6 ms·

> Google has cleverly tricked us into keeping that industry aloft, essentially paying to keep something we hate alive. We hate content creators?

elorant 11y ago
We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) . We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? I'd gladly go for it. Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling we kill ad blocking. Simple as that.
- austenallred 11y ago
  It sounds like when you're saying "we" you really mean "I."
  - Reedx 11y ago
    Bingo. Most people don't even realize they are being tracked via ads. And if they did, they wouldn't care. Look at how many know about the NSA yet don't really care, and ad tracking is small potatoes compared to that.
  - elorant 11y ago
    Sure dude, I didn't proclaim my self public speaker of the HN community. It's just a way of saying. Jesus, some people in here are ready to dig up the hatchet first chance they get. Chill man, love and peace.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      I mean, I think I'm pretty chill? I didn't mean to offend you if that's what happened, I was just pointing out that the distinction may be important in the context of this conversation. If someone is proposing a solution for or discussing a problem that affects the entire Internet, it's important to realize that there are several parties who think differently, and in fact only a very small minority feel the same way you or me or the majority of HN does about things.
      - elorant 11y ago
        Well imho the context of this conversation and probably of every other conversation in HN is between technology savvy people. I think this is pretty clear, or isn’t? We talk about ourselves, not about the average user, unless otherwise stated. So in this context, with “we” I speak for those of us who understand the risks of profiling and for that reason choose to block ads. I'm not proposing a solution, hell I wouldn't even consider that I know better than Google what should be done. I'm just stating a problem. Profiling is annoying. And as a user I don't think it works that well. When I visit a site for science fiction I'd prefer watching relative ads, not an ad about a pair of shoes I searched a week ago. We certainly are a minority but an influencing one.
- abootstrapper 11y ago
  Tracking is weird. One hand it's gross and I don't like it. I think because who knows who is looking at what you're looking at. On the other hand, as a consumer I actually find the ads more valuable, and I sometimes buy items advertised to me. And as a content creator, they generate much more revenue.
  - toast0 11y ago
    I think there's a line that's often crossed. If there's no (or light) personalization, the ad shown will be relevant to the content it's next to, and maybe not relevant to me. If there's too much personalization, the ad shown will be relevant to me (or my browsing history), but not really relevant to the content it's next to. I would be less creeped out by personalization if the ads fit on the page; so when I view a news article about the Pope's visit, probably don't show me retargeting ads for a service provider whose API docs I was looking at yesterday; but if it's a technology site, then go ahead. Also take a lesson from Target; just because you can figure out I'm pregnant, don't make it obvious you know, put some deliberately mistargeted things in there too, so it looks more random.
  - sqrt17 11y ago
    Google ads used to be valuable because they were based on the content of the site you were currently watching. Doubleclick (later bought by Google) and others already did the tracking thing and didn't get mileage out of it. Retargeting (i.e. following you around with ads for something that you may buy with a more than 3% chance because you actually searched for it) is the opposite of that, purely tracking-based and mostly annoying.
- magicalist 11y ago
  > We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) So why on earth are you going to those sites? > We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? That's literally what this is.
  - elorant 11y ago
    So why on earth are you going to those sites? I'm not. But 95% of web sites out there are replicating content one way or the other. That's literally what this is. No it's not. That's a different model and I have no objections against it. This is a model where Google decides to give money to sites, and that is any site that's running AdSense not just the ones with original content. My argument is about why some of us like to use ad blocking mechanisms.
    - jsnell 11y ago
      No, it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them. Since you claim not to visit the sites that are "shitty content creators", you're not going to be supporting them in any way. So what exactly is your real objection? Contributor might not be the answer. But if nothing else, this is a great "put your money where your mouth is" experiment. Suddenly all the talk from adblock users about how they'd just love to micropay for content directly has been replaced with all manner of excuses.
      - xorcist 11y ago
        There are literally thousands of ways to trick users to visit a site, from clickbaiting to rickrolling. Suddenly these methods pay out some real money. What do you think the possible consequences of this are? Will that be a net positive or a net negative for content quality on the web?
      - elorant 11y ago
        My real objection is profiling. I've mentioned it in a half dozen comments in this thread. Why is it so hard to understand? And why on earth are you so aggressive? And by the way, we're paying for content. It's called books, magazines, newspapers, kindle shorts, you name it. Half of the original content out there comes from established news agencies, and most of them don't even run AdSense. And please, spare me with this false dilemma, we're either bombarded with ads or the web will cease to exist. I've been hearing that for more than a decade. Advertising evolves. Even if 80% of users adopted ad blocking technologies advertising would find a venue to reach users. It's doing that for decades.
- cheald 11y ago
  > Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling we kill ad blocking. Simple as that. As a nerdy guy, I'd much rather see video game ads than tampon ads. I get the ideological argument against targeted advertising, but the practical arguments for it are pretty compelling, too.
  - eli173 11y ago
    You don't need to be tracked for this to happen though. If ad networks placed video game-related ads on video game-related websites and tampon-related ads on tampon-related websites, then users of both sites would get ad content relevant to their interests.
    - cheald 11y ago
      Consider contexts like news websites, though, with broadly-applicable audiences. Specialty or niche sites do just fine with site-derived advertising targets. Other things do much less well. There's also the fact that targeted ads result in better CPMs for publishers (since they'll result in better returns-per-view for advertisers), which means that they don't have to deploy as many of them to meet revenue expectations.
- eachro 11y ago
  I don't know who this "we" is. But certainly a significant portion of the young adult demographic loves Buzzfeed and their like.
  - LeoNatan25 11y ago
    I'll join elorant. There, there's a "we". But I'd go a step further than "BuzzFeed". Any of the "[something] via [somesite]" web sites are in the offending category. They literally make money from the content of others by (sometimes) rewording the original title and giving it a slightly more clickbait title so that their 'via' "articles" look more inviting. Often, this is a chain of evil. I do not want to support that chain, even if it is just for the one visit. I would like to support the original writer, but none of the reworders. Now, the sad part is, there is only a very small list of real content creators.
  - elorant 11y ago
    Well good for them. I'm not starting a crusade against Buzzfeed and similar sites. But when I can I advise people to block ads to avoid been tracked.
- ars 11y ago
  > We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) So because there are bad content creators, that means the good ones should not get paid? I'm not quite following your logic.
bandicity 11y ago
If I want content from content creators, I pay for it. Ads is the old print way of getting paid. Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. Why are you so focused on ads when it 1. Doesn't make sense if users can just block it and 2. There are better options for me to pay content creators? If you aren't interested in my 'preference' you lose out. The customer is just trying to have a normal relationship here... Abusive forced ads are not normal... IMHO.
- cheald 11y ago
  > Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. You realize that this has been tried and widely deemed a failure, right? Paywalls are a problem because they actively drive your audience away to next-best alternatives.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Ads is the old print way of getting paid. > Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. Actually, subscriptions + trial periods was also a print way of getting paid. For much the same reasons as it doesn't work for most mass content on the web, it didn't work well as the primary source of income for mass print publications (though there were publications for which it replaced ads, for the most part, it just served to provide a paid circulation number which demonstrated to advertisers the size of the audience that was dedicated enough to a publication that they were willing to pay something for it, so it was a proxy measure for effective ad reach.)

