Slashdot Mirror
Google Upgrades AdSense
An anonymous reader writes "According to a story in the New York Times, Google will now "give advertisers more control over where their ads are shown, how they pay for them and what they look like." Author John Battelle claims "The core philosophy of Google's advertising business is that these ads are actually valuable and useful to users: look for Chevy trucks and get Chevy truck ads. Now we are in another place. It's more about branding and more about advertising other things than what you are looking for, and, cynically, it may be about being a public company that needs revenue growth."" The other thing that other submitters noted was that AdSense would also be accepting graphical advertising as well; but for display on partner sites.
Some registration free links:
Unfortunately, I don't see anything about this on Google's press release page yet.
--
Conversions of Currency Rates of Exchange
Many of you might not like targeted ads ("privacy issues"), but face it --- Google's and Gmail's ads are far less annoying than the random irrelevant banners that, say, Yahoo puts up.
First post!
I think that Google's old method of embedding text ads in search result pages was a little bit underhanded. While they were off in another column of the screen, they looked just like regular search results.
Adding graphics to the advertisements seems to be a logical way of extending the power of advertising while at the same time minimizing the confusion of users.
The CPM setting is a tool for advertisers. They can put an upper limit on their campaign cost. This feature does not at all mean that publishers will be paid by impressions.
Well is it? Regardless, Google will lose a major point of differentiation from its competitors and one of the main reasons I use Google. I like unobtrusive ads, perhaps now I will shop around other search engines...
For Internet users, the most visible change will be an expanded use of ads with graphics and animation on many of the Web sites for which Google sells advertising, rather than the short text ads that have been Google's hallmark.
Looks like Adblock's going to be getting a new entry pretty soon.
I've noticed that as of late some searches will return a sponsered link at the top of the page above the results (as opposed to the standard list of sponsered links off to the right of the page).
The first few times I mistook the sponsered link for the top result, although it is labeled as such and has a light blue background (although on my monitor at least the blue is almost indistinguishible from the white background).
How long have they been doing this?
This doesn't happen for all searches either, just some, examples are "yellow pages" "dell" "coffee".
Will it be able to run Gentoo???
For Internet users, the most visible change will be an expanded use of ads with graphics and animation on many of the Web sites for which Google sells advertising, rather than the short text ads that have been Google's hallmark.
Possibly the most disheartening news I've heard today.
Part of the reason why I accepted Google's advertising were the unobtrusiveness of the ads. If these turn into animated horrors, I have a feeling my next search on Google may be for a new search engine.
Fortunately it is only a pilot project, so presumably Google hasn't invested that much in it just yet.
I don't think this strategy is going to work, not at all. Google is a technology company. What makes adsense so great is the technology behind it, the code which matches up ads to ad space automatically, with minimal human interaction.
What is google going to try next, changing its search engine so that people can pick what websites to display in the search results?
that these changes make a lot of Sense.
_________
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
cynically, it may be about being a public company that needs revenue growth
Everyone raves about, say, Google Maps. I do too. But is it "cynical" for them to move around enough money to actually pay for all that great stuff? Come on, folks, we can't have it both ways. There's nothing "evil" about growing the company. And all of you Google stock holders had better come clean now if your preference is that the stock stays low!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
WHO GIVES A STINKING SHIT ABOUT TIGER?? So what if it was put on sale too soon? People don't give a shit about that and that shit made it to the front page??
The other thing that other submitters noted was that AdSense would also be accepting graphical advertising as well; but for display on partner sites.
;-)
I've seen graphical Google ads for a while - I think they were followed by bits of text saying something like 'What do you think of these? We're testing them' or similar.
Of course, I can't for the life of me remember where I saw them - anyone else seen these adverts, or was I imagining them?
I do remember that they were relatively small and non-Flash - and much smaller than the whopping big Google AdSense advert at the top of Slashdot as I type this...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Not sure what those are anymore. Been blocking them for years.
Adblock googlesyndication.com - no banners for me under any circumstances !
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
...just one calorie, not evil enough.
