da police.

It's like you don't think they're human, talking about them like that, when in fact, they're humans held to much higher standards than you'll ever be held to. Gain some perspective.

I honestly can't believe you thought "X regularly assault people without cause" would be a thoughtful or insightful comment. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

I wonder if you've considered that your flippant little line right there could be seen as "personal attack". Because it totally can be.

Aardvaarkman:

IceForce:

If someone had a sig on all of their posts that said "Oh by the way, I'm also a mod on a separate account", that defeats the entire purpose of what you're proposing.
Because then everyone would know that user is also a mod. So you might as well just give that person a blue username and all the other things that mods get to identify themselves with.

No, it doesn't defeat the purpose, because when the user is posting their personal opinions, it would be clearer that they are not speaking on behalf of the company. It also means that the "personal" account could be warned/suspended/banned for violations without affecting the moderator account.

It provides a separation between the person's official role, and their personal interactions on the site. But like I said, it would be better if the moderators weren't involved in personal activity on the forums at all.

If you look at Topaz's strong personal opinions expressed on this thread, it doesn't give much confidence that s/he has impartially moderated the thread. Especially when the topic of this thread has involved so much discussion of moderating practices.

Because reading these opinions coming from "FopazTusion" with the sig "Hi! I'm a mod!" totally boosts your confidence in moderation, right?

Yeah, not buying it.

Also, it's difficult to "know a community", as you suggested earlier, if you never interact with it.

Aardvaarkman:

Marter:
If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thanatos2k's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

Also, I don't think it's that hard to imagine that a mod can comment and reply at the same time.

lacktheknack:

It's meant to be casual and jokey, which is something I value over professionalism.

It certainly doesn't come across that way, especially when the posts from that person have been anything but jokey and casual, and more on the spectrum of "willing to use the small amount of power I've been given to impose my will."

lacktheknack:
And how do you drag riot gear into this?

Since you started talking about how police aren't threatening.

lacktheknack:

False. Utterly false and wildly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you think that's a "regular" thing, please leave the internet and join the real world for a bit.

Oh, I have been in the real world. I've been in completely peaceful protests, where the protesters are charged with police in riot gear, and sprayed with tear gas. When they posed absolutely no threat. I've seen them drag homeless people away for the crime of being homeless.

You said police are NEVER threatening. That means it can never have happened even once.

lacktheknack:
"Regularly assault people", my massive fucking ass. A policeman has to go through multiple background checks, tons of training, and then are put under extremely tight rules, as well as get tracked in the field, in the office, and even get GPS units attached to their car so there isn't an inch of wriggle-room for error on the job, all so they can experience the glory of dealing with massive shitheads and/or high-stress situations daily for the rest of their career. And then someone breaks under the pressure in a completely different department and suddenly they're the bad guy. Because fuck da police.

And yet, police assaults happen regularly. Like every day. How is that not regular?

lacktheknack:
It's like you don't think they're human, talking about them like that, when in fact, they're humans held to much higher standards than you'll ever be held to. Gain some perspective.

Actually, they get away with more than most of us ever will. Police are often pardoned for some seriously sick behaviour.

lacktheknack:
I honestly can't believe you thought "X regularly assault people without cause" would be a thoughtful or insightful comment. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

Why? For speaking the truth?

lacktheknack:

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

This:

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

Yes. That's totally what policemen do.

How fucking DARE you say that about my family?

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

It's meant to be casual and jokey, which is something I value over professionalism.

It certainly doesn't come across that way, especially when the posts from that person have been anything but jokey and casual, and more on the spectrum of "willing to use the small amount of power I've been given to impose my will."

You've clearly never talked to Topaz outside of threads-that-cannot-be-locked.

lacktheknack:
And how do you drag riot gear into this?

Since you started talking about how police aren't threatening.

I said a policeman standing on a corner, under pretense of being watchful.

When the riot gear comes out, that's more or less never the situation anymore, and you know that.

lacktheknack:

False. Utterly false and wildly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you think that's a "regular" thing, please leave the internet and join the real world for a bit.

