suggestion: new list to block self-advertisements

General information, announcements and questions about the EasyList subscriptions.
Locked
adhater
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:29 pm

suggestion: new list to block self-advertisements

Post by adhater »

Dear EasyList,

Can I suggest creating a new list that blocks self-advertisements? Some of us don't want to see self-advertisements at all, and the easylist doesn't block self-promotions.

Thanks.
Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4124
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm

Post by Michael »

The problem that I would have with such a subscription is the large number of very specific filters required (self-promotion is usually self-hosted, meaning that general domain blocks are difficult to apply) and the difficult of defining the type of self-promotion that should be removed. Where does something cross the line between being content and self promotion?
adhater
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:29 pm

Post by adhater »

Quick reply: Content messages are links to free stuff/content.

Self-promotion is where they ask the websurfer for money or for something.
Michael
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4124
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:08 pm

Post by Michael »

The problem that I have with this definition is that it would leave administrators unable to request donations from their users, the suggested method of gathering money from users of advert-blocking software. How would websites remain financially viable if equivalent numbers of people used the proposed subscription?
adhater
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:29 pm

Post by adhater »

Michael:
I'd like to respond with two points:

1. If people don't want to pay, then leaving the self-promotions on the site (unblocked) won't help.

2. You see this as a problem, because it makes it hard for adminstrators to get money from users. But it's the same thing ("problem") with blocking ads to external websites. Both self-promotions and external ads are for the admin to make money. If you see blocking self-adverts as a problem, you should also see blocking the regular ads as a problem. I don't think you see blocking ads as a problem, so you shouldn't (if you were consistent) have a problem with blocking self-promotions.
Ares2
Emeritus Contributor
Emeritus Contributor
Posts: 4572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:49 pm

Post by Ares2 »

adhater wrote:Self-promotion is where they ask the websurfer for money or for something.
That definition is way too simplistic anyway.

Do you really want to block/hide links*
- from artists to their own work on [shop/platform] ?
- to [shop/platform] when people are blogging about their own [item/service] ?
- from people that are doing a fundraiser on [platform] for [insert charity of your choice] ?
- to scientific papers, standard documents and publications as most of the platforms will greet you with a "purchase" page (unless you have access through academia/industry etc.)?
- ...

* I will define "link" as "reference to data that the reader can directly follow" (because if I used my own wording, I couldn't link to Wikipedia ;-) ). Technically a semantic "link" can of course be implemented with everything from text over images up to full-page overlays with auto-play flash videos.



I think what you are really after is blocking the way certain self-promotion is presented to you, e.g.
- a full-page overlay asking you to subscribe to a magazine when the "Subscribe" link in their page navigation does the same for you
- an animated flash banner "BUY OUR NEW ALBUM NOW" when a decent "Get X on iTunes" link would be sufficient
- ...

While of us will find find those two examples above annoying as well, it's even harder to correctly define and describe a list that blocks such things as it already is with our attempt to define and block "ads". It surely can be done, see for example Fanboy's annoyances list. But as you will notice, fanboy also defines most social networking stuff as "annoyance". Is it for you as well? Is it for the people that might be interested in blocking the "full-page overlay" mentioned above? I doubt it.

The rules to properly maintain such a potential supplement definitely need to be more specific, "quick" definitions aren't going to cut it.
Locked