We never have used pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-overs, autoplay audio ads, or any of the other type of ads that take over the screen to one degree or another. Particularly infuriating are the pop-up/over ads that have an “X” that makes you think you are getting rid of it, but in fact you are clicking on it.

Forsaking such annoying ads had its cost since they were the most lucrative. That’s a point I made during our semi-annual fundraisers in explaining the importance of reader donations. (See what I did there?)

I know that a lot of readers use ad blockers precisely because the worst offenders drove the need, something I wrote about in August 2015, You’re killing us – one ad block at a time:

I understand the urge to adblock. There are many big conservative websites I just won’t visit anymore because I’m bombarded with pop-ups, pop-overs, pop-unders, and click pop-ups. And then there are auto-run video ads, in a whole league of horrible all their own. Half the time, my computer freezes.

Adblockers are both a response and a cause of the problem. When fewer people view ads, the need to bombard the people who don’t use adblockers to make up the revenue increases. It’s a vicious cycle.

One way to avoid it is to put up a paywall and hope to drive revenue through a subscription model. Both of those models are of limited success, unless you are a unique media property like The Wall Street Journal.

We don’t use any of the above, and we suffer financially for that decision. We’re not part of a media conglomerate with investors and venture capital. A large percentage of our revenue comes from our relatively non-intrusive advertising.

We (I) would just like not to lose money. When you block our ads, it has a greater impact on us.

Some *good* news.

You no longer will need to use ad blockers to avoid the annoying ads if you use Chrome:

Starting [last] Thursday, Chrome will block the following on desktop: ads that take over the browser, pop-up ads, autoplay videos with sound, and large sticky ads that take over the bottom of the screen and don’t move.

On mobile, ads that will be blocked include those with flashing animation, ads displayed before the content is loaded, and full-screen scroll over ads.

But the company said it won’t block all ads, only those deemed most intrusive by researchers at the Coalition for Better Ads. Over 40,000 people took part in surveys to determine the worst offenders.

CNET provides this graphic:


Wired explains that running annoying ads that get blocked by Chrome can affect all ads on the page:

Google is essentially blacklisting sites that violate specific guidelines, and then trying to filter all ads that appear on those sites, not just the particularly annoying ones.

The NY Times notes Google’s self-interest in preventing the necessity for more comprehensive ad blockers, which would hurt Google:

But Google did not become the creator of the world’s most popular browser and a dominant advertising force by running its business in a manner that did not serve its own interests.

With the Chrome update, the company hopes to come out ahead by lessening the temptation of web users to install more comprehensive ad-blocking software. In other words, Google is betting that ridding the web of especially intrusive ads will render it more hospitable to advertising in general — and more profitable for advertisers and Google itself….

Chrome will not block ads that run before videos on sites like the Google-owned YouTube, for example. Such ads, which can be blocked by Adblock Plus, lay outside the scope of the recommendations made by the Coalition for Better Ads.

We’re okay with all this. Because we never used the type of ads blocked by the new Chrome feature.

And we pass the test:

Featured Image: You are surrounded by your white male privilege