5 ms·

I dont understand the rationale of not wanting ads on the site?

mrspeaker 15y ago
Advertising makes things shitter. The Louvre could probably replace the frame of the Mona Lisa with some rotating ads, but it would detract from the content. It cheapens it. PPK has spent years building his reputation through Quirksmode - heck, he's one of my most respected sources because I know he has a great sense of pride in his work. HN people rely for a lot of their income through ads I know, but it doesn't change the feeling (I changed that work from "fact"!) that it detracts from the content. Thanks for your awesome work PPK, I'm donating now!
- ignifero 15y ago
  Would you be willing to pay an annual subscription for his online "museum" then? Donations are fine, but, to me it is a method that also cheapens the said content. It's a way to say "i believe in my content, but not enough to set a price for it, and asking for donations makes me look like a nice guy (and are untaxable)". </rant>
- speckledjim 15y ago
  "Advertising makes things shitter." In your opinion, which is a minority viewpoint.
  - nodata 15y ago
    This is an opinion too. What's your source?
    - speckledjim 15y ago
      The majority of people find advertising useful. They buy stuff based on advertising. If they didn't advertisers wouldn't spend advertising money. Advertising works, providing a service both to the advertiser and the consumer. I know that's an incredibly unpopular viewpoint within this bubble, but there you go. If it was the case that most people found advertising 'shit', then you'd see more and more people installing adblock etc. But that hasn't happened. It's still used by a very small minority of users as it has always been. It's sort of like the Opera web browser in that respect.
      - singingwolfboy 15y ago
        The conversion rate on advertising is incredibly low: often less than 1%. The remaining 99% see the ads and either ignore them (best case) or get annoyed by them (worst case). Either way, it's content on the page that those 99% don't want to see, and it dilutes the value of the page as a whole.
        speckledjim 15y ago
        Most people can tune out adverts they're not interested in extremely well. When you buy a photography magazine, it might have 20% of the pages covered by advertising. I'd say most people buying the magazine find them useful. Maybe only 1% convert to a sale, but I'd say the majority of people find the adverts useful. Also, it's not a black and white thing between "content" and "advertising". For example, quite often adverts in digital camera magazines are handy for me because they show me new products or lenses I didn't know about - Those adverts are 'content'. I'm not going to convince anyone who hates advertising to open their mind a little though, so I'll retire happily to my ad-supported magazines, and ad-supported websites.
        ignifero 15y ago
        Its a necessary evil if you want free content. Btw, click rates are much lower, about 0.05% for a content site. People also come across thousands of ads that they ignore every day in billboards, shopping windows etc. That's not a legitimate reason to rule out advertising as a revenue option. (On the other hand, claiming that the majority of people find them useful is a bit of a stretch)
        gburt 15y ago
        I've run AdSense on hundreds of websites and I get click rates between 0.5% and 10%. Not 0.05% that's insanely low. Mind you, a lot of those sites (the high end, anyway) are optimized strongly for clicks. The ads show up in the middle of content (as an "interlude") or prominently above the fold.
      - nodata 15y ago
  - pnathan 15y ago
    Sorry, but I think your opinion is the minority.
    - speckledjim 15y ago
      Definitely the minority here on HN, on Reddit, and other similar websites, but exit the bubble, and there's a whole world of other people! Some of them even own TVs and buy newspapers :o

Advertising makes things shitter. The Louvre could probably replace the frame of the Mona Lisa with some rotating ads, but it would detract from the content. It cheapens it. PPK has spent years building his reputation through Quirksmode - heck, he's one of my most respected sources because I know he has a great sense of pride in his work. HN people rely for a lot of their income through ads I know, but it doesn't change the feeling (I changed that work from "fact"!) that it detracts from the content. Thanks for your awesome work PPK, I'm donating now!

ignifero 15y ago
Would you be willing to pay an annual subscription for his online "museum" then? Donations are fine, but, to me it is a method that also cheapens the said content. It's a way to say "i believe in my content, but not enough to set a price for it, and asking for donations makes me look like a nice guy (and are untaxable)". </rant>
speckledjim 15y ago
"Advertising makes things shitter." In your opinion, which is a minority viewpoint.
- nodata 15y ago
  This is an opinion too. What's your source?
  - speckledjim 15y ago
    The majority of people find advertising useful. They buy stuff based on advertising. If they didn't advertisers wouldn't spend advertising money. Advertising works, providing a service both to the advertiser and the consumer. I know that's an incredibly unpopular viewpoint within this bubble, but there you go. If it was the case that most people found advertising 'shit', then you'd see more and more people installing adblock etc. But that hasn't happened. It's still used by a very small minority of users as it has always been. It's sort of like the Opera web browser in that respect.
    - singingwolfboy 15y ago
      The conversion rate on advertising is incredibly low: often less than 1%. The remaining 99% see the ads and either ignore them (best case) or get annoyed by them (worst case). Either way, it's content on the page that those 99% don't want to see, and it dilutes the value of the page as a whole.
      - speckledjim 15y ago
        Most people can tune out adverts they're not interested in extremely well. When you buy a photography magazine, it might have 20% of the pages covered by advertising. I'd say most people buying the magazine find them useful. Maybe only 1% convert to a sale, but I'd say the majority of people find the adverts useful. Also, it's not a black and white thing between "content" and "advertising". For example, quite often adverts in digital camera magazines are handy for me because they show me new products or lenses I didn't know about - Those adverts are 'content'. I'm not going to convince anyone who hates advertising to open their mind a little though, so I'll retire happily to my ad-supported magazines, and ad-supported websites.
      - ignifero 15y ago
        Its a necessary evil if you want free content. Btw, click rates are much lower, about 0.05% for a content site. People also come across thousands of ads that they ignore every day in billboards, shopping windows etc. That's not a legitimate reason to rule out advertising as a revenue option. (On the other hand, claiming that the majority of people find them useful is a bit of a stretch)
        gburt 15y ago
        I've run AdSense on hundreds of websites and I get click rates between 0.5% and 10%. Not 0.05% that's insanely low. Mind you, a lot of those sites (the high end, anyway) are optimized strongly for clicks. The ads show up in the middle of content (as an "interlude") or prominently above the fold.
    - nodata 15y ago
- pnathan 15y ago
  Sorry, but I think your opinion is the minority.
  - speckledjim 15y ago
    Definitely the minority here on HN, on Reddit, and other similar websites, but exit the bubble, and there's a whole world of other people! Some of them even own TVs and buy newspapers :o