Power to the Peaceful
FUCK YOU HOMOS!!! mac USERS ARE HOMOS!! Fuck you apple! eat my dickcheese!!!!
...And the behemoth woke from its positive PR slumber...
There was an update to the Google Inc. AdWords Program Terms on April 19th. I can't figure out what changes happened that would reflect this article.
I think Google ads are great. They're not too intrusive and they serve out relevant content, unlike many of the banner ad services out there.
As a tech savvy parent, I know only too well how some ad services work. For example, in the course of looking over the logs on my home network's main server, I found that somehow my son had been receiving some very questionable banner ads through some of the sites he frequents. When I confronted him about it, he said he had been downloading "r0mz," which are basically dumps of old video game ROMs that can be played using software emulators. Of course, I talked to him about the ethical issues inherent in using other people's work without paying whatever price they ask for (if any), but that seemed much less serious to me than the content of those ads!
I tell you, the smut they put on those sites -- I couldn't believe it! I would think these webmasters would have the sense not to put that sort of material on sites that presumably only children would be interested in. I can only assume their banner ad provider just doesn't have the kind of targetting technology Google uses.
-- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
when I was reading this thread, there was a "Google adsense" banner at the top, just kind of funny I thought.
Don't Blame me if I seem bitter, I'm at work, and the TV only plays soap operas.
I cant count how many times we have read that Google is tunring evil. Is it some kind of projection on the part of some people, they seem to WANT google to be evil somehow. I just dont understand why.
HTTP/1.1 400
This is quite possibly the worst summary I've ever seen.
Fallacies:
1. This affects AdWords advertisers whose ads are *published* on the AdSense network. Not AdSense publishers. At all.
2. Image creatives have been an option in our AdWords accounts for at least 6 months. You see them on some AdSense publishers already, you just don't know it.
The real news here is the following:
1. Google is *bringing back* (they had it years ago) cost-per-impression advertising. However, this comes with improvements. I won't spam, see references. (R1)
2. Google is going to finally allow AdWords advertisers to decide what content network sites their ads are published on. (R1) Now we can decide NOT to place our ads on shady sites and fall victim to click fraud.
On the real news item #1, this is of huge interest because Google is allowing some "creepage" back to the CPM (cost-per-mil impressions) model. This seems to indicate that they're finally recognizing that click fraud is a *huge* problem. To the tune of it being estimated 15-20% clicks in competitive CPC (cost-per-click) markets on Google might be fraudulent. (R2)
References: (R1) (R2)
Welcome to slashdot , we have a wide variety of trolling positions open but you must be atleast 13 year old(mental age).
The current troll you are using it tierd , old and boring . Please go to gamespy forums where you will fit in with all the other 12 year olds who just discoverd swearing .
I use /etc/hosts to filter ad sites, but I wonder if it's the "best way" of doing it. I have some docens of lines on that file like this:
0.0.0.1 doubleclick.net ad.doubleclick.net ads.mcafee.com 247.vo.llnw.net
0.0.0.1 doubleclick.com m.doubleclick.net m2.doubleclick.net ad.au.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.1 ads.web.aol.com ads.web.de ads.web21.com adserv.newcentury.net
0.0.0.1 adservant.guj.de adservant.mediapoint.de adserver-espnet.sportszone.com
0.0.0.1 advert.heise.de banners.internetextra.com bannerswap.com customad.cnn.com
0.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
which will make browsers fail when they try to show you ads. The list is longer (get it if you're curious)
But this seems a bit "hacky". Is there a better way to do this, is there some project which keeps track of such ad sites, or even ip ranges and allows you to block them easily?
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum110/4-1-10.htm
and http://publisher.yahoo.com/
The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
Google will not allow the increasingly popular formats that include video, sound and interactive elements. And it has restrictions on the animation, to keep ads from repeating endlessly or flashing in a particularly distracting manner.
Hmm. Dunno yet. I'm not unilaterally against all advertising, just irritating advertising. I may not block these ads. We'll see soon, I suppose.
