2 ms·

Ok, let's take a simple example here. Google published loads of Chrome adverts to raise awareness of their new browser. The result of those adverts is that a l

by swombat 17y ago

Ok, let's take a simple example here. Google published loads of Chrome adverts to raise awareness of their new browser. The result of those adverts is that a lot of people switched to Chrome, making it a valid browser choice and, hopefully, hastening IE's demise. A number of people who read about Chrome in adverts would only have heard of it a year later if it wasn't for the ads. I think those ads were perfectly well justified - they raised awareness for a product which most people didn't even know existed. There's many more examples like this. I think your point is incorrect. PS: I don't actually support Ars in this anti-ad-blocker thing. I think ad blockers are absolutely fair game, much like ads themselves are. Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. They shouldn't come whining about ad blockers, they should just upgrade their business models to something that works in a world of ad blockers. That said, declaring that ads are completely useless is equally wrong.

dandelany 17y ago
> Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply render them, so that their ad provider counts the impression and pays them the tenth of a cent that covers the bandwidth you just used to load the page. That doesn't seem like much to ask.
- swombat 17y ago
  First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wild world out there. If you don't wanna deal with it, don't. There'll be plenty of other publications willing to step in to fill the gap.
  - dandelany 17y ago
    > Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. No they're not. Advertisers understand perfectly well that only a fraction of rendered ads actually gain a reader's attention. > Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! This was very obviously a made up number, not the thrust of my argument. Whether it's a tenth of a cent or a thousandth doesnt matter. > Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. Again, probably true, but not the point of my argument. They have to cover costs with revenue, whether those costs are hosting or paying their staff. > In any case, fuck'em. I actually enjoy reading Ars, and therefore, would prefer not to, thanks. Especially when not fucking 'em is as easy as letting their ads render.

by swombat 17y ago

dandelany 17y ago

> Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply render them, so that their ad provider counts the impression and pays them the tenth of a cent that covers the bandwidth you just used to load the page. That doesn't seem like much to ask.

swombat 17y ago
First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wild world out there. If you don't wanna deal with it, don't. There'll be plenty of other publications willing to step in to fill the gap.
- dandelany 17y ago
  > Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. No they're not. Advertisers understand perfectly well that only a fraction of rendered ads actually gain a reader's attention. > Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! This was very obviously a made up number, not the thrust of my argument. Whether it's a tenth of a cent or a thousandth doesnt matter. > Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. Again, probably true, but not the point of my argument. They have to cover costs with revenue, whether those costs are hosting or paying their staff. > In any case, fuck'em. I actually enjoy reading Ars, and therefore, would prefer not to, thanks. Especially when not fucking 'em is as easy as letting their ads render.