5 ms·

Seeing how a lot of browser/flash/java drivebys seem to come from ads, I also consider them good security practice these days. See for example the recent firefo

by lawl 11y ago

Seeing how a lot of browser/flash/java drivebys seem to come from ads, I also consider them good security practice these days. See for example the recent firefox exploit. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox-exploit-found-in-the-wild/ https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox-exploit... We need a better system than ads.

aikah 11y ago
> We need a better system than ads. We already have that, it's called a link with text or an image file with no scripting or plugin. But since there are 3 parties involved who don't trust each others (content providers,ad networks,advertisers) , it's not going to happen.
- bobajeff 11y ago
  I've been thinking lately that websites should just do static ads. No ad networks, scripts, cookies, etc. Just the content of the ad (video, audio, text, images). Not only will they be harder to block and lead to a better experience for users they could possibly negotiate for higher rates since there would be no middle man.
  - debacle 11y ago
    That would lead to lower rates because you can't prove your impressions. No honor among thieves.
    - VLM 11y ago
      Flip it and host all your content on the ad servers? Or at least some important parts, such that blocking them would make the site unusable? Of course someone could startup a sniffer built to do nothing but prove impressions.
      - debacle 11y ago
        I've worked with a few companies that have used log files as proof of impressions to get around ad blockers. Every few months I would have to do wrong and disgusting things to the log files until the numbers looked like what they wanted to show customers. They don't trust each other to be honest.
  - eli 11y ago
    Without ad networks, pretty much only large and well-capitalized sites would be able to sell any ads at all.
    - bobajeff 11y ago
      If there is valuable enough ad space it wouldn't matter how large or well funded you are. The size of the site's audience is a factor but not the only one. Still, some sites won't have a valuable enough space for ads. That's okay not every site should be able to get deals with ad companies. A good business shouldn't look like a get rich quick schema.
      - eli 11y ago
        I disagree. To realistically sell ads directly to advertisers (or agencies) you have to be big enough to support a dedicated ad sales staff. And even if you have exceptionally valuable ad space, you have to be garnering enough impressions to make talking to you worth the advertiser's time. It would be impossible for many of the ad-supported websites and blogs I enjoy to earn dollar one from this approach.
        bobajeff 11y ago
        That's clearly not true since in another comment here someone said they already do this and I doubt they're using a dedicated sales staff since they've mentioned dedicating time to it. Regardless, it could soon be impossible to earn money with the other approach.
  - stevesearer 11y ago
    Selling ads directly is the best when you've got the time and energy to do it. That's what I do on my site and it does produce higher returns. We also got rid of Adsense a few months ago as the ads were generally of lower quality and didn't match the market of our publication all of the time (retargeting, etc). We also use only images for ads, as we try to have them be of magazine quality. I'm sure some people visiting the site use Adblock etc but most advertisers are happy with the traffic they receive that losing a few views doesn't seem to bother them.
VLM 11y ago
> We need a better system than ads. Complimentary editorial copy, corporate press releases masquerading as news stories, paid product placement, paid endorsements as part of the content ... Eh I'd rather stick with the existing "block known ad hosts and any graphic of X by Y pixel dimensions", easier to block.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  It's ok! We have all that stuff too! Seriously, the tech press went full-on "editorial wall? pfeh, so 20th century" fifteen years ago, and the rest of the press has followed. You're describing the present.

by lawl 11y ago

aikah 11y ago

> We need a better system than ads. We already have that, it's called a link with text or an image file with no scripting or plugin. But since there are 3 parties involved who don't trust each others (content providers,ad networks,advertisers) , it's not going to happen.

bobajeff 11y ago
I've been thinking lately that websites should just do static ads. No ad networks, scripts, cookies, etc. Just the content of the ad (video, audio, text, images). Not only will they be harder to block and lead to a better experience for users they could possibly negotiate for higher rates since there would be no middle man.
- debacle 11y ago
  That would lead to lower rates because you can't prove your impressions. No honor among thieves.
  - VLM 11y ago
    Flip it and host all your content on the ad servers? Or at least some important parts, such that blocking them would make the site unusable? Of course someone could startup a sniffer built to do nothing but prove impressions.
    - debacle 11y ago
      I've worked with a few companies that have used log files as proof of impressions to get around ad blockers. Every few months I would have to do wrong and disgusting things to the log files until the numbers looked like what they wanted to show customers. They don't trust each other to be honest.
- eli 11y ago
  Without ad networks, pretty much only large and well-capitalized sites would be able to sell any ads at all.
  - bobajeff 11y ago
    If there is valuable enough ad space it wouldn't matter how large or well funded you are. The size of the site's audience is a factor but not the only one. Still, some sites won't have a valuable enough space for ads. That's okay not every site should be able to get deals with ad companies. A good business shouldn't look like a get rich quick schema.
    - eli 11y ago
      I disagree. To realistically sell ads directly to advertisers (or agencies) you have to be big enough to support a dedicated ad sales staff. And even if you have exceptionally valuable ad space, you have to be garnering enough impressions to make talking to you worth the advertiser's time. It would be impossible for many of the ad-supported websites and blogs I enjoy to earn dollar one from this approach.
      - bobajeff 11y ago
        That's clearly not true since in another comment here someone said they already do this and I doubt they're using a dedicated sales staff since they've mentioned dedicating time to it. Regardless, it could soon be impossible to earn money with the other approach.
- stevesearer 11y ago
  Selling ads directly is the best when you've got the time and energy to do it. That's what I do on my site and it does produce higher returns. We also got rid of Adsense a few months ago as the ads were generally of lower quality and didn't match the market of our publication all of the time (retargeting, etc). We also use only images for ads, as we try to have them be of magazine quality. I'm sure some people visiting the site use Adblock etc but most advertisers are happy with the traffic they receive that losing a few views doesn't seem to bother them.

VLM 11y ago

> We need a better system than ads. Complimentary editorial copy, corporate press releases masquerading as news stories, paid product placement, paid endorsements as part of the content ... Eh I'd rather stick with the existing "block known ad hosts and any graphic of X by Y pixel dimensions", easier to block.

davidgerard 11y ago
It's ok! We have all that stuff too! Seriously, the tech press went full-on "editorial wall? pfeh, so 20th century" fifteen years ago, and the rest of the press has followed. You're describing the present.