Are Opera Users the Most Valuable?
According to an article published yesterday on FavBrowser.com, Opera users may be more valuable than Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome or Safari users when it comes to advertisement.
Thanks to Sarah from Infolinks, FavBrowser have received an exclusive study (that will be published in the official Infolinks Metrics Center sometime next week) on browser users behavior.
Readers' comments 43
Left under the original article, as archived.
About this article
| Published in | Choose Opera |
|---|---|
| Date | August 13, 2010 |
| Author | Espen André Øverdahl |
| Tags | firefox, favbrowser, safari, opera, chrome, Internet Explorer |
| Original | Internet Archive |
dirkFriday, August 13, 2010 8:42:42 AM
Harish LakshminarayanaFriday, August 13, 2010 9:02:53 AM
TamilFriday, August 13, 2010 9:05:12 AM
Mika TakalaFriday, August 13, 2010 9:22:54 AM
Opera doesn't have that very easy to use, easily configurable and auto-updating adblocker that the competition has.
Thats not to say that I don't know about the content blocker; its just not easy enough to use and update, even with the various user-made things available for it.
Erik ShikerinFriday, August 13, 2010 9:30:17 AM
Originally posted by mtakala:
Do Safari or IE?
(Seriously, I have no idea, haven't used IE or Safari for ages
Harish LakshminarayanaFriday, August 13, 2010 9:40:27 AM
HokkutFriday, August 13, 2010 10:10:37 AM
Erik ShikerinFriday, August 13, 2010 10:34:00 AM
mypciaFriday, August 13, 2010 10:49:06 AM
and if I feel like ads, I'd just run IE
PhriendFriday, August 13, 2010 11:08:49 AM
PengeFriday, August 13, 2010 11:22:18 AM
Originally posted by mtakala:
http://my.opera.com/mgillespie/blog/2010/02/27/adblock-updater-service-for-windows
But whitelist still not implemented.
Originally posted by harish.l:
Fanboy's list too agressive and too big.
I use custom urlfilter.ini for adblocking and Lex's Adblock+ for hiding the rest: fixed width DIVs, frames, etc. and block-external for block unwanted scripts, like floating twitter birds, like buttons, unknown annoying scripts which I didn't block... yet.
Mika TakalaFriday, August 13, 2010 12:35:19 PM
Originally posted by Penge4:
and that doesn't update while opera is running, and works only on windows, and requires this and that to work. Much less easy-to-use than FF/Chrome/IE counterparts. Its not even in the same league...
edit: and overwrites user's own settings!
Charles SchlossFriday, August 13, 2010 12:54:05 PM
selurusFriday, August 13, 2010 1:15:19 PM
Ahmed GhanemFriday, August 13, 2010 1:28:31 PM
Vasudevan MFriday, August 13, 2010 1:53:42 PM
Yeni SetiawanFriday, August 13, 2010 2:30:48 PM
Lorenzo CelsiFriday, August 13, 2010 3:57:57 PM
Yes, you are stupid when you are "valuable" for advertisers.
BTW, I use exactly the same list for AdBlockPlus on FF and "content blocker" on Opera.
Charles SchlossFriday, August 13, 2010 4:03:49 PM
Lorenzo CelsiFriday, August 13, 2010 4:10:05 PM
If I am more "valuable" than you, once we both are exposed to the same ads, it is because I am more stupid. Because "valuable" here means my behavior is more influenced by the ads than yours. Or, if you prefer, I am an easier target.
About the relation about advertisement and the Web, it is a loooong story. Opera itself had advertisement some years ago, displaying a banner on top. It looks like it wasn't the only option since today I don't see any banner.
praetor87Friday, August 13, 2010 4:11:17 PM
^This why the Opera users cannot consider as stupid because the showed ads. This is the way of pay for free content on the web. BTW i block the most annoying ads, other allowed anyway.
