By earning some few dollars per click from displaying AdShoker ads on it. Many are now realizing that good money is made from this source of revenue. Try the simple mathematical computation of multiplying those clicks for every page on your website and you get a summation of earnings equivalent to a monthly residual income.

Version 0.1.7 should have the link-bar feature. Thank you again for the suggestion!

Many blogs rely heavily on advertising income. Their income model is very similar to one of those free newspapers you get at train stations i.e. the newspaper is only free because of advertisements and personal ads etc.

To answer Rarst's questions :

1. Would you prefer that user visit your site with ad-blocker or doesn’t visit at all?

It depends on the site. If the website has ads but also generates income through direct product selling or whatever then obviously I'd prefer the visitor to stay. If, however, the site generates 100% of it's income from advertising then there is no value whatsoever from an ad-blocker visiting the site. All they are doing is costing you bandwidth.

2. Would you prefer user who has a lot of weight on StumbleUpon with adblocker stumble post – bringing spike of traffic and increasing ad impressions few times for the day… or doesn’t visit at all?

That's a valid point. Those who block ads could still bring some value to your site – either via a link, social vote or whatever.

I think the argument would change a little if a higher percentage of people used ad-blockers. I'm not sure what percentage of people use it just now but I would imagine it is minimal compared to the total number of visitors.

However, if say 25%+ of your visitors were blocking ads then you would have to either stop ad blockers viewing your site or move to a subscription model. This is something BloggingTips would have to do as I rely heavily on advertising income to run this site. All authors are paid so less money means less money to pay staff which means less content for visitors.

p.s. thanks for dropping by Thaya.

About CTR, that also depends on how the advertisement is blocked. Some ads get blocked via CSS (display:none), but the content still gets loaded in the background. So the CTR is still worst.

"And I had read opinion from web-publishers (somewhat valid imo) that people using adblockers (=making effort to escape ads) won’t click ads in any case and would be just harmful for stats like CTR."

Many ads are not billed on a CPC basis, but by the number of times the ad is shown or by a fixed time period. To use Blogging Tips as an example again, take a look at their ad sales page. Each of their ads is sold for a fixed dollar amount for the duration of one month. Clicks aren't a factor. The fact that an ad is seen matters just as much to an advertiser, if not more, than if it is clicked or not.

And while everyone may not block ads, plenty do. What matters is how many people out of a site's monthly visitors block ads? It's much more common in the tech circles, obviously, so what of the tech-related blogs? A very sizeable chunk of their visitors may be blocking ads, which would matter to advertisers. How many of the site's unique visitors in a given month won't see their ad? Ad blockers can cost a website an ad sale.

Everyone blocking ads – not happening ever. And I had read opinion from web-publishers (somewhat valid imo) that people using adblockers (=making effort to escape ads) won't click ads in any case and would be just harmful for stats like CTR.

Questions to think about:

1. Would you prefer that user visit your site with ad-blocker or doesn't visit at all?

Stronger question:

2. Would you prefer user who has a lot of weight on StumbleUpon with adblocker stumble post – bringing spike of traffic and increasing ad impressions few times for the day… or doesn't visit at all?

Power users with adblockers are not ad revenue. Mostly they are not ad revenue even without adblockers. Why alienate them by telling them they are wrong? Like any human being listens when told how wrong he is.

Well, maybe "selfish freeloaders" is a bit strong. I just have a problem with people vehemently insisting that they have a *right* to view whatever they want on the internet without ads. I get it a lot when I write anything about ads…

If you take a look at the quote from me about NETTUTS.com, you should note that they pay out $150 per post to their tutorial writers. Their ads supply the money to pay the writers. If everyone blocked the ads, the advertisers wouldn't want to continue buying space on the site, and NETTUTS wouldn't be able to keep paying their writers, and the site would eventually cease to exist. Now imagine that on a larger scale; how many sites pay their authors?

You are right. Thank you for letting me know!

@Kevin

The way it works is:

1. The nudge will *not* show up until the 11th visit (configurable)

2. After that, it will *not* show up again unless you increase the nag limit.

Can you please update the post?