Live data from Hacker News

How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

slate.com

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#121

I stumbled into some weird data as to how startups may be able to use this kind of technique without exploiting people. Yeah, it sounds hard to believe. But you have to understand that every technique out there can be used for good. Anyhow, turns out that there are some tricks that these type of advertisers use to increase their response. One just needs to carefully read the source of their pages (specially the Javas…

I don't think that anyone who clicked that link really believed that they were going to find out "one weird trick," so much as they just really wanted to know what you were really linking to.

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#123
I once worked for a company that operated along these lines. It wasn't quite as bad as those mentioned in the article due to the fact that the industry in question had several government agencies watching almost everything they do but it was an interesting learning experience.

There's likely two reasons why so many follow the same pattern. It's possible that many did enough A/B testing to determine the best direction that provided the best results. More likely one person came up with the pattern, the rest decided that it seemed a successive effort, and they all copied that one person's pattern.

I can't tell you how many times I created a landing page and/or email that was built in one specific way that originated with one guy that the rest perceived as the most successive guy in their type of marketing. If he said it, then it was gold. It was a tad disheartening as there was no real design involved. "Copy is king!" was the mantra and a nice design was not necessary. Even a decent design that made the copy easier to read was not considered worth the time. This was typically the type of landing page that uses the funnel method of long, sensational text with call-to-actions sprinkled down the page leading to a short order form at the bottom.

This insistence of copying everybody else because of perceived success, no data to support that perception of course, made for interesting conversations. "We're doing it this way." "Why?" "Because that's how they did it." "Why should we do it because they did?" "If they're doing it then it must work."

Although it was always fun to introduce a new kink to the marketing pattern and watch everybody else copy you. Especially when we hadn't yet decided if the new method even worked or not.

My favorite story that shows how locked into a pattern they would be until something shattered their illusions involved one sales email. For the longest time it was the rule to use as few images as possible in emails. The reasoning being because modern email clients do not automatically download images so you don't want things hidden from the potential customer before they interact with the email. I fought that quite a bit using legit companies like Apple and NewEgg as examples in that they successfully sell stuff and use images quite frequently through their emails. No dice. So one day I design a new email template that did use images heavily, our products were displayed in a grid that looked like stickers placed on the email. That meant that the copy listing details and pricing of the products were in the images, which was a no-no. I didn't tell anyone I did this knowing that all of them had their email clients downloading images automatically that came from us. The email was approved and sent out. A few weeks later I asked how that email did, "Best money-making email we've ever sent out!"

I then confessed to what I had done to their totally shocked confusion. After that I was able to actually design stuff that looked nice instead of the scammy look they insisted upon. And of course most of those newer designs, not all mind you, made more money. Interesting that I didn't see many other companies copying the new pattern. I guess it broke the mold enough to not be perceived as successful.

Anyway, even with the occasional moral problems, it was a good learning experience. Almost everything I know about SEO, ads, email, marketing, analytics, customer relations, and much more came from this company. Kind of gives me a somewhat unique perspective at my new job at a more traditional agency.

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#124
post #78

Conquered the internet? I don't think so. I've never clicked on any of those ads, and I'm sure that millions of other users of Ad Block, etc, have never even seen these ads. Of interest to me was the author's reluctance to click on links due to malware threats. Even when I used WinXP, years ago, I never have been infected with any malware, but then, I'm not the average PC user.

What, you don't want free animated smilies?

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#125
post #75
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw lots of cognitive dissonance when I worked for a company that was something of an advertising firm. Everyone hates pop-ups and spam... but it's probably OK if we do it. We can turn off the user's pop-up blocker right? What do you mean we can't get around it? How are we supposed to get them to see our side offers if we can't do pop-ups? And the constant discussions about how to keep our emails from landing in sp…

Just to show a little balance - there are those of us in advertising who try to do the best we can for our audience, and don't even need morals to make that decision, since doing the right thing gives us better results than trying to trick people.

But there will still be people like me who consider any amount of advertising to be an offense, something that is more desirable if it doesn't exist. You can be as nice about it as you want or feel is appropriate, and I appreciate that, but at the end of the day, your interest is antagonistic to mine.

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#126

I would feel a lot better about Slate (and everyone else) if they didn't run those "SPONSORED FROM AROUND THE WEB" pseudo-article links at the bottom of each page with this exact same kind of manipulative ads in them. Come on Slate. You think better of your audience than this, right?

A couple of years ago I read an NBC article[1] about low-quality, spammy ads on the Web. The article was decidedly negative about them....and yet (at least at the time) the page was full of them: "Billionaire prepares for financial ruin" etc, all the AdBlade/Taboola-type shit. It was pretty ridiculous, given that the tone of the article from the very beginning was positively railing against low-quality ads.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32676456/ns/business-the_big_money...

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#127
post #2

This is the same as the 'Nigerian 419' fraud concept. They fill the email with spelling and grammar mistakes and in doing so, they filter out the marginally intelligent, resulting in a pre-filter to attract the most gullible. The crappy, hand drawn ads, the dire videos, and the bad production have the same effect. The punter needs to be a gullible fool, since a fool and his money are soon parted.

Makes sense, but Occams razor is more than enough to explain the bad grammar and production effects. Any evidence its a conscious decision?

Microsoft Research wrote a paper about the intentional use of bad grammar/spelling in 419 scams. Keeping the ostensible source as the email Nigerian is another tactic along these lines, since anyone even slightly savvy will see that as an immediate red flag after all these years.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tzink/archive/2012/06/24/bad-spellin...

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#128
post #125
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to show a little balance - there are those of us in advertising who try to do the best we can for our audience, and don't even need morals to make that decision, since doing the right thing gives us better results than trying to trick people.

But there will still be people like me who consider any amount of advertising to be an offense, something that is more desirable if it doesn't exist. You can be as nice about it as you want or feel is appropriate, and I appreciate that, but at the end of the day, your interest is antagonistic to mine.

Doing right by the user doesn't mean "doing exactly what the user wants". I'm sure there are people who want iPhones and don't want to pay for them, yet I see no ethical lapse or legitimate conflict of interest with the user in Apple's charging > $0 for an iPhone.

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense, but Occams razor is more than enough to explain the bad grammar and production effects. Any evidence its a conscious decision?

Microsoft Research wrote a paper about the intentional use of bad grammar/spelling in 419 scams. Keeping the ostensible source as the email Nigerian is another tactic along these lines, since anyone even slightly savvy will see that as an immediate red flag after all these years. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tzink/archive/2012/06/24/bad-spellin...

I skimmed the actual paper and wasn't very impressed. It uses theoretical models without any actual data to support its claim. The claim the paper actually proves is:

    If there is a technique that successfully weeds out false positives, then such a technique can be used profitably.
Which is a far cry from their supposed claims, that the spammers are using bad grammar and "Nigeria" to weed out false positives. They basically proved a molehill and claimed a mountain.

Re: How 'One Weird Trick' Conquered The Internet

#130

http://www.oneweirdkerneltrick.com/

I made this! Please see the slides, they are more "up to date" than the respective papers.

Thank you. I don't remember the last time I laughed this hard. I particularly enjoyed your seminal work on the Kurse of Dimensionality, "stemming from a desire to have access to certain subspaces of (R-Q)^\infty without appearing on reality TV."
Post reply on HN