Oh, I have been in the real world. I've been in completely peaceful protests, where the protesters are charged with police in riot gear, and sprayed with tear gas. When they posed absolutely no threat. I've seen them drag homeless people away for the crime of being homeless.

You said police are NEVER threatening. That means it can never have happened even once.

Actually, I said a policeman relaxing is never threatening.

Which they aren't.

Police in response to something are threatening, yes. But that's not what I was talking about. And neither were you: You were talking about mods simply existing in threads with blue names and comparing it to "demilitarized zones". Because nothing says "I have perspective and know what I talking about" than comparing a police presence to a demilitarized zone.

Also, you say the people at the peaceful protest posed no threat: I don't believe you. Every time I hear about peaceful protestors getting tear-gassed, I look into it and find out they were actually screaming profanity, threatening to burn things and generally edging towards rioting. Hence the riot cops.

lacktheknack:
"Regularly assault people", my massive fucking ass. A policeman has to go through multiple background checks, tons of training, and then are put under extremely tight rules, as well as get tracked in the field, in the office, and even get GPS units attached to their car so there isn't an inch of wriggle-room for error on the job, all so they can experience the glory of dealing with massive shitheads and/or high-stress situations daily for the rest of their career. And then someone breaks under the pressure in a completely different department and suddenly they're the bad guy. Because fuck da police.

And yet, police assaults happen regularly. Like every day. How is that not regular?

Source, please. Our city's last unwarranted police assault was last year.

lacktheknack:
It's like you don't think they're human, talking about them like that, when in fact, they're humans held to much higher standards than you'll ever be held to. Gain some perspective.

Actually, they get away with more than most of us ever will. Police are often pardoned for some seriously sick behaviour.

Can you actually back this up with anything that's not publicized to hell and back?

lacktheknack:
I honestly can't believe you thought "X regularly assault people without cause" would be a thoughtful or insightful comment. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

Why? For speaking the truth?

it's funny because you think it's truth and not gleaned entirely from sources that only portray bad news. It's funny, because you think highly publicized things are common. it's funny because you think that because it happens a few times, it must happen constantly.

What you've said is not the truth, no matter how much you desperately want it to be.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

When it's [Edit:]now possible to detect ad blockers then the unblocked views should be paid for in full not cut by a % because those registered views probably had a new blocker.

You're not making any sense here. The ads are paid for in full. The ads that are blocked are taken into consideration.

Not by all agencies.
Essentially a site can give their unblocked view counts to an agency and they will reduce that count by a % claiming people will block using undetected methods.

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

Aardvaarkman:

Why is it "theft" when people block ads, but not when people ignore them?

The job of an advert is to try and attract attention to get a person to desire or care about something, if it is easy to ignore and or people don't care then the advert is at fault.

But how is it the ad's fault if it plays while the person is out of the room making coffee? It doesn't matter how good the ad is, if there is nobody there to watch it.

Yet it being allowed to play and having the potential to be seen is what counts

Aardvaarkman:

The_Kodu:

there are ways and means to tell who is ad blocking these days.

Yes, I know there are ways of detecting when ads are blocked. What's your point?

A lot of companies aren't willing to pay actual decent prices for the adverts even now when unblocked views can be counted.

lacktheknack:

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

This:

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

Yes. That's totally what policemen do.

How fucking DARE you say that about my family?

How is that a personal attack? Firstly, it wasn't directed at you. Secondly, it's a simple statement of fact. Abuse by police happens all the time.

Thirdly, "threatening" doesn't just mean abuses of power. Heck, police are trained to appear threatening as a means of extending power.

Have you not noticed how police clothing has gotten more militaristic over the years? It's turned sharply away from a "dress uniform" style to "SWAT team" style, especially since the supposed "war on terror" (more like war on civil liberties).

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

Aardvaarkman:

What personal attacks did I make?

This:

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

Yes. That's totally what policemen do.

How fucking DARE you say that about my family?

How is that a personal attack? Firstly, it wasn't directed at you. Secondly, it's a simple statement of fact. Abuse by police happens all the time.

Thirdly, "threatening" doesn't just mean abuses of power. Heck, police are trained to appear threatening as a means of extending power.

