Acceptable Ads explained: monetization

Re:Acceptable Ads explained: monetization by zelcon5 on Friday February 26, 2016 @06:37PM (#11185130)

Why doesn't Google et al provide a shim for web servers to proxy ads off their own domains, with the same URI routes as the actual content? That way, an adblocker would also prevent the content from being served. (Why waste your networking load on non-paying customers?)

The main obstacle is that this introduces a middleman---so Google et al should only offer this service to the BIG money-makers (like nytimes.com) until they can ship something secure. Adblocking "problem" solved.

WHY don't Ad companies do this? I can see this as an Apache/nginx module or middleware libraries for whatever web server is used, without having to change anything else. How long would this take for the army of 140 IQ Google codemonkeys…like 1 day lol?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Acceptable Ads explained: monetization by Nullabillity on Friday February 26, 2016 @07:30PM (#11185410)

Ad blockers don't just look at the domain name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Acceptable Ads explained: monetization by zelcon5 on Saturday February 27, 2016 @08:28AM (#11187015)

Adblockers may use more than the URI, but it starts with the URI and if it does not match, then it does not block.

If a video file is served from cdn.example.com/video/?file=3w0rjwo, then have a DoubleClick ad serve from cdn.example.com/video/?file=0239fjad with phony HTTP headers including mime type.

[ Parent | on HN ]