Slashdot Mirror
Google Allows Sponsored Rankings...In Ads
A number of written that the sky is fallen because Google is allowing sponsored rankings. Of course, if you read the article it's the sponsored links on the right side of the page - where the ads have always been.
So why is this even an issue?
have a look at the deptment.
life, the universe and everything? = 42
it's the sponsored links on the right side of the page - where the ads have always been.
Hmm, really? Tell me again why this is news worthy? If the morons who submited it are too stupid to figure this out themselves, that's their problem. Seriously, save everyone time. Dont post shit like this.
Joseph?
Boy, people are really stupid.
I mean... what do these idiots want -- everyone to be listed randomly in the advertising section of each page, regardless of how much they paid? That just ain't the way advertising works.
I actually find the advertising useful on google.com. Hell, when I was searching for flower delivery companies online with google during vday week, I wasn't sure who to go with -- but the advertising results gave me several great options and I wound up using two of them.
I use Google extensively and have never seen these ads that 'have always' been there? So where are they?
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Before, all advertisers paid a set fee and were randomly displayed in random order. Now there highest paying customers are shown first.
While I wish they didn't do this, as it affects our advertising budget, I think this is logical and I support their decision to make money. After all, if google doesn't make money, they'll go under and we'll all lose access to the best search engine.
Great, so some company is going to spend $10,000 more to be the first ad ignored on the right side of the screeen. Bravo to Google for being able to sell that real estate. At least it's not as intrusive as an OSDN bar on the top of some other site.
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
They will always bid higher than you !
Sounds like fun if you can come up with a valid reason to bid.
Given that it isn't the case, this isn't worthy of comment.
Hold on! I've commented! Damn!
---- Drinahn
For crying out loud people, here's the link
I don't see why you linked to another search engine for the story.
;-)
:: 9 Out Of 10 People Use Me
You could have simply gotten the information from the horse's mouth.
Linking to an article that tries to stir controversy and sway readers away from Google is highly sketchy. Google has nothing to hide by this, and even the Slashdot editor who posted this story admitted that it's nothing more than they've already BEEN doing.
They sell ads that show up on the side. We'll always know which results are real and which aren't. The real ones show up in the middle; the results that are paid-for advertisements show up on the right in colored boxes and are clearly marked as advertisements.
Most of the time these "advertisements" are more often useful things than typical gimmicks that you find with image banner ads (i.e. click the monkey - win cash!, if this is flashing you won $100,000, etc etc etc).
It's fine when you dump on Microsoft because they're evil
But don't sling mud at Google. They're just trying to stay profitable so we can continue to use their great service.
EricKrout.com
The ads that people complain about so much aren't really that obtrusive. They are highlited to stand out (and make it easier to avoid them) and say "Sponsored Link" next to them. You have to be pretty daft to think that a sponsored link was an actual search result.
Hopefully this new advertising system won't make it harder to distinquish between real results and advertiser's links. Just as long as I can get the relevant results I'm used to, I don't think I care.
Sounds to me like excite is just jealous because their business model failed.
The few key points that prevent me from worrying me about this are these:They will continue to distinguish between search engine results and advertisements and keep the ads separate from the results, to the right side of the screen. For this reason, that article and the title of this on SlashDot seem to be alarmist and misleading. Google is maintaining its integrity, at least for now.
One might also note that Excite, which published this article, uses Overture for its results, and labels them "Search Results for: [term]." Might they have a bias?
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
I guess Hemos just wanted to use the dollar icon on the front page. *shrugs*. Nothing to see here, please move along.
Liberty.
I'm a little confused... how does this differ from what they currently do with the "featured (or is it sponsered, I forget) link"?
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
What's the big deal? Same thing, but now Google can ask somebody to pay more money for the same add because they want it to be.. "more" relevant than the other adds.
:) Considering the price.. :P While not completely selling out to the pop-under and flash adds that everyone else is peddling.
At least it isn't like.. *ahem* some other search engines who provide links for paying customers first, then the rest of the "riff-raff". Frankly I thought the add links were already quite relevant. Of course, I don't even click on these adds, but I appreciate that they keep out of my way when I'm searching for something! I'll keep on appreciating it as long as Google realizes that they have something truely golden in their search engine itself and don't sell out like the other guys.
The Google Appliance is an example of a great idea, and a good way to keep the money rolling in.
The practice that I'm talking about here is that of selling relative rankings in an advertising medium. The beauty of the system is that the value of advertising really does "float free" in the marketplace, but at the same time empowers the seller of the ad space to keep prices up without looking greedy.
