3 ms·

As an internet user, retargeting is honestly one of my #1 targets. I find it super-creepy that some websites show me things based on other websites I visit, and

As an internet user, retargeting is honestly one of my #1 targets. I find it super-creepy that some websites show me things based on other websites I visit, and I want a way to stop it.

melvinram 14y ago
Would you rather see ads for things that are completely irrelevant? Relevance requires data. Edit: I do believe the user should have more control over what companies are allowed to retarget with an easy opt out mechanism implemented by every ad network as well as a way to limit the frequency. I've experience companies going WAY overboard on their retargeting and it feels stalker-ish.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I'd like things relevant to the site I'm currently visiting, not based on an attempt to construct a personalized profile of me specifically. The former is reasonable contextual advertising (you visit a sci-fi site, you get ads for sci-fi books), while the latter starts feeling like someone compiling an FBI file on my preferences. Apart from the creepiness, it also helps me mentally compartmentalize and context-switch better, when the ads on a site are relevant to the site, rather than to some other site I may have visited in the past which is not what I'm currently trying to concentrate on. Now maybe that's the point: to throw me off my current train of thought by reminding me of some previous train of thought. I was previously planning a trip, but now I'm trying to research something else and trying not to think about that trip I have to plan, so I can get something else done in the next hour. But the advertiser thinks maybe reminding me of that trip would be a good idea, which is maybe even statistically justified, because I do have to plan it in the next week, and a significant amount of money will be spent. But that's so mentally invasive that it's what will probably drive me to finally install AdBlock. It's like having your own personal Troll Clippy following you around whispering "oh interesting research, but remember that trip you have to plan? LOL I knew you would!" To get things done in a modern workplace that has pervasive use of the internet and pervasive distractions, you have to block out things that are relevant to your interests but not to the current task. And retargeting does not help with that.
  - melvinram 14y ago
    I see your point but it's hardly an effective usage of resources. In my experience, retargeting ads produce higher CTRs than generic ads. This means that a publisher is able to derive 2-10x more revenue from the same ad space if they used retargeting ads instead of contextual ads. I agree that some level of self-regulation is in order. Users should have a way to control the level of retargeting they experience and from whom, but to remove the entire mechanism that enables retargeting will only hurt the web because ROI on ad dollars will be lower. Lower ROI = less being spent on online advertising. Less spent on ads = less revenue for publishers. Less revenue for publishers = less investment from publisher to drive more revenue, which will likely mean lower quantity and quality of content created.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  In short, yes. It never bothered me that TV didnt target me. Same on the web.
  - melvinram 14y ago
    It may not bother you but it does bother most of America. They use DVRs and skips ads whenever possible.
    - RobAtticus 14y ago
      Or, people prefer to see no ads at all because they are more interested in the show they are watching than any ad, relevant or not.
    - ajdecon 14y ago
      The lack of relevance isn't what bothers them. It's the fact that the ads are not the show they intended to watch. And in fact interrupts it. If you could make all the ads I saw on TV perfectly relevant, I would still fast forward. Because I would like to get back to the show, OK?
    - majormajor 14y ago