elorant 11y ago

We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) . We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? I'd gladly go for it. Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling we kill ad blocking. Simple as that.

austenallred 11y ago
It sounds like when you're saying "we" you really mean "I."
- Reedx 11y ago
  Bingo. Most people don't even realize they are being tracked via ads. And if they did, they wouldn't care. Look at how many know about the NSA yet don't really care, and ad tracking is small potatoes compared to that.
- elorant 11y ago
  Sure dude, I didn't proclaim my self public speaker of the HN community. It's just a way of saying. Jesus, some people in here are ready to dig up the hatchet first chance they get. Chill man, love and peace.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    I mean, I think I'm pretty chill? I didn't mean to offend you if that's what happened, I was just pointing out that the distinction may be important in the context of this conversation. If someone is proposing a solution for or discussing a problem that affects the entire Internet, it's important to realize that there are several parties who think differently, and in fact only a very small minority feel the same way you or me or the majority of HN does about things.
    - elorant 11y ago
      Well imho the context of this conversation and probably of every other conversation in HN is between technology savvy people. I think this is pretty clear, or isn’t? We talk about ourselves, not about the average user, unless otherwise stated. So in this context, with “we” I speak for those of us who understand the risks of profiling and for that reason choose to block ads. I'm not proposing a solution, hell I wouldn't even consider that I know better than Google what should be done. I'm just stating a problem. Profiling is annoying. And as a user I don't think it works that well. When I visit a site for science fiction I'd prefer watching relative ads, not an ad about a pair of shoes I searched a week ago. We certainly are a minority but an influencing one.
abootstrapper 11y ago
Tracking is weird. One hand it's gross and I don't like it. I think because who knows who is looking at what you're looking at. On the other hand, as a consumer I actually find the ads more valuable, and I sometimes buy items advertised to me. And as a content creator, they generate much more revenue.
- toast0 11y ago
  I think there's a line that's often crossed. If there's no (or light) personalization, the ad shown will be relevant to the content it's next to, and maybe not relevant to me. If there's too much personalization, the ad shown will be relevant to me (or my browsing history), but not really relevant to the content it's next to. I would be less creeped out by personalization if the ads fit on the page; so when I view a news article about the Pope's visit, probably don't show me retargeting ads for a service provider whose API docs I was looking at yesterday; but if it's a technology site, then go ahead. Also take a lesson from Target; just because you can figure out I'm pregnant, don't make it obvious you know, put some deliberately mistargeted things in there too, so it looks more random.
- sqrt17 11y ago
  Google ads used to be valuable because they were based on the content of the site you were currently watching. Doubleclick (later bought by Google) and others already did the tracking thing and didn't get mileage out of it. Retargeting (i.e. following you around with ads for something that you may buy with a more than 3% chance because you actually searched for it) is the opposite of that, purely tracking-based and mostly annoying.
magicalist 11y ago
> We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) who replicate content from other sources or even worse disguise ads with content (i.e. native advertising) So why on earth are you going to those sites? > We also hate paying for the whole site just to read a couple of articles every now and then. How about a pay-by-article model with widespread adoption from the industry? That's literally what this is.
- elorant 11y ago
  So why on earth are you going to those sites? I'm not. But 95% of web sites out there are replicating content one way or the other. That's literally what this is. No it's not. That's a different model and I have no objections against it. This is a model where Google decides to give money to sites, and that is any site that's running AdSense not just the ones with original content. My argument is about why some of us like to use ad blocking mechanisms.
  - jsnell 11y ago
    No, it's the model where Google is giving money to the sites you visit, in proportion to the level you visit them. Since you claim not to visit the sites that are "shitty content creators", you're not going to be supporting them in any way. So what exactly is your real objection? Contributor might not be the answer. But if nothing else, this is a great "put your money where your mouth is" experiment. Suddenly all the talk from adblock users about how they'd just love to micropay for content directly has been replaced with all manner of excuses.
