Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 215 posts

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#151

Post by robryan »

staunch wrote: post #52
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just note again here that in your construction, "the bad guys" include Google themselves? The tactic we're talking about is, as Patrick notes at the very start of his post, the same one Google uses at the top of every SERP.

No. Only if Google included barely distinguishable paid placements in their organic results would it be a fair comparison. I'll concede that some minority of users might not be able to distinguish paid results from organic on Google, but no one could do it with these "blended" ads -- that's why he's getting such a high CTR. Users are being tricked.

How about twitters new advertising that places promoted tweets directly into the feed? I had to double take a few times before I realized they weren't regular tweets from those I follow.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#152

Post by robryan »

revorad wrote: post #83
tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? Was maybe Patrick too subtle about the point that many (probably most) of Google's users perceive the paid placement at the top of every SERP as a search result? These "blended" ads are labeled as sponsored results as well.

That's why I find advertising such a ridiculous business model for a search engine. Let's spend all this time and money and invent the most amazing technology to find the best results for any search and then... let's sell the top spot to the highest bidder. I don't have a better business model to offer, but I do think the world would be better off if Google were more honest about ads and made it more obvious that the…

Without those ads the amazing search technology wouldn't exist.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#153

Post by nate »

teej wrote: post #31

I'm going to come out in defense of patio11 here. Not because the ad isn't deceptive - it undoubtedly is. But because he fell into the dark side of a grey area and it's worth discussing HOW good people end up there. From a rationalist perspecive, the ad is justified. He is effectively capturing the majority of the market possible through adwords. So what's next? It makes sense to take your know-how in one market and…

I can't believe we are calling this stuff patio did as dark side and someone else brought up "ruining the internet". And bringing up "morals". Go spend some time on "dark side" seo forums. Some of that shit is what's ruining parts of the internet.

The guy made an ad that blends into reality. Who cares? There's a fat label that says it's sponsored. Is Apple evil because I watch House on television? Oh, did you notice they like to use Apple computers on that show. Glowy Apple logos everywhere. Did you see what they did there? Watch the credits. Sponsored by Apple.

Or go to CNN.com. Go to From our shows. See a show not like the rest? It's called "Advertisement" in small grey print.

This stuff isn't evil. He simply took advantage of something he could take advantage of and played by the rules. The site needs it's advertisers, and the people to keep this valuable resource of a site going for free needs it's advertisers. If the teacher's site doesn't like his product or how he represents it they can not approve the BuySellAd.

If people don't want to buy the damn Bingo software after they click the ad for it, they won't.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#154

Post by ericd »

bambax wrote: post #142
patio11 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ads? Who ever speaks publicly in favor of ads (who isn't, like yourself, an advertiser)??? Have you ever had the after-the-Superbowl conversation? Or, take a look at the Youtube stats / comments / etc for e.g. Real Men of Genius or Old Spice Guy or Angry Birds or whatever. Or, watch HN when a new Google Doodle comes out. Or, talk to people who read trade press. Or, talk to people who read fashion magazines or bri…

> Have you ever had the after-the-Superbowl conversation? I'm not American and don't live in America, so no, I've never watched the Superbowl or talked about it, or its ads, afterwards. Over here when there are very popular sporting events (the World cup every four years, or maybe tennis every year) people talk about what happened during the game, not about the ads. But fashion magazines, yes, point taken. But as you…

Given that I have met many people who enjoy discussing Super Bowl Ads, it's not a hypothetical. Many people enjoy some subset of ads. Many also love the movie trailers that play before movies.

I don't have adblock installed, because I want things that I spend time reading online to make some money, and because I've learned about a number of great services when I've taken the time to look at the banner ads on technical sites.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#155

Post by robryan »

teej wrote: post #60
mechanical_fish wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HOW good people end up there patio11's post tells us right up front where he learned this particular technique: Google taught it to him. I'm not even speaking metaphorically. Google invented this technique, they use it on every search-results page where there's any money to be made with it, and they published an educational page that explicitly teaches the technique to everyone else, a page which Patrick links to and…

