Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google using the search page to promote Android

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #31
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post
    No.
    Yes. Ads are not results. Ads are clearly marked as ads. The results are not affected.

    It seems to me that whatever voluntary action that you, your employer, and Google perform in that regard was done with full consent of all parties. As such the exchange of value should be regarded as equitable. If you wrote it on your own time and donated it as a free app I would say you've done more than your share in that arena.

    You're still a leech on the search engine and 3rd party websites (or advertisers, depending on how the ad space is bought) that display ads that are blocked though.
    Probably. Serves them right for invading my privacy.

    That seems ridiculous.
    No. What's ridiculous is the blatant invasion of privacy that they get away with. It's more than just seeing ads -- if you don't run ad block, you've got advertisers tracking your online activities. It's something I refuse to participate in.
    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

    Comment

    • #32
      Originally posted by Asher View Post
      Yes. Ads are not results. Ads are clearly marked as ads. The results are not affected.
      No it is a useability issue. It increases scrolling and makes it more difficult to differentiate between what is an ad and what is not.

      Probably. Serves them right for invading my privacy.
      You aren't forced to visit the websites. When you do you aren't forced to have cookies enabled either. You choose to go to the websites. Don't whine about it.

      No. What's ridiculous is the blatant invasion of privacy that they get away with. It's more than just seeing ads -- if you don't run ad block, you've got advertisers tracking your online activities. It's something I refuse to participate in.
      Because you're so scared of being tracked you want the internet to become a much smaller collection of fee based sites that would be a huge hassle to sign up for and keep track of your subscriptions... we get it. Have some tinfoil dude

      Comment

      • #33
        I don't mind fee based sites if they provide content I like. For example, I subscribe to ArsTechnica even though it provides me virtually nothing more than what was on the free site.

        Sites just need to provide the option. If they don't have it, they can't have my money.
        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

        Comment

        • #34
          How many websites do you visit in a day do you think? How would you like to have to sign up for every new website you visit just to find out if it's providing something you're looking for?

          It would be a huge hassle for everyone on the net. Surfers, owners, people who manage websites. It would also be a big security issue for everyone. Real security, as in identity theft and such. Not this tinfoil "OMG an advertiser knows someone from north america just visited www.whatever.com!@!!"

          Comment

          • #35
            Originally posted by Aeson View Post
            How many websites do you visit in a day do you think? How would you like to have to sign up for every new website you visit just to find out if it's providing something you're looking for?

            It would be a huge hassle for everyone on the net. Surfers, owners, people who manage websites. It would also be a big security issue for everyone. Real security, as in identity theft and such. Not this tinfoil "OMG an advertiser knows someone from north america just visited www.whatever.com!@!!"
            I visit very few websites.

            GlobeAndMail.com (I'm a subscriber), ArsTechnica (I'm a subscriber), Apolyton (I was a PolyPlus subscriber). That's about 95% of my traffic alone.

            I read many other websites through RSS readers, and the feeds don't contain ads.
            "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
            Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

            Comment

            • #36
              You never type something into search to find an answer, then just hop to the best result? I hit literally hundreds of different sites per day... even if they all offered free evaluation trials it would be a huge hassle. And I only look for specific ****, I don't surf. Surfing would be dead.

              Comment

              • #37
                I just plainly do not like advertising. I own a PVR so when I record TV I can skip the commercials. I use adblock on the web. I completely tune out and ignore billboard ads and other public ads. They're just noise.
                "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                Comment

                • #38
                  Gosh, I wonder if this is what I'm looking for. Oh... let's see... I just have to enter my details here, sign up for an account, verify my email... maybe give my credit card or paypal... oh crap, this wasn't what I was looking for. On to the next site...

                  **** yah, that would be so much better than having to not click on ads you aren't interested in...

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Aeson View Post
                    You never type something into search to find an answer, then just hop to the best result? I hit literally hundreds of different sites per day... even if they all offered free evaluation trials it would be a huge hassle. And I only look for specific ****, I don't surf. Surfing would be dead.
                    I'm on wikipedia a lot, it's true. But they don't have ads and they do just fine.

                    You need to get over this concept that the internet needs advertising. It doesn't.
                    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Aeson View Post
                      Gosh, I wonder if this is what I'm looking for. Oh... let's see... I just have to enter my details here, sign up for an account, verify my email... maybe give my credit card or paypal... oh crap, this wasn't what I was looking for. On to the next site...

                      **** yah, that would be so much better than having to not click on ads you aren't interested in...
                      Not very often does that happen, unless it's part of the StackOverflow network (at work).

                      If it's not something I'd pay for, it's not something I need.
                      "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                      Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Asher View Post
                        I'm on wikipedia a lot, it's true. But they don't have ads and they do just fine.

                        You need to get over this concept that the internet needs advertising. It doesn't.
                        They do have those incredibly creepy "personal appeal" banners
                        If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                        ){ :|:& };:

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Asher View Post
                          I'm on wikipedia a lot, it's true. But they don't have ads and they do just fine.

                          You need to get over this concept that the internet needs advertising. It doesn't.
                          Wikipedia is not a good model for most websites. Also, they clearly do not bring in as much in donations as they could from advertising. They have their "please donate" up right now saying their goal for the year is 29 million or so. Their traffic from Google alone is worth that to advertisers each month.

                          If that's your vision for the future, it's a much smaller and less valuable internet. (Plus having to stop and donate what you think a website was worth is a huge hassle in and of itself.)

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Asher View Post
                            Not very often does that happen, unless it's part of the StackOverflow network (at work).

                            If it's not something I'd pay for, it's not something I need.
                            The point is that sites would have to hide most of their content for subscribers. Even from search engines. You wouldn't know what the information was until after you paid for it (or signed up for a trial or whatever monetisation they were running). It would make finding specific information much more difficult because it couldn't be freely available.

                            Comment

                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                              They do have those incredibly creepy "personal appeal" banners
                              Dance Party
                              http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90439
                              "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                              Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                              Comment

                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Aeson View Post
                                Wikipedia is not a good model for most websites. Also, they clearly do not bring in as much in donations as they could from advertising. They have their "please donate" up right now saying their goal for the year is 29 million or so. Their traffic from Google alone is worth that to advertisers each month.
                                I'm sorry, this was really misleading. The traffic for wikipedia.org (just the EN) from Google (just the US) is estimated to be worth $800 million a month to Adwords advertisers.

                                ... and they're having to beg for $29 million a year. At $12 million right now.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                                Working...
                                X