Live data from Hacker News

Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

mattcutts.com

341–350 of 472 posts

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

#341
It is just short of mafia protection money.

The concept that as a user, I don't know the ultimate bribe cost. Plus constant worry that it may go up or worse, the rules have changed and prices( read bribes ) went up. What a backwards way of shimmying your way into what should be : consumer + producer relationship.

I want to live in a reality where I know your costs and you tell me how much divided amongst your users is my share to pay. Let's get Google out of the equation.

What if we had mandatory HTTP headers: "Content-Cost: 0.02" and my browser had a credit card linked against it and I will decide if your content is good enough to buy.

Ads are evil. The industry is evil. And I don't mean it in a bible-churchy-preachy way. These are not people I will ever support with my coin.

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

#342
At the end of the day, people don't seem to care about whether content-creators get paid. And why should they? There's an almost inexhaustible source of "content" (whatever that means) and for every creator that steps down, another will step in.

I will continue to use an ad blocker and not pay Google, thank you very much.

If you want me to consume ads, make ads I want to consume.

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

#343
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If viewing contents without viewing ads is damaging to a site, they can block. Or they can provide N free views per X days, and then block. And provide a subscription mechanism. I think I must have been turned away from a site once or twice, but I really can't remember specifically. So they don't block. Which means, they get something out of the visit. Exposure, at least. The hope of an eventual subscription, as I su…

Blocking adblock users is not as easy as it sounds. Many of the adblockers also maintain rules and filters to actively get around this. Paywalls are the only sure fire way to keep people out.

It may not be easy. Wired seems to know how, they ask me to unblock when I visit. Same with Reddit (years ago) and duckduckgo.

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

#344
I don't understand why people are trying to soften the blow for content-providers who generate revenue through intrusive, annoying, and privacy-invading ads.

Why are you defending people who clearly do not respect you?

Why are you paying a tax ($15/mo for Google Contributor) to make it so that these people can continue to operate on a broken business model?

Why are you so scared of the internet changing? It's nonsensical.

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

#345
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is ... ad revenue .... If you get rid of the ad revenue, you reduce the velocity of the crap engine, and then good content can again be successful on a subscription model. That's one of the best good for all, social arguments against ads/for blockers that I've seen.

Except it's not because it's completely subjective. The reason why people continue to visit all those sites and click all those links? - Because they like it.

Show me an objective argument regarding ad blockers.

And what's wrong with subjective, anyway?

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

#346
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They still have copyright on their content and how you use it.

> They still have copyright on their content

Certainly.

> and how you use it

Now that's an interesting question. I wonder if we'll start seeing people try to use explicit copyright licenses to say that your license is revoked if you use an ad blocker. Not sure what that'd look like.

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

#347
post #315
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…

For people that dislike ads the statement, "I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" is literally a definition because if you purchase anything because of an ad you've been made worse off. If you were going to buy it anyway then the ad did nothing, if you weren't then you are now worse off as you bought something you wouldn't have otherwise -- you've been manipulated. From this there is n…

But what if you weren't going to buy it because you were not aware it existed? When you see an ad for an interesting movie and decide to check it out, you go watch it, and love it, are you really worse off? Maybe you see an ad for a new restaurant and decide to check it out. Are you worse off? Aren't these examples of positive ads?

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

#348
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yet I bet you know who Ford, Geicko, Chevrolet, Coca Cola and McDonalds are, regardless of how much you like their products.

I like advertisement.

I use Tasla before they are popular; Windows Mobile while they are not in the news steam; The first iPhone; The very first Gen Intel SSD; 64GB rams while 256 MB is the standard, and still can go on.

Advertisements in a media act as an amplifier that fit the majority in our social system.

Now go back to our topic: Can the Google Ads show me the next SSD? Will it show me the next self-drive car? No it cannot at this stage. But when it can, I will desperate or probably pay to read those advertisements.

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

#349

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…

> 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.

Yes – content creators should get paid. Also, not all ads are bad. Some campaigns even make such an impression on popular culture that they have their own place in history. But the campaigns that won't? Well, basically anything coming out of ad machines like adsense and what not.

Ads can be tasteful, even enjoyable, but most of the internet ads aren't. Unlike broadcast tv, you can block internet ads; it's easy to do, and you should. Not because it'll kill content creators or indie app makers[1] or whatever, because it won't. It'll hurt the revenue streams of shitty ad mongers like adsense and doubleclick and facebook and admob and what have you. These are – in my opinion – on the same shitty level as porn peddlers. They sell crap for pennies, but they win because you just won't reach out to everyone otherwise. Google and Twitter and Facebook and all of the shitty ad platform snake-oil salesmen are the broadcasters of today – and their messages suck.

Not only do their messages suck, but people – good people – spend valuable time they'll never get back in order to produce these shitty ads. Time they could have spent doing something useful. Instead they made a shitty flash banner that won't play anyway because everyone blocks flash.

Ads of this kind need to be blocked so we can get to a point where advertising can be good. Where it requires thought, effort, research. Where it requires smart people, creative people, coming up with things that matter and are contextually relevant. The shitty ads we have today need to be blocked to preserve bandwidth, and to help make our planet perhaps die a little bit less every year. Blocking ads on the internet is easy, and doesn't require fancy heuristics or anything. It just requires black lists and hive minds. Ads that are not peddled through "platforms" or however you'd like to describe it – sponsored articles like those on Daring Fireball or increasingly in news papers these days – are less easy to block, and require more effort. But those ads aren't annoying, and they may not be entirely relevant but at least you don't want to throw up because you're fed up with their bullshit. So it becomes a cost/benefit calculation – is it worth the time and energy to block all ads, or are some ads ok?

To me the answer to that is simple: ads are ok. The ad-porn that inflicts the internet today, through adsense and the rest of the ad-platform mob, can die a painful death in fire. Fuck 'em, I'm blocking their shitty ads left-right-center.

[1]: http://blog.desk.pm/df/

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Otherwise if there really is no value on that page, what are you doing there? You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting.

> They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. > You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Well, current model also costs me that $0.001 (likely more) in electricity costs and exposes me to at best some ugly-looking crap made with adversarial intent, that has nonze…

The electricity costs you mentioned are externalities and not really relevant here. Otherwise you will start blaming everything for every little action you take. If you don't want to browse that site, you can stop at any level from going to that url, starting your browser, buying your computer, living in that country, etc.

When you go shopping, it will likely cost you gas, time, wear/tear, etc just like anything else but do you tally that and ask for a refund on the purchase price?

I also hear this "potential" value argument a lot - why are you continually going to sites that you consider to have no value? Just doesn't make sense. And either way, ads allow you to not lose anything monetarily if you feel that site didn't give you what you expected. It's very a fair and low-risk trade.

Post reply on HN