Have you not noticed how police clothing has gotten more militaristic over the years? It's turned sharply away from a "dress uniform" style to "SWAT team" style, especially since the supposed "war on terror" (more like war on civil liberties).

Well, when you swing a bucket of feces freely, you're going to hit someone with it.

Refer to my previous post for the abuse and threatening parts.

Also, no. The police here are still in dress uniform with vest. You're talking about American police, presumably, who I can't comment on. Neither of us can, since we're in Canada and Australia.

lacktheknack:

You've clearly never talked to Topaz outside of threads-that-cannot-be-locked.

Why should I have had to? I've seen his/her posts in this thread. They weren't exactly comforting and lacking in hostility.

lacktheknack:

I said a policeman standing on a corner, under pretense of being watchful.

And since when did that encompass the entirely of police? And when the hell does that ever happen anyway? Police usually don't just stand around on corners being watchful. If there's a policeman doing that, it's probably for some other reason.

lacktheknack:
Actually, I said a policeman relaxing is never threatening.

Again, not true. A policeman relaxing while his partners beat the shit out of someone is quite threatening.

lacktheknack:
Also, you say the people at the peaceful protest posed no threat: I don't believe you. Every time I hear about peaceful protestors getting tear-gassed, I look into it and find out they were actually screaming profanity, threatening to burn things and generally edging towards rioting. Hence the riot cops.

You'd be wrong. It's more often the case that the riot cops escalate the situation. Riot police usually aren;t called in to control a pre-existing riot, but to create one.

You say it yourself "edging towards rioting" - not actually rioting. And you have to remember that the media is usually extremely biased in these cases. I've seen it first-hand. People who are absolutely peaceful, who get attacked by police, and then it's reported in the media as being the protestor's fault for being violent.

lacktheknack:
Source, please. Our city's last unwarranted police assault was last year.

That you know of. You do know that most of this stuff never gets officially written ump right? And that's just your city. How many cities are there in the world?

lacktheknack:

Can you actually back this up with anything that's not publicized to hell and back?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Does the Rodney King case not count because it was publicised? It's curious that you'd add that clause.

lacktheknack:

it's funny because you think it's truth and not gleaned entirely from sources that only portray bad news. It's funny, because you think highly publicized things are common. it's funny because you think that because it happens a few times, it must happen constantly.

But it does happen constantly. I know it from personal experience. Usually when a police officer assaults someone, it turns into a charge of the victim assaulting the police. That would be a good proxy for how often it happens - every time you see someone charged for assaulting the police, it's pretty safe to assume that it was the other way around.

Aardvaarkman:

lacktheknack:

You've clearly never talked to Topaz outside of threads-that-cannot-be-locked.

Why should I have had to? I've seen his/her posts in this thread. They weren't exactly comforting and lacking in hostility.

Well, if you never see them anywhere else, then clearly they don't need to change their appearance for you.

lacktheknack:

I said a policeman standing on a corner, under pretense of being watchful.

And since when did that encompass the entirely of police? And when the hell does that ever happen anyway? Police usually don't just stand around on corners being watchful. If there's a policeman doing that, it's probably for some other reason.

Well, this all started with comparing mods to a "police-watch".

lacktheknack:
Actually, I said a policeman relaxing is never threatening.

Again, not true. A policeman relaxing while his partners beat the shit out of someone is quite threatening.

Why do you take things completely literally one moment ("Never threatening!") one moment, but in the same thought pattern, embellish it insanely?

You're... you're just trying to win. You don't want to actually improve anything or foster proper debate, you just want to win. Why else would you resort to double-mindedness?

lacktheknack:
Also, you say the people at the peaceful protest posed no threat: I don't believe you. Every time I hear about peaceful protestors getting tear-gassed, I look into it and find out they were actually screaming profanity, threatening to burn things and generally edging towards rioting. Hence the riot cops.

You'd be wrong. It's more often the case that the riot cops escalate the situation. Riot police usually aren;t called in to control a pre-existing riot, but to create one.

You say it yourself "edging towards rioting" - not actually rioting. And you have to remember that the media is usually extremely biased in these cases. I've seen it first-hand. People who are absolutely peaceful, who get attacked by police, and then it's reported in the media as being the protestor's fault for being violent.

