6 ms·

As someone who very much values the clarity of content without the insidious distraction of advertisements, I would not like to see Wikipedia sell ads. I would

• maximusprime 15y ago
  You're an outlier. Most people don't mind ads.
  • philwelch 15y ago
    The enduring popularity of DVR and Adblock suggest differently.
    • rfergie 15y ago
      Most people do not use Adblock. Although that might be different if everyone knew about it
      • maximusprime 15y ago
        Most people click on ads. Most people buy things based on ads. I'm inclined to think that this means most people find advertising useful, so I'm skeptical that people would want to block advertising if they could. Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income.
        • philwelch 15y ago
          "Most", or just enough to keep advertising a sustainable business, like spam email? Services like Spotify and Pandora actually make money from people paying them for an ad-free experience. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually likes most advertising, as opposed to simply tolerating it as a means to an end. If anything it's antisocial for websites to promise me valuable content, only to resell my attention to advertisers.
        • TeMPOraL 15y ago
          > Most people click on ads. Never met one. > Also it's kind of an antisocial thing to do, depriving free websites of income. Personally, it saddens me that we have to put up with all this electricity-wasting advertising crap in order to have free websites. It seems that one of the most useful tools of humanity needs to look ugly just in order to stay alive. I'd be very happy if we ever find a better solution.
          • maximusprime 15y ago
            Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe it's an 'outlier' opinion.
            • TeMPOraL 15y ago
              > Does a computer magazine look ugly because of the adverts for Apple in it? Does a car magazine look ugly because of adverts for cars in it? Yes. I read the magazine for the content, not for the ads. I don't mind an ad here and there, but the amount of advertising in magazines now is ridiculously high. Sometimes I'm not sure if just less than 50% of the magazine has some content in it. > Personally, I find advertising useful, and pleasant. I'm certainly not alone. I respect your opinion. While you're definitely not alone in your stance, I do also think that there are much more ad-haters than you believe. Might be a selection bias on my part, but I've never ever seen a person enjoying web ads.
    • maximusprime 15y ago
      Adblock is used by a tiny tiny percentage. Anecdotally, I tried using adblock, and quickly found it irritating. I was seeing a censored internet. I like my internet uncensored. I like rewarding websites with my visits that don't piss me off, and punishing websites that do piss me off, by not returning.
    • look_lookatme 15y ago
      I don't think you understand the point of DVR.
  • tripzilch 15y ago
    I only don't mind ads because I block most of them. Whenever I view the net through a different browser or computer, I'm pretty shocked how much ads are actually there. And no, I'm afraid they're not actually "sometimes useful", to me. Most of the time I'm on the net I'm not looking to buy something. Though come to think of it, the few times I am, I don't mind clicking an ad or two. Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are. I mean, how can I know I'm getting a good deal by just clicking one ad, right?
    • maximusprime 15y ago
      > Except when I do, and it appeals to me, I usually run a query through a search engine to find the same page, so I can see what the other 9 top results are. As I say, you're an outlier ;)
      • TeMPOraL 15y ago
        Then there are two of us, as I don't ever, ever consider ads even if I'm (rarely) on the Internet to buy something. I mean... since when did we start to trust advertisements?
        • maximusprime 15y ago
          I hate this sort of comment. It's naive. Loads of Reddit/HN posts are adverts. We all click on adverts all the time, all over the internet. We just don't necessarily realize they're adverts. Yes, shock horror, adblock only blocks the most obvious advertising.
          • TeMPOraL 15y ago
            Well, advertisements are not all equal. I understand the need of companies with valuable products for reaching their potential customers. But it can be done in a win-win way. To give you some more details on how I perceive adverts: - Video/audio advertisements that start playing by themselves = I'll probably add you to my mental black list of people and companies I don't want to do business with (yes, I have one, 'voting by my dollars'. Actually, Groupon is on it, mostly because of annoying ads that were just everywhere I looked.). - Pop-ups and anything that touches the area with content (all those floating or expanding windows), distracting me in an offensive way = I'll most likely remember you as a company not to do business with you as well. Also, I'll start hating the website soon for allowing this type of advertisements. - Simple banners and ads of products that in my belief actually introduce some value - like development tools - I don't really mind them; I might click on then to see what's about with this new product, out of pure curiosity. - AdWords - I don't mind them, they're not intrusive. I might even consider clicking at them if they happen to show something interesting. Also, I can't even express how annoyed I am about the new batch of YouTube adverts - the ones that play before the movie I requested, often stealing half a minute of my time and making me lose interest in the video itself. So yes, AdBlock is fine. It blocks most of the crap.