      DVR usage isn't actually that prevalent, even after a decade. Generally the preference is to watch stuff live, and live with the ads. Which is a big part of why the ground hasn't fallen out from under broadcasters like it did with newspapers, and TV ads are still the priciest (and arguably most effective, commanding your attention in a way that banner ads cannot) form of ads.
- zxtang 14y ago
  Many ad networks[1] do already provide an opt out mechanism. You look for a blue icon[2] in the corner of the ad, which if you click it should take you to an opt out page. I dug a bit further, and also found this: http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ which purports to allow you to opt out from any or all of the participating companies from that page. [1]: http://www.aboutads.info/participating http://www.aboutads.info/participating [2]: http://www.aboutads.info/sites/default/files/page_img/icon_enhanced_notice_lg.jpg?1295117626 http://www.aboutads.info/sites/default/files/page_img/icon_e...
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    There is a Firefox addon called "Beef Taco" that inserts 450+ known opt-out cookies into Firefox's cookie jar: https://github.com/jmhobbs/beef-taco https://github.com/jmhobbs/beef-taco
- splicer 14y ago
  > Would you rather see ads for things that are completely irrelevant? Yes. For instance, I don't mind seeing pizza commercials because I don't like cheese.
chewxy 14y ago
Why? You visit say... kogan.com.au, they know what fridges you look at. That's intent to buy. You're cookied as #12412214. In the backend, that cookie ID is labeled as FridgeLover. The next website you go to that has an ad slot, when the ad call is made, your anonymized information is submitted, and if the advertiser wins the bid, the advertiser shows you ads of fridges, because the advertiser remembers that cookie ID 12412214 is a FridgeLover. It's anonymous (though significant efforts can be expended for less anonymity). And most importantly, it helps users recall products they've seen. It is relevant to the user (fun bits: buy retargeted ads on competitor sites!)
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  "It's relevant" is not a good excuse. Using pieces of my email (like google) or my own friends (like facebook) is the result of that line of thought and extremely invasive and creepy.
  - melvinram 14y ago
    "It's relevant" is the ultimate "excuse" to show an ad.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- brokenrecord 14y ago
  You seem like that lobbyist from Thank you for smoking... Sorry it's just the feeling I got.
brugidou 14y ago
why is that creepy? Both websites are related through a retargeter. One sends the data over to the other. It's just like they were the same websites or same corporation. If you don't like this then you can avoid theses websites that sell/buy your information. Although that's a good chunk of the Internet. Just make sure you send private information to trusted sites only.
- ihsw 14y ago
  Because it's not opt-in and there's no way to opt-out.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    It's more correct to say that the ways to opt out are esoteric. Something like RequestPolicy allows the user to opt out of everything.
    - eksith 14y ago
      It's more correct to say that the ways to opt out are esoteric. And it's also disingenuous. If the default is opt-in (and that's never OK, regardless of your rationalisations) and opt-out is hidden somewhere on the 8th subpage of a company you've never heard of or will likely never know about without view-source. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen the source of a targetted ad... the middle one. Self-governance does not work when the power of technology is asymmetric. Whether it's cookies, spam or nuclear weapons, deterrence is the only effective solution.
      - maxerickson 14y ago
        You are incorrectly pigeonholing me here.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  If you don't like being filmed in public and face-tracked everywhere you go, just don't ever leave home. Can you picture yourself saying that in 10 years?