That's why the media always sides with the protestors.

...wait...

lacktheknack:
Source, please. Our city's last unwarranted police assault was last year.

That you know of. You do know that most of this stuff never gets officially written ump right? And that's just your city. How many cities are there in the world?

Hundreds of thousands. That WEAKENS your argument, actually. Are you asking me to count literally every case of cop abuse in the world and then say "that's a lot"? Because an intellectually honest next step would be to divide that count by the number of police forces in the world.

lacktheknack:

Can you actually back this up with anything that's not publicized to hell and back?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Does the Rodney King case not count because it was publicised? It's curious that you'd add that clause.

No it's not. These cases are publicized BECAUSE they're unusual.

lacktheknack:

it's funny because you think it's truth and not gleaned entirely from sources that only portray bad news. It's funny, because you think highly publicized things are common. it's funny because you think that because it happens a few times, it must happen constantly.

But it does happen constantly. I know it from personal experience. Usually when a police officer assaults someone, it turns into a charge of the victim assaulting the police. That would be a good proxy for how often it happens - every time you see someone charged for assaulting the police, it's pretty safe to assume that it was the other way around.

As someone with ties to the police, I can safely say that you horribly underestimate just how seriously the police force takes police brutality. Your proxy is bullshit.

I have no interest in continuing this. Your rhetoric changes on the drop of a hat, you stop acknowledging any points I make when you have no rebuttal, and you have no respect for what's obviously a hot-button issue for me, instead choosing to relentlessly slam it, say stuff you blatantly pulled from your hat and completely derail the original conversation. I'm out.

I leave you with this: There's not even a snowball's chance in Hell that your suggestions on how moderation should work will be considered if this is how you present it.

lacktheknack:

Well, this all started with comparing mods to a "police-watch".

It wasn't me who brought up the police analogy, it was TpoazFusion.

lacktheknack:
You're... you're just trying to win. You don't want to actually improve anything or foster proper debate, you just want to win. Why else would you resort to double-mindedness?

Nope. I don;t give a crap about "winning." What the hell would I win? I'm just here to have a discussion.

lacktheknack:
As someone with ties to the police, I can safely say that you horribly underestimate just how seriously the police force takes police brutality. Your proxy is bullshit.

Your ties to the police don't help your credibility or impartiality on this matter.

lacktheknack:
I have no interest in continuing this. Your rhetoric changes on the drop of a hat, you stop acknowledging any points I make when you have no rebuttal, and you have no respect for what's obviously a hot-button issue for me, instead choosing to relentlessly slam it and completely derail the original conversation. I'm out.

So, it can be a hot-button issue for you as someone with "ties to the police" but not for me, who has been the victim of police assault? Do you have any respect for that?

My apologies. I did not intend to derail the situation or insult you, I was just speaking my mind.

lacktheknack:
I leave you with this: There's not even a snowball's chance in Hell that your suggestions on how moderation should work will be considered if this is how you present it.

The off-topic tangents are really unfortunate. And no, my ideas are very unlikely to become a reality.

But consider this: the conversation probably would have stayed firmly on the topic of ad blocking if it wasn't for the intervention of some completely one-sided moderators.

The thread started off as one of the most remarkably civil threads in Jimquisition history until the mods showed up. Then it got even worse after a couple of others showed up and started accusing people of stealing because of different opinions.

Wow, that's one hell of a tangent you guys got there. It went from metaphor to "I'm personally offended you think that about a metaphor and here's 12 reasons why!" It's almost deserving of its own thread actually.

Aardvaarkman:

Marter:
If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thanatos2k's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Should I assume this is you admitting that you've been reporting every post you are fighting a losing argument in?

Please. I personally don't care about winning any argument on the internet.

Zachary Amaranth:

KisaiTenshi:

As for how this relates back to the ad blocking discussion, the analogy to ad blocking for TV is using your own PVR, not the cable companies, so you can fast forward through commercials. The channel you watch may prohibit fast forwarding, and many Cable company owned VOD services disable it at the request of the broadcaster.

Wait, is this real? It's been years since I had cable (and therefore, a PVR is useless to me), but I never met a show I couldn't skip the ads on. And that was with a provided PVR.

