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

151–160 of 472 posts

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

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> It only applies to Google's ad network. Mass adoption of Contributor would have the knock-on effect of strengthening Google's advertising position.

A trend toward mass adoption of Contributor would pressure competing ad networks to develop similar systems with better UX (competing contributor-like systems might encourage ad networks other than the strongest one to work out exchange agreements to improve the UX and reach.)

> It installs a third party as a middleman, when only agreed-upon social and networking protocols are truly requisite. If Contributor were to take off, we run the risk of paying rent to Google for web-view transactions

You're already paying rent to advertising networks who pass on a portion to the content sites, its just that that rent is in the form of compromises to the format, delivery, and presentation of the content in order to fit ads in, rather than direct cash payments. Contributor (and any similar schemes) seek to transition that to direct cash payments, reducing the number of extraneous players involved (with ads, you have ad network + actual advertisers, with Contributor you just have the "ad" network.)

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

#152

Post by ISL »

jacques_chester wrote: post #148

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, A…

If it's patented, you can safely tell us more... how does your protocol work?

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

#153

Post by MichaelGG »

johnward wrote: post #30
devit wrote: post #12

The biggest problem of this is that it only works on Google's ads, but there are far more obnoxious ads that will result in the user wanting and installing an adblocker anyway, and then why bother with Contributor?

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?

On mobile, I get exactly these kind of ads in-app. Flashing yellow and red, "Scan your phone", "Speed your phone", "Phone virus?!" and crap like that. Always links direct to appstore for some home screen or launcher that requires every permission. I reported them for a week or so then gave up.

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

#154

Post by Animats »

We remove Google ads now, for free.

Try our Ad Limiter[1] add-on for Firefox and Google Chrome. It removes all but one ad from Google search result pages. The one remaining ad is picked using our SiteTruth web site legitimacy rating system. (You can turn that off, too, in the preferences.)

No fees. No ads. No tracking. It's a free demo for our rating system.

Works for Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, and DuckDuckGo too. On Firefox for Android, too. Why pay for what you can get for free?

[1] http://www.adlimiter.com https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/ad-limiter/

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

#155

Post by supercanuck »

kbenson wrote: post #135
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.

You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.

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

#156

Post by mlinsey »

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…

"In fact for any ad that's beyond static text I am more likely to remember your brand and deliberately not buy your stuff in future."

I believe you when you say you don't click on things, but if it were possible to somehow objectively test this particular claim, I'd bet against it.

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

#157

Post by Nursie »

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.

>> Your first mistake is assuming the only usefulness they get from you is when you click on an ad to buy something.

To the advertisers?

No I'm sure they think that 'brand awareness' is useful too, only it's not, if you annoy me into noticing your brand I will deliberately not buy it.

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

#158

Post by untog »

delinka wrote: post #15
untog wrote: post #6

This is cool, but would it work on my Android browser (which is my main point of contention with ads)?

It works anywhere a Google ad works.

But how does it know that I'm me? My Google login? I don't think I'm logged in to Google everywhere. Just curious as to how this thing works, basically.

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

#159

Post by jacques_chester »

exelius wrote: post #23
trothamel wrote: post #13

So with this system, the same amount of space is still taken up by ads? I don't think that's really a huge improvement. I think my ideal system would be something where a website can offer a bitcoin* address in a header, and at the end of the month my browser randomly picks a set of addresses it's seen, and sends money to them. (In conjunction with current ad-blocking technology.) * Bitcoin probably wouldn't work due…

> I think my ideal system would be something where a website can offer a bitcoin* address in a header, and at the end of the month my browser randomly picks a set of addresses it's seen, and sends money to them. (In conjunction with current ad-blocking technology.) This is so ripe for abuse it's not even funny. It would take clickjacking to a whole new level. This is the whole problem with microtransactions: sites ne…

> This is the whole problem with microtransactions: sites need them to be frictionless or else users will abandon the flow no matter how low the price is, but financial transactions need some sort of user confirmation or else they're wide open to abuse.

I agree. I solved this problem with a 3-party protocol (user, provider, authenticator) that can't be subverted by either the user or the provider.

No user intervention is required; it works seamlessly. User identity is not revealed and the provider cannot piggyback on the shared tokens to create a persistent identifier. The same scheme can be used to provide effortless passage through paywalls, as well as enabling the same model as Contributor (and before them Kachingle, Contenture, Readability and several others who've failed).

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

#160

Post by rokhayakebe »

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 sound too confident about what you think drives your purchasing behavior.
Post reply on HN