261–269 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't you multiply by your specific click through rate? For many people, this is 0.
Indeed. I'm almost 30 and I don't think I've ever clicked on an ad in my life. Cost per impression seems more relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't you multiply by your specific click through rate? For many people, this is 0.
This is certainly relevant to the ad-blocker debates. Counting up "lost revenue" at all-user clickthrough rates is a fairly dirty trick when people running adblockers almost certainly have exceptionally low clickthrough rates. (It's a lot like the creative accounting around media piracy, actually. Assuming that 100% of people who pay $0 for a torrented movie would have paid $10 instead is absolutely deranged.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> People want to maintain their privacy > I will start believing this when people start acting like it rather than just saying it. I would be surprised if the group of people who care enough about their privacy to do anything about it is above 1% of internet users in the US. That's like saying, "I will start believing people don't want viruses when they stop opening attachments, start carefully examining every URL b…
Thank you for saying this. I sometimes feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people bring up arguments about how users don't care about privacy, yet when polled, polls tend to show that they care very much about it but are just helpless to do anything about it. [1] [1] http://boingboing.net/2015/06/08/internet-users-care-about-t...
The study you linked to asked people "whether they would take discounts in exchange for allowing their supermarket to collect information about their grocery purchases" and found 43% of people said yes, but I believe that the conclusion you would draw if you asked people "would they pay more to stop their supermarket from collecting information about their grocery purchases", you would get different data.
In the same way that people dislike price discrimination more when it is framed as raising prices on some people rather than giving some people discounts.
And I'm sure this behavior will change further when you actually ask people for money and not just whether they would hypothetically pay money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's dismissing all the genuinely insightful articles that I discover through my subscription [1] to HN. [1] Read: Addiction. :)
Perhaps read a book. Just visit your local real or virtual library. My point is not that articles on the internet are useless. But there is a certain tunnel vision in these discussions where we forget there are other _even better_ ways to spend our time. Whether you want education or entertainment, paying $x/month to Google is not the right way to achieve it. Go paintballing instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it has to come from the ad networks, because the infrastructure to make this work is already there - hopefully the ultimate form of this wouldn't require site admins to really do anything special, other than twiddling a few settings in their Google advertising accounts. The real trouble being the more people who use that kind of thing, the more the value of adverts goes down...
I'm not seeing an issue. How is it worse than ad blockers?
I already have an ad removal pass, it's called uBlock origin.
Haha, precisely. On HN, a common idea is that if companies offered ad-free versions for a price, people would pay. But why would you? You can get the ad-free versions for free.
I even pay for three different e-mail services and cloud storage.
If a site doesn't offer an ad-free experience? I block their ads.
This comes just after the BAT ICO? Interesting
Do you really think that Google cares about somebody's niche blockchain tech? Google Contributor is older than the whole ICO fad and has just been overhauled.
I think BAT makes more sense than Google's response to waning ad bucks. None of it has got off the ground so age doesn't mean too much to me.