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

Contenture - an anti-ad network?

contenture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#21

Post by swombat »

Periodic wrote: post #7
patio11 wrote: post #6

I got an advertisement from these folks in my inbox this morning because I pay for Clicky. (Totally worth it, by the way.) Here's the fundamental problem with this advertising venture: everybody in the ecosystem freeloads on the site that makes the "sale". (Convinces a user to pay $X for access to the content on that site "and by the way get access to all these other sites, too!") This makes a lot of sense for, e.g.,…

I think their strongest conversion point would be getting rid of adds. If I realized that a few of the sites I visit almost daily and get linked to me regularly would all magically have no adds if I signed up for a service, I might do it. It's not that I'm paying for a service from a website, I'm paying to get rid of an anti-service: the ads. All that said, I have NoScript, AdBlockPlus, and RemoveItPermanently instal…

I honestly don't see the point of browsing with NoScript in this day and age. Don't you get tired of every website having broken features? Without javascript, for example, you wouldn't even be able to see the comments on my blog. On my businesses' website, we've made an assumption that if you're browsing with NoScript, you're probably one of the 2% of users who's going to scream and shout about Flash too, so we don't consider you part of the market of potential users.

Javascript is essential to the web experience in 2009.

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#23

Post by swombat »

_sgo4 wrote: post #20
derefr wrote: post #18

To pull this off, several great sites will have to launch as Contenture-enablers/providers all at once, or it will go down as a flop (imagine a console launching without games!) This is pretty much as hard as making sure multiple startups launch successfully simultaneously. It would probably help if they had a VC working with them. Either way, I wish them luck.

We've got access to the people who run the 100,000 web sites being monitored by getclicky.com (same team). We shouldn't have a problem there.

Having access doesn't mean they'll all sign up to it. Case in point, I'm a Clicky user (and I love it), but I'm not going to be signing up to this until I see evidence that it's worth the hassle. So there's a typical chicken and egg problem there, basically.

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#24

Post by petercooper »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #17
petercooper wrote: post #3

Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to "fixing" advertising. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) (X) Advertisers will not stand for it (X) The advertising industry will not go aw…

Your main issues seem to be privacy and that advertisers "won't stand for it". The privacy angle makes no sense given the context, as ad networks are already tracking your site visits. Plus, the average user doesn't care. As far as advertisers, what are they going to do? There's already tons of websites that offer the ability to remove ads for users who purchase a premium subscription...this is basically the same thi…

I posted some poor humor about a company. You respond with personal name-calling. That is unfortunate. It's a real shame on you for stooping to a personal attack, but I'll get over it :)

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#25

Post by petercooper »

DTrejo wrote: post #12
petercooper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry this is necessary, but yes, it's a bad attempt at humor based on the "why your anti-spam proposal won't work" meme of many years ago: http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

This is a very bad attempt at humor and is not in the spirit of HN. From what I have seen, we are all about encouraging innovation, new ideas, and discussion. The GP simply discourages them. I make a point not to spend time around the pessimistic downer crowd, and it ticks me off when someone shoots down an idea offhandedly. I sincerely hope HN does not move in this direction.

"Pessimistic downer crowd"? I thought we were above personal attacks here. This is more of a "downer" action than engaging in a little poorly placed humor. I was poking fun at an idea, whereas you're making a bunch of personal judgments which is rather disappointing and unfortunate.

Did you miss my post where I said it was a bad attempt at humor? Shame on you for trying to make me personally feel bad.

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#26

Post by ryanwaggoner »

petercooper wrote: post #24
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your main issues seem to be privacy and that advertisers "won't stand for it". The privacy angle makes no sense given the context, as ad networks are already tracking your site visits. Plus, the average user doesn't care. As far as advertisers, what are they going to do? There's already tons of websites that offer the ability to remove ads for users who purchase a premium subscription...this is basically the same thi…

I posted some poor humor about a company. You respond with personal name-calling. That is unfortunate. It's a real shame on you for stooping to a personal attack, but I'll get over it :)

Glad to hear it.

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#27

Post by ryanwaggoner »

petercooper wrote: post #25
DTrejo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very bad attempt at humor and is not in the spirit of HN. From what I have seen, we are all about encouraging innovation, new ideas, and discussion. The GP simply discourages them. I make a point not to spend time around the pessimistic downer crowd, and it ticks me off when someone shoots down an idea offhandedly. I sincerely hope HN does not move in this direction.

"Pessimistic downer crowd"? I thought we were above personal attacks here. This is more of a "downer" action than engaging in a little poorly placed humor. I was poking fun at an idea, whereas you're making a bunch of personal judgments which is rather disappointing and unfortunate. Did you miss my post where I said it was a bad attempt at humor? Shame on you for trying to make me personally feel bad.

You don't think your callous attempt at a humorous put-down of someone's business concept could make them personally feel bad? I love that because you're railing on someone's idea, it's all fun and games, but if someone calls you on it, you play the victim card. Stop defending yourself for your immature and dismissive comment and just apologize.

Re: Contenture - an anti-ad network?

#28

Post by petercooper »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #27
petercooper wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pessimistic downer crowd"? I thought we were above personal attacks here. This is more of a "downer" action than engaging in a little poorly placed humor. I was poking fun at an idea, whereas you're making a bunch of personal judgments which is rather disappointing and unfortunate. Did you miss my post where I said it was a bad attempt at humor? Shame on you for trying to make me personally feel bad.

You don't think your callous attempt at a humorous put-down of someone's business concept could make them personally feel bad? I love that because you're railing on someone's idea, it's all fun and games, but if someone calls you on it, you play the victim card. Stop defending yourself for your immature and dismissive comment and just apologize.

You are missing the difference between disparaging an idea versus a person. They are totally different situations.

Shame on you for thinking that disparaging people is valid revenge for people who merely poke fun at ideas. Talk about making it personal.

Post reply on HN