How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free • Hacker News Board

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#11

Post by malka » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 9:08 AM UTC

bobbykjack wrote: post #8

VMG wrote: post #7

A new avenue for ethical cross-site scripting. I did not know about this particular keyword sensitivity google mail: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/31/how-to-avoid-ads-in.html Maybe everybody should add "I'm sorry for your loss of ads" to their email signature?

Apparently doesn't work if the words are just in your signature.

maybe a script that adds it automatically as white on white text ?

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#12

Post by simi_ » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 10:36 AM UTC

In case people are wondering, the 150 people dead are from a recent Germanwings crash.

https://www.google.com/search?q=germanwings+crash&tbm=nws

As someone living in Cologne who flies with them frequently... yikes!

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#13

Post by Theodores » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 10:44 AM UTC

This is '9/11 preparedness' to a certain extent. Remember when that happened how there were no adverts anywhere for a week or so? The music changed too, no 'John Lennon' songs were played for a while.

This does need to be fine grained. Although the UK is adjacent to France and Germany the current disaster is not nationally significant in the UK in that there will not be days of mourning, people being quiet for two minutes, politicians laying wreaths etc. So it is only the readers in France and Germany that need to be 'spared' adverts on this story, the rest of the world can have normal ad-based service.

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#14

Post by Kliment » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:11 AM UTC

simi_ wrote: post #12

In case people are wondering, the 150 people dead are from a recent Germanwings crash. https://www.google.com/search?q=germanwings+crash&tbm=nws As someone living in Cologne who flies with them frequently... yikes!

It's Germanwings' first accident ever. I also live in Köln and fly with them frequently, but I'm not particularly concerned. Also, on a totally offtopic note, want to meet up?

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#15

Post by simi_ » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:16 AM UTC

Kliment wrote: post #14

simi_ wrote: post #12

In case people are wondering, the 150 people dead are from a recent Germanwings crash. https://www.google.com/search?q=germanwings+crash&tbm=nws As someone living in Cologne who flies with them frequently... yikes!

It's Germanwings' first accident ever. I also live in Köln and fly with them frequently, but I'm not particularly concerned. Also, on a totally offtopic note, want to meet up?

We're Lavaboom, we make secure/private email, and have an office in Solution Space (right across the cathedral), feel free to come meet the (tiny) team. :)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Am+Hof+20-2...

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#16

Post by dexterdog » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:22 AM UTC

cstuder wrote: post #5

The Failbook page loves to collect examples of inappropriate automated ad placements: http://failblog.cheezburger.com/failbook/tag/juxtaposition

You mean inappropriate automated ad placements mixed heavily with photoshopped pairings of items that are funny next to each other.

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#17

Post by Psion7 » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:27 AM UTC

So what happens if a user defaults this via a user script to all pages on the NYT?

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#18

Post by thejaredhooper » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:33 AM UTC

universaltest wrote: post #4

> it’s almost an acknowledgement that ads are invasive and uncomfortable. They cross over into the intolerable range when we’re emotionally vulnerable from a tragic story. Is it really this, or is it that advertisers don't want their brand associated with negativity in general? How they're doing it is interesting, but I think the analysis is weird.

I think you're closer to the truth than the author. Though it may be moral, in a sense, to keep ads away from tragic stories - I think that it's clearly in the interest of the advertisers to keep their brands separated from "negative" stories so they don't inadvertently sabotage themselves.

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#19

Post by morsch » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:37 AM UTC

universaltest wrote: post #4

> it’s almost an acknowledgement that ads are invasive and uncomfortable. They cross over into the intolerable range when we’re emotionally vulnerable from a tragic story. Is it really this, or is it that advertisers don't want their brand associated with negativity in general? How they're doing it is interesting, but I think the analysis is weird.

The next sentence after the one you quoted:

> Advertisers know this too, and the New York Times might stipulate in contracts they’ll try to keep ads off sensitive pages.

Re: How the New York Times keeps tragedies ad-free

#20

Post by henpa » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 11:38 AM UTC

VMG wrote: post #7

A new avenue for ethical cross-site scripting. I did not know about this particular keyword sensitivity google mail: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/31/how-to-avoid-ads-in.html Maybe everybody should add "I'm sorry for your loss of ads" to their email signature?

That, or install an adblock.