Graphics Coming to Google Ads

Firmafest writes "New York Times reports that "Users of Google's search engine will soon see something they are not used to on the notoriously spare site: advertising with logos and graphics. And the advertisers will not be limited to America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy, according to two executives close to the companies' negotiations." The Financial Times has more on the partnership" CT: Sorry folks. My email is broken this morning and i'm not getting error reports.

Comments

Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google!

[elrous0]

I knew they would give me a special gift for Christmas!

-Eric

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this signal the return of those annoying X10 cam ads?

Bleh

[Predius]

I for one do NOT welcome these new img tag bearing overlords.

code

[uberjoe]

What ever happened to 'Don't be Evil' ?

Re:code

[TripMaster Monkey]

It should be ammended to:

Don't be evil...until you can afford to be.

Re:code

[leonmergen]

And what makes images evil? To me, it's only annoying...

Re:code

[generic-man]

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Re:code

[Cheapy]

I'm pretty sure that flew out the window the second they entered talks with AOL :)

Re:code

[uberjoe]

You must never have heard of Goatse, or MrHands, ot Tubgirl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shock_sites

Re:code

[Lev13than]

This is all the more reason to use a decent hosts file to filter out ads. It's free, easily configurable and cross-platform. In my experience a good hosts file cuts out 99% of the unwanted ads out there with minimal impact on your browsing experience.

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

Then further amended to "Don't. Be Evil."

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not evil, they're misunderstood.

Re:code

[Enigma_Man]

You might also say that spyware, popups, adware, etc. are just annoying too.

Re:code

[AKAImBatman]

The real question is: What makes this new? Google has had image ads for its adsense program for at least 6 months. Probably longer.

The good news is that the ads generally quite good, and try not to annoy you. As an adsense partner, you can also chose whether you have the ads on or off.

Re:code

[slavemowgli]

Don't you think it's a bit of an overreaction to automatically call a switch from text ads to graphical ads "evil"? Especially when they haven't actually made the switch yet and nobody really knows whether they will at all or (if they decide to go through with it) what exactly those graphical ads will look like...

Really, it's like Godwin, only with the nazis. Don't cry bloody murder every time something happens that you don't 100% approve of (and that goes for the grandparent just as much as you).

Re:code

[patro]

This is evil if true. As a part of the AOL-Google deal Google will add links to AOL content without labelling it as advertising.

Re:code

[lengau]

As long as they stick to Jpegs and PNGs, I'm not complaining. But as soon as they allow animated GIFs, I'm blocking them.

Re:code

[lengau]

The alternative being Firefox with Adblock Plus.

Re:code

[Inzkeeper]

How about: "Don't be evil ...unless given ONE BILLION DOLLARS"

Re:code

[networkBoy]

" As long as they stick to Jpegs and PNGs, I'm not complaining. But as soon as they allow animated GIFs, I'm blocking them."

and dropping them from my site. I use google ads to offset some of my hosting costs (pays for about 1/2 year of hosting. If they do anything animated I'm not using them as an advertiser, and I'm blocking thier ads.
-nB

Re:code

[garaged]

wasn't that 1 hundred bzillions ??

Re:code

[nEoN nOoDlE]

How is incorporating graphic ads "evil?"

Re:code

[joepeg]

I would hope they would continue to provide graphic-less ads. That way the site owner could choose what type of ads they want displayed. A potentially higher payout for ads with animated graphics (and therefore many more annoying websites).

Re:code

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's not the switch from text to graphical. It's the deal with AOL.

Or was it Sony we were boycotting? I forget.

In any case, the actual relevance and lack of annoying graphics in Google's current text ads is much more effective, I think. I actually read them sometimes, and I sometimes follow them, something that almost never happens with pure graphics, which I usually filter with Adblock anyway.

Re:code

[dotwhynot]

Google agreed to special placements/treatments of AOL in their Search that Microsoft during the negotiations refused as unethical. That's interesting.

Re:code

[nead]

Don't cry bloody murder every time something happens that you don't 100% approve of (and that goes for the grandparent just as much as you)

Sorry, I learn by immitating, and when all of my "leaders" in society exhibit this behavior I'm inclined to do just the same. Dear Google, the tides they are a changing. Hang on tight.

Re:code

[tehwebguy]

yes, much much longer. they are just pretty particular about what goes and what doesn't.

Re:code

[bill_kress]

As far as I can tell, this is the net result of capitalism. Corporations CAN NOT ever be assumed to have any kind of a conscience. They may act in the state's best interest for limited periods, but in the long run public approval doesn't have a high enough $ value.

I would personally consider it a great time to start tweaking the system a little. Place a minimum holding period on stocks. Start at one year and move towards five... This will force stockholders (company owners) to be a little more responsible about the company they choose.

Second, I would make any interaction between corporations and government (be it donations, advice, etc) punishable by the immediate and permanent removal of the government official from all forms of government. That may sound extreme, but it's really not. We should be able to find millions willing to serve us instead of serving themselves, and those that get removed will certainly find great jobs in the private sector.

I know this sounds quite anti-America, and I suppose it is. It's anti-this piece of shit America we are headed into in the next 3 decades, and pro a more stable and happy America.

We have got to get away from this idea of worshiping greed! It's just wrong. Period. I've heard all the geeky explanations of how it is supposed to work in an ideal world and personal greed will solve all our problems. It works about as well as communism, both in theory (works great) and in reality (fails miserably).

Re:code

[bigpat]

Don't cry bloody murder every time something happens that you don't 100% approve of (and that goes for the grandparent just as much as you).

If you wait until someone goes "too far" before complaining, then they have already gone too far.

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

Works on commission? No! Money down!

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

Did google ever actually say "don't be evil" or is that just something the slashdot and blogger community made up, can someone actually link that on googles site?

Re:code

[drsquare]

Someone remind me why adverts are evil again?

I wonder when people start blocking these adverts, will the hypocritical fanboys start whining that they're hurting Google's revenue?

P.S Does anyone know how to adblock the text adverts?

Re:code

[anaesthetica]

This is the end of it. Everyone can mark their calendars that this deal with AOL is the day that Google officially jumped the shark. Not only is there a story about Google giving preferential results to AOL, now we see AOL coaxing them to put images in their formerly fluffy and nice text ads. It's all downhill from here.

Re:code

[lengau]

I doubt they'll go graphics only. They've made their fortunes mainly on text ads. Why switch now?

Re:code

[ExKoopaTroopa]

obligatory Orwell quote "No animal shall drink alcohol ... to excess"

Re:code

[PaintyThePirate]

They've been allowing animated GIFs and Flash ads for months. They do, however, allow publishers to choose whether or not they want image ads displayed on their sites, and probably will continue to do so. On my site at least, only a fwe percent of the ads shown are image ads, and only a few percent of those are animated.

Re:code

[AndersOSU]

I'm with you except I'd change

It works about as well as communism, both in theory (works great) and in reality (fails miserably).

to, "... both in theory and reality (fails miserably)." I can make almost any idea sound good on paper, but that's a far cry from it actually being a good idea if you examine it.

Communism and Laissez Faire both fail to account for the human element of selfishness in their theories. Communism fails to recognize that people need success/failure motivation, and laissez faire fails to recognize that people hoard resources, and put very little value on other people's health, wealth, or happiness.

Both systems are flawed because they fail to see trees for the forest. It's not coincidental that there has never been a true economy (of more than a couple hundred people) that is either truly communist or truly capitalist.

Additionally, there is no perfect balance, and deliberately remaining in a static system due to some philosophical conviction (e.g. "we can't do that it's anti-American) is potentially more dangerous than tweaking the system at the wrong time or the wrong way.

Re:code

[jZnat]

No, it's not an overreaction. In fact, it's very simple: images in unsolicited advertisements are evil. Unless I'm searching Froogle, Amazon, or some other product site, and then I get images for the products that turn up in the results, images to advertise anything are inherently evil.

Although I might be saying this because I use Firefox, and Firefox does have that memory leakage with images. Then again, I also can't use any other browser for more than a few minutes before I want to kill -9 it due to the awesomeness that is Adblock Plus and No-Script.

Re:code

[Buran]

When Google knows, or should, that users don't like graphical ads because they usually get in the way of what they're there to look at (i.e. a news story) and flash and blink and bounce and whatnot, a lot of the time, to further annoy the user, then yeah, that's evil ... because it's making use of something Google knows (or should) that readers don't like. If their research tells them otherwise, their researchers are incompetent.

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that the one which most closely resembled true communism is now a footnote in history and the one which most closely resembled true capitalism is the only superpower left in the world.

Re:code

[hillg3]

This isn't the same thing as adsense. These are ads that will be shown in the search engine results on google.com, which they haven't ever done before.

Re:code

[jZnat]

Well, I guess it's time to try out MSN Search since Microsoft hasn't sold out their search results yet. In fact, look at how good it is at finding results! :)

Re:code

[ncc74656]

What ever happened to 'Don't be Evil' ?

That concept went out the door when Google News started passing off the likes of Indymedia and al-Jazeera as news sources.

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Do Evil*

*Not available in China

Re:code

[cicadia]

Yes, I believe that Sergey Brin actually said that a couple of years ago. There's an oft-cited Wired article on it here.

As for finding it on google.com, try here.

Re:code

[Heembo]

How about,

Don't be evil...unless you can make a ton of money, then what the heck, go for it!

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

The one(s) that most closely reseble communism are Kibbutzes, but the principles that made them successful do not scale to nations. I'm assuming you ment the USSR, but all it (or any other communist state) ever achieved is the intermediate of Oligopolistic command economy - a far cry from the ideal.

The nation that most closely represented laissez faire would be the UK ca. 1890. But if you ment the US, between WWI and the the 1980s the US adopted more and more socialist policies, and we don't seem to be backing off any time soon. To say the US is anything but a mixed economy is to completely ignore Social Security and Medicare, public schooling, public roadways, etc. etc. etc.

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

Well spoken!

I disagree it is surprising, though. Assuming you meant USSR, Russia was always playing catch up as far as wealth & power, and WWI & WWII weren't kind to it.

Also, they had a dictatorship (not of the proletariat :) with a nutty guy (Stalin) in charge who ravaged the country and, I'm sure, set them way way back.

The United States has had far less in difficulties but yes, allowing commerce to thrive really made the US stronger and more powerful.

My poing is that it really isn't funny (strange or ha ha).

But the US, the only superpower left in the world, is going to change. My predictions are 1 or both of the following:
1) The US turns more and more into a dictatorship (the Roman experience)
2) The US becomes less and less relevant to the world as a whole (the European experience)

I hope my son doesn't have to deal with either.

Re:code

[TripMaster Monkey]

From Google's "Ten Golden Rules by Eric Schmidt and Hal Varian:

Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men.

