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

VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 404 posts

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#81

Post by poooogles »

moron4hire wrote: post #49
adam-a wrote: post #35

I recently had a similar problem, browsing a reputable news site (newstatesman.com), I accidentally clicked an ad and got taken directly to a page containing explicit pornography. I complained to the site and they said they do what they can in terms of blacklisting ads, but they don't have enough time or staff. I can't believe there's no ad network that will take a stand against abusive advertising and actually vet t…

You would think some of the most profitable companies in the world could afford to hire a few interns to put eyes on any and all ads before they go out.

>hire a few interns to put eyes on any and all ads before they go out.

They do, all creatives are audited on submission. You can't provide literally ANY creative at bid time, it has to be one that's been audited. It's people that then switch the creative once the audit has been completed that are screwing everyone. It should result in you being banned from the network, but it's hard (apparently) to ban people that are paying the bills for you the ad network.

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#82

Post by mrweasel »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #41

Why isn't there an ad network that lets you inject ads server side? That would solve a lot of problems.

Because they want to be able to switch ads very quickly, and they don't want to rely on you to supply the number of ad-displays.

It's not a problem getting the correct data from your server logs, but it's not difficult to imagine someone fiddling with the number and indicating that they displayed far more ads than they really did.

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#83

Post by kbart »

jacquesm wrote: post #3

At some point the cost of advertising to the medium in terms of user disengagement will exceed the income. I can't wait for it to happen, then at least we will reach some kind of steady-state. I really pity the newspapers, especially the ones that also have an online presence, they are caught between a rock and a hard place and no matter what they do they end up hurting themselves, their employers, users or sharehold…

"End users on metered bandwidth (mobile for instance) will suffer but that's not the advertisers problem"

Well, it is their problem or else we wouldn't have this "crisis" of Internet ads now and cries of advertisers/publishers. After all, you can only push a limited amount of bullshit down the users throat before they start throwing up.. It took many years of abuse by countless browser bars, pop-up ads, auto play videos, inflated network bills for a casual user to start using ad-blockers.

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#84

Post by archon810 »

snarfy wrote: post #11

Sites need to be legally liable for installing malware on your computer. That will solve all of this. I can go to prison for clicking on the wrong link but somehow they get away with drive-by ransomware installs.

This is laughable. If site owners could go to jail every time a 3rd-party code they're not fully responsible for does something bad, they'd all be in jail now.

https://blog.malwarebytes.org/threat-analysis/2015/08/large-...

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-b...

Etc.

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#85

Post by [deleted] »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #58
franciscop wrote: post #6

If someone needs to have an ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's like we say restaurant owners should support the mafia because otherwise they cannot make money in the neighborhood. Or any other criminal(ish) activity. "Without advertising we wouldn't be able to run this" MAYBE it really means you shouldn't run it at all, but don't force advertising(+malware) down you…

But a lot of niche forums - games, hobbies and so forth are unlikely to monetise any other way. Should they die too? Or have to rely on a rich benefactor deciding to host a motorcycling (or whatever) site? Few are going to pay a subscription to chat on a Civilization or fishing forum a few hours a week. Advertising should be the appropriate model for this. Trouble is it's being poisoned by the greed of Buzzfeed and W…

[deleted]

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#86

Post by a3n »

pjc50 wrote: post #21
captainmuon wrote: post #2

I'm a bit shocked about the state of advertising. When I was making websites (~early 2000s), there were a lot more options to choose from, it seems. Now you basically just have Google and this opaque network of algorithmic auctions. Back then, you had a bunch of small business ad networks that you could choose from. I found you could also choose more different formats. OK, there was no video (thank God), but you coul…

One alternative to the current situation would be for sites to serve their own ads (from their own servers). I wonder why this isn't done at least from big sites? There's no way to prove that you've served a particular number of ads to real humans. That's why all these ridiculous brokers and third-party fragments of javascript exist: it would otherwise be trivial for the publisher to defraud the advertiser.

How do physical newspapers prove ad serving to their buyers? I'm certain they don't point to every single newspaper thrown in a driveway.

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#88

Post by Hondor »

archon810 wrote: post #44
_Understated_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree... I know nothing about the web advertising industry or how it works with bidding and so on and I don't think I am alone. So if a site has ads then as far as I am concerned the buck stops with the them: I have no knowledge of the ad setup or what deal the site has and I don't care either - the site owner takes the responsibility and if I have a negative effect (hacked/malware/slow load or whatever) then I won…

I don't think it's a fair comparison, but I get your point. I am not saying the user should know to blame the advertiser instead of the publisher, I'm saying it really sucks that the publisher is the one getting thrown under the bus and blamed for what is the advertiser's fault and it sucks for us publishers. The suggested solution to "figure it out" and "find other advertising networks" doesn't work because almost a…

Only "almost all"? Why not use the few that don't? Is it because your revenue from them will be lower? Maybe it's lower because they aren't forcing these profitable ads at your users. That really does sound like the publisher's fault for choosing the most profitable ad network and neglecting the user's experience. Any "good quality" ad network is bound to pay less, otherwise they'd all be doing it.

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#89

Post by Faaak »

Touche wrote: post #17
Dunofrey wrote: post #5

I still won't use ad blockers, I find them akin to stealing from content creators, but I'm getting close.

I don't know why you feel that way, do you feel bad about tearing an ad out of a magazine?

you bought the magazine

Re: VPAID ads destroy performance and are still served by major ad networks

#90

Post by franciscop »

lazyjones wrote: post #51
franciscop wrote: post #6

If someone needs to have an ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's like we say restaurant owners should support the mafia because otherwise they cannot make money in the neighborhood. Or any other criminal(ish) activity. "Without advertising we wouldn't be able to run this" MAYBE it really means you shouldn't run it at all, but don't force advertising(+malware) down you…

> If someone needs to have an obscure ad solution to have their website running it is NOT a business that should exist. It's not a simple black/white choice in most cases. As a top 10K website publisher, you have many advertising options. Some are considered safe and user-friendly (Google, DoubleClick - IMHO no longer justified) and others less so (pop-ups, various auctioned stuff). You then get to decide on these op…

Sorry I probably explained it wrong (not native English speaker). The important part of the quote is not "obscure", you could remove it and keep my original meaning.

What I mean is that if it's not a sustainable business then you'd need to add advertising to make it so. So maybe it shouldn't be called a business at all. But don't force advertising on your users just because you made an unsound business decision.

Post reply on HN