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)."

Comments

Good

[Elvisisdead]

Now I'll get more usage from Firebird's "block images from..." feature.

Well

[krymsin01]

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.

Re:Here we go again?

[krymsin01]

Google is not placing the ads on THEIR page, only on sites that use the AdSense service.

Not on the main Google site, though ...

[SimplyCosmic]

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.

Re:End of Google as we know it?

[Peyna]

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.

Re:Ok...

[birder]

My add blocking software stops text adds from google, yahoo, etc.

From the FAQ: Animated images will not be accepted

[cygnusx]

>(please, please, static images only).

What are the image ad requirements?

Format: All images you load must be in a .JPEG, .GIF, or .PNG format. Animated images will not be accepted.

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.

Instructions to get rid of most annoying ads

[SmilingBoy]

Install AdBlock on your Mozilla browser.

Save the following in a text file:

[Adblock]
googlesyndication
us.yimg.com/a/
/\/b uy_assets\//
/[\W\d_](top|bottom|left|right|)?ban ner(s|id=|\d|_)[\W\d]/
/[\W\d](double|fast)click[ \W\d]/
/[\W\d]click(stream|thrutraffic|thru|xchan ge)[\W\d]/
/[\W\d]value(stream|xchange|click)[\W\ d]/
/[\W\d]dime(xchange|click)[\W\d]/
/[\W\d](on lineads?|ad(banner|click|-?flow|frame|ima?g(es?)?| _id|js|log|serv(er|e)?|stream|_string|s|trix|type| vertisements?|v|vert|xchange)?)[\W\d]/
/(hot|spy) log/
/[\W_](b(an|nr)s?|jump|redir(ect|s)?|stat)[\ W_]/
/\W(cy|r)?c(ou)?nt(er|ed)?\W/
/p(artner|ing \.cgi|romotion)/
reklama
/sp(onsor|ymagic)/
/to p(100|cto)/

Import the file into your AdBlock: Tools -> AdBlock -> Preferences -> AdBlock Options -> Import Filters

Blocks most annoying ads. The power of regular expressions!

Adblock

[amembleton]

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/*

Re:Adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, internet advertisers have consolidated a lot in the past few years. I can tell you this since I use adblock and I have noticed that once you have about 5 domains wildcarded, you will block 99% of all ads.

*adsdk.com*
*atdmt.com*
*qksrv.net*
*doublecl ick*
*valueclick*

Throw in ads.osdn.com for this site and a few other specialized ones and you're pretty much set. The one domain that is rather annoying is yimg.com (yahoo images) because they use it for both their advertisements and their normal site images and the URLs are sometimes difficult to distinguish.

Re:Adblock

[a whoabot]

To kill most yahoo ads go:

*a*.yimg.*

and

*us.*1.yimg.*

To get rid of more ads, these are good along with the ones you listed:

*fastclick.*
*adbureau.*
*eyeblaster-bs.*
*ad vertising.*
*spinbox.*
*zdmcirc.*
*exchangead.*
*bluestreak.*

Re:Ok...

[Shakrai]

Why is this a troll? Ad Muncher 4.5 does this. You can set it to display alternate text or no text at all. I haven't seen a Google text ad in months.

I'm sorry but do Google text ads bother you that much? I actually find them useful and have wound up buying a few products from them. If you don't like them are they that hard to ignore? I don't recall ever seeing a Google text ad popping up with "Smack the Monkey and win $50!" in a flashing javascript banner that causes epileptic seizures.

I don't see any reason to block Google ads. They are useful and (more to the point) they provide pretty much the sole revenue stream to our favorite company. Why the hell would you block them?

Only on content pages

[IAmTheDave]

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.

Washington Post article with more info

[Isaac-Lew]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A224 35-2004May12.html

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.

Re:Fear and loathing.

[persaud]

Look at the new interface for searching Usenet.

1. Search by date seems to be gone
2. 'View thread' has been separated into a default nested view and a 'tree' option that is a tree+single-message. Not as usable.
3. Usenet Message-ID for addressing has been replaced by X-Google-Thread. This is a Walled Garden: it breaks all existing URLs that link to Usenet threads on Google and divorces Usenet GUIDs from Google GUIDs. Likely purpose is unification with Google Email UIDs. Fair enough, but they should still include Usenet Message-ID in the raw source and allow backwards-compatible addressing via Message-ID. There is a 1-1 mapping, so there is no technical reason to destroy all current URLs.

#1 is a big loss of functionality. It must be there somewhere, but I couldn't find it.