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 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
It's no longer easy to make the decisions solely on the behalf of your users.
AltaVista.Digital.com - this was my second search engine. It's a lesson in everything that can go wrong with a search engine (first - by spinning off from digital). Then by becoming an Ad-Engine.
Google's spot on top is far more precarious than most might think. They've had a long hold, but be sure, those whom use it are likely open to alternatives.
If your statement were blanket truth, then everyone would still be using MSN Search for everything.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
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.
They're going the Doubleclick way: They serve ads on a bazillion different sites, which gives them your surf path. They retain information about all your searches. They add image banners to their arsenal of (up to now) unobtrusive text ads. They will offer a service which gives them the power to correlate your email address to all the other information -- and they haven't denied that they will do that in the future. What does it take for you to lose faith in them?
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 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.
Do you actually work at any of these companies? You'll see that they all have 'personality,' and it's NOT just PR. It's all in the actions of the company. Let's look at this word, 'personality.' How something acts as a person, right? Well, companies are FULL of people, and those people make ALL SORTS of decisions, and they often follow a general set of guidelines while making them.
Microsoft doesn't like open source or linux (although they seem to be getting a little better about the open source part; probably a little scared.) The thing is, if you don't like someone, they often not-like you right back. That's why those of us in the open source community or those of us who spend all our time working specifically on linux (because penguins are just so cool, by geographic definition), don't like Microsoft. (It's also their evil efficiency at pursuing and destroying our "personal" reputation.)
I don't know about you. I don't like Apple. I'm not a graphicy artisty guy. I'm a hard code, massive cluster, text based phreak who likes to have all the universe at his fingertips. Apple has a personality that appeals to certain geeks. They value aesthetics a lot. Probably more than they value money, although who knows the reasons behind their actions - as with any other entity, you can only judge by the actions themselves, not the reasoning, because you don't KNOW the reasoning. Philosophy 101...
IBM? Honestly, I don't know much about these guys. So I don't have much of an opinion. That's pretty simple right? They don't seem to have a personality, so I'll ignore them.
Now why do we like Google? Let's look at their actions: they give us a great search engine with low interference, high signal to noise ratio, and now they're rolling out all sorts of new features that we like. How could you not like a gigabyte of storage? Well, a lot of people are scared of change, and they're trying not to like it, and that's OKAY. If you don't like change, you don't have to like Google. If you like your privacy, you don't have to like Google (although I personally don't care if some anonymous entity is watching me. Actually, it makes me feel kind of wanted. Sure, target your ads. Maybe I'll find something I like. Bet you didn't think of that, did you, Privacy Pundit?)
There is a trend on Slashdot to hate Microsoft, to love the little guy, and to misjustify our emotional reactions to various stimuli. Don't -fight- the trend, just -be yourself-.
"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?