Slashdot Mirror
Google Ads for RSS Feeds Goes Beta
flood6 writes "Google has launched their service to offer contextual ads via their AdSense program through RSS feeds. The program is currently in Beta but will allow webmasters who offer RSS feeds of their content to include ads in the feeds (which often appear on other websites or through aggregators); someone clicks on the ad, the owner of the feed makes a little scratch."
If they're going to start contaminating my Live Bookmarks with bloody adverts, I hope it won't be long before Adblock can cover RSS feeds as well as web pages. . .
So.. it has come to this
Googles has released their adsense-program for RSS-feeds, its available to users with more than 100 subscribers.
m l
More info straight from google: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/feed-me.ht
Apply form: http://services.google.com/ads_inquiry/aff
Slashdot has RSS ads... but they also place the entire article listed on the site in the RSS feed. I can understand that a little better...
However, listing in a typical RSS feed (with just titles and summeries) is dumb. It's like a porn site where you never know if you are going to click on something legit or an ad.
Google is simply pursuing one more avenue of content delivery for their advertisers. Those who wish to find ways to try and block the new ads should take note of one important thing, however: Google's ads are teeny, unintrusive, and even I find myself clicking on them often. Consider the repercussions of trying to block the RSS ads as equivalent to commercial skip on TiVO - advertisers pay for everything, and the deliverer of them makes less.
I, for one, like to see Google make money.
My point is to just read a news story Joe Sixpack will have to find his way through tons of Ads.
fuvoo: watch something
A cursory browse through the links in the article, and a couple of clicks beyond, does not explain to me how this works.
In the standard Adsense service, one puts a snippet of Javascript in one's pages, which the browser runs to fetch ads. The ads are targetted using what Google knows about the referrer URL, and the browser's IP address.
I don't believe many RSS aggregators will do anything with embedded Javascript in an RSS feed, so how does Google add ads to a feed? Does this only work on feeds hosted by Google?
Makes a little scratch in what? Wood? Glass? Diamond?
Don't keep me in suspense, man!
What?!? It means money? Oh.
Nevermind.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
and tags into the feed which contains ads.
Don't style the rss feed! If the links doesn't go to your site and you want ads, then don't offer the bloody feed!
While ads can be annoying, Google is at least taking steps to make it "less evil". But you do realize that Google is an advertising company, don't you? Advertising is what they are getting revenues from. They are just trying to be responsible about it.
Clever signature text goes here.
No, say it ain't so! A Google program that's in beta? I'm shocked!
Money for nothing, pix for free
There's a reason we don't have printed ads on every single surface of the world.
Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should or are entitled to do it.
Google is no longer a search engine/content delivery service. WE are now the product being sold by Google.
Sure it's no different fro how television and radio stations make money, but I think we need to face the fact that Google now exists primarily to sell ads.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
the feed page of my opera is going to become polluted.
I think Google has made something great here. I hope people come to realize just how nice it is. I'd much rather have google's personalized ads than some ads on how to Enlarge a certain part of my body.
Google is not the one placing the ads. They are offering people ads which they can place on their sites, and now in their newsfeeds. It is up to the site owner where the ads go.
Clever signature text goes here.
Now some sites become so weighed down by ads it's painful to look at the sites to try to read an article. Lots of "Next >>" links and blocks of flashy color in the middle of an article. Aaargh! Ah, so we escalate the battle by using the RSS feeds instead. Bliss! Just the news and nothing but the news!
Escalation part deaux: They provide ads in the RSS feeds. Aaargh! We block the ads. They hire hit men to kill us -- ok, maybe we haven't reached that stage yet. But man, I sure get tired of this war of advertising. You'd think they'd catch on that those of us running screaming the other way from ads might not be the best audience for said ads. But no, they think that if they force feed their ads to us, Clockwork Orange style, we'll actually buy their hated products!
And given the consumer bent of most people, they are sadly probably right.
And for those webmasters who use advertising to survive, may the Force be with you. I understand the bargain you make, and I will still read your sites, and if you find a particularly clever and targeted ad, why I might even view it. It's a complicated issue.
Somebody's not really familiar with Google's definition of "Beta," I take it?
It's news, because it will almost certainly affect people in the near future, because ads will start showing up in their RSS feeds. There weren't ads in RSS feeds before. See? News!
This is news, how? ... Help me Jebus, this Google fixation has gone too far.
