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)."
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."
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'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...
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 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.
Uh. The ads are served from somewhere. Not only could you edit your hosts file or block the images from that destination in almost every common browser (IE, Mozilla, Firebird, Opera, etc), but you could also grab Firebird and install 'Adblock', a great utility that allows wildcarding of domains from which to block ad-banners.
Catches most stuff for me right now, and I've only got like 10 filters.
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 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? --
It's no longer easy to make the decisions solely on the behalf of your users.
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?
This is my first thought any time I see an announcement of a new Google service: why don't you fix your search engine first?
Google Groups is more useful than Google these days for finding information about ANY commodity product... if you use Google to search for information on anything with a brand name, you may as well just use Froogle, because all you'll get are link-farming retail sites for the first 5 pages.
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.
What's your point? Google's ads are strictly pay-per-clickthrough. If I don't want to see their ads, chances are I'm not going to click on them, so what do the sites lose if I block the ads right away? Do you click on ads because you pity the poor site? News for you: Down that path lies decreasing ad-revenue, because higher click-through rates mean nothing if they're not followed by more sales.
I'm sorry but do Google text ads bother you that much?
I accept your apology; yes, they do bother me that much. If I go to a website I want to see the content (if any), not the ads. If I can block ads I will block as many as possible.
If you don't like them are they that hard to ignore?
Nope. I don't even notice ads/porn when they do appear, but if you can block them and prevent from displaying and even downloading at all, why wouldn't you? I don't find them useful.
I don't need to be advertised to any more than I am already thanks.
They are useful and (more to the point) they provide pretty much the sole revenue stream to our favorite company.
No sympathy here. If that's the best Google can do, then they can die for all I care. There's always someone else.
I don't even notice ads/porn when they do appear, but if you can block them and prevent from displaying and even downloading at all, why wouldn't you? I don't find them useful.
The question is, if you don't notice them, why -would- you block them, when others have pointed out that they are relevant, and support a company who is providing a service to you? You say that you don't find them useful, but if you are blocking the ads, you don't find them at all, and can't really evaluate whether they are useful or not. You are assuming that because they are an ad, they aren't useful, but that isn't the case. The ads google provides are to services directly related to the search you have performed.
No sympathy here. If that's the best Google can do, then they can die for all I care. There's always someone else.
This is foolish. It is a shortsighted view at best. If a model does not work, it will die. From everything you have said, you like uncluttered, simple results, and probably a similar interface. Google provides both of these things for free. The least you can do is show a little support. If google does go under, sure, there may be someone else, but they're going to look at google's fate and say, well, that didn't work, so we're going to have to be more invasive, or less simple, or charge for our service...or whatever. None of which are better than simply letting relevant ads work for you.
Companies aren't going to provide search capabilities as a charity, so service users are going to have to support them in one manner or another. Simple relevant text ads may not be as good as no ads at all, but I can't think of a better alternative that will ensure that a good compromise between perfection and realism can continue. Unless you can, show some support.
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!)
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 wonder if that mindset has anything to do with this.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
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
"If I go to a website I want to see the content (if any), not the ads. If I can block ads I will block as many as possible."
Gee, you must be interested in reading content only from trust fund babies or rich folks who want you to think *their* way. Because other folks need some revenue to pay for that content you are looking at.
Hey, I'm not defending those jerks who use this as an excuse to hit you with pop-ups, flash ads and java junk that takes over your page. But Google finally came up with a system that text-based, highly targeted and unobstrusive.
Those text ads are making it possible for non-corporate voices to produce content full-time and expand websites. But they won't be able to continue to do that if the very people most likely to support non-corporate media (and I count Sladotters among them), undercut their revenue by blocking Google ads.
Look, block doubleclick, et al, all you want. Block popups on Firefox. But help out your brothers on the content side and leave the Google ads alone. You might be pleasantly surprised to find some ads that you are interested in.
And, by the way, publishers can block individual advertisers from their sites. Don't screw other publishers because you're mad at OSDN for not blocking the BSA ads.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
Do you click on ads because you pity the poor site? News for you: Down that path lies decreasing ad-revenue, because higher click-through rates mean nothing if they're not followed by more sales.
Where the hell did I say that? My point was that Google's ads are relevant to your search eight or nine times out of ten (in my experience). By blocking them you are denying yourself access to a valuable service and acting like a complete leech towards Google. I have found information that I was looking for countless times via Google ads (both on Google and other sites) -- and it has led me towards not a few sales.
What's the problem here? Would you prefer something else? Perhaps the aforementioned flashing monkey banner? Or maybe Google should just run itself at a loss until they run out of money and then ask Uncle Sam for a bailout.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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