Adblock issues

[Clive Mortimore]

34 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I went and looked and could see recently posted images - be a little more helpful (rather than antagonistic) and provide a link to any posts with an issue and I'll take a look. Lobbing stroppy comments isn't the best way of going about it.

I spent three nights replacing all the missing photos back to page 409 as photos before that page were still viewable, they disappeared afterwards, so from page 1 to page 409 they are missing. 

 

Andy , just think for a moment there would be no forum without people contributing. 

[RedgateModels]

39 minutes ago, WM183 said:

Cool. So you'd rather users disappear?

 

Would we want the whole site to disappear?

[RedgateModels]

1 minute ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

 

Andy , just think for a moment there would be no forum without people contributing. 

 

Clive, to flip it round - without people contributing either by viewing ads or subscribing there would be no forum

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I spent three nights replacing all the missing photos back to page 409 as photos before that page were still viewable, they disappeared afterwards, so from page 1 to page 409 they are missing. 

 

I've been back again. Virtually all of the images back to the beginning of your topic would have been lost March/April (and no further ones since then) - if you still saw images in early posts it's likely that they were held in your local cache.

[ruggedpeak]

Please feel free to put non-adblock related issues on a new thread with full details so Andy can investigate.

 

Also bear in mind the internet is not free and neither is RMWeb. It is great that people contribute on here but it still needs paying for.

[D9020 Nimbus]

The main risk by adopting this strategy is that you will put off potential new members. I doubt that many people will subscribe to premium membership without first looking to see whether it is worth subscribing; if you prevent the use of ad-blockers and have intrusive ads — as seems to be the case at the moment, given the content of some of the posts to this topic — you will get very few if any new subscribers. Effectively you could be setting RMWeb on a path of "managed decline". 
 

The problem of defraying the costs of internet sites in a way that is generally acceptable is not a new one. Google ads are a particularly intrusive form of advertising, whose primary purpose is to finance Google, not the hosts nor the advertisers.

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Effectively you could be setting RMWeb on a path of "managed decline". 

 

I'm not saying that blocker will be there all the time but it's only fair that as many as possible pay a bit rather than leaning on those of you who do pay towards the upkeep so it will appear periodically - or I adopt different approaches.

 

I'm not saying that everyone has to pay; but if they don't want to they should accept the ads.

[spamcan61]

4 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The main risk by adopting this strategy is that you will put off potential new members. I doubt that many people will subscribe to premium membership without first looking to see whether it is worth subscribing; if you prevent the use of ad-blockers and have intrusive ads — as seems to be the case at the moment, given the content of some of the posts to this topic — you will get very few if any new subscribers. Effectively you could be setting RMWeb on a path of "managed decline". 

 

I would see your point in terms of Gold membership, but Premium is 12 quid a year for pity's sake so hardly worth the effort of cost benefit analysis versus two pints and a packet of crisps a year in my local pub.

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, spamcan61 said:

versus two pints and a packet of crisps a year in my local pub.

 

I've known some pub customers make a pint stretch all night, but 6 months? The crisps will go soft too.

[Hroth]

Sorry for this rant, but here goes...

 

The Bludgeon Screen

 

 

I intensely dislike websites that block access because they detect an "Ad-blocking software/plug-in". Normally when I encounter such websites, I immediately leave them as I feel that a bullying approach is counter-productive. In addition, ads are often used as a smokescreen for tracking devices and other less pleasant "gifts".   

 

I'm particularly annoyed by the RMweb screen as it prevents members who already pay a contribution from logging in. The insistence that the visitor removes ad-blocking software is unfair as there are legitimate reasons to run ad-blocking software. Adverts should be non-intrusive and tailored to the platform they are displayed on. One of the reasons I have found for using ad-blockers on phones and tablets is that the ads swamp the screen and can actually get in the way of logging in. On a PC, it's just the sheer proliferation of ads, trackers and so on that encourage the use of ad blockers. 

 

Currently I'm informed that the ad blocker on my PC has intercepted 10 such items. Briefly white listing RMweb to log in, three ads were displayed out of the 10 items previously blocked.  And as can be seen, one of the ads had no connection with railway modelling...

 

 

If RMweb insists on such a heavy handed approach, then they need to make the site accessible to paying members by including a log in button on the blocking screen, as neither of the two options presently there are acceptable.

 

[AY Mod]

2 minutes ago, Hroth said:

If RMweb insists on such a heavy handed approach, then they need to make the site accessible to paying members by including a log in button on the blocking screen, as neither of the two options presently there are acceptable.

 

Heavy-handed? Give me a break and please, at least, note that I have tried to explain the imperatives. I accept there needs to be improvement on the latter point but I just stay logged in.

[martin_wynne]

There's not much point putting advertising on a web site because hardly anyone actually reads what's on the screen. There's a word missing:

 

 

:)

 

[Hroth]

8 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Heavy-handed? Give me a break and please, at least, note that I have tried to explain the imperatives. I accept there needs to be improvement on the latter point but I just stay logged in.

 

I understand the imperatives, its just that I encountered it after I logged out of RMweb on a tablet and had the bl@@dy No-Entry screen presented with no immediate way back in.

