4 ms·

Can you cite a reference there? I never heard GMail being touted as "Like the competition, but no display ads". I was a fairly early user, and never heard it ta

by axod 16y ago

Can you cite a reference there? I never heard GMail being touted as "Like the competition, but no display ads". I was a fairly early user, and never heard it talked of like that. Infact I remember the opposite - they got quite a lot of flack basing the advertising on the content of your emails. Some references to these "promises" would be cool also. Personally, I don't use GMail because it doesn't have display ads, I don't care about advertising, sometimes it's useful, sometimes not. I like seeing it, because often it is useful. I use GMail because it's a fantastic email client. Search is instant, features other email clients only dream of. etc etc. A display ad doesn't take away from that. There's a line of acceptability with advertising. Display ads is still extremely tame and non intrusive. When they start doing popups, popunders, video ads with sound, the underlining of keywords with popup contextual ads, etc... then I'd be up in arms too.

jacquesm 16y ago
> Can you cite a reference there? No, this is not an academic paper. But I distinctly recall the case being made that 'hotmail' and 'yahoo' mail had interfaces that were considered inferior not because of their technical capabilities but because of being loaded up with advertising and that this was one of googles major plus points. The fact that the advertising was based on the contents of your emails was the flipside of that coin at the time so that's what people based their decision on. > Some references to these "promises" would be cool also. Another thing that google promised (and that I distinctly remember) was that they wouldn't do 'paid placements' in the results, they broke that promise and weaseled through the cracks by putting a little background colour on the ads. (for instance: http://www.google.com/search?q=black+socks http://www.google.com/search?q=black+socks shows an ad for blacksocks.com as the first result for me the first time I hit that search) > Display ads is still extremely tame and non intrusive. When they start doing popups, popunders, video ads with sound, the underlining of keywords with popup contextual ads, etc... then I'd be up in arms too. Ok, so we'll wait for a while then we simply draw the line in different places. Youtube now has video overlay ads and leaders on some videos, I don't see anything keeping google from doing the same. I no longer use gmail, I got a few ads that showed just a bit too much insight in to the contents of the email than what I'm comfortable with. I do still have a gmail account because I use it to log in to a bunch of google services but no more gmail for me, I'll take the bit of extra spam that I get as the price to pay for that decision. And my email client (thunderbird) does not show any advertising at all, keywords or otherwise.
- axod 16y ago
  Fair enough. In terms of a business decision though, this will result in increased revenue, and 99.99999% of users won't care. So good on them.
- byrneseyeview 16y ago
  Another thing that google promised (and that I distinctly remember) was that they wouldn't do 'paid placements' in the results, they broke that promise and weaseled through the cracks by putting a little background colour on the ads. There's a huge difference between paid placement and ads--labelled "Ads"--that correspond to search results.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    The google of 2000 would never have polluted their search page like that. Not to mention all the google owned property links in the search results (and those are not labeled 'ad').
    - axod 16y ago
      That's just because in 2000, they were trying to get as much market share as possible. Also they probably didn't need to get more revenue at the time. It sounds like you're trying to argue that Google has abandoned their core beliefs, or been overrun with profit driven accountants or something. I'm pretty sure the "get users, then figure out revenue" is a very widely used strategy. Google are just more on the second part than the first...
- sorbus 16y ago
  >> Can you cite a reference there? > No, this is not an academic paper. If you can't support your assertions, they are worthless, regardless of what the context is. Asking for citations is a really common practice on HN, and one which almost always improves the conversation; despite the fact that you're one of the most prolific members, you still need to conform to community standards.
  - 16y ago

by axod 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

> Can you cite a reference there? No, this is not an academic paper. But I distinctly recall the case being made that 'hotmail' and 'yahoo' mail had interfaces that were considered inferior not because of their technical capabilities but because of being loaded up with advertising and that this was one of googles major plus points. The fact that the advertising was based on the contents of your emails was the flipside of that coin at the time so that's what people based their decision on. > Some references to these "promises" would be cool also. Another thing that google promised (and that I distinctly remember) was that they wouldn't do 'paid placements' in the results, they broke that promise and weaseled through the cracks by putting a little background colour on the ads. (for instance: http://www.google.com/search?q=black+socks http://www.google.com/search?q=black+socks shows an ad for blacksocks.com as the first result for me the first time I hit that search) > Display ads is still extremely tame and non intrusive. When they start doing popups, popunders, video ads with sound, the underlining of keywords with popup contextual ads, etc... then I'd be up in arms too. Ok, so we'll wait for a while then we simply draw the line in different places. Youtube now has video overlay ads and leaders on some videos, I don't see anything keeping google from doing the same. I no longer use gmail, I got a few ads that showed just a bit too much insight in to the contents of the email than what I'm comfortable with. I do still have a gmail account because I use it to log in to a bunch of google services but no more gmail for me, I'll take the bit of extra spam that I get as the price to pay for that decision. And my email client (thunderbird) does not show any advertising at all, keywords or otherwise.

axod 16y ago
Fair enough. In terms of a business decision though, this will result in increased revenue, and 99.99999% of users won't care. So good on them.
byrneseyeview 16y ago
Another thing that google promised (and that I distinctly remember) was that they wouldn't do 'paid placements' in the results, they broke that promise and weaseled through the cracks by putting a little background colour on the ads. There's a huge difference between paid placement and ads--labelled "Ads"--that correspond to search results.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The google of 2000 would never have polluted their search page like that. Not to mention all the google owned property links in the search results (and those are not labeled 'ad').
  - axod 16y ago
    That's just because in 2000, they were trying to get as much market share as possible. Also they probably didn't need to get more revenue at the time. It sounds like you're trying to argue that Google has abandoned their core beliefs, or been overrun with profit driven accountants or something. I'm pretty sure the "get users, then figure out revenue" is a very widely used strategy. Google are just more on the second part than the first...
sorbus 16y ago
>> Can you cite a reference there? > No, this is not an academic paper. If you can't support your assertions, they are worthless, regardless of what the context is. Asking for citations is a really common practice on HN, and one which almost always improves the conversation; despite the fact that you're one of the most prolific members, you still need to conform to community standards.
- 16y ago