4 ms·

Yes that is true. But that isn't the point of the question. The implication of the parent is that since Google (by analogy TV companies) make money from advert

by netcan 17y ago

Yes that is true. But that isn't the point of the question. The implication of the parent is that since Google (by analogy TV companies) make money from advertising, they have less incentive to take care of users. Ratings determine how much a network can charge the advertisers for commercial time. Ratings are a measure of viewer satisfaction. This isn't coincidental.

scott_s 17y ago
The analogy fails because networks have a finite amount of air time to sell every day. Shows with low ratings get dropped. Google and others can literally create advertising space. Applications with relatively low usage cost them little, but they are also unlikely to invest in improving it.
- netcan 17y ago
  Google have an equivalent of limited space.
  - stinkytaco 17y ago
    No they don't. They have limited attention, but their space is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. Networks have 24 hours of programming, Google has millions of page views, application users, etc. But, even if something gets very small amounts of attention, it is still incredibly cheap to serve ads (because that's all automated) and, as a result, make money. The user experience only has to be good enough to keep enough people using it that you break even on the infrastructure.
    - netcan 17y ago
      That's not true. The world of online advertising has not been rewarding to those that provide not very popular services cheaply. This has certainly never been the case for Google. The only services doing well from advertising on a large scaleare the very popular ones This thread is awful. Every comment is completely on its own. No context. I say 'Google has the equivalent of online space and of course I have to prove that to be true in every possible context. It is the earlier post by zedshaw that made a general claim that when the provider gets paid by an advertiser, a user cannot count on being looked after (more then in direct payments). I gave an example of industry that for decades has been proving this statement wrong. I get pounced, red herrings swinging. If you are continuing the argument of the GGparent comment as you seem to be, you are arguing that TV is completely different from web because TV shows need to meet a certain threshold to stay on air. This is why TV people care about ratings/customer satisfaction.
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        It is the earlier post by zedshaw that made a general claim that when the provider gets paid by an advertiser, a user cannot count on being looked after (more then in direct payments). I gave an example of industry that for decades has been proving this statement wrong. I get pounced, red herrings swinging. In the eyes of many, myself included, the example of TV proves your point wrong. TV content producers seem to be motivated and geared to produce mindless dreck for the LCD viewer. Hits happen occasionally and unpredictably, so that's not actually what they try to do. Excellent reviews from critics doesn't mean you can charge advertisers more. Mediocrity is the rule of the day.
boucher 17y ago
Actually, ratings don't really measure viewer satisfaction. They measure the number of people watching. Those aren't really the same things. The advertising based system on television is part of the reason why shows must have broad appeal, and often cater to a lowest common denominator. Shows which may require more effort from the viewer may get a smaller audience, but that audience may be much more satisfied. Unfortunately, since television's model is based only on total viewing audience, it doesn't matter how satisfied the viewer really is, just as long as they keep watching.
- netcan 17y ago
  You're nitpicking. Gross viewer satisfaction by some definition of 'viewer' & 'satisfactions.' Very similar metric to box office sales where consumers pay directly. Better? None of this is relevant to the point being discussed. The point is that just because company A gets paid by Advertiser B that wants to reach Customer C does not mean that company A does not have the incentive to serve customer C properly.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    You're nitpicking. Gross viewer satisfaction by some definition of 'viewer' & satisfactions. I don't think that's a nitpick. I'll sometimes watch a TV show, but still not be wholly satisfied with it. He's pointing out a problem with the metric. With the current economics, companies that produce TV would be most pleased if a whole ton of somewhat dissatisfied people watch a show, versus a few that love a show. The economics encourage mediocrity.

by netcan 17y ago

scott_s 17y ago

The analogy fails because networks have a finite amount of air time to sell every day. Shows with low ratings get dropped. Google and others can literally create advertising space. Applications with relatively low usage cost them little, but they are also unlikely to invest in improving it.

netcan 17y ago
Google have an equivalent of limited space.
- stinkytaco 17y ago
  No they don't. They have limited attention, but their space is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. Networks have 24 hours of programming, Google has millions of page views, application users, etc. But, even if something gets very small amounts of attention, it is still incredibly cheap to serve ads (because that's all automated) and, as a result, make money. The user experience only has to be good enough to keep enough people using it that you break even on the infrastructure.
  - netcan 17y ago
    That's not true. The world of online advertising has not been rewarding to those that provide not very popular services cheaply. This has certainly never been the case for Google. The only services doing well from advertising on a large scaleare the very popular ones This thread is awful. Every comment is completely on its own. No context. I say 'Google has the equivalent of online space and of course I have to prove that to be true in every possible context. It is the earlier post by zedshaw that made a general claim that when the provider gets paid by an advertiser, a user cannot count on being looked after (more then in direct payments). I gave an example of industry that for decades has been proving this statement wrong. I get pounced, red herrings swinging. If you are continuing the argument of the GGparent comment as you seem to be, you are arguing that TV is completely different from web because TV shows need to meet a certain threshold to stay on air. This is why TV people care about ratings/customer satisfaction.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      It is the earlier post by zedshaw that made a general claim that when the provider gets paid by an advertiser, a user cannot count on being looked after (more then in direct payments). I gave an example of industry that for decades has been proving this statement wrong. I get pounced, red herrings swinging. In the eyes of many, myself included, the example of TV proves your point wrong. TV content producers seem to be motivated and geared to produce mindless dreck for the LCD viewer. Hits happen occasionally and unpredictably, so that's not actually what they try to do. Excellent reviews from critics doesn't mean you can charge advertisers more. Mediocrity is the rule of the day.

boucher 17y ago

Actually, ratings don't really measure viewer satisfaction. They measure the number of people watching. Those aren't really the same things. The advertising based system on television is part of the reason why shows must have broad appeal, and often cater to a lowest common denominator. Shows which may require more effort from the viewer may get a smaller audience, but that audience may be much more satisfied. Unfortunately, since television's model is based only on total viewing audience, it doesn't matter how satisfied the viewer really is, just as long as they keep watching.

netcan 17y ago
You're nitpicking. Gross viewer satisfaction by some definition of 'viewer' & 'satisfactions.' Very similar metric to box office sales where consumers pay directly. Better? None of this is relevant to the point being discussed. The point is that just because company A gets paid by Advertiser B that wants to reach Customer C does not mean that company A does not have the incentive to serve customer C properly.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  You're nitpicking. Gross viewer satisfaction by some definition of 'viewer' & satisfactions. I don't think that's a nitpick. I'll sometimes watch a TV show, but still not be wholly satisfied with it. He's pointing out a problem with the metric. With the current economics, companies that produce TV would be most pleased if a whole ton of somewhat dissatisfied people watch a show, versus a few that love a show. The economics encourage mediocrity.