Re:code

[xsecrets]

what are you talking about they weren't given one billion dollars to become evil they PAID one billion dollars to become evil.

Re:code

[ShortSpecialBus]

I don't read Indymedia ever, but what's wrong with al-Jazeera? They're certainly a legitimate news source. Sometimes they're biased, but who isn't? They're at least as fair and balanced as Fox News. Perhaps they go over the top with sensationalistic stuff, and other things, but it is interesting to hear viewpoints from "the other side." I don't always agree with them, but it's interesting to see what they have to say about some events.

I suggest reading their english news site for a while. It's really not that bad.

Re:code

[Guspaz]

Google shows AdWords advertisements on google.com, same as AdSense. The advertisements are essentially AdSense with a different format. This isn't really very big news.

Re:code

[WilliamSChips]

s/Indymedia and al-Jazeera/Fox News and Newsmax/

Re:code

[ncc74656]

what's wrong with al-Jazeera?

It's a propaganda mouthpiece for the jihadists of the world. Every time some Islamofascist swine slices someone's head off, you can count on al-Jazeera to broadcast the snuff video far and wide.

Consider, too, this example of what passes for "news" at al-Jazeera that I pulled off of Google News just seconds ago.

it is interesting to hear viewpoints from "the other side."

When "the other side"'s goal in life is our total annihilation, there is no use in paying heed to its propaganda mouthpieces. Islam offers just two options for those of us who don't believe as they do: convert or die. That is all you need to know, and you would do well to keep it in mind.

Imagine for a second that satellite radio existed back during WWII. Google News carrying al-Jazeera is no different than if XM or Sirius had carried Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose.

Re:code

[jp10558]

Or any filtering proxy like proxomitron or privoxy.

Re:code

[kubrick]

Microsoft refusing on the grounds of ethics probably means that they were holding out for more money.

Re:code

[geminidomino]

P.S Does anyone know how to adblock the text adverts?

If using adblock, just block "googlesyndication.com" or right click the ad panel and "block iFrame"

I've done both in the past.

Re:code

[gumbo]

If you use adsense on your site, you should have noticed that they've been offering graphical ads for a long time now. Even if you've just been a web browser and not a webmaster, you must have seen them by now.

I doubt they'll get rid of their adsense options that let you choose whether you want text-only ads or text and graphics ads.

Re:code

[Russ Nelson]

Wow, you are just so amazingly clueless. As long as government regulates business, business will try to influence government. You can pass all the laws you want, and nothing will stop this. The only way to keep corporations out of your government is to keep your government out of corporations.
-russ

Re:code

[ncc74656]

Wonderful...just effin' wonderful. Instead of even making an attempt at a rebuttal, some chickenshit moderator decides to wield the Mighty Club of -1, Flamebait.

<voice style="james-t-kirk">
I'm laughing at the superior intellect.
</voice>

Not.

Re:code

[Ponyegg]

And you really believed them?

"We are about money and profits"
Sergey Brinn, Page 87 , The Google Story [ISBN0405053712]

Re:code

[hkmwbz]

This is "unethical"?

"If a user searches on Google for a topic for which AOL has content - like information about Madonna - there will be a special section on the bottom right corner of the search results page with links to AOL.com. Technically, AOL will pay for those links, which will be identified as advertising, but Google will give AOL credits to pay for them as part of the deal. They will also carry AOL's logo, the first time Google has agreed to place graphic ads on its search result pages."

How is this "unethical", pray tell?

Re:code

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a pro at being able to get modded up. He twists words to ones that modders will buy and mod him up. This is why I hate Slashdot, some of the moderaters are idiots. If all moderators where smart, GP would be modded down, and you would be modded to around +3.

Well?

[netkid91]

Take you pick. Either text ads with logos, or giant annoying flashing banner ads. As long as they don't show up on my site or my GMail I'm happy.

Re:Well?

[Pxtl]

Even if they're static images, there's a good chance the image will be fake UIs that read something like: "Your computer is broadcasting an IP address. Click here to download the patch".

AdBlock

[glomph]

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=10&application=firefox

Re:AdBlock

[DocSavage64109]

Exactly. The second they start using ads that annoy me is the second I add lines like http://.google..jpg/ to my block list.

Re:AdBlock

[SCHecklerX]

And a very simple set of rules that will match almost any ad (remove the space that slashdot adds to some of these):

[Adblock]
us.a1.yimg.com
/.*ads?[./]/
/.*banner s?[./]/
/.*sponsors?[./]/
adserv
advert
fastcl ick.net

Re:AdBlock

[kailoran]

And will also match random non-ad content, will it not? No thank you, I'll stay with my block-it-when-I-see-it (so I never see it again) routine.

Re:AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

I go out of my way to make sure I don't block Google ads because I think their unobtrusive nature deserves to be rewarded. It will be interesting to see what happens if they do start using images. At the very least I'll be blocking the images.

Re:AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just get Filterset.G.

Re:AdBlock

[Random Destruction]

looking at those rules, I really doubt it would ever block something you wanted.

Also, who cares? if it was important, you'll notice.

Re:AdBlock

[ShieldW0lf]

I've kept non-advert banners in the /banners/ folder. Good luck using the site when you've blocked all the navigation.

Re:AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget:

intellitxt

Re:AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't even block the text ads on Google. Lame.

Re:AdBlock

[Secrity]

I've kept non-advert banners in the /banners/ folder. Good luck using the site when you've blocked all the navigation.

I would just assume that the site was broken or that it was "enhanced" for IE and move on {shrug}

Re:AdBlock

[geschild]

Better yet: CustomizeGoogle

Re:AdBlock

[cloudmaster]

It blocks anything that ends with ad, ads, ad., ads. Are you telling me that no valid words end with the combination ad or ads?

[danny@midnight devel]$ egrep -c 'ads?$' /usr/share/dict/words
147

Some of those words include "uploads", "threads", "download", etc. Yeah, I'm sure there's probably nothing I'd ever likely want to see in a directory called "threads" or "downloads". I mean, gingerbread and keypad, probably not, but the Mardis Gras sites would suck without beads and redheads!

Also, "advert" matches "inadvertant", and Yahoo! puts some of their navigational graphics on *.a1.yimg.com as I found when I blocked that site (though I still block it).

There's a good reason that those banner blocking proxys, etc, use hostnames and more specific rules, and why in general you want regexps to be as specific as possible. It's not because people like excessive busywork.

As a service to those who would say "fine, what would *you* do," here's the relevant part of my squid.conf, which blocks a big chunk of the annoying ads on sites I regularly visit (including a big chunk of the google ads that I got pissed off at a while back):

# junk ads
acl junk dstdomain .tradedoubler.com
acl junk dstdomain .doubleclick.net
acl junk dstdomain .fastclick.net
acl junk dstdomain .advertising.com
acl junk dstdomain .atdmt.com
acl junk dstdomain .a1.yimg.com
acl junk dstdomain .mediaplex.com
acl junk dstdomain .valueclick.com
acl junk dstdomain .cj.com
acl junk dstdomain .pointroll.com
acl junk dstdomain .m7z.net
acl junk dstdomain ads.wunderground.com
acl junk dstdomain banners.wunderground.com
acl junk dstdomain .falkag.net
acl junk dstdomain .ru4.com
acl junk dstdomain .eyewonder.com
acl junk dstdomain .casalemedia.com
acl junk dstdomain .pennyweb.com
acl junk dstdomain .2o7.net
acl junk dstdomain ads.autotrader.com
acl junk_url_paths urlpath_regex ^/ads/.*
acl junk_urls url_regex http://./\.priceline\.com/banners/.*
acl junk_urls url_regex http://./\.googlesyndication\.com/pagead/.*\.js
a cl junk_urls url_regex https?://a.*\.akamai\.net/.*!(shopnbc\.com.*)
 
# block requests to junk domains
http_access deny junk
http_access deny junk_urls
http_access deny junk_url_paths
 
# replace the junk ads with an image from my web server
deny_info http://www.myinternalsite.com/images/icons/thumbs_ down.gif junk
deny_info http://www.myinternalsite.com/images/icons/thumbs_ down.gif junk_urls
deny_info http://www.myinternalsite.com/images/icons/thumbs_ down.gif junk_url_paths

Using the thumbsdown icon I can see that it's working - I like that a little better than my previous use of a 1x1 clear .gif. The list is getting big enough that I should probably just put that stuff in an external file (at least the rules) which I include, rather than putting it in squid.conf directly, but I haven't felt the compulsion to do so yet. Also note the akami.net rule has an exclude for shopnbc.com - it was blocking product images on something the wife wanted to look at. It may block other useful imagery, but so far I haven't noticed - but I may not notice, either. Though, one could argue philisophically about whether or not something I didn't notice was important to begin with, I suppose...

Re:AdBlock

[cloudmaster]

Doh - I didn't notice that the rule was /.*ads?.?/ (well, [./]/ is the same as .?/ with a couple extra chars and IMHO less clarity). That also matches things with ad/ads followed by another char, too, like grade, trade, Ramada, upgrade, Canada, aficionado, landlady, avocado - a total of 235 words in my standard dictionary file (with only ~45.5K words to draw from).

[danny@midnight devel]$ egrep -c 'ads?.?$' /usr/share/dict/words
235

Re:AdBlock

[Buran]

Good luck getting people to come back to your site when it doesn't work because you were idiotic enough to knowingly design it to break with common browser configurations. If people stop looking at your ads, it's your own fault because they said "Hey, the web designer who made this was a fucking moron, goodbye" and left.

Re:AdBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, AdBlock is all well and good, until someone whose bottom line is being impacted by it decides that the sole purpose of AdBlock is to modify their copyrighted material. Unfortunately, AdBlock doesn't have a legal leg to stand on with this issue, and will be stopped, and the developers will be made liable for estimated lost revenues.

AdBlock is a nice technical solution, but its only useful while nobody cares about it. The real solution is market demand and we can only hope that Google's foray into graphics shows that the market wants what we want.

Re:AdBlock

[pthisis]

/.*ads?.?/ (well, [./]/ is the same as .?/ with a couple extra chars and IMHO less clarity)

In standard regexes, a bare . matches any character. A period inside a character class [.] matches only a literal period.

If these are anything like regular egrep-style Unix regexes:

The original regex shouldn't block, say, "/ads/PunchTheFriggingMonkey.gif" since it requires a . or / followed by a /.
While the latter should block, say, /desperado/SalmaHayek.gif since it'll take any single character after ad (but doesn't require one).

Re:AdBlock

[qray]

I use a much simpler, more effective ad blocker. I just don't go to sites that have annoying ads.
--
Q

Re:AdBlock

[pafrusurewa]

One department at my university has "ads" as their subdomain. Always has been that way - it's an acronym. Apparently so many people are now using ad blockers that they constantly get complaints from students that their website doesn't work. Now every so often they beg their students to turn off ad blockers before complaining.

