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

461–470 of 472 posts

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

#461

Post by stephengillie »

ised wrote: post #446
stephengillie wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 quick…

For blocking, I use zone files, not the HOSTS file. I can select specific subdomains; I can also use wildcards. I doubt there is anything an ad blocker can block that I cannot block using DNS. But if you have examples, post them and let's see.

Can your method block cookies and frames from a domain, but allow Javascript and XHR?

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

#462

Post by _ak »

Nursie wrote: post #300
_ak wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond per-impression charges, every advertiser is paying for probabilities - that a certain percentage of their targeted users will click the ad, or that a certain percentage of their target users will convert. They're not interested in your specifically. Nobody is. It is well-known that something like 80% of all people that even see ads on the internet will never click on any ad in their life. But that's fine, beca…

Then presumably it's OK to block ads?

In some way it's a brilliant move by Apple to monetize on people that strictly reject online advertising.

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

#463

Post by manigandham »

supercanuck wrote: post #456
manigandham wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can because this is how many publishing companies are run today. The obligation is to accept the ads with the content. It's actually in the terms and service of many sites and doesn't require a signature. This is completely legal and binding, just not easily enforceable. Sure there might be natural losses due to leaving or not looking at the screen but adblockers are all about your intent to completely remove the…

I have a hard time believing those terms of conditions meets the inquiry notice requirements and would stand up in court against anonymous internet users. I view a website and someone says I owe them my first born, does not make it so.

It wouldnt for many sites but it just wasn't a problem before because the value exchange held. Privacy laws and adblocking are causing these to become more visible with explicit Accept buttons however there's still the obstacle of proving identity online.

Anyways, this is something that paywalls solve entirely so it's a great model, but nobody wants to pay.

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

#464

Post by ised »

stephengillie wrote: post #461
ised wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For blocking, I use zone files, not the HOSTS file. I can select specific subdomains; I can also use wildcards. I doubt there is anything an ad blocker can block that I cannot block using DNS. But if you have examples, post them and let's see.

Can your method block cookies and frames from a domain, but allow Javascript and XHR?

I accept session cookies only, I keep Javascript turned off except when I am forced to turn it on (banking, etc.), and I really do not like frames.

If there is some site with frames that I willingly use regularly, I just bust out of the frame and access the contents directly.

Hence what you are describing does not sound like something I desperately need to do.

The only way I can answer your question is if you give me an example: a website with ads to block. Then I'll test it.

I should note though that cookies are not ads; the original topic was blocking ads - you are shifting the goalposts.

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

#465

Post by ised »

cm2187 wrote: post #434
ised wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

The fact that it is free doesn't mean it costs nothing. I am pretty sure that google's datacentre bill is not a tiny amount, and it takes lots of developers to make a gmail. And you won't be indexing the whole of the internet on an old desktop running in a closet.

But I never suggested any of those statements you are making.

What I was referring to is that Google's "product" is offered free to the user.

What you refer to highlights the importance of the question: if their "product" is not free to produce, then why don't they charge users for it?

No matter how well Google delivers your search results and email, if they cannot serve ads, they are in trouble. They have hundreds of millions of loyal users of these websites, but Google does not ask users for money.

If they did, would you pay?

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

#466

Post by jakobegger »

johnward wrote: post #77
jakobegger wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google does have the big green download button type ads (this kind of ad made me decide to install an adblocker)

Those are really the only ones I can think of that bother me but it's the sites placement that is what makes it a terrible UX. They place all those ads around the actual download button. You would think you could get banned for trying to force a click like that.

I wouldn't put the blame on the site owners exclusively. Yes, they are responsible for location on the page. But Google puts a big green button labelled "download" on the page in the first place; that button would be confusing anywhere on the page. And obviously, these ads only show up on download pages, not on other types of pages.

There's no excuse: the site operator, the ad network, and the ad buyer all collaborate to deceive the user. Google could easily stop this practice, but they don't. "Do no evil, unless it affects the bottom line".

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

#467

Post by mahranch »

jdiez17 wrote: post #378
mahranch wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

You're saying that there's going to be an arms race between advertisers and ad blockers and you assume advertisers are going to win by fuzzing the definition of "ad". Is that a good thing? It sounds like a local maximum to me, like native advertising, and not really a step in the right direction. In The Ideal World ad blockers wouldn't exist because we'd all be happy paying our fair share to content creators. This se…

> Is that a good thing?

A very good thing, actually. For starters, nobody minds ads. They subsidize content. Without ads, the internet wouldn't exist in its current iteration.

What people are against are malicious ads and the like. If an ad is a simple gif or jpg (picture), there can be no maliciousness. It makes ads relatively safe again. And content creators actually make money, incentivizing better and more content. Everyone wins.

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

#468

Post by ergothus »

untog wrote: post #413
ergothus wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't really understand the point you're making here. Who suggested having ads improved the reporting? It made the reporting available to you at a lower (or free) price.

The argument made slightly above was that without ads, we lose the current media environment. I'm saying (agreeing with some) that since the current media environment contains very little reporting of value, I don't see a real reason to maintain it.

Ads providing revenue has not led to value, ergo I don't see much reason to protect the status quo for fear of losing it.

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

#469

Post by Winsaucerer »

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…

You have some good thoughts here. I do not think that Google Contributor is the answer, though it's in the right ballpark.

The advantages of Google Contributor are reasonably clear. There is at least:

1. Works through Google's existing advertising systems, so easier for them to implement.

2. Minimal work for websites to sign up.

3. Advertisements disappear, while supporting websites.

4. Very little work for the end user to get started.

But the disadvantages to me seem quite strong. A few:

1. Advertisers (e.g., Google), can still track you. Those with privacy concerns won't have those concerns addressed.

2. Doesn't remove all ads (even if you pay the maximal amount, it only affects Google ads, as you say).

3. Effectively creates more competition for the ad spots, driving the prices up (good for Google).

4. Does not change content layout.

5. Google still controls the space, where it would be better for the website owner to be able to use that space themselves.

6. Pricing is not clear. What exactly am I getting for what I pay? As competition increases, price goes up. As an end user, I like to know how much I need to pay to get a particular service. I don't want to have to give it much thought.

I do think it's great that you're willing to support websites in removing ads. An Adblock Plus survey suggests that there are many users who would be willing to donate, so you're not alone.

Full disclosure: I run https://webpass.io, a service to give money back to the content creators in a way that completely bypasses the advertising industry, rather than working through it (thus protecting privacy). Gives the power to the website owner to control their content, not Google.

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

#470

Post by jeeva »

superskierpat wrote: post #425
mikekchar wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Went there to check out the ads, stayed for days looking at the food. Help! I'm buying new barbecue gear in late September!
Post reply on HN