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."
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.
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?
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 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..."
Well, we finally got a Google topic, that's a good start. ;)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no "faith" in Google. I just haven't been let down yet. If they ever trip, I'll be using another search engine quick as you can blink. That's what Google did to Altavista/etc, and what someone else will do to them if they don't stay smart.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
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.
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?
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? --
I've switched a lot of people from MSN by just showing them the alternatives.
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.
S'cuse me, what did av.com to you ?
I still happen to use it because I *love* its query language...
But I don't like the fact the Search input text in Safari cannot be pointed to send the query anywhere else than Google.*
However good is Google, I do not want it to rule my (e-)life.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
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.
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.
>(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.
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.
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/*
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.
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?
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.
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!)
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.
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-.
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!
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.
yOu oBviously dIdn't gEt iT.
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!
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
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