In the case of eBay, they keep adding new "features" you can use to increase the relative profile of your auction. Each of these features costs money, of course (other than a couple of basic ones which are included in the cost of a basic auction). Rather than ratchet up the prices on these features, eBay seems to prefer to add new, fancier features which cost more money. But note: these new features have the side effect of making the older features less valuable because they aren't the biggest eye-catchers on the block anymore. This means that the cost of the highest-profile feature keeps going up, even if all the prices of existing features are static.
In searching for precedents to this, I remembered the plain old printed White Pages (TM in various locations, no doubt) telephone directory. This doesn't accept ads, but over time they've gone from "every listing looks the same", to "pay extra for a bold entry", to "pay even more for a SUPERBOLD entry", and so on.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
They have had a directory for some time now.... This is no news either. :)
How dare they put unobtrusive advertising on their search engine? I want more annoying pop-up ads, transitional advertising pages, flash animations, and javascript so my mp3's skip. Even better if the ad covers the content, so I have to move it so I can get two paragraph of links to 404 errors.
God damn them, damn them all to the fiery pits of hell!
Yeah. That's worked out so well for Altavista.
Altavista started as a research project, much like Google. When it first came out, it was undeniably the best search engine on the web, much like google. Not only did it become useful, it was based on awesome technology (alphas and 64-bit hardware, hell yeah!), much like google( they use clustering).
However, Altavista was made at Digital, which can't market. Google has a profitable business set up around remaining lean and employing some of the most brilliant people in computer science.
Does that sound like the type of organization that would turn to being a yellow pages?
BTW, Google does use the open directory AS a phonebook/yahoo style directory. They're SUPPORTING Open Source without having the ability to close that later. Don'tyou think they'd be starting their own directory now if they wanted to do that later?
Trust me, Google is by nerds, for nerds. And since it's privately owned (and making money), it's going to stay that way.
great, now no matter what you type in the search engine, you're guarenteed to get 100 porn sites that have payed google at the top of the list
Google is probably going to end up being a 'yellow pages' type search directory instead of a full-fledged search engine.
Funny you say that, since that's the exact search engine model they're replacing. For example, yahoo's search engine is now powered by google...
There's nothing wrong with making a buck. They're still being awfully nice about it. Infact quite often, those ads are actually worth clicking on because of how targetted they are.
Its all about cost/benefit analysis...
The last time I checked, google is allowed to make a profit. Google is also allowed to fail miserably if the customers don't like it.
Goes right back to the free market world, and costs.
So if "the cost" of trying to find something on the net gets too high on google, then google will be forced to find another source of revenue when their customers leave.
Simple as that. The market is a harsh place. If we love our google, we have to pay for it. Otherwise, no money means no google. So you have to scroll down the page. Well, that is a cost of freeloading. Ask the people who used to pay for Lexis/Nexis (sp?) what solid, usable information costs.
Even abcnews.go.com has banners before you get to the news. It is coming. Really, it is a minor annoyance, and not much more IMHO. I certainly won't stop using google. I hope the make all the money in the world, they serve a real purpose on the net.
I repeat what a lot of guys have said: I don't mind these ads, as it keeps google in business.
.com that I used to work for closed last year. I know the pain.
Sometime, I click on these ads to help keep money come to google.
I request all those who want to keep using google to do the same.
A
http://www.ajaygautam.com
A number of written that the sky is fallen because Microsft is allowing smart tags. Of course, if you read the article smart tags are only implemented in the latest version of thier browser - where new features that some people like and others don't have always been.
Quick, post something nice about AOL now!
This is such a non-issue. They're not intermingling these sponsored links among your search results - rather, they're completely separate from the content (as they've always been). This doesn't affect users of the service, it affects advertisers (who may have to pay more to be listed at the top of the RIGHT HAND COLUMN). Big deal.
Say what you want to say about other search engines trying to decieve you about the adds, but leave Google alone. A large number of times, especially when I am searching for a product, those adds are exactly where I want to go to. And besides when I am not looking for a product the adds are desguised as search choices so its really the best of both worlds.
This article isn't news for nerds. It's not even news.
Google plans to turn away companies trying to buy a listing under categories unrelated to their main business. For instance, Google already has refused advertising from credit card companies that tried to buy listings under the "Palm Pilot" category, said Omid Kordestani, the company's senior vice president of worldwide sales and business development. Even if it already has been active for sometime, and only on the right side of the page, at least we won't have to stare at "MAKE MONEY NOW!!!!!" ads across the side of the page every time we search for the happy fun ball.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
Why in the world would you say this? They might have a directory feature, but there has been no indication that they are moving away from general searches. After that, that is what they are known and loved for. They are slightly changing the way they charge and sort ads, nothing more.