Ad-blocking should only be done on a per-site (or perhaps per-domain) basis.

Re:AdBlock

[cloudmaster]

Yeah, what kind of idiot would put all of his banners in a folder called banners? Surely that's way stupider than blindly blocking all folders called banners... Sigh.

Re:AdBlock

[cloudmaster]

Huh, I would've escaped the period for clarity, but it seems that [.] does just match a period in most all implementations (though it's often not documented that way in the little bit of research I just did).

The example in question uses Javascript regexps as implemented in Firefox, which I tested out at this handy site to verify Firefox's behavior - which you're right about. However, I'll point out that the final / is the delimiter for the regexp (as in, /regexp/) so it would match /ads/blah.gif - so we've both got a "wrong" point to our credit. :)

Re:AdBlock

[Buran]

Navigation elements are not banners.

Site owners aren't in the business of dictating what users do. Site owners simply provide a starting point with a site design that customers can tweak through the use of browser preferences, extensions, and modifications to the way pages are displayed. It's a web designer's job to accomodate the customer, since it's the customer that has control, not the designer.

I guess that's a foreign concept to media that are used to spoon-feeding us everything from a silver platter and being in total control. Guess what. The world has changed. The customer/reader has the control now.

Don't like it? Not our fault; your site's broken. Fix it.

Re:AdBlock

[TubeSteak]

Wouldn't that involve not deleting google's cookie?

and doesn't the cookie have a Unique ID?

/will continue deleting the cookie and using adblock

Re:AdBlock

[boa13]

looking at those rules, I really doubt it would ever block something you wanted.

They block a great number of site that talk about ADSL. That's a very classic error French users do, who then go complain that they can't access http://adsl.free.fr/, the homepage of the broadband plan of a major ISP here (and clearly the best for techies who don't have huge wads of money).

Re:AdBlock

[jZnat]

It might be better to use a regex like /[\W_]m?ad([sz]|v(ert(i[sz]e(ment)?)?[sz]?[\W_]/ (remove spaces if they exist). The key to making good filters is using [\W_] to delimit simple words like "banner", "ad", etc. In fact, I've got an extensive filter list available that I've been using and working with for over a year. That filter is synced with the Filterset.G lists every once in a while, so you get that along with ones I've added.

Re:AdBlock

[cdrudge]

If you would have taken the .02 of a second to click on the link, you would have seen that it was a Firefox Extension that does a variety of things that Google's execs probably would prefer you didn't know about:

        * Use Google Suggest (suggest words while you're typing)
        * Add links to competitors
        * Rewrite links to point straight to the images in Google Images
        * Removes image copying restrictions in Google Book Search
        * Secure Gmail, switch to https
        * Block Google Analytics cookies NEW
        * Remove ads
        * Anonymize your Google userid
        * Add a result counter in search result
        * Filter spammy websites from search results
        * Add links to WayBack Machine (webpage history)
        * Remove click tracking
        * Add links from Google to your bookmark manager

Re:AdBlock

[Burz]

I think that blocking ads could encourage businesses to prefer shifting the Internet to a Cable-TV-like subscription model.

Re:AdBlock

[j-cloth]

You mean sites like this one?

Re:AdBlock

[xsecrets]

That's why you use adblock plus then you can whitelist just that site while still blocking other unknown ad producing sites.

Re:AdBlock

[anethema]

Mod parent up even more. This list, and its acompanying extension, are a godsend for adblock. Filterset.G catches easy 99% of all ads on the internet. Google ads included.

Get adblock plus and you can whitelist certain domains.

Re:AdBlock

[geminidomino]

So you assume the web designer was incompetent, rather than yourself (or whoever gave you that adblock recipe).

And this is modded informative?

Re:AdBlock

[qray]

I don't have the phobia to ads that some do. Some seem to treat them like the site had an STD and they want a condum before using the site. I've seen some sites that over do it, and I usually don't return to such sites. To me, I weigh the value of the site's content to me and the annoyance of the ads. If the annoyance outweights the site's value then I don't return.

I've just never seen a site that I thought I couldn't live without that would make me go through the effort of looking for an ad blocker.
--
Q

Re:AdBlock

[Secrity]

Personally, I wouldn't use that particular adblock recipe. I would suspect that many people would believe that a web site is broken or only works with IE if the site's navigation buttons didn't work with Firefox, no matter what the real reason was.

Re:AdBlock

[geschild]

Please take the time to take a look at the CustomizeGoogle extension. It has the option of anonymizing the cookie as well as deleting the ads. The deletion of ads can be set per sub-site (like Gmail, Froogle, etc.)

But whatever makes you happy. I use NoScript, Adblock+ with Filterset.G updater and whitelisting as well as CustomizeGoogle and they don't seem to be biting each other.

My complete list of extensions:
- CustomizeGoogle
- Noscript
- Adblock+
- Adblock Filterset.G updater
- SwitchProxy tool (in combination with TOR, see tor.eff.org)
- Fasterfox (Be certain to select 'Optimized' instead of the standards and website breaking default 'Turbo'.)
- Tabmix Plus

As always, ymmv.

Cheers.

Re:AdBlock

[cloudmaster]

In case you were actually talking to me: my main page is valid HTML 4.01 strict w/ valid CSS and some sub-pages use some banner-style elements for additional identification of the user's location within the tree, though those are in a folder called "images" typically. If my site doesn't look right in your browser, it's because your browser is broken. Users are welcome to view my site using a non-graphical browser if they so choose, I don't particularly care - in fact, I verify my site's important functionality using links and my cell phone for just that reason. On the flip side, though, I'm free to think that users are idiots if they're using over-zealous regexps that accidentally block valid content as well as ads (my site has no ads - *I* pay for my bandwidth). Yay freedom!

BTW, the world has changed, but you missed it. Web developers like me are the minority - most sites are designed and run by people whose experience is primarily in the print realm, and they do everything they can to make fixed layouts. I'll bet you can count the number of users you and I know with custom style sheets / Grease Monkey / similar on one hand. Every day, some new idea comes out which is designed to restrict your ability to view content the way you want to. Wanna archive your CDs as MP3? The law thinks that someone with a large MP3 collection is probably a criminal who downloads music from Napster. Wanna back up your DVDs so you don't scratch up the original? The place where you get the software to shrink an 8GB DVD to 4GB looks a lot like a warez site. Wanna do that on Linux? Gotta get the "illegal" libdecss or similar. Wanna edit a PDF? Adobe doesn't want you to do that - you might steal someone's IP. Wanna look at a web site on a high resolution monitor and have it not look like crap? Too bad the developer only designed for IE at 800x600, and didn't plan for text reflowing. Plan to complain? Your response will sound more like "your browser sucks, fix it yourself", not "ohh, sorry, we forgot that the consumer is in control".

Re:AdBlock

[Spunk]

The solution is Filterset.G, now self-updating.

Re:AdBlock

[ShieldW0lf]

You know why they call them "Banner Advertisements"?

It's because not all banners are advertisements. Banner refers to a place on a layout. I wouldn't use a path that included the word "banner" anymore, but there are still numerous internet applications I designed years ago in use by a great many people, and this adblock script would break quite a few of them.

I'm a professional internet app developer giving you a tip to prevent you causing yourself inconvenience with your adblock script. If you choose to ignore it, that's your option. At the end of the day though, guys like me build what you hack and modify with your scripts, so I'd say intentionally ignoring the advice of someone like me who tries to help you with it makes you the moron.

Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[mister_llah]

Not too much of a surprise, but considering the lack of 'tacky' advertising was what seemed to have led a lot of people to Google (as opposed to staying with Yahoo) ... I have to wonder if it is really the best move.

Financially, it's a good move. They get a lot of traffic, it's good money.

Socially, perhaps not such a wise choice. ... but we'll all take it in stride, since we have no other choice, I guess...

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[Anonymous Coward]

We can use another search engine. Or build our own, if none fits. That's freedom for you.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[pete6677]

I think they'll be OK if they keep the ads tasteful and relevant. Meaning, no "punch the money" crap and no ads for feminine hygiene products on a gaming site, etc.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[ZombieWomble]

Short term, it'll probably be financially viable - with people paying up for the credibility of google ads (i.e. ads people don't aggressively block, because they're not as intrusive as most) with the added bonus of pretty pictures.

But I know that as soon as stuff starts flashing at me, it gets blocked. And I'm sure many people will agree with me. If Google ads are reduced to the same level as all the other intrusive, flashing picture ads, much of their special value will be lost, and I'd expect it won't take long till that's reflected in how much google can make from them.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[JPriest]

It is a short term decision made by bean counters looking at PowerPoint presentations. Some statistics geek did a cost benefit analysis of how much more money they can pile on to the bottom line and greedy corporate board room saw $ signs. There was that one die hard guy that said "I have enough money right now, and our customers love that we don't rape their bandwidth". He was laughed at, it is the stock holders company now.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[Stinking Pig]

Nah, it's a stupid move. It decreases the motivation for us bleeding edge types to use them, increasing our motivation to use alternatives (mentioned elsewhere in this article). The more we use and settle on something better, the lower Google's traffic. The lower their traffic, the more their marketing people will resort to flashy crap like Yahoo! uses now. The vicious cycle leads inexorably to decreased relevance.

Remember, Google grew so big so fast because they were a better choice than Yahoo!... that same market force can act against them just as well.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[electroniceric]

Financially, it's a good move. They get a lot of traffic, it's good money.

From the FT article, it's more defensive than offensive. They could not lose AOL's 10% of their advertising revenue, especially not if that meant giving Microsoft a chance to establish a real presence in the ad-driven content market.

They also have gotten themselves into some deal with AOL-TW to "jointly develop" video search with Google. That kind of "joint development" is a real loser for Google - they could just as easily build video search themselves, and own it without any encumbrance from AOL. Not only that, but they have been obligated to shift advertising back to graphic-driven ads, which strikes me a distinct downmarket move. Google's users up to now were the educated and the internet-savvy. AOL's subscribers are, en masse, essentially the opposite.

Just goes to show you - even if AOL is the dying beast it appears to be, it still commands a lot of clout. And it's a milestone in the maturation of a company when it becomes constrained by the extent of the current market. Google basically can't just leave AOL behind, so it's forced to slow down and wait for it. AOL seems to have cleaned up on this one.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[lowrydr310]

I didn't feel like Reading TFA, but the OP says "advertising with logos and graphics". I don't imagine Google will fill their space with annoying ads (though anything is possible). I'm thinking they'll use corporate logos near their search results, perhaps all being a fixed size to give a uniform appearance, sort of like icons. Consistent patterns of logos/icons wouldn't be too annoying for most people.

