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

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#181

Post by matt4077 »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #134
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement. I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are. I started b…

> the websites I frequented the most frequently [...] still received only pennies. And what I don't understand is when I decide I want to subscribe to a newspaper, it's hundreds of dollars a year. They take pennies to serve me spam and malware, but if I want to pay them, it's 1000x the price. And don't get me started on how the Washington Post gives a $70 annual discount on a digital subscription if you agree to rece…

I, too, am waiting for a cross-publisher content network. I'd easily pay $30/mo, instead of the $0 I'm paying now.

But, for the individual publisher, this would mean the end of their current subscriber base and 70%+ of revenue. I'm pretty sure the NYT has a spreadsheet somewhere, and currently it's still saying that they are likely to lose out in such a model.

If they get, say, 10% of my $30, that's $3 x 12 = $36, which is about 1/10 of their current price. Could they increase their subscriber base by an order of magnitude with such a model? I'd say it's possible, but it's just too big a risk right now. And the numbers may be less favourably for smaller outfits.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#182

Post by fmueller »

Confusion wrote: post #173
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. No you don't. Just because something is technically possible, even easy, does not mean you are entitled to do so. Some bytes you are not allowed to render them at all (and BTW, how did you get them?). Some bytes may not be transformed into other bytes so you are able to render them (and BTW, how did you obtain the key?). Some bytes may not be rendered in…

What you are saying does never apply when using content for personal use. When I buy a DVD I am allowed to watch it with a filter or watch only every second frame. This would never violate your copyright.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#183

Post by nikcub »

jsz0 wrote: post #103
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

> Then you see all those shitty ads Still somewhat better than creepy targeted advertising. I bought a new garbage can a few weeks ago now many sites are full of ads for garbage cans. Although this may be one example where the targeting is working. Most of the sites showing those ads are garbage.

I take it your using Chrome, disable third-party cookies.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#184

Post by slackoverflower »

dheera wrote: post #20
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

> One thing I've been hoping for is inventing some form of advertising that was actually fun for the user -- fun enough that they would not want to block them.

You should take a look at the sponsored lenses on Snapchat. Nowhere else on the internet are ads so engaging and enjoyable. This is also why I think Snapchat had a chance to really take on Facebook, until FB sucked up and started copying everything from Snapchat.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#185

Post by Safety1stClyde »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #110
reaperducer wrote: post #15

I've been on the fence about this for a while, and after reading what GroundUp wrote, I can't agree with them more. So I think it's time for me to dump Google Ads from my sites, as well. I send Big G three million ad impressions a month, and in return I get $150 and a bunch of visual dreck that makes the site look bad. $200, if I'm lucky. And this is all U.S. traffic on an award-winning news site. I only need to sell…

There's something wrong if you're getting paid $0.05 CPM for AdSense US traffic.

Not necessarily, I have computer-related content which gets results like this (a bit better than this, but I assumed that the parent poster was exaggerating a bit about the 3x10^6 traffic). The problem is quite notorious, and AdSense now refuses new "tech" content.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#186

Post by nikcub »

pjc50 wrote: post #168
graycat wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, question on ad blockers: So far I have not tried to use one. And my Web site for my startup, to be ad supported, has not gone live yet. But, what if: What if my Web server sends the actual ads, as JPG, GIF, WEBM, etc. files instead of just URLs to ad servers at some ad network? Then will an ad blocker still work?

Hardly anyone will pay for that kind of ad, because it can't be audited and you could just forge ad impressions.

This is exactly what we did at Techcrunch. The ads sold and we went from $3k a month ad revenue from bad ads with ad sense to $30k a month (the format where it is the square ads in the sidebar - which almost every other blog adopted)

It can work if you're trusted and selling influence.

Later on when we wanted to run some of the high end campaigns and exclusives we ran OpenX

I think serving your own ads is a solution to a lot of ad and media problems that needs to be encouraged. Its strange to me that so many companies hand over so much of their webpage real estate and user trust to what are often complete strangers

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#187

Post by fmueller »

mehwoot wrote: post #34
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses should account for that. How is that an argument for it? Some percentage of people steal things from stores, business do account for it, but its neither here nor there in an argument about whether people should do it.

It's more like some percentage of people change channels, mute or fetch something to drink when ads are running on TV.

Just because you watched the film doesn't mean you are obliged to watch the ads.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#188

Post by djsumdog »

Confusion wrote: post #173
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. No you don't. Just because something is technically possible, even easy, does not mean you are entitled to do so. Some bytes you are not allowed to render them at all (and BTW, how did you get them?). Some bytes may not be transformed into other bytes so you are able to render them (and BTW, how did you obtain the key?). Some bytes may not be rendered in…

This gets onto very shaky ground. What if I'm in a console and only browse with w3m or lynx? What if I simply disable all Images and Javascript (older web browsers made disabling images really simple; back when we had very limited dial-up bandwidth).

Can websites dictate what web browsers you use? Are you violating an agreement by using a different User-Agent?

No, no and no. You are requesting data and your browser renders it. If you write your own browser to request and render the data differently, I don't see any issue with copyright.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#189

Post by watwut »

paulcole wrote: post #46
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. Doesn't feel right to me.

No. You can not force "agreement" on me that easily. By visiting the site, I am visiting the site. There is no agreement between us whatsoever about anything.
Post reply on HN