Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we fought bad ads in 2015

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#71

Post by TeMPOraL »

fixermark wrote: post #64
TeMPOraL wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My trust in a product and company is usually inversely proportional to the amount of ads they run. The more one is aggressive with their ads, the less I trust them.

While I don't doubt your analysis of yourself, you are an outlier.

I'm not an outlier, I'm just experienced in using the Internet. Something one gains with time.

People do have similar patterns of thinking in the more familiar real world. Which area in the city you think is safer, and has more honest businesses - the clean one, with occasional company name banner, or that with every square meter of vertical surface taken by an ad?

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#72

Post by seangrant »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69
seangrant wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, every mirror site with advertisements is malicious. Don't be ridiculous.

Are they official mirrors? Linked from the official site? If not, I'm not trusting them. Incentives are not aligned properly. Also notice, that the more ads are on such a site, the less trustworthy it is. Do you think CNET / download.com are good places to get your software from?

CNET and download used to be, sure. Maybe not so much anymore. I'm just saying official or not, if the checksum matches - it's not malicious. End of story.

You're correct though in that just randomly picking mirrors is a bad idea. I seriously doubt your average person is utilizing checksums.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#73

Post by billmalarky »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #65
billmalarky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think all ads are irrelevant to you? Do you not use goods and services to raise your quality of life? Don't tell me "I just google for something if I want to consume it," because truly innovative products and services are outside the realm of general imagination, that's what makes them innovative. And all the great products and services you learned about from word of mouth? Guess how your friends heard about them…

>You think all ads are irrelevant to you? Do you not use goods and services to raise your quality of life? There is no connection between these two statements, and the former is not the assertion I made.

Products and services cannot be successful in a market economy without raising public awareness.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#74

Post by billmalarky »

alextgordon wrote: post #31
billmalarky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think all ads are irrelevant to you? Do you not use goods and services to raise your quality of life? Don't tell me "I just google for something if I want to consume it," because truly innovative products and services are outside the realm of general imagination, that's what makes them innovative. And all the great products and services you learned about from word of mouth? Guess how your friends heard about them…

The traditional way to buy a consumer good is in a store, then you can see the alternatives and pick the best one...

It is virtually impossible to get shelf space in _most_ stores without pre-existing consumer demand.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#75

Post by billmalarky »

easong wrote: post #56
billmalarky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think all ads are irrelevant to you? Do you not use goods and services to raise your quality of life? Don't tell me "I just google for something if I want to consume it," because truly innovative products and services are outside the realm of general imagination, that's what makes them innovative. And all the great products and services you learned about from word of mouth? Guess how your friends heard about them…

Actually, yes, all ads are irrelevant to me. I have never purchased an item from an ad, and cut out ads form my life as much as possible. I run multiple layers of software to block advertising on all my devices, refuse to use services/apps that force one to use ads, and will leave a restaurant/airport lounge/other public area if they play content with advertising. I won't read print magazines because they have advert…

>And yet, somehow, I still manage to live a modern life of plenty.

This lifestyle works for you precisely because the vast majority of the rest of the market does not live this way. Capitalist economies (where the consumers are individuals rather than one large buyer like the state) require products and services to get public awareness. The best way to achieve public awareness is through paid for mass communication.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#76

Post by TeMPOraL »

seangrant wrote: post #72
TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they official mirrors? Linked from the official site? If not, I'm not trusting them. Incentives are not aligned properly. Also notice, that the more ads are on such a site, the less trustworthy it is. Do you think CNET / download.com are good places to get your software from?

CNET and download used to be, sure. Maybe not so much anymore. I'm just saying official or not, if the checksum matches - it's not malicious. End of story. You're correct though in that just randomly picking mirrors is a bad idea. I seriously doubt your average person is utilizing checksums.

> I seriously doubt your average person is utilizing checksums.

Sure, if you're utilizing checksums the way they should be then go ahead. But honestly, even I don't care that much - my ad-heuristic was sufficient so far :). I should probably start using them. I guess it's like with all things crypto - the UX sucks so bad that most people don't bother.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#77

Post by easong »

billmalarky wrote: post #75
easong wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, yes, all ads are irrelevant to me. I have never purchased an item from an ad, and cut out ads form my life as much as possible. I run multiple layers of software to block advertising on all my devices, refuse to use services/apps that force one to use ads, and will leave a restaurant/airport lounge/other public area if they play content with advertising. I won't read print magazines because they have advert…

>And yet, somehow, I still manage to live a modern life of plenty. This lifestyle works for you precisely because the vast majority of the rest of the market does not live this way. Capitalist economies (where the consumers are individuals rather than one large buyer like the state) require products and services to get public awareness. The best way to achieve public awareness is through paid for mass communication.

