How Much Would You Pay Per Month To Remove Adverts From Ab?

[AB Editor]

Afternoon all!

We've been considering giving you the opportunity to remove adverts across the site with Google's new "contributor" option.

This would mean that if you wanted to remove ads, and continue to support the site in a small way, you could do so.

Obviously this wouldn't apply to everyone, but there's a few on here who might fancy removing adverts while still contributing to the continued existence of the site :)

Anyway, how much would you consider a reasonable price?

[Old_Geezer]

Your problem is that folk don't come here in their millions, otherwise you could rely more on small voluntary annual contributions as Wikipedia does. £5 to £10 a year becomes worth considering. The same per month when visiting here, and especially if posting, is already a vital contribution to the site's viability, and so seems unattractive.

[bednobs]

i, of course don't use an adblocker *ahem* but in theory, i may have wanted to start using one when scantily clad women started appearing at the top of my screen offering me a date.
Zacs, i don't think there would be a legal problem if you were suspended - after all, you can still access the site when banned, you just cant contribute

[Togo]

The ads don't unduly bother me, but would pay a little fee to block certain members from posting on any question or topic that I had initiated.

[Zacs-Master]

I don't think everyone thinks like you bednobs. Not everyone would be happy having paid their £5 (or whatever) to find themselves suspended 2 days later, without an agreement being in place stating exactly what position they were in. I know £5 isn't a lot but there are some with a 'matter of principle' mindset to whom it would just become a cause. Such eventualities need ironing out.

[THECORBYLOON]

If the payment is only to view this site without any adverts, you can do that whilst suspended so why should anyone receive a refund? It guarantees no right to access the site or to post questions or answers, only to view it without ads.

[Zacs-Master]

That would seem to be a sensible form of contract Corby but I'm not sure how many regulars (as the scheme is obviously aimed at) it would attract.

[237SJ]

I just can`t see why people would pay to have ads removed when they can do it for free - sorry.

[hc4361]

237SJ - to keep the site going. This site is a business, to make a profit which it gets from advertising. That's the deal - it's free to use because of the adverts.

[237SJ]

Well yes, if people were told that the site can only keep going if people pay to belong it it then I can understand the willingness to pay a charge. I belong to a free forum at work which is run by a staff member (not the company) and there are a few hyperlinks but apart from that it is free. There has been talk of charging about £5 per month which I would do if that meant keeping the site going. What I won`t do is pay for something that other people are getting for free. I prefer not to subsidise other people.

[hc4361]

But if you are using an adblocker you are taking and not contributing, relying on other people not to use it.

[AB Editor]

OG - "Your problem is that folk don't come here in their millions"

They do! Just about :)

237SJ - "What I won`t do is pay for something that other people are getting for free. I prefer not to subsidise other people."

Other people are currently subsidising you (if you use an adblocker) as you're currently using bandwidth on the site, but not triggering the ad impressions that pay for its maintenance. Is that fair?

Also, as previously mentioned, you might get annoyed by us asking you to not use adblocker in the future, if you're using it :P

[Quizproquo]

I think you'd end up with only a few regulars and when they die off, so would the site.

[Bathsheba]

CBa to read all the posts, but even though I use ad-blocker, I would be prepared to pay a fiver a month.

Baths
x x

[hc4361]

It wouldn't be compulsory - it's offering a choice. Use it free with ads, or make a contribution to use it without ads.

I have paid for a few apps that I find particularly useful to use them ad free. This is a similar thing

[rockyracoon]

If the ads stay as they are then they don't particularly bother me, but, if they become more aggressive or muck AB about if I'm on the laptop, I won't pay to use the site I just probably won't bother using it.

[ichkeria]

How about unobtrusive adverts that don't fudge people off so they aren't tempted to use an ad blocker.
I would pay zero pounds a month, personally, for an ad-free site. That is the truth of it.
I use the Firefox adblocker (largely for the reason stated by bedknobs!) but don't use one for safari.

Some sites have a message that asks you to turn off the adblocker for them. That would seem to be the way to go. Then I might be tempted to turn it off as I've been politely and personally asked!

[shoota]

Three times I have tried to post a response to this question, each time it has frozen and been lost.
CBA to type it all again.
Something has to be done soon. Situation is beyond a joke.

[shoota]

Hey, yippee!

[-Talbot-]

Three times I have tried to post a response to this question



What er ... was that response about, Shoota?

[shoota]

Dunno now Talbot, 1st one was days ago.
Something apt and pertinent I'm sure....