Slashdot Mirror
Google to Distribute Image Ads, Plans Email List Service
comforteagle writes "For the next shot in the search engine advertising war Google has launched image ads in addition to their popular text AdSense program. From Google's explanation page: 'Image ads will show in rotation with text ads. On a page by page basis, Google's technology determines whether text ads or image ads are likely to make you more money, and serves the best ads to your page.'" Another reader writes: "eWEEK.com is reporting that Google has begun testing a new mailing list service, Google Groups 2, sure to go head-to-head with Yahoo Groups. It eventually will replace what is today only a Usenet archive. Users of the new beta can start their own mailing lists (public or private) and in typical Google fashion, it is promising to put search front and center (even hinting at postings being included in Web search one day)."
Sounds fair to me. Unlike the text ones, they're blockable, too, for those who aren't interested.
There will be plenty of people throwing down the gauntlet, here, because image ads are evil. So this morning, I'll be the one who says: "no, wait, this is a GOOD thing".
I read the brief write-ups that the the summary linked to (no, I'm not new here). The first thing that came to my mind was: "gee, this is how things should have been done X years ago." It's a fairly brilliant extension of their already successful idea. Snatching words and serving ads isn't perfect (I mentioned earlier that if you did it here, people might think they'd make a killing selling copies of Beowulf), but it's better than the old "cast a huge net and pray" method. I'm curious how they are going to deal with the capability for annoyance when you throw images into the mix (please, please, static images only). I didn't see anything immediately, but I am sure they already have something in mind, given how popular their plain, stripped-down interface has made them.
Makes me wonder how the Internet community would treat banner ads today if they were targetted then the way Google does AdSense now. Maybe there would have never been a Punch the Monkey campaign, or banners disguised like Windows dialog boxes, seizure-inducing flashes, or irritating popups. More likely, my morning tea has not yet kicked in.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
This will make my job *so* much easier... ;)
Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
sure to go head-to-head with Yahoo Groups. It eventually will replace what is today only a Usenet archive
"only" a Usenet archive? Yeah, those are a dime-a-dozen.
I use Lynx to surf.
As you are just now skyrocketing over it, and all...
Now I'll get more usage from Firebird's "block images from..." feature.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
If they have some kind of algorithm for selecting whether to show text or graphics ads (as the summary implies) ... maybe clicking a few text ads once in a while will let the system know that you aren't interested in the graphic ads.
:-( )
Lets hope they don't correlate this with search history. (X10 ads aplenty, here I come
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
At least they are giving you the option of NOT having the graphic ads placed on your site. I'm sure a lot of people just like the elegance of the text based ads a lot more since they are less obtrusive. However, how long do you think it will take them to not give you the option of not displaying banner ads? I'm sure they are going to be charging more for the graphics since they'll be using more bandwidth.
stuff
I hope the people at Google know what they're doing... it would seem to me that for a company that has been so focused on providing an excellent search engine they're suddenly branching out very quickly (Mailing lists, Gmail...).
I wonder if this has anything to do with their impending IPO?
I'm curious how they are going to deal with the capability for annoyance when you throw images into the mix (please, please, static images only). I didn't see anything immediately, but I am sure they already have something in mind, given how popular their plain, stripped-down interface has made them.
When will Faith in Google be concretized into a religion? There seem to be enough devoted believers already...
They have us all well and truely hooked, now its time to start reeling us in.
In a few years there will be flashy distracting images all over the place, just like yahoo.
I thought Google just won an award for it's services and how well it was doing acording to the users.
So now they change it all around and go "NYA! POP UPS NEXT!". We all know pop ups is the next step after this, how long is it untill google trys them "for a while"?
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
Google is good for many things, but it is so intrusive that I do not want it anywhere near my private friend groups. I'm sure I'd regret having it showing our affrays to the rest of the net...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I hope they don't get rid of the usenet archive, that thing is a life saver for me and fellow IT workers. I don't think their is a better collection of help anywhere on the internet. If Google Groups goes it will be a sad day in Internet histroy and Google will loose a lot of my respect.
I'm cautious about what google is doing these days.
I mean, yeah, Profitability is somewhat of a mandatory thing (duh!) and there isn't alot of "paying" to google for it's services outside of advertising.
To Me, text ads have been far more successful, with the exception of the ThinkGeek ads sometimes shown here. I've clicked on more Text Ads than anything else.
I sure as heck don't click on Flash ads, or ones that do funky groovy DHTML overlay crap. Even if I was interested, I sure ain't now.
Somehow, I'm sure that Google will find a balance that doesn't piss people off.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
I find the usenet archieve pretty cool as you can read and especially search usenet newsgroups without subscribing.
