Timeline for Is it fraudulent for an extension like adblock to still count as an ad impression for content creators
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2021 at 22:35 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | @ScriptKitty Could you go back and explain how many parties are involved; what contracts exist between which of them; what claims, offers or promises are made by any of them, and to whom? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/ with https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 20, 2016 at 20:44 | comment | added | Patrick87 | @feetwet It is not impossible that aborting the GET could be detected and result in the web site taking some action, perhaps disabling access. Doing the GET but hiding the content would get around that particular class of countermeasures. Of course a determined website could implement countermeasures that would catch even that. It's a game and in the end the viewer will likely win if they are determined. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 19:51 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jul 21, 2016 at 19:31 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jun 21, 2016 at 18:51 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| May 22, 2016 at 18:47 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 21:37 | comment | added | feetwet♦ | AdBlock has found a way to GET pages without downloading ads? That sounds like a remarkable feat. I know that known third-party ad servers can be blocked by name, and I suppose one could just avoid loading all external references on a page. But if a content-provider embeds ads (as opposed to embedding an easily-blocked reference to GET them) can those be blocked? In any case, wouldn't it be malicious to bother to GET ads and not display them? I.e., that sounds pretty close to the definition of "click-fraud." Or is there a technical justification or reason for doing that? | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 20:48 | comment | added | Script Kitty | @feetwet thank you so much! What I was trying to say was adblock is legal, but by forcing money out of advertisers my extension is no longer legal. As in, ive crossed the border. The second part is that it is fraud to click on your own ads because you have no interest in buying, and same for the extension | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 17:53 | comment | added | feetwet♦ | I incorporated that and tried to improve the question's clarity. The only thing I don't understand is your Counterpoint #2: What is "AdBlock's safety zone?" | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 17:51 | history | reopened | feetwet♦ | ||
| Apr 22, 2016 at 17:51 | history | edited | feetwet♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Incorporated comments to make question clear
|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 2:26 | comment | added | Script Kitty | @feetwet That is 100% correct | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 1:21 | history | closed |
user3851 feetwet♦ |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 1:20 | comment | added | feetwet♦ | So to try to uncover the question: The situation is: A programmer writes an extension to download ads but not display them. The effect is that sites accessed through this extension get to charge for the ad being served, even though it will not be seen. The sites don't know whether the extension is being used. The user may not know that the extension is resulting in the advertiser being charged for undisplayed ads. And if the author of the extension knows about the ad revenue consequences he doesn't care. And your question is: Who, if anyone, is committing fraud? | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 21:14 | history | edited | Script Kitty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 21, 2016 at 21:12 | comment | added | Script Kitty | @sabbahillel this is my fault for not making it clear, pretend I do not own a website. Basically, it is adblock that still generates ad revenue for youtubers per se | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 14:40 | comment | added | Script Kitty | @dawn In my case I'm assking about the author of the extension. Similarly, I also need to know if the user is committing a crime. The website serving the ads did nothing wrong, they dont know about the extension. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 14:14 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 22, 2016 at 1:21 | |||||
| Apr 21, 2016 at 14:00 | comment | added | user3851 | @script from whose perspective are you asking if this is illegal? The end internet user? The author/distributor of the extension? The website serving the ads? | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 13:06 | comment | added | sabbahillel | The web site is accepting money for making the ad available. He is suppressing it on the web site. This is like a (print) newspaper accepting mony for an ad and then not putting it into the published output. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 9:19 | comment | added | gnasher729 | Your point 2.: Careful. Just because two things have the same result doesn't mean one can't be legal and the other illegal. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 3:50 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: -1 | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 3:27 | history | asked | Script Kitty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |