101–110 of 377 posts
Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers. Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.
Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers. Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.
This sounds like an argument for sponsored content. At least with the current ad strategy, it can be relatively easy for a user distinguish ads from content. How do we distinguish a YouTube video that ends with the statement "this video was brought to you by [sponsor not relevant to the content]" and a YouTube version of an infomercial?
I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.
>I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. This is extremely hyperbolic. Why not just, you know, not visit those websites if their business model is so abhorrent to you? Do you feel entitled to something for nothing?
If these companies are unhappy with me using an ad blocker, then THEY are the entitled ones. They should change the law, if they don't like it.
I AM entitled to use an ad blocker, because that's what the law says.
I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.
"I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable" What sites are unusable? Aside from some click-bait destinations like BuzzFeed I've found the web without ad blockers works well enough.
Youtube.
I've started noticing this from Google, among others. Tracking scripts are no longer explicitly named as such, or they're prefixed with some slug or GUID alongside the legitimate "functional" scripts. It's getting to a point where you need to actively monitor every network request the site makes. It's despicable and I have nothing but ill will for the data scientists, software engineers, and product managers who part…
.. I mean, they would not have jobs if they did not participate in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously the right solution. It's what print newspapers and magazines do. Why isn't there a quality first-party ad platform? Is there a business opportunity here?
I think it comes down to control and trust. Right now advertisers can run all sorts of crazy stuff without reproach, they don't want to give that up. Having ads served by the first-party would also require the advertiser to trust them to report all data accurately. Perhaps another reason is that you lose the ability to track users through third-party cookies?
Lack of independent impression counting
Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers. Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.
Carbon Ads are a good bet. Downside being the network is invite only.
Okay, here's a crazy idea for advertisers. Tie the advertisement to the type of content that the user is already there to read about. Then you can serve ads from the content web server and make it indistinguishable from content, completely unobtrusive, completely noninvasive, and maybe even welcome.
> make it indistinguishable from content
I kind of hate the idea of having marketing-planted material appearing indistinguishable from real content. Most of that is the general distrust I have towards large organizations in general.
That said, one could argue that all content is "marketing-planted" even when it's not an ad. There's always an agenda or at least bias. That's a fair point. Carry on good sir.
the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record perf timeline and network log. incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests, onload: 7600ms with uMatrix (no third party shit): 612kb, 190ms of scripting, 56 requests, onload: 500ms this is on a 300MBit connection
The linked article is highly readable and loads very quickly simply by disabling all JavaScript on the site. Which I do by default. Thank you NoScript.
I use an ad blocker, because otherwise the web is unusable. Maybe if (1) fewer ads pumped up CPU and memory usage for a page, and (2) companies didn't give their non-technical asshole free reign over placing scripts on the page, then maybe many of these sites wouldn't be so bad to visit without an ad blocker.
Animated ads actually give me sensory overload. If a site could promise non-moving ads, I'd gladly whitelist them. It's amazing how many sites think you'll just accept incredibly intrusive and annoying banners.