On the other hand I haven't found a way to read newsgroups with mozilla. Maybe that;s because I don't know what to fill the server field with and if a group I'm interested in is on that server.
I don't like the way the article is worded regarding Google Groups 2. I have no issue with Google starting another Groups service but, I am concerned with the concept of "replacing" the usenet archive.
The Usenet archive is tremendously useful and, I feel, should be protected at all costs. The thought of the Usenet archive being abandoned or terminated scares me quite a bit. I hope that my concerns are unfounded.
I worry that a number of people are going to only read the summary listed above and not realize that this if for their "Adsense" program which allows you to place Google ads on your website. Nothing has been said about putting image ads on Google's own search engine site.
There will be no images on the google search page itself. this is an ad service to be used on affiliate pages.
RTFA, it has nothing to do with their search page and the ads that are displayed there.
AdSense is a service that Google provides to web publishers; basically they let other people use Google's advertising technology on their web site. There is no mention anywhere that Google itself will be using images in the ads on their search page.
What?
"Click more ads" is your core sentence there, you know.
So, is this like a racketeering scheme? If you don't click any ads, the percentage of graphical ads gets increasingly bumped up until you are either lured in to clicking one (in which case even MORE graphical ads will appear in your future) or clicking text ads to "establish your preferences".
Will clicking a text ad for Google soon become like paying protection to the mob?
...for those who didn't read the article, this is for your own webpage and not for Google.
"eventually will replace what is today only a Usenet archive."
? NoticeID=575). Usenet will always truly have its place.
While Usenet is filled with a lot of wonderful porn and crap these days, since its not really controlled by a single corporate entity, its gives you more freedom of expression. While the google forums might have less crap, google doesn't always play nice - such as with the dinosaur drawing site gewgle (http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/notice.cgi
I've been an AdSense "web publisher" for only a few months now, and I must say that the image based ads go against one of the reasons why I choose Google's program to begin with. Image based ads are gaudy, for one. They don't necessarily fit in with the color scheme of my pages. With the text-based ads I maintain aesthetic control, and can assure that the ads displayed don't draw too much attention away from my content. So - I won't be enabling image based ads. Simple.
Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel
Google image ads are limited to 50KB in size, and should have a minimal effect on load time for most sites. (FAQ)
I know Image adverts are not going to appear on Google itself, but 50KB is still 13 seconds for most modem users!
I for one have never click on an Internet ad or for even thought of purchasing it. I have seen so many ads that I pay no attention to them. People say that advertising works well i sure doesn't work on me :-)
How many google ads are we going to see? Didn't they just announce there own blogs? :)
You typed: C-x y
That should read: [Esc] :wq
HTH
I know I can block them through various means, but I worry about the impact that all of the people who will not be blocking them (due to disinterest, lack of knowledge, or whatever) will have on google. One of the best things about google is that it's so simple and low bandwidth relatively speaking
Of course, I actually didn't mind the text ads. I even used them on occasion. Now, I'm going to have people putting in goddamn obnoxious animated gifs and the like. The FAQ says they are limited to 50KB size. That's about 500 times more than a current text ad.
This is a slippery slope, I think.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Does the new google groups concept sound familiar to anyone else who remembers dejanews? (which google bought for the news content, etc).. didnt they try that?
Here we go with another batch of outraged replies from people who did not read or comprehend the story, including the article submitter :)
It's no longer easy to make the decisions solely on the behalf of your users.
When will they detect that I will NEVER click an ad, and I actively avoid companies that intrusively advertise (and I have a very tight definition of intrusive!).
I was fairly neutral to eBay until I saw userfriendly.org on someone else's manchine and saw it looks like a big flashing eBay advert with a tiny comic in the middle, and I was mildly impressed with Honda until they interrupted the Formula 1 coverage of their own car doing well to show me an advert.
It's in advertisers interests not to lose potential customers by annoying them.
Google would have a real market advantage if they could show that their adverts were going to people who do not block every ad they can, or they targetted less intrusive versions of adverts at people like me who do.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Before someone posts an incorrect reply:
Google themselves told me this was a bug, and they knew about it snd would fix it some time. However, this was 4 years ago.
A page containing the word "tobornottobe" is NOT a correct match for a search for "to be or not to be".
I did try the quotes around the phrase.
Do not mention "but the pages linking to it contain the phrase!". That is only used for ranking of results, and not for actually finding the results.
Another example is a search on "AB RAIN". One of the first 10 returns is incorrect.
