11–20 of 201 posts
Must Google do everything?
They already pay for much of the content you see online.
Only they have the ability to say "pay $1-$3 a month, and we'll replace those ads with a thank you", and have it actually affect a significant fraction of what you see.
I do worry that $1-3 a month is much lower than the value I get from the sites I visit, and consequently not enough to support low-traffic sites that should be supported. They also didn't mention how they distribute your money - equally to all the sites you visit? Proportionally to the number of visits? On a related note, can participating sites choose to eliminate ads only if a user will contribute enough money to them, or must they eliminate ads for every contributor in order to participate at all?
But the real question is, will google.com itself accept Contributor money? And will it eliminate ads for contributors?
"As a reminder of your support, you’ll see a thank you message - often accompanied by a pixel pattern - where you might normally see an ad." Why not remove the frame entirely for participants? Since each website has to opt-in to this, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to remove ads "transparently" (ie without the user ever knowing they were there)
"As a reminder of your support, you’ll see a thank you message - often accompanied by a pixel pattern - where you might normally see an ad." Why not remove the frame entirely for participants? Since each website has to opt-in to this, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to remove ads "transparently" (ie without the user ever knowing they were there)
They could obviously tell the site the ad should disappear with a JS event or somesuch, though, at which point the DOM can rewire itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great thing for Google to do, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I take it as saying something like "why does it have to be Google that does this; someone should have done this a long time ago", maybe. Google starts a lot of cool projects, it'd be neat to see other companies taking the same initiative in certain areas (I'm sure there are, I just am not well versed in that area).
There already are other similar services, like Flattr, but it becomes hard to ensure that you get a steady revenue stream by serving ads to some people and getting donations from others, and being able to turn off the ads for those people who donate.
"As a reminder of your support, you’ll see a thank you message - often accompanied by a pixel pattern - where you might normally see an ad." Why not remove the frame entirely for participants? Since each website has to opt-in to this, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to remove ads "transparently" (ie without the user ever knowing they were there)
I like the idea of giving users a painless way to donate to the sites they use. And giving thank-yous in place of advertising is a good way to reduce the incentive to freeload. I do worry that $1-3 a month is much lower than the value I get from the sites I visit, and consequently not enough to support low-traffic sites that should be supported. They also didn't mention how they distribute your money - equally to all…