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

I've removed all ad network code from my blog

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 336 posts

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#201

Post by huehehue »

sgustard wrote: post #191

This is great, and now let's say I want to productize this "sponsored by X" feature so other sites can use it. I can't assume every site owner wants to deal with figuring out who's the sponsor each week, so we'll automate that with some backend that serves the correct sponsor. We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work…

Obviously the latter is more objectionable, but the big factors here are control and transparency.

For example, I'm uncomfortable serving ads from large networks because I don't know what the end-user will see and because it's nearly impossible for me to know how my users are being tracked. If your proposed solution was open-sourced and gave me full control of user data, I think that would make all the difference. With existing solutions, company A tracks users and iframes company B in so they can get in on the action. And maybe company B wants to loop company C in, too?

Many advertisers deliberately obscure these things because they're either unethical or part of their "secret sauce" -- it's less users having an issue with their view & click being recorded.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#202

Post by gkya »

sgustard wrote: post #191

This is great, and now let's say I want to productize this "sponsored by X" feature so other sites can use it. I can't assume every site owner wants to deal with figuring out who's the sponsor each week, so we'll automate that with some backend that serves the correct sponsor. We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work…

> We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work.

That's an assumption not a fact. Presumably if I sponsor a blog I have an idea for the value of it. Ad networks on the other hand detach the publisher from the sponsor so that all the latter has to know the effect of their campaign is bulk data from surveillance. Direct sponsoring or good networks like the Deck on the other hand don't require that.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#203

Post by dwaltrip »

arjie wrote: post #196
cr0sh wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda agree with you; I run a personal website, it isn't very popular (and I don't update it often - hmm, maybe there's a link there!) - but it is my website, and I've kept the domain active since 1998 or thereabouts. ie - a "labor of love" How do I pay for it? Well, I reach around to my back pocket for my wallet, and... I don't have ads, I don't have a sponsorship, and I don't care - what I have and what I put on…

> ...if you really love what you're doing, you'd give it away free. This doesn't make sense. It follows logically that we should all not love what we do for a living. That strikes me as an absurd conclusion.

If you can't make money from it, then it's not an absurd conclusion at all.

Of course, it means one needs a day job, but such is life.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#204

Post by aembleton »

thinkMOAR wrote: post #122
fiatjaf wrote: post #4

Ok, you have a sponsorship model that works because you're probably very famous. That doesn't solve anyone's problem, because almost no one is famous. How can we replace ad networks with something better and saner?

Not only famous, but i assume a 'Microsoft Regional Director' makes enough money to pay for a hosted blog. Though great to see that there is a site less on the internet leaking their visitor information to ad networks and their affiliates....

He's still leaking visitor information to Google Analytics.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#206

Post by codazoda »

gkya wrote: post #202
sgustard wrote: post #191

This is great, and now let's say I want to productize this "sponsored by X" feature so other sites can use it. I can't assume every site owner wants to deal with figuring out who's the sponsor each week, so we'll automate that with some backend that serves the correct sponsor. We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work…

> We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work. That's an assumption not a fact. Presumably if I sponsor a blog I have an idea for the value of it. Ad networks on the other hand detach the publisher from the sponsor so that all the latter has to know the effect of their campaign is bulk data from surveillance. Direct spo…

This is commonly what advertisers want to see but it probably shouldn't matter how many people see it or click on it. All that should matter is how many of the people who clicked on it took action on your website (email signups, orders, etc).

If all advertisers looked at those metrics instead of tracking everyone on other sites they would probably have more effective advertising.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#207

Post by 2ion »

fiatjaf wrote: post #4

Ok, you have a sponsorship model that works because you're probably very famous. That doesn't solve anyone's problem, because almost no one is famous. How can we replace ad networks with something better and saner?

This person for the reason of being famous can afford to run their own personal website based on a sponsorship model.

Though I find it hilarious that some people are even OK with paying him anything to begin with as the cost of running such a side project with the salary and benefits of a "Microsoft Regional Director", which has to be plenty, is pretty much coffee-to-go-like small change. Looks pretty greedy to me.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#208

Post by thijsc »

sgustard wrote: post #191

This is great, and now let's say I want to productize this "sponsored by X" feature so other sites can use it. I can't assume every site owner wants to deal with figuring out who's the sponsor each week, so we'll automate that with some backend that serves the correct sponsor. We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work…

You could implement it as an API call. The site could fetch the current "sponsored by X" line and render it directly in the HTML it serves.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#209

Post by arjie »

dwaltrip wrote: post #203
arjie wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...if you really love what you're doing, you'd give it away free. This doesn't make sense. It follows logically that we should all not love what we do for a living. That strikes me as an absurd conclusion.

If you can't make money from it, then it's not an absurd conclusion at all. Of course, it means one needs a day job, but such is life.

Specifically, the day job shouldn't be too enjoyable if you're making money from it. Once it is, you should start doing it for free and find a job you find less enjoyable.

That just follows in a straightforward way. Now, this may not seem absurd to you, but I dare say it will to most people.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#210

Post by ddebernardy »

walterbell wrote: post #184
ddebernardy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a dozen plus last I worked in the field. There are scores of horror stories related to ad fraud. In particular: - PPV ads that get stacked. That, several ads laid out on top of each other so that only one (if any at all) is visible. - PPV ads that get served to bots. Sometimes purposely so, other times as a result of phantom users who replay sessions to build fake profiles for PPC purposes. - Ad injection t…

Is it safe to assume that all of these go away within a closed network like Facebook? If so, the numbers that advertisers see on Facebook (vs elsewhere) could help quantify fraud.

Only partially, unfortunately. One of the things sophisticated fraudsters do is replay actual user sessions to build fake profiles. That is, they record scrolls and clicks on compromised devices, and have other users build similar profiles by following similar sessions on other compromised devices. This includes browsing FB and interacting with AdWords of course, and screws up PPV, PPC, and PPI metrics all over.

On top of building more valuable fake user profiles for the latter two purposes, doing this allows to bypass click-density based ad fraud detection. See this article for an example of what you see when you can sometimes observe using the latter when detecting the less sophisticated fraudsters:

http://adage.com/article/digital/inside-google-s-secret-war-...

As the latter article implies, Google's team is pretty sophisticated at detecting fraud. But even then, seeing things like this suggests there are edge cases they'd like to see go away or that are hard to detect:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13327228

Post reply on HN