Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

mattcutts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 472 posts

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#101

Post by elorant »

austenallred wrote: post #72
elorant wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) . We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? I'd gladly go for it. Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling w…

It sounds like when you're saying "we" you really mean "I."

Sure dude, I didn't proclaim my self public speaker of the HN community. It's just a way of saying. Jesus, some people in here are ready to dig up the hatchet first chance they get. Chill man, love and peace.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#102

Post by drdeca »

malchow wrote: post #43
johnward wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most users tend to complain about flying, pop ups, auto playing audio/video. Google does none of that. So is there a real benefit here?

Some would say that there are a number of auto-playing audio and app store redirect ads on Doubleclick AdExchange.

I think the tvtropes forum used AdWords (? Not sure) and I certainly saw ads there which redirected to open the app store (on android).

I'm not certain, but I believe the ad network being used was associated with Google.

(Not that the ads were officially allowed, I think I read things on a Google support forum which indicated that they hadn't finished blocking those ads yet, or blocking them again when they were created again. Still, I think an ad agency has a responsibility to proactively(?) ensure that they do not serve any malicious (in the security sense) ads.)

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#104

Post by nicpottier »

austenallred wrote: post #80
nicpottier wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the $15/mo use it or lose it, or just a maximum amount? IE, do all your monthly subscriptions add up to $15? If I'm paying the same as the bidding cost for advertisers, then I'm all in, this is super sweet. If I'm paying some vague hand-wavy fee that reduces my ads, but doesn't correspond 1-1 to what advertisers are paying then forget it.

The $15/month is a flat fee. I'm not aware of how the math works behind the scenes, but it does not appear to be a 1:1 mapping. Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out.

Don't you feel a bit ripped off? Why does google get to keep the extra? How do we know they aren't still showing you SOME ads, just not all of them, and the price for that is $15?

The way I would be in 100% support of this would be if I could go and "top up" my ad-support-budget. Say I add $50.. and from then on every Google served ad gets swallowed up and my balance gets deducted whatever the bid price was, with the same % going to the contributor site.

When my $50 is up, ads return. I can choose to refill as I want, or set it up to auto-refill with $20 when it runs out, sending me an email or whatnot.

I really really really like this concept, but man, they need to be really honest with their implementation.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#105

Post by sqrt17 »

abootstrapper wrote: post #78
elorant wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) . We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? I'd gladly go for it. Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling w…

Tracking is weird. One hand it's gross and I don't like it. I think because who knows who is looking at what you're looking at. On the other hand, as a consumer I actually find the ads more valuable, and I sometimes buy items advertised to me. And as a content creator, they generate much more revenue.

Google ads used to be valuable because they were based on the content of the site you were currently watching. Doubleclick (later bought by Google) and others already did the tracking thing and didn't get mileage out of it. Retargeting (i.e. following you around with ads for something that you may buy with a more than 3% chance because you actually searched for it) is the opposite of that, purely tracking-based and mostly annoying.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#106

Post by hsod »

ryandrake wrote: post #85
abootstrapper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not your website. It's someone else's. Someone who created the content and pays to keep it online for you to consume.

OK, then modify the statement, but use the same mobster voice: "It would be a shame if your browser got overloaded with pop-overs, malware and javascript trackers. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price."

I think it's BS to cast "people who respond to GET requests" as mobsters. If you want them to leave you alone just stop asking them for things.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#107

Post by roymurdock »

austenallred wrote: post #46

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common…

> much of the web I know and love will cease to exist

Which parts of the web are those exactly?

You'd be surprised at how creative people can get when their livelihoods are threatened by changing business models. Those who come up with a better solution for monetizing good content will survive. Those who don't, or who had poor content to begin with, will be forced out of the market.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#108

Post by austenallred »

nicpottier wrote: post #104
austenallred wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $15/month is a flat fee. I'm not aware of how the math works behind the scenes, but it does not appear to be a 1:1 mapping. Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out.

Don't you feel a bit ripped off? Why does google get to keep the extra? How do we know they aren't still showing you SOME ads, just not all of them, and the price for that is $15? The way I would be in 100% support of this would be if I could go and "top up" my ad-support-budget. Say I add $50.. and from then on every Google served ad gets swallowed up and my balance gets deducted whatever the bid price was, with the…

Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out. reply

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#109

Post by cmpb »

Justsignedup wrote: post #81
austenallred wrote: post #46

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common…

I must argue a few points. - Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links - To try this experiment, I need to turn adblocking off. Which I am not willing to. - Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads. http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-... -- people are happier since less information assaults their brains,…

It could be argued that affiliate links on thewirecutter.com aren't ads so much as they are content. I realize they are advertising affiliates, but since that's what I go to the site for, I'm definitely not going to want to pay to get rid of them!

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#110

Post by downandout »

The reality is that few people will do this as long as it's optional. The masses are short-sighted. For anything like this to work, a publisher needs to block the display of their content if ad-blocking is in place. They could bring up something that says "you have one of two choices: go to and pay, or disable your adblocker". If people run into this enough, they'll do one or the other.
Post reply on HN