Google Chrome ad-blocking to begin in February – but what is it going to block? From February 15, Google's Chrome browser will begin zapping ads that don't conform with new taste guidelines. But what those guidelines mean exactly is anyone's guess. Google confirmed that blocking would begin in a developer blog post. Google is a member of the Coalition for Better Ads – a group launched last year to …
You've also got to allow Googles analytics, have a registered google account and have the web site properties registered against your Google account before you can see the sites status. ie. you've got to tell Google who you are, and which web sites you own, before it will tell you what it's going to do with it.
Talk about tracking !!!
Only one worthwhile option... stop using Chrome.
Not that I have ads on any of my sites, but I do like to know what Chrome is going to do to them. And if it blocks my sites because of some reason other than ads... like content... or falsely determining an ad that isn't an ad. I just don't trust Google. Full stop.
The Computer is your friend. The Computer wants you to have fun and be happy. Happiness is mandatory. If you are not happy, The Computer will use you as reactor shielding.
"The Computer is happy. The Computer is crazy. This, in turn, will drive you crazy."
Best tabletop RPG ever! Any clones that suggest otherwise may report to the nearest convenient disintegration chamber for immediate termination. The Computer is your friend.
I am sorry, citizen, but this post is currently placed at Security Clearance VIOLET. Reading any of the words contained within this page without appropriate security clearance is considered treason.
Please proceed directly to your nearest available Termination booth.
Thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice daycycle.
I only use chrome when I have to use it for clients that meet via Google Hangouts and when I want to watch Comcast on my PC. Seems they don't like Firefox... While I don't get an overt message to not use Firefox, I keep getting stream errors.
And I agree, not to trust Google. Want to bet that they'll offer a 'service' to the advertisers to white list their ads so you can't block them?
They probably already have offered such a service in preparation for it, so they can seem like good guys to consumers ("hey we're blocking the BAD ads but we know you want to see ads about things you are interested in!") while using it as leverage to make advertisers pay them premium rates for ads that Chrome won't block.
Of course we won't hear about this for a few years, because it will be protected by major NDAs in their contracts because the whole thing falls apart once people know the truth.
In the words of the prophet
" if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. " (Bill Hicks)
Most local papers are owned by one of a small number of national companies, so its quite possible a lot of them are using the same Web host design ( these are the same companies that successfully lobbied to have the news/weather/traffic etc pages removed from BBC local radio web sites ).
This post has been deleted by its author
We reached out to the Internet Advertising Bureau for clarification
Please don't do that.
Ask them for comment
Send them an email
Try to telephone them
But "reaching out" is one of those phrases that I'm hearing more frequently these days from less technically-minded people.
It's management-speak, and I expect better of El Reg
Urban dictionary :
Reach out
A sort of sweet-talking, cliche term used by temp agencies and other employers to give you the impression they have some particular vested emotional interest in helping you, when really they are just screwing you over.
An unfortunately creepy term that is means "to contact" or similar. Brings to mind grasping and undesirable contact from strangers.
>>We reached out to the Internet Advertising Bureau for clarification
Please don't do that.
Ask them for comment
...But "reaching out" is one of those phrases that I'm hearing more frequently these days from less technically-minded people.
It's management-speak, and I expect better of El Reg
I dunno, someone in the bed next to you and fucking you up the arse seems like one of the scenarios when saying you reached out to get a comment seems literally ok
"They [Google] call it ad filtering, but that's the ad blocking we've been propagating for years," Eyeo comms chief Ben Williams told us last month.
Seriously Ben, if you now allow whitelisting of acceptable ads and block the non-acceptable ones then it's filtering not blocking. Stop being such a snark.
Putting the reins of ad-blocking in the hands of the biggest ad-slinger. Now that's a great idea.
</sarcasm>
"Google is a member of the Coalition for Better Ads – a group launched last year to represent digital advertising businesses including Facebook and big brands."
