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

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Google Contributor

#191

Post by bsbechtel »

quadrangle wrote: post #182
bsbechtel wrote: post #77

On the surface this sounds great, but I also get the feeling this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. The billions of website that exist on the web should be proof of that.

The problem that exists for Google is sites that don't use Google ads. This solves that problem because now Google can say, "you may not like our ads, but all these people want to just pay you, and you can get their funds if you first show our ads by default".

>>problem that exists for Google is sites that don't use Google ads.

That's like saying the problem that exists for my business is the millions of people who don't want to use my product because they meet their needs in other ways. Trying to expand your customer base is fine, but I don't see trying to do it by forcing your customers on to your other products as effective. Look at Google+.

Re: Google Contributor

#192

Post by look_lookatme »

nindalf wrote: post #109
bsbechtel wrote: post #77

On the surface this sounds great, but I also get the feeling this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. The billions of website that exist on the web should be proof of that.

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…

Rates have fallen because global inventory has exploded and increasingly sophisticated programmatic systems, not because of ad blockers.

Re: Google Contributor

#193

Post by Filligree »

quadrangle wrote: post #184
foxylad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horses for courses - for high volume sites this would be awesome. My immediate thought was "Great - at last Wikipedia can get rid of the annual begging bowl". It could also be a great solution to the news site paywall debate. I'd love to seamlessly reward the sites I visit often, and if Google can automate this, more power to their elbow. Also, interesting that it is Google is doing this. It risks reducing their adve…

Wikipedia has no ads to make go away. Google Contributor is only for sites that use Google ads in the first place. Google wants the power to tell sites that they have to use Google ads before they can get these Contributor donations. That's the whole point. So it will only hurt honorable sites like Wikipedia that forgo ads.

You can declare which ad networks you're willing to show ads from when you set up google ads. It should be entirely possible to include only Contributor.

Re: Google Contributor

#194

Post by Filligree »

foxylad wrote: post #91
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

Good point - can anyone with an account tell us if you can white/blacklist sites?

Sure. You can blacklist sites. I don't believe there is a whitelist option at the moment.

Re: Google Contributor

#195

Post by Filligree »

nicolaskruchten wrote: post #59

I posted something similar a few months ago: http://nicolas.kruchten.com/content/2014/02/modest-proposal-...

So you did. Where'd you get the idea for the mondrian ad-replacement image? It's a bit too in-your-face for me, but the style is interesting.

Re: Google Contributor

#196

Post by koala_man »

greedoshotlast wrote: post #72
koala_man wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Contributor is intended to directly benefit sites at all. If you use Contributor, the site receives $0.00136* and a blank ad is shown, paid for by you. If you don't use Contributor, the sites receives $0.00136 and an Initech ad is shown, paid for by Initech. It will make no direct difference in revenue for the site, but hopefully they can get indirect benefits from people being less inclined to use ad b…

How much of that revenue did Google take? Is it a 80/20 revenue split or what? My point is the middle-man must be paid but if there is no middle-man you keep 100% of the profit.

At 68% revenue share it's a 68/32 split.

Re: Google Contributor

#197

Post by quadrangle »

bsbechtel wrote: post #191
quadrangle wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem that exists for Google is sites that don't use Google ads. This solves that problem because now Google can say, "you may not like our ads, but all these people want to just pay you, and you can get their funds if you first show our ads by default".

>>problem that exists for Google is sites that don't use Google ads. That's like saying the problem that exists for my business is the millions of people who don't want to use my product because they meet their needs in other ways. Trying to expand your customer base is fine, but I don't see trying to do it by forcing your customers on to your other products as effective. Look at Google+.

That's exactly what I mean. Lots of business set out to solve the problem of "we're not making all the money we could" rather than actually provide increased value to the world. Google Contributor makes perfect sense from Google's interests. The design makes only more questionable sense in terms of society's interests.

Re: Google Contributor

#198

Post by jacques_chester »

lvs wrote: post #20

The pricing denomination is set both too high and too low at the same time, depending on whom we're talking about. The whole idea of micropayments to support, for instance, content creators was to generally envision a transactional denomination far below $1 -- hence the word "micro." Since even this really never got off the ground in any significant way, isn't it a stretch to imagine that $1/month is a low enough psy…

Microtransactions didn't work because it either imposed mental overhead or relied on tipping culture.

So either you're guessing whether the article is reeeeaaaally worth 1 cent, or you're wondering if these $0.001 increments are going to add up to a whopper, or you feel annoyed having to press the "tip" button all the time.

This model -- independently invented several times -- removes that entirely.

> Why should it be limited at all?

Small amounts drastically reduce the attractiveness of using this to launder stolen credit card money.

Re: Google Contributor

#199

Post by bsbechtel »

quadrangle wrote: post #197
bsbechtel wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>problem that exists for Google is sites that don't use Google ads. That's like saying the problem that exists for my business is the millions of people who don't want to use my product because they meet their needs in other ways. Trying to expand your customer base is fine, but I don't see trying to do it by forcing your customers on to your other products as effective. Look at Google+.

That's exactly what I mean. Lots of business set out to solve the problem of "we're not making all the money we could" rather than actually provide increased value to the world. Google Contributor makes perfect sense from Google's interests. The design makes only more questionable sense in terms of society's interests.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Google Contributor

#200

Post by nicolaskruchten »

Filligree wrote: post #195
nicolaskruchten wrote: post #59

I posted something similar a few months ago: http://nicolas.kruchten.com/content/2014/02/modest-proposal-...

So you did. Where'd you get the idea for the mondrian ad-replacement image? It's a bit too in-your-face for me, but the style is interesting.

A few years ago we needed a stand-in for some creative and I was looking for something visually simple that would compress well as a GIF. Mondrian seemed appropriate :)
Post reply on HN