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

381–390 of 472 posts

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

#381

Post by Zarel »

roymurdock wrote: post #107
austenallred wrote: post #46

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…

> much of the web I know and love will cease to exist Which parts of the web are those exactly? You'd be surprised at how creative people can get when their livelihoods are threatened by changing business models. Those who come up with a better solution for monetizing good content will survive. Those who don't, or who had poor content to begin with, will be forced out of the market.

The problem is, the changed business model will often be worse, because if it were better, we'd already have switched to it by now.

Look at the main alternatives – subscription is the usual other one. And subscription will probably be enough to keep the big sites like Google and Facebook afloat, but for smaller sites, they'd just go under. Not to mention subscription biases the wealthy – suddenly, the poor are locked out of a lot of sites.

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

#382

Post by supercanuck »

manigandham wrote: post #334
supercanuck wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me. To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.

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.

I think you are stretching the definition of the word free.

Me looking at something is not a form of payment. The payment is coming from the advertiser. The advertiser is paying the content producer, THAT is the business transaction. Whether I choose to view the ad and make those advertisements have value is not my concern. Those ads are the REAL value and worthy of my payment.

Otherwise viewing the NYT is like watching sunsets, the only way to monetiZe that is by slapping a billboard in front of me, at which point, i go elsewhere

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

#384

Post by tomgg »

manigandham wrote: post #316
a3n wrote: 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.

> The reason why people continue to visit all those sites and click all those links?---Because they like it.

This is disingenuous; there are people who dedicate their working life to causing other people to do things they (other people) don't want to do (e.g., following a psychologically-designed bespoke(!) anchor that belongs to a class of things colloquially known as ``link bait". )

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

#385

Post by a3n »

manigandham wrote: post #352
a3n wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most adblockers these days get rid of those messages as well. And asking you to unblock is not the same as stopping you completely - the only way to do that is paywalls.

Yes, but the point is, if they have the ability to ask, whether my blocker blocks the ask message or not, then they know I'm using an ad blocker, and they can refuse to serve me content, or redirect me to a subscription/registration page. But they keep on letting me view their content. It's their problem.

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

#386

Post by luxpir »

I don't use an adblocker, I use a script blocker. It's not about the ads. It's about being re-marketed, tracked, herded, bought and sold by every scummy marketing department in some of the vilest organisations of people the Earth has ever seen.

Yes. I want Dave and Leela, bloggers of great human interest, or my favourite journos and comic strip artists to all get paid handsomely for their contributions to mankind. But I don't want a third party sat in the middle of that transaction. Particularly not that one.

Work needs doing on both sides of the deal. More donation culture, easier methods, and more motivation to write content that contributes something new for the good of society, however that may be, for the commons. Less rehashed tripe split ten ways, more genuinely deeply considered works that can be easily rewarded. That's what the script blocking movement is really about.

Final word, I'm sick of this pervasive attitude that people think they're doing the creator a favour if they pay them. I'm paying you, you get my endorsement, do you have any idea how special that makes you, makes us? We're friends now and everything! Get real. It's ego-mania of the highest form. There are no strings attached to any purchase and the seller owes you nothing beyond what you agreed to buy. Support them without any expectation of even the slightest of ego kickbacks and you'll have your integrity. This Contributor service has an issue with a lack of integrity at its very core. Perverted altruism. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

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

#389

Post by heroprotagonist »

jsnell wrote: post #149
elorant wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why on earth are you going to those sites? I'm not. But 95% of web sites out there are replicating content one way or the other. That's literally what this is. No it's not. That's a different model and I have no objections against it. This is a model where Google decides to give money to sites, and that is any site that's running AdSense not just the ones with original content. My argument is about why some of us…

No, it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them. Since you claim not to visit the sites that are "shitty content creators", you're not going to be supporting them in any way. So what exactly is your real objection? Contributor might not be the answer. But if nothing else, this is a great "put your money where your mouth is" experiment. Suddenly all the…

> it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them

Is it, though? Perhaps a closer inspection of the payment model is in order. I found this:

> You’ll pay the market price for each ad space that shows a thank you message or pixel pattern. This price can vary a lot. The exact price is determined at the time of the Google ad auction.

Further details are here:

https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6084026?vid=1-...

Essentially, you are bidding against a website's advertisers and paying the going rate for that ad slot. Not all content is equally valuable to advertisers. Consider the high cost for cancer targeted advertising compared to targeting an audience for, say, some form of generic cola beverage. The page with the cancer advertisement will receive a higher portion of your Contribute budget than the page with the cola advertisement (if it's replaced at all.. Google may decide they get more money with the cancer-related ad than with your Contribute bid).

So, it doesn't seem to distribute your money in proportion to your level of visits. If you visit a single site more frequently than others, then sure, that site may get a larger number of bites at your budget, but if the value of that space is very low then the total sum you provide to this content creator could be less than what you give to the owner of the click-bait link you followed once and forgot about.

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

#390

Post by r00fus »

Spivak wrote: post #315
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…

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…

That's not exactly true.

If I'm looking for, say, a bluetooth speaker, find an ad that looks interesting (of course I do a bit of product research), that may of more utility to me than the "frustrated, and did not buy anything" option.

However, things like Taboola are a cancer on the internet. Distracting and useless.

Post reply on HN