Well, google may be rolling out a new form of ad delivery, but at least they are allowing people to know what to look for. The following is taken from their Adsense Beta page describing the sizes of the images:
"Google image ads are currently in beta and are available in 4 major formats: 468x60, 728x90, 120x600, and 300x250"
The good things now you can put these sizes into your content blocker. Unless you are like me, who is blocking every 2x2, 2x3, 3x2, 3x3 length integer names in the file names of jpgs and gifs, then you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
Oh yeah, don't forget about the 1x1, and the clear, and transparent gifs and jpegs, too.
IPO
Gotta expand expand expand! Gotta do something good with that investor money! They've got shareholders to answer to now. Flash ads and javascript popups are not far behind.
Doubt it. What are gonna use instead? Dogpile? MSN?
No matter how much Google with "ImageAds" (WOW! What an idea!) will suck, it'll still be better than the competition. For now.
I think there are search phrases for which makes sense to provide image ad instead of text one. And there is lot of such phrases on the google asked each day. Yes, I am talking about gardens here.
Google Flash Ads?
Google Pop-Under Ads?
who knows...
I work at a company that hosts a huge number of websites for newspapers around the US. Enough of them already have become a PITA because the publishers think Google AdSense will bring good money to their site, and have inundated us with requests to add the damn javascript to their pages. (God forbit someone at the papers learn how to edit a friggin HTML file and insert a in it!!!) The funny thing is, these ads often compete against the newspapers themselves! I've seen ads show up that say "Why bother advertising in newspaper classifieds when you can advertise with us?" LOL... Too rich. Now, it's going to be, "How come my right side of the web page keeps stretching from it's normal size" - not paying any attention that this 400x300 pixel monster is taking up real estate on the page now.
I think this is a bad idea. What make Google good is that save bandwitdh, that is very expensive worldwide. This is why Google search engine is no1 and why AdWords where no1. Its against why the people like Google to use "AdImages". Lots of other people already provide AdImages, If somehome want AdImages, dont need google, we (the consumers) like AdWords because where non-intrusive. Images ARE intrusive, and consume lots of expensive bandwitdh.
-Woof woof woof!
>(please, please, static images only).
.JPEG, .GIF, or .PNG format. Animated images will not be accepted.
What are the image ad requirements?
Format: All images you load must be in a
Size: You may choose from four standard ad sizes: Banner (468 x 60), Leaderboard (728 x 90), Inline Rectangle (300 x 250), and Skyscraper (120 x 600) (see examples here). Please note that we may resize your image slightly to accommodate your destination URL and the 'Ads by Google' feedback link, which can alter the proportions of your image. If you'd like to retain your image's original proportions, you may adjust your image sizes before you upload them (learn more.)
Image content: Your images must be relevant to your advertised concepts and products. For example, an Ad Group containing keywords like 'roses,' 'tulips,' and 'carnations' would call for floral-related images. We strongly recommend that you also include some descriptive text and a call to action to reinforce your ad's message.
Please note that we will only accept family safe images. For more details about acceptable image ads content, read the Google AdWords Editorial Guidelines.
One of the reason I use Google is because they do not use image ads. Image ads are distractive. Whenever I can I block image ads with Mozilla.
A very bad move by Google, IMO.
i must admit that i like the current method of them suggesting relevant links, as they normally ARE relevant - so they get more click throughs from me than any other site.
do people really mind Google suggesting relevant sponsered links, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the others?
Hey, does anyone else keep getting a little frustrated with the fact that Google seems hell-bent on introducing new services [orkut, gmail, etc.] but they haven't really done anything about the fact that 'optimizers' have basically cracked PageRank?
I worked at AltaVista in 1999, when I started there they were the dominant search engine and the #4 site on the internet. They made the same mistake of taking their search engine business for granted and pursuing a bunch of other non-related features. Guess what happened? A tiny little company came out of nowhere that had clearly superior search results and completely ate AV's lunch. That company? Google.
Now Google doesn't have Rod Schrock and his Harvard B-School crew of useless cronies at the helm so they do have a chance at being successful but they'd be best off focusing their efforts on their core business.
Nope. If the keywords "debt", "penis enlargement", or "porn" don't bring up an image ad, nothing will.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
No worries ... they have a nice soft pile of money to land in on the other side...
Uh, so did Henry Winkler.
I tried browsing the interweb without any ad blocking yesterday for the first time in ages.
Apart from a few sites it was almost unbearable. How do people put up with all that crap?
Game related sites seem to be the worst offenders (not including "specialist adult interest sites") of course.
Save the following in a text file:
Import the file into your AdBlock: Tools -> AdBlock -> Preferences -> AdBlock Options -> Import Filters
Blocks most annoying ads. The power of regular expressions!