If there is one thing I belive good has, it's integerity. They haven't change a bit (for the worst) since they started and the more I read about them the less it seems like they will change for the worst. They are a company and know how to make money -- change for technology and clearly labled paid search results that no one could confuse with normal search results. They make money, we get a great search engine. Now, why would they change to being a primarly a searchable directory?
1. Google_in_the_old_days didnt differentiate between results using who pays more principle.
2. Then they introduced sponsored links, NOT results.
3. Now for the first time, they actualy *rank* , the sponsored links based on who_pays-more.
I am not a star gazer, but it is hard to miss the current over here. Google sucessfully cashed in on the Page Citation Model , now for the Pre-IPO Google Inc. bsuiness sounds more interesting.
But lots of new cool stuff keep appearing on those pristine pages..i would surely like to see that continue. And..boy! do these things really mess up their interface.
**
Though I've absolutely no intention of doing a thing about it, I'm going to sit here and complain and bitch because someone who is providing a free service to my lazy ass has the *balls* to try and make money off of it!!!
I thought slashdot collectively stopped caring about this kind of non-issue pap back in 1998.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I've never noticed the ads before. I had to go back and look for them after reading this.
I agree with others who say this isn't newsworthy, but to comment, the excite article does say explicitly that the sponsored links are "on the section of Google's site that's devoted to sponsored links" - ie... the side.. in really small writing.
why didn't anybody kick up a stink when yahoo started putting on pop-up windows? or when groups.yahoo started making you click thru an ad randomly when reading message?
google has to make money from somewhere.. may as well be little tiny ads that nobody notices.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I'm not sure how you got modded up, but did you RTFA? This doesn't affect the REAL content on the site, it only affects the order of placement for the ads that are already there. They're not going to change to mixing-content-with-ads like almost all the other search engines.
But, since Hemos' comments went unnoticed, allow me to quote the article:
The system lets Web sites raise their bids to increase their chances for higher placement on the section of Google's site that's devoted to sponsored links.
[emphasis mine]
Is that clear enough, or do we have to break it down into exclusively monosyllabic words for you?
The Free desktop that Just Works
"A number of written that the sky is fallen because Google is allowing sponsored rankings."
Come on. Many thousands of people read this site. Is it really that difficult to phrase things in proper english?
"A number of [people have] written that the sky is fall[ing]/[has fallen] because Google is allowing sponsored rankings."
Was that so hard?
Hehe, asking him that question is sort of like handing out reading instruction manuals to the illiterate.
from the article:
Popular online search engine maker Google Inc. is introducing a new program that allows Web sites to be displayed more prominently by paying more money - an advertising-driven system derided by critics as an invitation to deceptive business practices.
Remember, the deceptive business practise could be on either side -- Google or the advertiser.
About a week ago, I was looking for a good deal on a pair of quality Vasque Sundowners. In searching for that, two coloured ads appeared above my search results, each offering the "best selection" in Vasque footwear.
The only thing is, one of them had no Vasque anything in stock.
Strangely enough, I just did the same search to try and prove my point, but only the REI ad appears anymore; The two-bit footwear company no longer has an ad up there. Now, this might well mean that their ad rotation is over, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
On that note, how hard would it be to make a search engine smart (ethical?) enough to search a website to assure that the keywords people bought have something to do with the products on their site? Or is that just counterproductive to a coherent business model?
We all really really like this company. Google has a LOT of fans on Slashdot. Why is that none of you think that actively supporting a company you like is a Good Idea?
I make an effort to click on an ad when it follows from my search anyway. If I'm looking for Linksys's support page, and it turns out that LinkSys has paid for an ad at the side, I'll click through. It's not so hard.
I want Google to survive, so I'll glance at their ads, and I'll use them when I can.
I'd be grateful if they'd let us choose to prevent our query-result from taking paid-ranking into consideration. Sometime we use google for academic and scientific queries, and ranking commercial sites higher in this case will greatly affect the accuracy.
Say letting us to specify the catagories while searching e.g "aspect catagory:academic" to prevent unwanted commercial info.
It actually help google's client accurately focusing on right market segment, thus make their money-spent worthy.
Your view in this is greatly appreciated.
