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)."

30 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Ok... by jargoone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds fair to me. Unlike the text ones, they're blockable, too, for those who aren't interested.

    1. Re:Ok... by Ieshan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Ok... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Ok... by swcrissman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Ok... by malibucreek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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?

  2. Here we go again? by Liselle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Here we go again? by krymsin01 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      stuff
    2. Re:Here we go again? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      Google places the ads on YOUR site

      Hmmm... one of Google's founders is from Soviet Russia. The origins of this ad scheme are starting to make sense to me now.

    3. Re:Here we go again? by skiflyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. We've become so used to thinking Internet ad's == bad. But really, for me that's because of a handful of things...

      1) Intrusive ads (pop up/unders)
      2) Ads which take longer to download than the content
      3) Mis-leading ads
      4) Completely random ads.

      Personally I've never cared or complained about the Slashdot banner ads, or a myriad of other well executed ads. But I won't even consider browsing to MSN.com anymore because of the intrusiveness ... especially the ads they try to disguise as articles.

      Personally, I like to buy things, I don't always know everything I want to buy upfront, advertising targetted to my demographic is not something I see any reason to shun... especially seeing as it's revenue is what allows for alot of content.

  3. "only" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

  4. I don't mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I use Lynx to surf.

  5. Good by Elvisisdead · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  6. Click more text ads ... by kabz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Too much, too quickly? by andrew_j_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  8. Standard Procedure by MSittig · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Here goes...
    nano .mozilla/default/chrome/userContent.css

    IMG[SRC =*"/adsense/"] { display: none ! important }

    C-x y
    At least on Slashdot I can subscribe to scrub the ads.
  9. Google Groups by kanoswrx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Google Faith by Liselle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
  11. Not on the main Google site, though ... by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:End of Google as we know it? by Peyna · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?
  13. No way. by alexatrit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. From the FAQ: Animated images will not be accepted by cygnusx · · Score: 5, Informative

    >(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.

  15. Uh... by faust2097 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Instructions to get rid of most annoying ads by SmilingBoy · · Score: 5, Informative
    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!

  17. Re:Google: I hope you don't screw this up. by jalefkowit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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."

    This is what happens to companies when they go public.

    Profitability is indeed a mandatory thing for any business. As we know from Google's IPO filing, though, the text-only ads were already quite profitable.

    So why change? Because for a public company, just being "profitable" isn't enough -- they now have an obligation to maximize profit.

    In a private business, you can make the decision that "we could probably make more money in the short term by accepting graphical ads, but that's just not our style." In a public company you don't get to make those decisions any more -- if you try to, the shareholders throw you out and replace you with a clueless Haaaahvahd MBA with Executive-Style Hair who is more than happy to run the business into the ground to hit a quarterly revenue target.

    Google's founders have attempted to mitigate this somewhat in their filing by giving themselves, essentially, super-shareholder status -- their shares carry ten times the voting weight of an average shareholder's. But that's a defensive measure; it doesn't change the fact that the underlying dynamics of the company have changed. The founders are reacting to direction from outside, now. It will be interesting to see what other "great ideas" the outsiders have up their sleeves...

  18. Adblock by amembleton · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/*

    1. Re:Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Adblock by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.*

  19. Screenshots of new Google homepage revealed! by Plutor · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.)

  20. Washington Post article with more info by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  21. Re:Google Faith by descil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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-.