131–140 of 472 posts
This is fascinating. Business model: annoy people so much that they pay you to stop annoying them. Everybody's been talking about the death of display ads, and it looks like Google's paying attention and trying to figure out how to marginalize the ad itself, but still take money on the transaction. Eventually, Google could probably marginalize the ad so much that there are only a rare few display ads left online, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm not proposing a solution, hell I wouldn't even consider that I know better than Google what should be done. I'm just stating a problem. Profiling is annoying. And as a user I don't think it works that well. When I visit a site for science fiction I'd prefer watching relative ads, not an ad about a pair of shoes I searched a week ago.
We certainly are a minority but an influencing one.
I find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…
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.
That's not correct. Unused money rolls over. See https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&...
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…
And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the principle that content creators should get paid.
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.
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&...
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 find these things interesting, but not so much I won't use an adblocker. Perhaps I can buy into this and allow google ads, and then block the resulting 'thanks' text. I don't need that either. I find the whole thing odd though. I never click ads when I do see them, I literally have never, ever bought anything through advertising links. Even without an adblocker, the only reason the site would be getting money from…
Well,you don't decide your own worth in this system. Your first mistake is assuming the only usefulness they get from you is when you click on an ad to buy something. That's a very naive view of advertising.
Most of those properties, New York Times, Washington Post, Vox, Business Insider are currently making a profit, so why is there this moral outrage that they are not getting paid? These businesses are not charities, they are not owed your money when they choose to display free content with easily blocked ads, they are businesses.