I still don't like seeing corporate logos all over the place (whether on the Web or in the physical world we live), so whatever Google uses it'll be adblocked here.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[pthisis]

We were all in awe about the few kids that decided to start their small search engine business

The is completely revisionist. We weren't in awe of their "small search engine business" at the outset, because Yahoo didn't have a search engine for years. They were a hierarchical directory of links, much like what dmoz.org does now (I think it started off as the co-founders putting their bookmarks online, in fact).

They tacked on a crappy search engine a years later as an afterthought when they started switching from a directory to a PORTAL! (this was around the time that PORTAL! and PUSH TECHNOLOGY! were the magic words to get investors to open their pocketbooks).

I don't even know if they ever developed a search engine, if they did it certainly wasn't touted and their search has always been powered by outsiders until their recent Inktomi and Altavista

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[enjahova]

Google's users up to now were the educated and the internet-savvy. AOL's subscribers are, en masse, essentially the opposite.

What the fuck is this? This does not make sense to me.

First of all what does it have to do with text vs. graphic ads. Maybe Google is going to have tasteful graphic based ads. Brand names are extremely effective, and I'm sure many companies would love to have their icon/symbol next to their tasteful text ad.

Second, what makes Google's users so intelligent, the whole point is that it makes the worlds information easily available. Yes, Google is made for stupid people. Maybe you and I should try to sound less condescending, and maybe say that Google is made for people without the internet experience we have. Furthermore your dismissal of AOL newbies (after all, they shouldn't be given a chance to learn) is a little out of context with the rest of your post. Who cares what their subscribers are like, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't show them the light.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[ToasterofDOOM]

So long as this isn't excessive, I might be ok with it, but Google's clean simplicity and aesthetic drew me and most other Google users to it, not to mention the resultant fast page loads. I hope they don't do this, don't they realize that less annoyng == more profitable? I never click on graphical ads, but at times I find that, if Google was ind enough to make a suggestion without irritating me, I'll check it out. Sure, their ads are far more targeted and relevant, but the simplicity is what makes it best. Don't be an ad-whore.

Maybe they could limit it to small pictures, and that would be absolutely fine, but huge images and banners would prompt me to find a new search engine.

Damn you AOL!!!

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[Stan Vassilev]

You're correct, I was just generalising too much (search/portal/directory etc.). I even remember Google was powering Yahoo's search for a long time before their acquisitions (which is kinda ironic when you look back).

But my point wasn't on the technicalities. I mean - people love underground dogs appearing out of nowhere that appear to be there for the fun and not the money. But thing is, as a company grows, money gets involved.. and well you see what happens.

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[electroniceric]

Easy with the invective there, amigo.

As for Google users being more educated and internet-savvy is from Slashdot, and is not intended as condescending.

My post absolutely was speculative, but my point is that Google started out by offering the net-savvy sleek non-intrusive text-only ads that are only there when you want them, and is now going to have to resort to more conventional methods like animated images and video (rather like TV). To me that's emblematic of a shift from "upmarket" (discriminating users) to "downmarket" (newbies). Maybe I'm wrong and newbies like text ads more than image-based ones, but AOL (ISP to the masses) sure doesn't seem to think so, and based on the stories coming out, Google is only doing because AOL demands it. The broader point was that Google can no longer work exclusively on hotshot new technologies - to fend of Microsoft, they're being obligated to go with more established ones (graphic ads, AOL's dwindling but still sizeable subscriber base).

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[enjahova]

Sorry, I was in a bad mood earlier today. I think your response is helpful, however, so thanks!

Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[Snaller]

Financially, it's a good move.

Scaring people away from your services is a good move?

Why "fix"...

[design by michael]

... what's not broken?

Re:Why "fix"...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a publicly traded corporation. Their job IS to make more money. Switch to Teoma, I find it having higher quality "rating" when searching for something. While google has just straight "ratings" for site teoma rates pages on dynamically generated topics. (Thus while google ranks Espn very highly, if you are searching for computing terms, espn ranks low)

Re:Why "fix"...

[geminidomino]

If there's a penny not being squeezed out somewhere, then it IS broken, as far as the MBAs are concerned.

Welcome to corporate America. Please leave your tribute of a pound of flesh with the receptionist.

The beginning of the end.

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with the possible agreement with AOL, images on adwords may very clearly be the mark of the clearing at the end of the path for "do no evil."

Who's hosting the logos?

[hal2814]

I do hope that whatever Google does about displaying logos, images, etc, they do not sacrifice the decent speed the search engine has right now. I'd hate for Google to turn into another site that has good information but that stupid image from doubleclick has to load before you can see any of it.

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[GmAz]

Agreed. I use google for fast searching. I could use Yahoo and still get accurate searches. But I like the simplicity of Google's interface. And though I have a 3MBit connection at home, I still want my page to load fast. I guess that if Google goes on to put graphical ads in their search pages that take up more bandwidth and slows the page down, I can always use www.google.com/pda Its the google page for...you guessed it...pda devices. Check it out, the power of google and the simplistic design for fast loading.

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[_Sprocket_]

It looks like Google is hosting the banner media on vp.video.google.com. An example pulled from Adblock:

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad? id=CLbB8ffF-snmNRDYBRhaMgjvgwgnyTtV8w&ai=BP9xKBjio Q8P5K66c4AHH9viPArKisw6w04nLAe6rhY4HABABGAEgm-f2AU iaOVDZ_dnG_v____8BsgENcHZwb25saW5lLmNvbboBCTcyOHg5 MF9hc8gBBJUCOnQ4Cg&clickTAG=http://pagead2.googles yndication.com/pagead/iclk%3Fsa%3Dl%26ai%3DBP9xKBj ioQ8P5K66c4AHH9viPArKisw6w04nLAe6rhY4HABABGAEgm-f2 AUiaOVDZ_dnG_v____8BsgENcHZwb25saW5lLmNvbboBCTcyOH g5MF9hc8gBBJUCOnQ4Cg%26num%3D1%26adurl%3Dhttp://em agin.com/html/consumer_products.htm%26client%3Dca- pub-7548037392593088&videoUrl=http://vp.video.goog le.com/videoplayback%3Fid%3D0%26itag%3D5%26urlcrea ted%3D1135097862%26sigh%3D91kMajmQ58pNgCz8Hh3yq-kL fUk

(Too bad this gets really uggly - but hey, there it is... more or less)

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[Surt]

What's doubleclick? Oh, I see they are some site in my blocklist.

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[yorkpaddy]

You just cost some advertiser a shitload of money. I hope this is quickly noticed by google as clickfraud. Not that you were malicious with your intent, but thats what will happen.

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[Buran]

You just cost some advertiser a shitload of money.

You're in the wrong place if you expect any sympathy for someone shoehorning more advertisements in front of people in an annoying way.

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[_Sprocket_]

Huh. I hadn't thought of that. I would have thought some of the garbage in that URL was session-specific. I probably should have noticed Slashdot automagiclly turning that in to a link, too. I had pasted it as flat text.

Re:Who's hosting the logos?

[ceoyoyo]

That's hideous. Not the URL... what it points to. When that appears on the main Google page their fall will be complete.

google?

[provid]

whats google?

Re:google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... exactly? Who is Google. They are just another large company that maked billions. I quit using Google when GMail came out. And then I read that in order to subscribe to GMail, when it went public, one had to provide a mobile phone number. No thanks. I have long preferred Yahoo search to Google, and now, MSN search has become my default search engine. I refuse to have any truck with Google. Mark this: Google will one day be reduced to just another company, much like Netscape was in the late 90's. It's just a matter of time.

Re:google?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=da&q=what %27s+google&spell=1

Re:google?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

Re:google?

[byolinux]

They're a bit like Doubleclick, but they have their own search engine and email service too, in order to make more money.

Re:google?

[sconeu]

Are they evil now?

Re:google?

[schon]

I know you're being funny, but... true story:

About a year ago, I was contracted to install a Linux server for a client. The client used a vertical accounting app which ran only on SCO Unix and Linux. The client wanted to ditch SCO, and I was happy to help.

The vendor for this app insisted that the server be publically accessible so that their tech people could perform updates (my suggestion that we restrict via IP address was shot down, as apparently their tech support worked from their homes, and didn't have static IP addresses) via *TELNET*.

I recommended that they remove telnet, and use SSH (after all, would you want your accounting data to be available to everyone on the internet?) The client agreed, and we informed the vendor that they'd need to use SSH/Putty/whatever to access the server.

I got a call from one of their "tech" people, who asked why she couldn't log in. I told her that for (what I thought were obvious) security reasons, she'd need to use SSH.

She started bitching about "I don't know what that is! Nobody told me how to use that!", etc. After she calmed down a bit, I explained to her what SSH was, and how there were free SSH clients, such as Putty. She asked where she could go to download Putty, and I told her "Just go to Google, and enter 'putty SSH'", and click "I'm feeling lucky".

Her response floored me.

"What's Google?"

I can't believe that someone who has root access on god knows how many Unix and Linux boxes, and whose job it is to support these boxes, had absolutely no idea who Google was.

Re:google?

[JourneyExpertApe]

Google it. Duh.

Re:google?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then I read that in order to subscribe to GMail, when it went public, one had to provide a mobile phone number.

er... no. I have a Gmail account and no mobile phone and could still sign up. Where did you read that?

Re:google?

[uberdave]

What is worse, is that this someone "who has root access on god knows how many Unix and Linux boxes, and whose job it is to support these boxes", had absolutely no idea what SSH was.

Re:google?

[rishistar]

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0

I think they're all there, but you have to count them.

Re:google?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't have any friends or acquantices, which grandparent obviously doesnt, you need to provide a mobile phone number to sign up.

Re:google?

[johansalk]

It always amazes me the suspension of disbelief people have towards google, and especially nerds. Google is just like any other company, they're just a little more cunning and they know how to use the eagerness of an audience. It was just a matter of time before they started milking every possible avenue of advertising and revenue generation, and I bet, I bet, it will be just a matter of time before they start making use of that personal data people so foolishly entrusted with in a screw-you-up-the-ass corporate money-milking way.

Re:google?

[gnud]

You should not be amazed. The reason for this disbelief is, as you so nicely but it yourself, 'Google is just like any other company'.

Re:google?

[feijai]

That's a googol, not Google.

Re:google?

[gopher_hunt]

What is root access?

- Professional Windows Administrator

Re:google?

[rtconner]

I've long been debating a switch to alltheweb. The day of my switch may be soon at hand. Me and google have been together for many many years. Maybe google has just outgrown me though. I'll sure miss her though. She was good to me. Real good {sniff}.

Re:google?

[jbridge21]

yep.
didn't expect this day to come so soon...

Re:google?

[dascandy]

Can you do a googolplex?

Re:google?

[idlemachine]

True story, our IT "security" officer here once told me - I shit you not - that SSH is less secure than telnet.

