Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by ariwilson » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 12:09 AM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #358

liamconnell wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upvoted because its well thought-out, but here's what I'm thinkin... > 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. Sounds like a funny way to try to make the internet more "sophisticated." If you dont like the content of the regurgitation engine, then you wouldnt visit the site and so wouldnt be supporting it. So…

I think the problem is more that there is not that much good stuff out there. I mean look at Netflix. I like it, but it's either films I have seen, often on tv, from maybe ten years ago, or it's really bad. Really bad. But there might not be enough really good stuff out there. User created content is never going to be like professional globally top notch produced content - or if it is it will take as much talent and…

It's a chicken and egg problem, right? If we want good quality content on the web, we have to be willing to pay people on the web. If we also don't like ads, then one way to support the content is via micropayments. Many other models have been tried to varying degrees of success but didn't encompass all of the web like Google Contributor is trying to do.

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

#402

Post by manigandham » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 12:09 AM UTC

a3n wrote: post #394

manigandham wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the technicality behind it or didn't read the details above. Sites can only attempt to ask by basically rendering that message and then replacing with ads. If the ads never load, then you'll see that message. However all these tricks are incredibly easy to get around with adblocker filters and so websites do NOT have a reliable way of knowing whether you are using an adblocker or not. The…

> I don't think you understand the technicality behind it I think you're right. > Sites can only attempt to ask by basically rendering that message and then replacing with ads. If the ads never load, then you'll see that message.

I'm not sure on your point with the 2nd quote...

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

#403

Post by codingdave » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 12:13 AM UTC

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…

So you pay the highest level for it, and think it is a good idea... yet a few days ago, you said:

"Google Contributor is terrible. Not because it doesn't work, but because it still leaves big green gaps where the ads were saying, "Thank you for using contributor!" Not even mentioning the fact that it only works on a minority of ads, the green boxes are even more annoying than the ads were."

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

#404

Post by manigandham » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 12:20 AM UTC

tomgg wrote: post #384

manigandham wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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". )

So half the planet is incapable of learning what clickbait is and only you can resist it?

Let's say everyone falls for it once, twice or even a dozen times. Don't you think the traffic would just stop after a while. Are we all so psychologically weak that we cant figure it out?

Why do celebrities have the most followers and gossip sites have some of the highest traffic? It's easy to argue that it's not "valuable" or "educational" content but it's still incredibly popular. Does that somehow make it "bad"? Are you the judge of that? Or is someone manipulating everyone to pay attention? Are a few people capable of controlling entire populations this easily? And why are they spending time with ads then?

OR - could it simply be that people just like what they like? At some point you just have to put aside the prejudices and look at the data and see that much of the popular stuff on the web is popular precisely because it's what users want.

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

#405

Post by ergothus » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:13 AM UTC

untog wrote: post #298

Animats wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

...and having online ads didn't improve the reporting, so it earns me no particular allegiance to maintaining the status quo.

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

#406

Post by a3n » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:18 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #402

a3n wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you understand the technicality behind it I think you're right. > Sites can only attempt to ask by basically rendering that message and then replacing with ads. If the ads never load, then you'll see that message.

I'm not sure on your point with the 2nd quote...

Context

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

#407

Post by pixelcort » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:27 AM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #26

Q: Isn’t there a waitlist to join? Or I need an invite or something? A: Not anymore! You can sign up immediately and support tons of websites with one monthly payment. Unfortunately, I still get this: Join the waitlist Contributor is not yet available in your country. :(

I'm seeing this too, from Japan.

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

#408

Post by doctorshady » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:40 AM UTC

izacus wrote: post #65

"Contributor is not available in your country." Well, I guess my Euros aren't good enough for content creators. Unfortunately for them, my privacy is not a currency I will use to pay for content.

You have to be logged into a Google account to use Contributor anyway.

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

#409

Post by jkaunisv1 » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:51 AM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #91

Justsignedup wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must argue a few points. - Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links - To try this experiment, I need to turn adblocking off. Which I am not willing to. - Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads. http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-... -- people are happier since less information assaults their brains,…

> Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links Yes, there are multiple ways to monetize things on the Internet. Affiliate links work very well for Wirecutter, because it is based around people trying to buy things. If you're forbes.com however, affiliate links don't really work. > Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads... If the p…

Is there really so much content scattered across so many sites that you couldn't easily pay for the content you enjoy, if it came to that? I would pay a small Tumblr subscription. I already patronize comic artists and musicians whose work I want to continue to exist. Jenna Marbles and Medium ego-pieces I wouldn't miss.

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

#410

Post by philliphaydon » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 1:51 AM UTC

I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that ads are needed to pay content creators.

The problem is, if you go to Engadget with ghostery, leave it disabled. It shows 27 additional items loaded in the page. For WHAT?

That's insane. Even imgur has too many external resources for ads and tracking.

If ads were not blocking, intrusive, and there wasn't so many of them and not so much tracking. People probably wouldn't care about ads. But websites like Engadget have ruined it for everyone.