4 ms·

Honestly, how likely is it that the demographic using Rapportive is one that clicks on ads? I would imagine there is essentially zero money lost for Google. Be

Honestly, how likely is it that the demographic using Rapportive is one that clicks on ads? I would imagine there is essentially zero money lost for Google. Besides, how is this different than ad blocking? I install in my browser plugins that improve my browsing experience. That includes flashblock, adblock plus, pop-up blockers (a feature historically so popular that it is now built-in the major browsers), and other addons that alter the content I see on the web page. Another example: People share hosts files that block different annoying services like intellitxt and Snap Shots. This is no different in this regard. Rapportive is actually better because the space previously used by ads that I would never click is now actually useful. It's a step forward from simple ad blocking. Edit: various grammar/clarity fixes.

points 16y ago
Some ads are CPM you know... eg aim is to get exposure / mindshare rather than traffic.
- pierrefar 16y ago
  It doesn't matter what type of ad, it is getting blocked anyway. Besides, banner blindness is why these things don't perform well. The CPM ads have, usually, very low CPMs.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  That seems fair, then. If, as an advertiser, you are charged per impression, and you receive no impressions, the advertiser is not charged. Also, can any HN Adwords users comment on their experiences using Adwords to advertise to Gmail in terms of effectiveness? It seems to me that a large portion of the ads (gmail) are from unsophisticated Adwords advertisers that have not configured their campaigns properly.
jacquesm 16y ago
Changing the content of someone else's page in flight is already murky enough when translation services do it, but when you actively start messing with someone else's revenue stream I feel some line has been crossed. That line is probably labelled 'symbiotic' on one side and 'parasitic' on the other.
- pierrefar 16y ago
  You're arguing from the point of view of Google, in that they will lose money due to a symbiotic/parasitic addon. I'm arguing from the point of view of the actual user who seeks the best experience they can get. I think it's the user's choice. People installing ad blockers, and in some cases re-using their space for another purposes, is the market sending a signal to Google. Google and other ad hosts can get cranky as much as they want, but it's my browser on my computer and my browsing experience. If they offered an ad-free for-pay version, I'm sure they'll get many customers. Heck, they would make money off of me when I am not giving them any right now.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    How would you feel if you were operating a store selling ice-cream without whipped-cream, and some guy walked in, threw your chocolate boxes out in to the street and started giving people whipped-cream inside your store because it improves the users experience, after all, none of the ones buying ice-cream were buying chocolate anyway? Never mind that the user owns the browser, the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported and this project was launched in the hope that as large a number of people as they can attract would adopt it. So at some point it will start to affect googles bottom line. Is that ok? Of course it is the browser on your computer, that's fine. But this is not you doing this, it's rapportive doing it, setting up shop inside googles pages displayed on your computer.
    - pierrefar 16y ago
      This analogy is not 100% accurate. A better attempt: If I were giving free ice creams along with a local business flyer, Rapportive is basically a stall nearby that offers a better ice cream cone while taking the flyer. That's the user's choice. For me as an ice cream vendor it would suck. For me as a user, it's a more yummy cone.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Except that all the income the ice cream vendor made was made from giving away the flyers, you've reduced their effectiveness to the point where the flyers no longer bring in the money and he has to close up shop. Now in the case of google that's a stretch, but this is not 'ok because it is google', neither would it be 'illegal because the party it is done to is small and vulnerable'. It's either 'ok' or it is 'not ok' not taking in to account the size of the party it is done to.

points 16y ago

Some ads are CPM you know... eg aim is to get exposure / mindshare rather than traffic.

pierrefar 16y ago
It doesn't matter what type of ad, it is getting blocked anyway. Besides, banner blindness is why these things don't perform well. The CPM ads have, usually, very low CPMs.
chopsueyar 16y ago
That seems fair, then. If, as an advertiser, you are charged per impression, and you receive no impressions, the advertiser is not charged. Also, can any HN Adwords users comment on their experiences using Adwords to advertise to Gmail in terms of effectiveness? It seems to me that a large portion of the ads (gmail) are from unsophisticated Adwords advertisers that have not configured their campaigns properly.

jacquesm 16y ago

Changing the content of someone else's page in flight is already murky enough when translation services do it, but when you actively start messing with someone else's revenue stream I feel some line has been crossed. That line is probably labelled 'symbiotic' on one side and 'parasitic' on the other.

pierrefar 16y ago
You're arguing from the point of view of Google, in that they will lose money due to a symbiotic/parasitic addon. I'm arguing from the point of view of the actual user who seeks the best experience they can get. I think it's the user's choice. People installing ad blockers, and in some cases re-using their space for another purposes, is the market sending a signal to Google. Google and other ad hosts can get cranky as much as they want, but it's my browser on my computer and my browsing experience. If they offered an ad-free for-pay version, I'm sure they'll get many customers. Heck, they would make money off of me when I am not giving them any right now.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  How would you feel if you were operating a store selling ice-cream without whipped-cream, and some guy walked in, threw your chocolate boxes out in to the street and started giving people whipped-cream inside your store because it improves the users experience, after all, none of the ones buying ice-cream were buying chocolate anyway? Never mind that the user owns the browser, the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported and this project was launched in the hope that as large a number of people as they can attract would adopt it. So at some point it will start to affect googles bottom line. Is that ok? Of course it is the browser on your computer, that's fine. But this is not you doing this, it's rapportive doing it, setting up shop inside googles pages displayed on your computer.
  - pierrefar 16y ago
    This analogy is not 100% accurate. A better attempt: If I were giving free ice creams along with a local business flyer, Rapportive is basically a stall nearby that offers a better ice cream cone while taking the flyer. That's the user's choice. For me as an ice cream vendor it would suck. For me as a user, it's a more yummy cone.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Except that all the income the ice cream vendor made was made from giving away the flyers, you've reduced their effectiveness to the point where the flyers no longer bring in the money and he has to close up shop. Now in the case of google that's a stretch, but this is not 'ok because it is google', neither would it be 'illegal because the party it is done to is small and vulnerable'. It's either 'ok' or it is 'not ok' not taking in to account the size of the party it is done to.