Turns out that complexity (to him) in installation translates into more potential vulnerabilities for crackers to exploit. Which is, in a way, true...but doesn't explain why he's still in this role.

10 years on and we're still not allowed to connect via SSH through our firewall. The irony of our minister recently resigning over an information leak isn't lost on me :)

It was bound to happen

[pryonic]

But I think Google will alienate a large percentage of its user base. People started to use Google because it was clean. Even with the introduction of text ads, the site managed to remain clear. Normal banner ads will just make the site look cheap and cluttered.

Maybe time to find a new search engine. Anyone any suggestions?

Re:It was bound to happen

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Sure, here is a clean search engine without those nasty logos. ;-)

Re:It was bound to happen

[NeoSkandranon]

The site will only look cheap and cluttered as long as it takes me to AdBlock all the banners.

Up until now I've refrained from using any kind of blocking mechanism on google's ads because they are always restrained and discreet, and I suspect I'm not the only one who's formed their banner-blocking behavior in this way.

Re:It was bound to happen

[TripMaster Monkey]

Here's my suggestion:

Clusty

I've been using it for quite a while, and while it's not a complete replacement for Google, it's certainly useful.

Re:It was bound to happen

[PyroPunk]

I stopped using Google a while back, I get great search results from Yahoo. http://search.yahoo.com/

Re:It was bound to happen

[kimota]

All right, Fonzie, jump over that shark, but if it bites your legs off, don't come running to me!

Re:It was bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe time to find a new search engine. Anyone any suggestions?

Gigablast is nice.

Re:It was bound to happen

[paradxum]

You know, I switched to Google for the same reason most did.... the ad's on Yahoo were too ... annoying ... and the results seemed to be better on google. The sad part is that because Google's ads where so "democratic" and were actually helpful sometimes, I'd click and buy from an advertiser...

Sad that they will lose that advertising.... *sigh* another regex in adblock.

Re:It was bound to happen

[ShieldW0lf]

Speak for yourself. I block ads because my brain is not for sale. If I see an advertisement for something, I look for alternatives just on principle because I don't give money to companies that support brainwashing.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Bastian]

Agreed. Not only that, but I actually click on Google's ads, whereas most banner ads get killed by my ad blocking so they never even have a chance to get clicked on.

Small logos and such will be annoying, but if the ads are still primarily text I could cope with it. Google puts a lot of ads on each page, though, so if they go to mostly ads that are just one big image, their site will become an absurd eyesore and if my ad-blocker doesn't take care of it I'll start looking for another search engine.

My dream is actually that Google does go to banners, lots of people leave in a huff, and Google's ad revenue drops sharply. Their return to text-only ads would get lots of attention from the media, and lots of other ad-heavy sites would take notice and reduce or eliminate obtrusive advertising from their sites as well.

Re:It was bound to happen

[corbettw]

If I see an advertisement for something, I look for alternatives just on principle

I'm confused by this: if you see an ad for a product or service and later decide you want/need that product or service, or one like it, you spend more time looking for a replacement, just because you saw an ad which alerted you to the existence of said product or service in the first place? And how, pray tell, do you find a competitor, if not through some sort of ad?

Re:It was bound to happen

[MORB]

Well, I can unconsciously edit out the text-only and rather subdued classic google ads from my perception. I don't even notice them, and more power to google if they are able to give me a good service by making money with something that try its best not to annoy me. But if they now set to aggressively compete for my attention (ie distract me with flashy garbage), they will get blocked, period. Advertisement companies don't seem to get that trying to shove the ads by force to people annoy them and antagonize them, which doesn't seem like a good way to convince them to buy something. I remember reading a rant about this by Tycho on Penny-Arcade, where he explained that companies putting ads on their site kept asking for stupid crap like ads moving in front of the website.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Hoi Polloi]

That statement reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote:

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

Re:It was bound to happen

[Fafnir43]

If said ad is of the type that disrupts my browsing experience (e.g. pop-ups, those evil bastards of Flash ads, etc.), then I spend more time looking for a replacement because I want to punish that kind of anti-social behaviour.

And as for finding a competitor... Hello? Google? The company this article is about?! Failing that, we have word-of-mouth, non-obtrusive ads, magazine articles (if we're talking about an emerging trend or something), and independent reviews.

Re:It was bound to happen

[jandersen]

I use Yahoo and have done for a long time. The thing is, I have for a long time had the feeling that the results you get on Google aren't 'honest': I tend to search for rather specialized things, and strikes me as odd that the first several hits are always from sites that have absolutely nothing to do with the search term. And I don't believe it is because those sites have my particular search term embedded - they are that special; that leaves only the conclusion that Google gets paid for serving up sponsored searches on a very dubious basis.

Yahoo does the same, but at least they seem to be honest enough to tell you, as opposed to Google. And I must say, much as I hate adverts, I hate being deceived even more.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Secrity]

Wow, that sounded like a quote from somebody in marketing or advertising.

To answer your question, there are many ways; one way would be to google or yahoo! for it (with proper ad blocking in place, of course). Some other ways would be to ask friends, check the Yellow Pages, browse stores that sell the product, consult magazines, consult various opinion websites, or read the magnets on my refrigerator. Hint to advertisers: I do not throw out good, strong refrigerator magnets.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

WIKI should come up with something! We could even have a rating on each page, wouldn't that be nice.

Re:It was bound to happen

[no_barcode]

Just do a google for "new search engine" and hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

There ya go.

Re:It was bound to happen

[kent_eh]

Exactly.
From TFA:

Google's simple pages, quick to load and easy to read, helped the site build a following

I hope thay have calculated the risk in moving away from what "helped the site build a following".

Re:It was bound to happen

[bill_kress]

I agree with your thoughts, but I don't think your dream will be realized--but I expect a similar one will be.

What I think will happen is that tech-types will know how to block the ads and will start to do so, but 95% of the googleverse will start to notice them more and will click on them more and will spend more.

Google, having figured this out before-hand, will not make any attempt to prevent techs from blocking the graphics and may even give us an option to hide them.

This leaves us with yet another scenario where the technologically ignorant pay a tax for us techies, something that hasn't really started to bother me yet--and may never do so.

By the way, for a really interesting moment of zen, I spell checked this post with SpellBound and Googleverse (yeah, sorry about that, it sounded cool) spell corrected to overselling.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Try clusty.com

As a bonus, you get better results AND they have a data retention policy that does not violate your privacy.

Re:It was bound to happen

[burndive]

but 95% of the googleverse will start to notice them more and will click on them more and will spend more.

See, that's where I disagree. I don't think that the amount of money people spend on products advertised on the Internet will increase in any significant way apart from the natural growth of the internet. What concerns me is that the attention-grabbing threshold for an effective ad is about to skyrocket. It's like an arms race, and Google is slowly going back on its non-nuclear pact. If this course is persued to its end, it's only a matter of time before the only way to get attention in a sea of ads is the boxing monkey gimmick.

It makes me sad, not because I fear that the Internet as we know it is over, but because the honeymoon with Google is over, and now it's nothing special. The landscape is not simple anymore. On the plus side, as has been mentioned numerous times in this discussion, Yahoo and MSN search have now learned to become what Google once was.

We have always been at war with EastGoogle.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would rather buy an inferior product, just because you saw an advert for the better alternative. I believe the phrase for this is "Cutting off your own nose to spite your face."

By all means don't let your opinion be swayed by an advert, but you should still consider the product. Most products have to be advertised even if they are good or lots of people will just go with the inferior product because they haven't heard of the better one.

Re:It was bound to happen

[n6mod]

...check the Yellow Pages...

I love this...

I hate to break it to you, but the Yellow Pages are 100% ads.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Secrity]

The Yellow Pages in my area lists businesses whether they buy an ad or not. Also, I am more tolerant of ads in the Yellow Pages as I grew up with the Yellow Pages and generally ignore the advertising. Obnoxious ads in the Yellow Pages cause me to ignore the advertiser's listing.

Re:It was bound to happen

[aeoo]

http://www.alltheweb.com/

Since day one this engine has been giving results comparable to Google in quality. Google has more features, such as cache, but cache is a controversial feature. So maybe alltheweb is "gooder" (re: do no evil) for not including a cache feature.

As far as I know there are no graphics or other junk there. It's owned by Overture, which had some negative buzz about it in the past, if I remember correctly...but you never know -- times change. IBM was considered evil but now is considered good. Microsoft might yet end up being a good guy and Google might become very evil indeed.

Mind you, I find monickers such as "good" and "evil" to be of only very limited usefulness.

Re:It was bound to happen

[xnot]

So I guess you don't buy anything from any company?

Sorry to clue you in, but all companies advertize.

You brainwash other people when you tell them your opinion and they end up agreeing with it. You brainwash other people when you play a song for yourself, they hear it, and then they go off and sing it in their head for the rest of the day. You brainwash your kids when you tell them they have to go to school otherwise they won't be able to get a job. So just stop it. You can either be a cause or an effect in this world. If you think everyone is brainwashing you, then you're giving them all the power, because you're allowing it to happen. Start creating your own ideas instead of worrying about somebody elses.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not throw out good, strong refrigerator magnets.

Can't tear them off the refrigerator?..

Re:It was bound to happen

[xnot]

Yup. I think one person not using Google really makes Google worry.

Whoever makes you upset controls you. You can spend the rest of your life getting upset, and the only one that is affected is you. Not them.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Baricom]

The Yellow Pages in my area lists businesses whether they buy an ad or not.

Are you sure? The listings in the vast majority of yellow pages are paid for. Just because a company doesn't have a display ad doesn't mean they didn't pay for the listing.

Re:It was bound to happen

[joost]

I can appreciate your sentiment, but you do realise that advertising pays for all free content on the web, don't you? (In some way or another). Speaking as an online publisher myself, it saddens me to see people so aggresively blocking ads. I can see why though, punch the monkey and red/yellow flashing nonsense (imdb.com I am talking to you) make us all mad.

I really wish the developers of AdBlock would implement some kind of system where the blocked ads are loaded from the remote server, clicked even, all the while sending output to /dev/null. I have my income, you don't get to see ads, more or less everyone is happy. That is, until the advertisers figure out why their sales have dropped....

Re:It was bound to happen

[GrumpySimon]

Don't just adblock it! that way the companies never learn that you disagree with them, the ads are still served, they can still report x thousand ad views, and advertising companies keep shitting all over the web.

Vote with your feet, and send them an email telling them why you're changing. This way, at least there's a chance they'll stop doing it.

Re:It was bound to happen

[geminidomino]

you do realise advertising pays for all free content on the web, don't you

Not true at all. There are more than a few websites out there that operate either by donations, or at a loss since the creator pays for the site but doesn't make a red cent off of them.