I'm always hearing from trolls about how BSD is dying, always with a follup from several happy BSD users.
Well, the idea that Google is planning to replace it's USENET archive with a web groups engine. So, is USENET dying? Or, more appropriately perhaps, will Google's dropping of USENET archiving contribute to a USENET death?
In reality, I don't believe that they are actually going to drop the USENET archiving -- I just think they are likely to make it slightly harder to find. Either way, USENET use has declined significantly over the last several years, I can only see this helping to make it worse.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
AdBlock not only blocks images, but also iFrames. iFrames are used on other people's websites to display Google's adsense text adverts. I assume that this will also show the image based adverts.
You can block the whole iFrame and you can use wildcards so you can do stuff like:
block: *.doubleclick.net/*
Why don't you just install Privoxy? (works with both linux & windows). It makes clicking to block images seem such a herculian task... :)
My big concern with the direction that they are going in is the fragmentation of their product.
Yahoo is very good at having a unified service. Mail gets you into groups gets you into their customized maps. The core Yahoo ID is used by everything. (Their use of USERNAME@yahoo.com for their email was a brilliant marketing idea giving you a stake in the company.)
Blogger, orkut, groups2, all have components with similar datasets. Users, email, profiles. Each of these products is growing and the longer that they wait to create a unified core the harder it will be to do it at all.
They have so many brilliant people taking them in so many directions somebody is going to need to reign it all in.
No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
Check this out, a screenshot of a Beta version of the post-IPO google.com page has been leaked!
Leaked screenshot.
(Note: Yes, I am trolling and flamebaiting. Take that, Karma.)
It seems that Google is going the way of ICQ and trying to be everything to everyone. I understand the need to be competetive and inovate. And again, I understand the pressure from everyone else jumping into the search engine game but it's starting to look like they just won't rely on the thing that's made them so successful. I, and I believe a lot of slashdot readers, use google because it doesn't have all the other fodder. When I go to Yahoo or MSN I have another agenda than when I go to google- and I go to google much more often.
How big is the Deja/Google archive, anyway? Does anyone know? How much does it grow yearly?
How soon will it be until portable devices will be able to store a complete Usenet archive?
Webwasher Classic will get rid of most in-line ads like this as well. You can either replace the graphics with your own, or choose not to show them at all.
Best of all, it's FREE for personal use.
Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
I for one welcome our new Google e-mail overlords.
A few years ago when people didn't always care about accuracy of search results (I for one, didn't give bugger all about accuracy), one of the good points of Google is that the search pages weren't polluted with 468x68 banner ads (which made loading search results faster).
This is only going backwards. Text Ads are cool. Images aren't.
And they won't have voting shareholders to be responsible to, so it should be exactly as easy to make the decisions solely on the behalf of their users.
do Google text ads bother you that much?
About a year ago, Slashdot ran BSA ads via Google. That bothered me. Since then I block all Google ads on other sites (they are usually in an iframe).
Text ads on Google itself are sometimes useful.
Being an AdWords subscriber, I recieved the image AdWords posting email today in my inbox. From the email:
"We're excited to introduce image ads, an additional ad format that combines the appeal of pictures with proven AdWords targeting technology. Now you can show your product images, company branding or other creative elements on relevant content sites throughout the Google Network."
"Content" pages do not include search pages. Content pages are Google advertising subscriber pages like, say... Slashdot.
So don't fret, they won't clutter the Google search engine interface.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I don't see why people are complaining...the ads aren't going on Google's page, they are small, and they will be relevant to the page content. I don't see what the problem is with Google doing it, if they make a *really* bad move then people will simply stop using it & they'll go under.
Look at an example, people. It's just ugly, and big...even if it's not animated.
Please let google know what you think.
Send them something like this:
Dear Google,
I have been a long time user of your search engine. However, with your recent announcement of graphical ads, I am looking for another search engine now. I click on text ads, only. I understand that you will only be placing these on parter sites. Will you contact the partner sites? What if they object to having banner ads on their site?
I urge you to reconsider this.
<Your Name>
Pleeeease...
I run HotInfoProducts.com and I've added the google adsense to my web-site. when they haven't got keywords to fill they use banners to suppliment...
the current banner advertisements seem to be
called "Public Service ads" and they so far all seem to be for good causes.
Charitable ones and such.
as a webmaster I have no problem with this...
Basically it's when they can't detect keywords,
they use banners.
I really don't see a problem with this.
It's actually kinda cool I think..
None? =)
Nope. Look at Google's own explanation of how it works. Look at their page "The Basics of Google Search". See Since Google only returns web pages that contain all the words in your query. It does not mention including pages that do not contain the words.
