Google using the search page to promote Android

[Asher]

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.)

The simple fact is most people aren't bright enough to block ads. Chumps like you subsidize the internet for smarter people.

And that's a fine business model. It seems to work.

[Asher]

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.

And every year they get the money they need without having to track people and throw penis enlargement ads at them.

Wikipedia, the anti-Aeson

[Asher]

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.

Yes, this would be a terrifying idea if one were dumb enough to think the current mechanisms and infrastructure of the internet would exist if the fundamental basis of the internet changed.

Unfortunately, that's preposterous. It's not very hard to see alternative commercial applications. You just need to be bright to see them.

For instance, ISPs would be middlemen for content so you wouldn't need to provide your CC/billing address to every site. You'd pay your ISP which would pay the site.

Websites would have APIs search engines could use to index the content and provide applicable previews where appropriate.

I've thought about this for all of 5 seconds and I've already re-invented the internet.

[Hauldren Collider]

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90439

Thanks

[Asher]

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 gave this some more thought. You have a really good point. If only someone would invent a payment service that didn't require you to provide all of your detailed information to a seller. Kind of like what would happen if you sold something to a pal.

I think there's money in that idea.

[Aeson]

And every year they get the money they need without having to track people and throw penis enlargement ads at them.

Like I said, it wouldn't work as well for most sites. Wiki has goodwill because it's a community based information site that has most of it's content freely gifted to it and maintained by volunteers. Most websites don't have that, and most don't do very well relying on just donations. Many sites don't really do well directly selling products either, since the format and content just don't work.

(If you're seeing penis ads you're just visiting the wrong sites or benefiting from your tinfoil hat blocking out all your preferences so you get random junk.)

[Aeson]

I gave this some more thought. You have a really good point. If only someone would invent a payment service that didn't require you to provide all of your detailed information to a seller. Kind of like what would happen if you sold something to a pal.

I think there's money in that idea.

Learn to read. I already mentioned Paypal in that regard. And no, just inventing it hasn't eliminated security issues. Many sites still use various other methods of payment. It's not like everyone instantly will choose Paypal. Paypal targeted scams abound as well though.

(Plus it's got the world's worst customer support.)

[Aeson]

Yes, this would be a terrifying idea if one were dumb enough to think the current mechanisms and infrastructure of the internet would exist if the fundamental basis of the internet changed.

Unfortunately, that's preposterous. It's not very hard to see alternative commercial applications. You just need to be bright to see them.

For instance, ISPs would be middlemen for content so you wouldn't need to provide your CC/billing address to every site. You'd pay your ISP which would pay the site.

Websites would have APIs search engines could use to index the content and provide applicable previews where appropriate.

I've thought about this for all of 5 seconds and I've already re-invented the internet.

Some of it is pretty good. No it's not difficult to imagine changes like that. The problem is it would only take decades for a consensus to be reached, and even then there would be roughly 90% of the internet going their own way with their own payment. And at best once you got all the kinks worked out you'd be left with a much less valuable internet that was only slightly more difficult to use.

[Asher]

I can tell you either buy ads or somehow work with them. That's your thing.

I just cannot stand ads and I refuse to view them. If people want my money, they're going to have to ask for it. Simple as that.

[Aeson]

My arguments would be the same either way. Though they would be less well founded if I wasn't involved because I wouldn't be so familiar with the numbers at work.

(I don't buy ads, I may in the future. My websites are funded entirely by them if you count affiliate sales which is essentially just another version.)

You're free to not like ads, but it seems you don't really understand the value they bring to the table. The internet is pretty much built off of these advertising models, and other models have been shown time and time again to under-perform targeted advertising.

I mean, wiki is there begging at $12 million when their traffic is likely worth billions. And it's probably the BEST CASE for donations you'll find outside bleeding heart charities. It's absurd to think that the internet wouldn't have a massive contraction if advertising money was off the table.

[onodera]

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/90439

I like the one which puts this banner on ALL pages you browse.

[Asher]

My arguments would be the same either way. Though they would be less well founded if I wasn't involved because I wouldn't be so familiar with the numbers at work.

(I don't buy ads, I may in the future. My websites are funded entirely by them if you count affiliate sales which is essentially just another version.)

You're free to not like ads, but it seems you don't really understand the value they bring to the table.

I understand it thoroughly. Just as I understand there will always be enough people dumb enough to click ads that are also too dumb to block ads. I'm not breaking the internet.

[Aeson]

Ads are sometimes helpful. The only thing dumb would be clicking ads you didn't want to click on, or not clicking ads you wanted to click on.

I didn't claim you were breaking the internet, just that you are leeching content from it by circumventing the way the content is paid for.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well... happy to report that after the first day, it's great - DDG is like Google made right + without ads to boot.

interface is cleaner, results are just as good, or better, text options to search in particular space/vendor with !bang

can search google through it if I really have to... DDG for teh win.

DuckDuckGo enables you to search 100s of other sites directly.
Just use this dropdown next to the search box. As you use it, your most frequented sites will automatically be displayed at the top.
Or you can type in a command like '!amazon bags', which will take you to Amazon.com and auto-search it for 'bags'.
We call these commands !bangs, and this syntax works for 100s of sites:

Most big sites work, e.g. !youtube (see full list below)

Most generic keywords work too, e.g. !images

There are also shorter versions, e.g. !g (google) !i (images) !yt (youtube)

!ducky or '! ' or '\' will take you to the first result.

!safeoff will run a search with safe search off.

[Asher]

You know you're using Bing, right?