Ads are fairly common on the internet. They also tend to be the way that some sites make the majority of the income that keeps them running. This is part of the reason why I do not normally use extensions such as Ad Block. There have even been a few times where I have seen ads that have been useful for me.
The problem is, today many ads are flashy and contain dynamic content. Loading these ads can take up valuable memory and bandwidth. More importantly, on an older or slower computer (such as a netbook), they can temporarily freeze up the computer.
These ads have pushed me to using Ad Block on my netbook, and that is not good for anyone. Because of the design of these ads, sites and the companies who make the ads are 'loosing out.'
But what's the solution. Less dynamic ads are less likely to have people click on them. Is it a lose-lose situation? I don't think it has to be. If web browsers, sites, and ad makers worked together they could be tagged as low priority. Before the computer would attempt to load the ad, the site would need to be completely loaded first. Furthermore it would only load if there was free CPU time to do so.
So perhaps if ads were voluntarily delayed, they wouldn't be blocked. The big reason many people block ads is because of the performance hit. Remove the performance hit and remove the need to block ads.
To encourage advertisers to take this road, extensions like ad block could perhaps be able to make an exception for delayed ads in the preferences.
Anyway, it just seems to me that people are loosing money that they don't have to.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Have comments about my ideas? If you see something wrong with them, leave a comment. I'll try to comment back. If you have seen these ideas implemented/mentioned somewhere before, leave a comment. I like to think I am 'original' but that doesn't mean somebody has not beaten me to the punch. Finally, if you just have something to say, well comment that as well.