"It's not even clear how to formulate the problem in a meaningful way."
It is really quite easy to formulate the problem: Google, you are sometimes returning pages that do not contain the words in the query. They could ask Altavista how to fix it, too. Altavista has 100% accuracy in phrase results.
Or words to that effect.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
iFrames? Do you think they're an Apple invention or something? That's probably what they'd call a photo viewer like a Ceiva.
bp
Don't know about anyone else, but the reason I moved to Google (from Mamma.com) was the fact that they do not have image ads, just text ones. And they certainly don't flash! That's the main reason! Also, I use Google Groups because they ONLY have Usenet, I don't want all mailing list crap in there as well! At the moment, Google provide a good service, if they expand as they outline here, it's going to push away people! They'll become the next Yahoo (have you SEEN there website lately? Talk about bloat!)
From https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?a nswer=7683&topic=102
All Google image ads include two elements: your URL to fortify your branding and a feedback link that gives publishers and users a way to request improvements from Google.
We may resize your image vertically by 11 or 22 pixels (depending on the image format you've selected) to make room for these elements while still maintaining the standard overall image sizes. We will not, however, resize your image horizontally. Therefore, your image's proportions will appear slightly different from your original file.
If you'd like to maintain the original proportions of your images, we recommend that you resize them (or recreate them in the appropriate sizes) before you upload them. Your resized options are:
* Banner: 468x49
* Leaderboard: 728x79
* Inline rectangle: 300x239
* Skyscraper: 120x578
It's not clear to me whether banner ads will always be 468x49 or if they'll sometimes be 468x60 (etc).
The shareholder is always right.
(If you can't tell by the end of this message, the subject is facetious.)
I wonder what all these naysayers about Google's use of ads expect Google to do? Abandon ads and start miraculously growing money from trees so that they can continue to pay for the thousands and thousands of servers, along with the required bandwidth, electricity, and hard-working employee costs?
I think that text ads probably weren't generating enough revenue for Google, so they started thinking about introducing graphic ads, which better catch user eyes.
Google provides quality services to its customers, so I'll hardly complain about their use of myriad ads. Hell, even though none of the ads really interest me, I occasionally click a few in gmail for good measure.
Once you let the shareholders take over the evil starts to creep in.
Seriously though sounds like these guys just want to pump the stock and cash out since both Yahoo and Microsoft are going to be starting major assaults on Googles dominance.
They didn't decide top go public for no reason people, Google is at it's peak and it's only down from here.
As others have pointed out, Google is NOT adding image ads to their website, but rather to third-party sites using their AdSense services.
In short: the reason you moved to Google is still valid.
It eventually will replace what is today only a Usenet archive.
For me, the ability to search through the massive archive of messages - and occaisonally post - is one of the reasons I love Google. If they remove the archive, I'll be more than a little upset.
Since DeJa went under (with Google buying up the Usenet end), it's been my favoured place for a quick browse of usenet (It's easier than having to wait for Thunderbird to load, connect, etc), not to mention that I can browse it from school computers.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Rights users get: Google authorizes you to view and download a single copy of the Materials solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may not sell or modify the Materials or reproduce, display, publicly perform, distribute, or otherwise use the Materials in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the written permission of Google.
Stick with Netnews. Nobody owns it. The protocols are open. The source is open. And it works.
I still have a problem with them/their software reading your email so they can find what your interestes are.
:)
Some people think I am being too fussy about privacy concerns.
I think those people are biased.
If MS had done this rather then Google ( geek hero ) the ranting would still be going on.
I say this and I hate M$, am a Java programmer, and I am a GNU/Linux user.
Put THAT in your coke can and drink it!
Steve
While I haven't read every single reply to this article, I do have some problems with Google Groups in it's current incarnation.
Basically, the problem when comparing it to Yahoo!Groups are missing:
1) File storage
2) Photo storage
3) Calendar
4) Database
5) Chat (local to the group)
6) Polls
I know it's still in beta, and will likely have much of this added. But, as I said, right now there is no way Google Groups can be compared to Yahoo!Groups.
For those that care, I did start a Google group (to see what features were available) "justatest".
Lets see how many we can get to join it! =] eheheheh..
bork bork bork!
"Google is likely taking action x or introducing service y because of the IPO."
or
"The impending IPO is turning our once beloved Google into another example of the evils of corporate profiteering."
Let's face it - even if Google had no plans for an IPO it would likely *still* be looking to branch out, diversify, and increase its profit potential. Even private companies like the idea of growth.
Heh not sure if I agree with the moderation on this one except that it seems like Google has now fixed the problem.