    - xorcist 11y ago
      There are literally thousands of ways to trick users to visit a site, from clickbaiting to rickrolling. Suddenly these methods pay out some real money. What do you think the possible consequences of this are? Will that be a net positive or a net negative for content quality on the web?
    - elorant 11y ago
      My real objection is profiling. I've mentioned it in a half dozen comments in this thread. Why is it so hard to understand? And why on earth are you so aggressive? And by the way, we're paying for content. It's called books, magazines, newspapers, kindle shorts, you name it. Half of the original content out there comes from established news agencies, and most of them don't even run AdSense. And please, spare me with this false dilemma, we're either bombarded with ads or the web will cease to exist. I've been hearing that for more than a decade. Advertising evolves. Even if 80% of users adopted ad blocking technologies advertising would find a venue to reach users. It's doing that for decades.
cheald 11y ago
> Lastly, we hate tracking. I can't overstate that. They kill profiling we kill ad blocking. Simple as that. As a nerdy guy, I'd much rather see video game ads than tampon ads. I get the ideological argument against targeted advertising, but the practical arguments for it are pretty compelling, too.
- eli173 11y ago
  You don't need to be tracked for this to happen though. If ad networks placed video game-related ads on video game-related websites and tampon-related ads on tampon-related websites, then users of both sites would get ad content relevant to their interests.
  - cheald 11y ago
    Consider contexts like news websites, though, with broadly-applicable audiences. Specialty or niche sites do just fine with site-derived advertising targets. Other things do much less well. There's also the fact that targeted ads result in better CPMs for publishers (since they'll result in better returns-per-view for advertisers), which means that they don't have to deploy as many of them to meet revenue expectations.
eachro 11y ago
I don't know who this "we" is. But certainly a significant portion of the young adult demographic loves Buzzfeed and their like.
- LeoNatan25 11y ago
  I'll join elorant. There, there's a "we". But I'd go a step further than "BuzzFeed". Any of the "[something] via [somesite]" web sites are in the offending category. They literally make money from the content of others by (sometimes) rewording the original title and giving it a slightly more clickbait title so that their 'via' "articles" look more inviting. Often, this is a chain of evil. I do not want to support that chain, even if it is just for the one visit. I would like to support the original writer, but none of the reworders. Now, the sad part is, there is only a very small list of real content creators.
- elorant 11y ago
  Well good for them. I'm not starting a crusade against Buzzfeed and similar sites. But when I can I advise people to block ads to avoid been tracked.
ars 11y ago
> We hate shitty content creators (like Buzzfeed) So because there are bad content creators, that means the good ones should not get paid? I'm not quite following your logic.

bandicity 11y ago

If I want content from content creators, I pay for it. Ads is the old print way of getting paid. Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. Why are you so focused on ads when it 1. Doesn't make sense if users can just block it and 2. There are better options for me to pay content creators? If you aren't interested in my 'preference' you lose out. The customer is just trying to have a normal relationship here... Abusive forced ads are not normal... IMHO.

cheald 11y ago
> Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. You realize that this has been tried and widely deemed a failure, right? Paywalls are a problem because they actively drive your audience away to next-best alternatives.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Ads is the old print way of getting paid. > Now, just restrict access and require a subscription. Have trial periods. Actually, subscriptions + trial periods was also a print way of getting paid. For much the same reasons as it doesn't work for most mass content on the web, it didn't work well as the primary source of income for mass print publications (though there were publications for which it replaced ads, for the most part, it just served to provide a paid circulation number which demonstrated to advertisers the size of the audience that was dedicated enough to a publication that they were willing to pay something for it, so it was a proxy measure for effective ad reach.)