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

201–210 of 215 posts

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#201

Post by tripzilch »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #70
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.

Ironically, I view the paid placements atop Google's SERPs as legitimate search results. I find myself doing Google searches just to click on the ads and see what kinds of products my web-enabled colleagues are explicitly advertising to people with my needs. And I don't think it's at all foolish that people subconsciously believe that those highlighted results at the top of SERPs are "the high-quality results". They…

Ok sure if Google is now supposed to be the equivalent of an ad-stuffed trade magazine or a coupon book then yeah, I can't disagree.

To bad though, remember when it used to be a pretty good Search Engine?

Seriously, if that's what Google wants to be, or apparently is, then that's fine I'll just not go there anymore since 99% of the time I'm looking for information, you know, researching things on the Internet, not trade magazine ads or coupons.

(actually personally it's not the ads but the fact that their real search results have been increasingly inaccurate over the past few months, that I'm actually starting to use other SEs like DuckDuckGo and Yandex as my first choice, more often. That DDG doesn't have sponsored results and makes user privacy a priority is a nice bonus)

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#202

Post by _dps »

paulsilver wrote: post #198
_dps wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to get any good data on this, but I think saying "Google's bread is buttered by ..." is at least accidentally misleading. Google supports a tremendously diverse ad ecosystem, some of which is questionable. However, at least in my experience, very few of my search queries involve such ads. The perception (if not provable fact) that they're mostly a class act is a big part of their enduring brand value…

I think when he was talking about ads for weight loss programmes etc he was talking about what comes up on the Content Network, not what is seen on Google's results pages. The Content Network is what you're in if you display Adsense adverts on your website.

It's possible that's what he meant, but I find it unlikely. He specifically suggested searching for keywords, and, as you point out, the content network is known as AdSense, not AdWords (both officially and in common parlance).

I would agree that AdSense has a less pristine reputation than AdWords, particularly since they started offering image ads. I imagine that Google has less market power in image ads, and so they tend to "pander" to advertisers more than they do in search (I can't imagine the DoubleClick acquisition helped in that regard). Still, AdSense has clear quality guidelines and actual enforcement, however imperfect. I don't think I would agree with describing AdSense as "scam filled", even though I could do without another "Learn one weird trick for X" ads.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#203

Post by tripzilch »

robryan wrote: post #151
staunch wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Easy!

Hint: it’s the ones without the Facebook button.

;-)

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#204

Post by tripzilch »

nate wrote: post #153
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…

> There's a fat label that says it's sponsored.

Are we talking about the same screenshot with "Bingo Card Creator", five stars and "rated by lots" ?

Cause all I'm seeing is a tiny 8px light grey label that says "Sponsored Placement".

Is there also a big fat label that I missed somehow?

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#205

Post by tripzilch »

richcollins wrote: post #7

Is This Evil Or Just Evil Genius? Once upon a time I was an engineer totally scornful of effective marketing, but I have gradually gotten over it. After thinking it over, this is aggressive but within my comfort envelope. The ad is honest about being an ad, makes a straightforward commercial proposition (“Sign up for a free trial”) to an audience that I think will respond well to that, and is pretty true by the stand…

Ok then, with the same reasoning, Google's sponsored top-of-the-search-results ads are Evil as well.

I just saw they not only have the same visual appearance, but even have the same behaviour, on mouseover, the ">>" button appears to preview the (ad) page, just like any other search result.

Apart from the tiny "Ads - Why these ads?" text it's quite impossible to tell they're ads. The background colour is #fff8e7 a sort of very light orange-pink, that's real hard to make out (depending on your monitor and eye vision).

I just tried another obvious sponsored search "medical insurance" and I got three ads above the search results. The tiny "Ads - Why these ads?" text is on top of these three ads, so the only way to determine where these ads end and where the real search results start is by squinting to see where the light pink orange box stops--I had to turn my small netbook screen at an angle to be able to see that.

Funny, never really paid much attention to this (I usually ignore everything that tries to sell me something--ad or not), but really digging into this, damn, Google has turned into some damn sneaky evil bastards.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#206

Post by tripzilch »

aidenn0 wrote: post #107
richcollins wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what it says, it matters what users perceive it to be. It's obviously meant to deceive the users while providing the author (not very) plausible deniability of the deception.

