Update your AdBlock Plus(es), now supports non obtrusive ad exception so support your fav sites :)

mrk · 14 Dec 2011 at 20:37

https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads

I think it's an acceptable move, our favourite sites need to make money somehow and by allowing ads that are not annoying we are doing our part of helping those sites stay alive.

The option can be turned off of course.

Get updating

platypus · 15 Dec 2011 at 10:24

Nope.

bledd · 15 Dec 2011 at 10:34

Interesting move, I guess without this, more and more sites would start blocking adblock users, I've noticed this on a handful of sites so far

feriso · 15 Dec 2011 at 10:38

Yeah, AVForums do this, they limit your account :s

marc2003 · 15 Dec 2011 at 10:43

i'm using the new version and it's still blocking all the ads on the worst sites i regularly use. i already whitelist a few domains that i like but that is a rare thing indeed.

in the past, i think i've stumbled across one site that detected i was running ABP. i just clicked the back button and found what i was looking for elsewhere.

a1ex2001 · 15 Dec 2011 at 11:02

It's a tricky balance I hate adds but I love free sites........hmmm

CaptainCrash · 15 Dec 2011 at 11:58

feriso said:
Yeah, AVForums do this, they limit your account :s

It's ironic (but probably unsurprising) that AVForums are one of the loudest and most self-righteous of moaners about adblocking software, when they're also one of the worst offenders for intrusive and irritating ads. I've actually had my browser crash or hang on more than one occasion thanks to their delightful offerings, at least when I made the mistake of whitelisting them as per their demands.

a1ex2001 said:
It's a tricky balance I hate adds but I love free sites........hmmm

I suppose this is precisely the dilemma the new version is designed to address - I'm not entirely convinced, but it'll be interesting to see if many sites do in fact modify their behaviour in response (are you watching, AVForums?)...

mrk · 15 Dec 2011 at 12:07

After having the new version with the feature on for the whole night I haven't actually noticed any difference in the sites I regularly visit.

Hmm.

CaptainCrash · 15 Dec 2011 at 12:26

mrk said:
After having the new version with the feature on for the whole night I haven't actually noticed any difference in the sites I regularly visit.

Hmm.

I suppose it's very early days, and it'll take some time to compile the filter lists.

Columbo · 15 Dec 2011 at 13:13

I updated to this last night and was using AvForums for about 2 hours. The ads that are left in place are not intrusive and it does not limit any functionality.

I also didn't noticed any difference on any of the other sites I use regularly.

So at the moment I'm happy with the compromise.

Morfik · 15 Dec 2011 at 13:22

Disabled this, but then felt a pang of guilt!

Nexus18 · 15 Dec 2011 at 13:35

Disabled, absolutely no annoying ads for me!

marc2003 · 15 Dec 2011 at 13:41

the new version completely blocks ads in gmail. with the old version, text was removed but the space/borders that surrounded them was still visible. i guess they've decided google makes enough money as it is...

i don't even mind those type of ads as they are easily ignored.

Tute · 15 Dec 2011 at 14:18

I don't use Adblock as i'm a filthy IE user but my thoughts on this are that as long as ads are unintrusive, static, and subtle I don't mind them staying.

Sites that run with huge full screen "download this NOT A VIRUS screensaver now!!!one" can go suck on a lemon.

jas72 · 15 Dec 2011 at 14:30

I don't mind ads it was the pop unders that used to annoy me I don't have adblocker anymore but use no script which means ads that don't run scripts are fine.

Neil79 · 15 Dec 2011 at 14:50

No, you want ads you pay me the pleasure

Have enough of ads on TV

ng93 · 15 Dec 2011 at 16:36

Good move IMO. I mean if nobody views the ads the sites won't stay free, or won't stay around at all. And it helps stop sites completely blocking ABP users.

mehuk · 15 Dec 2011 at 23:46

As much as sites need and use ads, if a particular site shuts down because of no ad income... a new one will just surface without the need of ad income.

Its all swings and roundabouts, people make money out of users by in essence abusing their trust/computers. So in reality moaning that they dont get income from them isnt fair and im sure one of Googles terms is that the ads should not be mentioned by the site owners to its users, they should just be there in order to get a fair feedback etc ... so saying 'either look at these or we will block you' possibly violates that? (note I know not all ads are via Google, im just mentioning them as thats all I know of)

But im no expert, I dont block ads and just get on with it.

Radiation · 16 Dec 2011 at 14:15

They wouldn't have a problem if they weren't made to be so annoying, they've only got themselves to blame and the fact is many who use adblock wouldn't click or buy anything regardless of whether they see them or not.

I think they should have an extra option where you don't have them displayed but the good ads are downloaded to a secure sandbox and occasionally get a random click if they're in a list of sites you regularly to use, they'll never know it's happening and the sites you support will make more money.

Masterdog · 17 Dec 2011 at 14:00

Yes, this might actually convince me to use Adblock. I love free sites, I'll take the advertising no problem. The "I never click on them anyway" argument is bogus - Nobody clicks on a billboard, but it doesn't mean it doesn't influence you in some way.