5 ms·

One of the "non-intrusive" ads on the whitelist are ads on sedo domain-squatter pages. That really says about all I need to know about how thoroughly he's vette

by gergles 15y ago

One of the "non-intrusive" ads on the whitelist are ads on sedo domain-squatter pages. That really says about all I need to know about how thoroughly he's vetted the "non-intrusiveness" of these ads.

AllenKids 15y ago
And I think it is clear he made a deal with Google, with or without monetary compensation I do not know. Please slap me with proof that I'm wrong, I so wish to be wrong.
- ahoge 15y ago
  Guilty unless proven innocent? Google's text ads certainly aren't intrusive.
  - AllenKids 15y ago
    I thought about that before commenting. And yes I was being unfair to him. But still I stand by previous comment, it needs to be said and from his blog entry and reply to inquiry in the comments section, the collaboration between him and ad providers is clearly implied and if true, conflict of interests is a glaring problem.
  - atomicdog 15y ago
    Depends on their content: An ad for a local garage? Fine. But I would class "Mom discovers new TEETH WHITENING solution! Don't listen to your DENTIST! CLICK HERE TODAY!" to be pretty distracting and intrusive.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      Maybe you're way too easily distracted and should solve that issue. Edit: Come on... life is full of distraction. When you go shopping do you shut your eyes in case you see "SALE AT PENNYS!!!", or do you just ignore things that don't interest you? Jeez
    - wizard_2 15y ago
      Those ads are usually not allowed on the networks they run on. They're often posed by affiliate's as the original companies have long since been blocked. Unfortunately finding the article on this is harder then finding a real teeth whitening product...
- rfugger 15y ago
  Maybe Mozilla encouraged him in this direction, since they're friendly with Google?
  - gwern 15y ago
    I don't know how friendly they are now, given Chrome and Google apparently declining to renew its payments to Mozilla that were a big chunk of Mozilla's budget.
    - nathanb 15y ago
      Citation needed
      - gwern 15y ago
        Is Googling that hard? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Mozilla-Still-Negotiating-Search-Toolbar-Deal-256011/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Mozilla-Still... or https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222404/Update_Mozilla_declines_to_say_if_it_s_renewed_100M_Google_deal https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222404/Update_Mozil... > Confidence is good, because there's no understating the importance of the deal for Mozilla. The search deal with Google accounted for roughly $100 million of Mozilla's $123 million in sales for 2010. That's a whopping 84 percent.
        nathanb 15y ago
        The Googling I did, as well as your quote, seem to disagree with your assertion. You say that Google have apparently declined to renew the deal, while those two links say that we don't know, but (per your quote) it's likely that they have. The fact that I couldn't find a link which conclusively states that either party chose not to renew the deal is why I asked for a citation.
        gwern 15y ago
        Gee, thanks for explaining what you wanted the cite for, the part of my comment that presupposed the most in-depth knowledge of the issues and so is the least likely for any random commenter to drop a snarky {{fact}} on. That made it very easy for me to understand which claim you were questioning, and so either correct myself or provide further information.
makomk 15y ago
That's exactly the kind of "useful content" that I think most users would be happy to see killed off by ad-blocking - companies that buy up domains which used to have actual content on them because their owners let them lapse and then stuff them full of ads.
- eli 15y ago
  You're making a distinction between judging ads and judging the advertiser. Sedo may be a crappy company, but their ads are not intrusive (no popunders, no auto-play videos).
  - soult 15y ago
    When a domain doesn't exist I get redirected to Google search and can find something relevant there. Thanks to Sedo I get a page full of spam (or until the Adblock change, an emtpy page) instead. I'd call that intrusive.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      That's subjective - please note that. If a domain doesn't exist, I don't end up on any site. In fact, for me it's natural to see either "Nope, doesn't exist" or ~something~, even if it's a squatter. Redirecting requests for non-existing domains would be far more distracting and insulting for me. I understand that there's room for both and for discussion, but please understand that your use case is not 'the one'.
      - soult 15y ago
        I think you misunderstood me: The redirect is done by my browser because I want it to be done. I could just as well set it to "not end up on any site" like you prefer. My point was that domain squatting sucks. Both our expected outcomes (Google search, no page displayed) get replaced by some page full of ads for very vaguely related topics. I am actually working in my free time on creating a database of such domain squatters and on better ways to combat them ;-)

by gergles 15y ago

One of the "non-intrusive" ads on the whitelist are ads on sedo domain-squatter pages. That really says about all I need to know about how thoroughly he's vetted the "non-intrusiveness" of these ads.