  • Goladus 15y ago
    The fate of MySpace suggests otherwise. The existence of radio stations exuberantly announcing "commercial free this hour!" suggests otherwise. The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise. Ads are inherently disruptive, most people DO mind them under many circumstances. And sometimes, even people who wouldn't mind them still have their experience disrupted by their presence. The other day I was trying to read an article, and some programming glitch caused a nearby ad to expand over the article text and I wasn't able to get rid of it without reloading the entire page. It's true there is some threshold of advertising under which people genuinely appreciate and show interest in the content. That threshold is certainly lower than you think. Most people hate ads, they're merely willing to put up with them in exchange for the content. The question isn't whether someone who minds ads is an "outlier" or not, the question is how many "outliers" are there. My guess: you don't actually know the answer to that.
    • maximusprime 15y ago
      Facebook has far more intrusive ads than myspace did.. I'm pretty sure facebook also makes a lot more from ad revenue, so I'm not sure of your point... "The prevalence of adblock suggests otherwise." What is it... less than 1% use adblock? hmm FWIW I've been earning a living from online advertising for 10 years. I've run community websites that run adverts, and fielded feedback from users.
      • mirkules 15y ago
        I know next to nothing about advertising online, so please don't think I'm being facetious by asking this: what is the actual rate of display ads vs. people that click and buy stuff directly resulting from that ad? From what I heard it's sub-10% or even 5%. If 5% is considered good, doesn't that say something about advertisements, that is, that 95% of the people _didn't_ follow through, and probably ignored it. This to me screams that there should be a better way to advertise.
        • RainFlutter 15y ago
          5% would mean that for every 20 pages viewed on the Internet, advertising is leading someone to make a purchase. I can't imagine that ever happening no matter how fantastic the ads are. Don't think of it as a percentage hit rate; think about how that number fits into the way we use the Internet and live our lives.
• joebadmo 15y ago
  I disagree. Ads can be detrimental, sure, but they're also in many ways complementary to digital, frictionless distribution. For example, ads encourage sharing. With a paid product, you have to gate access. But then there's a sort of implicit conflict between wanting as many consumers as possible, but wanting to get paid. And especially because it's hard to know the quality of digital media without consuming it, it's hard to know whether it's worth paying for. So there's a ton of friction. That barrier to entry stops virality cold, which limits distribution, and also revenue. There are ways to do ads well. Google is the obvious example. Highly relevant, not particularly distracting, and take advantage of the intentionality of the searcher. I think ads are a naturally better revenue stream for digital content. Not to say that they can't or won't be abused.
  • officemonkey 15y ago
    If the Wikipedia Foundation can cover their costs by donations from users, than I would resist ads forever. >There are ways to do ads well. Yes there are, And Wikipedia would have to pay gatekeepers to prevent it becoming a spammy "wack-a-mole" fest. Those gatekeepers become a very costly additional expense. One that you very quickly become dependent on, Wikipedia has already grown into a great resource from donations. If they can maintain solvency, I don't see any compelling reason why they should change.
    • ceejayoz 15y ago
      > Yes there are, And Wikipedia would have to pay gatekeepers to prevent it becoming a spammy "wack-a-mole" fest. Those gatekeepers become a very costly additional expense. One that you very quickly become dependent on, Only if they want to sell lots of different ads. If it were "buy the one ad slot on Wikipedia for a day for $150k" (that's supposedly the going rate for Twitter's promoted tweets, IIRC), quality control wouldn't be very hard.
      • jwdunne 15y ago
        I think this would work well just for the homepage and nothing else. The main issue I have is an irrelevant ad plastered across every page would be pretty tacky. Having relevant ads on article pages would work better but there are a few problems with that: a) Each article isn't of equal value in terms of advertising, which would make pricing much more complicated, which would also increase costs involved. b) Pages (or whole topics) with rented ad space could be subject to spammy tactics to increase the amount of visitors, such as dubious SEO techniques (the Wikipedia domain would make this easy). I haven't thought about this deeply enough but it could be a huge problem since it can't really be controlled.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• koko775 15y ago
  > - A lack of respect for the customer and an attempt to maximize profit at the expense of their enjoyment of your product. I do not subscribe to Hulu for this reason. As someone who works for a different video streaming site (that also has legal content licenses), your ire may be misplaced. Rather than a lack of respect for the customer there's a very likely possibility that the ads must be shown, even for subscribers, due to licensing agreements.
• ggwicz 15y ago
  Any use of advertisement to fund modern digital distribution is indicative of one of two things: - A failure find a less round-about, more efficient, and more profitable mechanism for directly charging consumers for what they consume OR - A lack of respect for the customer and an attempt to maximize profit at the expense of their enjoyment of your product. I do not subscribe to Hulu for this reason. I think it's more indicative of a website trying to pay its bills. A lot of assholes ruin their content with ads, for sure. A simple text ad or one, small ad, like a Deck Network ad for example, would hardly be so damaging.
• therandomguy 15y ago
  I get the following services for free: News, eMail, Search, Docs in cloud, Blogging, Video distribution, Maps etc. I will take the ads. Thanks.