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

351–360 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#351

Post by GuB-42 »

J-dawg wrote: post #325

This might be a stupid question, but is it possible to monetise a website successfully using entirely "dumb" adverts with no ad networks involved? I mean ads which are simply an image inside an tag. Presumably this is how everyone was doing it before the ad networks existed? (I was around in the 90s but never really thought about it.) I guess it would take a lot of extra work and expense to approach potential adverti…

I've seen it done on some websites. Typically as a partnership with an online shop that sells things of interest for the website audience.

It is probably very effective if you have an audience with well targeted interests. For example a site about espresso coffee may partner with a shop that sells high end espresso machines and specialty coffee.

However, it is much harder if a website has a broader audience. A news network probably has no clue about what visitors want to spend their money on, so either they use an ad network that does the targeting for them, or they are limited to less beneficial generic partnerships.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#352

Post by jackdh »

hawski wrote: post #320

I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services. Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB. Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP h…

So from that I'm getting is to run it like one of those "Pay to increase download speed" across the site.

I mean it makes sense, all content is still available to every user but when you pay you get instant or higher speeds.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#353

Post by majewsky »

hawski wrote: post #320

I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services. Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB. Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP h…

I can see where you're going with this, but it seems unreasonable to clog everyone's pipe with garbage bytes. A simple usleep() before sending the response should have the same effect.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#354

Post by austinjp »

builditand wrote: post #327
executesorder66 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically. I hate ads. I hate that they track you. I hate that they waste data. But most of all I hate that they are annoying. I always use an ablocker and I don't care if you don't get paid because I didn't look at an ad. I am still busy with my degree this year. (I am studying part ti…

> I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one. Best idea today, thanks! I pirate it.

Although this is itself a form of advertising..?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#355

Post by hawski »

pdexter wrote: post #344
hawski wrote: post #320

I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services. Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB. Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP h…

I'm lost, why would someone buy a byte? To reduce load time for everybody?

Exactly. For me it's analogue to Patreon: Why would anyone give money on Patreon? To finance a creator for everybody?

If you would sell all the useless bytes you would serve the clean version of your website.

Ads are useless bytes. But a bit dishonestly useless. You can block them to some extent. Some will not get served to you. However there are still some ad divs or native ads that are uselessly sent to you in case of ad blocking.

I propose sending honestly useless bytes, but give people ability to strip them out for money.

Then everyone can be happy. People can support a creator. People can get a better product by paying. A creator can eat.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#356

Post by simias »

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…

>One thing I've been hoping for is inventing some form of advertising that was actually fun for the user -- fun enough that they would not want to block them.

Unfortunately it seems they've taken an other route. If users try to actively disable ads, just hide the ads amongst the actual content of your website.

I will admit to have been tricked by that a couple of time already (that I know of, at least). You're on some kind of news website, you see a genuine looking link towards a potentially interesting article. You follow it, read a few paragraphs and then starts to notice that the tone appears completely off and way too enthusiastic about the device or service they're talking about.

Then you start looking around and you eventually find a small "sponsored content" disclaimer somewhere on the page. I've seen those types of ads on physical newspapers as well, mainly those given for free in the subway. Often the only thing that sets them apart from actual content is a think border around the page or something like that. That's super shady and a bit worrying honestly.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#357

Post by dhimes »

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…

Put your site in your profile. We need to support businesses like your.

Google is no cake-walk from the other end either. As someone who has paid them for ads, over 70% of the clicks are...shall we say?... low quality. Of course if you only run Google Analytics you may never realize this, but if you cross-check with something else you will.

The idea that google can better qualify leads based on search results has basically failed. Online advertising needs to be treated the same as the other media: just a method of branding.

I much prefer to pay-per-view rather than -per-click. At least I feel like I'm getting what I pay for.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#358

Post by protomyth »

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…

Patreon has a rather large problem for poorer people. Patreon's insistance on taking the money on the 1st of the month is a pain because that is rent day for most people.

A service that allowed a person to select a day (e.g. 12th) or better yet pick a day the way a lot of people get paid (day after third Thursday of the month) would be preferred.

[edit] To give a concrete example. Suppose someone on Social Security wants to pay for their sites/shows/etc. SS pays on the third Wednesday of the month. This person, in order to avoid any bank charges or other foolishness, wants the payment to come the day after that. "Day after 3rd Wednesday of month" would be a good thing to allow.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#359

Post by ceejayoz »

tomc1985 wrote: post #232
SFJulie wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people don't want to pay cough rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them. That's the base of the free internet model. With the Tier1 ISP billing at 95th percentile, and ISP almost illimited subscription and the close to flat rate, the contribution of small internet users in volume is the biggest in proportion of revenues. And with people like google not paying for their transit, it means someone has to pay. W…

> rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them. Funny, F2P gaming is all about the opposite. The whales pay for everyone.

Some of those whales are the folks who sit at casinos spending their social security and eating cat food for the rest of the month. They're not all rich.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#360

Post by hawski »

majewsky wrote: post #353
hawski wrote: post #320

I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services. Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB. Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP h…

I can see where you're going with this, but it seems unreasonable to clog everyone's pipe with garbage bytes. A simple usleep() before sending the response should have the same effect.

You're right. Selling latency may be more reasonable. Certainly cheaper for a creator.

Useless bytes have a few properties however. You can do more silly things with them. People like to do something unreasonably silly from time to time.

You can treat useless bytes as virtual goods. You could serve: unicode code points, animal names, or even sentences from public domain books. Then people can explore the catalog and have a tiny bit more personalized experience, than just buying 40ms.

They can also serve as a manifest against ads, because they are honestly useless bytes with a safety hatch.

Post reply on HN