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

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#81

Post by howenterprisey »

sp33k3rph433k wrote: post #42
reaperducer wrote: post #15

I've been on the fence about this for a while, and after reading what GroundUp wrote, I can't agree with them more. So I think it's time for me to dump Google Ads from my sites, as well. I send Big G three million ad impressions a month, and in return I get $150 and a bunch of visual dreck that makes the site look bad. $200, if I'm lucky. And this is all U.S. traffic on an award-winning news site. I only need to sell…

I'm working on something that will benefit people who have high traffic sites that don't want to show their users ads. The basics are here: http://www.trussapp.com/ -- it's not quite ready for production, but if it's something you might be interested in, I'm looking for beta users. cam@trussapp.com

Small nitpick, and if you want some unsolicited feedback on that site: the GIF that shows a user using the site goes super slow and it would be a lot more engaging if the user typed faster.

Although I don't know how much I can blame this on connection problems on my end, it looks like it takes five seconds or so to type "Test Tester", when in my opinion it should take only one.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#82

Post by kaishiro »

paulcole wrote: post #79
kaishiro wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also think it's wrong to change the channel when an ad starts playing on TV, or to turn the volume down when an ad starts playing on the radio?

No. I also don't think it's wrong to navigate away from a website when it loads an ad I don't like.

But you eventually go back to the TV show, or turn the volume back up, having skipped the ads, no?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#83

Post by petre »

rootusrootus wrote: post #53
paulcole wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. Doesn't feel right to me.

I agree. It's just like any other kind of piracy. If the content isn't valuable enough to see with ads enabled, then the ethical answer is to not view the content at all.

Arrr! Let's block those ads to Davey Jones, savy.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#84

Post by graycat »

phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

Okay, question on ad blockers: So far I have not tried to use one. And my Web site for my startup, to be ad supported, has not gone live yet.

But, what if: What if my Web server sends the actual ads, as JPG, GIF, WEBM, etc. files instead of just URLs to ad servers at some ad network? Then will an ad blocker still work?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#85

Post by nebabyte »

dheera wrote: post #20
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me.

My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale.

I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some promise you made to them about how I browse.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#86

Post by candiodari »

dheera wrote: post #40
mehwoot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses should account for that. How is that an argument for it? Some percentage of people steal things from stores, business do account for it, but its neither here nor there in an argument about whether people should do it.

Let's separate morality and legality. Morality is relative to your beliefs and values. Legality is common to all. It's illegal to steal physical property (payment transfers ownership of property). It's not illegal to not look at something. Speaking of which, I really want to write a real life ad blocker with a HoloLens or whatever AR equipment becomes popular in the future. Replace all the billboards with cat picture…

> Legality is common to all.

Coming soon to a congress/senate near you : adblockers are now illegal. Why ?

Because media appear to control a decent proportion of voters and can make or break political candidates.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#87

Post by oh_sigh »

paulcole wrote: post #46
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. Doesn't feel right to me.

What if you just wget the html, just read the body of the page, and don't load any of the external ad scripts?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#88

Post by username223 »

tps5 wrote: post #37

> Perhaps at some point online publishers [will] find a new way to solicit advertising from reputable companies that pay properly. Someone get on this.

That was The Deck, and they recently shut down: http://decknetwork.net/

In the near future, it will be total war between amoral lowlife hucksters, and cheapskate users.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#89

Post by oh_sigh »

paulcole wrote: post #62
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

Society has many unwritten agreements. You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."

Ads subsidize my ride to work(MTA ads in NYC). Am I breaking an unwritten agreement by not looking at those ads, and reading my book instead?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#90

Post by ajdlinux »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #27
mevile wrote: post #6

I always imagined that some website/mobile app/service would appear that would let you buy subscriptions for access to multiple publishers at once. I think people have a hard time spending $5 here a month $10 there a month, but would spend maybe $49 for a range of access to sites. I don't know why something like that hasn't taken off yet. You could pick the sites you want access to or they could do a pay out based on…

I started subscribing and paying for Blendle about a month ago. Their service shows me article summaries from otherwise expensive publications like The Financial Times, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Economist, etc. I can view a full article from $0.10 to about $0.50 without advertisements. I spend a little over a dollar a week and I get to occasionally read articles from sources that are expensive to buy a full sub…

I've just started trialing Blendle, it looks very promising although the prices feel slightly higher than I'd be happy with and I'm not sure how I feel about the browsing/article discovery interface.

But in principle I'm a huge fan of micropayments for journalism, so I'm going to keep using it for a while and see how it goes!

Post reply on HN