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

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

#421

Post by Paulods » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 3:41 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…

|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.

One of the nice things about ads is that it allows many users to browse content for free - subsidised by those that interact with adverts.

If advertising were to go away and micro-payments replace it - how do users get free access to content subsidised by the masses? I can freely browse the most internet today from anywhere in the world regardless of my income situation. A micro-payments barrier to entry isn't going to allow that.

Also those who are most likely to pay for a solution like this are likely the most affluent who are likely to be the ones clicking and buying products through advertising.

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

#422

Post by brongondwana » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 3:54 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #404

tomgg wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Or it could be that we hadn't yet learned to avoid it, and we're slowly learning:

http://mumbrella.com.au/mamamia-has-said-goodbye-to-clickbai...

http://digiday.com/publishers/upworthy-goes-clickbait-free-n...

http://blog.newscred.com/how-reader-demand-for-content-marke...

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

#423

Post by tomgg » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 3:57 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #404

tomgg wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Are you suggesting that this was my contention?!---I fall for click bait all the time.

> Are we all so psychologically weak that we cant figure it out?

No, but I don't think ``we" are actively trying to figure it out. People design these traps _for a living_; ``we" get trapped by them _in ``our" spare time_.

> ...

...

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

#424

Post by Cub3 » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 4:08 AM UTC

My process:

1. Read article, sounds like a good idea, maybe I can throw $10 in a month + white-list Google ads in my ad blocker 2. Go to Contributor website, read through all information aaannnddd "Contributor is not yet available in your country." 3. Close tabs and move on

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

#425

Post by superskierpat » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

mikekchar wrote: post #414

TeMPOraL wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. YMMV, I suppose we may be browsing different parts of the Internet, but I know content I love would mostly stay intact. From my personal and subjective experience, nearly everything that is actually worth anything on the Internet is made by unpaid volunteers for whom creating content is an end in itself, and not a way to ea…

I tend to agree with you. Of course I started using the internet in the late 80s. At that time, the absolute best things on the internet were Usenet FAQs. These days it is really hard to find things of that quality because you are overrun with people trying to make a buck. I think a good example is recipes. At one point, I instructed google to ignore food.com, about.com, food-network.com and a few more. But now there…

I like the way amazingribs.com does it, a bunch of bbq geeks who mostly only show adverts for products they have reviewed and liked.

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

#426

Post by stephengillie » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 4:50 AM UTC

ised wrote: post #419

lighthawk wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it. Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is that they have to get their pagerank up and stay relevant. The reason they have to do that is because if they don't do it, there are ad revenue dependent content generators out there that wi…

"I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate to block ads." And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. It is amusing to see Google trying to push this "contribution" scheme. Clearly, ad blocking is sending a loud signal to the websites that "make you the product". Websites that are "free" through advertising sales but also attempt to make a record of everything you do at the…

> And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads.

uMatrix is a much more effective way of using DNS to block ads than HOSTS file editing. You can select only certain items from certain domains. Sure, I block Google cookies on most sites, but those sites are dependent on scripts coming from the same domains. With uMatrix, I can permit just the scripts that the site needs.

And I can quickly and easily test different resource combinations to customize my website experience.

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

#427

Post by Retra » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #135

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the principle that content creators should get paid.

Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.

If they put their content up without charging me for it, then why wouldn't I deserve to see it? If the deal is "look at this ad in exchange for viewing the article", then they could key on the ad as a password for the article.

But that's obviously not the deal, because your traffic would plummet as many of your visitors would reject that deal. So don't pretend an agreement exists here. Visiting a website is not an obligation to view the content or the ads.

The agreement is between the website and the advertiser. They have obligations to each other, we don't have obligations to them.

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

#428

Post by dools » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 5:27 AM UTC

I'd love to but " Contributor is not yet available in your country. " (Australia)

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

#429

Post by Retra » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 5:27 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #331

piyush_soni wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't consume their contents if they are at a subscription fee. Most of the content creators on the internet know that their content wouldn't earn them a subscription, so they choose the advertisement model. If you make something worth paying money for, people will pay. I mean, they're not making me sign a contract saying I wouldn't consume their content if the ads are off, so it's up to me to choose what I see…

People don't want to pay because it requires friction on every purchase and much of the content on the internet adds up to fractions of a penny per impression. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Think of like a movie: you can pay $10 to see the whole thing or $0.001 per each frame. That's what the web is like with each frame possibly being from a different publisher. That kind of granular payments is very hard…

It's not hard at all to get those kind of payments. You already pay your ISP a connection fee. Thats the payment we make to see the content.

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

#430

Post by spenvo » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 6:17 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…

> I hope Google can expand it

A few days ago I remarked on Twitter: "sad that Contributor, a great alternative to ads/tracking, is owned & marketed by Google, which has more to lose than gain from promoting it"[0]

The idea behind Contributor is a powerful one: one that if aggressively marketed and expanded, could (at least conceivably) provide a viable hybrid model for online content publishing (that could coexist with ad-tech).

But Google is a one-trick pony (with ads, obviously) and has everything at stake here. That makes Contributor feel like more of a defensive "moat" initiative -- there to passively discourage others from pursuing (or investing in) similar ideas. Maybe I'm being too cynical. I too am happily subscribed to Contributor--the most dramatic difference is The Next Web -- where the crazy canvas-flying ads are toggled off.

[0] - https://twitter.com/spencenow/status/646480765794975744