What's interesting about this post not what the article claims to be about. The article, running on an Excite web site, is fairly clearly written deceptively to make Google look bad. It throws in what amounts to an ad for these ridiculous Overture people.
A quick google search on "Excite Overture" leads to an article about how Overture is the company that runs paid ads on the Excite search engine.
So this story is not about how some people are stupid and think google is shady, but about how some people at Excite apparently are both stupid and shady.
A number of written that the sky is fallen because Google is allowing sponsored rankings. Of course, if you read the article it's the sponsored links on the right side of the page - where the ads have always been.
See this is the problem with assuming causal/effect realationships. The writers correctly determined that the sky was falling but failed to realize the actual cause was that Slashdot editors actually READ the story and CORRECTED peoples inflamatory assumptions.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
... Google has joined the "Axis of Evil."
Heh, I know that Google is made by comp. sci. nerds :-) They are also somewhat bored, as they made this portal search too: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=xx-hacker
:)
Hope you can read l33t sp33k.
It's hard to blame google, the world out there is like that...
- Radio stations play more songs from those companies do most advertising
- Supermarkets charges suppliers 'placement-fee' if they'd like to have their goods placed at better position on shelves.
- Publishers pay to get good books reviews.(*cough* Amazon*cough*)
- Oil companies pay to get politicans work for them.
I sure as hell can't figure out how they've survived this long with their "Make No Money/Spend Lots of Money" business strategy.
I mean really, how much money do you think Google pulls in through their ads? Do you think that cost per month can even pay for their electricity costs for powering and cooling 8,000 machines? How in the world do they do it?
Hey Hemos, why don't you do a little research before spouting off in support of your favorite Linux-based search engine?
The ads appear at the top of the search results. Observe this search for computer software. Of course they are quite plainly marked and it's not a big deal.
I just find it interesting that slowly, but surely, Google is doing away with the things that made it unique in the field (at least from a commercialism standpoint).
Oh well...
Here's the cached version
Why is this new news. Google has offered this form of advertising for like a year now. I used it a year ago. Whats up with them making a news article now about it. Thats gay.
Jeff Knox
Do a search for flowers. Bam, top hit is 1800 flowers. Candies, top several hits are candie dot coms. Books--amazon.com. Its obvious that Google does bias their searches in favor of their sponsors.
A guy I know from Inktomi says they all do it, including Google, and the proof is right in front of your face.
I was doing preliminary pricing research for suppliers for my parent's business (local pet store), and I actually found the sponsor's links more useful than other links. Knowing the sponsor links will likely be coming up the same as the last time I searched (for at least the immediate future) also helps. So other than a minor improvement, I wouldn't have noticed the difference.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
It's sadly quaint to work on the proposition that high integrity is an asset to a money-making company. Google appears to understand this with their refusal to dilute the value of their search results.
Here's hoping that they prove to the world that making money hand over fist is consistant with that attitude, maybe even derived from it.
Imagine how many links to Amazon there are from Slashdot alone! Every time someone mentions a book they'd like people to read, they give its Amazon page.
Now, Scientology boosts its rankings by having many Scientology-owned sites crosslink to one another (a standard Scientology tactic- for years they were buying up copies of Dianetics to keep its sales figures high...)
However, you can't really be arguing that 1-800-Flowers has nothing to do with flowers!
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 10.8). Formatting screwed due to this!
w pages.msn.com/simplesearch.aspx?KWD=a utomobile+dealers
http://www.autobuyingusa.comc t.comb ytel.com/w .kbb.com/
a lk.com/Classifieds/index.html
l / 7 6& page=teacher l
MSN search order:
http://carpoint.msn.com/homepage/
http://yello
http://www.invoicedealers.com
http://www.carsdire
http://www.dealernet.com/
http://www.auto
http://www.autovantage.com/
http://ww
Yahoo! search order:
http://www.chicagocarshopping.com/
http://cart
http://www.avis.com/
http://www.nationalcar.com/
http://www.enterprise.com/
http://www.dreamcarrentals.com
http://www.alamo.com/
http://www.thrifty.com/
http://www.ecars.com/
http://www.dollar.com/
Google search order
www.autobytel.com/
carpoint.msn.com/
www.edmunds.com
www.aeclassic.com/
www.csi-auto.nl/carshopping/
www.carshopping.n
www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM1
www.cars.com/
www.tex-net.net/cartips_info.htm
www.womanmotorist.com/cntshopping.shtml
What has more relavance? Who purchased their way on to who's list? Who's searching technique was exploited to earn higher marks?
