3 ms·

Hypothetical: if I were to tell you that, say, 75% of the net ad revenue on many ad networks was generated by clicks on ads served by adware and spyware, but on

by frig 17y ago

Hypothetical: if I were to tell you that, say, 75% of the net ad revenue on many ad networks was generated by clicks on ads served by adware and spyware, but only, say, 15% of total ad impressions were served by adware and spyware, would you revise your reasoning as to how useful the clickers are finding the ads?

axod 17y ago
We're not discussing adware/spyware. And no, I wouldn't revise my thoughts. All you've said is the obvious - adware+spyware is very effective at generating revenue. Obviously more effective than unobtrusive advertising mingled in with website content. edit: still not sure I quite understand your point here (Or why the downmods). You're saying that adware/spyware generates lots of revenue for ad networks. What does that have to do with the usefulness of advertising on websites?
- frig 17y ago
  The connection is this: Hypothesis A: ads are useful, people click on them b/c they deliberately want more info. Hypothesis B: ads are useless, people click on them only when they are somehow tricked into doing so. It's obviously the case that out of the set of ad-clickers some are type A and some are type B; the interesting question is the composition of the ad-clicking population. What follows depends on how you interpret adware and spyware clicks: are they clicked mostly out of confusion (b/c the demographic that has adware/spyware-infected computers tends to be the elderly and other "unsavvy" people) or mostly b/c they're useful to the clicker? Depending on how you do your weightings you might have to revise down the % of type-A clicks that're going on (and revise it down again to take various kinds of clickfraud into account). I can't actually tell you if those stats are accurate: I've overheard figures like that from people who might know, but figure they're mostly disgruntled employees exaggerating for effect, so I tend to discount the testimony somewhat.
  - axod 17y ago
    My evidence is mainly my own - I've made money off online advertising for 10 years now. I've never had to trick anyone into clicking on adverts. They do so because they find them useful.
    - frig 17y ago
      Even if it's true that you haven't tricked people into clicking on them, without further evidence it's hard to say if your clicks are because people find them useful or because people get confused.
      - axod 17y ago
        http://www.mibbit.com/chat/ http://www.mibbit.com/chat/ (Adverts top right). I don't think that's very confusing.
  - ibsulon 17y ago
    The thing is, the people clicking on the "Free Ipod Touch!!!" </blink> are genuinely interested in the result. They also may not understand the implication of such "FREEE!!!" offers. Remember, the people seeing the adware are the ones who clicked on bonzai buddy in the first place, and/or don't realize the adware on their machine. These are also the people that don't think there's going to have any trouble canceling that free offer. (An aside: one of the darkest, most depressing times in my life was working in online advertising. I lasted 6 months.)

by frig 17y ago

axod 17y ago

We're not discussing adware/spyware. And no, I wouldn't revise my thoughts. All you've said is the obvious - adware+spyware is very effective at generating revenue. Obviously more effective than unobtrusive advertising mingled in with website content. edit: still not sure I quite understand your point here (Or why the downmods). You're saying that adware/spyware generates lots of revenue for ad networks. What does that have to do with the usefulness of advertising on websites?

frig 17y ago
The connection is this: Hypothesis A: ads are useful, people click on them b/c they deliberately want more info. Hypothesis B: ads are useless, people click on them only when they are somehow tricked into doing so. It's obviously the case that out of the set of ad-clickers some are type A and some are type B; the interesting question is the composition of the ad-clicking population. What follows depends on how you interpret adware and spyware clicks: are they clicked mostly out of confusion (b/c the demographic that has adware/spyware-infected computers tends to be the elderly and other "unsavvy" people) or mostly b/c they're useful to the clicker? Depending on how you do your weightings you might have to revise down the % of type-A clicks that're going on (and revise it down again to take various kinds of clickfraud into account). I can't actually tell you if those stats are accurate: I've overheard figures like that from people who might know, but figure they're mostly disgruntled employees exaggerating for effect, so I tend to discount the testimony somewhat.
- axod 17y ago
  My evidence is mainly my own - I've made money off online advertising for 10 years now. I've never had to trick anyone into clicking on adverts. They do so because they find them useful.
  - frig 17y ago
    Even if it's true that you haven't tricked people into clicking on them, without further evidence it's hard to say if your clicks are because people find them useful or because people get confused.
    - axod 17y ago
      http://www.mibbit.com/chat/ http://www.mibbit.com/chat/ (Adverts top right). I don't think that's very confusing.
- ibsulon 17y ago
  The thing is, the people clicking on the "Free Ipod Touch!!!" </blink> are genuinely interested in the result. They also may not understand the implication of such "FREEE!!!" offers. Remember, the people seeing the adware are the ones who clicked on bonzai buddy in the first place, and/or don't realize the adware on their machine. These are also the people that don't think there's going to have any trouble canceling that free offer. (An aside: one of the darkest, most depressing times in my life was working in online advertising. I lasted 6 months.)