4 ms·

Just curious, what constitutes the "quality" of an ad for you? I've never really thought about ads that way; for me it was just whichever service can stuff thei

by reayn 5y ago

Just curious, what constitutes the "quality" of an ad for you? I've never really thought about ads that way; for me it was just whichever service can stuff their name down your throat the most often was the most successful.

treeman79 5y ago
Was in adtech for awhile. Making sure clicks are real is a massive challenge with many ads networks. There are a lot of tools that help in sure spambots aren’t stealing all the ad money but they also slow down serving of the ads and sometimes they mess up and block things that shouldn’t. We’ve had campaigns where we had to allow more spambots simply because the client couldn’t spend enough money, they were willing to waste more to get better reach. But most clients absolutely love the results when you have really good filters in place. Very low spend and good lead generation.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Ads for actual products and services instead of fake download buttons and penis enlargement pills.
- vkou 5y ago
  You're being downvoted, but it's true. Move away from the big-boy ad networks (The likes of Microsoft, Google, Facebook), and there's a long tail of networks that will happily run the worst ads. Unsurprisingly, a lot of legitimate companies aren't super-keen on having their ads run next to ones for fake download buttons and penis enlargement pills.
milesvp 5y ago
You know it when you see it... I worked in the newspaper industry on the web side for many years. Remnant ads are the worst. These are the ad networks that you use to fill up the last of your ad spots that you weren't able to sell directly. They can fill volumes of ad spots for pennies per 1000 ad impressions. These are pure trash. Ignoring the common problems with actual virus payloads that they might try to inject, these are the most obnoxious, awful ads. They often have big animations with flashing background and jarring colors. They are full of click-bait titles. They are the reason people install ad blockers. I might not be able to tell you what a quality ad looks like, but I can tell you the other end of the spectrum, and it is pure filth.
JAlexoid 5y ago
Most relevant ads, with least interference. Compare to most small news sites, that have top/bottom banners, inline ads and the curtains.... I hate the curtains!
summerlight 5y ago
There's pretty complicated dynamic regarding ad quality because each participant (users, advertisers, publishers etc) have different goals and ad network needs to balance it. For an advertiser side, one possible, measurable metric is advertiser value per spending money. Value can be defined by advertisers pretty arbitrarily but you can think it as something like how much money you earn from ad conversions. Of course, this is very hard to measure accurately, massive ad network like Google has some advantages though. But note that this is just one of possible metrics, there are hundreds of metrics ad networks want to improve and some of them are conflicting each other by definition. And some of them don't even have an objective way to measure so still depending on user study.
colechristensen 5y ago
* not a scam, virus, or other lazy attempt to manipulate me * not visually obnoxious * represents something that somebody actually wants * represents something i don’t know about and might have interest in Some ads are legitimately quite useful, others just abusive, lots in between.

by reayn 5y ago

treeman79 5y ago

Was in adtech for awhile. Making sure clicks are real is a massive challenge with many ads networks. There are a lot of tools that help in sure spambots aren’t stealing all the ad money but they also slow down serving of the ads and sometimes they mess up and block things that shouldn’t. We’ve had campaigns where we had to allow more spambots simply because the client couldn’t spend enough money, they were willing to waste more to get better reach. But most clients absolutely love the results when you have really good filters in place. Very low spend and good lead generation.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Ads for actual products and services instead of fake download buttons and penis enlargement pills.

vkou 5y ago
You're being downvoted, but it's true. Move away from the big-boy ad networks (The likes of Microsoft, Google, Facebook), and there's a long tail of networks that will happily run the worst ads. Unsurprisingly, a lot of legitimate companies aren't super-keen on having their ads run next to ones for fake download buttons and penis enlargement pills.

milesvp 5y ago

You know it when you see it... I worked in the newspaper industry on the web side for many years. Remnant ads are the worst. These are the ad networks that you use to fill up the last of your ad spots that you weren't able to sell directly. They can fill volumes of ad spots for pennies per 1000 ad impressions. These are pure trash. Ignoring the common problems with actual virus payloads that they might try to inject, these are the most obnoxious, awful ads. They often have big animations with flashing background and jarring colors. They are full of click-bait titles. They are the reason people install ad blockers. I might not be able to tell you what a quality ad looks like, but I can tell you the other end of the spectrum, and it is pure filth.

JAlexoid 5y ago

Most relevant ads, with least interference. Compare to most small news sites, that have top/bottom banners, inline ads and the curtains.... I hate the curtains!

summerlight 5y ago

There's pretty complicated dynamic regarding ad quality because each participant (users, advertisers, publishers etc) have different goals and ad network needs to balance it. For an advertiser side, one possible, measurable metric is advertiser value per spending money. Value can be defined by advertisers pretty arbitrarily but you can think it as something like how much money you earn from ad conversions. Of course, this is very hard to measure accurately, massive ad network like Google has some advantages though. But note that this is just one of possible metrics, there are hundreds of metrics ad networks want to improve and some of them are conflicting each other by definition. And some of them don't even have an objective way to measure so still depending on user study.

colechristensen 5y ago

* not a scam, virus, or other lazy attempt to manipulate me * not visually obnoxious * represents something that somebody actually wants * represents something i don’t know about and might have interest in Some ads are legitimately quite useful, others just abusive, lots in between.