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

Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 323 posts

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#31

Post by degenerate »

reaperducer wrote: post #14
laurent123456 wrote: post #2

That would make sense. Ads are designed to be visible and clicked on, but on the other hand you can't go too far without annoying the users. It's a fine line to walk so it's not surprising you'd lose some users as a result. The unblockable ads they had on Facebook at some point is what finally pushed me to close my account.

but on the other hand you can't go too far without annoying the users Back in the ancient history before Google and search engines, a web site I built was submitted for inclusion in DMOZ. At the time, all web sites were hand-approved by an editor who also wrote a description of the site. The site was included, but the description noted that it was "covered with too many ads" or something similar. The site had one 468…

Maybe your standards have changed, but that's still too much for me. I don't mind guest posts or (mentioned) sponsored content, however I will always use ublock to remove ads.

It would be different if the typical ad experience were a related, useful product. But it's always unrelated hot garbage - distracting and annoying at any pixel size.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#32

Post by umvi »

I believe it. There are a lot of games that I downloaded from the app store and really liked initially. However, I noticed a pattern. At first, ads seemed to be optional (i.e double your gems by watching an ad!) However, after about 10 minutes of playing, I'd see an ad. No big deal. But then it got more and more aggressive. Pretty soon there was an ad after every single level, (plus the bonus ad if you want to double gems). It got to the point I was spending about 50% of the time actually playing games, 50% of the time watching ads (the levels could be beaten in 30 seconds or so).

At that point I uninstall even though the game is fun. It's not like I can just pay a 1 time fee to get rid of all ads with the type of game I am talking about. I have paid to get rid of ads for a few bucks in the past, but these games will still pester you with in game pop-ups for "diamond memberships" (outrageous recurring subscription fee for nominal and significant bonuses) and "best value" gem packs (also sold at outrageous prices going up to $100 for the biggest pack).

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#33

Post by [deleted] »

umvi wrote: post #32

I believe it. There are a lot of games that I downloaded from the app store and really liked initially. However, I noticed a pattern. At first, ads seemed to be optional (i.e double your gems by watching an ad!) However, after about 10 minutes of playing, I'd see an ad. No big deal. But then it got more and more aggressive. Pretty soon there was an ad after every single level, (plus the bonus ad if you want to double…

[deleted]

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#34

Post by tjpnz »

I was a long time mobile Chrome user (until my recent switch to Firefox which allows me to block ads). My rule then was to move onto another source if I couldn't find one place on the page unimpeded by ads or spammy shite from Taboola et al. News sites are definitely the biggest offender here.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#35

Post by gwern »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #26
gwern wrote: post #7

More detailed discussion of the 4 other datapoints: https://www.gwern.net/Ads#replication (I added McCoy et al 2007 just last night, so now it's 5 total: me, Pandora, Mozilla, LinkedIn, and McCoy et al 2007.)

Some studies you may separately find interesting in connection to this, - https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/gordon_b/files/... - https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/... - https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1941/191...

First & third are already linked. Haven't seen #2 before.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#36

Post by vorticalbox »

tjpnz wrote: post #34

I was a long time mobile Chrome user (until my recent switch to Firefox which allows me to block ads). My rule then was to move onto another source if I couldn't find one place on the page unimpeded by ads or spammy shite from Taboola et al. News sites are definitely the biggest offender here.

You can block ads in chrome too. Ublock is on both ff and chrome or you could install a chromium based browser with native ad blocking like brave or opera.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#37

Post by dbcurtis »

ergothus wrote: post #4
reallydude wrote: post #3

Only if they are done intrusively. Nobody cares about the ads on CrossMe, for example...but Jewels Jungle, the interstitials may aggravate a small number.

I have troubles with the concept of a "non-intrusive" ad - If you don't notice it to any degree, it's not doing its job, and if you DO notice it to any degree, it's intrusive and disruptive (to a matching degree) I think you mean "Nobody cares ENOUGH" rather than "Nobody cares", and that's a big distinction.

You may have a point. Maybe we need to draw a distinction between "non-intrusive" and "non-distracting".

Ads should not move, period. No animated gif's, no video. And for $DIETY's sake, no audio. NONE. No audio. EVER.

Slicing up the reading in the middle. Covering with spashes, etc. I just close the tab.

But a non-distracting static ad? It is easy to ignore if I don't care, but if, in fact, it is something I care about I will see it. Ads that relate to my needs at work or to my hobbies will likely get clicked on. Non-distracting will keep me from closing the website, relevant and timely will get me to click on the ad.

The human mind is funny that way. A non-intrusive, non-distracting ad for, say, carpet, I likely won't even notice. But display a non-intrusive, non-distracting ad of exactly the same size for a piece of shiny, new, ham radio gear... it will get noticed. It might even get me to think about my credit card limit. Basic psycho-perception at work.

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#38

Post by buboard »

Semaphor wrote: post #28
buboard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Adsense policies allow only up to 3 ad units in a page. And after all ads below the fold do not perform that well. I see a lot of ads in long form content/news websites though, which do not receive a lot of pageviews. It's a tradeoff for most

That can't be right, we have Google AdManager deliver to more than 3 slots.

Right, the limitation was lifted in 2016

Re: Gwern's Law: Ads cost you a tenth of your users

#39

Post by slig »

vorticalbox wrote: post #36
tjpnz wrote: post #34

I was a long time mobile Chrome user (until my recent switch to Firefox which allows me to block ads). My rule then was to move onto another source if I couldn't find one place on the page unimpeded by ads or spammy shite from Taboola et al. News sites are definitely the biggest offender here.

You can block ads in chrome too. Ublock is on both ff and chrome or you could install a chromium based browser with native ad blocking like brave or opera.

He meant mobile Chrome, which doesn't have extensions.
Post reply on HN