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

Google Web Designer

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 462 posts

Re: Google Web Designer

#411

Post by GhotiFish »

diminoten wrote: post #317
abalone wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blocking one form of advert is not even slightly the same as blocking all forms of adverts. Well good, then you just misunderstood me. I'm asking for an animated HTML5 ad blocker to parallel a Flash blocker (or pop-up blocker, etc.) Not something that blocks all ads. Although you didn't state it specifically, presumably you're ok with pop-up blockers. And therefore accept that it is ok for consumers to override the…

> Consumers have a vote on how the web should be designed, too. Exactly the wrong-headed sense of entitlement I'm talking about. No, you absolutely do not get a say, whatsoever. You either get the product through the monetization scheme set up by the content owner, or you get no content at all.

Um. I get the content however I want. It's my computer.

If you send me some data. I can choose to view or ignore any of it. You have absolutely no stance to make me acknowledge all of it, or any of it.

If I asked for some data from your server and you sent it, you sent it. But I don't have to read all of it. Even the bits that make you money.

Further, some people choose (or more likely didn't know they had a choice) to make you money, if you want their money, in aggregate their wishes are something you are interested in. At no point does entitlement enter into this.

Re: Google Web Designer

#412

Post by GhotiFish »

jcvangent wrote: post #397
cbhl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that makes sense -- a lot of Google's (paying) clients have been using Adobe (formerly Macromedia) Flash to make ads for years; if Google wants them to adopt HTML5 technology they need to make tools that are as easy to use as Flash was.

It is not the problem with people creating the ads that they don't want to create HTML5 banners. The problem lies with most media buying agencies that won't accept them for reasons like their system is not ready to handle this (HTML5) yet or the most heard reason that they want Flash banners even with old versions of Action Script because they seem harder to block by ad-blockers and thus think that more people will w…

>because they seem harder to block by ad-blockers and thus think that more people will watch them.

Do companies actually believe this? Flash is the easiest to remove of all ads.

  "If you create a truly brilliant ad which is targeted to 
   the right audience and let them do something with your 
   brand inside the ad for example people are more willing 
   to view them in my opinion in stead of just forcing them 
   the same old banner over and over again only with a 
   different brand in them."
I have a lot of sympathy for the outreach companies trying to make advertising agencies behave. At some point, someone's neurons started firing and realized consumers had taken control over how they view media. Someone realized that eventually advertisements were going to be viewed of the users volition. Which meant they no longer could be deceitful, obnoxious, baiting, terrible, and rude. Or at least not transparently so.

Unfortunately the industry was built on the grounds that the users had no choice, so the notion of good advertising I think will never come. Old men in stuffy suits don't change unless they go bankrupt.

Re: Google Web Designer

#413

Post by GhotiFish »

sneak wrote: post #290
radley wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely an ad tool. The help section is entirely about making ads. If you look closely, the responsive layout is strictly for the ad, not the website.

You say it like an accusation. Google's the biggest company in the ad business.

The introduction is misleading, it is an accusation. A valid one.

Re: Google Web Designer

#414

Post by GhotiFish »

est wrote: post #341
McGlockenshire wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully, AdBlock and friends can also target DOM elements for hiding or outright elimination.

Why do we even waste time detectin and hiding ads? WHy can't we not wasting bandwidth download it at all?

well. You can't tell the server what to send, really.

Re: Google Web Designer

#415

Post by GhotiFish »

abalone wrote: post #179
andybak wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be trickier as just blocking a single plugin is no longer viable. I think an domain blacklist a la Adblock is probably the best idea but that won't help you with ads that are already present in the DOM on pageload.

Doesn't Adblock Plus alter the structure of the page, which can mess up layout? Also believe it or not I don't want to block all ads, just animated ones. I want a general solution for All People, not just us nerds, and erasing advertising from the web would destroy a lot of businesses. I want something browser makers can build in and turn on by default, which is what Safari has essentially done now with Mavericks (Fl…

AdBlock Plus is running an initiative of acceptable ads.

That is the solution, frankly.

Re: Google Web Designer

#417

Post by diminoten »

GhotiFish wrote: post #411
diminoten wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consumers have a vote on how the web should be designed, too. Exactly the wrong-headed sense of entitlement I'm talking about. No, you absolutely do not get a say, whatsoever. You either get the product through the monetization scheme set up by the content owner, or you get no content at all.

Um. I get the content however I want. It's my computer. If you send me some data. I can choose to view or ignore any of it. You have absolutely no stance to make me acknowledge all of it, or any of it. If I asked for some data from your server and you sent it, you sent it. But I don't have to read all of it. Even the bits that make you money. Further, some people choose (or more likely didn't know they had a choice)…

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I sent my data with the social contract that you'd also look at my monetization technique.

By breaking that contract, you're preventing me from producing more content, content you apparently want. You're actually hurting yourself, from a practical standpoint, as well as causing harm to me.

Re: Google Web Designer

#418

Post by diminoten »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #323
diminoten wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consumers have a vote on how the web should be designed, too. Exactly the wrong-headed sense of entitlement I'm talking about. No, you absolutely do not get a say, whatsoever. You either get the product through the monetization scheme set up by the content owner, or you get no content at all.

Your foot stamping and insistence that people shouldnt have any control over site content does not infact change the technical reality that they do, being as its their client on their machine displaying what they tell it to. Its better to just accept this fact and work with it than attempt to boil the ocean. one might also ask about what kind of entitlement an attitude like yours is bringing to the table.

This isn't about what you can do, this is about what you should do, and what damage you cause the content producer and yourself when you decide you're entitled to something without paying for it.

Re: Google Web Designer

#419

Post by diminoten »

regularfry wrote: post #337
diminoten wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only relevant thing you've mentioned in your list is pop-up blocking, which is a subset of advertising (cookie blocking doesn't prevent impression and click tracking, and Readability has nothing to do with ad blocking, as the most common use case for Readability is after you've visited a page already). Blocking one form of advert is not even slightly the same as blocking all forms of adverts. There is an implicit…

You've turned a technical question into a moral one. Don't do that.

Why not?

Re: Google Web Designer

#420

Post by diminoten »

barrkel wrote: post #355
diminoten wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The safe/private thing to do is not visit any website at all. Ads don't have special access to your computer that a normal website does not. By visiting a new website, ads are by far the least of your worries. Being online at all exposes you to risk and creates a footprint of your existence. Much like moving around in public does. And just as in moving around in public, the safest and most private thing to do is to n…

You're ignoring opportunity costs, even in your meatworld analogy. There's real dangers to staying at home all the time, from social isolation to diseases of inactivity. Similarly, without using the web and visiting new sites, you're missing out on a lot of opportunity to communicate, learn, and yes, buy things. It may well be a lot less safe to avoid those things in the longer term. Personally I block ads because I…

You're right, there's risk in any action. The solution is to accept the risk, not to harm others while trying to protect yourself.

By blocking adverts, you're harming the people who make the things you like, in direct proportion to how much you like their content. The more you visit their site, the more load you make them pay for without giving anything in return.

If you're okay with harming others to keep yourself safe, and harming your ability to consume additional content from the people you want to consume content from, then fine. Continue to block ads. But know you're part of the problem, and are being selfish.

Post reply on HN