Lorenzo CelsiFriday, August 13, 2010 4:17:42 PM
AngelikiFriday, August 13, 2010 4:40:29 PM
d4rkn1ghtFriday, August 13, 2010 4:45:01 PM
PengeFriday, August 13, 2010 5:46:21 PM
Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:
Free content with ads. Everybody needs money to live, even the official bloggers, publishers.
huxrFriday, August 13, 2010 5:55:32 PM
For that, I'd like Opera to be site-specfic and page-part-specific in blocking ads, not global and based on ad provider URL only.
Because it is ultimately the site itself that decides what type of ads to go where.
Such a system would encourage sites to implement ads less disturbingly.
So I propose an even less far-reaching solution for ad-blocking!
And btw it would instantly make Opera even more valuable to site owners! All while giving the most to its users while not taking away too much possibilities.
There are sites that already implement relevant and non-disturbing ads. I'd like other sites to have a stronger incentive to converge to that too.
huxrFriday, August 13, 2010 6:03:52 PM
Cutting SpoonFriday, August 13, 2010 9:40:53 PM
EDIT: I properly read through it. Sure enough, they measured the click-through-rate. This means they measured the number of ads LOADED vs the number of ads CLICKED. This only applies to people who did not have a given ad blocked. In Opera's case, the blocker keeps the ad from ever loading. In Chrome, the ad is still loaded (but the user does not see it), meaning the click-through-rate for Chrome is especially low.
But yes; Opera users are more likely to CLICK AN AD WHEN THEY SEE IT.
ErikFriday, August 13, 2010 10:11:51 PM
- some say users support the sites they visit, so opera users are more savvy
- some say opera some opera users are lazy because blocking ads involve some learning
links to block stuff here:
noscript similar
->http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=241208
->http://unite.opera.com/application/641/
adblock list
->http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/
element hider
->http://my.opera.com/Lex1/blog/adblock-for-opera-analogue-of-adblock-plus-element-hiding-helper
->http://adsweep.org/
auto update adblock list
->http://my.opera.com/mgillespie/blog/2010/02/27/adblock-updater-service-for-windows
...blocking most of the advertisements must be time-consumig and cumbersome but whoever block most of them should know that, people who doesnt block them may not always buy
...interesting post
Panferno22529Friday, August 13, 2010 10:42:29 PM
Cutting SpoonSaturday, August 14, 2010 12:14:05 AM
Sn3ipenSaturday, August 14, 2010 1:18:31 AM
The ads are blocked with only a play button showing up. You can see an example on what I mean by going to the link.
http://bildr.no/view/703325
Lorenzo CelsiSaturday, August 14, 2010 7:32:07 AM
It is again a nonsense. Unless I am "free" to not see the ads.
"Everybody needs money to live"
I couldn't care less. It is up to you want to publish on the Web and it is up to me what to do with it. Of course, if we are speaking of "free" as "freedom" and not "free" as "taxes".
"Would it be better the subscription system, like The Times?"
If you ask me to subscribe a service, be sure I would not visit your site, unless I am obliged, see above about "taxes".
Just to clarify: originally my country had a public TV service and people was asked to pay a voluntary "subscription". After a while, since many people said "sorry I am not interested in subscribing your service", they made a law to change the voluntary "subscription" in a mandatory "tax", so who ever owns ANY device that can play videos or audios MUST pay for the service, no matter what.
Oh, on a side note, the public TV service, despite I already pay a "mandatory subscription", still has the same advertisement (or even more) than all the other TVs.
It is the same as the Internet Tax that is being discussed and implemented across the world whose goal is to force people to pay to access whatever content. It is more or less a "tax for breathing air". Of course it goes on top of the subscription you already pay to your local ISP.
Or, if you like, the tax we pay over the "memory mass support" like CDROM, DVD, etc, that should compensate the majors for music and movies "Internet piracy".
Because you know, "everybody needs money to live".