[jpendle]

Well maybe I'm doing something wrong as I don't have a subscription or Ad Blockers but I wouldn't call these ads 'intrusive'

 

 

Regards,

 

John P

[AY Mod]

Just now, Hroth said:

with no immediate way back in.

 

Click on the "I intend to" button.

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

:)

 

Fair cop!

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

Click on the "I intend to" button.

 

Even if you are already?  🤔

 

Oh, ok....  🙄

 

I'll try that out the next time I access RMweb using the tablet.

 

It works, but it seems a weird way to do it!  Thanks!

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Hroth
Update

[Phil Parker]

3 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Andy , just think for a moment there would be no forum without people contributing. 

 

And without the forum, there would be nothing for people to post on. It's chicken and egg.

 

The question you need to answer is, "Who should pay for RMweb?" - for most people, I expect the answer is "Someone else, but not me."

 

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Also bear in mind the internet is not free and neither is RMWeb. It is great that people contribute on here but it still needs paying for.

 

Spot on. I know that Andy has been working, and arguing, harder on trying to square the circle than he's admitted on here. No media organisation has, to my knowledge, with the exception of a very few specialised outlets, managed to find the perfect solution to delivering content and being paid for this. Everyone wants something for free. Advertising on RMweb will always be a work in process, so calm down, give constuctive feedback and with a bit of luck things will start to fall into place.

[gz3xzf]

I am considering dumping RMWeb as I do not mind ads, but since you included the ad-blocker check I keep getting this annoying Digitrains video in the bottom right-hand side of the screen which is distracting from the use of the site, it isn't even limited to the gutter on the right-hand side set aside for adverts. It covers navigation links and buttons making the site difficult to use.

[Phil Parker]

38 minutes ago, gz3xzf said:

I am considering dumping RMWeb

 

That really isn't the threat you think it is.

 

39 minutes ago, gz3xzf said:

but since you included the ad-blocker check I keep getting this annoying Digitrains video in the bottom right-hand side of the screen which is distracting from the use of the site, it isn't even limited to the gutter on the right-hand side set aside for adverts. It covers navigation links and buttons making the site difficult to use.

 

But that is useful information. Better still, if you'd tell us the screen resolution, device and browser you are using, then Andy can use this to get those organising the adverts to fix this. We don't want to anoy everyone, but there are so many different devices used to acess this forum, that there is no way we can test on all of them. Technical details, including screenshots, make the job a lot easier.

[cctransuk]

6 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

If you are using Firefox you don't need an ad blocker. Just go into the Settings and set tracker protection to Strict:

 

 

This doesn't actually block ads, it blocks tracking scripts. However, since almost all ads include sneaky trackers, in effect the ads get blocked too. Firefox warns that this setting may prevent some sites from working, but I have never had any problems, and I never see any ads on any web site (except on YouTube videos).

 

If an advertiser complains that you are blocking their ads, tell them that you are not -- if they want you to see it, don't put a tracker in it.

 

Martin.

 

 

 

Another vote for Firefox!

 

All of my means - bar one - of accessing RMweb use Firefox, and RMweb is advert-free.

 

The one exception - an ancient tablet - is so riddled with adverts that RMweb is totally unusable, due to ads blocking access to essential function tabs, etc.

 

CJI.

[maq1988]

Bold strategy - users want to use a 'free' website. Website costs money to run... website has no income... website shuts down. I say this as a non-RMWeb Gold member. £12/yr isn't much for effectively what has been a free service for years. Problems - yes there have been. Loss of photos was a big one recently. One hopes lessons have been learnt. Database performance was another last year.

 

I didn't sign up with my electricity provider for massive price hikes, but if the bill isn't paid the lights go out. I can hook my bike to a generator and pedal for free though.

 

Andy said the forum was over 1TB in size when photos issue happened, who is paying for backups, maintenance, hosting, moderation, bandwidth fees, software licensing costs... ?

 

Is there an argument to be had about the definition of an obtrusive ad, maybe? Personally I'd prefer them to be static and not the pop-over style like the Digitrains one. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I am more than happy to pay for the enjoyment I get out of this site, but on the wider issue of adblockers, I find some sites almost unusable without them, so I have an adblocker on one of my browsers (Firefox). However, there are some sites that don't work with adblockers, and there are a handful that politely ask for the adblocker to be turned off. I don't like turning off the adblocker, so I have a different browser (Chrome) without an adblocker, for use on those sites. It's quite simple really.

[AY Mod]

12 minutes ago, maq1988 said:

Personally I'd prefer them to be static and not the pop-over style like the Digitrains one. 

 

Last time I asked for the position to be the former I ended up with both and the static one at a ridiculous size. I'd have been better not asking!

 

I have the invidious position of accommodating users, battling techies and trying to balance the books.

[gz3xzf]

58 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

That really isn't the threat you think it is.

 

 

But that is useful information. Better still, if you'd tell us the screen resolution, device and browser you are using, then Andy can use this to get those organising the adverts to fix this. We don't want to anoy everyone, but there are so many different devices used to acess this forum, that there is no way we can test on all of them. Technical details, including screenshots, make the job a lot easier.

I am using Firefox running under Windows 10, screen resolution is 1280x1024: -

This is how the screen looks like this: -

I am guessing if I used a different resolution the video might encroach more or less into the forum display.