Software Wars
thats the funniest thing i've read all day
Everyone, it seems, wants a free lunch. To be online and yet use Firefox extensions or third party toolbars to block advertising content is to be a true parasite in the digital world. Would you go up to a young mother breastfeeding in a playpark and shunt the young one aside to get some valuable free nutrients at others expense? It is a metaphor for exactly how you are using the Internet.
Here are the facts. Serving pages costs money. Creating content costs money. People are utterly untrustworthy when it comes to free donation of cash, even for a resource they might use everyday. The reason why you enjoy the Internet free at the point of use (ignoring the initial outlay for equipment) ie. page serving, is because ADVERTISERS PAY GOOD MONEY TO SUPPORT IT. How would you like paying for everything you look at? I suspect you wouldn't like that in the least.
Your philosophy of ad blocking is morally barren. You are hitching a free ride from the companies you deride so much. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and when the behaviour rot you are incubating spreads to the general populace, when you have to start paying a flat fee per page because of your previous selfishness, not even then will you look back at your behaviour and repent, I suspect even then you will pule like a newborn divested of its favourite toy.
WE ARE LIVING IN THE GOLDEN AGE, AND YOU ARE TEARING IT DOWN WITH YOUR SELFISHNESS.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
"AdSense would also be accepting graphical advertising as well"
:-)
Are we seeing an AdSense ad graphic on top of the page because, uh.. this is an article on AdSense ad graphics?
What about ads that most will find offensive?
Search for negroes on Google.com and see what ads show up on the right hand side.
I'm a big tall mofo.
The moment Google adds graphical and Flash ads is the moment I will no longer see them.
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
True both Apple and Google end in "le" and have a letter doubled, but they are completely different companies! Apparently being a homophobic nerd you've damaged your sight with masturbation so much that you can't distinguish them, so go, buy better glasses and post your fears in some Apple thread.
And this Ad Sense change changes all that.
Some google ads will now include graphics and animations.
Time to start blocking them.
Google is getting a little more evil all the time.
Money does that to people. Greed takes over and the quest for more income becomes consuming until people find themselves doing things they swore they would never do for another buck. It is like a drug like that.
Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that voyeurism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Google uses to attract violent, dishonest personæ non gratæ into its camp. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: Google periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Now, I hope Google was joking when it implied it was going to place fastidious scatterbrains at the top of the social hierarchy, but it sure didn't sound like it. It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me act honorably. I undoubtedly dislike Google. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I recently informed Google that its worshippers undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Google said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, truculent and jaded, its statements resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that Google's secret passion is to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women. For shame!
Google may find it inconceivable that its mottos form a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine, which has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency, but it'll come to its senses as soon as our backs are turned. It is disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, Google has signified its approval of noxious, ornery practitioners of nativism who impact public policy for years to come. Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Google. The memo spells out its plans to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Google is an inspiration to impertinent, useless radicals everywhere. They panegyrize its crusade to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis and, more importantly, they don't realize that if my memory serves me correctly, Google decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. Google's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Yet there's more to it than that.
Make no mistake about it, the tone of Google's tracts is eerily reminiscent of that of inarticulate weasels of the late 1940s, in the sense that if Google is going to talk about higher standards, then it needs to live by those higher standards. I don't know when fanaticism became chic, but there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes Google so heinous. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Google likes zingers that oppress, segregate, and punish others. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that if we are powerless to create a world in which Marxism, insurrectionism, and absenteeism are all but forgotten, it is because we have allowed Google to inspire a recrudescence of offensive fatuity. Google maintains that anyone who dares to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that it is an opportunist. That is, it is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. I don't mean to imply that all of Google's whinges contain grumpy elements, but it's true, nonetheless.
I'll go over that again: Google is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that it can change its boisterous ways. Try, if you can
When someone stands up and declares, "I will never be evil!" you shouldn't be surprised when people start looking for the irony of them being evil.
People love irony.
I believe that Google is generally good but even I have a hard time believing that Google is not evil when I read this one.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I give you 3 out of 10 on the troll scale. Try to be less obvious in the future.
Does it come with a license to use my own photos - like read the white balance info f'rinstance?
If not, then I'm not interested.