How do you think this compares to google's ads at the top of search requests? That is the comparison this article is making.

Yeah, thanks to this article I took a critical look at those Google sponsored top result ads and realized how deceptive they were.

Probably not the point the author was trying to make, but I still got a lot of interesting out of it :)

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#207

Post by smh »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #110
TylerE wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's why I say ruin. Remember when you could do a search for product reviews, and actually get product reviews , instead of a million template link bait sites?

This is like pining for the old days when all the world's microcomputer hackers fit into the same room at Stanford and you could ask Steve Wozniak to teach you how to solder. Sure, when Google was new and had relatively low traffic and relatively few people were trying to game it and the web was orders of magnitude smaller than it is today (largely because Google itself was a force that made the web much larger) the…

The social-network spamming has already started. On my last trip to the cinema I saw a teenager get a discount on her ice-cream in exchange for posting something on Facebook.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#208

Post by sssparkkk »

dwwoelfel wrote: post #184
sssparkkk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when some site is raving about a product, and pointing users to the product's website using an affiliate link. No disclosure at all. Is that also illegal? Because I think it would be great if it was.

Why should that be illegal? We already have laws in place for fraud. The situation you've described could be perfectly innocent.

Well, what's the difference between making an ad look like a legitimate endorsement, and endorsing a product even though you're financially benefiting because of the affiliate link?

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#209

Post by maximusprime »

lywald wrote: post #141
maximusprime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's little difference between organic and adverts. It's just content that the webmaster has put there. It clearly says "sponsored content", which discloses the fact it's a paid advert. So personally, obviously it's not evil. If people were being mislead into clicking, then none would convert to sales.

"It clearly says "sponsored content"" Haha no it clearly doesn't. If it was about doing things clearly he would stick to banners and highlighted ads. It doesn't even matter what bias'd SEO guys with twisted morals think, anyway. The majority gets to decide what's right, and obviously the majority thinks it's wrong. Nobody likes to be treated like a fool. What if when you clicked on a HN story, a third of the time it…

> and obviously the majority thinks it's wrong

Yeah... that's why people are clicking through, and converting to sales :/

Are you saying they click through, and sign up to buy product, and then suddenly feel duped because they didn't know it was an advert they clicked on, and demand a refund???? Are you crazy?

> What if when you clicked on a HN story, a third of the time it were an ad?

I'd say about a third of the time it IS an ad - a YC backed startup with no merit etc.

Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well

#210

Post by CodeMage »

As a user, I really, really dislike this sort of deceptive advertising. I'd like to explain why.

The defense I've seen so far starts by "Well, Google does that too, so by your definition they're also evil." Here's the first problem with that defense: appeal to authority. Do you really expect anyone to say, "Oh, Google does it too? Shucks, then, I retract what I said, because we all know Google isn't evil."

Second, there are significant differences between how Google "blends" their ads and Patrick's example. The background color distinguishes the ad from the rest of the search results. You might argue that some users have crappy screens or poor vision, but the fact is that the background color is different. The intent was to distinguish the ad clearly. In Patrick's example, there is no such intent.

Another thing that has been downplayed is the "Ad - Why this ad?" text. On its own, it probably would have been less noticeable. But when you spot the different background, you automatically look for other differences. The "Why this ad" text is one of those differences and it's prominent not by virtue of its size, but position: it's separated from the rest of the information in the ad.

But really, it's not just about the background and the "Ad - Why this ad?" text. It's also about the fact that Google always puts this stuff as the first result, whereas in Patrick's example the ad was snuck into the results.

The fake rating is another problem. People try to defend it by saying "It's not fake, it was based on real data." Nobody said the data was fake. The rating is fake, because for every other result the rating was computed by the site, based on the data the site has, while here it was supplied by the advertiser. By the way, if I'm wrong about this, if it is also generated by the site, please let me know.

Finally, I'm perfectly happy to adapt to the way Google presents their ads: they're sort of my "doorway" to the rest of the Internet. I'm not as happy to have to research and adapt to every site's unique way of "blending" ads. But this is really a minor point for me. The most important point remains the fact that Google has made at least some effort to distinguish their ads from the content, whereas in Patrick's example the effort was invested in doing the opposite.

Post reply on HN