4 ms·

> Most content is worthless. What nonsense. Most content's worth is variable depending on who is consuming it. The issue with ad-blockers is that it isn't kill

> Most content is worthless. What nonsense. Most content's worth is variable depending on who is consuming it. The issue with ad-blockers is that it isn't killing worthless content. It's killing content that survives between the insane traffic of Facebook and the complete lack of traffic in personal blogs that 12 people visit. > The purpose can easily be filled by some alternate, free material. Yes, because the quality of content supported by ads and the quality of content done by some ad-free blog in someone's free time is always equal. > When the content can be easily leveraged to some profitable goal, people are usually more than willing to pay for it. You mean like instructional YouTube videos, free web-based resources for learning new things (programming, languages, etc). Oh wait, all of that is ad-supported.

imgabe 11y ago
> It's killing content that survives between the insane traffic of Facebook and the complete lack of traffic in personal blogs that 12 people visit. What does that tell you about the value of that content that people are not even willing to be exposed to an ad in order to consume it? This is the proper application of "the customer is always right". When the customer doesn't want what you're selling, it's not the customer's fault. It's the vendor's fault for failing to meet the market demands in a suitable way. > Yes, because the quality of content supported by ads and the quality of content done by some ad-free blog in someone's free time is always equal. No, it's not. Sometimes the unbiased opinion of someone who doesn't have to please advertisers results in a much higher quality product. > You mean like instructional YouTube videos, free web-based resources for learning new things (programming, languages, etc). Oh wait, all of that is ad-supported. Do most FOSS doc pages have ads on them? Not that I've seen. O'Reilly and other publishers have no trouble charging money for well-written technical documentation. People are clearly willing to pay for that. Rosetta Stone charges quite a bit for language instruction.
- jhall1468 11y ago
  > When the customer doesn't want what you're selling, it's not the customer's fault. They do want it, but for free. And while they still consume it, for free, they hide behind some non-sense about tracking or privacy, even though if those two issues were resolved they would block it any way because it's not convenient to white list a site. Duckduckgo is perfect evidence of that. > No, it's not. Sometimes the unbiased opinion of someone who doesn't have to please advertisers results in a much higher quality product. And much of the time it isn't.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    > They do want it, but for free. Yes, this is relatively common. People will take something for free that they aren't willing to pay for. Other things they'll pay one amount for, but not a larger amount. Everybody decides for him or herself how much something is worth to them. If the majority of people decide that value is "nothing, not even looking at an ad", then that's what the value of that thing is. That's how markets work.
    - jhall1468 11y ago
      This is a load of BS. The reality is most people install a blocker and never think twice. Your implication that people make a value decision for every website they visit is laughable, and more importantly, exactly the opposite of what most people do.
      - click170 11y ago
        You take another breath every few seconds but you don't do it consciously. Not everything you do is a conscious decision you actively make in the forefront of your mind. Your comments lead me to believe you have skin in the game because you seem determined to not acknowledge that the value of something is what your customers will pay for it. If they aren't willing to pay for it then it has no value in the market, regardless of the value you've assigned to it.
        jhall1468 11y ago
        > Your comments lead me to believe you have skin in the game because you seem determined to not acknowledge that the value of something is what your customers will pay for it. None what-so-ever, other than having several websites I enjoy that use ads for revenue generation. My current work is in Business SAAS. > If they aren't willing to pay for it then it has no value in the market, regardless of the value you've assigned to it. You don't understand markets. If a minority of users aren't willing to "pay" for it, that doesn't make it without value. By your logic, movies are pirated by a minority and thus, they have no value. With movies it matters less because they've compensated for it by charging people that actually pay more and more.

imgabe 11y ago

> It's killing content that survives between the insane traffic of Facebook and the complete lack of traffic in personal blogs that 12 people visit. What does that tell you about the value of that content that people are not even willing to be exposed to an ad in order to consume it? This is the proper application of "the customer is always right". When the customer doesn't want what you're selling, it's not the customer's fault. It's the vendor's fault for failing to meet the market demands in a suitable way. > Yes, because the quality of content supported by ads and the quality of content done by some ad-free blog in someone's free time is always equal. No, it's not. Sometimes the unbiased opinion of someone who doesn't have to please advertisers results in a much higher quality product. > You mean like instructional YouTube videos, free web-based resources for learning new things (programming, languages, etc). Oh wait, all of that is ad-supported. Do most FOSS doc pages have ads on them? Not that I've seen. O'Reilly and other publishers have no trouble charging money for well-written technical documentation. People are clearly willing to pay for that. Rosetta Stone charges quite a bit for language instruction.

jhall1468 11y ago
> When the customer doesn't want what you're selling, it's not the customer's fault. They do want it, but for free. And while they still consume it, for free, they hide behind some non-sense about tracking or privacy, even though if those two issues were resolved they would block it any way because it's not convenient to white list a site. Duckduckgo is perfect evidence of that. > No, it's not. Sometimes the unbiased opinion of someone who doesn't have to please advertisers results in a much higher quality product. And much of the time it isn't.
- imgabe 11y ago
  > They do want it, but for free. Yes, this is relatively common. People will take something for free that they aren't willing to pay for. Other things they'll pay one amount for, but not a larger amount. Everybody decides for him or herself how much something is worth to them. If the majority of people decide that value is "nothing, not even looking at an ad", then that's what the value of that thing is. That's how markets work.
  - jhall1468 11y ago
    This is a load of BS. The reality is most people install a blocker and never think twice. Your implication that people make a value decision for every website they visit is laughable, and more importantly, exactly the opposite of what most people do.
    - click170 11y ago
      You take another breath every few seconds but you don't do it consciously. Not everything you do is a conscious decision you actively make in the forefront of your mind. Your comments lead me to believe you have skin in the game because you seem determined to not acknowledge that the value of something is what your customers will pay for it. If they aren't willing to pay for it then it has no value in the market, regardless of the value you've assigned to it.
      - jhall1468 11y ago
        > Your comments lead me to believe you have skin in the game because you seem determined to not acknowledge that the value of something is what your customers will pay for it. None what-so-ever, other than having several websites I enjoy that use ads for revenue generation. My current work is in Business SAAS. > If they aren't willing to pay for it then it has no value in the market, regardless of the value you've assigned to it. You don't understand markets. If a minority of users aren't willing to "pay" for it, that doesn't make it without value. By your logic, movies are pirated by a minority and thus, they have no value. With movies it matters less because they've compensated for it by charging people that actually pay more and more.