Depends. If you have Motorola hardware, they indeedly do prevent fast-forwading on VOD. Every program on VOD is "Please note, that fast forward is disabled for this program", I'll also note the commercials on VOD are shorter. Likewise if I go directly to the premium channels websites and watch VOD directly, they won't let me skip the commercials sometimes.

https://www.facebook.com/twc/posts/231604266941493

Time Warner Cable
Disabling fast-forward is an option requested by the broadcast networks as part of their agreement to allow us to offer OnDemand for their programming.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/disney-exec-praises-ad-supported-vod-with-fast-forward-disabled-cable-show/

Disney Exec Praises Ad-Supported VOD With Fast Forward Disabled: Cable Show

Comcast and other cable operators hope to land series that might go to subscription streaming services such as Netflix by offering opportunities to broadcast them on VOD with ads, and the fast forward disabled.

The cable-company owned PVR can be made to prevent fast forwarding as well, but that's why third-party models exist that hook up to the firewire port. What you're going to see is more VOD-only or VOD-exclusive programming. VOD is run through the same headend as PPV is, just VOD will only let you watch what you already subscribe to (for no additional cost,) while PPV will let you watch anything, once, for a cost. Usually the 5C is set to copy-never for VOD and PPV. So your PVR can't record it.

And to repeat, Cable companies are calling their VOD services "PVR" experiences, and some providers (particularly satellite) may do Push-VOD that actually schedules the show to be downloaded to all devices, regardless if you watch it or not.

As for how this comes back to the ad blocking issue, you can't block it. Not in the US anyway (Europe's DVB standard is a bit more hackable.)

If you hit your audience with invasive, annoying, and occasionally even harmful ads, you are harming the audience's ability to enjoy the show. At that point, you begin shedding viewers in direct proportion to their personal tolerance levels.

Any entertainment venue which relies on ads therefore faces a balancing act: how to bring in the maximum amount of revenue while losing the minimum amount of audience. This should be, and is, obvious, regardless of how many tangents and distractions may abound along the way.

Television survived and thrived for decades on advertising revenues because it understood that ads needed to entertain --- NOT ANNOY. The more obnoxious one's ads are, the more likely they are to drive one's audience to go do something else.

This is not changed by complaining about how "unfair" people are when they say the ads are invasive, annoying, and occasionally even harmful. Such concerns do not disappear merely because you dismiss or ignore them.

Two extremes exist here. At one end, everybody gets everything for free, the creators get nothing, and the entertainment dies as soon as its production becomes too cumbersome to maintain out of sheer love. At the other, you've implemented advertising methods so noisome that your only real viewers are those with pre-paid no-advertising subscriptions. The problem here is that The Escapist is now edging towards the latter extreme.

There will always be those who feel so self-entitled that they will AdBlock anything and everything merely because they can. They are not your paying customers.

These are NOT to be confused with those who raise concerns with substance behind them. Again, it doesn't matter if you think you can cobble together a rationale to dismiss the substance; it's still there. These people ARE your paying audience, because they WILL put up with advertising to a point.

So what call does The Escapist really have to make?

It boils down to what percentage of their paying customers they are willing to drive away, in exchange for (presumably) more-profitable forms of advertising. There is a point of equilibrium, beyond which it's simply a game of diminishing returns.

That's all there is to it.

Zachary Amaranth:
I thought it was 90 seconds. But you know the funny thing? In the threads I saw on it, users largely responded by saying that silence was still worth adblocking, which probably didn't set forth the message they wanted.

Well yes, ad blockers are perpetuating a selfish behavior at heart, so it's no surprise they act petulantly at first when punished for it. However, you'd have to be truly stubborn to waste your time like that over the long term.

In most cases, people will rage audibly while hypocritically caving when no one can see them.

Wouldn't the simplest answer be, playing commercials in your content... Like, oh I dunno, every TV show ever made ever, literally make it a part of the content itself?

It would be unblockable. We would have to watch it, and suffer what, 30 seconds of advertisement while to this day TV shows regularly put 10 minutes of adds in with a 30 minute time segment?