Oh no! When I think about all the crap I learned in High School, it's a wonder I can think at all. Although my life of education never hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.
God forbid anyone makes you use the processor between your ears to filter information instead of spoon feeding processed pasturized iradiated crap into your hamburger mind.
Can't do a propper search? You don't even need to be on the internet. It is in fact dangerous for you to be here. You are probably the type of person that responds to spam mail.
In other words, Google is a good company but they need to earn money too. Otherwise they will be weak and get purchase by Microsoft or AOL just like every good online service.
Remember when hotmail was run on Linux? Remember when ICQ passed its first million users? Remember when Hitbox, Realplayer and Gozilla! didn't track the crap out of you?
Let Goggle Be Google and spend your time worrying about The DMCA, Microsoft's Monopoly and the kernal forking
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
This program is a new program called 'select', which works on the pay per click method, vs the pay per impression model.
They both do the same thing but with different pricing schemes.
Mention "google" and "sponsored links" in the same slashdot story. All of a sudden, your google ads get a lot more views - and maybe even the odd click through.
It was funny: about 2 months ago, I was reading some of their documentation on their site, seeing what all I could customize, and I noticed these boxes with ads that were supposed to be on the right... I had never seen one, probably because I always use the strangest search terms possible to get good results. I re-ran my most recent search, and ... nothing. So, taking a clue from the spam I get in my disposable accounts, I searched for "Viagra."
Colorful ad boxes all down the page...
As long as they're clearly marked as ads, which they are, who cares which one is more or less prominant? Gee. If one sponsor pays me $100 and another only pays me $50, which do you think I will give more preference to? Its simple supply and demand folks. Chill.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
They could have banners for VA Linux, ThinkGeek and Andover on every Search Results Page.
CSS 2 Selectors provide enough power to nuke most banner adverts, and, if you're clever enough, remove these text ads.
CSS 3 Selectors should be even better, and let you do it on a per-website basis, which might be useful if your rules to nuke Google ads are too general to apply to all sites.
You will need a browser that impliments them, though; Opera and Mozilla support most CSS 2 selector syntax, but IE6 does not.
You can use the same techniques to override ugly colour schemes, change font styles and sizes and even include content. Just define it all in a user stylesheet; that's what it's there for.
I might revive my banner killing user CSS actually, it worked quite well.. but I don't think I'll bother with Google :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But then I saw
and I was dropped back to earthAll bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
Google, like a lot of the .coms that are still alive, don't make their money directly off of the consumers/users. A good majority of their revenue is from licensing deals with other companies. Yahoo is one of the biggest client of googles. They leverage google's search engine for yahoo's web searches. This alone could bring in a couple million a year. In addition, a couple weeks ago, there was a posting on /. about Google's search/document caching system that they are selling to companies for 20k.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
It would be interesting to see an "eBay style" of advertising, especially on Google. Advertisers would have the opportunity to see openly what other advertisters were bidding and for what sort of placement. They could then decide whether or not to bid up. A new advertiser steps up with a higher bid? Goodbye to the old bidder. Not enough impact from your bid? Reduce or retrace your bid. Of course Google could set minimum bids to cover their costs, or spark interest.
The next step would be for Google to step up and show users exactly what each advertiser was paying for each user's mindshare.
MikeAtIF*ckStuffedAnimalsDotCom
The old system was CPM, you paid per thousand impressions. The new system that they added on top of the old system is CPC, you pay for the clickthrough.
In Overture (goto.com, renamed) you are ranked by bid. If I want to close out a category, I can try to sneak in some irrelevant links (irrelevant with poor wording, for example) to minimize clickthroughs. I've still blocked a space from the competitor, but I likely pay little because I won't get clicked on.
The reason that this makes sense for Google is purely economic. Right now, in popular categories, their adwords are over-subscribed because people can't win the search terms. In unpopular categories, people just optimize for Google and get in the real results, not paying for ads.
A CPC deal allows much cheaper rates for unpopular terms (5 cents/click compared to 8-12 cents per impression based upon placement), while allowing competitive categories to be bid up.
However, the click-pop isn't a user-benefit, it's a Google benefit. The old system moved the clicked on ads to the top (where Google charged more, but you got better clickthrough so it was fine). The new system takes into account your CPC bid and click throughs.
That makes sense. If I am willing to pay 10 cents a click but get twice as many clicks as your 15 cent ad, I pay Google more per page, so Google wants to run my ad.
