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

Google Contributor

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: Google Contributor

#161

Post by potatosareok »

dr4g0n wrote: post #4

So this seems like an automatic version of flattr[1], except you get the perk of no adverts in return. What I wonder though is: what happens if I visit a site that I don't want to support? Can I say no? Otherwise this just invites clickbait even more. [1]: https://flattr.com/howflattrworks

How do you think this encourages click bait "even more". How would you avoid click bait? Magazines that you deem "not click bait" get granted more money? Who decides what's in this worthy category?

Even before online advertising, it's not like tabaloid magazines didn't exist and make a lot of money.

If people spend their time on a website, why shouldn't that website be worthy of money.

If you went to a site and didn't like it - don't go back there again. Why is it fair for you to visit a site repeatedly and only give money when it publishes an article you like? It's not like you can sign up to the NYT and only pay for the articles you liked that month.

Re: Google Contributor

#163

Post by magicalist »

comex wrote: post #62
primitivesuave wrote: post #21

This could be huge if applied to YouTube content, as I'm sure there are many parents of iPad children who don't want their kids seeing ads.

I would love it to be applied to YouTube content for myself, although I doubt it will be. The prevalence and duration of ads on YouTube has steadily increased over the years, up to the point where, just a few days ago, I finally got fed up and installed an ad blocker for that site only. I don't usually use ad blockers because I want to support content creators, and few of the sites I visit have intrusive ads anyway;…

Somebody posted something similar to this a few weeks ago, and I responded there too that I feel like I'm on a different Youtube than the ones described in these posts. Like 90% of ads I see on there are skippable now, which didn't exist at all a few years ago.

I'm really curious if we just browse completely different subsets of videos or something. What videos are you watching that have so many unskippable ads?

Re: Google Contributor

#164

Post by _nedR »

I am more opposed to tracking than ads. Unless they devise a system that doesn't require a cookie or tracking id that persists across sessions and websites, I would like to excuse myself from this (still laudable) endeavour.

Re: Google Contributor

#165

Post by kriro »

I really like this idea. I have doubts that it'll work but it shows that Google is trying to stay ahead of the curve. I do have privacy concerns but at the same time the thought of some flat fee that is distributed by how often I visit sites seems pretty great.

There's some obvious issues. One seems like a problem for a startup to solve (exit plan: be bought by Google): Figure out how much a site is actually used in a meaningful and quantifiable way beyound time on site/counting visits

The other is more philosophical for lack of a better term. It's a little strange that Google is essentially responsible for the adds on the sites it now removes with this new sheme. "Modern" thinking would make me belive that sites that participate should probably go for no adds by default. There'll be "freeloaders" but it's essentially film streaming, non-DRM books and the likes all over.

Edit: I hope there'll be a way to blacklist sites as well or maybe more fine grained controls.

Re: Google Contributor

#166

Post by gurkendoktor »

bsbechtel wrote: post #135
nindalf wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a problem that doesn't exist, but will in a few years from now. Those billions of sites depend upon advertising revenue. As ad-blockers have become more popular, the rates that advertisers are willing to pay has fallen. Eventually we could see a majority of users block ads and sites would have to shut down for lack of revenue. This initiative can preempt that. Also remember the overused line "if you're not paying…

Fair points, although the fact that Google is offering this product makes your point about violating the privacy of users a bit moot (in this particular instance...not the solution in general).

You could still browse the web with Ghostify (or µblock…), and only load the Contributor tracking code when you want to support an article. That would both minimise Google's tracking and prevent you from accidentally contributing to crappy link-bait content. Basically a copy of flattr on Google's infrastructure.

Re: Google Contributor

#167

Post by _nedR »

fairblocker wrote: post #110
dikaiosune wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's something to be said for an ad-free content "subscription" to the whole internet. I block all ads right now but I would still get the warm and fuzzies if I knew that I was free of ads and I was still paying a little bit to the people who create content online.

So... the product I just launched is identical to what you described. An ad blocker with bundled contributions, check it out if you want: fairblocker.com

Nice idea. This deserves a hacker news post on its own.

Re: Google Contributor

#168

Post by visakanv »

karmacondon wrote: post #154

Honest question: Do online ads have any redeeming value? No one seems to have anything nice to say about them. Ever. I can only recall two or maybe three times when I've clicked on an ad, and even then I can't remember what they were for. The only ads that have any real utility for me are television commercials that are particularly funny/quotable or remind me that a tv show is coming back on the air. Can anyone repo…

The best use case for ads, I think, are in retargeting– meaning you only hit people who've already visited your site before, and you hit them maybe with an offer they might be interested in. But you have to be sensitive to the context, etc. I don't envy ad folks.

Re: Google Contributor

#169

Post by plantain »

I have been using Contributor for a while and I am extremely excited about it.

No more can you claim to be the product, you're the customer, bidding against the ad networks to show your own ads to yourself.

Just brilliant.

Re: Google Contributor

#170

Post by josh2600 »

I have a friend who works at Patreon.com; it's a different take on this.

It's basically a way to have a direct financial relationship between artists and patrons. I am curious as to how this model might work over time. It could be a good way to deal with the inability of musicians, for example, to sell records.

Post reply on HN