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

The Internet Made Me Sad Today

raganwald.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#161

Post by bitdiddle »

patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

Thanks, very interesting and informative comment on how the ad business works. In my head I'm hearing Frank Zappa sing "I am the slime from the video" and Mick Jagger sing "Satisfaction".

It shouldn't sadden us though. We have to protect our children from this crap, the best way is to not let them see it until they are old enough and then to teach then how to distinguish between information and bullshit from someone selling crap.

We can only go so far in asking others to protect our children and our elders, we have to step up to the plate also.

We still haven't figured out how to turn the tables on this and monetize our attention, it is extremely valuable, more so than we think.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#162

Post by Tichy »

rkudeshi wrote: post #47
nobody_nowhere wrote: post #23

Why blame google? The problems here are: 1) the publisher has chosen to embed ad tags within editorial content; 2) the editorial content is so worthless that google can only show a house ad.

> the editorial content is so worthless I think it's important to qualify this statement. Worthless to who? Google's ad bots? Perhaps. There's no obvious ad category that relates to dinosaurs. But just from the snippet the OP included in his screenshot, it is clear the content is not mindless drivel and is actually worth reading (to some people).

The publishers chose that he wants to show ads in combination with that content. Apparently it is worthless to ads. What solution would you propose?

I can't think of many commercial products that would benefit from dinosaur associations, except movies, toys and games...

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#163

Post by crusso »

rbarooah wrote: post #157
crusso wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the blame the article's author espouses is misplaced. It's not Google's fault that people want to play games any more than it's the sun's fault that it's shining outside of my window on days when I need to get real work done. As usual it's easier to blame icons and officials in situations where really it's the consumers that drive these corporate decisions with their everyday decisions. Granted, Google is s…

If you ask me for help with your homework, I could recommend a relevant and informative documentary I happen to know about, or I could tell you to forget your homework and play a game, because I'm getting a commission from the games company. Clearly you are responsible for taking my advice or not, but am I not also responsible for the choices I offer you?

I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free?

What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice?

Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience?

If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them.

I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in web pages, so I don't understand the blame game going on. Some suckers do click on them. They pay for free web content. Who am I do bite the hand that feeds us for free?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#164

Post by rbarooah »

crusso wrote: post #163
rbarooah wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask me for help with your homework, I could recommend a relevant and informative documentary I happen to know about, or I could tell you to forget your homework and play a game, because I'm getting a commission from the games company. Clearly you are responsible for taking my advice or not, but am I not also responsible for the choices I offer you?

I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free? What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice? Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience? If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them. I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in…

It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#165

Post by lkozma »

ori_b wrote: post #125
lkozma wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patrick, your argument is flawless, but you've become a bit of a robot. There must be some reason why they don't put Marlboro ads in a lung cancer clinic or a Ballantine's ad in an alcohol rehab center. Surely they would be perfect choices for the well-defined audience that frequents those places and they would make perfect sense economically, more than whatever else they put on those walls. Someone might even come a…

Patrick is talking about how things work today. You seem to be trying to convince him that they should work differently. (Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. I'm not going to comment on that right now.) You're talking past each other.

I know and I appreciate his explanation, although much of it was not new to me. I was not trying to convince him of anything, just commenting on what I think the original story was about.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#166

Post by rmc »

bhousel wrote: post #113
ChuckMcM wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong but I think Patrick was referring to the people who can put up a minor website and earn 'lifestyle' living dollars out of it. Google has created this industry with their AdSense for Content system. Prior to this a small player (read small web site) would have no chance of selling advertising space to a 'big name' and conversely a 'big name' would never seek out the small guys (well their ad agency migh…

The 'value' creation is the small web site owners. And they filled the money pot for that eco system with remnant advertising dollars. I think it's great that small website owners can use AdSense to monetize what they do, but that really doesn't support the claim that "Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history."

Not only adsense, but the simple google search engine itself. "A free worldwide massive search engine available to anyone on the internet that works almost instanteneously" is like far out science fiction a few years ago.

They also give people free, massive, email accounts that has allowed many people to communicate, for free, with millions (billions?) of other people.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#167

Post by rmc »

tlogan wrote: post #78
patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations.

The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#168

Post by rmc »

jasondrowley wrote: post #84
patio11 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The information is not the inventory, because this particular information is not available for sale in a rivalrous fashion. Your attention is the inventory. (This is sometimes phrased sardonically as "If you're not paying for it, you are the product.")

Exactly. I've made the same comments re being the customer vs. the product regarding Facebook. Except with Facebook, there's a lot more than users' attention on offer to advertisers. The real question is, would content quality improve if we paid for it directly, instead of indirectly through ads?

Another related question: What content would not exist if you had to charge for it and couldn't use ads?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#169

Post by Drbble »

e-dard wrote: post #120
bhousel wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'value' creation is the small web site owners. And they filled the money pot for that eco system with remnant advertising dollars. I think it's great that small website owners can use AdSense to monetize what they do, but that really doesn't support the claim that "Google has created more value for more people than probably any other company in history."

Your argument, though, doesn't make Patrick's point necessarily false. Even if Google take more value from people than any other company, they can still provide a portion of that value to n other people, and assuming n is larger than any other company's n, Patrick's point still holds.

Not pedantic, it's the core of the issue.

Also, it is not obvious how much much of Google's ad profit is extraction (via being the monopolistic intermediary running an auction) vs creating genuinely novel introductions between buyers and sellers.

Also, Google's value creation is not just in the money they pay to websites, it is also in their products (search, mail, etc)

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#170

Post by Drbble »

rbarooah wrote: post #156
donjigweed wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"then the value they have created has been extracted from more people than probably any other company in history." take a basic economics course. it's not a zero sum game.

The ad consumers experience an externality to the transaction between google and the publisher. The sum of the game may be negative or positive. Which do you think it is, and why?

Google's ads are the single easiest-to-block set of ads in the history of mankind, online or meatspace. The simple fact that most folks don't bother to block then show that either they aren't too negative, or people are so dumb and lazy that humanity is a lost cause anyway.
Post reply on HN