Don’t you know you’re gonna to shock the monkey
March 16, 2005 11:33 AM Subscribe
Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension that allows users to create scripts that alter the display of existing web pages. Like removing ads from google pages. I learned about the google script from boingboing. Oh, here's a script to remove the ads from there. Greasemonkey has a lot of uses, but has adblocking gone too far?
I never block ads. I would be saddened if any site I visited regularly disappeared because they didn't get enough revenue from ad impressions, or worse yet started charging for their content.
(Coincidentally, I just installed Greasemonkey this morning and made a script to link UPS tracking codes [self-link].)
posted by Plutor at 11:40 AM on March 16, 2005
(Coincidentally, I just installed Greasemonkey this morning and made a script to link UPS tracking codes [self-link].)
posted by Plutor at 11:40 AM on March 16, 2005
Yah, I think it's important to kinda "vote" on where the advertising model goes. I click on MeFi textads with some regularity, same with (unobtrusive) Google ads. Both of these, it shoud be noted, aren't just to make a point: they both actually interest me on occasion.
This kind of advertising comes close to "getting it right" and I'd hate to see it get lumped in with the pop-ups and adwares of the world - because then we'll just end up with whatever crap they decide to try next. Somebody has to get paid, it's self-defeating to insist no-one should.
posted by freebird at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2005
This kind of advertising comes close to "getting it right" and I'd hate to see it get lumped in with the pop-ups and adwares of the world - because then we'll just end up with whatever crap they decide to try next. Somebody has to get paid, it's self-defeating to insist no-one should.
posted by freebird at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2005
There's a difference between pop up ads or noisy Flash ads and Google ads. How are people running sites that don't charge money supposed to keep going if they do this?
posted by DigDugDag at 12:00 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by DigDugDag at 12:00 PM on March 16, 2005
has adblocking gone too far?
We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the hills, we will never surrender!
posted by Ryvar at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2005
We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the hills, we will never surrender!
posted by Ryvar at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2005
I got the impression Mark Pilgrim's script was a jab at Google for the autolink feature on its toolbar. I don't think the real point of his butler script is to block advertising.
posted by chunking express at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by chunking express at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2005
It's funny how people talk about Adblock and such but no one seems to know anything about Proxomitron, a proxy filter which pretty much rewrites the entire HTML of the page, not only removing ads but many other annoyances, toggling flash animations, disabling various scripts, resizing fonts, overlaying custom CSS files, resizing and removing unwanted tables, etc. It can also changes your header filters to block referrer logging and much more. If you use Google with JD5000's latest filters it pretty much changes the layout of the entire site, removing ads and adding all sorts of interface niceties.
There's still an active community working on new filter sets (JD5000/Grypen) to block out ever more ads and popups. I'm kind of glad it's still a niche - if lots of people started using it I'm sure it would cause an uproar and start a huge war between users and web designers.
posted by aerify at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2005
There's still an active community working on new filter sets (JD5000/Grypen) to block out ever more ads and popups. I'm kind of glad it's still a niche - if lots of people started using it I'm sure it would cause an uproar and start a huge war between users and web designers.
posted by aerify at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2005
Actually, the "removes ads from google" script does so, so much more. I don't know how I feel about the adblockage — I would certainly use a version that didn't block the ads, but the utility of the script is just too much to give up as is. I would copy and paste it's amazing features here, but really just click the link. It's awesome.
posted by rafter at 12:09 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by rafter at 12:09 PM on March 16, 2005
I agree about pop ups and flash-noise being very different than google ads and your average banner ad. I ran adblock when I first installed Firefox before realizing I just didn't feel 'right'. Penance, perhaps for my commercial zapping mythtv box...
posted by jikel_morten at 12:12 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by jikel_morten at 12:12 PM on March 16, 2005
" I would be saddened if any site I visited regularly disappeared because they didn't get enough revenue from ad impressions..."
