B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | Google: The Slide Towards "Evil" Continues
Thanks to AOL, Google is planning on adding banner ads or other graphic advertisements to its site.
»www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/techn···gle.html
( Edit: Times link was readable but is ALREADY archived -- Use »bugmenot.com )
»slashdot.org/articles/05/12/20/1···?tid=217
Oh Google, why have you foresaken me?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
gjrhine
join:2001-12-12
Pawleys Island, SC | As a shareholder I say Go Google! |
|
tradnav
join:2005-02-25
UK
| said by gjrhine  :As a shareholder I say Go Google! Not on my PC... not now.. not ever..;) |
|
Razgriz
Pandora rocks
Premium
join:2005-05-31
Fayetteville, NC
clubs: | reply to B
Damn it Google! |
|
Garbs
Mudhole? Slimy? My home this is.
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-27
Garden State
1 edit | reply to B
AOL just won't die, will it?  |
|
salzan
Experienced Optimist
Premium
join:2004-01-08
WA State
| reply to B
Not too surprising. The first page of searches is overloaded with meaningless sponsored ads. Google Earth has already become so full of push-pins for registered advertisers that it's hard to see details in some metro areas.
Maybe they and AOL should just make their own internet.
Call it dot-sux or something similar |
|
jp
Premium
join:2000-05-18
Fountain Hills, AZ | reply to B
From what I have read, the graphic ads will not be on search results on the google search site but users using the AOL search engine could see them.
--
All that is gold does not glitter |
|
Traxless
Premium
join:2005-02-16
USA
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·Cbeyond
| reply to B
As we know, most public restrooms are a mess created by a few. Private restrooms are better maintained. So I suppose the morale of this story is a 2 tier Internet, public and private. One will be free and full of hazards, one will cost to use and have less hazards. Most average, everyday Internet users (including myself) will gladly pay for the use of a private restroom that is NOT full of the crap as compared to all that we have to deal with on the public Internet.
My .02 worth. |
|
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
1 edit | reply to B
deleted - somehow it was a duplicate post! |
|
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to B
Well, two of the biggest things that have made Google what it is are the breadth/depth of its search results and the lack of clutter in perusing them. If either of these is significantly impaired, then the site correspondingly loses luster... and will eventually lose "hits". Some folks, of course, couldn't care less, and they'll hang around. Many others do care, however, and they'll quietly migrate somewhere else. Either to another free, competant search engine that's hungrier or else toward Traxless 's idea about modestly-paid search sites. One way or another, users will all survive a deterioration of Google's usefulness in the marketplace. The question, of course, is whether Google will. And that's something for gjrhine and other Google stockholders to ponder.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 |
In fairness to his or her portfolio, there is, sadly, still no viable competition...
We search but at the pleasure of The Google.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to B
Because google like every single site out there uses servers to store files on and band width to deliver you content. Both cost money money dont grow on tress so to speak. Obviously google isnt making enough from sponsered links and or google adds.
Ive not got a web site that needs to worry about such things but i know many many people who do run for profit sites. Most have a specific target for profit per months quater half year or year. Id asume google has a similar idea in place. So when their profits dip below that mark they need to look at ways to increase it.
A banner ad a single one at the top of the page is fine imo popups popunders etc are not.
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
|
Sigh. You're being incredibly short-sighted.
Google has been very profitable from the beginning. Part of the reason for that profitability has been their avoidance of graphical ads.
But Blackbird already told you that...
Oh, it's okay as long as the ads don't pop up?
And then when they pop up you'll say it's okay as long as they don't pop UNDER?
And then you'll say it's okay as long as they don't use full page animations?
When you personally will jump ship is not relevant -- the point is that they've more than started down the slope (to poorly mix two metaphors).
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to B
don't be too quick..
They offer sites that carry their ads (like this one) the ability to decide whether you as webmaster want to carry graphical/animated banners, or continue with just text. Advertisers pay more for graphical ones. All google is doing is responding to demand - but it should be up to the owner of the site as to whether to enable the richer-media adverts.
Look where this biz came from - double click downloading huge complicated banners in the days when a lot of people didn't even have broadband? Now google is doing things properly, edging forward in complexity only when it is realistic and providing sites in their network the tools that help them decide what to do.
As a site that uses adsense, I've seen zero sign that google is any more "evil" today than it was a year ago so I don't see any "slide" here at all.
But as they continue to grow, they are going to have to continue to expand beyond just paid text boxes. But the key is how they do it. |
|
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by justin : ... But the key is how they do it. And that's as near a universal truth applying to all commercial websites as we're ever going to come across!