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
But read carefully: At this time, we won't show image ads on Google. Be dead certain that within a short time after the IPO, it'll be blinking flash ad, punch the monkey, pop-up city on Google. Unless you pony up for a subscription.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
As any working professional ought to know, the best tech support is in the Usenet archives. As a firmware engineer, it has helped me numerous times.
For Google's sake I pray that this doesn't happen,but this may just be the normal cycle of the 'net happening.
This sig no verb.
And if they start distributing Kool Aid, watch out.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
One: Apply to serve targeted ads on your... Two: ...
Three: Profit!
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Google's AdSense is great for my site. I run a service that helps people find jobs treeplanting in Canada http://www.canadiantreeplanting.com Most people on the site that use it a lot have not had a problem with me using Google's ads. In fact a lot of them think its a good idea. The money from the adds helps pay for hosting etc. I feel this program is really helping the little web publishers out there like myself. It would take too much time to pursue other forms of advertising. Just to maintain an add system and to do the billing and marketing for it would not be worthwhile for a site my size. The most important thing about my site is that its independent from the industry and companies that operate in the space. A lot of people post comments about companies and work practices and I don't ever want to start censoring them. If I became reliant on certain companies for advertising, the content and what is allowed to be talked about might have to change. I really don't want that. With AdSense, I'm completely removed from interacting with the company's who advertise it. They can't really pull my strings. Go Google!!
There are a lot of myths and stuff that is just plain wrong going on here. This is a summary of what is true about this.
1. Image advertisements will NOT be on the main page, nor were there any indication that they will be on any properties such as Gmail or groups.
2. Image ads will be on AdSense.
3. AdSense is Google's syndication of advertising on websites all over the web. AdSense is NOT used on the main page or Gmail, groups, etc.
4. Image ads are opt-in for advertisers and opt-in for webpages with ads.
5. Animated ads just aren't allowed.
6. Deceptive ads that try to mimic UI elements like windows to be clicked on are not allowed.
7. Since image ads are opt-in, they will tend to be on pages that already have other image/banner ads anyway. So if not Google's, that webpage would have found someone else's ad.
8. Like all other AdSense ads, ads that aren't popular or irrelevant will not be shown. Only high quality and relevant ads will get to be shown often.
Look carefully through that list, then realize they aren't going to be evil, don't declare that they've hit IPO madness.
Now stop spreading FUD, please.
In an attempt to compete with Microsoft, they will create a new Linux distro called "Googlux" (tm). The bundled Mozilla browser will be rebranded as "Googzilla" and of course, Google will be the default start page.
Advertisers would argue (and have you believe) that if they place an ad in content, you are somehow ethically obligated to view it. To do otherwise, they suggest, is "stealing" the content because they pay for it with the ads.
However, this argument is rubbish. People are under no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to support a company's chosen business model. Unless a person has legitimately entered into an agreement with the advertisers, under which the advertisers can expect the person to view their advertisements, there can be no ethical argument to the contrary.
Here, advertisers would argue that merely viewing a web site or watching a television program indicates our implicit agreement to watch the associated ads -- i.e., we have entered (legitimately) into an implicit contract with them -- but this argument is also flawed. Merely participating in an event that some interested party has attached a hidden contract to does not enter you into that contract.
In order for a contract to be binding, ethically or legally, its details must be fully disclosed beforehand, both parties must receive something of fair value from entering into the contract, and both parties must enter into the contact of their own free will and not under the influence of coercion. It is clear that the advertisers do not state the terms of their implied contract up front. Likewise, it is questionable whether the annoyance and time sunk into reading or watching advertisements is a fair trade-off for all potential readers or viewers. Finally, it is easy to make the case that there is some coercion at play. Advertisers often slip ads into content unannounced or with increasing frequency over time so that the full annoyance of their ads is revealed only after consumers have made a significant investment or commitment to the content they are already reading or viewing. At this point, consumers are coerced, if mildly, into continuing by the prospect of having wasted their investment thus far or by the prospect of having to find suitable replacement content.
Therefore, after having given much thought to the subject, I must conclude that we are under absolutely no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to view advertisements.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
A year ago I wrote:
-------------------
I got an e-mail the other day complaining that I'm charging for access to the DirectX SDKs which are "supposed to be free." Free for who? Where is this mythical bandwidth fairy? Why have I been paying for my bandwidth these last two years? The SDKs were free for quite awhile as was everything else. Do you have any idea how many gigs of bandwidth I was using a month? I know exactly how many bytes I was using. And it wasn't enough. If my bandwidth wasn't capped at the hardware level (60GB a month physically possible) with a flat rate I would have been looking at hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to cover the bandwidth that would be sucked up by people grabbing the SDKs from my site. How's that for free?
