I've removed all ad network code from my blog • Hacker News Board

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#291

Post by doodpants » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:07 AM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #235

doodpants wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, his sponsored links are ads, and ad blockers block ads. Sure, there is a case to be made that only problematic ads should be blocked, but I don't think it's so cut and dry.

I personally do discriminate between ads and sponsorship but certainly it is not so cut and dry. Would you call all these sponsored sports stadiums ads? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sponsored_sports_stadi...

The sponsorship itself is not an ad, nor is the stadium. But signs posted at the stadiums indicating the sponsorship could be considered ads. Likewise in the case of the website, the text indicating that the site is sponsored, which will take the user to the sponsor's site when clicked, is an ad. Thus, it is not unreasonable that an ad blocker would block it, even if it isn't "intrusive" advertising.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#292

Post by rokhayakebe » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:09 AM UTC

bazillion wrote: post #41

fiatjaf wrote: post #4

Ok, you have a sponsorship model that works because you're probably very famous. That doesn't solve anyone's problem, because almost no one is famous. How can we replace ad networks with something better and saner?

I built what I believe to be the most sane way to "advertise" something: Let people buy directly from an image. This solves the problem of people not interested in the content, because of its unobtrusive nature -- if they don't hover over an item within the image, it's as if the "advertisement" isn't there. Check out my demo (desktop only) at http://www.worldlifestyle.com/testpost My website which you can sign up for…

Buggy but very very very awesome.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#293

Post by jasonkostempski » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:17 AM UTC

thijsc wrote: post #208

sgustard wrote: post #191

This is great, and now let's say I want to productize this "sponsored by X" feature so other sites can use it. I can't assume every site owner wants to deal with figuring out who's the sponsor each week, so we'll automate that with some backend that serves the correct sponsor. We'll want to know how many people see the link and how many click on it, because we (and our sponsors) want to know how well these links work…

You could implement it as an API call. The site could fetch the current "sponsored by X" line and render it directly in the HTML it serves.

But I don't want to point my servers at shady URLs to fetch random content, that's what the users machines are for.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#294

Post by trprog » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:17 AM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #152

coldpie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. The problem with current ad networks is twofold. One is advertisers require metrics, metrics require some form of tracking or JS, and advertisers don't trust the ad networks to give accurate metrics, so they require the ability to embed their own JS. This is where you get the app store redirects and malware. Two, ad networks are scummy as shit and don't do any auditing so long as advertisers are willing to pay.…

I don't think advertisers need all of the tracking crap they seem to think they do, for many decades advertisers have had much less tacking ability and the industry thrived. Even without ad network JavaScript, you get more tracking ability on the web than any other medium, because you can give each ad a unique URL, and once you have a click from that URL , you have the prospect on you own site and can track the resul…

>prospect buys your product/service- success!

I suspect tying payments to actual user actions, in particularly the user buying something, is the best solution. Affiliate marketing essentially. Its easy to verify and very tough to profitably game so the company running the ads can pay their ad network/publishers/marketing staff with confidence.

Ultimately the advertiser doesn't really care how many impressions (or whatever) they get. They care how many people buy their thing or take some specified action.

I suspect the big roadblock is that some ad networks, publishers and marketeers don't particularly want there to be a concrete ungameable metric that requires them to produce ads that actually move product. If you are counting views or clicks it is easier to look like you are succeeding than if you are only counting people who actually get their wallet out.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#295

Post by cripblip » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:46 AM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #4

Ok, you have a sponsorship model that works because you're probably very famous. That doesn't solve anyone's problem, because almost no one is famous. How can we replace ad networks with something better and saner?

I would love the following: Charge up an account with $n Every time I visit a site, have the ability to pay n cents to view (with whitelist /auto bill to max per day) Gated auto reload with alerting

I pay a buck a month to Wikipedia. I have a New York Times subscription but I would rather just pay as I go across the board. There is great content out there (I would pay for Hn using this model) but I don't want a million subscriptions

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#296

Post by nradov » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 1:54 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #245

arjie wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do whatever you find ethical. I'm just here to ensure that people are well informed about the fact that paywall vs. ads is actually paywall with no search engine access vs. paywall which people won't pay for vs. ads. I'm all right with the paywall idea succeeding or failing in a well informed marketplace of ideas.

I've got a subscription to LWN, I don't think they really care about being indexed by search engines. The ability to send interesting articles to non-subscribers with a special link is pretty nice but I understand that it probably wouldn't work as a model for large websites.

It works for WSJ.com, which is a large website.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#297

Post by nradov » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:03 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #35

lazyjones wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can we replace ad networks with something better and saner? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr Not enough traction? Someone has to start using it, people will adapt...

Patreon seems to be a better model, to be honest. It's about nine million dollars a month in total pledge, which meant over one hundred million in revenue per year if it never grows beyond that.

I doubt that would really count as "revenue" under GAAP.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#298

Post by grzm » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:04 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #297

kiba wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patreon seems to be a better model, to be honest. It's about nine million dollars a month in total pledge, which meant over one hundred million in revenue per year if it never grows beyond that.

I doubt that would really count as "revenue" under GAAP.

Would you elaborate?

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#299

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

arjie wrote: post #196

cr0sh wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda agree with you; I run a personal website, it isn't very popular (and I don't update it often - hmm, maybe there's a link there!) - but it is my website, and I've kept the domain active since 1998 or thereabouts. ie - a "labor of love" How do I pay for it? Well, I reach around to my back pocket for my wallet, and... I don't have ads, I don't have a sponsorship, and I don't care - what I have and what I put on…

> ...if you really love what you're doing, you'd give it away free. This doesn't make sense. It follows logically that we should all not love what we do for a living. That strikes me as an absurd conclusion.

Yeah, I think it's the incorrect conclusion too. If you really loved what you're doing, you'd try to find a way to monetize it so you could reclaim 1/3 of your earth-time from the drudgery of wage slavery and have much more freedom and opportunity to engage in the things you love.

Of course that's difficult and not always possible, but it doesn't mean one wouldn't, shouldn't, or couldn't try.

Re: I've removed all ad network code from my blog

#300

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 2:09 AM UTC

munificent wrote: post #223

vintageseltzer wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask: if one is not "famous" (i.e. popular), why should one expect their site to be profitable from ads alone? If my limited edition, 250-prints-per-month 'zine isn't making money, is that the advertising industry's fault, or is there an issue with my expectations? People ask the "how do we fix dwindling ad-based revenue" question all the time. The answer is clear, it's just not what people want to hear: metered…

> The answer is clear, it's just not what people want to hear: metered paywalls or a subscription model (or, you know, selling an actual product / service). That basically says the art only worth caring about is art produced by artists who produce a large, consistent volume of work. Any one who produces small things, or infrequent things, falls under the threshold where the perceived effort to set up a subscription o…

The issue is that it's too difficult for readers to have a subscription to everything. Someone needs to come in and make a voluntary content network. Add the extension to your browser and it tracks which sites you spend your time on. Content providers get a payout at the end of the month reflecting the value that readers/subscribers derived that month. If someone without a subscription accesses the page, it will be a) monetized by ads or b) available under a limited free readership ceiling, like WSJ/NYT do (content providers could potentially be incentivized with a larger portion of proceeds to choose this option).

I know there are a couple of people working on something similar to this on HN, because I've mentioned something like it a few times and they've replied saying they're working on it. ;) There was one in particular that I was following, but I remember when they launched there was a fatal flaw in their model (maybe it was bitcoin only? I don't remember). I don't recall the name now.