Contrary to the dreams of the Gateses and Googles of the world, not everything on the web is put there to make money.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Secrity]

Yeah, I am sure. The local phone company Yellow Pages provides a basic listing (business name, address and phone # under an approprate heading) for all business customers even if the subscriber doesn't buy an ad.

Re:It was bound to happen

[NeoSkandranon]

I understand that content must be paid for, but the message I am attempting to send by using adblock is as much to the website as to the company: use disrupting ads or deal with those who do, and I don't have much of an interest in whether you sink or swim.

Re:It was bound to happen

[Reziac]

So, you're saying that you've been brainwashed into ignoring all advertising? ;)

Re:It was bound to happen

[Coniptor]

I had occasionally clicked googles text ads when searching if it's text was actually ***relevant*** to what I was searching on.
However since upgrading to firefox 1.5. When ever I click ANY of their links I get a new tab that will not load and will not let me close it.
I have to close the entire window to be rid of it.
Anyone else running into this, know the cause or a solution to it?

what's next?

[markybob]

new york transit workers go on strike, google adds graphic ads...what's next, ms going open source?

Re:What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've already lost one... thanks for the heads up. I've been using google so long now I forgot about yahoo. I quit using yahoo because I didn't like the ads. It's nice and clean now.

Re:What's next?

[mazesoft]

I see your point, however, who goes to a secondary domain?

Compare google.com to yahoo.com or even msn.com?

Notice a big difference? Google continues to maintain a clean interface on the *first* page that most people go to, yahoo and msn are still attempting to be portals to everything. Now do a search for something on each of those, Google interface is still clean on the first result page, Yahoo has more clutter on that page than search results. MSN crashes FireFox too often for me to reliably even attempt to search from there.

At last...

[J.R. Random]

Google is preparing an opening for a competitor.

Re:At last...

[fishybell]

Seriosly; if you have a new search engine technology, now is the time to unleash it on the world.

Re:At last...

[Anonymous Coward]

Competitor? With this happening, the only thing they're making way for is a replacement.

Beginning of the end?

[Kimos]

The text ads made Google different. I don't want to have to adblock Google. They've done so much good...

No flash, please!

[bedroll]

At least it appears that the graphics they'll be using will be limited in scope. Hopefully this isn't a precursor to flash ads and animated gifs. The day they start using pop-over flash ads is the first day of Google's demise.

Re:No flash, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are naive if you think this isn't opening a flood of graphics.

Re:No flash, please!

[jfengel]

Agreed. A nice logo, like you'd find on a business card, would tag an ad without distracting. An offer to punch the monkey, on the other hand, would switch me to another search engine immediately.

My guidelines would call for an ad no bigger than perhaps 32x32, or maybe 64x64, and a single frame; certainly no animations. And I hope they cost a lot; make money to support Google and all the spiffy stuff they do while ensuring that they remain relatively rare.

There are those who object to ads in all their forms. I don't; I know that's how some sites pay for themselves. As long as they don't interfere with the usability of the site, I don't object. I've learned to believe that Google knows the difference, because they've done so well in the past.

Re:No flash, please!

[EastCoastSurfer]

It's bound to happen. The day google went public their main priority became making money and maintaining/increasing growth rates. A look at their stock price suggests the market is giving them a huge potential growth rate and now google has to figure out ways to hit that rate. Allowing picture ads (and charging more for them) is probably only the first step. If they think they can make more money from flash ads those are not far behind.

From what I've seen about google suggests to me that they are so arrogant as a company that they think they can do no wrong. They're probably thinking they can do anything and people will continue to use them. I hate to break it to google, but there are plenty of smart people who don't work for them and all it takes is one idea to start their demise from poster child status.

Re:No flash, please!

[Midnight Thunder]

If they can do it in such a way that it has class and taste and is not visually annoying then I don't mind. I just hope AOL's tackiness does not influence Google in the wrong ways.

Re:No flash, please!

[bedroll]

You hit the nail on the head.

The problem with the pervasiveness of advertising today is that eventually you become numb to it and just wade through it trying to get to wherever you were going (the next exit, the next page, the next tv show...). So then they have to ramp up the volume on their message to try to break the monotony and make you pay attention (loud commercials, bulky magazine inserts, moving billboards...).

What Google has done is take us back to a time when advertising was little more than attempting to get the word out for something that may not be widely known. They put ads on pages in a classy way, then attempted to ensure those ads were context sensitive so that it may actually help people find things. Adding classy touches that are subtle but noticeable, like small graphics and preferred placement, make a difference without changing the purpose.

Of course, they also are a precursor to the inundation of advertisement that we get everywhere else. The good news is that the people at Google acknowledged this problem long ago and may be aware that their success is tied to it.

Re:No flash, please!

[Hoi Polloi]

The day they break out the flash ads or the javascript overlays is the day I get the shark tank ready for their jump.

Re:No flash, please!

[hackstraw]

At least it appears that the graphics they'll be using will be limited in scope. Hopefully this isn't a precursor to flash ads and animated gifs. The day they start using pop-over flash ads is the first day of Google's demise.

I'm an avid flash avoider and _any_ 3rd party plugins in general.

Plugins kill the portability of the web that is starting to finally come together after Microsoft wrecked the web with IE and frontpage. Aside from implementation and security issues, the late 90s and early 00s were not close enough browser independence.

Add 3rd party plugins, well they may not work on my wrist watch that I run a 16-bit version of Linux that has a 100% standards compliant browser, but the 3rd party proprietary plugin does not work. This gets multiplied linearly with each "essential" plugin. This is parallel to the 3rd party "ricer" mods that have become illegal in many areas like those tin can "mufflers" that made any slow low powered motor sound like a loud slow moving car that was still in need of paint over top of the bondo. The 3rd party stuff was simply not necessary to go from point A to B, and was a distraction to other drivers, and had issues with inspections and whatnot because they were nonstandard. The same goes with plugins. If any website requires a 3rd party plugin to operate, they are in the "perpetual maintenance" mode to maintain an almost functional portable version and the plugin happy version that yells at you to get the 3rd party plugin. Rinse and repeat when ever any of the required 3rd party plugins has a major version change and the PHB wants it to now spin the new way, and now you have an old plugin page yelling at you that you need not only a plugin, but a plugin that is newer than the one you already have, maybe an old page that does not spin the way the PHB wants, and of course the standard page that yells at you to use the other 2, preferably the new one.

The day they start using pop-over flash ads is the first day of Google's demise.

The day that flash has serious privacy or security issues will be the end of flash as well. Preferences :: disable plugins is in my _security_ section on my browser. Says volumes to me, that is one of many reasons it is off.

Now more offtopic!!!

CT: Sorry folks. My email is broken this morning and i'm not getting error reports.

Ha! Taco is now a PHB manager type! No self respecting geek has "broken email". cat /var/spool/mail/cmdrtaco or better tail -f /var/spool/mail/cmdrtaco - or - telnet mailhost 110 or 143 or whatever port for your preferred protocol. telnet mailhost 25 to send mail or echo contents of message | mail -s "Subject here!" subscriber@example.com to send a mail, or with mailx or a Perl script or something.

Broken email. Geek badge at the door and don't let the door slam into you on the way out.

Re:No flash, please!

[shotgunefx]

Hopefully not the case, but you never know.

I remember when Y! had much higher standards. Everyone I knew at Y! sounded a lot like Google does now. Everyone and their brother was raving about Seth Godin's Permission marketing book. How it considered internally, from my perspective , was very close to how I imagine Google views itself now.

Then slowly as the pinch was on, they started shifting away from the idealism. As far as "merchandising", things that they seemed to consider bad form became practice.

Re:No flash, please!

[jZnat]

If his email is broken for him, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn't have enough access via SSH to mess around with it. I'm pretty sure that OSTG maintains the Slashdot servers as well as the other servers used for the OSTG websites.

Re:No flash, please!

[grumpyman]

I wonder if you guys is 'ok' with yahoo as its front page has no flash or animated gif (.com one) and there're only limited small graphics on the page. The page for search result is pretty 'clean' with no pictures and only text ad on right side like google.

Re:No flash, please!

[bedroll]

I'm okay with Yahoo! as a whole. I like some of their services. I use Yahoo! Mail, because I've had that address since it ended with @geocities.com and I like their sports section, just to name a few. The thing is that their ads are typically ineffective and useless to me. I do my best to ignore them and work around them. About the only time I notice them is when they annoy me, and I've actually avoided products that had annoying advertisement.

Re:No flash, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Sure, we can do damage control for a while using AdBlock et al, but the first appearance of Flash is clearly the beginning of the end. Even animated GIFs would be a very bad sign.

Another way to look at it is that this'll tell you when it's time to start shorting the stock -- or, if shorting a $429 stock is too scary, then trading bear spreads with its LEAP options. Lemons into lemonade, and all that.

It'd still be sad, though.

This will ruin the look

[chrisjwray]

In my opinion, the beauty of google is the LACK of image ads. I dont like to use yahoo et all for precisely this reason.
Hopefully the next upstart search engine will go back to less intrusive, text only adverts.

Re:This will ruin the look

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned above, yahoo search doesn't have image based ads.

All good things...

[Anonymous Coward]

must come to an end.

Re:All good things...

[Rayaru]

Does that mean Q is behind this somewhere?

The once nice clean and simple google...

[Cmdr_earthsnake]

even manages to fall victim to greed by cramming as many adverts as they can fit in for more revenue.

It's a shame really, I liked google exactly the way it was. Oh well.

Concern

[MrShaggy]

Is that they are started on that slippery slope. The reason we all think that they are so cool is the lack of graphics. I remember the other search engines going down this same route.. anyone remember alta-vista ? Same thing. HotMail was ok until MS took it over. This is bad. This is the beginning of the end. Someone once said that AOL would mark the downfall of the internet if they were allowed onto it. Hmmmm sign of the times ?

disappointed, but inevitable

[jaypaulw]

Google obviously hopes this will generate more revenue. It was nice while it lasted.

Incidently if anyone has any "spare" sites it is google but I prefer their "sparse" ones.

Re:disappointed, but inevitable

[aug24]

Actually 'spare' in this context means roughly the same as 'frugal', whereas 'sparse' means more like 'thin'.

Justin.

Re:disappointed, but inevitable

[jaypaulw]

A big thanks to all the people on slashdot regularly checking grammar and usage.

Re:disappointed, but inevitable

[aug24]

Don't get a sulk on. You (implicitly) criticised someone else's usage wrongly and got corrected. Be a man and take the hit.

Justin.

Re:disappointed, but inevitable

[jaypaulw]

No sulk.

That was the incidental part of my post and of course that has now generated three responses. It is just amazing how often that is the case in a forum where people feel compelled to believe they are experts in such widely diverging areas, that regardless of the relevance, grammar and usage is always the red herring of choice.

I thought the other post pointing out that the NYT used the word they way they did had far more of an impact that yours anyway.

