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

201–210 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#201

Post by Dylan16807 »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #146
Filligree wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.

> the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware. My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but nec…

> No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware.

That's a big issue. Another is that I want sites without any ads to be able to get a share of the money too.

But it's also that the bidding model is a poor way to allocate the money. I don't want the word "insurance" to randomly trigger a $50 ad slot. It's okay if there's some influence from ad slot prices onto how the money gets allocated, but the main influence should be how much I use each site.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#202

Post by pmontra »

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.

Sometimes when I click a link I get to a site I never visited before and I don't know that before having got there. They could have ads, they could not have ad. They could use JS to display even text content, they could not use any JS at all. They could serve malware, they could fingerprint me, they could run some bitcoin miner in the JS they serve. They could be totally honest. I really don't know. In some cases they don't know too.

That's why I'm adblocking everything and I visit sites with NoScript, Self Destructing Cookies, DisableWebRTC among the others. Better safe than sorry.

And about the right to render bits and bytes however I wish, I use Stylish for those few sites that do really wierd things with their layout.

By the way, a browser renders bit and bytes as it wishes, starting from the html file and maybe stopping there or going as far as precaching linked pages.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#203

Post by anonymouz »

alexchantavy wrote: post #149

Off topic: this is the first time I've heard of GroundUp, and I really like the "Dear Editor" format of the comment page on this site. I'm used to seeing mainstream newspaper websites with downright toxic commenting environments, so seeing "Dear Editor" followed by a thought-out response is very refreshing. Maybe they have a "better" readership/screening process/whatever, but I think this higher quality commenting be…

Their letters (comments) are moderated.

"In contrast to comments, letters are only published if approved by our editors. Views expressed in letters are not necessarily endorsed by GroundUp, but they must meet our quality requirements. Letters are given more prominence than comments on the website. "

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#204

Post by Dylan16807 »

erikbigelow wrote: post #145
mitchty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on. What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of a…

I hate the ad model too, but you're stealing bandwidth and hosting. Delivering those pictures and text comes from somewhere, and ads are how they're hoping to pay for it. Justify it to yourself how you want, but it's true.

A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth.

Should they download the ad and pretend to display it? Then the site still gets the impression and everybody wins.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#205

Post by Baeocystin »

Filligree wrote: post #129
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement. I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are. I started b…

I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.

I was happy to pay, and starting using Contributor the moment I found out about it.

Not nearly enough ads were replaced by Contributor. Worse, it was the more innocuous ones that were replaced, while the most obnoxious blared on through.

On top of that, it showed me the absolutely paltry amount paid out to the sites running the ads.

So back came adblock, and Contributor mostly just helped on my mobile browsing. I bought Contributor to contribute to the sites, and some for Google, not majority Google, dribble for sites.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#206

Post by FT_intern »

Mz wrote: post #13
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…

You can also just do a tip jar model or patreon. So far, for me, the tip jar has been more successful than ads or Patreon (though I am new to Patreon, so, time will tell). I would be happy to get rid of ads altogether (with the exception of one site, for REASONS) if I thought that would drive up tips. But I have experimented a bit and it didn't seem to drive up tips. Then, whenever I read these discussions, there is…

Probably wouldn't work for bigger companies or people who don't want to publicly reveal themselves as the owner of the site. There needs to be a personal element for that to be efficient

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#207

Post by candiodari »

grogenaut wrote: post #176
candiodari wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is another solution: All large websites switch to canvas rendering (like Netflix already does). This provides scrape, adblocker, content filter, ... protection. And of course it makes the internet completely unusable by anyone either blind or ... You might even create a startup that makes a javascript web browser, that allows all these companies to get consistent rendering across all web browsers, p…

It's called video or TV.

Perhaps. But Netflix doesn't just use it for the movies, right. Their "tv guide"/menu is just using Canvas as well.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#208

Post by flukus »

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.

> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.

If that's your attitude then you should publish PDF's or create an app. On the web it's always been up to browsers to render a site how they wish.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#209

Post by flukus »

cpeterso wrote: post #120
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…

I don't mind ads; I just don't want clickbait crap about shocking celebrity photos and "deep searches" for local singles. So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola): https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/ The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus. If you know of any other bad clickbait ad networks, please let me know! As the article describes, I n…

Where are these "deep searches" for local singles? The lack of search functionality is my biggest problem with dating sites.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#210

Post by piquadrat »

yorwba wrote: post #148
eli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the notable exception of AdBlock Plus (which has its own problems) the big ad block plugins tend to be philosophically opposed to all ads of any type, quality or quantity. This is a bummer for sites like ours where the ads are sold directly to advertisers (no network) and are relevant to the audience and subject matter.

If you are already directly selling the ads, why not host them on your own domain? Then they won't be blocked automatically. If you still see people going out of their way to add site-specific rules to their ad blocker, the ads probably weren't as relevant or unintrusive as you thought.

Troy Hunt wrote about his experience with self-hosted ads a while ago [1]. Basically, he added a as-non-intrusive-as-possible "banner" (if you can even call it that) at the top of the content. Ad blockers blocked it. He changed the markup to avoid being caught by a false positive. Ad blockers (Adblock Plus with EasyList in this case) blocked it again.

I made similar experiences in the past, to the point where our API broke because we had the audacity to call one of our API endpoints "metric" (for a metrics service), which got caught by one of the over-zealous regexes of EasyList.

[1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem...

Post reply on HN