5 ms·

"Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator

"Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator. If two pieces of functionality are clearly separate, they should be put into two different extensions, and users should have the ability to install and uninstall them separately," Kudos to Google. Now if only they applied the same logic to the advertisements between the search box and the actual results. Search results and advertisements only represent the same functionality when my search query expresses my intent to purchase something. I know advertising is Google's business model, so before anyone points that out, let me point out that I've also never been offered the opportunity to purchase the ability to use Google's search without advertising. They should follow their own policy here and give us the ability to uninstall advertising from Google even if it does come with a monthly subscription fee to do so.

jrockway 13y ago
Wait until you hear about how The New York Times works. You pay a monthly subscription fee and have to look at ads.
- hrrsn 13y ago
  See also: Cable TV.
- anon1385 13y ago
  When you snarkily reply to people criticising Google's business model you should probably mention that you work for Google.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Why? To create unnecessary Internet controversy? The fact of the matter is: I'm happy getting Google search for free, and I've been a loyal paid subscriber to the Times since I've moved to New York. The business model of ads seems to work, otherwise there would be no Google or New York Times to complain about. Furthermore, the comment I replied to has nothing to do with the article. Web pages and Chrome extensions are totally different things. Web pages present you with what the content creator wants you to see. Chrome extensions as documented in this article change that out from under you without telling you. Do you see the difference? (Compare that to an extension like AdBlock, which makes clear that it removes ads from pages you visit, so if you install it, you won't wonder why you aren't seeing ads anymore.)
    - anon1385 13y ago
      >The business model of ads seems to work, otherwise there would be no Google or New York Times to complain about. Traditionally (i.e. in the print version) the ads in an edition of the NYT did not contain malware that was going to infect my computer and install toolbars and key loggers. Google ads point to sites that contain malware. If you want people to stop criticising Google ads then maybe you should drop whatever Google+ stuff your boss thinks you are working on right now and fix the fact that searches for 'Firefox' return ads that point to sites containing malware downloads. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/jX5Lt9F.png http://i.imgur.com/jX5Lt9F.png One of those sites even has a page offering a malware infested Chrome download (although I couldn't get it to show in an ad), so maybe that will motivate you to act. (googlechrome.xtremedownload.com‎). A brief search seems to suggest that those sites bundle the apps with toolbars and unwanted browser extensions that do things like inject ads into pages and so on. Potentially they are doing even worse things. >Web pages present you with what the content creator wants you to see. Chrome extensions as documented in this article change that out from under you without telling you. Do you see the difference? The difference seems fairly unimportant when the content creator (in this case Google) is happy to serve me ads that are just as malicious as these malware browser extensions.
      - jrockway 13y ago
        Now we've completely derailed the discussion.
    - shiven 13y ago
      (Compare that to an extension like AdBlock, which makes clear that it removes ads from pages you visit, so if you install it, you won't wonder why you aren't seeing ads anymore.) Why would anyone ever want to see ads? I have always found them to be utterly useless, in terms of whatever they may be peddling, whenever I have had the unwanted irritation of them showing up on my browser (yeah, yeah, your website, your rules; but also my browser, my rules). The worst idea in this respect is the Subscription+Ads model, which in my book is like adding insult to the injury. No, you may not have my money only to cram ads down my throat, thank you very much. There are plenty of ways I can consume my news on the web, without stupid advertisements, and I'll keep doing that. If you don't like that, you can take your oh-so-precious content and shove it.
- cynwoody 13y ago
  Configure your browser to drop nytimes.com cookies on exit. Works for me. I never visit the site deliberately, but I do land there occasionally by following links. However, since I restart my browser at least once a day, I rarely come close to the limit of 10 free NY Times articles in a month in a browser session.
  - nl 13y ago
    Surprisingly, that doesn't seem affect the add in the physical paper...
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Well, I pay for the Times. Nobody is forcing me to do that, but I like them, so I give them some money. It would be nice to not look at ads, but it's their newspaper, not mine, so it's not really for me to decide except with my wallet. It's tough for content creators to make money, so I'm grateful that the Times can subsist on my $12 a month and some sponsors. In another Universe where everyone was willing to open their wallet, I'd prefer paying $24 a month and not seeing ads. But I guess that's not enough money to run one of the world's top newspapers, otherwise, that's what it would cost. No reputable publication wants a potential conflict of interest to taint their reporting, after all. (Consumer Reports is an example of content that is solely paid for with subscriber's money. Good, but not as good as the Times. And there are still controversies, like employees at CR getting jobs at companies whose products they've reviewed. It's hard to eliminate all conflicts of interest in the skeptical eyes of Internet critics.)
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  It's been like that forever. As far back as I remember.
dhugiaskmak 13y ago
Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality Oh god the irony. /clicks 'No' for the umpteen thousandth goddamned time on some Google property trying to trick me into using G+

jrockway 13y ago

Wait until you hear about how The New York Times works. You pay a monthly subscription fee and have to look at ads.

