Thats almost like saying, PVR's should be banned as users have the ability to forward through them and skip advertisements. Or other channels must be banned, so if you are watching serial XYZ on channel ABC, you must continue to watch it including the ads and not skip it.
However, you look at it, if you try to block users, people will just drive traffic away from that site as it is no longer considered as "compliant". Compliancy states that there must be a norm which all users have equal and open access. Give it time, I'm sure someone in the US will sue the website owner on the grounds of non compliance, or inaccessible information, or something similar where you are being biased.
If you want to see something stupid, visit hdfcbank.com and check out netsafe and then login. It says IE as minimum requirements. Honestly I dont see the reason for this, but yet its there. According to this, if you use Internet Explorer, you should use a netsafe card, but at the same time you need IE ? See a pattern of stupidity? Its like if you want to use the site, dont use a browser thats safe, however, you should use a netsafe card if you want to be safe.
Anyways, if there are any other sites that stop you, you could just simply change the user agent in about:config. What are they going to do next? Block Internet Explorer?.. hehe
Regards, Satish
On 8/19/07, Satish Alwani assid@assid.com wrote:
Anyways, if there are any other sites that stop you, you could just simply change the user agent in about:config. What are they going to do next? Block Internet Explorer?.. hehe
Oh, they'll then want to declare user agent switching illegal, ban firewalls (Norton Internet Security attempts to block ads, I believe), and even Lynx. As I said, such people need to reexamine their business model, not browsing preferences.
On 19-Aug-07, at 1:34 AM, Satish Alwani wrote:
Thats almost like saying, PVR's should be banned as users have the ability to forward through them and skip advertisements. Or other channels must be banned, so if you are watching serial XYZ on channel ABC, you must continue to watch it including the ads and not skip it.
tv != webpage. both different. do not equate.
Satish Alwani wrote:
Anyways, if there are any other sites that stop you, you could just simply change the user agent in about:config. What are they going to do next? Block Internet Explorer?.. hehe
This point has been discussed on the list before and some list members are of the opinion that masquerading as Internet Explorer is not the right way to go. And I totally agree. The people who design websites & run these websites have to know that a sizable percentage of their users do not use Internet Explorer. If that was not the case they would consider whatever works with IE to be okay and not give a hoot about the others.
On 8/19/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
tv != webpage. both different. do not equate.
Just for the sake of argument, how different? Kindly expound in order to expostulate.
On 8/19/07, Nishit Dave stargazer.dave@gmail.com wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, how different? Kindly expound in order to expostulate.
Web pages can effectively target only one sense (eyes) while a TV advert targets two (eyes and ears). Websites are paid for clicks and not views (I think they were once but advertisers quickly saw the loss in this) whereas TV adverts are billed by the air time.
Hence TV channels don't care (yet) if you change channels or not.
On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 21:24 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Web pages can effectively target only one sense (eyes) while a TV advert targets two (eyes and ears). Websites are paid for clicks and not views (I think they were once but advertisers quickly saw the loss in this) whereas TV adverts are billed by the air time.
This is insanity sir! :P hehe...web pages can definitely target both eyes and ears ;) ( and more! ). We can play music on web pages ;)
On 8/20/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
This is insanity sir! :P hehe...web pages can definitely target both eyes and ears ;) ( and more! ). We can play music on web pages ;)
Yes, some ads do, but not even close to being the majority. And they're not as effective as TV anyways.
On Monday 20 August 2007 23:21, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 8/20/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
This is insanity sir! :P hehe...web pages can definitely target both eyes and ears ;) ( and more! ). We can play music on web pages ;)
Yes, some ads do, but not even close to being the majority. And they're not as effective as TV anyways.
The problem is with media companies rather than content or ads - stupid ineffective targeting. So you have "chinese marketing" logic for delivering content and ads. Result - adblockers. If the website is loosing money due to adblockers it's a very good thing and a highily desirable clue bat. Now all u need is an adblocker profiler that reports back to HQ so thatu can deliver unblocked ads and charge the moon and save bandwidth by preblocking blocked ads and.....
On 8/21/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Monday 20 August 2007 23:21, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 8/20/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
This is insanity sir! :P hehe...web pages can definitely target both eyes and ears ;) ( and more! ). We can play music on web pages ;)
Yes, some ads do, but not even close to being the majority. And they're not as effective as TV anyways.
The problem is with media companies rather than content or ads - stupid ineffective targeting. So you have "chinese marketing" logic for delivering content and ads. Result - adblockers. If the website is loosing money due to adblockers it's a very good thing and a highily desirable clue bat. Now all u need is an adblocker profiler that reports back to HQ so thatu can deliver unblocked ads and charge the moon and save bandwidth by preblocking blocked ads and.....
I think above is a fantastic idea. Somehow the term adblockers carries a negative connotation for advertisers, i guess they need perspectives like these.
--
Rgds JTD
On Monday 27 August 2007 14:52, Puneet Lakhina wrote:
Now all u need is an adblocker profiler that reports back to HQ so thatu can deliver unblocked ads and charge the moon and save bandwidth by preblocking blocked ads and.....
I think above is a fantastic idea. Somehow the term adblockers carries a negative connotation for advertisers, i guess they need perspectives like these.
Mine was not a fantasic idea but a sarcastic comment about segmentation, postioning and targetting which is the basis of any advertising. But that is a lot of hard work and the target market will actually shrivel to such small numbers that nobody would pay for the ad. And the gadzillion page hits metric would show up as pointless crap. So u have stupid websites crying foul over their brain dead strategies and compounding it with even worse remedies.
On 8/27/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
And the gadzillion page hits metric would show up as pointless crap. So u have stupid websites crying foul over their brain dead strategies and compounding it with even worse remedies.
Jurassic business models. Thanks.
On 8/27/07, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Monday 27 August 2007 14:52, Puneet Lakhina wrote:
Now all u need is an adblocker profiler that reports back to HQ so thatu can deliver unblocked ads and charge the moon and save bandwidth by preblocking blocked ads and.....
I think above is a fantastic idea. Somehow the term adblockers carries a negative connotation for advertisers, i guess they need perspectives like these.
Mine was not a fantasic idea but a sarcastic comment about segmentation, postioning and targetting which is the basis of any advertising. But that is a lot of hard work and the target market will actually shrivel to such small numbers that nobody would pay for the ad. And the gadzillion page hits metric would show up as pointless crap. So u have stupid websites crying foul over their brain dead strategies and compounding it with even worse remedies.
somehow it just seemed like a good idea.. advertising isnt gona be my business in this life i suppose!!! :-)
--
Rgds JTD
-
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Nishit Dave -
Puneet Lakhina -
Satish Alwani -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
Vivek J. Patankar