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

How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

knife-depot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 341 posts

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#221

Post by caf »

corresation wrote: post #115
caf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "big guys" sell a lot more products in a lot more categories, so are presumably putting in a much larer number of bids - it is not hard to believe that Google sees a lot more revenue from Amazon than some random knife shop.

I'm entirely sure that Amazon spends more. But for that keyword whoever bids the most spends the most. Google optimizes by the keyword, which of course they should, just as companies like Amazon don't bid on keywords because they're benevolent, but because they want to optimize their own return. Removing players from the market cannot possibly serve Google's financial interest, and that conspiratorial angle makes abs…

I don't think the keywords are relevant. The policy is "if you sell any weapon-knives, then you can't use AdWords at all" - nothing to do with keywords. The point being that Google would stand to lose a lot more revenue by enforcing an AdWords death-penalty against Amazon than they would against a much smaller business, like the one in question here.

I don't see a conspiracy here, either - it just looks like the huge advertisers like Amazon have a lot more leverage in their relationship with Google than the tiny ones do, so are less likely to have the rules enforced as strictly against them.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#222

Post by ta15151 »

rodgerd wrote: post #183
kamjam wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bullsh*t, knives kill just as guns do. In the UK we have many more knife related crime than we do gun related crime. That said, the issue here is not how lethal one is over the other, but Google playing judge,jury and executioner for something they should have no right to jurisdict over.

Kives are just as lethal as guns? Hey, good news, armies of the world! Stop wasting money on complex mechanical weapons and ammunition, just buy knives! Your soldiers will be just as effective!

Armies don't typically fight unarmed opponents in close quarters. If you're unarmed and the attacker is within a few yards of you, a knife or a gun are not that different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#223

Post by jlgreco »

badgar wrote: post #213
jlgreco wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having used assisted opening knives, I can say with confidence that the practice is necessary to make yourself comfortable holding the knife while still being able to deliver the necessary, and not negligible, force to open the knife. They are really very little alike.

To be clear, the opening force almost all comes from the wrist. The force you apply to the knife with your finger to get it going is quite negligible.

Well perhaps I open them wrong then. I flick my (not assisted) boxcutter open with my wrist but open my assisted opening folding knife exclusively with my thumb on the thumb-bar. As I see it, not having to use your wrist is basically the point of the spring assist.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#224

Post by macchina »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #178
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

You cannot wield the kind of economic power Google does and not be evil, at least for the working definition many people have of "evil". We've put a huge hunk of our intellectual and economic capital under the control of a marketing company. I really, really like Google, but I don't see this situation as being stable over a period of decades. Maybe 5-10 more years or so, but not a lot longer. These kinds of decisions…

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was…

I think you've shifted the meaning of king in the parent comment to tyrant. After that you go on to give Google the benefit of the doubt. Google isn't a tyrant, but we are all beholden to Google. Due to cognitive dissonance, we have the tendency to minimize or excuse any instances of abuse on the part of our benevolent data custodian.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#225

Post by Domenic_S »

maxcan wrote: post #136
rdl wrote: post #6

I'm in favor of banning porn ads (generally), since those tend to be offensive to a lot of people and also are highly correlated with spammy behavior, but I'd be tempted to boycott a vendor who prohibited weapons ads for any reason other than legal compliance. Amazon is pretty reasonable (knives are fine, firearms accessories are fine, but firearms and ammunition are out due to compliance issues). Google has no excus…

I find weapons ads far more offensive than porn ads. Our natural form vs a device whose sole intent is to obliterate said natural form. How come your measure of offense is more important than mine? Also, if you want to play community standards, I'm pretty sure the majority of the people who live around Google HQ (Bay Area + SF) would agree with me.

Hey everybody! Let's play "whose offense is more morally justified"!

Please.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#226

Post by AnthonyMouse »

saraid216 wrote: post #207
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was…

> I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. Uh, yes they did. Kingdoms of the beforetime were not all Stalinist Russias. Kings had to gather and maintain support; some of them did this through shutting down dissenters hard, but many of them never did, or did so with the full support…

>Kings had to gather and maintain support; some of them did this through shutting down dissenters hard, but many of them never did, or did so with the full support of "the people".

If the king has to do what the subjects and lesser lords want or he'll be overthrown, he's really serving at the consent of the people. That pretty well breaks the analogy: If the only sort of king people can criticize is the sort who doesn't actually have unchecked power then using "people are polite when criticizing" as a heuristic for unchecked power has the relationship inverted.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#227

Post by capo »

Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar.

I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#228

Post by cbhl »

smusumeche wrote: post #141
bambax wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Thanks for the clarification -- I'm sorry I misunderstood. If this is true, it's completely crazy. How does Google think they can tell people what products to sell on their own shops?? Then I would completely agree with what the OP did, of course. In fact, there really was no other way.

Even Google employees realize the hypocracy. Our (unnamed for his safety) rep at Google emailed us with this: “I am still waiting on an answer to my reply where I asked for a universal enforcement of the policy OR we allow knife depot back online. I replied and said, I refuse to tell knife-depot they need to remove a product category that 7 other competitors are advertising & selling the same products.” I then named…

Omitting his/her name probably won't save him/her from a verbatim quote, if that email came from his/her corp email.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#229

Post by reader5000 »

capo wrote: post #227

Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar. I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.

The top comment is the most batshit comment I have ever read on HN. Interesting crowd shift going on.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#230

Post by Contero »

saraid216 wrote: post #207
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was…

> I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. Uh, yes they did. Kingdoms of the beforetime were not all Stalinist Russias. Kings had to gather and maintain support; some of them did this through shutting down dissenters hard, but many of them never did, or did so with the full support…

You reminded me of a sort-of relevant part from Richard III that I enjoyed:

BUCKINGHAM:

And when mine oratory grew to an end

I bid them that did love their country's good

Cry 'God save Richard, England's royal king!'

RICHARD:

Ah! and did they so?

BUCKINGHAM:

No, so God help me, they spake not a word;

But, like dumb statues or breathing stones,

Gazed each on other, and look'd deadly pale.

Post reply on HN