Sorry, I must be in the wrong decade. Around here everyone just turns ads off. I haven't seen an ad on google, slashdot, or any other site in months, and not one before that in years. And I have never seen an ad in gmail.
PS: "And yet I Google..." SomPost, after Galileo
Graphical ads have been around for a while -- everyone with a Google AdSense account knows that. The only new thing is that there's now *animation* as well.
Of course I confronted him. I expect my children not to use their internet privileges to look at pornography. I think most any parent would agree.
As to the ads, the logs clearly showed that they only showed up when he visited certain sites, which he visits frequently, as I said. I would have expected to find another "r0mz" site without pornographic banner ads after he saw the first one. In fairness, most of the ads (there are an incredible number on these sites) are for fixed rate morgages and other nonsense I understand even less than the pornography ads. I mean, Jeffrey is only nine. What does he need with car insurance and cruises to Tahiti? Honestly, what horrible user profiling. Who is going to want car insurance and pirated versions of Mario Brothers at the same time?
And to your last bit -- as the saying goes, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
-- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
I consider more ads that you dont want to be a downgrade.
I thought about adblock, but after giving Jeffrey that lecture about stealing "r0mz" and so forth, I didn't see how I could do it. The way I see it, when someone puts ads on their site, that's an asking price for their content. They're giving you their bandwidth and work (though not really their work in the case of the "r0mz d00dz," I know). All they ask is that you look at and maybe click their ads.
I know it's annoying. I stopped reading a couple online newspapers just because I couldn't stand their ads. It's a shame, but as an ethical consumer, that's the choice I'm stuck with.
-- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
I don't know the dates! but I wish to say something about Google. It is very important!! Please comment!
I would like to take a moment to invite all the people who have been harmed by Google to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Google itself. According to the latest scientific evidence, Google reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to disabuse it of the notion that its "compromises" are all sweetness and light. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which fatuous converts to Trotskyism like Google are entirely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of autism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that Google argues that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It wants nothing less than to work both sides of the political fence, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its self-satisfied fulminations.
Google has a staggering number of addlepated, two-faced yes-men. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that Google claims that it is as innocent as a newborn lamb. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in its subliminal psywar campaigns. Then again, Google commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for Google to manipulate public understanding of McCarthyism.
If you read between the lines of Google's self-fulfilling prophecies, you'll indeed find that we should not concern ourselves with Google's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and the fact that this letter should be regarded as the beginning, not the end, of my stance against Google. Its grunts probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, we must stick to our guns and not let Google convince us that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says unbalanced things. That said, let me continue. Again, Google ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: Google should just quit whining about everything.
Fact: If Google's chums get their way, society as we know it will cease to exist.
Fact: I consider it extremely insulting of Google to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood".
In addition, if it wanted to, it could rip off everyone and his brother. It could permit foul-mouthed slaves to fashion to rise to positions of leadership and authority. And it could open the floodgates of gnosticism. We must unmistakably not allow Google to do any of these. Google insists that it has a "special" perspective on pessimism which carries with it a "special" right to extinguish the voices of opposition. Sorry, Google, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." What we have been imparting to Google -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, Google would not hesitate to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom if it felt it could benefit from doing so.
Now that I've state
The OP is using AdSense when in fact should be AdWords. Advertsisers use AdWords, publishers use AdSense.
Ads are neccessary but they don't have to be graphical. AS USERS, WEBMASTERS AND ADVERTISERS, Google's text ads service really worked for me and just about everyone I know.
Yeah the breast metaphor made it way too obvious. You don't bring in those non-subtle trolls in the first paragraph, rookie.
But back to Google. AdSense is has some major problems associated with it. I'm not even talking about the click fraud that's been getting discussion lately. I'm talking about keyword fraud (buying AdSense advertising for keywords not related to your product) and outright fraud. A search for the TV show JAG gives sponsored links for ebay and three seperate websites for a fraudulent company (selling a rebranded version of LimeWire and a notice not to download copyrighted material "Watch & Download JAG Unlimited Downloads. 100% Legal")
Free MacMini
I've been cooking up some scripts that'll do the blocking before it gets to his computer. Basically, it looks at the page and the ads and replaces the page with a randomly selected image that tells him he better find another site if it has anything unseemly on it.