Probably because a good percentage of the Slashdot community runs blogs/technology sites/whatever, and Adsense is one of the only small-player partners, giving them a minute amount of payback to help offset hosting fees and hassles. This isn't about an advertisement technique for use on CNN.com, but rather on "Joe's Kernel Rants", and thus it is apropos.
how are they supposed to throw ads down my throat if i don't subscribe to the damn feed?
I don't feel like it...
Try not to worry about comments like that. If slashdot posted a story titled "Google employee crosses the street" (on the front page, of course, it's got "Google" in the title), there would still be people who would see it as the last straw and say "So much for 'Do no evil.'" It's hard to predict what about crossing the street they would consider "evil," but someone would seriously be offended, somehow.
Maybe something like, "It was probably because there was a black guy on the side of the street they were on. Google are racist bastards!"
Clever signature text goes here.
we only have to put up with the ads for the next 5 years.
Technorati works by reading RSS feeds and then letting you search the feed item descriptions and content. Will Technorati end up being a minefield of Google ads? I assume they'll start parsing them out, and maybe banning feeds that use them. Maybe. Maybe not, since their profit model is based on Google ads as well.
Google has banned some spam blogs from their seach listings, but really, what's the difference between a spam blog with an RSS feed that makes money with Google ads, and Google droping ads directly into a feed?
Someone help my simple mind grok the difference.
Why do companies on the web insist on click through ads? I can't click through on TV, Radio or Billboards and they've work fine for decades?
A short message to increase brand awareness is often all thats needed.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Google can recommend whatever they want...that doesn't mean thats how people will use it. Thats like being a maker of chemical weapons, and "suggesting" to the terrorist you sell them to that they only use them as pesticides or something.
Yes, those statements are complementary. If you can't figure out why, that's not my problem.
Try not to be such a drama queen. Hysterical shit like that is what makes people think you're stupid. If you keep your trap shut next time your vagina aches, at least they might have to spend some extra time thinking about it.
Google is already an advertising company. If you think that makes Google evil, then you are of course allowed to have that opinion. But don't come here saying that this is somehow more evil than the other kinds of ads they are serving. They are ads. Either you think Google are evil because they are an ad company, or you don't make silly comments like "so much for 'do no evil'", giving the impression that you didn't think they used to be evil.
Note that I am not saying that you are the original poster. I'm just making a point.
Clever signature text goes here.
If this encourages more people to use RSS feeds, then that will be a good thing. As far as I know, google still haven't implemented a system to allow Advertisers to choose which site \ RSS feed they will be listed on. Until this happens, most users shouldn't have a problem with the Google system as there's no way for advertisers (apart from Google) to wield undue influence on the publishers.
Good post. Insightful. I'd mod you up but I want to comment instead.
I acknowledge your points, however, there is an effect to which adsense is detrimental to the web experience beyond the irritation of advertising.
The concept that page visits can make money just by viewing a page with in-context ads has led to a resurgence in pages designed just for that purpose, and the SEO (Search-Engine Optimisation) that pushes these pages high in the webs indexes makes it harder to find the real material you're after.
Competition for the top rank at google is between advertisers, not content suppliers. This isn't good for the surfer.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
You can't give an axe to an axe murderer and claim you aren't responsible for what happens after.
This is great and all, but I'm not gonna use it until I can launch a popup through the RSS aggregator for my penis enlargement pills.
What does this mean?
There are a dwindling number of web pages without Google Ads, is it really a good idea to be saturating the entire Internet experience with everything Google?
Afterall, is not variety the spice of life?
Rivalling the replication success of viruses through a symbiosis steeped in capitalism, is the Internet destined to become one great big Googlenet?
Pray not.
First of all, I wasn't the original poster, and I don't think making money through advertising is evil. The fact that they are an advertising company does not make them evil. No more then I think a gun company is evil for selling guns. People want a product, a company provides a solution, thats fine. Its the specific intent of the product they design that makes it "evil". I don't see people like you defending DoubleClick...maybe doubleclick "suggests" that popup ads be used discretely and sparingly, but that doesn't keep people from flooding your browser with them. Google's "do no evil" mission statement has always revolved around making products that do not make the users of Google advertisements mad. But this, and other recent ideas have gotten further and further away from that.
Furthermore, I don't understand why your responding to every negative post on this topic and defending Google...I can only guess that you must have a vested interest in Google or are a Google employee. If thats the case, why don't you just say so?
