4 ms·

Why do I get the impression that I'm paying protection money to the mob? These ads wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for Google.

ariwilson 11y ago
Correspondingly, if there were no ads there would be many fewer small websites.
- natch 11y ago
  Absolutely true. Fewer, but better quality. With money as a motivator, we have ended up with a lot of keyword-spammy poor quality content.
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    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.
    - marak830 11y ago
      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).
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bambax 11y ago
So true!! I would pay Google to use search, if it came to this, because I find immense and irreplaceable value in Google Search that no other company seems to be able to replicate. But paying anyone to not see ads on websites? That's absurd. I'll use adblocking while I can, and when/if those websites find a way to reliably block adblocking-using visitors, I'll just stop visiting.
- bduerst 11y ago
  What about paying to not see ads in search results? Website ads are a little different than search ads.
manigandham 11y ago
Google and many websites wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for ads.
mike_hearn 11y ago
Um, the internet was full of ads before Google. The main way Google changed things was AdSense, which for a while at least replaced horrible "punch the monkey" type ads with text ads. Unfortunately text ads don't seem to be so popular these days.

ariwilson 11y ago

Correspondingly, if there were no ads there would be many fewer small websites.

natch 11y ago
Absolutely true. Fewer, but better quality. With money as a motivator, we have ended up with a lot of keyword-spammy poor quality content.
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  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.
  - marak830 11y ago
    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).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

bambax 11y ago

So true!! I would pay Google to use search, if it came to this, because I find immense and irreplaceable value in Google Search that no other company seems to be able to replicate. But paying anyone to not see ads on websites? That's absurd. I'll use adblocking while I can, and when/if those websites find a way to reliably block adblocking-using visitors, I'll just stop visiting.

bduerst 11y ago
What about paying to not see ads in search results? Website ads are a little different than search ads.

manigandham 11y ago

Google and many websites wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for ads.

mike_hearn 11y ago

Um, the internet was full of ads before Google. The main way Google changed things was AdSense, which for a while at least replaced horrible "punch the monkey" type ads with text ads. Unfortunately text ads don't seem to be so popular these days.