Just a little weekend perl hack. I've been working out the kinks though. Don't want to be overbearing, obviously.
-- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
Here are the facts. You are about to suffer from a heart-attack or psychosis if you don't chill out a bit and look after your health. You are damaging yourself by taking things too seriously, and by having an overly bitter outlook on life.
Please consult your health professional, or at least take up yoga or Tai Chi or something, for your own sake.
... and then they built the supercollider.
than a sneaky pervert.
Whether it's natural to want to look at pornography is not the point. The point is that pornography is degrading and turns good kids into creeps. Believe me, I know. I grew up with a lot of guys whose parents let them watch porn (mainly because they were never around -- even they wouldn't have allowed it if they had known). Every single one grew up to be a creepy weirdo.
I will never, ever tell my son that it is okay for him to watch pornography. It promotes a disgusting view of sex and women that I don't want my son to be exposed to. He will grow up with proper guidance where sex is concerned and that is more than enough. I only wish my mother were as engaged with my as I am with my son.
Finally, I resent the implication that you know how to raise my children better than I do. If I want advice, I'll write Dr. Laura.
-- Molly Lipton, Born Again Technologist.
It is by animated gif alone I set my adblock in motion.
It is by the animation of images that ads acquire annoyance, the pages acquire stains.
The stains become a warning.
It is by animated gif alone I set my adblock in motion.
per dolorem ad astra
used to have a Santa web-site that for many years they ran without any advertising. One year, they decided to use a 3rd party company to serve ads in an attempt to make a little money off the site. At one point a pornographic ad was served up, generating a phone call from an irate parent. Although this was not the norm (and as far as I know it only happened once), the president of the company immediately stopped using that company. If more companies acted this way what you say might not be true any more. Unfortunately, it is currently true.
I think you missed the part where the GP mentioned what her son was learning - how to make pirated copies of software. In this case, blocking both sites would make sense. Kudos to her for handling the situation in a very cool-headed and logical manner.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Oh, yeah. After training AdBlock once or twice, I haven't seen a banner ad on Slashdot.
I forgot they even had them.
sigs, as if you care.
I meant no banners on Yahoo!. Sorry for the thinko.
sigs, as if you care.
I will adblock them. Even if they are just on partner sites.
That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. You either need remedial education, or a real job where you do don't have to whore for your living.
Adsense is what webmasters use to display adwords to get paid. Adwords is what advertisers pay for.
I exchanged some e-mails with a female friend who had just had several teeth knocked out in a sports mishap. Not a happy event for her, not a cheerful discussion...
The ads were things such as "Be Kissable 24/7 Fresher breath, whiter teeth, plus being kissable may save your life!"
I would hate to think of what ads I will see should I ever be discussing a fatal illness.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
I doubt anybody goes to great lengths to try and block text-based google adsense boxes (not sure if it's even possible, since they don't bother me.)
But should they introduce graphical ads...
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
Dear Google,
g oo gle.html?hp&ex=1114488000&en=2f40e46713a7a21a&ei=5 094&partner=homepage
Reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/technology/25
this morning, I have to say I am disappointed.
I want you to understand that as a independent and "small time" webmaster, the most important thing for me is to keep what few daily visitors i have coming to my site happy. I operate the website at a loss as a service to my friends and family and as a hobby, I signed up with your AdSense program, not for the prospect of one day (in the distant future) receiving a check for 50 or 100 dollars but because I as a webmaster was proud to affiliate my website with your good name.
In light of the NY TIMES article, I am writing this letter to inform you that I will be dropping my affiliation with your AdSense program at the very first complaint I receive from any of my registered users in regards to obtrusive adverts or distracting animated images. You had a good thing going, please don't throw it away for (more) money.
On a side note, Gmail finally supports IE5 in a limited form for me. So now I can log on to it without having to deal with Gmail-Lite. This is schoolwise, at home I use good ole' Firefox.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
It would be nice if Google Adwords worked as well as its search engine. It would also be nice if broad keywords actually worked full stop. Searching for "Foo Bar" will trigger ads with the keywords "Foo Bar", but won't trigger with "Bar Foo" or "Foo in Bar" or "Foo Bar UK".