You may be thinking, "if you're charging for access to parts of this site, what's with the ads?" Unless you're ranked in the top 100,000 of the web with Alexa you won't see a dime from ads unless you drive your visitors nuts with them. See like every "Warez" site out there. And the thing with those crappy sites that bomb your senses with ads, is that you never actually get what you want. About.com used to be great with information about everything. Now it's just a search engine with more ads than you can click a mouse at. No thanks. I'll use Google. Since ads don't work to make money, I just use them for what they are good at; exposure. Perhaps you haven't noticed but this site is huge. Many of the ads are just for other parts of this site like the above advertisement for the "Who Should the United States Attack (if Anybody)?" survey. Others are for web-sites I enjoy. And still others are from other people who just wanted to take advantage of the free exposure for their game development related site.
It's charging for the high bandwidth areas of the site that allow me to have much more free content on the site and make it more accessible since the site runs faster. I could stop charging for access to the content I'm currently charging for access to but then that content just wouldn't be on the site at all. Not everything can be free but I do my best to make as much interesting free stuff (like the survey) as possible. What other site allows free anonymous FTP with no limit on the files or the file size you can upload?
-----------------
The ads it's talking about are the text based ads I used which were a hold over from using CJ.com and the banner ad system I implemented which is still somewhat in use at a sub site. They were good for intersite advertising (my web-site is still a giant).
Things have changed. The site is mostly free access since Google AdSense showed up. Only one section which can't possibly make up for the bandwidth usage with ad revenue isn't free. And there's no longer the free anonymous FTP. I'm also running colo on a 10MB line.
If enough people like yourself are so obsessed with this rediculous notion that the internet is free that you can't even allow Google Ads to show up on the pages, then I already have a solution in place and that just makes everyone worse off. I ran a pay site for over a year. Any given section is just an HTACCESS file away from being members only. It's already the case that many web-sites are offering "premium" content that you have to pay for.
The long short of it is, if you refuse to allow the ad revenue to cover the bills, the bills will be paid by the customers themselves like every other business.
Then the internet won't be free for anybody. Many of Google's services are funded by their ad system. If their ad system stops working, their currently free services aren't going to be free any more.
If I could detect users who were killing off the Google Adsense ads, I'd cut off my site from them. If you're not even going to humor me by at least letting the ads load, then I'm not going to humor you by letting the site load for you.
That's just spitting in the face of people who are trying to give you a valuable service and not have to charge you for it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
yahoo recently ticked me off by changing the search in yahoo groups. You can no longer search all the old group message (for one group) at once via the web interface. It will only search like 50 at one time and then you have to run the search again. This is worthless on any high volume groups. It a good thing I keep my mail archived so I can still do the search on my computer.
Am I the only one who can imagine a mom and dad with a young daughter looking on Google for tub toys for their kid...
Mom: Honey. Jenny needs a new tub toy. Something girlie.
Dad: Let's look it up on Google.
Mom: Yeah.
Dad browses to www.google.com and types... tub girl <Enter>
Mom: Holy mother of Christ!
Dad: My eyes! My eyes!
I expected that Google would do something more like Gmane and start indexing existing mailing lists. The web search looks at existing pages, it doesn't let you make your own (unless that is coming?). But it looks like they want to make something better than Yahoo Groups, which should not be difficult.
I wonder if they will feed out the groups as NNTP, or as mailing lists which can be fed into Gmane. Then one will be able to read them with a convenient newsreader interface along with everything else.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Is their policy better than Yahoo?
If Google has a policy concern over a possible or clear violation, will they *not* erase the group outright, as Yahoo does but perhaps notify the moderators to correct the issue, therebye giving the moderators time to save/backup the list if they do have to go somewhere else?
Where are the scripts for pulling the content off Yahoo groups and transferring it to google groups?
This is *exactly* in response to their users, that is, users of their advertising services.
Furthermore, it's only an option -- and a service offered by all of the other major advertising vendors that they will have to compete more heavily against now that they will be in more public competition with them.
Flaming google for matching service offerings of their competitors, and improving upon them, is an idiotic thing to do. The dozens of replies that are focused on lambasting google and their snide 'well ill just block their image adds with my 3r33t meth0ds' are not new, interesting, or worthwhile discussion.
With google's financials in the open air, they are going to experience a profit crunch as their current customers discover how well they're doing, and as other competitors both adapt and better compete. They'll need to offer the same, if not greater, services in the near future to establish themselves.
The interesting commentary was about how google will run the risk of alienating the average cusumer by infesting the web/newsgroups/news/searchresults/email/etc. with annoying advertising. I think google is aware of this, but we will have to watch and see how they cope with it.
