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

511–520 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#511

Post by kuschku »

nradov wrote: post #436
kuschku wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscribing to a newspaper in paper. That's the best for everyone involved. Or you need to fund journalism with tax money, directly (NPR, PBS) or indirectly (BBC, ARD, ZDF, etc).

Paper newspapers aren't best for society as a whole when you consider the environment impact of production and distribution. Even with recycling, newsprint causes a lot of pollution. And then the distribution vehicles have to drive around every day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper

With "in paper", I mean mostly that you subscribe to a daily or weekly single release.

Be it paper or as e-paper on your tablet.

But in either case, subscription costs are a lot more reasonable than subscribing to the website, and you get high quality content with only very few, handpicked, ads. Which also can't track you on paper or in the PDF

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#512

Post by joshuamorton »

protomyth wrote: post #494
joshuamorton wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be completely honest, if this is an issue, that person probably shouldn't be using patreon at all.

No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the 20th or day after the 3rd Wednesday might be just fine. A lot of people living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck manage their money closely. Given how banks work, a $1 charge at the wrong time is seriously problematic. I realize SV never has to worry, but…

My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon.

Or in other words, if "a $1 charge at the wrong time can be seriously problematic", you shouldn't be spending on patreon, you should be instead saving up that money until a $1 charge isn't problematic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this problem is solvable by waiting a month to join the service, and paying each month with last month's funds.

Also the snark isn't appreciated.

Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#514

Post by badwolf »

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…

This is one of my biggest pet peeves (Looking at you NY Times) If you allow me to subscribe to your site/service online, then you better fkn let me manage my subscription (update payment method, deactivate recurring billing, etc...) online as well. You can't even email them. You have to call them, so they can push you onto their retention specialists. FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#515

Post by ABCLAW »

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."

Flip that around.

It's more like content-mills like adverts, so they give content for free, attach adverts and hope it sticks.

Don't just shrug and say "we have to do this". Own it. Say, "we sideloaded non-relevant content to you for profit through pipes you're paying for because we didn't want to bother building a different business model".

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#516

Post by jessaustin »

logfromblammo wrote: post #498
jessaustin wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cool thing about AdWords... ...is that a competing business down the road from mine has decided to spend $20/click for my business name , so now I have to spend much more than that in order for customers who already want to make an appointment with me to be able to call my phone number consistently. Google are complete gangster at this point... "nice business you have there."

Or you could hire an IP attorney to file a trademark infringement suit against that competing business? How is that not intentionally causing marketplace confusion? Also, if you roll over and pay Google, you are damaging your ability to defend your own business name as a trademark. Trademarks are lost if you don't defend them. Talk to a real lawyer, ASAP.

Do you mean to say that Chevrolet has never bought the AdWords phrase "Chevrolet"? I would be shocked to learn that.

We've considered seeking legal counsel. Part of the problem is that the two primary words of the business name are a generic service offered by this type of business (40 years ago SEO was not a big consideration). Also very few of our customers take the care to quote the two-word phrase, so their queries could plausibly be sent to the competitor which offers that service as well. This competitor has itself recently added the name of yet another lucrative related service to its name, presumably as an SEO measure.

That said, I'd be very eager to see any more advice you might have, or any links to resources you think might be helpful to us.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#517

Post by sctb »

59nadir wrote: post #137
paulcole wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it'd be wrong to hire a dude to clip out all the ads before I open the paper in the morning. I think it'd be wrong to mod my TV and car radio to change the channel when an ad starts playing.

I don't know if you're doubling down because you just committed to this idea at some point and you just want to stand by it, or you're actually this bone-headed. You do realize that someone sees those ads if there's a guy taking out the ads of the paper, right?

Please don't post uncivilly and call names: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#519

Post by abandonliberty »

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 find it really funny when a site asks me to turn off my adblocker, and my blocked element count is displaying 60-100+. Not a chance.

Meanwhile, duckduckgo never asked. They're pretty awesome (check their wikipedia page) so I turned blocking off.

They rewarded me with a couple subtle, text-only ads that didn't disrupt my load time or experience. If we want the web to be a better place, we have to use and support companies who are making it one even if it means not getting to use the 'best'. Like Firefox. Damn I miss Chrome's performance, but the alternatives won't get better and compete unless we back them.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#520

Post by logfromblammo »

NLips wrote: post #434
NLips wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, if the restaurant only accepts payment by credit card, you are free to not pay. That's the concept of legal tender - if they want to demand payment of a debt (i.e. after you finish the meal) from you with backing by law, they _must_ accept legal tender. If they only accept credit card payments, they can't use the law to make you pay.

From reading the responses and thinking further on this: is this a culture-divide issue? Do you pay for meals in advance in US restaurants? If so, I've misspoken.

It depends on the type of restaurant. Table-service restaurants generally do not require payment in advance [if you look like you can pay]. Take-out, delivery, and counter-service restaurants generally require payment in full before fulfilling your order. Buffet restaurants are split: some require payment as you walk in the door, and others require payment on your way out.

This leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation where you cannot buy a hot dog on credit, but you can get a porterhouse, lobster tail, salad, baked potato, and a beer and not be expected to pay until well after the food is already beyond recovery.

Post reply on HN