It's the easiest (not the best, IMO) way for companies to reach out to a broad market right now, because consumers as a whole haven't yet figured out that advertising is a negative quality signal and are currently terrible at controlling their information diet. But there are growing segments of the population that are getting better at reading healthy just the same as there's a growing segment concerned about eating healthy.

As more information-savvy and time-sensitive (read: higher-income) consumers reject advertising, companies seeking to target them will have to find alternate methods of reaching out to them. If information distribution continues to be disintermediated, then they might find that the only way to do that is by focusing on building things people legitimately want to use and tell their peers about. Traditional advertising will become even more a ghetto than it already is, and will primarily target low-value consumers.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#78

Post by aninhumer »

boomzilla wrote: post #7
microtonal wrote: post #3

When ads are good, they connect you to products or services you’re interested in and make it easier to get stuff you want. They don't make anything easier. If I want something, I will get it, otherwise it's just annoying. It's great that they are working to make ads safer (which is obviously in their interest as well), but they have already lost me (and I guess many others). Even AdSense ads are obnoxious these days…

There is value in advertising: as an information source and a mechanism to establish trust. The former value has been diminished by the internet (which some people call the information age). Advertising is still valuable for establishing trust between the two unknown parties though. Ads in Google work partly because of Google the brand name. Ads on Reddit r/HateSomething will not because, well, you know why. So it's…

There is value in advertising, but it's a very inefficient way of providing that value, because the incentives aren't aligned with that goal at all.

An independent agency is likely to provide consumers with more accurate advice, AND can more effectively establish trust in decent products. I know Which? exists in the UK, and apparently there's something called Consumer Reports in the US. Is it any good?

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#79

Post by mahranch »

eevilspock wrote: post #41
Paul_S wrote: post #14

How I fought bad ads in 2016 (in order of impact on usability/performance): http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ (transparent and no overhead, works on Android too!) https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock (a handful of websites will detect it - you can then switch to visual blocking for that domain to get around it, for FF: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... ) ht…

Agreed, all ads are bad. And let's call the advertising business model what it is: a get rich quick scheme. Undercut the straight up competitors that charge for their product by fooling consumers into thinking you're offering what the other guy is offering, but for free. Come on, who could turn down that? Or make something "valuable" that no one is willing to pay for (WTF?), so again make it appear free. Only the tru…

As someone who tangentially works in the industry, you couldn't be more wrong. Ads literally subsidize the vast majority of content you consume on the internet. More importantly, ads subsidize and promote innovation. Without ads, we wouldn't have sites like youtube, facebook, reddit or pretty much every website that doesn't rely on donations (wikipedia, etc).

It's interesting just how much of a disconnect young people have with this topic (in my experience, older people are skeptical of all the free content on the 'net. My grandmother thought she was going to get a bill from youtube for watching so many videos and not having to pay anything up front). Perhaps it's one of the reasons why they call our generation "the entitled generation". We've always had free content on the internet so we don't appreciate or understand how the people who create that content get paid.

Re: How we fought bad ads in 2015

#80

Post by mahranch »

CaptSpify wrote: post #46
Paul_S wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My post keeps fluctuating too, it's a very controversial subject. Although I wish the downvoters would also leave a reply - it's the Internet, have your say.

The thing is though: What can they reply with? "Do you feel you deserve the content for free?" is the only argument I ever hear, and that is so old and tired, it's not funny. I'd be interested in hearing/discussing a solid pro-ad argument, but I've yet to find one.

> a solid pro-ad argument, but I've yet to find one.

That's because there is no argument to be had. Ads subsidize the vast majority of content on the internet, full stop. Just as they did TV stations before cable. That content wasn't free, those ad companies paid for their ad spots, which paid for those television shows. The same is true for the internet, without ads, the internet would look very, very different. Without ads, there would be no innovation, and a hell of a lot less content, 80% or more less. We're talking going back to the mid 1990s, and not in a good way.

So I guess if that's your ideal internet, sure, that's not an argument for ads. But for me, I prefer the current internet. I like my websites like reddit, facebook and youtube. I like having the news at my fingertips. I like being able to watch any TV show I want.

It's a butterfly effect on a massive scale - you remove ads from the equation, the majority of what we know as the internet goes with it because they're directly responsible for the bulk of the innovation.

Post reply on HN