Google has gone astray

[Gherikill]

God rest ye merry, gentlemen, let nothing you dismay, Remember Christ our Savior was born on Christmas Day; To save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray.

Also... [AOL + Google]

[mister_llah]

It should also be added that any policy change that comes from meeting with America Online... well, God only knows what other horrors have been unleashed.

I'd say it's downright Lovecraftian, but that might be a little melodramatic.

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[nospmiS remoH]

I couldn't agree more. A good rule of thumb is that AOL + ANYTHING = crap. I literally got a knot in my stomach when I read "...America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy..." AOL killed Winamp and Netscape, and now they are threatening Google. This is a sad day, if only it were April 1st there would be hope that this is all just a lie. It is like AOL is a parasite and only remains alive by sucking the life out of everything it touches.

Google: "Don't be evil."
AOL: "Don't appear to be evil."

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[Spy der Mann]

what other horrors have been unleashed. I'd say it's downright Lovecraftian, but that might be a little melodramatic.

Hmmm something like this?

Cthuuuuuuuuuuuuuulhu
 
Search: _

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[tommers]

I've very surprised to see Google announcing all these policy changes so quick after the AOL announcement. Maybe as part of the agreement AOL said Google had to be public that they were AOL's lapdog. I'm sure that it benefits AOL that stockholders knows who wears the pants in this relationship.

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[Mr. Underbridge]

I couldn't agree more. A good rule of thumb is that AOL + ANYTHING = crap. I literally got a knot in my stomach when I read "...America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy..." AOL killed Winamp and Netscape, and now they are threatening Google. This is a sad day, if only it were April 1st there would be hope that this is all just a lie. It is like AOL is a parasite and only remains alive by sucking the life out of everything it touches.

OMG ME TOO!!!!!!

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[darkmeridian]

Google has finally been forced to compromise in the face of business reality. Apparently, AOL is ten percent of Google's business. If AOL took its business to, say, Microsoft's new search engine then Google would be in trouble. So what do you do to stay alive? Sell out a piece of your soul.

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[sn0wflake]

AOL certainly didn't kill Winamp. It's still my, and many others, preferred program for listening to MP3's and streaming radio and is being regular updated even though it's already rock solid. Or do you prefer Windows Media Player?

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[nospmiS remoH]

Good point. I should have been more specific, I was referring to Winamp 3.0. That is when I dumped winamp and used nothing until iTunes. I have heard that Winamp has improved much since then. Still, with the tech industry being so competative companies cannot afford to have a flop (e.g. Winamp 3.0, Netscape 6.0, etc.)

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[Anonymous Coward]

3.0 was indeed awful. It was so bad they opensourced it's code and abandoned it. For the next version (5.0), they went back to the 2.x codebase, and built in all of the 3.0 features. (2+3=5.0) It took a few slashdot articles to convince me to give it another look (since I had abandoned it with 3.0 as well) but 5.0 really does whip the lhama's ass.

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[anaesthetica]

AOL + ANYTHING = crap

Actually, that's redundant. You could change it to read AOL + ANYTHING = AOL, and it would still mean the same thing.

AOL really just stole their business model from FATMOUSE:

FATMOUSE IS THE NEW SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS. THE FATMOUSE THEOREM IS:
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[Trogre]

I literally got a knot in my stomach when I read "...America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy..."

Literally, huh?

Well I hope you got surgery for that quickly. It can lead to organ necrosis in a matter of minutes, you know.

Re:Also... [AOL + Google]

[adamgolding]

they also killed ICQ...

Google ad blocking coming soon....

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe google toolbar will help us block those ads

Google, or the content network?

[penguin_asylum]

I read here that the graphical ads are just for people who use adsense, and not for the main page. (from the site, "I sent an email to the Google Adsense support team and 'Jim' tells me that the beta is for the content network only.")

In any case, if it _is_ for google too, this could easily make me use another search engine if it's at all obtrusive. One of the few reasons I use google is because it's simple, so it's quick to load and easier to find what you're actually looking for.

Re:Google, or the content network?

[generic-man]

From the article linked in the summary:

"One format being discussed is a box, which may include a photograph and a logo, that would appear on the main search results pages toward the bottom of the advertisements in the right-hand column. Traditional banner ads may appear on Google Image Search and the Froogle shopping site, which already include many photographs, an executive involved said. No advertising is contemplated for the Google home page."

The Adsense graphical-ads rollout was first, but it looks like google.com and its other sites (.*\.google\.[^\.]*) are going to follow suit.

Re:Google, or the content network?

[Ciaran_H]

Did you see the date on that entry?

"Posted: Mon - May 17, 2004 at 03:39 PM"

That was talking about AdSense. *This* is talking about Google itself.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[DrYokomohoyo]

You could adblock iframes long ago.

Anybody else...

[Anonymous Coward]

...smell the beginning of the end for Google?

AdBlock

[Yerase]

I really am gonna hate to start adding *.google.com to my AdBlock filters...

What's next?

[u2boy_nl]

Pop-up ads on google.com?

Seriously, I don't expect we'll ever see those, but Google was always known for its clean interface, are they goin to mess it up?

The interface was actually the reason why I started to use Google a couple of years ago.
But now compare Google to Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/ and MSN Search http://search.msn.com/ , there's really not a big difference anymore.

I wonder if Google will lose visitors because of this, especially to Yahoo!

(They propably won't lose to many to MSN, MSN's search results are pretty crappy compared to Google and Yahoo, at least that's my experience.)

Ugh

[beef curtains]

That's just swell...Google joins the ranks of websites featuring obnoxious, neon pink, rapidly-blinking, "You've won!" ads.

This is a damn shame...I've always been a big fan of the fact that Google not only bucked the trend of coating their main page in ads, but was also one of the least painful websites to look at.

I hope they'll practice moderation, or at least maintain & enforce strict guidelines on what ads can look like.

Re:Ugh

[GigsVT]

I remember when slashdot changed from small banners to the huge banners and the midstory ads.

Back then they guaranteed they'd not take flash ads or anything obnoxious. That didn't last long. Once you start to sell out to ad people it always seems to go downhill.

Staying the course....

[Shakes268]

Google, by going public now has to deal with the investors. They want to see cash flow increases every quarter. So, to continue revenue increases they will continuously be attempting to increase ad revenue.

Search on Windows - 10 results and 50 million ads. "Hi, have you thought about double pane windows for your home?"

Search on Linux - "Hi, have you thought about fuzzy penguin slippers for Christmas?"

Search on Cars - "Test drive the new Ford 150 today! Print this google ad and we'll give you a gallon of free gasoline"

Search on Slashdot - "Xerox - for when you want to make your own dupes"

Re:Staying the course....

[GweeDo]

Search on Cars - "Test drive the new Ford 150 today! Print this google ad and we'll give you a gallon of free gasoline"

Your search algorithm sucks. The Ford 150 is a truck, not a car.

Re:Staying the course....

[Shakes268]

Your humor algorithm sucks, it was a joke - not something serious.

Don't worry, it's only a backup...

[mixrecords]

Users of Google's search engine will soon see something they are not used to on the notoriously spare site:

Looks like we won't be seeing it on the main site, just the spare one they keep around.

Re:Don't worry, it's only a backup...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 'spare' is just the right word ='Not lavish, abundant, or excessive' - look it up in a dictionary.

Indeed!

[mister_llah]

Yeah, the over-commercialism of Yahoo is one of the things that allowed Google the usership that got it to the point that... it could begin the same commercial process.

Irony!

I wonder if the process will repeat itself with another search engine... ?

[but I doubt it, I think we'll all just suck it up]

Google just...

[Anonymous Coward]

jumped the shark.

ads that grab close 100% cpu

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd better not have any of those shitty flash ads that peg the cpu at nearly 100%.

Well...

[setirw]

Ad-blocking components of browsers should be able to easily filter these out, as the ads will definitely reside on a separate server. This is not the case with embedded textual advertising, which are actually embedded within the HTML document. I know I won't be seeing these. In fact, I haven't seen a single graphical Internet ad for months.

Re:Well...

[mlk]

You could (easily for b&w images) embed a image into a webpage, the 5k compo does this (use img src=javascript code that returns a xbm)
If you did not care about older browsers, you could return a colour jpg/gif.

Send Them An E-Mail

[BigDork1001]

Don't like it, send them an e-mail. Inform them that the reason you use Google due to the lack of obtrusive, flashy ads. If enough geeks speak out, Google might actually take a hint.

Can they do it?

[ReformedExCon]

Google has been quite adept at keeping themselves distanced from obvious corporate sponsorship. Their advertising model has been refreshing, with ad space sold very democratically. In addition, their decision to keep advertising to simple text has made using their search engine, even with advertisements, pleasurable to use.

I do not understand the need to partner with AOL, except that AOL perhaps brings in quite a bit of advertising revenue. The downside, though, is obvious. Google has lost their independence and is slowly succumbing to AOL's wishes. First is image advertisements.

I wonder what the general consensus at Google is about this latest deal. Perhaps they don't expect to lose users when the new ads arrive, or maybe they are strapped for cash and AOL's money is bailing them out. I don't know, but I do know that I don't like AOL, and I don't like image advertisements. It's why I have Adblock installed and why I don't frequent certain other sites anymore.

This is a big mistake, I think. In a long-term business sense, I simply don't see what could possibly be so attractive. Then again, I haven't seen the check that AOL used to buy Google's soul. It may have been worth it.

Re:Can they do it?

[Yerase]

From the news reports it's strictly a marketing strategy move to isolate Microsoft. MS was looking at buying a piece of AOL to boost MSN, and Google saw a way to isolate them.

Re:Can they do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google sold his soul to the devil for its rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Google roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took its soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.

Re:Can they do it?

[loupgarou21]

AOL had announced that they were planning on switching from Google search to MSN search for their users. Google didn't like the idea, so they offered AOL a ton of money and, from what I understand, they bought a piece of AOL

Re:Can they do it?

[mlk]

From the sounds of it, Google are buying 5% of AOL, so Google are not strapped for cash. Which would be intresting, as many some of Google will rub of on AOL.

Re:Can they do it?

[kavau]

Hmmm.... I thought it was Google who wrote AOL a check!?

Brilliant!

[Jerry Coffin]

Now that's brilliant business:
Google: widely respected and quite profitable.
AOL: being bought out, and gets exactly the respect it deserves.

[closed captioning for the humor impaired: sarcasm to follow]
Obviously Google should be taking AOL's advice about how to finally achieve some real success, right?
[end sarcasm]

Re:Brilliant!

[riiiichanchan]

Score 5 Interesting! rapple dapple!

Re:Brilliant!

[khallow]

Actually, AOL is a success story. It's a success at the expense of Time Warner, but still a success.

Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had googlesyndication.com blocked for ages anyway. Why should I care?

