General thoughts on Internet adverts - block or not?

[Ric_]

I personally believe that the Internet would not run without the aid of advertising... in the same way as commercial TV wouldn't. I also believe that students don't find them particularly distracting either.

 

I'm not talking about EduGeek or any other particular site here, but what are people's views on Internet advertising? I'm particularly interested in people's opinions on adverts that support educational resources - things like Teachers.TV, TeachTube, Teach-ICT, etc.

 

Do you think that sites will ever begin to prevent access to those users that decide not to display there ads?

 

Given the choice, would you remove/block ads?

[sparkeh]

Interesting, I was just thinking about this after reading about ads in the Spiceworks topic.

Personally I don't mind relevant adverts in resources that are aimed at adults. SW is a great example as it is a superb resource that is funded by ads, its an essential part of my management software that wouldn't be free without ads, though it seems that ads are being blocked at LA level which admittedly makes me a uncomfortable about using the software. All the ads in SW are IT related so I cool with that, if they started trying to sell me completely unrelated products I would not be as comfortable.

 

I think that we may reach a stage where access is blocked if you don't enable the ads, after all its their funding model and you don't get to see restricted content on subscription sites if you don't pay, you could argue it is a very similar situation.

 

What I would not like to see is adverts creeping into child related resources.

[p858snake]

I didn't reinstall ad block after i deleted the wrong firefox =(, unfortunately sites have started to hit me with automated videos and sound making ads (not edugeek, always whitelisted) and have twisted my arm to do it again.

[Guest TheLibrarian]

I'm happier with the less flashy / intrusive ads, and I particularly hate ad servers leaving tracking cookies.

 

I'd even go as far as watching / clicking ads to help provide revenue stream to keep content such as EduGeek provides free.

 

I know some of the EduGeek ads are blocked somewhere along the line here (not by us AFAIK), and I have wondered if the please don't block banner could be replaced with a link to an advertiser with a plea to visit this to support EduGeek.

[pete]

It really depends on the implementation.

 

Does the presence of adverts mean a 2-page article is split across 6 pages, interspersed with adverts?

Does the advert get in the way of using the resource / website? i.e doing stupid things on mouseover, using sound (of any type).

If it doing stupid things with flash? i.e is an advert in one tab causing the browser to grind?

 

An appropriate restrained use of adverts is fine.

[localzuk]

I don't mind most ads. The only ones I dislike are those that play sounds automatically and when an otherwise innocuous website has pornographic or otherwise inappropriate adverts though. Makes life difficult at work!

 

I do click on ads around the net sometimes, as they are often relevant to something I'm looking for.

[Domino]

The sites I know I can trust to have meaningful, inoffensive ads (edugeek, the register) I allow ads from, where as all others are blocked - this is at work.

 

At home I let all ads through - in all honesty they're easily ignored for the most part, and it allows sites to continue running, so I've nothing against it.

[CyberNerd]

unnecessary bandwidth.

[ricki]

Hi

 

I dont believe that adverts are bad but they do use bandwidth and when you only have a limited amount you make a choice and I choose to give band width to education bits of the internet.

 

Richard

[Arcath]

I don't mind them (not that flash ever last long enough to read them). I hate the ones that fill the page and start playing when your mouse hovers over them....

 

Another pet hate is when http://www.annoyingadverts.com is down, and causes the pages to load slowly whilst the browser trys to download from a server thats not there.

[Flakes]

from my personal view:

 

I don't mind ads as long as they are relevant to the site I am on.

 

As an ICT Technician:

 

all Adverts should be blocked, mainly because you do not know where kids/teachers may end up, an ad can look harmless however may end up leading to somewhere less safe/secure leading to spyware/adware/viruses, there's also the case that an add server that serves one type of advert my also serve adult ads which are unsuitable for school.

[pete]

There's also the issue that a compromised adserver is a great way to deliver exploit code for the latest flash vuln.

[Ric_]

There's also the issue that a compromised adserver is a great way to deliver exploit code for the latest flash vuln.

 

But that's true of any website so IMHO the argument doesn't hold - unless you want to pre-vet every single site that the pupils visit

[pete]

But that's true of any website so IMHO the argument doesn't hold - unless you want to pre-vet every single site that the pupils visit

 

True, any webserver can deliver a malicious flash file, but an adserver operation is more likely to be targetted for compromise than (say) a random flash widget on Edugeek.net itself because there's a bigger potential payoff.

 

And we do block adverts for kids, simply because they're not discriminating at all in what they click on.

[Dos_Box]

We know of at least one LEA that blanket blocks ads for all schools. Many of you will think 'good!'. There is a a problem with this though. Most of the sites, especially resources like EduGeek, whoes resources are used by schools, at no cost tothemselves, rely on ad-revenue to keep running. The vast amjority of these sites won't have offensive adverts on there and teh content of the site is 100% innoffensive. Now, this is the big legal part. Does the govt, a any level, wether centrally or local, have teh right to spend taxpayers money on deliberately preventing someone legally earning an income? It's not e-safety or any other excuse they care to roll out, as dodgy sites would be blocked by filer lists anyway and browsers often have blacklist checking built in now. Next week I;m going to be addresing this issue, and knockign on somevery senior doors as well as getting he legal position clarified, but to put it simply. Tax payers money should not be used to put legal businesses in financial trouble, considering that it is these very businesses that are providing the taxes!