Question: when the standard adblock extension is used in Firefox, does it supress ad impressions? Or, does the site get the "hits" from the ads loading via my visit, but the ads are hidden from my sight?
Plutor's point is interesting...and one I had not thought about...
posted by tpl1212 at 12:20 PM on March 16, 2005
Question: when the standard adblock extension is used in Firefox, does it supress ad impressions? Or, does the site get the "hits" from the ads loading via my visit, but the ads are hidden from my sight?
Plutor's point is interesting...and one I had not thought about...
posted by tpl1212 at 12:20 PM on March 16, 2005
Too far? The people that are going to use this don't look at the ads anyway. I find them to be a huge irritation, and have never clicked on a single one.
posted by Plinko at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by Plinko at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2005
Question: when the standard adblock extension is used in Firefox, does it supress ad impressions? Or, does the site get the "hits" from the ads loading via my visit, but the ads are hidden from my sight?
Adblock provides the options to 'Hide ads' or 'Remove ads'. Not sure what the default is though.
posted by jikel_morten at 12:24 PM on March 16, 2005
I'd like to point out that to my knowledge, the "hide ads" setting of AdBlock does NOT affect the ads being loaded from the site in question (which therefore wouldn't affect ad revenue, if I'm correct) as opposed to "remove ads" which declines to load an object that is in the block list. I welcome correction if it is warranted and wrapped in fluffy orange cotton.
On preview: jikel_morton is on my wavelength.
posted by sninky-chan at 12:27 PM on March 16, 2005
On preview: jikel_morton is on my wavelength.
posted by sninky-chan at 12:27 PM on March 16, 2005
http://rip.mozdev.org/
Extension for Firefox:
Rip (Remove it Permanently) provides the ability to point at and remove permanently any item you can select. It provide a flexible and easily configurable solution to removing unwanted content from a web page.
posted by hank at 12:44 PM on March 16, 2005
Extension for Firefox:
Rip (Remove it Permanently) provides the ability to point at and remove permanently any item you can select. It provide a flexible and easily configurable solution to removing unwanted content from a web page.
posted by hank at 12:44 PM on March 16, 2005
jikel and sninkey: thanks for the insight, I had no idea there were two options.
So is it safe to say that it is in my control whether I drive sites bankrupt (or to a pay-model) when using adBlock?
posted by tpl1212 at 12:44 PM on March 16, 2005
So is it safe to say that it is in my control whether I drive sites bankrupt (or to a pay-model) when using adBlock?
posted by tpl1212 at 12:44 PM on March 16, 2005
Okay, fess up. Who wrote the MetaFilter script? Moocher.
posted by VulcanMike at 12:50 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by VulcanMike at 12:50 PM on March 16, 2005
This is cool, but I want a Michael Jackson Trial blocker. More importantly, I want an image blocker that filters out all images of his creepy remains of a face.
posted by salad spork at 12:53 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by salad spork at 12:53 PM on March 16, 2005
does it supress ad impressions?
In either case, Google ads are paid by the clickthrough, so whether they load or not, if the viewer doesn't see them, the viewer doesn't click, and the webmaster gets nothing for posting them there. That's why I only run a weak adblocker for one-at-a-time zapping.
In fact, I regularly open ads just to keep revenue floating -- and when I click Google ads at places like Boing Boing, I can stumble on great novelty pages.
posted by NickDouglas at 1:16 PM on March 16, 2005
In either case, Google ads are paid by the clickthrough, so whether they load or not, if the viewer doesn't see them, the viewer doesn't click, and the webmaster gets nothing for posting them there. That's why I only run a weak adblocker for one-at-a-time zapping.
In fact, I regularly open ads just to keep revenue floating -- and when I click Google ads at places like Boing Boing, I can stumble on great novelty pages.
posted by NickDouglas at 1:16 PM on March 16, 2005
(Coincidentally, I just installed Greasemonkey this morning and made a script to link UPS tracking codes [self-link].)
