Grumble Thread

[Dave2002]

Ads - yet again! Though that's not the only problem.

Today I seem to have a big problem with Firefox - not sure why, but it's not working properly. So I had to switch to other browsers.

One I tried was Opera - which works fine, but when I went to some pages I visit frequently ads appear. The ads are really distracting - and they have been carefully placed so that even if I try to move the window to the left to make an ad disappear, there is another one on the right hand side.

I reckon the ads are a real bummer re anything requiring concentration, so need to be turned off ASAP.

Then I looked for adblockers. One of them seemed to install, but I'm not sure. Then I was presented with a panel suggesting "honesty" payments. The suggested payment amounts were enough to make me look for something else, so I eventually found and installed Ghostery, which seems to work. I really dislike this model of the internet, where ads are routinely put on so many pages, and then removing them with an ad blocker prompts in some sort of charging system.

OK - so this reminds me a bit of some kinds of threat behaviour, which goes like this:

1. Ask some guys - vandals - to go round smashing up house windows.

Wait a while.

2. Then contact house owners and suggest that if they pay £10 per month "your" guys can prevent the window smashing.

There have almost certainly been criminal organisations which have adopted this behaviour. In the case of the Ad blockers, the organisations which make ad blockers can probably argue - reasonably - that they are trying to "solve" a problem, but they didn't create it in the first place.

Then of course things get worse. After you install one or two ad-blockers, which seem to work quite well, then you hit a web site you might really be interested in, and you get this "We have detected you are using an ad-blocker. Please consider removing it for this site, as the site relies on ads for funding."

The whole issue of this kind of behaviour stinks, IMO.

In the meantime I'm still trying to work around the Firefox issues - looks as though I'm going to have to abandon Firefox for some while.

[Petrushka]

Ad blockers

I've always assumed that these ad blocker sites are scams and best avoided. More than one site I regularly visit is plagued with adverts for ... ad blockers!

Ads are a nuisance but after a while you just mentally filter them out.

[Bryn]

Re #901, is your Firefox the latest version, 113.0.1?

[french frank]

I have Adblock Plus (free, donations welcome) installed and the only inconvenience is when I get a plea from a reputable site saying "We see you have an adblocker installed. The ads are our source of revenue so please ..." I unblock ads just for that page but not the entire site. This situation is liveable with.

[Dave2002]

I have Adblock Plus (free, donations welcome) installed and the only inconvenience is when I get a plea from a reputable site saying "We see you have an adblocker installed. The ads are our source of revenue so please ..." I unblock ads just for that page but not the entire site. This situation is liveable with.

I generally prefer not to enable ads for any reason.

[Dave2002]

I've always assumed that these ad blocker sites are scams and best avoided. More than one site I regularly visit is plagued with adverts for ... ad blockers!

Ads are a nuisance but after a while you just mentally filter them out.

Actually no ....

For various reasons I have taken to doing a few online puzzles early in the morning. This morning my performance was most definitely hampered by the adverts.

OK - that's a sample of one instance, and my personal feelings while trying the puzzles, but although ads can be filtered out, I'm sure someone could write a PhD thesis [may have already done one] to show the reduction in human effectiveness in the presence of such [unwanted] distractions.

[Dave2002]

Re #901, is your Firefox the latest version, 113.0.1?

Will check again. There are several gremlins today, so I'm not quite sure, and having to use different browsers.

Thanks - you've given me a hint. I'll try to reinstall the very latest version - I'm not going to "fire" up FF again from the currently installed version just to check the version number.

If I could get a version working, then maybe flushing the caches would help, but I think I have to have something working in order to do that.

BTW - thanks for the RB file - it worked fine, and I was able to hear the interview I particularly wanted to listen to.

[Petrushka]

Actually no ....

For various reasons I have taken to doing a few online puzzles early in the morning. This morning my performance was most definitely hampered by the adverts.

OK - that's a sample of one instance, and my personal feelings while trying the puzzles, but although ads can be filtered out, I'm sure someone could write a PhD thesis [may have already done one] to show the reduction in human effectiveness in the presence of such [unwanted] distractions.

Everybody's different, I suppose. I also do a few online puzzles along with my mid-morning coffee and have no difficulty in focussing on the puzzle and ignoring the ads. Chances are that you wouldn't get the puzzles without the ads which no doubt help pay for the site so a necessary evil.

[Dave2002]

Everybody's different, I suppose. I also do a few online puzzles along with my mid-morning coffee and have no difficulty in focussing on the puzzle and ignoring the ads. Chances are that you wouldn't get the puzzles without the ads which no doubt help pay for the site so a necessary evil.

No - I don't believe in "necessary" evils. I don't actually propose to test my theory by straining myself for days to see if I do better or worse with the ads, or whether I would adapt. I had forgotten about the ads, since most of my machines are set up so that I never see them. I just felt that nerdle, for example, I should have done in three rows and quicker, rather than the four rows it actually took me today. I don't actually care if most sites go bust through my not being willing to pay for ads, though I have paid for some sites to remain ad free which hopefully is more effective as the ads might be filtered out at the server end, rather than taxing my computer.

Oh - oddly the thing which triggered this in the first place - the failure of Firefox - now seems to have been fixed, but I don't know how I actually achieved that. I did reinstall a version, but I may have had to do that twice to get a result.

[french frank]

I generally prefer not to enable ads for any reason.

If you have Adblock Plus as a plug-in, the decision is yours whether to unblock for certain sites or not. I choose to unblock a page I'm trying to access if I sympathise with the plea to 'enable' ad revenue for that site. If any particular site won't allow you access if you have an adblocker, it's nothing to do with your browser.

[Serial_Apologist]

My grumble of the moment is lack of name and occupation attachments to people invited onto television programmes, with the result that one has no idea for whom or what organisation or authority the guest is giving their opinions. In earlier times such details would intermittently be flagged onscreen; nowadays you're lucky to see them for more than a couple of seconds at most during an appearance, and often not on introduction but halfway through the programme; sometimes not even then. Woe betide anyone who is looking away or even blinking at that precious moment. Some requirement that we know who is spouting their views and possibly why should be put on broadcasters, I believe.

[Pulcinella]

My grumble of the moment is lack of name and occupation attachments to people invited onto television programmes, with the result that one has no idea for whom or what organisation or authority the guest is giving their opinions. In earlier times such details would intermittently be flagged onscreen; nowadays you're lucky to see them for more than a couple of seconds at most during an appearance, and often not on introduction but halfway through the programme; sometimes not even then. Woe betide anyone who is looking away or even blinking at that precious moment. Some requirement that we know who is spouting their views and possibly why should be put on broadcasters, I believe.

Apple have done something similar with their low battery (in keyboard or mouse) alerts. Maddening!

[Jonathan]

Pets in the workplace. Completely and totally unnecessary.

[eighthobstruction]

Apple have done something similar with their low battery (in keyboard or mouse) alerts. Maddening!

....or reading the sub-titles....

[Serial_Apologist]

....or reading the sub-titles....

In general? That would be annoying, given that reading them in the first place diverts attention from action on screen. Another gripe used to be white subtitles against a white background scene, or black vice-versa, but most subtitlers seem to have learned ways to overcome that.