Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words) • Hacker News Board

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#21

Post by zargon » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:10 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #18

Semiapies wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude , and I will filter them.

But the ads only pay if people click on them. I don't click on ads, EVER. I never have, and have never even been close to. Some people do click them, obviously. Since I'm not clicking them, anyway - me using an ad blocker only saves the advertiser bandwidth money.

I have only clicked an ad once in my life. I was searching Amazon but couldn't find anything suitable. Then I noticed they were showing me an ad from a 3rd-party site for exactly what I was looking for. I clicked it, and bought the product. So at this rate, ads help me out about once every 15 years.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#22

Post by tilly » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:10 PM UTC

foulmouthboy wrote: post #17

Semiapies wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google says they try to avoid serving ads beside tragic emails. So...they put tragic phrases in emails to avoid ads. The threshold for the terms "clever" and "hack" must have dropped.

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's obviously trying to be sensitive in not displaying ads to people who might be in mourning and this "hack" exploits that. It's like hitting on women at a funeral.

"It's like hitting on women at a funeral."

Am I the only person who was reminded of Ryan O'Neil? (For those who don't know, he accidentally hit on his own daughter at his SO's funeral not long ago.)

But back to the point, I agree that exploiting Google's desire to be sensitive is tacky.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#23

Post by paul9290 » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:14 PM UTC

I ignore them, but the links to interesting stories from sites of my interest I click on them frequently.

Ads to a blog post I guess those are what you'd call them?!?

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#24

Post by omouse » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:16 PM UTC

jnorthrop wrote: post #2

The ads help pay for the service. If they are that intrusive choose something else.

I use Thunderbird to check my GMail. Am I freeloader now too?

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#25

Post by Confusion » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:18 PM UTC

foulmouthboy wrote: post #17

Semiapies wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google says they try to avoid serving ads beside tragic emails. So...they put tragic phrases in emails to avoid ads. The threshold for the terms "clever" and "hack" must have dropped.

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's obviously trying to be sensitive in not displaying ads to people who might be in mourning and this "hack" exploits that. It's like hitting on women at a funeral.

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's [..] trying to be sensitive.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#26

Post by req2 » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:18 PM UTC

DarkShikari wrote: post #13

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? I don't think I've clicked an ad since I was first introduced to the internet at around age ~5 (maybe with a few exceptions for accidental misclicks), and I don't intend to click on one in the future either. As a result, I am saving them bandwidth by blocking their ads. Activating an ad-blocking device is equivalent to st…

If the site charges per ad served and you never click, you merely shift the 'ethical burden' of 'stealing from the website' to '"stealing" from the guy who paid for ads'.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#27

Post by warp » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:23 PM UTC

DarkShikari wrote: post #13

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? I don't think I've clicked an ad since I was first introduced to the internet at around age ~5 (maybe with a few exceptions for accidental misclicks), and I don't intend to click on one in the future either. As a result, I am saving them bandwidth by blocking their ads. Activating an ad-blocking device is equivalent to st…

Do you have any stats on that?

I never click on ads, but I know impressions do work on me, lodging brand names into my head and all that.

It seems a bit odd to me if advertisers suddenly start ignoring the value of impressions.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#28

Post by eli » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:45 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #18

Semiapies wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude , and I will filter them.

But the ads only pay if people click on them. I don't click on ads, EVER. I never have, and have never even been close to. Some people do click them, obviously. Since I'm not clicking them, anyway - me using an ad blocker only saves the advertiser bandwidth money.

Lots of ads are per-impression not per-click. Really that's the only sensible way to do a brand-building campaign.

Anyway, I have no problem clicking ads if they're relevant and for something I really want to learn more about. It's just that they rarely are.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#29

Post by cstefanovici » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:46 PM UTC

Embrace the ads people. They pay for all of Google's free services, which these ad-hating people obviously are using. Also, I find that whenever I glance at the GMail ads there's always something interesting or amusing there (more of the latter).

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#30

Post by callahad » Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 9:58 PM UTC

sgoranson wrote: post #6

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

I don't block ads. I just don't patronize sites with intrusive advertising.