Plutor, thanks for the script, very handy!
posted by ssukotto at 1:35 PM on March 16, 2005
Plutor, thanks for the script, very handy!
posted by ssukotto at 1:35 PM on March 16, 2005
Question: does "open in new tab" register an impression credited to metafilter if I click that way on an ad here, or do I need to do a simple click through?
posted by Rumple at 1:42 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by Rumple at 1:42 PM on March 16, 2005
Question: when the standard adblock extension is used in Firefox, does it supress ad impressions? Or, does the site get the "hits" from the ads loading via my visit, but the ads are hidden from my sight?
Impressions are actually bad for the advertiser when there's no click-throughs. Google punishes advertisers who have unsuccessful keywords with small fines. Google Ads are all about click-through rate.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2005
Impressions are actually bad for the advertiser when there's no click-throughs. Google punishes advertisers who have unsuccessful keywords with small fines. Google Ads are all about click-through rate.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 2:19 PM on March 16, 2005
but has adblocking gone too far?
I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to filter and display stuff on my computer any way I want.
posted by Capn at 2:43 PM on March 16, 2005
I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to filter and display stuff on my computer any way I want.
posted by Capn at 2:43 PM on March 16, 2005
I have a problem with invasive advertising such as pop-ups, floaters, and full length page ads on sites. For that reason, I run Adblock and it really does make browsing an overall better experience.
Unobtrusive ads, such as Google, are not bothersome to me and sometimes I find the information helpful (depending on what I'm searching for). As long as it stays text, at the edges of the screen and/or clearly marked differently then the actual content, then it doesn't bother me at all.
At that point I rely on my own ad-blocking mechanism that is the easiest to manage, my brain. Now, if we could only figure out a way to get something like this working on television! That would be something.
posted by purephase at 3:05 PM on March 16, 2005
Unobtrusive ads, such as Google, are not bothersome to me and sometimes I find the information helpful (depending on what I'm searching for). As long as it stays text, at the edges of the screen and/or clearly marked differently then the actual content, then it doesn't bother me at all.
At that point I rely on my own ad-blocking mechanism that is the easiest to manage, my brain. Now, if we could only figure out a way to get something like this working on television! That would be something.
posted by purephase at 3:05 PM on March 16, 2005
What does Matt (or anyone else) think about the Greasemonkey script that blocks MeFi's text ads?
posted by fncll at 7:52 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by fncll at 7:52 PM on March 16, 2005
This is a great thread. I use privoxy and adblock to filter most ads on most sites. Now I can block even more!
posted by puke & cry at 8:39 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by puke & cry at 8:39 PM on March 16, 2005
is there any way to use Proxomitron and Privoxy at the same time? Two proxys at once with firefox?
posted by puke & cry at 9:00 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by puke & cry at 9:00 PM on March 16, 2005
That would be completely unnecessary. In fact if you're using Proxomitron you should disable all other ad blockers because it'll probably screw things up. There's nothing you can do with other adblockers you can't do with Proxo, anyway. In any case, the best filter sets for Proxo are so complicated (and huge) that even changing the order of the 100+ filters can mess things up.
The feature set of Privoxy is pretty small compared with Proxo. If there's something that it doesn't do you can always write your own filter anyway.
posted by aerify at 9:33 PM on March 16, 2005
The feature set of Privoxy is pretty small compared with Proxo. If there's something that it doesn't do you can always write your own filter anyway.
posted by aerify at 9:33 PM on March 16, 2005
I'm using Tor with Privoxy, so I'm guessing its just as easy to set it up with proxo, right?
posted by puke & cry at 9:43 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by puke & cry at 9:43 PM on March 16, 2005
puke & cry writes "is there any way to use Proxomitron and Privoxy at the same time? Two proxys at once with firefox?"