It would also be nice if the keywords weren't mysteriously put 'on hold' and disabled for no apparent reason. Considering Google makes its money from adwords, why is it so badly programmed?
I read someplace in the privacy policy that they try to filter ads for personal situations like a death or a breakup.
If you have an e-mail thread yielding lots of advertisements, reply with:
"my grandmother died"
And they're all gone.
Maybe I'll make it my sig.
Sorry Google... You've been dishing out stacked search results for years now, but this pretty much takes the cake. You've joined ranks with the rest of the scumbag profiteers and usurers..
Now, the questions is, how to modify Konqueror (KDE 3.4) to use any OTHER search engine?
Google is embedded into Konq in numerous ways and I would very much like to change it to use a different search engine.
Dancin_Santa is one of the craftier trolls on slashdot. Check his post history, he is often trolling ... his "hooks" are usually fairly subtle though, which simply means he is good at trolling. In this case though it's not subtle, it's obvious that he is outright lying about Google's ad results.
People, don't feed the trolls.
I'm tired of seeing eBay ads with stuff like this:
get a new Ontario Hydro on eBay today!
its easy to bid on Ulcerative Colitis on eBay!
best place to buy blonde midget S&M porn is eBay! Bid today!
ok... well thats a bit of paraphrasing but you get the idea. Not that I've ever searched for any of those items. Nope.
OK, I have a question ...
How the hell do you remember which one is AdWords and which one is AdSense? Is there some kind of mnemonic rhyme I can memorize? It might not have been quite as sexy if they called the programs AdBuyer and AdShower, but it sure would have been easier on my brain.
Seriously, do you write it on the back of your hand, or what?
Like people, all companies have some amounts of good and bad in them. It's not some binary zero/one value - it's shades of gray. Also like people, some companies are mostly good but occasionally bad, and others are mostly bad but occasionally good. We judge people on the sum of their actions, not individual actions.
It's true though that saying your company's motto is "do no evil" is just asking for extra scrutiny. OTOH, it's a clever marketing move in an industry whose collective image has been VERY much tainted in the public eye by certain dominant players. They're standing up and saying, "look, you CAN get IT companies that don't try rip you off and do actually provide quality products".
BTW since when is defending the generic form (or similar forms) of your company's most valuable trademark from abuse by other companies "evil"? Not only is it not evil, but you are required by law to protect your trademarks if you don't want to lose them. I don't get it. If I try to start a search engine called e.g. "Boogle.com", of course I'm trying to make money riding off the popularity of Google's trademark.
It was only a matter of time.
YSL.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Apparently, according to the article (you read it, right?) the ads are selected to maximize revenue, not just on the ads that pay most per click. This means that if an ad is not clicked much, because it is, say, annoying, then it won't actually come up as much...
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
They often choose the most sensationalist write-ups around here, pehaps because Slashdot's owner is also "a public company that needs revenue growth".
Free Hans!
I cant even get adsence on any of my sites. Textbox Networks is the only site that its on so far.. but i just dont understand how people can make mad cash off of any of these.
"when freedom is outlawed, the outlaws will be free"
My homepage has 2 adsense ads and a few days ago it was driving me crazy because I have a PeopleSoft site and they were showing ads for real estate in Pleasanton. I wrote them (Google)an email and they wrote me back asking to see a screenshot. When I went back to take a screenshot, it was fine again (now showing PeopleSoft related ads). They were probably beta testing at the time.... My homepage.. http://www.peoplesoft-planet.com/
Onuora Amobi Founder: The Redmond Cloud https://www.theredmondcloud.com
You would be spamming a system designed to help people.
It's called a joke, douchey.
the kid is NINE YEARS OLD YOU FUCKING FREAK!
not wanting a nine year old watching porn IS NOT SHELTERING HIM!
what the fuck is the matter with you?? if you think nine year olds should be watching porn so they can "learn to think for themselves" you ARE a fucking pervert. jesus christ.