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

291–300 of 472 posts

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

#291

Post by yq »

brwnll wrote: post #214
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'm pretty tired of one of these personalities that appear to be a loud voice in the ad blocking conversation. "Ad's don't work on me and I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" This simply makes you, at best, look naive in your believe that your conscious self is responsible for all (or even a majority) of your actions, and at worst, wrong/lying (who remembers everything they've ever pu…

I am +1 with Nursie.

Ad's never work for me, I occasionally turn off ad-blocking to see how google looks like with ADs. None of those advertising will work for fit what I am really looking for.

If I want something, I probably know what, where, how, when already.

If someone need 24 4tb SSD to setup a Raid, the chance they will get it from an advertiser instead of someone who has well established a logistics channel, reputation over years, excellent return policy, is probably zero.

I would love to see Advertisement which I can say:" Wow I must have one." But sadly Google has some more works to do there.

Somehow google has solve partially of it: YouTube reviews. They are one of the only few advertisement that work, at least to me.

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

#292

Post by sago »

bargl wrote: post #64
onion2k wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was any cheaper then people would believe ads have very little value which leads to thinking an ad-blocker isn't really harming anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if this product is really, at least in part, a PR move to get people to think seeing adverts is the equivalent of 'saving' $20/month for web content.

Which is interesting because of how many people mention that adds really only contribute a small fraction of that. From what I can find $1 per 1000 impressions seems to be about average for ad revenue. That means that if I go to 1000 websites in a month I'd expect to pay about $1. I'd be interested to see how many impressions I make per month and find out how much money I actually generate for these websites. I'd als…

If there are 6 ads on a page, do you visit 5 pages on average a day? I don't think that is many. These things multiply quickly.

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

#293

Post by ohitsdom »

cheald wrote: post #194
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. 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. :)

Good point. Calling that a "scam" is ludicrous.

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

#294

Post by sangnoir »

xorcist wrote: post #262

I see a couple of issues with programs like this. First, if this were to take off it would move the industry to impression based pricing wholesale. Reprinted content is already on of the biggest problems today, and with this model there is obvious risk that original creators get nothing as reprinters take everything. Second, given that we can't have a monopoly on this business, a webmaster is incentivized to join eve…

To my knowledge, Contributor uses the same infrastructure and technology as ads, but with a different payload. All 3 problems you mentioned are problems being experienced today:

1. Google is already able to guage 'low quality' pages, co temt farms and pirates. This doesn't change

2. This happenens with ads, Google can add a rule saying you "can't have x amount of ads of you want to be on our network "

3.Likely to stay the same: I don't see how contributor makes fraud easier

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

#295

Post by mahranch »

lotsoflumens wrote: post #184

There's another way ... it may sound a bit crazy at first, but I think it's the only approach that will work. * Advertisers must start paying visitors to view their ads * Not just for clicking on ads, but simply for loading them into your browser and looking at them or listening to them. I read somewhere yesterday that the ad business is $40 billion/year. None of that money goes to the people who are being abused dai…

> None of that money goes to the people who are being abused daily by the onslaught of mental pollution that this "industry" produces.

Why should it? They're the ones consuming the free content. They get to view whatever content they're looking at, for free. You watch a funny cat video on youtube, that's your "reward". That's the product you're buying with your time.

I don't know why people feel so entitled to free stuff. They forget that the content they're viewing is subsidized by ads. It's only free because of ads.

Here's a question; Would you sit through a 60 second commercial to watch a completely brand new episode of Game of Thrones that no one has seen yet? If not, then switch Game of Thrones to whatever your favorite TV show is. Is the answer now yes? Ok, good. Now why should the advertiser also pay you to view the ad? Your "payment" is getting to watch game of thrones. The people who created game of thrones should the one's getting paid by the advertiser, not you.

Now I know not all content is "good" and worth your time viewing ads, but that's a matter of subjectivity and not really worth discussing. Everyone has different tastes when it comes to content. What matters is the fact that content is subsidized ads. For whatever reason, this is an extremely hard concept for many people to grasp. As a content creator myself, it's extremely frustrating.

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

#296

Post by Nursie »

ohitsdom wrote: post #293
cheald wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. :)

Good point. Calling that a "scam" is ludicrous.

To be honest I was just kinda trying that argument on for size. It's not really a scam, but if an advertiser pays a site for my visit they are wasting their money.

Of course I block ads routinely, so that's quite unlikely anyway. I think finding new ways to pay for content is a good thing.

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

#297

Post by sago »

The problem with this scheme is that it still involves trusting the ad platform, the advertisers (some still show), and the ad strategy of the website. Trusting them to not serve anything nasty, trusting them to account for our money correctly, trusting them to show moderation in the number of ad 'slots' they try to fill.

Ad blockers remove that trust. The industry has shown they are untrustworthy, overall (i.e. there are some that are trustworthy, but you have no way of identifying if a particular site will have only them showing, or even if it will be the same next time you visit).

I adblock. I also back a range of Patreons, and regularly support some other sites. For example, I support BoardGameGeek. I'd support more content creators if that were a possibility. But I'm not going to do it via the proxy of the advertising platforms.

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

#298

Post by untog »

Animats wrote: post #265
untog wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do." Not any more. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are all paywalled. Those are some of the few remaining newspapers with sizable reporting staffs. Most other US "newspapers" have a few reporters, but mostly regurgitate wire services and press releases. The "fluff" se…

Those organisations have paywalls, yes, but they still depend overwhelmingly on ads for funding. If they lost it all tomorrow their paywall earnings would come nowhere near filling that hole.

And you seem to be ignoring cause and effect here - the reasons many newspapers have much smaller staffs these days is because the bottom fell out of the ad market and left them with no money.

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

#299

Post by _ak »

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…

Beyond per-impression charges, every advertiser is paying for probabilities - that a certain percentage of their targeted users will click the ad, or that a certain percentage of their target users will convert.

They're not interested in your specifically. Nobody is. It is well-known that something like 80% of all people that even see ads on the internet will never click on any ad in their life. But that's fine, because it's all a matter of probabilities.

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

#300

Post by Nursie »

_ak wrote: post #299
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…

Beyond per-impression charges, every advertiser is paying for probabilities - that a certain percentage of their targeted users will click the ad, or that a certain percentage of their target users will convert. They're not interested in your specifically. Nobody is. It is well-known that something like 80% of all people that even see ads on the internet will never click on any ad in their life. But that's fine, beca…

Then presumably it's OK to block ads?
Post reply on HN