Can’t get there from here

Let me stipulate for the record that I think ad-blocking software is evil. But I might just install some if the Boston Globe and the Weekly Dig can’t figure out what’s wrong with “a.collective-media.net.”

Update: Better results with Safari than with Firefox today. What’s that about?

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 thoughts on “Can’t get there from here”

  3. Try getting a plugin that lets you disable flash. I have found that MANY websites…including boston.com…load much better and faster without the bloated flash droppings they’ve got shoveled everyware.I use the Toggle Flash control that’s part of the Toolbar Buttons add-on for Firefox.

  6. Presumably he thinks ad-blocking software is evil because he has many friends who depend on revenue from ads to keep from losing their jobs. A moment’s annoyance from (admittedly annoying) Flash ads doesn’t seem so bad when your buddy just lost his health insurance and income.

  7. One more thing about Flash …Flash has also become the industry standard format for media-rich online journalism. Its integration of animation, video, audio and data handling is impressive, and offers journalists tools that are well-suited to their work.Don’t be too quick to disable Flash in your browser(s). You may miss some of the best reporting out there.Doug

  8. I would not have thought this needed to be said, but obviously news orgs are trying desperately to provide journalism paid for with online ads. They are struggling to hold on. And ad-blocking software defeats the one of the few ways we have of paying for reporting.

  9. Dan, look to my second part of the post. The proliferation of flash-based malware attacks (at sites such as US Today, the Super Bowl site et al) recently does give one pause as to enabling flash on your computer. Not a good sign (and I fully understand the implications of blocking ads – I don’t mind them so much but I don’t want my computer to be a zombie bot).One thing, and this is getting a little techie, is that Adobe (and Sun for that matter) do a poor job of updating the software. One would think that when you apply a security update that the prior version would be replaced. Not the case at all.Here’s a link to a good checker for insecure software (online and free):http://secunia.com/software_inspector/

  10. I would not have thought this needed to be said, but obviously news orgs are trying desperately to provide journalism paid for with online ads. They are struggling to hold on. And ad-blocking software defeats the one of the few ways we have of paying for reporting.And the visceral anti-ad reaction in this comment thread bodes rather ill for that strategy, wouldn’t you say?People tolerate, Dan…but only when they have no choice or they’re so zoned out they don’t notice. They almost never actually accept them, much less like them. Know how many people actually WATCH the ads on TV when they’re watching a TiVo’d / DVR’d show? Not too many.

  11. Static ads next to an online article are fair enough. But ads that start moving around (ie, video) next to the text I’m trying to focus my eyes on are intolerable. Slate is a particular offender. Try focusing on something that isn’t moving, while something else is moving next to it. It’s beyond obnoxious, nauseating almost.Before I learned how to disable Flash I used to open a Notepad and position it over a moving ad just so I could read the damn article.Likewise, the DVR has been a godsend. Watch hour-long shows in 40 minutes by skipping the ads. You have to clutch at every option available to keep ads at bay, since we swim in a sea of them as it is.

Comments are closed.