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

111–120 of 472 posts

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

#111

Post by eachro »

elorant wrote: post #51
asimilator wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google has cleverly tricked us into keeping that industry aloft, essentially paying to keep something we hate alive. We hate content creators?

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…

I don't know who this "we" is. But certainly a significant portion of the young adult demographic loves Buzzfeed and their like.

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

#112

Post by blumkvist »

sqrt17 wrote: post #95
fatjokes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go for it, but you're only able to have your cake and eat it too because of people who view ads. If I were you, I'd keep quiet and encourage others to view ads, otherwise content creators will have to either quit or throw up paywalls.

ads stopped being pay-per-impression around 2001 or so. For actual money to flow, people need to click on ads. For the advertisers to want to spend money, people need to not just click on the ads but also convert (aka, go to the site and order something). Why does this matter? If the total ad space expands, and therefore the number of ad views increases, people will still buy about the same amount of products they bo…

>ads stopped being pay-per-impression around 2001 or so.

Care to back that up with some proof. Cuz I have a pretty clear picture of ad spending and this is not true at all.

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

#113

Post by elorant »

magicalist wrote: post #99
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…

> We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) So why on earth are you going to those sites? > 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? That's literally what this is.

So why on earth are you going to those sites?

I'm not. But 95% of web sites out there are replicating content one way or the other.

That's literally what this is.

No it's not. That's a different model and I have no objections against it. This is a model where Google decides to give money to sites, and that is any site that's running AdSense not just the ones with original content. My argument is about why some of us like to use ad blocking mechanisms.

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

#114

Post by lighthawk »

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…

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

I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it.

Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is that they have to get their pagerank up and stay relevant. The reason they have to do that is because if they don't do it, there are ad revenue dependent content generators out there that will do it for them. If you get rid of the ad revenue, you reduce the velocity of the crap engine, and then good content can again be successful on a subscription model.

Google is great. I think in many ways they've made the world a better place. Google is very ad revenue dependent. Ad revenue sponsored all of the great television shows and radio shows from the beginning. I don't think that advertising should go away because it makes great things by Google and media companies possible.

However, I see absolutely no problem whatsoever in blocking ads on my own without paying Google. Tivo allows ad blocking. DVRs allow ad blocking. I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate just to block ads.

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

#115

Post by austenallred »

elorant wrote: post #101
austenallred wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, I think I'm pretty chill? I didn't mean to offend you if that's what happened, I was just pointing out that the distinction may be important in the context of this conversation.

If someone is proposing a solution for or discussing a problem that affects the entire Internet, it's important to realize that there are several parties who think differently, and in fact only a very small minority feel the same way you or me or the majority of HN does about things.

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

#116

Post by elorant »

eachro wrote: post #111
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…

I don't know who this "we" is. But certainly a significant portion of the young adult demographic loves Buzzfeed and their like.

Well good for them. I'm not starting a crusade against Buzzfeed and similar sites. But when I can I advise people to block ads to avoid been tracked.

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

#117

Post by bowlich »

xbryanx wrote: post #9

For the ~price of Netflix subscription, I only get 25-50% fewer ads? Nah...too expensive.

I was on board until I got down to that figure. No way am I going to whitelist google's ads, pay $15/mo just so I can see 75% more ads!

Just cut out 100% of the ads and divide the $15 among the sites a viewed. If that comes out to a couple of cents for each that's still better than nothing.

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

#118

Post by cmpb »

nicpottier wrote: post #69
austenallred wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$15/month. There's a sliding scale that goes in $1 increments.

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.

Any unused money rolls over to the next month, according to Google [1]. I've been using it for months at $15/month and I've never seen it not use all of the money. I do use the internet constantly at work, though, and see many websites.

[1] https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&...

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

#119

Post by cmpb »

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.

That's not correct. Unused money rolls over. See https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&...

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

#120

Post by skybrian »

ISL wrote: post #54

I've been using Contributor for the last month or so: 1) One needn't turn on all third-party cookies to make it work. Enabling a subset of [*.]doubleclick.com, [*.]doubleclick.net, and [*.]google.com is sufficient. 2) Contributor is the best existing solution to the third-party micropayment problem I've yet encountered. Direct contributions to sites are surely preferable, but not yet practical. Contributor would appe…

Perhaps I'm biased (Googler), but I'm not so worried about rent. If Contributor is successful enough, it proves the market, competitors will become interested, and other micropayment schemes probably have a better chance.

If it fails then we're back to square one where most large websites get most of their revenue from ads.

Post reply on HN