In other words, the "So much for 'Do no evil'" comment has no place in this debate, since the person who posted it thought that Google was evil in the first place. He should have written something like "See? Google continues to be evil", but instead he misrepresents his position and makes a snide comment which is dishonest and hides his true intentions.
Clever signature text goes here.
Is Google responsible for the actions of others? If someone covers his site with Google ads, does that make Google evil?
In what way? These are plain text ads, and Google suggests that people place the ads below the content because the content is what's important. That does not sound like something an "evil" company would do. And intentions do matter. If Google suggested that ads be placed before the actual content, people would be up in arms. Why should it only count if they suggest something people don't like? Why shouldn't they receive credit for suggesting something which makes the ads less intrusive? I'm not responfing to every negative post. Right now I'm following up on my own posts. I do this because I have time to spare, and I think some people over-react to things.Clever signature text goes here.
Is Google responsible for the actions of others? If someone covers his site with Google ads, does that make Google evil?
The thing that is evil is that the ads appear to be actual content. First if someone covers their page with Google Ads they all say "Google Ads", and they are mostly unobtrusive to my viewing of the web page. Ads crammed in RSS feeds, even if they do say "google ads" (which i'm not sure if they do), appear to be genuine articles. And if they don't appear that way, they just cause extra clutter like so much spam in my inbox. Regular Google ads can be somewhat helpful..."Hmm, i can't find NES games for sale on this page...oh look heres an ad for a place that sells them". No one is looking in their RSS feed for commerce. It's not like I'll see 5 news stories, and then an ad related to those news stories and find it helpful.
Well I don't know about the rest of you but I use RSS as a souce of clean content to parse for a particular purpose. If they start adding in ads its going to culture up my nice clean data sources. I think that a better way to do this would be something like an email ad campaign opt-in. Where I would agree to get an email advertisement once and a while inexchange for a clean RSS feed.
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
There you go again ! one of the google goodies again !
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
Random point, but Google was founded as a technology company, built to design and license their technology to companies like Yahoo. Google.com WAS simply a proof of concept site, but as it grew as a destination and they changed their business model to be an ad channel.
But originally, they were a technology company selling their tech/search results to media companies that would include the advertisements. Much like a studio that puts shows out in syndication... the local stations sell the ads, NOT the studio.
Not that it matters much, but Google's primary objective WAS to have the best search results so the media companies would license it, now it is to use the search results to accumulate visitors to sell ads to.
Alex
Clever. >8)
I run a blog. I don't have ads on it. I'll never have ads on it. Why? Because the attention and time of my readers is not mine to sell.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
I run a blog. I don't have ads on it. I'll never have ads on it. Why? Because the attention and time of my readers is not mine to sell.
This is completely nonsensical.
Funny how when Google does Ads it's a "Service". Everybody else's ads are a nuisance.
---------------
Founder of the The Free Linux CD Project
that the method that generates your feed would have to make a call to an adsense web-service at google to receive the content of the ad which could then be inserted into the feed.
I am NaN
Anyway, all of the arguments I quoted here except the first one all apply to ads on web pages too. The comment was still useless and misrepresenting the poster's real attitude. He should have said "Google is still evil" rather than "Google is now evil".
Clever signature text goes here.
Check it out: http://www.askdavetaylor.com/google_has_adsense_fo r_rss_any_risks.html
I guess soon Google will start providing feeds for Google News. Finally, they will have a place for those ads they left out.
LouSir
from slashdot, in the form of a front page story.
Vote for Pedro
here, too. Seems to be slightly more informative:3 505976
http://ecommerce-guide.com/news/news/article.php/
They tend to have all sort of services, toolbars, Search, email, etc. But what hasn't they come up with your personal homepage like Geocities?
No wonder you get -1 Flamebait.. tell ya why, sparky, it's not because you posted an anti-Bush post (you must have been simply overlooked by most of the mods on that one, cos that sort of parroting normally gets a +5 Stepford-spooge), it's because you're dense. So. Very. Dense.
It's impossible to block inlined text ads, since there's no source to block it from. It would have to be in an iframe or something. And maybe not even then.
Damn. Go hump a billboard or something, adwhore.
yeah! right and spam my news sources?
( 2b || !2b)
They are killing the RSS!
suddenly, yahoo search sounds like a more compelling idea.
My new blog
It makes perfect sense. Advertising is using something of interest (TV show, radio programming, written material) to get people to look at or listen to something and then selling space in between the bits of stuff people want to see. So you're taking the attention and time of the content consumer and selling it to someone else so they can show someone something they don't want to see.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!