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

301–310 of 472 posts

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

#301

Post by Nursie »

kbenson wrote: post #263
Nursie wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, when it comes to advertisements, I do that already. I don't watch broadcast tv, I don't read newspapers or magazines on paper, I listen to BBC radio if I listen to the radio, I have adblockers for the internet. Th world can be a quieter, calmer place when you stop letting people make sales pitches at you constantly.

That's an easy decision to make when you stop letting them make the sales pitches, but still take what they offer in exchange for those sales pitches. If you stopped the advertising and didn't view the content they offered in exchange, it would be quieter, calmer and a lot more boring .

I mean, that's kind of the root of it for me, this implied bargain - you get this stuff for free, just let us pitch our stuff to you for x% of the time - that's over, I reject it entirely.

Happily for me I no longer have the to make the choice of either putting up with it or not funding the content when it comes to most media.

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

#302

Post by mahranch »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #242
supercanuck wrote: post #140

This is great, now wealthy tech/content moral apologists can pay for the content they want while the rest of us can get on with our lives about using ad-blockers. 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 cho…

You really think they'll continue to make money when inevitably adblocker software on any browser becomes as ubiquitous as messenger or camera software on a phone? That's the whole issue. The current ad model isn't really sustainable in that light. There's no outrage they're not getting paid, there is concern that extrapolating current trends, they won't get paid a few years down the line and will either shut down or…

> Or you simply believe that the rapid growth of ad blockers will taper off fairly quickly and never constitute a significant threat. Possible but I think pretty naive.

A third option that I think is the most likely (because it's already begun to happen): Programs & plugins for websites that serve ads up natively from the local website. This means there's no call to a third party. It means there would be nothing to block and the ad gets through.

If the ad is a simple image or gif file, an ad blocker would have no way to tell what it is. It wouldn't know if it's a picture of a cat with a piece of bread on its head or an ad for denture cream. This is because the picture is coming from the website you're visiting and could have a name like cute-cat.jpg. It basically nullifies the host file for ad blockers.

That's what I think is going to happen. All the big ad companies (cough, google) need to do is revamp their ad network slightly and ad blockers become significantly less useful overnight.

I'm not saying it would make ad blockers 100% obsolete, far from it. They'd still be useful. But a lot, and I mean a lot more ads would get through that wouldn't have before. If even 40% more get through, that's still a huge number.

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

#305

Post by octatone2 »

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…

Your argument reads to me to be a stronger reason to continue blocking ads.

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

#306

Post by blacksmith_tb »

coldpie wrote: post #25

This seems neat, but can I still use noscript and my ad blocker? I feel like the ads need to be display-able for their backend to know I'm visiting a page. But I use noscript and ublock, so it would fail to pay out.

My experiments so far (with uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Exploding Cookies, and Random User Agent all on) suggest no. It seems like you'd have to do some extra work to whitelist sites so that they could get paid. It isn't clear what GOOG will do with my $2 if they can't attribute my visits...

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

#307

Post by pfortuny »

yq wrote: post #291
brwnll wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, r…

Brands are pressed into our brains by constantly pushing them in front of our eyes. And then, when you think of a need, you remember the brand.

Nobody ever went to a bank just after reading the ad in the newspaper. But they remembered the brand.

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

#308

Post by kbenson »

Nursie wrote: post #275
kbenson wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an easy decision to make when you stop letting them make the sales pitches, but still take what they offer in exchange for those sales pitches. If you stopped the advertising and didn't view the content they offered in exchange, it would be quieter, calmer and a lot more boring .

>> If you stopped the advertising and didn't view the content they offered in exchange, it would be quieter, calmer and a lot more boring. Not really, I already pay for my tv, music and radio directly (tv license, streaming services etc) so I don't have to be advertised at, and I'm seriously considering signing up for these various no-ad services for the web. It doesn't have to be more boring without advertising, in…

> It doesn't have to be more boring without advertising, in nearly all media now there are ways to enjoy great content without letting the sales pitch in. I hope we find good ways with the web too.

My point was that it's more boring if you forego the content that has ads, and I think your use of an ad-blocker to access this content supports this position.

I also hope we find good mechanisms to pay for content without advertising, but I also don't want advertising paid services to go away. It does allow a freedom of access that wasn't possible beforehand.

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

#309

Post by [deleted] »

Nursie wrote: post #163
olegious wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 impr…

As I said, particularly with web advertising, if you've made me notice your brand then I will actively try to remember not to buy from you - I dislike advertising that much. By viewing the ad I'm not ripping anyone off, no, but a page taking money for me viewing an ad would be, as the outcome for the advertiser is getting a best neutral and likely actually negative.

[deleted]

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

#310

Post by smtddr »

Nursie wrote: post #186
throwaway342526 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not behave as you claim to. Advertising really does work. It's rational and has well-demonstrated ROI. You're either an outlier in terms of behavior, or you're not offering an honest representation of how you react to ads.

I'm sure it does work across populations, but I'm also pretty sure I'm part of a growing demographic who are finding every way they can to opt out of it because they're sick of it. As I say, I do find this and patreon interesting, and may sign up. I already get most of my tv and movies through subscriptions to streaming services where I don't have to see any ads.

>>I'm also pretty sure I'm part of a growing demographic who are finding every way they can to opt out of it because they're sick of it.

I think you're very wrong here. I suspect only a small part of the echo-chamber techies might think this way. The general public only hates ads when they're shown as those crazy multiple pop-up windows + auto-playing flash ads with audio.

Otherwise, people do click... or tune them out(but subconsciously, the ad is in their head)

Post reply on HN