Sure: set up one to use the other's port as it's proxy. I do this with CookieCop and Proxomiron.
posted by orthogonality at 10:23 PM on March 16, 2005
Sure: set up one to use the other's port as it's proxy. I do this with CookieCop and Proxomiron.
posted by orthogonality at 10:23 PM on March 16, 2005
"as its". Sorry.
posted by orthogonality at 10:25 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by orthogonality at 10:25 PM on March 16, 2005
Now, if we could only figure out a way to get something like this working on television!
Well, Tivo kinda takes care of that(sadly not free though.)
What does Matt (or anyone else) think about the Greasemonkey script that blocks MeFi's text ads?
Personally, i don't block the ads from MeFi because they are not intrusive and even interesting sometimes.
Like Capn said, I believe i have the right to display content how i wish.
posted by schyler523 at 10:43 PM on March 16, 2005
Well, Tivo kinda takes care of that(sadly not free though.)
What does Matt (or anyone else) think about the Greasemonkey script that blocks MeFi's text ads?
Personally, i don't block the ads from MeFi because they are not intrusive and even interesting sometimes.
Like Capn said, I believe i have the right to display content how i wish.
posted by schyler523 at 10:43 PM on March 16, 2005
Anyone else notice "Don't you know you're gonna to shock the monkey"?
posted by schyler523 at 10:44 PM on March 16, 2005
posted by schyler523 at 10:44 PM on March 16, 2005
Note that the greasemonkey "debate" is not about ad-blocking at all, which as noted is easily available through other forms such as proxy-blockers; and Firefox has included from the beginning the ability to turn off images emanating from a specific domain, which blocks certain banner ads quite effectively.
The greasemonkey debate is about the Autolink feature debuted by Google, and whether the browser can alter essential aspects of the intended display. This is the philosophical level of the argument, but of course it's really about money. Should Google be able -- as Smart Tags would have done for Microsoft -- to sell keywords for Toolbar Autolinks? Wouldn't that mean not only that Google is making money off your site without any contractural arrangement, but that your own linking is diluted, including contracted advertising (which will be worth less to you now) and reducing in-site links and thus your stickiness factor?
Nobody's really arguing over whether it's the end-user's right to modify whether or not he sees ads. Whether it's banners or pop-ups, that's the user's prerogative.
The question here is whose ads he sees.
posted by dhartung at 10:48 PM on March 16, 2005
The greasemonkey debate is about the Autolink feature debuted by Google, and whether the browser can alter essential aspects of the intended display. This is the philosophical level of the argument, but of course it's really about money. Should Google be able -- as Smart Tags would have done for Microsoft -- to sell keywords for Toolbar Autolinks? Wouldn't that mean not only that Google is making money off your site without any contractural arrangement, but that your own linking is diluted, including contracted advertising (which will be worth less to you now) and reducing in-site links and thus your stickiness factor?
Nobody's really arguing over whether it's the end-user's right to modify whether or not he sees ads. Whether it's banners or pop-ups, that's the user's prerogative.
The question here is whose ads he sees.
posted by dhartung at 10:48 PM on March 16, 2005
People started blocking flash ads, animated banners and popups because they were annoying as hell, when not downright malicious. People probably won't intentionally block Google and other text ads because they aren't annoying. Now if a popular adblocker were to default to blocking Google, then ordinary people would probably not care enough to make the effort to unblock them.
Google Toolbar's autolink feature would be a problem in either (or both) of these cases:
1. The autolinking were on by default. Since Google Toolbar has substantial uses not related to the autolinking, adding it in would present the impression, to ordinary users, that the links are sponsored by the page author, which is a bad thing. But even if the links were illustrated by a clear method that indicated that they were from Google, that would still be bad. The only acceptable response from Google here is to have the links off by default, and make the user take an active effort in turning them on.
2. The links point directly Google ad sites, or otherwise drive revenue to Google. This would be Google riding on the effort of other websites. If the links, however, were merely to wikipedia articles (for generic words) or non-advertising-sponsored this-day-in-history kinds of sites (for dates), then a case could be made for it, but it'd be negated if #1 above were true.
