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

Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

translate.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 242 posts

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#211

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

gaadd33 wrote: post #184
ronaldx wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. I've heard this argument countless times but I'm fed up with it and I want to call it out: the constant and worldwide glut of Coca-Cola advertising suggests this is not primarily what advertising is about. Advertising never tells me about a new product that I care about and I'm not already aware of:…

Coca-Cola advertising isn't product advertising, its brand advertising. The intent is to keep their brand in your mind when you are shopping so when deciding between two essentially equivalent products you will lean towards the one you remember better. This sort of advertising tends not to have a strictly measured ROI in my experience since its hard to measure the "value" of wrapping a subway car in Jameson ads. Prod…

Well, in their defence, Facebook appear to have made an attempt to measure brand advertising: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/03/...

Its an interesting approach, but that might just be because I'm a data nerd.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#212

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

takluyver wrote: post #69
jpdoctor wrote: post #6

Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus: FOR CHROME: Go to "Settings" Find Extensions in the list on the left Find AdBlock, select "Options" Click the tab "Filter Lists" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" FOR FIREFOX: Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner Select "Add-ons" Select "Extensions" Find Adblock Plus, select Options. Find the "Filter Preferences" Button…

On the other hand, I'm really pleased to find that they're whitelisting some ads by default, although I'm disappointed that money factors into it. I use ad blockers, because so much of the web is a hideous mess without them. But I'm somewhat conflicted about it, because I know that a lot of sites depend on ad revenue. I see this as a kind of collective agreement with advertisers: I don't mind adverts, but I don't wan…

Can advertisers tell whether their ad has been blocked via Adblock, et al? Because, if not, you really shouldn't worry about using a blocker.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#213

Post by papaf »

drummer32 wrote: post #186
kefs wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those curious, AdBlock Edge is a fork of ABP before they decided to add 'Acceptable Ads'.

And what is the point if you can just disable acceptable ads in Adblock plus? Doesn't it use the same list?

No, its a different list - I just looked.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#214

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

znowi wrote: post #13

I think it was immoral and dishonest to sneak in a whitelist feature into AdBlock, which is in direct opposition to the core product value. Imagine a firewall that whitelists certain networks. And background updates add more networks that bought their way into your machine. Not a product I'd be willing to use.

"Imagine a firewall that whitelists certain networks." er, you mean like a firewall? or is there some amazing new type of firewall that blocks ALL traffic, that I'm missing out on?

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#215

Post by perlpimp »

takluyver wrote: post #69
jpdoctor wrote: post #6

Quick ref to get rid of Google Ads (and some others too) on Adblock Plus: FOR CHROME: Go to "Settings" Find Extensions in the list on the left Find AdBlock, select "Options" Click the tab "Filter Lists" Uncheck: "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" FOR FIREFOX: Go to the Firefox menu in the upper left corner Select "Add-ons" Select "Extensions" Find Adblock Plus, select Options. Find the "Filter Preferences" Button…

On the other hand, I'm really pleased to find that they're whitelisting some ads by default, although I'm disappointed that money factors into it. I use ad blockers, because so much of the web is a hideous mess without them. But I'm somewhat conflicted about it, because I know that a lot of sites depend on ad revenue. I see this as a kind of collective agreement with advertisers: I don't mind adverts, but I don't wan…

Very true. Imagine every commercial entity that delivered something to your place - would plaster some sort of advertisement poster.

Completely unacceptable. I think the answer is a permission based advertising. have a button on every website that turns on Ads. this way engagement would be higher at least IMO.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#217

Post by nileshtrivedi »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #145
md224 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that people are upset about Google being able to pay to get their content around certain barriers, when this is essentially what Google AdWords is: a system for advertisers to pay to get their content displayed in prominent locations rather than relying on position in organic search. And yet nobody really takes it seriously as a Real Problem. Not trivializing your complaint, btw... just pointing out…

I don't want to live in an ad-free, review-only world myself. Advertising and reviews serve two different purposes. The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. A review's purpose is to let others know if the product or service lives up to the advertising and lets you gauge how good a fit a given product is in relation to competitors or on its o…

> (Advertising) gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it.

The problem is that it does this by interrupting users when they were doing something else. Ads, except those that are shown when the user is explicitly performing a search, are not "relevant" enough - because they ignore the user's context. When I'm reading guitar tabs for a song, I do NOT want to see ads for guitars. Interruptive ads can never be relevant enough.

From my point of view, search and social recommendations are enough to hear about new products and services which might be useful to me. "Interruptive advertising is beneficial for the user" is just advertisers trying to give an ethical justification to the fact that they are basically being jerks.

The second part ("lets the creator point out why their audience would like it") is easily solved by maintaining a landing page. Be accessible when I search and have enough information for me to learn more about the product.

(I had written about this on my blog a few years back: http://www.nileshtrivedi.com/search-results-are-the-only-rel... )

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#218

Post by nileshtrivedi »

ronaldx wrote: post #168
bpatrianakos wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to live in an ad-free, review-only world myself. Advertising and reviews serve two different purposes. The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. A review's purpose is to let others know if the product or service lives up to the advertising and lets you gauge how good a fit a given product is in relation to competitors or on its o…

>The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. I've heard this argument countless times but I'm fed up with it and I want to call it out: the constant and worldwide glut of Coca-Cola advertising suggests this is not primarily what advertising is about. Advertising never tells me about a new product that I care about and I'm not already aware of:…

This.

> Advertising never tells me about a new product that I care about and I'm not already aware of.

Even if it does that, it does so by interrupting me when I'm doing something else - which is not acceptable to me. Considering that we have search and social recommendations, advertising is not "beneficial for the user".

A very nice consequence of rejecting interruptive ads is that marketers won't need to collect data about me and build huge behavioral profiles. I'll come to you when I need you. And when I knock on your door, you would be certain that I am interested in talking to you. So there is no need to track/profile me.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#219

Post by mfjordvald »

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #217
bpatrianakos wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to live in an ad-free, review-only world myself. Advertising and reviews serve two different purposes. The one gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. A review's purpose is to let others know if the product or service lives up to the advertising and lets you gauge how good a fit a given product is in relation to competitors or on its o…

> (Advertising) gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. The problem is that it does this by interrupting users when they were doing something else. Ads, except those that are shown when the user is explicitly performing a search, are not "relevant" enough - because they ignore the user's context. When I'm reading guitar tabs for a song, I do NOT wa…

Is it really fair to complain about ads not being relevant enough when we're all doing so much to not allow them to track us?

Relevant ads or privacy, choose one.

Re: Google paid AdBlock Plus to get its ads whitelisted

#220

Post by nileshtrivedi »

mfjordvald wrote: post #219
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Advertising) gets the word out about a product or service and lets the creator point out why their audience would like it. The problem is that it does this by interrupting users when they were doing something else. Ads, except those that are shown when the user is explicitly performing a search, are not "relevant" enough - because they ignore the user's context. When I'm reading guitar tabs for a song, I do NOT wa…

Is it really fair to complain about ads not being relevant enough when we're all doing so much to not allow them to track us? Relevant ads or privacy, choose one.

I am saying that ads can never be relevant or useful "enough" (because they interrupt). Product discovery is now solved because of search and social recommendations. So there is no need to give up on privacy.
Post reply on HN