"Those of you who rail about the evils of advertising in general, or this technique in particular, are entitled to your opinions, but do please aim your rage at the appropriate target: Google." Let's be clear - I'm not at all railing on the evils of advertising. I'm as much of a marketer as I am a product designer and programmer. Google does not put faked user-generated content (review stars) next to their ads. This…

I think he is entitled to put some form of stars if he has actually done the research and got those results. Your right though that having them appear to be as part of the website is dishonest.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#156

Post by bigiain »

teej wrote: post #60
mechanical_fish wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HOW good people end up there patio11's post tells us right up front where he learned this particular technique: Google taught it to him. I'm not even speaking metaphorically. Google invented this technique, they use it on every search-results page where there's any money to be made with it, and they published an educational page that explicitly teaches the technique to everyone else, a page which Patrick links to and…

"Those of you who rail about the evils of advertising in general, or this technique in particular, are entitled to your opinions, but do please aim your rage at the appropriate target: Google." Let's be clear - I'm not at all railing on the evils of advertising. I'm as much of a marketer as I am a product designer and programmer. Google does not put faked user-generated content (review stars) next to their ads. This…

Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of his internal polling which he mentions getting 4.8 out of 5 for? Calling a 5 star rating "faked" is a bit strong.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#157

Post by bambax »

nl wrote: post #146
bambax wrote: post #61

I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from. I often set up computers for family and friends and installing AdBlock is one of the first things I do. Who is computer-savvy enough to buy and install their own computer, and yet not computer-savvy enough to get AdBlock? Or do (most) people actually like ads?

I don't understand who still sees ads. I've been working in IT for over 15 years, with hundreds of highly proficient people. I've met one person who runs AdBlock. Or do (most) people actually like ads? I saw a statistically significant survey a couple of days ago that said ~25% of people "liked" or "liked a lot" ads on mobile devices. Over 40% were undecided, and ~15% "neither liked or disliked" mobile ads. only ~20%…

> interestingly, they didn't seem to be any less effective for people who disliked ads

Well, if people who dislike ads install AdBlock, ads are very ineffective for them, but stats don't tell that because impressions are not even counted...

I find the ratio that only one person in "hundreds of highly proficient people" installs an ad blocker hard to believe, though.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#159

Post by bambax »

derefr wrote: post #105
bambax wrote: post #61

I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from. I often set up computers for family and friends and installing AdBlock is one of the first things I do. Who is computer-savvy enough to buy and install their own computer, and yet not computer-savvy enough to get AdBlock? Or do (most) people actually like ads?

It's not so much that people like ads, as that they are so inured to them that they don't even see them enough to get annoyed by their presence. Sometimes I set up a new computer and forget to install AdBlock for a long period, simply because I can't tell the difference between a clean page, and a page filled with ads I just don't mentally register.

Well, yes, ad blindness works for banner ads, but recently it seems many sites (newspapers in particular) insist on having a big ad front and center that you have to manually dismiss in order to access the page. You can't ignore those.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#160

Post by nl »

bambax wrote: post #157
nl wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand who still sees ads. I've been working in IT for over 15 years, with hundreds of highly proficient people. I've met one person who runs AdBlock. Or do (most) people actually like ads? I saw a statistically significant survey a couple of days ago that said ~25% of people "liked" or "liked a lot" ads on mobile devices. Over 40% were undecided, and ~15% "neither liked or disliked" mobile ads. only ~20%…

> interestingly, they didn't seem to be any less effective for people who disliked ads Well, if people who dislike ads install AdBlock, ads are very ineffective for them, but stats don't tell that because impressions are not even counted... I find the ratio that only one person in "hundreds of highly proficient people" installs an ad blocker hard to believe, though.

Well, if people who dislike ads install AdBlock, ads are very ineffective for them, but stats don't tell that because impressions are not even counted...

No, this was a survey - they went and actually talked to the people. Even some people who said they disliked ads said they had bought things after being exposed to them via an ad (and the proportion of people who bought was roughly the same for those who liked and those who disliked ads)

I find the ratio that only one person in "hundreds of highly proficient people" installs an ad blocker hard to believe, though.

shrug. Do you read Reddit by any chance? I've noticed that there seems to be a high correlation of AdBlock users and Reddit readers (and believe it or not, most people - even highly technical people - don't read Reddit).

Post reply on HN