[Softpedia] No love for their own ads

No, for those thinking this was about the actual review... sorry, not exactly. You can talk about it, of course. But, are you noticing something rather odd in these screenshots:

-http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Google-Chrome-18-Review-2.jpg/

-http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Google-Chrome-18-Review-8.jpg/

Yep... The author of that review is using Adblock Plus and Adblock. So, not supporting the very same company he/she works for?

And no, there were no mentions in the review to the lack of a native functionality to block ads.

Do as I say, not as I do. Or, something like that.

 

lol. He even used two adblockers. .

 

Actually, if you're visiting your own site, you should block ads, as this is not ethical. I block both ads and javascript on my own site so that these visits are not counted in any way.
Mrk

 

Makes sense, I didn't think of that. I thought that the owners visit aren't actually counted in the ads.

 

That was the idea I had too*. But you, as a author of some article/owner of some service, can still be "unethical" whenever you want, by using whatever other computer (for instance, a virtual machine with a different Internet connection) you want.

Anyway, the other side of the story/moral, is that he/she works for a service that displays ads to survive, but then doesn't he/she feel like he/she should allow ads for every other service? I mean, I have high doubts that person is using Adblock Plus, AdBlock and a few other extensions to block some other minor stuff, just for Softpedia. This would be 99% overkill. ABP alone would block Softpedia ads.

Just saying... I just find it a bit ironic.

-edit-

* They could very well be excluded from the counting, if the service(s) they have partnership with places cookies in their computers; they will track them, and exclude them. So... Again... why wouldn't you, the author/owner, allow cookies?