To me, this reads as "...the Coalition for Better Ads - a cabal of the ad-slinging big boys who will use their new ad-blocking toy to unfairly discriminate against smaller advertisers. Now I'm no fan of the smaller ad networks (in my experience they tend to be worse for malware, popups etc) but at least most of them don't track your soul across this world, the next and the one after that as well. For that, you need the likes of Google and Facebook. Should a smaller, new ad network with a much greater ethic and better user experience pop up (stop laughing, it could happen!), I'm fairly sure they'll somehow run afoul of this new feature.
I'm with most other commentards thus far. I'll stick with adblock etc.
... Ads that redirect you to an app store for their app 'for a better experience'. OH. DO. F***. OFF! I don't want your bloody app or I'd be bloody using it, you nitwits!
UGH! I am glad to see autoplaying videos blocked, or interstitial ads with countdowns, or similar horribleness. Then I can finally read my local paper again too.
I wouldn't mind these too much if they at least included a button/tick box option that included 'Don't tell me again about the app'.
One offender of this is reddit, I mostly use reddit on the PC, and only tend to look on the tablet or phone if it's to check someone response to something I posted (which isn't often).
I don't see the point in installing an app, for the once a week at most chance of me accessing reddit on a mobile device.
And besides, the reddit mobile side, actually works perfectly well. So there really is no need for an app, unless you want things like live notifications. But email works fine for this as well, and also work son the PC!
Thats' just one example, lots of other similar things.
Another is example MS Teams web site, it keeps asking me to use/install the Desktop app, rather than the website, 'because it's faster/better etc.'.
Well, no it isn't, MS on the Desktop (Win 10 company laptop) is horrendously slow, whereas the web site is quite nippy, and most of my time is spent on a Linux development laptop anyway, which they don't even support!
</rantmodeoff> Time for a drink, coffee or beer?
If only they also banned:
a) anything with scripting or 3rd party cookies or user-identifiable URLs. Period. [if I click on the link and it tracks me on THEIR servers, that's their business. But the ad itself should be benign].
b) anything that has motion in it [especially flash and *shudder* HTML5 video, even WITHOUT sound]. Animated gifs are just as bad and should never 'autoplay' anyway.
c) anything larger than 100k bytes. yes, I'm being generous.
d) anything that requires a user interaction in ANY form, even if it's to stop the countdown early
e) anything that blocks the content if "not viewed" (including those for sites that give you 'forbidden' or other errors from nginx if you happen to have noscript running)
f) anything requiring downloads from a separate URL [script, CSS, whatever] - see '100k bytes' limit
g) anything that re-directs directly to ANY kind of installer - no exceptions!
h) anything that consumes more than 5% of the CPU over a 2 second period to render on an average device (mobile or desktop). Don't waste my battery either!
I call that "a good start"
[what, you mean shoving it in my face and blowing a loud horn until I press 'OK' isn't making me want to BUY your product??? That practice should have GUARANTEED sales attached to it!]
In addition to tracking, I also noticed that javascript within an ad is not considered unacceptable. That javascript definitely helps with the tracking. But is also means that malvertising will still exist. Two days ago, I was helping someone on their computer and every time we went to yahoo.com, his browser was redirected to a scam "Microsoft alert!" page. This happened every time, and each scam page was a different domain.
This whole situation just seems like a distraction. Tell people you are concerned with only acceptable ads, make the definition of acceptable purposefully weak, and then tell everyone you care so don't use an ad-blocker. This is an ad-slinger trying to trick you into letting them make more money off you by pretending they care.
I'm detecting a less than positive attitude from the users of this thread, both towards the benevolent motives of Google and the delights of adverts. Adverts I might add that have been carefully and specifically targettedchosen to meet your individual needs and desires.
What kind of cynical grumpy-guts are you people, to fail to appreciate the care (No! The LoveTM) that Google showers upon you? Everyday and everywhere you go, we are watching over you all.
Our motto is "don't be evil". What more do you want?
I love Google! Google are doubleplus good!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