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to justin
said by justin :don't be too quick.. They offer sites that carry their ads (like this one) the ability to decide whether you as webmaster want to carry graphical/animated banners, or continue with just text. Advertisers pay more for graphical ones. All google is doing is responding to demand - but it should be up to the owner of the site as to whether to enable the richer-media adverts. Look where this biz came from - double click downloading huge complicated banners in the days when a lot of people didn't even have broadband? Now google is doing things properly, edging forward in complexity only when it is realistic and providing sites in their network the tools that help them decide what to do. As a site that uses adsense, I've seen zero sign that google is any more "evil" today than it was a year ago so I don't see any "slide" here at all. But as they continue to grow, they are going to have to continue to expand beyond just paid text boxes. But the key is how they do it. Yep google mail and the personalized google homepage i bet that sucks down some heafty bandwidth. Personaly i close any webpage that has meta refresh while im in bed. Site provide meta refreshes like the gamil on your personal home page so you can more easly check your mail or updates etc. Closign the page when your not useing it is simply a nice thing to do.
And i didnt know that webmaster could chose to show graphical adds inplace of google text adds.
Googleisnt evil imo they are taking it slow and easy like you said justin. The could have done like many many other sites have done and splater your screen with popups and more adverts than content.
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to justin
said by justin :They offer sites that carry their ads (like this one) the ability to decide whether you as webmaster want to carry graphical/animated banners, or continue with just text. Advertisers pay more for graphical ones. All google is doing is responding to demand - but it should be up to the owner of the site as to whether to enable the richer-media adverts. But we're talking about new graphic ads on the Google.com site -- not partner sites.
Look where this biz came from - double click downloading huge complicated banners in the days when a lot of people didn't even have broadband? Now google is doing things properly, edging forward in complexity only when it is realistic and providing sites in their network the tools that help them decide what to do. So is your implication that, had pervasive broadband been available a few years ago, all those banner ads would have been perfectly okay? And that as long as there is sufficient bandwidth then banner ads are okay on Google's home page?
Then we just disagree completely. Banner ads are not okay, regardless of bandwidth -- they slow down even the fastest connections I've used and are of course distracting and annoying.
For the record, I leave the banner ad option ON to accept ads here at DSLR (although you don't seem to be using it) and I use the AdBlock extension with the "hide ads" option, not "remove ads", in order to support the sites I visit.
But as they continue to grow, they are going to have to continue to expand beyond just paid text boxes.
Uh... why? Those text boxes work, and from what I understand better than the graphic ads do, and people appreciate Google for it.
Google has a whole lot of goodwill that took years to build up, and they can piss it away rather cavalierly if they choose... up to a point.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| where does it say that there WILL be graphically rich ads on the google.com home page, or next to search listings it brings up? as I understood the other news reports, AOL wants google to offer the capability in adsense, for the purpose of their own audience, not to blast around the net.
Google got where it was by being fast and not being sensory overload. They have no reason to change that. But with some advertisers and some adsense sites being ok with richer ads, I don't see why giving that as an option is them becoming evil. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| said by justin :where does it say that there WILL be graphically rich ads on the google.com home page, or next to search listings it brings up? In the NY Times article I linked (and just had to BugMeNot to re-read):
quote:
Google is providing AOL with $300 million in advertising on Google's Web sites...
Google has started to sell graphical ads for placement on other sites; plans to do so on Google itself were accelerated by the AOL talks, an executive involved in the negotiations said.
Traditional banner ads may appear on Google Image Search and the Froogle shopping site, which already include many photographs
Seems pretty clear to me; they're still promising the home page itself will be ad-free though.
, AOL wants google to offer the capability in adsense, for the purpose of their own audience It seems not.
Google got where it was by being fast and not being sensory overload. They have no reason to change that. But with some advertisers and some adsense sites being ok with richer ads, I don't see why giving that as an option is them becoming evil. We all know that "Evil", in this context, is Google's own choice of hyperbole in their semiofficial corporate motto, "Don't Be Evil". Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Call it "reduced focus on end user aesthetics, loyalty, and satisfaction" if you prefer.
Some interesting quotes from the Slashdot discussion, in no particular order:
What Google has done is take us back to a time when advertising was little more than attempting to get the word out for something that may not be widely known. They put ads on pages in a classy way, then attempted to ensure those ads were context sensitive so that it may actually help people find things. Adding classy touches that are subtle but noticeable, like small graphics and preferred placement, make a difference without changing the purpose.
Of course, they also are a precursor to the inundation of advertisement that we get everywhere else. The good news is that the people at Google acknowledged this problem long ago and may be aware that their success is tied to it.
...
Don't they realize that the only reason most people who can block ads haven't blocked them because the vast, vast majority of their ads are text only?
...
Up until now I've refrained from using any kind of blocking mechanism on google's ads because they are always restrained and discreet, and I suspect I'm not the only one who's formed their banner-blocking behavior in this way.
(Quotes from multiple posters in that Slashdot thread.)
Hey now -- this just in -- Google bought 5% of AOL for $1 Billion. »slashdot.org/articles/05/12/21/0···&tid=187
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| hmm, it is hard to argue against google showing banner ads on pages already full of images (froogle and images.google)
Your reasons to dislike them kind of vanishes if the page already has a lot more data in images displayed?
and even if you do, how are they being actually EVIL? |
|
