please empty your brain below

Thanks for the reminder, I've got a new phone and not installed one yet. Will get onto it now.
Harder than I thought to find an adblocker for android, a lot look spammy/malware or don't actually have adblocker.

Any tips?
While we are on this sort of topic, would it be possible to introduce the death penalty for web designers who think that it is cool to grey out a page just as it opened with an invitation to sign up for a stupid newsletter or survey?
Don't forget those annoying videos that suddenly start up with loud conversation or jarring music scaring the bejezus out of people, or totally wrecking your cool in the quiet carriage.
The result of allowing 'gamers' to populate certain occupations means the rest of us have to put up with their complete and utter stupidity and lack of consideration for others...let alone follow the law as far as accessibility for disabled etc is concerned.
Some local newspapers are the worst. When it gets to the point where there is more advertising than news on the page, I put them onto my personal black list and remember never to look at them again.

Their loss, not mine!
Truth is advertisers need to learn that annoying potential customers is not the way to go. We started with fairly un-intrusive banner ads, but then advertisers all started using pop ups. The result - all browsers now block pop ups by default.

So then they started using audio and video ads instead. That is when I started using an adblocker, because I usually listen to music through my PC. Since the Ads have only got more and more intrusive since I won't be removing it any time soon. Though it is becoming increasingly an arms raise between advertisers and the ad blocks. Try to access anything at to see what I mean. Even allowing ads on that site isn't enough for them, you have to remove the adblocker altogether.

The websites I run all have no advertising at all. I am happy to pay the small amount it costs to host myself.
Unfortunately, Jon, it works on the same principle that those outrageous spam messages do. Sure, there are plenty of people who are incredibly annoyed by the ads, but they're dwarfed by the number of people who simply don't care and they're still a smaller group than the people who eagerly lap it all up. For the cost of deploying a web ad, you only need to capture 1% (if that) of the population. It's simply a more prevalent version of the old Nigerian prince scam - for the cost of a million spam emails, you only need one sucker to turn a profit.
Could be much worse!...I now constantly get "your browser is no longer supported"/"your browser is out-of-date"/"try using a different browser" etc! Silly ol' ad-blocking is the lest of my worries...
@Max, B

It's not our fault! We design to the client's specifications, and if they don't listen to our advice...
I'm right there with Jon Coombe - I was fine with ads until one too many noisy videos started up out of nowhere. Now, happily ad-blocking - and yes, Forbes is a bit of a pain, but I now know not to follow links there.

And yet, as Diamond Geezer alludes to, the internet is (often) made up of people's good, original work, and people need and deserve to get paid for that work. Advertising could be one way, if the site in question could promise to have only unobtrusive sidebar ads (and as someone who has bought things from such ads before, I'm okay with that), but I suspect the answer is more likely to go down the firewall/micropayment route. And I'm okay with that too, if it's a site I use regularly and consider worth it. It will mean a massive reduction in the sites available to visit randomly, mind...

I suspect in 20 years time we'll be telling kids about the early, heady days when the internet was free... and then ruined by shitty noisy ads.
Sorry to be losing you DG for you're the best blogger out there. I've especially enjoyed your takes on the UndergrounD. My ad blocker is there for many reasons (most of them enunciated above). So... so long's been good to know you and enjoy your London with you. CG
I'm fine with unobtrusive ads that are relevant to the content (like one for the dangleway!) but many annoy or offend me.

I can see the other side too. It costs money to host a website and employ writers. If websites can't make enough money from traditional advertising, they write "sponsored content" instead that blurs the lines of journalism.
Google's first round of text ads really were the glory days of unobtrusive internet advertising.

It's too much now, and worst on mobile phones sapping precious processing time and data allowance.
Is the new 'one post to a page' layout part of today's elaborate post, or the new standard format of the blog?
a pedant addresses an earlier writer, DG is NOT the best blogger out there, merely better than average.
Noel, I don't think the word I'd use to describe you is "pedant". I'd say you are a well-below-average commenter.
I'd read a few more blogs, sillyname.
I was recently silly enough to browse to a page on Tripod (remember them?) on my laptop. I scratched my head when the audio started screeching until if found the pop-under window it had spawned.
And now it seems the Daily Telegraph's joined the Ad-blockers Unwelcome club.
This is why many content providers have moved to things like Patreon, based on voluntary patronage. They get paid by people who like their stuff and want more of it, they get an audience and potential new patrons by making their stuff available for free, and no-one has to deal with ads. Joy all round.
I'd like to apologise to slartibartfast because I was rude the other day sorry. The balance of my mind etc.

TridentScan | Privacy Policy