Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Our belief is that if someone doesn’t like them, and they won’t click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won’t click on them harms campaign performance.

Okay, so why not then make ad-blockers unnecessary by providing a "don't show ads" option?



As stated in the full comment thread here we limit ads for users above 200 reputation. That puts it right between "Vote down" at 125 reputation and "View close votes" at 250.

Funny enough, we often get asked to implement the opposite: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/273653/229741


People who use AdBlockers already have that button. Seriously, they have very non-intrusive ads; If you want to block those you'll definitive be wanting to block others.

People on SO can be reasonably expected to know how to get that button (i.e. can you google how to install AdBlock).


Some web sites have this option, but you have to pay for it. I believe that is a fair compromise. If the site is worth it, I'll donate. If not, ublock stays on, and then it won't really bother me if they go under having relied solely on advertising to stay afloat.


because why would they do extra work when the users are already doing it, to good effect?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: