Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Adblockers to save online ads? Google thinks so
Google -- the granddaddy of internet advertisers -- says it's not worried about extensions for its Chrome browser that block or eliminate ads on websites. Well... that's interesting. Apparently Google feels that advertisers will make an effort to ensure their ads are less annoying and people will soon see their benefits. Or at least that is the hope over at Google headquarters:
So will "less annoying" ads be enough to stop people from using ad-blocking browser extensions? I'm not sure. I am inclined, however, to agree with The Register's Cade Metz. Metz believes the effort required to download an ad-blocking extension and properly use it might be too many clicks for the average user."There will always be some group of people who want to block ads for personal reasons. But if we do a good job on the advertising side, people won't want to block ads. People will find them actually useful."
| Yes, I already use one. | |
|---|---|
| Nope, too much work. | |
| I just ignore the ads. |
I don't really see this working out in Google's favor (or in the favor of any ad company). With the exception of a few elegant ads that I've come across, I think most people won't bother to install ad-blockers, instead they'll just do what they've always done - ignore them. Online advertisements is a hot button issue to begin with and Google allowing ad-blocker extensions in their browser has almost no correlation with their desire for people to use it. As long as the extension doesn't violate any terms, they have no grounds not to accept them.
Be sure to check out our weekly Chrome Corner posts for other Google Chrome news, tips, and extensions.
Comments
25
Subscribe to commentsnot yayJan 2nd 2010 3:48AM
DRM inside is a deal breaker
alarmproJan 1st 2010 10:19PM
I run AdBlock Plus for FF and AdThwart for Chrome. I also use a good HOSTS file. I hate flash ad's that scroll down the screen with you, and annoying blinking ads taking up 50% of my screen real-estate. Also, ads these days consume quite a bit of bandwidth that increases load-times to unacceptable levels.
I don't mind the ads on downloadsquad.com but I wish they wouldn't try to disguise them as real articles (it's deceptive).
I will gladly accept some ads if they are not so "in your face" about it. Until then, my screen is nice and clean.
not yayJan 2nd 2010 3:09AM
IF
ads did not SLOW the load of a given page
AND IF
ads were not a platform from which to deploy malware to users with admin privileges
AND IF
ads were not a wide scale 'mesh' to collate and track user behavior, interest, identities, and relationships
AND IF
ads were never lascivious
AND IF
ads were NEVER content interstitial
then maybe
I might disable adblocking on a select basis
not yayJan 2nd 2010 3:13AM
Chrome does NOT currently have an ad BLOCKER. Chrome has hiding: NOT the same.
Iron DOES have built in ad BLOCKING; Iron is a much better fork of chromium.
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/iron/?S
JacksonJan 3rd 2010 3:16AM
The poll results aren't surprising. Not because most people already use an ad-blocker, but because the voters really don't represent average internet users. Basic users -- the vast majority -- don't read internet-related blogs, and these users are the least likely to take the time to install an ad-blocker, or even know such a thing exists.