As an internet user, retargeting is honestly one of my #1 targets. I find it super-creepy that some websites show me things based on other websites I visit, and I want a way to stop it.

melvinram 14y ago

Would you rather see ads for things that are completely irrelevant? Relevance requires data. Edit: I do believe the user should have more control over what companies are allowed to retarget with an easy opt out mechanism implemented by every ad network as well as a way to limit the frequency. I've experience companies going WAY overboard on their retargeting and it feels stalker-ish.

_delirium 14y ago
I'd like things relevant to the site I'm currently visiting, not based on an attempt to construct a personalized profile of me specifically. The former is reasonable contextual advertising (you visit a sci-fi site, you get ads for sci-fi books), while the latter starts feeling like someone compiling an FBI file on my preferences. Apart from the creepiness, it also helps me mentally compartmentalize and context-switch better, when the ads on a site are relevant to the site, rather than to some other site I may have visited in the past which is not what I'm currently trying to concentrate on. Now maybe that's the point: to throw me off my current train of thought by reminding me of some previous train of thought. I was previously planning a trip, but now I'm trying to research something else and trying not to think about that trip I have to plan, so I can get something else done in the next hour. But the advertiser thinks maybe reminding me of that trip would be a good idea, which is maybe even statistically justified, because I do have to plan it in the next week, and a significant amount of money will be spent. But that's so mentally invasive that it's what will probably drive me to finally install AdBlock. It's like having your own personal Troll Clippy following you around whispering "oh interesting research, but remember that trip you have to plan? LOL I knew you would!" To get things done in a modern workplace that has pervasive use of the internet and pervasive distractions, you have to block out things that are relevant to your interests but not to the current task. And retargeting does not help with that.
- melvinram 14y ago
  I see your point but it's hardly an effective usage of resources. In my experience, retargeting ads produce higher CTRs than generic ads. This means that a publisher is able to derive 2-10x more revenue from the same ad space if they used retargeting ads instead of contextual ads. I agree that some level of self-regulation is in order. Users should have a way to control the level of retargeting they experience and from whom, but to remove the entire mechanism that enables retargeting will only hurt the web because ROI on ad dollars will be lower. Lower ROI = less being spent on online advertising. Less spent on ads = less revenue for publishers. Less revenue for publishers = less investment from publisher to drive more revenue, which will likely mean lower quantity and quality of content created.
alan_cx 14y ago
In short, yes. It never bothered me that TV didnt target me. Same on the web.
- melvinram 14y ago
  It may not bother you but it does bother most of America. They use DVRs and skips ads whenever possible.
  - RobAtticus 14y ago
    Or, people prefer to see no ads at all because they are more interested in the show they are watching than any ad, relevant or not.
  - ajdecon 14y ago
    The lack of relevance isn't what bothers them. It's the fact that the ads are not the show they intended to watch. And in fact interrupts it. If you could make all the ads I saw on TV perfectly relevant, I would still fast forward. Because I would like to get back to the show, OK?
  - majormajor 14y ago
    DVR usage isn't actually that prevalent, even after a decade. Generally the preference is to watch stuff live, and live with the ads. Which is a big part of why the ground hasn't fallen out from under broadcasters like it did with newspapers, and TV ads are still the priciest (and arguably most effective, commanding your attention in a way that banner ads cannot) form of ads.
zxtang 14y ago
Many ad networks[1] do already provide an opt out mechanism. You look for a blue icon[2] in the corner of the ad, which if you click it should take you to an opt out page. I dug a bit further, and also found this: http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ which purports to allow you to opt out from any or all of the participating companies from that page. [1]: http://www.aboutads.info/participating http://www.aboutads.info/participating [2]: http://www.aboutads.info/sites/default/files/page_img/icon_enhanced_notice_lg.jpg?1295117626 http://www.aboutads.info/sites/default/files/page_img/icon_e...
- cpeterso 14y ago
  There is a Firefox addon called "Beef Taco" that inserts 450+ known opt-out cookies into Firefox's cookie jar: https://github.com/jmhobbs/beef-taco https://github.com/jmhobbs/beef-taco
splicer 14y ago
> Would you rather see ads for things that are completely irrelevant? Yes. For instance, I don't mind seeing pizza commercials because I don't like cheese.

chewxy 14y ago

Why? You visit say... kogan.com.au, they know what fridges you look at. That's intent to buy. You're cookied as #12412214. In the backend, that cookie ID is labeled as FridgeLover. The next website you go to that has an ad slot, when the ad call is made, your anonymized information is submitted, and if the advertiser wins the bid, the advertiser shows you ads of fridges, because the advertiser remembers that cookie ID 12412214 is a FridgeLover. It's anonymous (though significant efforts can be expended for less anonymity). And most importantly, it helps users recall products they've seen. It is relevant to the user (fun bits: buy retargeted ads on competitor sites!)

ricardobeat 14y ago
"It's relevant" is not a good excuse. Using pieces of my email (like google) or my own friends (like facebook) is the result of that line of thought and extremely invasive and creepy.
- melvinram 14y ago
  "It's relevant" is the ultimate "excuse" to show an ad.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
brokenrecord 14y ago
You seem like that lobbyist from Thank you for smoking... Sorry it's just the feeling I got.

brugidou 14y ago

why is that creepy? Both websites are related through a retargeter. One sends the data over to the other. It's just like they were the same websites or same corporation. If you don't like this then you can avoid theses websites that sell/buy your information. Although that's a good chunk of the Internet. Just make sure you send private information to trusted sites only.

ihsw 14y ago
Because it's not opt-in and there's no way to opt-out.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  It's more correct to say that the ways to opt out are esoteric. Something like RequestPolicy allows the user to opt out of everything.
  - eksith 14y ago
    It's more correct to say that the ways to opt out are esoteric. And it's also disingenuous. If the default is opt-in (and that's never OK, regardless of your rationalisations) and opt-out is hidden somewhere on the 8th subpage of a company you've never heard of or will likely never know about without view-source. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen the source of a targetted ad... the middle one. Self-governance does not work when the power of technology is asymmetric. Whether it's cookies, spam or nuclear weapons, deterrence is the only effective solution.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      You are incorrectly pigeonholing me here.
ricardobeat 14y ago
If you don't like being filmed in public and face-tracked everywhere you go, just don't ever leave home. Can you picture yourself saying that in 10 years?