This could then make any other adds completely less intrusive, because the ads necessary are already there?

You can't tell me in this day and age it is impossible to embed an ad as a part of your content?

ultreos2:
Wouldn't the simplest answer be, playing commercials in your content... Like, oh I dunno, every TV show ever made ever, literally make it a part of the content itself?

It would be unblockable. We would have to watch it, and suffer what, 30 seconds of advertisement while to this day TV shows regularly put 10 minutes of adds in with a 30 minute time segment?

This could then make any other adds completely less intrusive, because the ads necessary are already there?

You can't tell me in this day and age it is impossible to embed an ad as a part of your content?

They would have to edit the video and replace it with one without it when the campaign ends since the use rights expire, which is more effort. But you're right, Jim's videos are perfect places to throw product placement in as opposed to arbitrary baked-into-the-video adverting you can't actually click on. Jim could just as easily go "here's the website for the current thingy I'm holding in my right hand *spell it out*, and for the thingamajig in my left hand *spell it out*"

Podcast people do it. And you can still skip over it. You can't usually skip the prerolls because the player doesn't let you. But you don't always see the prerolls either (go the earliest videos on Zero Punctuation, the only ad on it is at the end for the Subscription service, which is a separate video.)

ultreos2:
Wouldn't the simplest answer be, playing commercials in your content... Like, oh I dunno, every TV show ever made ever, literally make it a part of the content itself?

It would be unblockable. We would have to watch it, and suffer what, 30 seconds of advertisement while to this day TV shows regularly put 10 minutes of adds in with a 30 minute time segment?

This could then make any other adds completely less intrusive, because the ads necessary are already there?

You can't tell me in this day and age it is impossible to embed an ad as a part of your content?

This was already addressed by a staff member, a number of pages back.

If they embed ads directly into their videos here, they would have no way of removing them when serving the videos to people who've paid for an ad-free premium membership.

They would have to store TWO copies of every video; one with ads and one without, effectively doubling the amount of server space required to host them.

So... They effectively shot themselves in the foot?

But then really, they already effectively have two copies of everything. One an ad free version, the other an ad filled version.

If it is truly that hard to accomplish something like that in this digitally advanced era we live in, I'm going to have to call bull. Double the amount of server space? You can literally detect ad blockers coming into your site. That doesn't double the server, yet something like this would?

They already have two direct clones of their site, one with ads, one without.

This doesn't double it? And it's impossible to change it?

This is our extent of technological development? We have tivo which can literally fast forward, and some cases remove commercials, but the Internet? That's just too hard?

No really. Please do go on about how our technological advances make things like this an pipe dream.

IceForce:

ultreos2:
Wouldn't the simplest answer be, playing commercials in your content... Like, oh I dunno, every TV show ever made ever, literally make it a part of the content itself?

They would have to store TWO copies of every video; one with ads and one without, effectively doubling the amount of server space required to host them.

I have a somewhat limited understanding of how the advertisement systems work, but to my knowledge, that isn't the only issue with serving advertisements. As I understand it, advertisers don't trust websites self-reported numbers for unique pageviews and total viewership. Most companies who serve ads do so through their own backend, which includes trackers that pay attention to viewership numbers on their own. Advertising companies do this so they know they're getting "accurate" (or at least information they trust) information on the amount of advertisements served.

There are other issues, as well, but I'm not as aware of those details, so I don't really feel comfortable responding on that topic. Kross has made some excellent points in several posts. I encourage reading this one, despite its length. As well, this one and this one.

For most purposes, advertising and budgeting are both topics with a pretty amazing number of moving parts. That's what makes threads like these so difficult, how do you take what on the face sounds like a very good idea, and outright deny people because it just doesn't work out that way in practice? Part of why discussions like this are so difficult for everyone involved.

ultreos2:
This is our extent of technological development? We have tivo which can literally fast forward, and some cases remove commercials, but the Internet? That's just too hard?

No really. Please do go on about how our technological advances make things like this an pipe dream.

