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

Pay Google to stop seeing ads

contributor.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#71

Post by rloc »

criddell wrote: post #8

Blocking ads motivates some people but many others are motivated by the desire to not be tracked. When I read a paper magazine, nobody knows what pages I flip through, what ads I read, no profile is being built, etc... Why can't ads on the internet be as dumb? For the past 20 years, I've been hearing how ads will be less annoying once advertisers can target more effectively. I think the exact opposite has happened. L…

There are dumb ads on the internet, look for "The Deck" network. They claim they make decent money without targeting neither tracking users.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#72

Post by riscy »

ariwilson wrote: post #65
riscy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can cover all of the points you made by loading a Bitcoin wallet and having the plugin deduct fractions of a BTC when you visit these web pages, and when the wallet is empty ads are loaded instead. The main loser in this situation is Google, since the site creators get all of the money. Users may have privacy concerns since BTC transactions are on a public record, but you can keep creating new Bitcoin wallets aut…

How much do you pay per visit?

A user's client should respond with an accept/reject response to the price offered by the website. Everything else would be determined freely: Clients can be created with price range configurations as desired (perhaps per website, in a probabilistic way, and/or some cost-concious settings), and website owners can analyze their visitor's accept/reject rates to determine how much to ask for before falling back on ads.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#73

Post by Spooky23 »

jlgaddis wrote: post #54
criddell wrote: post #8

Blocking ads motivates some people but many others are motivated by the desire to not be tracked. When I read a paper magazine, nobody knows what pages I flip through, what ads I read, no profile is being built, etc... Why can't ads on the internet be as dumb? For the past 20 years, I've been hearing how ads will be less annoying once advertisers can target more effectively. I think the exact opposite has happened. L…

I agree completely and your Zappos example is spot on. A few months ago, I was thinking about buying a new truck. I was sitting out on the deck with my iPad and Google'd the name of the local Dodge dealership, found a truck I liked, then Google'd some specs on it. A bit later, the girlfriend and I drove over to the dealership and I ended up driving a new truck home that day. For roughly six weeks afterwards, everywhe…

Just google rare gold coins and visit one of those sites. No more trucks!

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#74

Post by ryandvm »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #61
dangrossman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaign A: Show 10,000 random people ads for espresso grinders. Campaign B: Show 10,000 people who recently looked at espresso grinders some ads for them. 95% of the first group didn't know espresso grinders were a thing people bought. The remainder probably aren't actively shopping for one. In the second group, some portion of the audience has already bought an espresso grinder, or decided they don't want one right…

What about campaign c: show 9,900 people who recently looked at espresso grinders an ad for one, and 100 people who actually bought one an ad for something related that they might need. If you're harvesting that kind of data anyway, at least use it! As a matter of interest, is someone who has previously purchased an espresso grinder more or less likely to buy one than someone who hasn't?

Of course you're correct, but the problem is Campaign C requires a far higher invasion of privacy. Now, not only do you want the advertisers to track the sites you visit - you're also proposing they somehow get information about everything you purchase?! No thanks.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#75

Post by joshmn »

Can't imagine this will last long.

I don't have adblocker/ublock/etc installed because I dislike adsense or adwords. I can ignore them just fine, but every blue moon I'll find something worth clicking.

It's for 99.999999% of the other ads that drive me insane. Or did I completely miss something?

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#76

Post by marak830 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #70
natch wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely true. Fewer, but better quality. With money as a motivator, we have ended up with a lot of keyword-spammy poor quality content.

Why better quality? A whole lot of the sites I spend most time with are ad supported. It's not clear to me why less money == more quality, in your eyes.

I dont know if i agree (im on the fence), but he did mebtiob spammy click bait titles.

There would be a hell of ablot less of those if there were no ad revenue(as ads are loaded when you enter they authors dobt care if you read those spammy articles, just load the damn page).

I would like to velieve this is true, but im not sure it would be(in the case of getting well written articles without ads).

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#77

Post by marak830 »

ariwilson wrote: post #65
riscy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can cover all of the points you made by loading a Bitcoin wallet and having the plugin deduct fractions of a BTC when you visit these web pages, and when the wallet is empty ads are loaded instead. The main loser in this situation is Google, since the site creators get all of the money. Users may have privacy concerns since BTC transactions are on a public record, but you can keep creating new Bitcoin wallets aut…

How much do you pay per visit?

Honest question, how much does an ad cost per 1000 impression(i think thats how its costed?).

I would imagine its that cost.

That is how much their being paid by the advertisers to keep the information open(as opposed via a paywall).

Im not sure how everyone else sees it, but thats my impression.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#78

Post by semi-extrinsic »

ryandvm wrote: post #74
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about campaign c: show 9,900 people who recently looked at espresso grinders an ad for one, and 100 people who actually bought one an ad for something related that they might need. If you're harvesting that kind of data anyway, at least use it! As a matter of interest, is someone who has previously purchased an espresso grinder more or less likely to buy one than someone who hasn't?

Of course you're correct, but the problem is Campaign C requires a far higher invasion of privacy. Now, not only do you want the advertisers to track the sites you visit - you're also proposing they somehow get information about everything you purchase?! No thanks.

It wouldn't be that hard to handle without any further privacy invasion: online shop waits O(12) hours before reporting to AdSense, and if visitor bought the product within that time, reports other, related product instead.

(If the ads in the first 12 hours are important, it makes little sense that they keep advertising for a whole month.)

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#79

Post by criddell »

ecaradec wrote: post #53
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who sell stuff think they'll get a higher conversion rate the more targeted they get.... and that's hard to argue with. Is it really? For me, targeted ads come up for either a) products I have already purchased or b) products I've looked at and then decided not to buy. I got my wife an espresso grinder for Christmas, ordered on Dec. 10, but AdSense is still showing me ads for grinders. There is exactly 0.00%…

Criteo told in an interview that the click rate was 500% better with their tracking.

What's the gross click rate? If I run a site that has ads on it, almost all visitors have to download and execute kilo- or megabytes of javascript. Very few users click on an ad.

When an ad impression leads to a sale of something, that's great for that user and the vendor. But how many megabytes of javascript was downloaded and executed by all the users that saw the ad and didn't buy anything? The burden on the rest of us to support those two parties seems excessive.

Post reply on HN