AllenKids 15y ago

And I think it is clear he made a deal with Google, with or without monetary compensation I do not know. Please slap me with proof that I'm wrong, I so wish to be wrong.

ahoge 15y ago
Guilty unless proven innocent? Google's text ads certainly aren't intrusive.
- AllenKids 15y ago
  I thought about that before commenting. And yes I was being unfair to him. But still I stand by previous comment, it needs to be said and from his blog entry and reply to inquiry in the comments section, the collaboration between him and ad providers is clearly implied and if true, conflict of interests is a glaring problem.
- atomicdog 15y ago
  Depends on their content: An ad for a local garage? Fine. But I would class "Mom discovers new TEETH WHITENING solution! Don't listen to your DENTIST! CLICK HERE TODAY!" to be pretty distracting and intrusive.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    Maybe you're way too easily distracted and should solve that issue. Edit: Come on... life is full of distraction. When you go shopping do you shut your eyes in case you see "SALE AT PENNYS!!!", or do you just ignore things that don't interest you? Jeez
  - wizard_2 15y ago
    Those ads are usually not allowed on the networks they run on. They're often posed by affiliate's as the original companies have long since been blocked. Unfortunately finding the article on this is harder then finding a real teeth whitening product...
rfugger 15y ago
Maybe Mozilla encouraged him in this direction, since they're friendly with Google?
- gwern 15y ago
  I don't know how friendly they are now, given Chrome and Google apparently declining to renew its payments to Mozilla that were a big chunk of Mozilla's budget.
  - nathanb 15y ago
    Citation needed
    - gwern 15y ago
      Is Googling that hard? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Mozilla-Still-Negotiating-Search-Toolbar-Deal-256011/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Mozilla-Still... or https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222404/Update_Mozilla_declines_to_say_if_it_s_renewed_100M_Google_deal https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222404/Update_Mozil... > Confidence is good, because there's no understating the importance of the deal for Mozilla. The search deal with Google accounted for roughly $100 million of Mozilla's $123 million in sales for 2010. That's a whopping 84 percent.
      - nathanb 15y ago
        The Googling I did, as well as your quote, seem to disagree with your assertion. You say that Google have apparently declined to renew the deal, while those two links say that we don't know, but (per your quote) it's likely that they have. The fact that I couldn't find a link which conclusively states that either party chose not to renew the deal is why I asked for a citation.
        gwern 15y ago
        Gee, thanks for explaining what you wanted the cite for, the part of my comment that presupposed the most in-depth knowledge of the issues and so is the least likely for any random commenter to drop a snarky {{fact}} on. That made it very easy for me to understand which claim you were questioning, and so either correct myself or provide further information.

makomk 15y ago

That's exactly the kind of "useful content" that I think most users would be happy to see killed off by ad-blocking - companies that buy up domains which used to have actual content on them because their owners let them lapse and then stuff them full of ads.

eli 15y ago
You're making a distinction between judging ads and judging the advertiser. Sedo may be a crappy company, but their ads are not intrusive (no popunders, no auto-play videos).
- soult 15y ago
  When a domain doesn't exist I get redirected to Google search and can find something relevant there. Thanks to Sedo I get a page full of spam (or until the Adblock change, an emtpy page) instead. I'd call that intrusive.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    That's subjective - please note that. If a domain doesn't exist, I don't end up on any site. In fact, for me it's natural to see either "Nope, doesn't exist" or ~something~, even if it's a squatter. Redirecting requests for non-existing domains would be far more distracting and insulting for me. I understand that there's room for both and for discussion, but please understand that your use case is not 'the one'.
    - soult 15y ago
      I think you misunderstood me: The redirect is done by my browser because I want it to be done. I could just as well set it to "not end up on any site" like you prefer. My point was that domain squatting sucks. Both our expected outcomes (Google search, no page displayed) get replaced by some page full of ads for very vaguely related topics. I am actually working in my free time on creating a database of such domain squatters and on better ways to combat them ;-)