Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words) • Hacker News Board

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#11

Post by Semiapies » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:20 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #5

tortilla wrote: post #3

I just don't understand this. I hardly ever see the ads and when I do, they don't bother me. Why take such extreme measures? If the ads bother someone that much, why not use a different service or pay for one? Seems to me the cure is worse than the disease.

It's still a clever hack. Some hacks are beautiful, even if not "profitable".

Google says they try to avoid serving ads beside tragic emails. So...they put tragic phrases in emails to avoid ads.

The threshold for the terms "clever" and "hack" must have dropped.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#12

Post by Semiapies » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:24 PM UTC

aw3c2 wrote: post #9

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

If the ads are presented in a nice way (no animated flash popups with sound (or any subset)), are for something good and not delivered through a data-mining ad network, I don't mind. Those will often get through my ad blocking filters all by themselves.

Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude, and I will filter them.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#13

Post by DarkShikari » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:33 PM UTC

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint?

I don't think I've clicked an ad since I was first introduced to the internet at around age ~5 (maybe with a few exceptions for accidental misclicks), and I don't intend to click on one in the future either. As a result, I am saving them bandwidth by blocking their ads.

Activating an ad-blocking device is equivalent to stating "I do not intend to click on your ads," and as a result it cannot possibly be losing the advertiser money.

(If the site charges per impression instead of per click, that's another thing, but those are rare these days.)

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#14

Post by maweaver » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:34 PM UTC

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

I don't block ads because I like sites being free, and I want to do my small part to help keep them that way (and to encourage others to put out free content). So I guess you could call it ethics, but it's the self-serving sort.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#15

Post by teilo » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:37 PM UTC

Seems like a waste of time. Enough people do this, and Google will adjust. It's just cat and mouse from there.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#16

Post by wooby » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:40 PM UTC

DarkShikari wrote: post #13

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? I don't think I've clicked an ad since I was first introduced to the internet at around age ~5 (maybe with a few exceptions for accidental misclicks), and I don't intend to click on one in the future either. As a result, I am saving them bandwidth by blocking their ads. Activating an ad-blocking device is equivalent to st…

I feel the same way. Why not just save everyone some hassle, admit to ourselves we never click on ads, and employ an extension or userscript.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#17

Post by foulmouthboy » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 8:56 PM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #11

DenisM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a clever hack. Some hacks are beautiful, even if not "profitable".

Google says they try to avoid serving ads beside tragic emails. So...they put tragic phrases in emails to avoid ads. The threshold for the terms "clever" and "hack" must have dropped.

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's obviously trying to be sensitive in not displaying ads to people who might be in mourning and this "hack" exploits that. It's like hitting on women at a funeral.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#18

Post by TallGuyShort » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:00 PM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #12

aw3c2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ads are presented in a nice way (no animated flash popups with sound (or any subset)), are for something good and not delivered through a data-mining ad network, I don't mind. Those will often get through my ad blocking filters all by themselves.

Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude , and I will filter them.

But the ads only pay if people click on them. I don't click on ads, EVER. I never have, and have never even been close to. Some people do click them, obviously. Since I'm not clicking them, anyway - me using an ad blocker only saves the advertiser bandwidth money.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#19

Post by mrshoe » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:03 PM UTC

I was asked a related question during an interview at Google. As an example, the interviewer told me of a time their ads drew an especially vile reaction: they had placed luggage ads on a news story about a serial killer who chopped up his victims bodies and stuffed them into suitcases.

The interviewer said they'd be happy to just not show any ads on such pages and asked me how I'd go about detecting them. Apparently they've (mostly) figured that out by now!

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#20

Post by zackham » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:07 PM UTC

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

Happy users tend to share links with friends, and depending on the site, contribute content. If keeping a user happy means a decline in impressions and a bump in click-though rate, so be it.