My site got mentioned in the NY Times

[KLB]

Well I finally did it, after being interviewed on different occasions by newspaper reporters on different subjects, I finally got referenced in a newspaper article and it was for the New York Times none the less. I even got a live link out of the deal. The article (which can be read at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/technology/14adblock.html) is on the subject of modified version of the Firefox AdBlock extension that replaces ads with art. My angle into the article is that I was the only person the writer could find who had actually stood up against ad-blocking by blocking those who blocked my ads.

The article doesn't quote me exactly right, but it was close enough. For instance the $300 comment wasn't how much I was paying, but about how much I would have to pay if I didn't bring my traffic under control so that I wouldn't have to go to a dedicated server.

For all the grief I got from people who block ads, my little war against ad-blocking has resulted in some unexpected benefits. Last year a consulting company working for a major advertising trade group, paid me very well to write up a series of papers for them on ad-blocking and ways to defeat it. Then Chris had me write an article on the issue of ad blocking (http://www.websitepublisher.net/article/ad-blocking/). Now I've made it into the New York Times because of my countermeasures.

Now if my site could get some press coverage for what I publish on it. ;)

[Xander]

Congrats! Even if it was not on topic its still great to have a mention in the NY Times.

I'm suprised at the figures they've quoted regarding people using adblocking software, but it depends on what they define it as though.

It'd be interesting to know the benefit of being linked to from them though.

[KLB]

I think some of the figures were exaggerated. For instance there was no definition or qualifiers put on what constituted ad-blocking software. I'm of the opinion, that one must look at pop up blockers and things like extensions like Flashblock separately banner blocking software. Popup blockers and Flashblock stop functional behaviors that can cause problems for the end user (I've frequently had my browser crashed by Flash objects). These tools don't differentiate between ads and content, they focus on stopping an undesired behavior. Thus I do not feel these tools should be lumped in with ad-blocking software.

Pure ad-blocking software on the other hand specifically target ads while attempting to exempt content. For example, Adblock uses rule sets to differentiate between graphics that are banner ads and those that are content. Those rule sets oftentimes explicitly target image and JavaScript objects that come from specific servers.

[MaxS]

Congratulations, that's awesome. Nice backlink.

Great article, too. How did you block users who blocked ads. Not that I'm interested in doing so, but I don't see how it's possible.

[KLB]

The article I wrote for Chris (http://www.websitepublisher.net/article/ad-blocking/) provides an an overview of how I detected ads. The code added about 15kb of HTML and JavaScript code. The thing is, it required a graphical banner ad, to test against, which I have since eliminated from my site.

[Chris]

Do you know if you got into the newspaper itself or just the website? Lots of times the online content doesn't make it into print.

[KLB]

I do not know if it made it into the print edition. If anyone got today's paper I'd appreciate it if they could answer this and maybe mail me the page if it did.

Thus far I've gotten over 70 visits because of the NYT backlink.

[Shawn]

With my NYT listing, it got into the NYT paper in New York.

The ones that are sent across the country are smaller versions of NYT.

The more you know.