The real system is likely not that simple, because Google's bid-protection automatically down-bids you to be 1 cent above the person below you. Therefore, like on Ebay, you can bid the max that you are willing to pay.
It's an intelligent system. Google is entitled to run ads. Their advertisements are clearly marked as ads and separated from the editorial. The problem with search engine ads isn't that they run ads, or even targetted ads, its that the search engines intentionally try to confuse you as to what you are getting. The other problem is the bait-and-switch strategy. Several meta-searches built up user bases by giving great results with intelligent use of the engines. Once they got users, they switched to completely CPC systems to leverage their userbase until they got fed up and left.
Repeat after me, there is nothing morally wrong with ads. Poorly done ads that slow my connection make me leave your site, but I haven't been robbed. Making money is not morally wrong.
Alex
Google also came up with a cool 'appliance' recently. It's an intranet document searching server that searches through over 200 file types in addition to HTML - including PDF and MS Office files. According to them the setup procedure is trivial.
:)
;)
Imagine how useful that would be in an office environment (or even in certain school situations) with a few dozen file servers full of stuff to be indexed. It could really minimize duplication of efforts.
Oh yeah, and it runs on Linux. Google is the greatest.
I realize that this is a little off-topic, but I hope the moderators will let others read about Google's cool new product. I recently submitted this as a story, but obvoiusly the slashdot powers that be are losing their good taste.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
SO what?
How does whom-ever think Google is going to be able to pay for the thousands of boxes, and thousands of Meg-a-bytes they use? What's the big deal. It's not this they're popping up X-10 adds. No big deal? Move on.
~~~
BTW, I tried posting this (twice) from the KDE3 Beta2. It choked everytime I tried typing in a LESS-THAN and a letter into this text box (for HTML formating). I think I need to look into this further and submit a bug report if nessissary ((sp) I could never spell that word...).
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
both netscape & mozilla sucks balls.....
I mean, i don't mean to troll here, but they're a complete resource hog.... don't even get me started on security holes, since mozilla is integrated to linux kernel, mozilla can be easily exploited by 31337 h4x0r.... of course, if you run mozilla/netscape on non *nix OS, it'll be safer but, you know.... IE will always be better.
As has been said in the story lead, this will only effect clearly marked advertisments on the side. As a potential small advertiser starting looking just a few days ago I can say this new system is helpful. First is paying for click through only. The second is they now will report expected clickthrough's with phrases (and complete complicated queries) and not just keywords. Helps targeting.
Wow...you read fark too?
The source of this post (scroll down)
Writers imply. Readers infer.
I am not saying it is, but it could have been.
Thats why it's a good idea to read about it from an
independent source, or at least compare Google's story with them.
Same story if Microsoft publishes some news at their
site, it's better to see what CSN or some other site
has to say about it.
I don't have one
Teoma is pretty good, as far as my searches have gone, and is still ad-free.
On my 17" monitor (Mac G-3 running 9.0.4 with IE 5.1.3) the sponsored ads are at the top of the page--though it is clear they are sponsored. Which is fine with me if it helps keep Google up.
Ah....but who will Moderate the Meta Moderators?
actually, that's fine use of english. my god, am i saying this about a /. editor? noooo....
seriously. the sky is fallen. it's archaic, but it's valid.
I don't care how they make money. I don't care if every search is just one big 'ol ad. As long as I can find what I'm looking for, I just don't give a damn how they make money. If Google start sucking, I'll stop use it.
The journey is better then the end.
Sprinks must be own by overture because they have been doing using this pay per click system with rankings for years. About.com is popular for using it in the bottom of the pages.
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
you lot get sicker by the day, google provides a damn decent service, and its for FREE!! Hear than, free, doesnt cost you any more to use it than the side walk. (Ok ok so you pay taxes, but you also have to pay for your time online). If google wants to take on advertising (which they have done in the past) to make money, do we really have a right to complain? If they DO want to make those ads intrusive because noones taking any notice of them, do we still have a right to moan? In my eyes, no, all we can do is stop using the service. Or start paying ourselves for a decent service (oh for a good micropayment scheme). So stop moaning everyone :)
Seriously tho, sites that use text ads like Google and scoop (and k5 soon) already have my respect for being cool techie sites. Not showing me banner ads (which Mozilla easily blocks anyway) shows that they respect me.
This just came in:
Nothing whatsoever has changed at Google!
Slow news day at Slashdot?