ErikSaturday, August 14, 2010 3:14:37 PM
hope with this study developers start paying attention to web standards, Opera may be considered valuable to be prone to advertisements with a level of difficulty to block them (thats fair)
throw us the ads ! already, because not every Opera will get through configuring all whats needed ...maybe this will get Opera used by more
praetor87Saturday, August 14, 2010 4:10:10 PM
It is again a nonsense. Unless I am "free" to not see the ads."
Google is free. But why? Oh yeah, the ads. Engadget is free, but why? Because they have ads on their site(s). So paying (actually make a click, and/or allow appear the ad) is free for you for "free" content. Google made the Opera ad free and freeware in the past and this money come from Google ads. So you can pay (without you send money) for Opera browser, when you use a built-in search engine. Anyway, my "pay for free content" sentence wasn't "logical nonsense" as you consider, just an oxymoron.
PengeSaturday, August 14, 2010 11:16:08 PM
Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:
I didn't mean that.
I condemn the data medium taxes, and also the TV taxes.
I only pointed to a fact, that not everybody can make a lot of money from the ads on their website/blog.
That was easy money long ago, but nowadays the market is saturated.
I'm not talking about the hobby bloggers, but there are many people who do it full time.
Unfortunately, the quality of content doesn't matter.
Cutting SpoonSunday, August 15, 2010 2:05:07 AM
Lorenzo CelsiSunday, August 15, 2010 6:46:40 AM
Google don't charge us for their services, they charge the advertisers. The advertisers simply rise the price of their products/services to include money they invest in advertisement. So at the end we are charged for Google services.
Let me say it again to be clear: WE PAY FOR ADVERTISEMENT.
And of course we are also hammered by annoying ads all the time. Basically you are paying for being annoyed. Very clever of us.
What if the cost of product X is made 10% by production costs and 90% by marketing costs?
Then, another example, how much money does a news site cost? Lets say I hire top 10 world programmers, top 3 world system admins and top 100 world journalists. What is my business plan? How much advertisement I need? How much I must charge the readers? etc.
@Cutting Spoon:
But nobody says how much you need to pay for the Internet and how many people need your money. On the highway you can pay 1 cent or 1000 euro, you can pay when you access the highway system, one for all, or you can pay each 10m you travel. You can pay differently if you ride a bike or a truck, etc. Imagine if everybody who lives near the highway can put a gate and ask for a price. Imagine if each of them can decide their own prices.
I pay taxes to the State. Then I pay a subscription to the local ISP. Then I pay for each single Internet service. Then I pay for software. I pay for hardware. I pay for each single content I want to read.
I know where it starts, but how long the chain is?
praetor87Sunday, August 15, 2010 11:30:20 AM
Lorenzo CelsiSunday, August 15, 2010 5:16:57 PM
Example: I've read somewhere that the cost of man work on the small cars produced in my country is about 3%.
walterMonday, August 16, 2010 9:19:56 AM
Cutting SpoonWednesday, August 18, 2010 7:35:33 PM
SteveTuesday, August 24, 2010 1:20:49 AM
I do use the content blocker to block the really annoying ads. I have no use for other people's lists as they'd probably block stuff I want.
I will click on text ads (Google or otherwise) if they are interesting, or likewise banners (especially non-animated banners). I have no use for Flash ads (especially with sound or that move around on the page) and generally find that animated ads have less real content. The applicable expression for exactly what I don't want is "sell the sizzle, not the steak". That isn't too bad on radio or television (or while actually watching a video), it is distracting, annoying and therefore counterproductive when I'm actually trying to focus somewhere else on a page. I want information - I want "the steak" - and not flashy graphics.
My least wanted list is actually "intellitext" and similar caption/tooltip ads. If I accidentally place my mouse over one of their highlighted words, a box appears nearby (preventing me from reading the story) with some ad only vaguely related to the highlighted word. If I had to click on the word to see the ad, that might be better - it would be even better if the ad really was relevant to the word as used in the article as well. That is even more annoying than Flash to me ...