[PiqueABoo]

Does the govt, a any level, wether centrally or local, have teh right to spend taxpayers money on deliberately preventing someone legally earning an income?

 

Turn it around - should the gov be spending public money on having adverts delivered to kids in schools? We don't accept them (explicitly at least) on the BBC etc. We mostly all fret about the kids being turned into vacuous consumers before they've hit KS2. That it's someone's funding model for something harmless should have absolutely no impact on the answer to that question.

[TopBanana]

I'm cool with ads as long as there tastefull

[Dos_Box]

Turn it around - should the gov be spending public money on having adverts delivered to kids in schools? We don't accept them (explicitly at least) on the BBC etc. We mostly all fret about the kids being turned into vacuous consumers before they've hit KS2. That it's someone's funding model for something harmless should have absolutely no impact on the answer to that question.

 

Most magazines and newspapers cannot survive without advertising. visit the BBC's websites outside of the UK, and guess what? Yup, advertising to help pay for it. Do schools cut out adverts from TES? Your monthly computer magazines?

Anyway, back to the legal argument. Does the govt have the right touse taxpayers money to prevent a company legitimately earning money? And teh sites I have in mind are aimed at teachers etc, not for use in classrooms.

[teejay]

I personally don't mind ads at all, as long as they're done in a nice way, edugeek being a prime example of very good practise. Sites which have stupid popover, popunder, sound, stupid flash etc I either stop visiting or block the ads.

For pupils during lessons I think it's a slightly different matter and advertising should be blocked. Quite simply, there would be outrage if teachers starting putting advertising banners on their powerpoint slides. Hmm, then again that might be a good revenue stream for schools

[mattx]

As the once great Bill Hicks said - [ and I quote ]

 

"By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. No, this is not a joke: kill yourself . . ."

 

Block them all, Ad Block and a good hosts file - http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt installed on all my PCs.

My personal point of view which some won't like but I see things both way - I help out with other various elements in my life - school gov, fix PCs for free, set up network for local hospital radio station, do various elements at the school where I am now - looking after the Bees and other animals etc - hell maybe I am actually part of Eton Boys 'Big Society' after all !!

Edited July 21, 2010 by mattx

[pete]

"spending taxpayers money on blocking ads" is a deliberately misleading argument, worthy of the Daily Mail. You and I both know it's two checkboxes and hitting "apply" to turn on a feature that's already built (and thus already paid for) into most mainstream proxies.

 

If we're making daft arguments, surely the LEA you mention is saving taxpayers money by maximising the bandwidth available for government business by blocking flash ads and thus delaying the need for upgrading to a fatter pipe?

 

I get that Edugeek needs ad revenue and blocking adverts impacts that, but I also know that there's a lot of syndicated adservers full of broken ads that cause browser issues.

 

We block for kids, not teachers. However, there's nothing stopping a teacher blocking ads themselves should they wish to do so.

[Arthur]

Do schools cut out adverts from TES? Your monthly computer magazines?

Microsoft do not display adverts for Live@edu users. They can afford to do this though.

[Ric_]

Microsoft do not display adverts for Live@edu users. They can afford to do this though.

 

That's because it's not their sole revenue stream and they also use advertising on the regular Live services.

 

If we're making daft arguments, surely the LEA you mention is saving taxpayers money by maximising the bandwidth available for government business by blocking flash ads and thus delaying the need for upgrading to a fatter pipe?

 

But does it not take CPU power to block the ads? Also, if bandwidth savings are your aim, serving up a lovely image in place of the advert kind of negates the argument.

 

Anyway, I digress... My OP was simply a discussion starter to see what the general view of people was regarding Internet adverts.

 

Perhaps another direction to take the discussion is... how would you feel if sites did prevent you accessing them because their ads were blocked? Would you be prepared to pay a subscription instead?

 

Remember too that I'm generally talking about those websites that are used within schools, e.g. Teachers TV, TeacherTube, Teach-ICT (which in fact has adverts whether you subscribe to their premium service or not!), ICTeachers, TES, etc.

[Andrew_C]

I block ads (not here of course) and Flash due to the invasive nature. Pop ups, pop unders, scrolling things, flashing fonts and boxes... If they were better targeted, and less intrusive, I'd not have such a problem with them.

[Flakes]

But does it not take CPU power to block the ads? Also, if bandwidth savings are your aim, serving up a lovely image in place of the advert kind of negates the argument.

 

the CPU power of one machine(server/filter) against the CPU power of many machines? flash adverts regularly get my CPU running at 100% and i know im not the only one, blocking them with a server is still saving money.

 

 

Perhaps another direction to take the discussion is... how would you feel if sites did prevent you accessing them because their ads were blocked? Would you be prepared to pay a subscription instead?

 

Remember too that I'm generally talking about those websites that are used within schools, e.g. Teachers TV, TeacherTube, Teach-ICT (which in fact has adverts whether you subscribe to their premium service or not!), ICTeachers, TES, etc.

 

I think a school would pay for a subscription for sites like TeacherTube. A school would pay xx amount to access it, however it should not be up to the individual to pay (remembering we are talking about websites used IN schools). I also think it depends on the website for example i doubt that a subscription model would work for Edugeek, there are too many other forums out there for free that you can use instead(i love the geek but i wouldn't pay for it when there are alternatives for free, i may however donate if that feature was available)