Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Banners exist because big sites cannot be hosted and maintained for free. Many sites depend on donations and banner revenue.

    I understand why anyone would block ads that are created to be annoying, like popups and flashy thingies. But Google's text ads are very simple and do not draw attention away from the rest of the page. They even have some useful on-topic links, sometimes.
    • It is true that a site needs money to function, and it has to come from somewhere.

      I'd be curious to know how much smaller sites get from adverts, if it's actually enough to make a real difference? Larger sites, I'm sure, do get enough eye-balls to generate actual revenue from advertising, however there are only a few really big sites out there.

      To me, most adverts are annoying, bandwidth stealing parasites. Google style text ads are not so bad, and they are often vaguely pertinent, but they are often poo

      --
      -- "It's not magic, it's work..."
      • I'd be curious to know how much smaller sites get from adverts, if it's actually enough to make a real difference?

        Speaking as someone who has had considerable experience of online advertising since about 1997 or so, I can say that it can make a huge difference. "Way back in the day" sites with decent traffic were earning around $1,500 - $2,000 USD/month. These days reasonable sites can still earn around $150-$200 USD/month without too much work.

        I find a lot of these ad blocking tools frustrating. I'm not justifying intrusive and highly distractive ads, but these have only been introduced at the request of advertisers who have been seeing declining revenues from standard banners, as they got blocked by ad blocking software. Plus it annoys me that most people have zero objection to ads in any other medium, but object to them online. Yes, they make the site slower to load, but they also make it exist!

        Just remember, whatever your opinion of online advertising, one the biggest players [valueclick.com] in the online advertising world uses Perl extensively and has donated a lot of time and money to the Perl Foundation.

        • I find all forms of advertising intrusive and annoying. I live in a country where we still have quality public television and radio that is advert free. I find paying for those channels out of "taxation" as a perfectly acceptable alternative to advertising funding. I also prefer to read magazines that are more expensive, but carry less advertising than cheaper ones.

          I NEVER buy anything from a web site advert, so it doesn't make any difference if I block an advert, if the agent pays the site per click-thro

          --
          -- "It's not magic, it's work..."
          • The internet, like it or not, is a gigantic free market. It is unfortunate that you pay by the amount of informatrion you use, that undermines the progress of the internet. However advertising is what pays for any free site that isnt 100% donation based.

            You can choose not to visit sites whose advertising schemes you disagree with, but instead you ruin the system by patronizing those sites and cheating the ads. This will only make things worse as it removes the self regulating function of a free market (m