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?
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 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
It's no longer easy to make the decisions solely on the behalf of your users.
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.
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.
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!
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/*
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.
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-.