Would you prevent adblocking?

[ses5909]

The Blog Herald has an interesting article on preventing ad blocking (http://www.blogherald.com/2007/09/24/how-to-prevent-ad-blocking-some-sensible-strategies/).

Apparently a blogger decided to block FireFox users all together (guess he forgot Opera lets you block ads too). I was surprised by this.

What are your thoughts on this?

[shyflower]

My thought is he's not just losing the traffic, he's losing the traffic that those that block ads might refer to him. It's a good way to tell the web public that his site isn't there for his visitors, it's only there for the money he might make from it. If I were an advertiser, I'd request my ads removed from his site.

[goldfries]

nonsense fella.

it's a PLUG IN, c'mon! it's not like every firefox user has it.

stopping a viewer from entering your side just because he refuses to look at your ads is like stopping a customer from entering your restaurant just because he refuses to look at your menu.

*pardon my analogy*

[SarahG]

most people who block adverts would ignore them anyway. if you're getting paid by ad impressions then perhaps this would be the only good argument against blocking ads on someone's site, however I'm not sure if using adblock still means the ad is downloaded, just hidden from view.

I have adblock but it's only to hide annoying/irritating banners such as ones that are flashing and distracting me from reading. but most static adverts are perfectly fine.

However this is similar to issues where sites won't let you in because they're 'optimised' for MSIE. I don't bother with those either!

[Michael Martin]

If I were blogging to make an income, and there were a way of preventing only those with this extension, then yes, I'd probably block them.

Blogging for an income is a trade-off. You give readers valuable information, and in return they view and possibly click your ads. If they aren't willing to keep up their side of the deal, why bother with them?

Blocking ads is only going to become more and more common, to a point where it really will be a problem. It's good to see people try to curve that growth. :)

(Blocking all FF users is just silly though)

[davemcnally]

That seems rather pointless, I wouldn't do something like that. But I also wouldn't have someone bombarded with ads when they visit my site in the first place!

[goldfries]

However this is similar to issues where sites won't let you in because they're 'optimised' for MSIE. I don't bother with those either!

speaking of which - I once came by a site (a local computer shop) that totally disallowed me from visiting their site just because I'm on Firefox!

damn, it's not even a "this site is optimized for........". it's a "You're not allowed to........"!!!!

[Jelena]

Bad move if you ask me. Number of Firefox users increases with every new month (Browser Statistics (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)). How many of them really use ad blocker plugin? Let's say 20%, and because of those 20%, he is rejecting all of them.
People have right to ignore ads. He is taking that away from his readers.

[goldfries]

inappropriate to force people to load their ads.

if people wish to blog, it's their rights to do so. :)

[shyflower]

When I go to a site that either tries to mess with my pop-up blockers or doesn't let me in for one reason or another, I immediately back out thinking they have some kind of ulterior motive anyway. Why would a site insist that their users use the most buggy, insecure browser on the web to visit?

I don't know if it's still the same, but I remember a while back that you couldn't access some AOL pages unless you used AOL. I probably would never use AOL anyway, but action like that makes it a sure thing.