(This is my first comment here, by the way. Hooray!)
posted by JHarris at 10:49 PM on March 16, 2005
Google Toolbar's autolink feature would be a problem in either (or both) of these cases:
1. The autolinking were on by default. Since Google Toolbar has substantial uses not related to the autolinking, adding it in would present the impression, to ordinary users, that the links are sponsored by the page author, which is a bad thing. But even if the links were illustrated by a clear method that indicated that they were from Google, that would still be bad. The only acceptable response from Google here is to have the links off by default, and make the user take an active effort in turning them on.
2. The links point directly Google ad sites, or otherwise drive revenue to Google. This would be Google riding on the effort of other websites. If the links, however, were merely to wikipedia articles (for generic words) or non-advertising-sponsored this-day-in-history kinds of sites (for dates), then a case could be made for it, but it'd be negated if #1 above were true.
(This is my first comment here, by the way. Hooray!)
posted by JHarris at 10:49 PM on March 16, 2005
I'm with purephase, here.
If they're unobtrusive, then fine.
If they're relevant to the page I'm viewing (or the content thereof), then fine.
Anything that flashes, makes a noise, pops up (over/under), or sits on a layer hiding the text gets blocked immediately and permantently - and not just that ad; anything from the adverts originating domain.
It's always a hell of a shock going browsing whilst at work (lunchtime, etc.) as we are only allowed to use IE6; pop-ups, flashes, all manner of crap everywhere - and no way to stop it all! Argh! :-)
Yay Firefox! \o/
posted by Chunder at 2:04 AM on March 17, 2005
If they're unobtrusive, then fine.
If they're relevant to the page I'm viewing (or the content thereof), then fine.
Anything that flashes, makes a noise, pops up (over/under), or sits on a layer hiding the text gets blocked immediately and permantently - and not just that ad; anything from the adverts originating domain.
It's always a hell of a shock going browsing whilst at work (lunchtime, etc.) as we are only allowed to use IE6; pop-ups, flashes, all manner of crap everywhere - and no way to stop it all! Argh! :-)
Yay Firefox! \o/
posted by Chunder at 2:04 AM on March 17, 2005
Remember when some MPAA monkey claimed that viewers who left the room during commercial breaks were "stealing" their television? How everyone laughed at him? How is ad-blocking any different? I don't look at ads and I don't click on ads. If your business model can't cope with that then find another business model. Don't blame me, the end user.
posted by salmacis at 2:12 AM on March 17, 2005
posted by salmacis at 2:12 AM on March 17, 2005
Remember when some MPAA monkey claimed that viewers who left the room during commercial breaks were "stealing" their television? How everyone laughed at him? How is ad-blocking any different? I don't look at ads and I don't click on ads. If your business model can't cope with that then find another business model. Don't blame me, the end user.
In my opinion, click-through's death-knell just sounded (which kind of sucks, because the only alternative that I can envision is pan-handling writ large). You just know some well-meaning developer will make some extension or something that will click all the google ads displayed on a page (probably someone ticked about autolinking and wanting to rip off google for all it's worth), which will give whomever that page belongs to all the revenue for those clickthroughs. This software will do it in the background. And essentially, whoever feels guilty about "stealing" their web content will simply download this and ensure that the advertising works, as well as anyone who feels they are being treated unfairly by Google advertising. Google will retaliate, but the software will be open-source, and someone will develop it into a search engine ad bomber, different people will enhance and sell it commercially, and then all of a sudden you've got just one more front on the spam arms race.
