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

141–150 of 472 posts

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

#141

Post by austenallred »

mbillie1 wrote: post #133
Nursie wrote: post #128

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…

Even on the one or two occasions when I have seen an ad for something that I'm interested in, I never actually click the ad, but google the product specifically to avoid the whole redirect rigamarole that ensues anytime you click on a paid advertisement.

Sounds like the ad worked, then?

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

#142

Post by anon1385 »

hsod wrote: post #106
ryandrake wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well yes, that's what an ad blocker does. But a lot of people believe ad blockers are unethical.

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

#143

Post by wnevets »

jowiar wrote: post #66

"Make 25% of your ads go away" feels a whole lot like the "cable TV will have less ads" promise of old. We all know how that turned out. The outcome of this is going to be "publishers run extra ads, you pay to make the extra ads go away".

wasn't the promise of cable no ads rather than less?

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

#144

Post by [deleted] »

lighthawk wrote: post #114
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 wi…

[deleted]

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

#145

Post by olegious »

Nursie wrote: post #128

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…

You're missing the point of some types of advertising.

There are typically 2 types of goals that an advertiser can be interested in- 1. Branding, 2. Direct Response. With "Branding" campaigns an advertiser just wants to get their name out there and very often, associated with a specific publisher (say Mercedes wants to be associated with The Economist)- the metrics that these types of campaigns are judged by are impressions (the number of people that view the ad) and are usually sold on a CPM basis (the advertiser pays $X for each 1000 views). With "Direct Response" the advertiser actually cares about people clicking on the ad and "converting" on the landing page, big advertisers rarely do that, most often these campaigns are sold on a CPC (cost per click- the advertiser pays for each click) or CPA (cost per acquisition- the advertiser pays for whatever action the user completes on the landing page) basis. So, in reality, by viewing the ad you're not actually ripping anyone off.

The only time the advertiser is ripped off, is when bad actors set up fake sites, add ad networks to the sites then drive botnet traffic that simulates a real person, then the advertiser really is getting ripped off.

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

#146

Post by ethanbond »

kbenson wrote: post #139
Nursie wrote: post #128

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…

> I am literally a worthless view to them. 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.

Implying that someone somewhere knows the real value of his/her view.

The whole advertising industry is built on a very naive view of advertising.

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

#147

Post by jdjb »

abootstrapper wrote: post #68
vitd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be seen as acting like the mob. "It'd be a shame if your nice clean web page suddenly got ruined with ads. You know, we can keep that from happening for a price." No thanks. I'll continue to block ads and not be tracked and have my internet load faster.

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.

As soon as their content hits my client though, they don't have any right to control what my client does with it.

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

#148

Post by jacques_chester »

Google Contributor can't work, for two reasons.

1. As soon as it becomes too widespread, Google will nerf it. They rely almost entirely on advertising for their revenues. There's just too much money for them to not water the scheme down in future.

Remember when cable TV was going to be ad-free?

2. It only works inside Google's semi-walled garden. This is true of every microsubscription scheme so far built (Spotify, Amazon Underground, Apple Music). They have all required a walled garden in order to avoid massive fraud and money laundering.

I'm biased, because it so happens that I solved the second problem. I have a patented protocol which is opt-in, can reliably track users on the web without identifying them and which is resistant to fraudulent visits.

I'm building the first release. Contact me if you're interested: jacques@robojar.com.

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

#149

Post by jsnell »

elorant wrote: post #113
magicalist wrote: post #99

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) 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…

No, it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them. Since you claim not to visit the sites that are "shitty content creators", you're not going to be supporting them in any way. So what exactly is your real objection?

Contributor might not be the answer. But if nothing else, this is a great "put your money where your mouth is" experiment. Suddenly all the talk from adblock users about how they'd just love to micropay for content directly has been replaced with all manner of excuses.

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

#150

Post by ksk »

johnward wrote: post #75
ksk wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google does none of that. I have seen several adsense ads that auto-play. But it could be that they're violating Google's policies. I tried looking for a policy document, but this is all I could find. https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/176108?hl=en

I saw a few that expanded to take over the screen if you hover over them for like 5 seconds but they gave you a warning. I haven't seen autoplay though. Are you certain they were adsense? Sometimes ads can appear to be adsense because they are served via DoubleClick For Publishers ( https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/solutions/revenue-manage... ). The site controls the approval of those ads. Google won't approve an…

Its not something that happens very often, but I've seen it mostly on websites that are usually low quality/aggregation websites. Here's one such instance.

http://sendvid.com/lhstkqtl

Post reply on HN