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

“35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 398 posts

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#341

Post by effingwewt »

goostavos wrote: post #260
effingwewt wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are going to attack people for not liking ads maybe throw out a disclaimer about how you make your living?

Wow, this is a weird thread. Who is this guy and why is everyone so mad at him about making his living in ad tech..? Him being in ads doesn't change the validity of the points he's making. Websites have to make money somehow. If you don't pay for a subscription, and don't allow the ads to run, why should you still feel entitled to consume their content? To be super clear: I'm in the ad-blocker camp, but I don't think…

I have no problem with how he makes his living but when i wrote that he hadn't said a peep about it and it colors his arguments quite differently.

Now him making money from ads also doesn't give him the right to call someone a selfish asshole for not displaying them.

If a website wantsto block me for using an ad blocker that's fine by me, I leave the website no harm no foul.

But to act as if it's theft to view a page with adblocker on is just asinine, and he also did just that.

As others have said it's not just the ads, its the invasive tracking, resource hogging, auto playing videos et al. Ads have had their chance and pissed enough of us off that we said enough is enough.

We did not agree to be served an ad you jjst present it to us upon landing on your site. Ask away so we can deny but let's not for one second pretend any of us owe you our attention or our cpu just because we clicked some random link.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#342

Post by effingwewt »

jamiequint wrote: post #200
effingwewt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jamiquint's living depends on ads, why am I not surprised. I am surprised he was so venomous when he had the obvious pointed out to him.

I haven't worked on ads for 2 years, but nice try. Do you have a substantive argument instead of an ad hominem?

That's especially beautiful after having seen your replies to this thread. See my other replies on here too if you'd like i know better than to argue with you about ads, it wont get anywhere as evidenced by this thread.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#343

Post by samatman »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #338
samatman wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisers shouldn't know what I like, they should only know that a certain device with a certain ID likes X,Y topics. This is well-meaning but unfortunately it's also naive. That kind of information, in aggregate, is trivial to de-anonymize at scale. I'd like to see secondary markets for PID banned outright, personally. If you want that, go on the dark web and risk criminal sanctions. I'm sure there are some posi…

>I'd like to see secondary markets for PID banned outright, personally. I totally agree with this, but I think it'd be terribly hard to implement in practice. How would you eliminate the rise of a single large body that partners with everyone during data consent forms? Sort of like a VISA for personal data. The result is the same, or arguably worse, but wouldn't be banned under your scheme.

Regulatory capture, which is the broad umbrella I'd put that under, is a problem with any attempt at regulation, I agree.

We can imagine a better regime, which could say "if you attempt to cheat or skirt around on this, we're going to hammer you harder than if you just break the rules", but how to actually get it is pretty murky. Easy to aim for that, and land in a situation where shadowy individuals wield great and capricious power.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#345

Post by earthboundkid »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #309
michaelt wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to that is right at the start of this thread: > "Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval."

That does not prevent scams

Traditionally, publishers didn’t mind publishing ads for scams like sea monkeys or x-ray specs, but they found it embarrassing and put them in the back of the book in small print. The bizarre part of the internet is that the scams go on the homepages of sites.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#346

Post by earthboundkid »

Liquix wrote: post #71
lorthemar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> I don't want to, ever, see online ads transform into TV ads. Targeting would be okay if it was done properly. What's so awful about TV ads? I'd be fine with seeing more "mainstream" ads if the tradeoff was no targeting/tracking.

Everyone sits around and talks about their favorite TV ads. It’s the “best part of the Super Bowl” according to common wisdom.

No one has ever had a favorite internet banner ad.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#347

Post by 0_gravitas »

the8bit wrote: post #235
proverbialbunny wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't work the way you think it does. Ads are paid for my the click. Some people never click on ads. The kinds of people who are likely to consider running an ad blocker are the same type who never click on ads regardless if they have ads or not. The ideal situation is never advertising ad blockers, never bragging about them, never making a big deal about them, and keeping some mild barrier of entry. This way th…

Ads are not just charged by click. Some campaigns pay by impression served and some pay by conversion. It depends on what the advertiser is trying to accomplish. Pepsi might pay per impression because their goal is brand awareness. Local Pizza joint might pay per click b/c they want to drive business off the web. AFKArena wants to pay by conversion because their ultimate goal is to get app installs. Ads of all of the…

Technically, if the user with adblocker doesn't even count as an impression, and the campaign pays per conversion, then the overall click-through-rate of the ad goes up, which means higher RPMs!

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#348

Post by earthboundkid »

nickff wrote: post #129
noncoml wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aunt Mae's cookie shop will never be able to compete with Pepsi for airtime It still can’t compete with CPM Getting 100 or 1000 impressions vs millions of impression is not really competing for air time.

If there's no user information/tracking, what are the chances that any of those ads will be served to a potential customer for the small business? The GP's bottom line is that nobody except large consumer brands should bother advertising.

This is a theoretical interesting point. But it does not withstand even cursory empirical research.

Open a newspaper. Look at page two. What do you see? Ads for local businesses. Watch local TV. More ads for small businesses.

Okay, now go to the websites for those newspapers and TV stations. No local businesses. Literally all scam ads.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#349

Post by earthboundkid »

dragontamer wrote: post #213
dylan604 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would actually consider those towering skyscrapers to be the slums, and the smaller sites to be potential hidden gems.

That's a lovely theory, but the money is in Youtube and its pretty obvious. Nearly all the major tech reporting sites have died: TechReport, Hardware Canucks, Linux Journal, etc. etc. When you look at who can actually sustain a modern tech reporting site, its the Youtubers: Linus Tech Tips, Gamers Nexus, etc. etc. Even then: when the tech reporting sites were around, they were mostly on Google Adsense. The others are…

Why advertise on TechReport when you can just profile users and show them tech ads wherever they go? Tracking is poison for niche publishers.

Re: “35-50% of clicks on Reddit Ads are fraudulent”

#350

Post by earthboundkid »

wtracy wrote: post #48
earthboundkid wrote: post #8

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…

> Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval. Partially agree. Publishers should definitely be able to blacklist advertisers. However, networks like Google get thousands of ads that run for only a handful of impressions. Asking publishers to manually approve every single ad that might run is onerous. I would like to see approval required…

Memes are just comic books and comic books have had ads forever. There’s no reason you couldn’t put ads against a meme site.
Post reply on HN