261–270 of 398 posts
I find it so weird idea that people really click on ads. I don't know if I've ever done so (intentionally). As such I would have expected more like 90% of clicks to be fraudulent.
We need to get it to 99.99%, and then maybe they will all switch to some honest business model!
Reddit already has an 'honest' business model (awards) and people rage about that all day too. I think mostly people just want the service but dont want to pay for it in any way.
Every newspaper in America has obvious scam ads on its homepage. The whole online ad market is diseased and needs to be uprooted. Common sense fixes: - Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval. - Ban user tracking and targeting. It's a red queen's race and no one benefits. Everyone is better off once it's illegal. - Pay for ad time slot…
>Pay for ad time slots, not user impressions. This is probably the worst thing you can do to online advertising. It's probably one of the only good things about the online ad industry. If you book time slots, only the biggest players will be able to compete for that slot. Essentially killing the entire selling point of online ads, which is giving a chance to smaller players a chance at the game. I don't want to, ever…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every newspaper in America has obvious scam ads on its homepage. It's genuinely baffling, given largely bad-faith "fake news" accusations, that news organizations are willing to light their credibility on fire like this. It feeds the nonsense, and justifiably so.
I'm constantly amazed at the frequency with which articles posted to Hacker News have a bar of clickbait ads immediately following the body of the article. Those rabbit-hole articles where they split eight facts across 12 pages and in some cases never mention the fact they were advertising in the original link. All so they can put six more ads per click in front of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I find it so weird idea that people really click on ads. I don't know if I've ever done so (intentionally)." In the very beginning - say, circa 1995 when I was building my first websites - I would click on almost every banner ad I saw. I wanted to send a signal to advertisers, and to the market in general, that there really were people out there . I was trying to do my part to care for, and feed, the infant industry…
Yup. I remember those sites that would say "please click on the ads and support us!" There was also that one in the early 2000s that claimed to donate a cup of rice for every ad clicked, and maybe another one that planted seeds or something. I think I clicked on those a bunch for a while. Doubt they ever did any good, and I should probably have just donated the $2 I probably "earned" for those charities with my click…
He did end up hiring me for a tiny bit of website work after that, paid like $200. My first ever paid tech gig.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I unblock ads on sites I find useful, use frequently and want to actively support. If the ads aren't obnoxious, they stay unblocked. Sites wouldn't exist without the users, so they should keep in mind user experience when deciding how to monetize.
It's a fundamentally selfish viewpoint that you instead of the site you're using should decide how you consume what the site offers, a point of view that would be considered patently outrageous in many other contexts. Many people here confuse such a thing being possible with such a thing being morally justifiable.
Properly pay wall it. The site does have control that it doesn't want to exercise. Why does it want to have control over your device to display what it wants.
Your content has left your property to land on mine. I can choose what kind of content I let in and not.
I don't have to store your ads and tracking cookies. Private platforms like reddit won't host all the content I send to them why should I be obliged to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I think whenever using someone else's computer.
Blows my mind when I'm watching someone just sit in silence waiting 10 seconds so they can skip an ad on youtube
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t necessarily need to implement bidding on a dedicated slot—-the TV comparison assumes you’re sending the same thing to each user. This isn’t TV though, you can display different ads to different people of you wanted. How about a system where probability of seeing an ad is weighted by how much money an advertiser pays? Then you just normalize across bidders and choose on that curve. Then perhaps the time slot…
The problem with any model where ad performance is based on how much cash you can throw down is that scams are much more profitable typically than legitimate services. A scam page can afford $5/click if it's scamming 1% of its clicks for $5000. Bidding on clicks is just a race to the bottom in terms of quality. We should instead be using user metrics to evaluate and punish ads that lead to pages users regret navigati…
> "Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval."
Does anyone here remember clicking on an add in the last week or month? How about just remembering an add or brand they saw online? I sure don't.
90% of the ads I click on are when I Google a brand name and the top ad result is their page. I try to scroll down and click on the top result to avoid them having to pay but I often forget or move too fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. They have consent, it's called the terms of service.
For eBay and Amazon, I consider that consent to be a malicious term, especially for these websites which are near monopolies. Even though I hit "agree" to their attempt to collect data, I still will instruct my devices to not actually give certain data to them, and instruct my devices to not display ads that are targeted based on cross-business shared data. And of course there are the million other sites you don't ne…
I think that the concept that a ToS is considered by you to be malicious, yet you agree with it anyway in order to receive services is where the problem lies. That seems intentionally deceptive to me. If you disagree with the ToS why still use the site?