In this case, that's not completely accurate. Websites can have relatively few lines of code to verify ad blocking, compared to a video content, which is literally data. It would effectively be two videos, one with ad files literally part of the video (increasing the file size) and one without. This would be two video files, with two respective sizes, both of which would need to be hosted on and served by the servers. Short of compression, there's not a lot that will change the fact that video files have a definitive size. There's also tracking issues that way, referenced in this post, among others I'm unaware of.

That's not to say these ideas are definitively impossible, but in this instance, probably unrealistic. The Escapist is a relatively small team, and redefining a lot of code all at once isn't possible overnight. Especially with other issues that need to be addressed in practice as well. I don't doubt many websites are experimenting with this and slowly moving toward new systems. But until someone manages to address all of the problems at once, in a financially viable way for most companies, the current system is used so commonly because of its ability to fund sites like this one.

Just my thoughts, can't speak for its 100% accuracy.

ultreos2:
But then really, they already effectively have two copies of everything. One an ad free version, the other an ad filled version.

If it is truly that hard to accomplish something like that in this digitally advanced era we live in, I'm going to have to call bull. Double the amount of server space? You can literally detect ad blockers coming into your site. That doesn't double the server, yet something like this would?

They already have two direct clones of their site, one with ads, one without.

This doesn't double it? And it's impossible to change it?

This is our extent of technological development? We have tivo which can literally fast forward, and some cases remove commercials, but the Internet? That's just too hard?

No really. Please do go on about how our technological advances make things like this an pipe dream.

Oookay, I'm going to cut off this conversation with you right here, because you clearly have no idea about the technology of which you speak, and I can't be bothered explaining it to you.

See NewClassic's post on the previous page, if you're really actually interested in this, and not just here to clutch at straws.

... Am I the only one that doesn't get all of the malware ads everyone keeps saying they get?

Maybe it's because I'm that one dude that likes to run MalwareBytes every other day and Avasts, Malwares, and Spybot: Search and Destroy's the computer weekly, but I've really never had an issue with ads breaking the computer.

As for annoying ads, again, I must be blessed or something, since I don't subscribe to the Escapist and the ads I do deal with are, for the most part, pretty good. There WAS this one really annoying about craft somethings or something or other that always kept expanding into the reply box in comments that pissed me off, but it was a really small complaint compared to everything. I never run adblock because I honestly don't feel that the ads are annoying enough to warrant its use in any capacity, really. :/

ThunderCavalier:
... Am I the only one that doesn't get all of the malware ads everyone keeps saying they get?

Maybe it's because I'm that one dude that likes to run MalwareBytes every other day and Avasts, Malwares, and Spybot: Search and Destroy's the computer weekly, but I've really never had an issue with ads breaking the computer.

As for annoying ads, again, I must be blessed or something, since I don't subscribe to the Escapist and the ads I do deal with are, for the most part, pretty good. There WAS this one really annoying about craft somethings or something or other that always kept expanding into the reply box in comments that pissed me off, but it was a really small complaint compared to everything. I never run adblock because I honestly don't feel that the ads are annoying enough to warrant its use in any capacity, really. :/

I honestly don't do half of what you do and I really haven't had malicious code in years. Not since Vista I think.

And I look at a LOT of porn. Seriously. Gads of it. And that's where all the worst stuff is supposed to come from.

ThunderCavalier:
... Am I the only one that doesn't get all of the malware ads everyone keeps saying they get?

Maybe it's because I'm that one dude that likes to run MalwareBytes every other day and Avasts, Malwares, and Spybot: Search and Destroy's the computer weekly, but I've really never had an issue with ads breaking the computer.

As for annoying ads, again, I must be blessed or something, since I don't subscribe to the Escapist and the ads I do deal with are, for the most part, pretty good. There WAS this one really annoying about craft somethings or something or other that always kept expanding into the reply box in comments that pissed me off, but it was a really small complaint compared to everything. I never run adblock because I honestly don't feel that the ads are annoying enough to warrant its use in any capacity, really. :/

I have never received any malware from ads. The worst crap I have to see is when someone links me to something that ends up being on a file sharing site and I'm bombarded with 42 download boxes, none of which are the file in question.

I have Spybot S&D, and that's currently my favorite. Ad Aware was the first though, however all these programs are trying to be antivirus products now and it's a bit obnoxious.