hrrsn 13y ago
See also: Cable TV.
anon1385 13y ago
When you snarkily reply to people criticising Google's business model you should probably mention that you work for Google.
- jrockway 13y ago
  Why? To create unnecessary Internet controversy? The fact of the matter is: I'm happy getting Google search for free, and I've been a loyal paid subscriber to the Times since I've moved to New York. The business model of ads seems to work, otherwise there would be no Google or New York Times to complain about. Furthermore, the comment I replied to has nothing to do with the article. Web pages and Chrome extensions are totally different things. Web pages present you with what the content creator wants you to see. Chrome extensions as documented in this article change that out from under you without telling you. Do you see the difference? (Compare that to an extension like AdBlock, which makes clear that it removes ads from pages you visit, so if you install it, you won't wonder why you aren't seeing ads anymore.)
  - anon1385 13y ago
    >The business model of ads seems to work, otherwise there would be no Google or New York Times to complain about. Traditionally (i.e. in the print version) the ads in an edition of the NYT did not contain malware that was going to infect my computer and install toolbars and key loggers. Google ads point to sites that contain malware. If you want people to stop criticising Google ads then maybe you should drop whatever Google+ stuff your boss thinks you are working on right now and fix the fact that searches for 'Firefox' return ads that point to sites containing malware downloads. Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/jX5Lt9F.png http://i.imgur.com/jX5Lt9F.png One of those sites even has a page offering a malware infested Chrome download (although I couldn't get it to show in an ad), so maybe that will motivate you to act. (googlechrome.xtremedownload.com‎). A brief search seems to suggest that those sites bundle the apps with toolbars and unwanted browser extensions that do things like inject ads into pages and so on. Potentially they are doing even worse things. >Web pages present you with what the content creator wants you to see. Chrome extensions as documented in this article change that out from under you without telling you. Do you see the difference? The difference seems fairly unimportant when the content creator (in this case Google) is happy to serve me ads that are just as malicious as these malware browser extensions.
    - jrockway 13y ago
      Now we've completely derailed the discussion.
  - shiven 13y ago
    (Compare that to an extension like AdBlock, which makes clear that it removes ads from pages you visit, so if you install it, you won't wonder why you aren't seeing ads anymore.) Why would anyone ever want to see ads? I have always found them to be utterly useless, in terms of whatever they may be peddling, whenever I have had the unwanted irritation of them showing up on my browser (yeah, yeah, your website, your rules; but also my browser, my rules). The worst idea in this respect is the Subscription+Ads model, which in my book is like adding insult to the injury. No, you may not have my money only to cram ads down my throat, thank you very much. There are plenty of ways I can consume my news on the web, without stupid advertisements, and I'll keep doing that. If you don't like that, you can take your oh-so-precious content and shove it.
cynwoody 13y ago
Configure your browser to drop nytimes.com cookies on exit. Works for me. I never visit the site deliberately, but I do land there occasionally by following links. However, since I restart my browser at least once a day, I rarely come close to the limit of 10 free NY Times articles in a month in a browser session.
- nl 13y ago
  Surprisingly, that doesn't seem affect the add in the physical paper...
- jrockway 13y ago
  Well, I pay for the Times. Nobody is forcing me to do that, but I like them, so I give them some money. It would be nice to not look at ads, but it's their newspaper, not mine, so it's not really for me to decide except with my wallet. It's tough for content creators to make money, so I'm grateful that the Times can subsist on my $12 a month and some sponsors. In another Universe where everyone was willing to open their wallet, I'd prefer paying $24 a month and not seeing ads. But I guess that's not enough money to run one of the world's top newspapers, otherwise, that's what it would cost. No reputable publication wants a potential conflict of interest to taint their reporting, after all. (Consumer Reports is an example of content that is solely paid for with subscriber's money. Good, but not as good as the Times. And there are still controversies, like employees at CR getting jobs at companies whose products they've reviewed. It's hard to eliminate all conflicts of interest in the skeptical eyes of Internet critics.)
jasonlotito 13y ago
It's been like that forever. As far back as I remember.

dhugiaskmak 13y ago

Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality Oh god the irony. /clicks 'No' for the umpteen thousandth goddamned time on some Google property trying to trick me into using G+