But I also dont think that to the average or majority of internet users, an imagead will now be associated with google -- they're everywhere, and not all nor will they will be all placed by google.
$0.02
Ah, my mistake ;) I presumed Google ran its own ad service.
I'd bet against that assertion.
Anyone game?
I maintain a small, fast, hosts file which targets major ad servers. The file and a windows installer are on the page. Enjoy.
This raises interesting questions for a global Internet company. "Family safe" by which standard? US? European? Tunisian? South-African?
All regions in the world have very different standards for morality in general (at least in various details), and particularly for sexually or simply nudity-related images.
Europeans in general could not quite understand the fuss in the US about Janet Jackson's nipple on TV, and were quite amused by the uproar. For the fuss about Clinton's private life, some Europeans were shocked like a part of the American public seemed to be, while others felt that his sex-life was nobody's business.
Some "family safe" content in the US would be quite shocking for many Muslims (as it might also have been for many Christians just a few decades ago).
etc.
So, which standard will they apply? The US standard because Google is a US company? The standard of the country of the web site? The standard of the country of the advertizer?
Feel free to post a few links for an interesting comparative study...
You can leave out goatse.cx and it's variants; we all know these already. But I really wonder what is considered "osé" (or even "sexy") but still acceptable on an Iranian web site.
For the Safari users out there, PithHelmet does a pretty darn good job of removing ads, though sometimes it's a bit *too* ambitious in its blocking.
As an example, try viewing a newsgroup with the old and new interfaces: Compare the old interface with the new interface.
I hope they don't remove the old interface for Usenet.
dtach - A tiny program that emulates the detach feat
Yes, you're almost certainly the only one. Everyone else found that gag too obvious to mention.
How big is the Deja/Google archive, anyway? Does anyone know? How much does it grow yearly?
GG main page says 845 million messages right now. When they introduced Google Groups in 2001 they were at over 650 million.
As for size in bytes, I think the average message is about 3 KB (unless you're talking binary groups, but GG does not carry those). So about 2.5 TB without the redundancy Google uses.
On the other hand I haven't found a way to read newsgroups with mozilla. Maybe that;s because I don't know what to fill the server field with...
There's a list of public servers.
and if a group I'm interested in is on that server.
Once you've retrieved the group list from the server your newsreader lets you inspect it. Or use Newzbot to search for the availability of a specific group.
I did.. i just sent a message using their contact page urging them to reconsider their dicision on image ads.. Image ads are a bad idea, they abuse the users bandwidth and treat users like trained animals, as though they have no control over their own actions.. I much prefer and have priased Googles text ads and recommeneded them to people wishing to advertise as they are non-obtusive, yet effective, advertising.
append to your hosts file
pagead2.googlesyndication.com 127.0.0.1
most of the text ones will be gone.
(try following that link above first. Bingo! Google main page).
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
so without further ado:
"You there, fill it up with petroleum distillate, and re-vulcanize my tires, post haste. And none of your usual boobery!"
--- 9336ac9fb21c121cf4cb7495715e9cf4.txt 2004-05-11 14:40:05.000000000 +0100
+++ d588d4824224069548024abf8198b5a2.txt 2004-05-14 10:05:02.000000000 +0100
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
Each message is grouped with all its replies and displayed as a
conversation.
- * No pop-up ads. No banners.
+ * No pop-up ads. No untargeted banners.
You see only [2]relevant text ads and links to related web pages
of interest.
codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
Why don't people get that this is completely opt-in for AdSense customers? "I'm an AdSense customer and the main reason I picked Google was because they offered only text ads..." Umm, you don't have to have image ads if you don't want them. Jeez.
And there are some things that are better expressed graphically. "Buy this super cute toy!" in image form is so much more convincing.
Anyway, I just think it's funny that every time Google has tried to innovate, this group of people cries foul, "Oh dear lord! The end of Google is nigh!" and pretty much every freakin' time, they actually do something that ends up being super-cool.
Like someone said earlier, I may not have faith in Google, but they haven't let me down yet...
~jeddz
But it does not contain accurate results for the search. If I'd have wanted a page related to him, I would have searched on his name.
"Oops - that's wrong. Take a look at this cache of a comic strip called "To be or net to be" - up in the Google heading it says"
I have now learned that content of linking-to pages is now used in results. This contradicts Google's own description of how it works, and it makes for irrelevant results. I use Google instead of Altavista because Google returns many more results, and Google has a cache. However, if Altavista added the cache and had as many results, I'd go back there and drop Google: altavista has never had a problem producing accurate search results.