Am I the only one who sees this as a defence, and a try to tackle that Apple is promoting an ad free web?
If Google could get a % of the cut, it could help with lost revenue from the many ad blockers.
Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
191–200 of 472 posts
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#192I 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 Maybe that's true, but I'll bet you're influenced by it more than you think. When you consciously notice an ad and get irritated by it you won't buy, but there will be times when you subconsciously notice an ad and do nothing about it. Many advertisers are smarter than people give them credit for.
>> there will be times when you subconsciously notice an ad and do nothing about it. Many advertisers are smarter than people give them credit for.
And this sort of brain-hacking is precisely the reason I find advertising unacceptable and will not allow my computer to render ads.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 interventio…
As the authenticator would essentially need to maintain a list of verified providers, you would have to do a lot of work to figure out which providers are legit and which are fraudulent. Even distributed across a whole bunch of transactions, the cost is likely too high when each transaction is a fraction of a cent. That's just a show-stopper for microtransactions.
The technology is the easy part for microtransactions. Simplifying the business rules to the point it can cheap enough to operate financial transactions safely is the hard part.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#194I 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. 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. So effectively, any site that was being supported by my visits would be scamming the advertiser.
The cost of non-engaged viewers is baked into the CPM of the ad already. You aren't scamming anyone, you're just fulfilling expectations. :)
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#195I 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.
Especially since he has almost certainly seen Netflix ads, and proclaims himself to be a customer.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#196I'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…
> Much of the web is noise and regurgitation.
Much of it is, yes. Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do.
Not that I have any answers here - I think your DVR comparison is fair.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to you, what should be the fees? Google's primary job is to make billions of dollars of profit. I believe an organization like that has all the more incentive to inflate the fees and pocket as much as possible.
I'm not sure I understand the question. It's up to each publisher to decide if they make enough on AdSense to justify putting its ads on their site. The success of Google's ad business suggests that even net of fees, many people still think it's worth it. Now, personally, I don't think Google pays me enough to run AdSense on any of my sites. It's frankly not even close, so the fee isn't the issue -- it's just a bad f…
Well, I understand an organization that sets up a network where content creators get paid incurs some costs. I was curious as to what people think is the appropriate amount of fees they should charge for that service.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#198I 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.
I feel the same as Nursie and can give at least one concrete example - I purposefully avoided buying any Groupon ever only because once upon a time they spammed living shit out of the Internet with pink animated ads.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#199I'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…
Thanks for the rational reply. Some of the cynical and critical comments here strike me as far too idealistic. This seems like a completely reasonable step to take in offering websites money for ad-free content without having to subscribe to individual content. The privacy argument, I can easier get on board with. Why does Google need to still track you if you're not seeing ads? Wasn't the point of ad tracking to get…
They need to track you to associate your contributor account with your browsing.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#200This still gives Google the ability to track the web pages we visit, and many of us block ads because of tracking, not because they're ugly.
That said, I do think that solutions like Google Contributor are the way forward if it can become an open standard that supports anonymization. I'm willing to trust my browser and a local, open-source wallet to watch the sites that I visit and authorize micro-payments via an anonymous currency. Those payments could be delivered to websites via middlemen that include ad vendors like Google or other processors.
It would require careful design and numerous security considerations, but it seems possible to use this model to support publishers while maintaining privacy.