...and they know that they have millions of diehard fans out there because they are good. The day they stop being good, the fans will go away, just like they did for altavista and countless other search sites.
if the paid ads in google are likely to compromise on the quality of my searches, i'll search somewhere else. simple!
which means that unless they are very dumb (and we already took care of that in subject itself), google will not let the ads piss off its users.
so we can continue to keep google as our homepage and let them make some money for that.
Their ad ranking methods make sense are affordable and do not get in the way of the real search.
Kudos to them for keeping their values while allowing a decent business model to evolve.
Blogging because I can...
There are ads in google? I see I've been missing from communal experience since I use WebWasher..
/.? Get a job, hippie.
I just wonder if I'm the only person who's getting tired of the academic "nobody must make money out of anything" attitude in
They've given me spot on searches for so long, they ought to get paid if they want to. As long as it doesn't interfear with my searches ( It won't ), let 'em have it.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
A consumer watchdog group last summer filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint alleging the results generated by several pay-for-placement search engines represented a deceptive advertising practice. The FTC hasn't publicly responded to the complaint.
After reading that, I was left wondering how they could even fathom issuing a complaint such as this. The advertisements you see during the Superbowl aren't selected randomly, or for their relevance. They are there because someone coughed up the dough. Not only that, but the specific PLACEMENT influences the amount an advertiser has to pay. Google is just doing the same thing in order to make more money off high demand ad placements. Good for them.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=adwords&btnG= Google+Search
This link clearly shows how much of a non issue this is. You can clearly see which results are the paid advertisements and which are the real search results. Don't worry about it.
A number of written that the sky is fallen because Microsft is allowing smart tags. Of course, if you read the article smart tags are only implemented in the latest version of thier browser - where new features that some people like and others don't have always been.
Agreed, no big deal. I'm still using Netscape 4.7, it just gracefully fails to render most of the modern junk that I don't want to see anyway.
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
from the not-that-big-a-deal dept.
Then why did you post it?
Another reason to use Opera 6.0.1.... Klerk's imbecillic attempts at sabotage are negated.
You fucking tosser.
If you ever get the chance, do a search on google for javascript string manipulation.
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
it really doesn't matter.
what most people hate are the pop-ups or
some very badly done animated gifs.
actually this is a good thing.
if e-com ( i know its a 20th cent term) pics
up , it would be a good thing for stuff like
linux.
In this case, all one has to do is disable javascript for the google domain. No ads. Very nice
with www.google.fr I get no ads (because there's too few french advertisers for Google?)
u cant blame a firm Google for doin ads how else will they make the money
that the article is hosted on Excite.
Which you may remember was recently bought by (i believe) Infospace, a subsidiary of Microsoft
you know, I don't recall ever seeing an ad on Google. So I went and typed in "flowers" -- there they were. I tried "Linux", "Windows", "Microsoft", and "Internet" --- I didn't see anything for those. The only other time I'd heard of Google ads was the Ximian ad for KDE
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
What I've wondered, is what stops a competitor of yours finding your google (or any one else's) click-thru ad and repeated hitting it with an automated program till your budget is gone?
(1) Most importantly, the advertisements are still unobtrusive, text-based, clearly marked as advertisements. In google, unlike other search engines and "free services", most of the bandwidth you use to download the page is used for downloading useful information, not ads. No banner-ads, no ads which make the page colossal and unwieldly to download even for a broadband user.
(2) Ads are still positioned strategically. If you type in "Mercedes Benz", you get text-based ads which are relevant to Mercedes Benz, not some little porno-ad or something else unrelated to what your looking for. The unified, integrated browsing experience is preserved.
However, on the down-side, their ads still more "get your attention" ads than informative ones. For example, the Mercedes Benz ad is:
"MERCEDES BENZ - Get FREE Price Quotes on New & Used Cars - Click HERE!"
Right away, the capital letters make it difficult to read and seem like a cheap spam-scam e-mail you get. This isn't really google's fault, but that of the people who pay them to put their text-based ads there. So it fall on us, and google, to educate them.
While these flashy things may work on the stupid user, most people on the Internet aren't stupid. Lets qualify that -- most people don't stay stupid. Everyone starts out stupid. Most people reading this probably followed through on a few of the too-good-to-be-true SPAM e-mails which promised free-mojo or whatever. But after a few times of being duped on the internet, people realize that anything on the internet which talks of getting anything "FREE" is usually: (1) an outright lie; (2) a scam; (3) qualified in some way...(i.e., the "free" adult sites which want you to submit your credit card number, when you don't want to do that). There are a few exceptions, such as "Free" software. But most users can eventualloy tell a real "free" deal from a scam. Usually, the difference is that people who are really giving something away for free -- whether it be free porn, free books, free music, or fee software -- don't flaunt it.
