Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#261

Post by caconym_ » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:08 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #46

Gibbon1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ad blocking is a misnomer. What people are trying to do when blocking ads is prevent marketing people from spying on them. And the performance and resource consumption that comes from that. Personal opinion: Laws are needed to make what advertisers are doing illegal. Advertisers are spying on people to the extent where if the government did it they'd need a warrant.

I'm only mildly bothered by the tracking, since it seems so inaccurate, but the ads themselves always drive me to adblockers. Taboola were running pictures of rotten teeth for a while which was intolerable; Youtube ads are often louder than the videos.

See, I'm the opposite way. I don't care about seeing ads—it seems only fair, if I'm reading a site without paying for it.

Unfortunately the water hole has been poisoned, so now I have to block it all.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#262

Post by scarface74 » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #260

manigandham wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sites are far smaller than Stackoverflow. Bespoke campaigns don't always pay more, and usually mean less total revenue for the site if that's all they run.

But... Shouldn't smaller sites find it *harder to gain attention of publishers and obtain bespoke ads? In my mind major respected operation like SO should have an easier job. I interpreted OP to imply "nobody is big enough to run bespoke ads". I guess I don't have metrics for it and my impression that's clearly a more reliable investment of one's advertising dollars is a mistaken one :-/

It’s the whole “1000 True Fans” method of making money. If your company can stay small, it doesn’t take as much to have a sustainable “lifestyle business”.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#263

Post by fooker » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:10 AM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #157

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. In many ways since firefox has such a smaller market share you are significantly easier to identify than average.

This makes little sense. If the data collection capabilities are more restricted, how would one be easier to identify? Firefox has a significant market share still.

Want to advertise a product aimed at digital privacy concerned people? Just push it at those you can not fingerprint..

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#264

Post by scarface74 » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:12 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #250

mikeash wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s that simple. Don’t let ads run JS. Done. You’re saying that doing this would drastically decrease ad revenue. Which is what I’m saying too: it’s about money, not necessity. Would a site like SO be unable to survive without ads that run arbitrary JS? I don’t know. Even if the answer is that they must do this to survive, it’s still insane that content companies let randos inject arbitrary code into their…

Money is a necessity, that's how SO exists, and it wouldn't sustain its current size if it required JS-free network campaigns or tried to sell all ad space directly. Simple doesn't mean it's easy or realistic. Yes, adtech has major problems but they're being slowly worked on and won't change overnight. This applies to any other industry where you think can just walk in and solve everything if everyone just did X. Rea…

Maybe the business model of ExpertsExchange where they charged money wasn’t such a bad idea....

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#265

Post by manigandham » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:23 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #256

manigandham wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sites are far smaller than Stackoverflow. Bespoke campaigns don't always pay more, and usually mean less total revenue for the site if that's all they run.

Tell that to John Gruber over at DaringFireball - He makes $6500 a week just from posting one ad in the RSS feed. If he can gross over $300K a year on a niche Apple blog without a sales team, can you imagine what a sales team could do at SO? He also sells three ad spots on his mostly weekly podcast for $6000 each. He’s a one man business grossing over 1 million a year without a sales team.

I don't need to imagine, I've been in adtech for 12 years and built companies and sales teams. DaringFireball is 1 example of an extremely tiny minority that can earn that today after building up an audience and reputation for decades.

It doesn't just scale up linearly and getting to $10M is magnitudes more work, especially if they're going to place their own requirements on campaigns and creatives. Even buzzfeed went back to programmatic ads with layoffs because their custom articles didn't sustain the business.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#266

Post by rhizome » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:26 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #244

NikolaNovak wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Penny Arcade does bespoke ads. Rock Paper Shotgun used to do bespoke ads. I always found them million times more effective, and more trust-inspiring of both ad AND site, to me. Is SO smaller business? Possible... just surprised.

Those sites are far smaller than Stackoverflow. Bespoke campaigns don't always pay more, and usually mean less total revenue for the site if that's all they run.

>usually means less total revenue for the site if that's all they run.

Does it? If native ads were blocked less, couldn't these units reach more eyes than RTB trash?

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#267

Post by pushedx » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:28 AM UTC

Nick-Craver wrote: post #68

I just wanted to chime in from Stack Overflow here and let people know: we are aware of the issue. And we're NOT okay with it. We're trying to sort out how to kill the audio behavior now. It's not very straightforward to find where it's coming from, but we are working on it. We've also reached out to Google for their assistance in tracking it down. If anyone can offer advice, we'll more than happily take it. - Nick C…

It looks like something using fingerprintjs2.

This library is very popular.

https://github.com/Valve/fingerprintjs2/blob/master/fingerpr...

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#268

Post by oconnor663 » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:29 AM UTC

keyle wrote: post #145

dabeeeenster wrote: post #76

"It's not very straightforward to find where it's coming from, but we are working on it." This encapsulates the entire problem with the current state of digital advertising in 1 simple sentence.

But you know, we wouldn't stop serving ads until we work it out... no no imagine the loss in revenues.

Easy to say when it's not my loss in revenues.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#269

Post by manigandham » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #266

manigandham wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sites are far smaller than Stackoverflow. Bespoke campaigns don't always pay more, and usually mean less total revenue for the site if that's all they run.

> usually means less total revenue for the site if that's all they run. Does it? If native ads were blocked less, couldn't these units reach more eyes than RTB trash?

Native is a format, RTB is ad transactions and delivery. They're not mutually exclusive. If you mean an entirely custom format then that reach is offset by the higher production and impression costs, which results in less overall demand.

Liquidity becomes an issue, which is why Reddit is a good example. They also use adzerk and built their own custom self-serve ad network but they make very little money compared to similar traffic using standard programmatic demand.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#270

Post by colanderman » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:32 AM UTC

_eht wrote: post #223

coldpie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you allowing arbitrary javascript to be served to your users?

Why are you allowing arbitrary JavaScript to run on your device?

Sites like StackOverflow require JavaScript to work (or at least, to work in a manner approaching interactivity). So, even someone who disables JavaScript normally, would presumably enable it in order to use this popular and useful site. Furthermore – and importantly – they place trust in StackOverflow not to abuse the privilege of executing arbitrary JavaScript. That is an entirely reasonable thing for a technically savvy modern web user to do.

By serving this ad with JavaScript not vetted to StackOverflow's presumed standard, StackOverflow has violated that trust. Thus the onus is on them, not the user, to remove the offending ad or risk damaging their brand.

Honestly, what you said is like saying "why would you ever not keep a hand on your wallet" after someone got pickpocketed in a nice restaurant. Reasonable people have reasonable expectations of safety in certain places which they trust to provide it for them. No-one should go around being constantly paranoid of pickpockets everywhere, no more than anyone on the web should be constantly paranoid of malicious JavaScript even on sites with established records of safety.