Ugh when I used to work at a computer store they used to make us upsell Norton Security Suite AND Spyware Sweeper, and yet I'd use Spybot to actually detect the malware. Protip: Computer stores hate you if have no antivirus/anti-malware tools and/or fail to update them. If you're too lazy and cheap, install the free Microsoft stuff, that's better than nothing. Otherwise, yes please keep coming to us so we can wipe the machine out at 120$/hr instead of you paying for an anti-virus product.

ThunderCavalier:
... Am I the only one that doesn't get all of the malware ads everyone keeps saying they get?

That or you're just lucky and didn't get hit by it. Even with my legitimate browsing (IE: No Pronz) I was served a milicious advertisement from a sidebar on a machinima site as well as one from Gamespot. Both of these I reported, but that was enough for me to want to clamp down on the whole issue. I'd much rather be safe than sorry when it comes to infections and vetting scripts is part of the whole case.

That said, I do want to support content I like, and part of that rolls into paying for the subscription I have on The Escapist. While it's a modicum amount of money once it's all split, I get to view the site without ads and as far as I can tell there's no qualms with that since I'm paying for the content I'm viewing. (Safe to say that overall Jimquisition is the reason I'm continuing to pay here.)

Other sites are a different story, and I white-list on a case-by-case basis. If I like the content and feel the content creator has done a sufficient job to earn some money (because let's face it, with the landslide of content on Youtube, we have the Steam Early Access problem there as well) I'll white-list the page enough to be served the advertisements provided they follow a few rules.

1)Advertisements cannot be longer (or bigger) than the original piece of content I am there to read or view.
2)Advertisements that are image-based SHOULD NOT automatically push audio.
3)Advertisements that cause a flag for any security reason will result in being blocked once more for the entire domain.

I understand the need for advertising revenue and I understand the frustration that has to be there for the guys that are responsible for making sure everyone gets paid, but ultimately the advertisers are the ones that have damaged their own business model by being 100% TOO DAMNED GREEDY and being unable to audit their security practices. Advertisers pushed too hard and not only annoyed users but put their systems at risk. Users then decided to defend themselves by blocking potential scripts and content that was a known source of difficulty.

Seems like the B& hammer is being swung pretty hard in this thread, i think i'll just play it safe and just say
THANK GOD FOR JIM

Ever since Kotaku gave me two separate malware/worms/virus/evilcomputerthings I never turn off Adblock completely. I do try to remember to turn it off when I watch videos here, though if I could watch it in HTML5 without a pub account so I could watch it on my Wii U, that would be great (although I understand why/if the E! wants to keep it the way it is).

grimabepraised

I started watching this video expecting to really disagree with you, Jim. I run Adblock, I'm not proud of this fact but it's something is, in my experience, absolutely necessary for using the internet safely these days. This is after several incidents where the Adservs for the websites I had thought trustworthy played ads that hijacked my browsing session, attempted to install malware on my computer, and used my Amazon log-in to search for Porn thus embarrassing me when I logged in to my Amazon to show my mom how to order something and found my recommendations page flooded with Hentai DVDs and Sex Toys.

How am I under any obligation to view the content of an Adserv when the Adservs themselves cannot be bothered to properly police the content that is uploaded to them? I am of the opinion that once data gets onto a person's computer, no one else has the right to tell them how it can or cannot be compiled. This goes for Game Modding as well. If Advertisers are going to be so incredibly irresponsible that they will release ads that break formatting, crash browsers, auto-play and drown out videos we're trying to watch and allow their customers to spread malicious software around the web, does that not mean that the individual user has not only a right but an obligation to protect themselves from it.

I'm not going to disable Adblock but I do like that many sites are offering Subscriptions and I think the Subscription model is the way to go. It allows people to support sites they like, it allows content creators to continue to work without both sides being shackled to an increasingly irresponsible Internet Advertising Industry.

You have convinced me Jim. I'm going to be buying a subscription.

Well, I'll give it some thought Jim, that's all I can say, but how about this. I only remove adblock just for the part of the site where your videos are? I mean I prefer a case by case decision rather than going full frontal.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . . . 29 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here