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

Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

mattcutts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 472 posts

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#391

Post by manigandham »

a3n wrote: post #385
manigandham wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most adblockers these days get rid of those messages as well. And asking you to unblock is not the same as stopping you completely - the only way to do that is paywalls.

Yes, but the point is, if they have the ability to ask , whether my blocker blocks the ask message or not, then they know I'm using an ad blocker, and they can refuse to serve me content, or redirect me to a subscription/registration page. But they keep on letting me view their content. It's their problem.

I don't think you understand the technicality behind it or didn't read the details above.

Sites can only attempt to ask by basically rendering that message and then replacing with ads. If the ads never load, then you'll see that message. However all these tricks are incredibly easy to get around with adblocker filters and so websites do NOT have a reliable way of knowing whether you are using an adblocker or not.

They can either refuse to serve content to everyone without a login (paywall) or serve it to everyone and hope the ads are there. That's how HTML works, the content is part of it and your adblocker is filtering it after receiving the content. There is no way for sites to refuse adblock users even if they wanted to without a paywall system.

You might look at this and think they still want you to have the content for free but they'd rather not - it's just out of their control unless they implement a different access model altogether.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#393

Post by amalcon »

Google Contributor is a fantastic idea, and it's (almost) exactly the sort of thing I'd want for a content-provider-supporting endgame.

Unfortunately, its a non-starter because it requires browsing while logged into a Google account. I refuse to do that. Not that I believe this will actually prevent Google from tracking me, but because I don't want to make it any easier than it already is.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#394

Post by a3n »

manigandham wrote: post #391
a3n wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the point is, if they have the ability to ask , whether my blocker blocks the ask message or not, then they know I'm using an ad blocker, and they can refuse to serve me content, or redirect me to a subscription/registration page. But they keep on letting me view their content. It's their problem.

I don't think you understand the technicality behind it or didn't read the details above. Sites can only attempt to ask by basically rendering that message and then replacing with ads. If the ads never load, then you'll see that message. However all these tricks are incredibly easy to get around with adblocker filters and so websites do NOT have a reliable way of knowing whether you are using an adblocker or not. The…

> I don't think you understand the technicality behind it

I think you're right.

> Sites can only attempt to ask by basically rendering that message and then replacing with ads. If the ads never load, then you'll see that message.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#395

Post by kbenson »

Nursie wrote: post #290
kbenson wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible? No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content), so I thought casting it in light of a hopefully less nefarious cause might cause you to look at it more objectively. The naivety I reference is specifically in you…

>> No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content) I have said I will be happy to include a header in my http requests that says I will not render ads, and I already am happy to pay for content in other media. I will now explore that on the web. At the moment, however, I request content from web servers and they send it to me. I make…

I do not accept that advertising is manipulative. I accept that many forms of communication, it can be.

> Advertising is manipulative and it's not immoral to block these attempts at manipulation.

My argument has never been that you shouldn't be able to control what's presented to you, just that if it's part of an exchange, if you reject one part, you shouldn't get the other. and I think casting yourself as actually helping the advertiser in this situation is a specious argument.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#396

Post by neprune »

This is a temporary fix. Despite the few conscientious objectors, ad-blockers will be ubiquitous. My best guess:

Big-name websites will show more native adds. Companies will be desperate after losing digital adds, especially with the move to on-demand TV - they'll look to spend more on these.

Other sites will look to survive by direct payment. We'll see more (and possibly higher) paywalls. Donations will become necessary for those who can't get away with paywalls. It will be harder to keep a small operation self-sufficient.

Basically, adds will either still be there (just less obvious) or you'll be paying the difference. This will come at the expense of many small sites.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#398

Post by kbenson »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #286
kbenson wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible? No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content), so I thought casting it in light of a hopefully less nefarious cause might cause you to look at it more objectively. The naivety I reference is specifically in you…

> The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. I think there is nothing to predict here - they have no goal towards 'Nursie, or any other particular viewer. Advertising on-line is done…

How does that affect the argument in any way? They are willing to pay to have this add viewed by a visitor on a site at a particular time, and the site is willing to display it along with the content. Their goal, in the broadest and most general sense is to have the ad displayed. You can't assume they are trying to get you to buy something by clicking on it (it may not even be available yet), you can't assume they are trying to have you buy something later (it could be a brand-awareness campaign where you may not have a need for what they are selling, but you may tell someone who does), you can't assume they are even selling a product or service (they may not be, it could be a social issue awareness ad).

I stand by my assertion that thinking you know exactly what the intention of an ad that was is naive. And that's before considering that you wouldn't even see it in this case, you would just block it and assume blindly.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#399

Post by ariwilson »

SlashmanX wrote: post #121
austenallred wrote: post #46

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common…

> Contributor doesn't work like an ad blocker, which makes ads just "disappear." Instead, you see a big empty block (that is apparently customizable in some way) that says "Thank you for being a contributor. The ad space is still there, it's just blank. So if half of your page used to be covered in ads, now half your page is covered in little blocks that say, "Thank you for being a contributor." The demo images/gifs…

I think depending on how the site has their ad slots configured with their layout, they can disappear or not.

Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads

#400

Post by manigandham »

supercanuck wrote: post #382
manigandham wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Otherwise if there really is no value on that page, what are you doing there? You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting.

I think you are stretching the definition of the word free. Me looking at something is not a form of payment. The payment is coming from the advertiser. The advertiser is paying the content producer, THAT is the business transaction. Whether I choose to view the ad and make those advertisements have value is not my concern. Those ads are the REAL value and worthy of my payment. Otherwise viewing the NYT is like watch…

Your attention (via looking or interacting) is the form of payment. This attention is given to the advertisers who pay the publishers who produce the content.

If you went elsewhere, there's no issue. But when you breakdown the billboard and still see the sunset (assuming the sunset is copyrighted and original content) then you're changing the value exchange unfairly.

Post reply on HN