If you have any of these browsers Chrome, Safari, Opera, you may use Adblock, it is a nice extension which is able to get rid of most of annoying banners and ads from many webpages.
You can find it here: https://code.google.com/p/adblockforchrome/
But there is small trick which sometimes help page to load half of the time. Most of adverts are resolved and shown from outside of the domain, so for example all google ads on this page (i assume there are some as i don’t see them) are requested by this domain and your PC/Browser is trying to open them from “third-party” domain. To prevent such a behaviour you need to do a small configuration within AdBlock.
So click on AdBlock icon and go to Options, then tab Customise, and edit manual options by pasting this list
It is an interesting question that I saw asked referring to Android AdBlockers (them having been removed from Google Play). Is using an AdBlocker as bad as using pirated software? (More relevant to aps than websites really)
Szymon, I did not comment that insult about ad blocker aka software pirate as I get this as insult to basic understanding difference of: taking something on purpose vs being forced to look at something.
Yes, you or others make some money from advertising. That is, you get paid by the advertisers for allowing them to place adverts next to whatever content you put together. You make popular content, people look at it, and the advertisers pay you for the chance of convincing some of your viewers to buy their stuff. That doesn’t form a contract between you and me to look at the advertising. You make your content available for free, by putting it on the internet. If I want to look at it, I will. If I want to not look at the adverts, I won’t. I pay for my internet connection, I can use it for whatever I choose as long as it’s legal.
If you want to charge for your content, or only make it available to people who agree to look at the ads, I suggest you do that. Until you do, while it’s free to look at on the internet, you don’t get to enforce some kind of implied moral judgement. You imply that the act of looking at your content without viewing the advertising as tantamount to theft. Until you stop it from being freely available, viewing it is not theft.
By the way, I’m not just talking about enforcing it on a technical level. If you want to enforce it by putting a statement somewhere on the site that viewers may only view your content if they agree to viewing the advertising, I will respect that. For example, avforums have such a clause - and because of that, I explicitly disable adblock for their site. Viewing their site while blocking the adverts, after they state clearly that viewing the ads is a condition of viewing their content, would be wrong. Sure. But of course that’s very different to your situation.
(By the way, I’ve never actually viewed any of your content personally, ads or not – I’m talking in a generic sense, not specifically about any of your personal stuff! Perhaps we should continue this conversation over a beer some time :-)).
I wasn’t trying to suggest it was moral or immoral etc. just that it might have an adverse effect on LB’s revenue stream, so maybe we shouldn’t let on that some people use adblockers.
The amount that advertisers pay the site for an ad space is based on the number of people who are likely to view that advert. If a large percentage of them use something such as Adblock then the number of people viewing the ad is greatly reduced and the value of the ad space decreases as a result. Therefore the site can’t sell that space for the same amount and makes less money, or the advertisers pull out altogether.
I wouldn’t imagine advertisers pay for that space on this site, most of the adverts look to be Google ads, so LB will make a little from views and more from clicks. Simon wants to block them, so giving LB no money for using the site. That’s okay thought. I’ve not said that’s wrong, I’ve not even said he shouldn’t.
Simon, I don’t know why your talking about my video’s, I did elude to the fact I was talking about Android apps, of which I have none. I simply posed the opinion that I’d heard, that using adblocks is similar to using pirated software.
On mobile apps the developer has the choice to charge for the app, or to put it out there for free and cover costs/make a little earnings from the ads. If these ads are blocked, they make nothing. You may as well install the pirated pro version, that’s how the argument goes. I’m kinda surprised you don’t even see the logic of that Simon?
Also, it is against the ‘rules’, even Google are pulling adblockers from their Play store. Whether you think that makes them ‘wrong’ is then up to you I guess.
Well pointed out. Most of people who downloaded “Lite” full of ads version of software can spare this 69 pence to remove those ads. It is not that hard, and I will quote something which I’ve read on the net: “So you are saying that you have 600$ phone but you can’t afford to pay 1$ for the application on it?”
ps. One day when I’ll be filthy rich I’m going to buy WinRAR
Personally I think your missing the point. I didn’t realise there was only that one way to run a business/make money. My apologies. You’d better tell Google though, they keep making billions a month the wrong way.
Anyway, everyone’s allowed their own opinion.
Also, I’m not sure there is a mobile OS that you can’t install pirated software on, is there?
Also, one last point, then I’ll probably leave it for char over a coffee as you say, but I find your `I’ll only not do the thing you wouldn’t want me to do if you actually tell me not to do it’ rather odd too.
“Yes, I stole your bike as there was no sign telling me not to”