Anybody else see this happening? I'm not very optimistic for how the open-source community and ethic would deal with something like this if it did happen.
posted by saysthis at 7:09 AM on March 17, 2005
In my opinion, click-through's death-knell just sounded (which kind of sucks, because the only alternative that I can envision is pan-handling writ large). You just know some well-meaning developer will make some extension or something that will click all the google ads displayed on a page (probably someone ticked about autolinking and wanting to rip off google for all it's worth), which will give whomever that page belongs to all the revenue for those clickthroughs. This software will do it in the background. And essentially, whoever feels guilty about "stealing" their web content will simply download this and ensure that the advertising works, as well as anyone who feels they are being treated unfairly by Google advertising. Google will retaliate, but the software will be open-source, and someone will develop it into a search engine ad bomber, different people will enhance and sell it commercially, and then all of a sudden you've got just one more front on the spam arms race.
Anybody else see this happening? I'm not very optimistic for how the open-source community and ethic would deal with something like this if it did happen.
posted by saysthis at 7:09 AM on March 17, 2005
saysthis: "panhandling" would be closer to what savekaryn.com was all about. A site owner that provides an actual service and asks for a voluntary payment of the users' choosing isn't panhandling or begging or anything like that all. I actually think that would be a perfectly viable and okay model for site owners to go with, once people get used to that as a means for the services they use to remain afloat.
Well, I would *hope* that people would get used to it, and keep their favorite sites afloat. . .
posted by BrandonAbell at 8:57 AM on March 17, 2005
Well, I would *hope* that people would get used to it, and keep their favorite sites afloat. . .
posted by BrandonAbell at 8:57 AM on March 17, 2005
Brandon: I wasn't using "panhandling" derisively, but it would take both some getting used to and hoping to make it happen as a business model. I don't know. I guess I think the biggest obstacle for me to donating to sites that I visit often isn't so much a matter of convenience (though you know, Paypal & Friends could be tons easier). It's that I have this psychological block against paying for sites. I really honestly instinctually believe that sites and content should be free. I grew up in the 90's and loved music: I saved nothing because it all went to CD's, and I watched network TV go downhill because they were trying to draw more people, so they all cut straight to the lowest common denominator. Obviously vague generalizations, but I think they happened.
What matters is that perception. When I got to the web I said "never again!" and I have made it a point to get obstinate about registering, banner ads, all that, and I do donate or buy premium services where I feel like it's worth it. I know there are a lot of people who share that "anti-commercial" mentality and get a queasy feeling whenever they have to pay for crucial usability online, or am forced to watch advertising, or am in some other way coerced or strongly encouraged. I'm okay paying for premium services, and I'll donate to what I like. Eventually they'll perfect micropayments and everybody else will be too. That's not really what I'm worried about. The two issues are how to get over all the squeamishness people have about donating to things, and how you'll convince them that it's necessary once advertising becomes a poisoned chalice. Sure you'll donate to metafilter, but what about google? Will you then donate to yahoo and MSN Search because you value competition? If advertising and link-throughs die, how do you support the giants?
I should take this to my own blog because this thread is dying. :)
posted by saysthis at 8:46 PM on March 17, 2005
What matters is that perception. When I got to the web I said "never again!" and I have made it a point to get obstinate about registering, banner ads, all that, and I do donate or buy premium services where I feel like it's worth it. I know there are a lot of people who share that "anti-commercial" mentality and get a queasy feeling whenever they have to pay for crucial usability online, or am forced to watch advertising, or am in some other way coerced or strongly encouraged. I'm okay paying for premium services, and I'll donate to what I like. Eventually they'll perfect micropayments and everybody else will be too. That's not really what I'm worried about. The two issues are how to get over all the squeamishness people have about donating to things, and how you'll convince them that it's necessary once advertising becomes a poisoned chalice. Sure you'll donate to metafilter, but what about google? Will you then donate to yahoo and MSN Search because you value competition? If advertising and link-throughs die, how do you support the giants?
I should take this to my own blog because this thread is dying. :)
posted by saysthis at 8:46 PM on March 17, 2005
« Older Your favorite cock pit | Too Quiet? How about too slow? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2005