Current Events > We need to show ads to pay the people who create these articles for you

(+) Yeah! (+)

Are you convinced?
---

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

Soon as the mobile ads stop obstructing my screen all the fucking time, sure
---

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

As soon as ads stop making my typing be literally entire sentences behind, maybe
---

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

As soon as ads stop flashing, make any noise, take over your screen, give you malware, and or redirect you in any way shape or form, sure why not.
---

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

I kind of doubt there are enough ad-blocking users on here to make this an issue.
---

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

I kind of doubt there are enough ad-blocking users on here to make this an issue.

There's not enough ad-blocking internet users in general to make it an issue for any site, yet so many sites make a big fuss about "lost revenue" despite the fact views alone do not get them money.
---

Too many websites whine about adblockers these days.
---

Any time I hear about a company complaining about losses of any kind all I can think of is:

"Wah, now our CEO has to accept a measly 9.5 million dollar yearly bonus instead of the usual more than 10 million he normally gets!"

It's the equivalent of people that make decent money but are perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy because they're shit at managing their money and buy all kinds of unnecessary, wasteful stuff.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

SmidgeIsntBack posted...

I kind of doubt there are enough ad-blocking users on here to make this an issue.

There's not enough ad-blocking internet users in general to make it an issue for any site, yet so many sites make a big fuss about "lost revenue" despite the fact views alone do not get them money.

it depends.

Adds can cut checks based on "impressions" or "clicks"

for impressions, it's on a per-view basis. Clicks pay much much much better and the cost to run the ad is reduced but you only get paid per click.

Impressions are basically a small amount of guaranteed money for the host, but click-based advertisement could in theory result in a net negative for the host as they don't get any money for running the ad so if they run the ad and then literally nobody clicks they're out the bandwidth money.
---

bump
---

Let's be honest

Who actually intentionally clicks an ad <_<
---

I haven't seen an ad here in years.
---

You can usually use a Block Element to disable the Adblock nag pop ups.
---

>_>
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

Soon as the mobile ads stop obstructing my screen all the fucking time, sure

wackyteen posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

As soon as ads stop making my typing be literally entire sentences behind, maybe

LightHawKnight posted...

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

As soon as ads stop flashing, make any noise, take over your screen, give you malware, and or redirect you in any way shape or form, sure why not.

These. It's bad ads like these which force a lot of us to use ad blockers.
---

my favorite are ads that shadow download viruses and stuff to your computer that then harass you to call scam numbers.
---

Can't remember the last time I saw a seriously intrusive ad on GameFAQs
---

Gamefaqs should run ads that pay me to post.
---

wackyteen posted...

Let's be honest

Who actually intentionally clicks an ad <_<

There is an adblocker type add on that hides and clicks on every single ad on a Web page (and then discards the response).

The result :
You see no ads
The website you're visiting gets paid
The advertisers basically just lose money
You confuse the everliving shit out of trackers / analytics and it becomes basically impossible to get any meaningful Metadata out of you.
---

Anisoptera posted...

It's fair. Gamefaqs needs people to stop using ad-blocking programs so it can be able to afford hosting this site.

Afford what??? They don't pay for anything. Mods are working for free.

Asherlee10 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

The advertisers basically just lose money
You confuse the everliving shit out of trackers / analytics and it becomes basically impossible to get any meaningful Metadata out of you.

This is frustrating. The company I work for does a lot of online advertising, but it's never malicious or intrusive.

I still prefer the method of just asking the customer of what advertisements they want to see.
---

"This clickbait doesn't write itself, noble reader"
---

This is why you use an anti-adblock killer.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Impressions are basically a small amount of guaranteed money for the host, but click-based advertisement could in theory result in a net negative for the host as they don't get any money for running the ad so if they run the ad and then literally nobody clicks they're out the bandwidth money.

The way web ads work, and thus the way adblockers work, is that all the bandwidth a site is losing is the few bytes a <script> tag takes up.

Look at the sites that somehow "bypass" an adblocker, and you'll see that they serve up a gif or jpeg hosted on its own CDN (or pulled in via server-side tricks), hyperlinked with a long-ass "ref=" at the end. Those are the sites actually losing bandwidth, in an attempt to spite adblock.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The way web ads work, and thus the way adblockers work, is that all the bandwidth a site is losing is the few bytes a <script> tag takes up.

Look at the sites that somehow "bypass" an adblocker, and you'll see that they serve up a gif or jpeg hosted on its own CDN (or pulled in via server-side tricks), hyperlinked with a long-ass "ref=" at the end. Those are the sites actually losing bandwidth, in an attempt to spite adblock.

My post is assuming the ads are not blocked.

And many ad blockers just straight up block IP addresses of ad CDN networks anyway or resolve certain DNS to 127.0.0.1 so your computer has no idea where to find gfs45fS4vfsa23ds.marketing.gamefaqs.com but can still find gamefaqs.com.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

My post is assuming the ads are not blocked.

If they aren't blocked, the bandwidth is still coming from the ad network servers, not the website containing the ads.

1. navigate to site
2. site says "here's my content - also here's where to get all the ads"
3. ad-server says "hey, here's where that ad really is. I'll pay [website] a thousandth of a cent later."
4. ad partner/vendor/subcontractor says "here's that ad. we host it here so that the ad network has plausible deniability when your computer gets a virus or something"
5. repeat steps three and four a shitton of times

Questionmarktarius posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

My post is assuming the ads are not blocked.

If they aren't blocked, the bandwidth is still coming from the ad network servers, not the website containing the ads.

1. navigate to site
2. site says "here's my content - also here's where to get all the ads"
3. ad-server says "hey, here's where that ad really is. I'll pay [website] a thousandth of a cent later."
4. ad partner/vendor/subcontractor says "here's that ad. we host it here so that the ad network has plausible deniability when your computer gets a virus or something"
5. repeat steps three and four a shitton of times

Yes. and if literally nobody clicks on those ads, the website (not the cdn ad network) is at a net negative, where as impressions based advertisement always results in a net positive (assuming unblocked).
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Yes. and if literally nobody clicks on those ads, the website (not the cdn ad network) is at a net negative, where as impressions based advertisement always results in a net positive (assuming unblocked).

A negligible negative, of the few bytes the line of script tags consumed.
Tracking scripts usually eat up more bandwidth, as does sloppy code and whatever the hell dwPageParams is doing on this very page.

Of course, it just compounds as a site gets more desperate and starts having more ad calls than actual content. 1999 was weird.

Questionmarktarius posted...

A negligible negative,

depends on how the website is constructed and how often it's accessed.

some moron using non-minified jquery + ajax to cycle through ads could easily run up several megs worth of data if people just open a webpage and leave it there.

Of course bandwidth is so fucking cheap these days it's probably not a big deal, but here is a story of someone who got fucked on bandwidth charges from just bad head requests. the vast majority of them were probably made by bots.

https://startupsventurecapital.com/firebase-costs-increased-by-7-000-81dc0a27271d

It got resolved, but they had to get their corporate cloud host involved.
---

Ex-Kefiroth posted...

I will continue blocking ads always and forever

Even for these websites?
---