Furthermore, even if these ads fool people into clicking on them, that's as far as it goes; once people realize there is no free deal, they leave.
Now, of course advertisements have to have the effect of drawing your attention to them. But they also have to have the effect of saying something meaningful about the product, which can be interpretted by the user. HINT: saying "GREAT DEAL ON NEW COMPUTER" doesn't tell me a thing, except that its probably NOT a great deal. Something like, "Gateway 2GHz computer for $1000" does tell me something. Also, quit it with the $999.99 thing.
In short, advertisers have to stop treating us like we're dumb. Because while most people who start out on the internet are dumb, they wise up quick. Now, to illustrate, let me create 3 advertising examples and critique them.
1: The typical "we-the-advertisers-think-your-fucking-dumb" ad.
"GREAT BUY! GREAT DEAL ON GATEWAY COMPUTER! MUST CLICK !NOW! TO GET IT!!"
Note, the fact that the ad tells us almost nothing about the product they want us to buy, except that its a computer and we supposedly get a good deal on it. This ad is clearly aimed towards stupid people. And whether or you do get a great deal, the impression I get from this type of ad is that its not a great deal and they're trying to fuck me up the ass. Also notice the use of ALL CAPS and !EXCLAMATION POINTS! in this ad. Two more indicators of a useless ad.
2: The ad that tries to inform the novice user.
"Get a Gateway computer with a color-printer, CD-writer, DVD-player, and scanner for $1000"
This ad doesn't list any real specifics -- just stuff that's usually standard. But it does tell you the price, and some of the accessories you get. This is something that might be valuable for a novice, who's probably looking for a "well-rounded" system, and can't really comprehend fine details like MHz, RAM, rpm, etc. Those type of details would simply confuse the novice.
3: The ad aimed at the knowledgeable user.
"Gateway computer with 2GHz CPU, 512MB DDR RAM, 2x40GB 10,000rpm SCSI hard drives, 128MB Quadro-4 GPU, and standard accessories for $1000"
Now, this ad clearly tells the intelligent user something: namely, alot of details which really tell you how good of a system it is. This type of ad is very useful to knowledgeable browser. Of course, its useless to someone who doesn't know what a GHz is, or what rpm is. Its also useless to someone who doesn't know what is good for these types of values. Even advanced users have difficulty comparing the "speeds" of different computers in MHz'. For example, if you want the best CPU, do you get a MIPS CPU used by SGI which runs at 600MHz, or an AMD 1.9GHz MP CPU? Well, most of us probably know that the MIPS is better, but that's just out of experience or hear-say. We can't really quantify it.
Summarizing it all, in short, the best types of ads are #2 and #3, the worst #1. It is reasonable that ads should combine #2 and #3.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
From: "Cindy McCaffrey"
To: "Scott XXXXX"
Subject: RE: Pay-for-Placement Service on Google
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:07:07 -0800
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your email. We are not starting a pay-for-placement service. An
Associated Press article went out late yesterday with misinformation. We
have only enhanced our current advertising system. Our search results will
stay as unbiased and objective as they always have been.
Thanks so much for taking the time to write to us and we hope that you
continue to be a happy Google user.
Best regards,
Cindy
-----
Cindy McCaffrey
VP, Corporate Marketing, Google Inc.
650.930.3524 office
650.888.3583 mobile
cindy@google.com
Searching Google for google results currently in two news articles about the matter:
MSNBC: Google unveils new program that lets Web sites bid for advertising
Washington Post: Google Introduces New Program
Both are almost identical, and somewhat criticize Google's actions: Online search engine maker Google Inc. is introducing a program that allows Web sites to be displayed more prominently if sponsors pay more money - an advertising-driven system derided by critics as an invitation to deceptive business practices.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
Hemos wrote:
Of course, if you read the article...
A Slashdot editor actually read the article he posted. If that doesn't say hell has frozen over, nothing will!
The Adventures of Girl Geek! Comments enabled.
Hehe, I use Opera. It rulez. Sadly opera shows ads unless you search google for damn_opera (heh).
I do like to see consistency. First there is the screaming part and I was a little dissed myself but then I saw that the second "isn't" should of been an aren't or at least ain't I relaxed remembering an old axiom I learned in school, "If you're going to get it wrong at least do it consistently."
Patche says, "You will attract more flies with honey than vinegar... but who wants flies?