Adblock to the rescue

[hotspotbloc]

Google has been playing with image banner ads for a while which is why "http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad ?*" is in my Adblock kill file. Don't they realize that the only reason most people who can block ads haven't blocked them because the vast, vast majority of their ads are text only?

BTW, get Adblock here: http://adblock.mozdev.org/

Re:Adblock to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gone one step further and just added a zone googlesyndication.com to my DNS, which points essentially everything to 0.0.0.0.

Re:Adblock to the rescue

[bloodstains]

The first time I ran across this I just added *.googlesyndication.com* to my blocked sites list. I felt a bit sad and a bit guilty about it, but I guess that makes this a non-story for me. The tides turned a while ago. This is not news.

Re:Adblock to the rescue

[ferat]

Yep, I let google's ads live because they are non-intrusive and generally relevant (to the point I click them on occasion).

Graphics show up and they'll get thrown in adblock. If for no other reason than if they've caved on graphics how long before they cave on flash and other annoyances. Soon I'll have to deal with relevant pop-unders.

Re:Adblock to the rescue

[bradbeattie]

I hope you understand that the vast majority of people don't use Firefox, don't know how to block ads, and will be affected by these graphic ads. This decision will affect at least 80% of all computer users. So maybe some 20% will block the ads. So what?

You *do* have choices

[brunes69]

Teoma still has only text-based ads, and has some innovative features and accurate results.

MSN Search has only text ads. Sure, it is MS, but the new engine is actually pretty accurate and has useful features like encarta integration.

Yahoo! search also has no image-based ads. Funny how people are constantly bashing Yahoo!, and now Google is going to have image ads on it's search, where Yahoo! removed them a long time ago.

It's called a free market, we wil see how it plays out. If Google alienates their customers, they will migrate elsewhere.

Re:You *do* have choices

[spif]

Let's not forget Clusty. I already use them a lot for relatively basic searches. Maybe I'll be using them even more now.

Re:You *do* have choices

[mapmaker]

If Google alienates their customers, they will migrate elsewhere.

Maybe, maybe not. I use Google because it returns the best search results. The lack of graphical advertizing is nice, but it's not the reason I go there. Superior search results + graphical ads still beats inferior results + no ads in my book, so these ads aren't going to drive me away from Google. And that's even before including Adblock in the deliberations.

Re:You *do* have choices

[gaurzilla]

Yes, it is interesting how MSN and Yahoo serve ads in almost exactly the format that google does. I haven't used these other searh engines for so many years now. When did this change come about?

Re:You *do* have choices

[Josh teh Jenius]

Excuse me for being a troll, but from Teoma's website: "Search results appearing under the heading "Sponsored Links" are provided by Google" http://sp.teoma.com/docs/teoma/about/searchwithaut hority.html. I did not know this, but Ask Jeeves is also serving Google ads. By the way, Teoma looks like an AWESOME service. Thanks for sharing it.

Re:You *do* have choices

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google alienates their customers, they will migrate elsewhere.

Count me in. I mean out. Sorry google, but if you haven't figured it out by now, you're a one trick pony, and not really as special as you're made out to be. One of your most special attributes was that in world of f'd up annoying flash ads and other bandwidth hogging crap, you did just one thing, and didn't do a bad job of it.

Google should fire the nitwit who made this decision, and then sack the person who hired 'em.

Re:You *do* have choices

[AnotherDaveB]

Teoma, is owned by Ask Jeeves and both search engines use the same technology.

Sad Day

[Buzz_Litebeer]

It was as if a Million Geeks cried out in terror and then were silenced.

Re:Sad Day

[gnud]

more like a million google graphical ads set out, and then were adblocked.

Re:Sad Day

[TubeSteak]

It's a Trap!

Party's Over Folks

[Eric Savage]

The glorious sounds of the plump woman vocalizing.

X10 ads on Google?

[digitaldc]

I thought that Google wouldn't need to do this, is this considered 'evil' or just 'evil creep?'

Sigh.... *disillusionment*

Goofy search engine names...

[mister_llah]

Well, if we are going to make one to replace Google, we should follow the trend of ridiculous naming (as Yahoo and Google have set the precident)...

Here is a list of a few suggestions:
Burglecut [the unlikable mayor from Willow] ... fun name, and catchy
Flomizzle [nonsense word]
Jimbert [a combination of two names, see if you can guess which two]

^_^

Re:Goofy search engine names...

[Gulthek]

"Glomit"

Re:Goofy search engine names...

[Pope]

You mean "Warrace and Glomit," the Engrish inventor and his dog?

Re:Goofy search engine names...

[amliebsch]

"Grepnet" is silly-sounding but also applicable.

Re:Goofy search engine names...

[jZnat]

Very geeky as well. What I want to see is an egrepnet.com or egrep.net or something.

Jumped the Shark

[barik]

Honestly, it looks to me that Google has jumped the shark. Google now reminds me of just about every other company during the DotCom bubble burst.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad Google is around. They're providing some much needed competition in the web area, but I fear that things are going to get much worse before they get better.

Google has a lot of great technologies, but all of their income comes from advertising. So if they want to expand, and maintain free services, their only option is basically to ramp up their advertising. Whether they can do that without annoying their users remains to be seen.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[SteveX]

They're also having trouble executing, something that they never had until recently.

Google Reader was horribly slow when it was released, and Google Analytics is still shut down to new traffic and days behind on stats.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[darkmeridian]

Google will do something really annoyingly cool like AIM-targeted ads. Sure, we hate it in concept, but how bad are the text-ads in Gmail right now?

Re:Jumped the Shark

[kthejoker]

$118 billion companies don't "jump the shark." Google is bigger than Coca-Cola. They're bigger than Apple, eBay, Oracle, and Yahoo!. The companies they are gaining on are IBM, Chevron, and JP Morgan Banking. They are in the hardcore money-making, jive-talking corporate world. They will do what it takes to make money. And more importantly, how is this jumping the shark? This has hardly impact on the average end user. 90% of people just use Google.com to search for something, then click on the top result. The few people who might actually be peeved about this will either a) turn off the ads, either via third-party, or more likely, through a Google-provided setting (See: don't be evil), or b) switch to Yahoo! And in either case, they'll probably still use Google more than they'd like to admit, because they're Google, and they not only have the best results, but they are working hard for the savvy Internet user (something Yahoo! has started to do, but in a Yahoo! circa 1997 type way.) When you have the huge brain supply of Google and $120 billion dollars, you aren't even close to jumping the shark.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[Antony-Kyre]

There are ideas that could be done. They should keep the same interface right now, text advertisements. Graphics will be problematic. Graphic advertisements can be blocked by firewalls. I think one idea would be to do commercials like slashdot does for their day pass, but anyone opting to do so and answer a small survey will receive completely ad-free Googling (when logged in) for 24 hours.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[Anonymous Coward]

How bad will they be when they enevitably add graphics to them?!?

And seriously, who the hell thinks that ads of ANY KIND in their email is in any way acceptable? GMail users are completely clueless. What is this drug that certain companies exude that makes anything they do, however utterly evil, smell like roses?

Ads in your email... unbelievable. Reminds me of a Futurama episode where it was reveiled that they beam ads into your dreams...

Re:Jumped the Shark

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always felt the same about GMail. From day one everyone fell in love with it. Me? Never bothered to even look at it. I don't feel I need a fancy web interface, and even moreso, I do NOT want ads in my email.

Everyone acted like it was so revolutionary - nothing but hype. What is it really? It's a free web-based email with ad's. Kind of like every other free web based email, but more intrusive.

I'll stick with me ad-free communications. To me it's not as bad as dreams.. but it'd be equivilent to the Telco's monitoring my phone conversations and inserting targetted ad's. "hey joe, wanna go grab some pizza?" ... "for great free pizza and low low mortgage rates press 2"

Re:Jumped the Shark

[barik]

When you have the huge brain supply of Google and $120 billion dollars, you aren't even close to jumping the shark.

Correction: had a huge brain supply. No doubt they still have a lot of great minds, but a good number of people have left Google since it's inception. Why? Because after 5 years, Google employees are allowed to vest their stocks. And at an overpriced 400/share, can you really blame them for taking an early retirement?

I'm not saying that Google will be going belly-up in the near future, but I think that if it does go under, people will be pointing to this year as the start of their decline.

And yes, you are right in that they have huge amount of initial capital, but if you look at their SEC filings you might see something disturbing. The ratio of their income to expenses is decreasing. In a nutshell, their expenses are increasing, but their income is not increasing at the same rate. Unfortunately, Google hasn't been around long enough for us to draw any real conclusions on this short-term data. But I have a hunch that advertising can only bring in so much revenue before reaching a critical point.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[SpecBear]

According to the article, the deal is expected to be officially announced this afternoon so I may be eating crow in a few hours. But I'd like to point out a couple of things:

"according to two executives close to the companies' negotiations"

"Representatives of Google and AOL said their companies would not comment on any aspect of the negotiations."

Remember, last week the big news was that Google was going to buy Opera. Lots of people like to speculate on Google. I wouldn't worry about this unless and until the word comes from an official source. But if this is real, you should be really fucking worried. I own Google stock, and I shudder to think was this deal could do to the share price.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[khallow]

Well, given that there haven't been $118 billion companies until relatively recently in history, this isn't saying much. Besides Microsoft is a good example of a more capitalized company that has "jumped the shark" (eg, the release of Windows XP, the big dividend payment, and having to expense stock options). So no use saying it doesn't happen.

Also, Google doesn't "have" $120 billion. That's the total valuation of their stock if it were to magically be sold at market price. They can finance acquisitions of up to a few billion IMHO. But it's not clear to me that there's a lot of reason to do so.

Incidentally, to push my favorite example some more. Microsoft has a larger brain trust and spends far more than Google to get mindshare in the university system (eg, subsidizing universitywide adoption of MS systems). Their overall strategy has paid handsomely for Microsoft, but Microsoft has pushed that as far as it'll go IMHO. I'm not impressed by their replacement strategy (.Net).

Even if we get extremely optimistic and assume the best, what can Google do? Offer internet for free? Sophisticated AI that caters to your whim? Sounds nice, but I don't see that much revenue there long term especially with the low barriers to entry.

Where is Google going to get that revenue and profit that its investors apparently are expecting?

Re:Jumped the Shark

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't work man. Google is well-branded.. but everyone would move on. Like I want to start each morning by doing some marketing survey? I don't think many people would be bothered and would just go elsewhere for searching.

Re:Jumped the Shark

[adpowers]

Actually, Google Analytics is recent within a few hours for me (usually no more than 8). I think they are suffering from their own popularity. Now that more people use the advanced features of Google, and they have the Google Blog to announce new features, everyone jumps on the new services as soon as they are released. Google probably didn't anticipate this huge demand (although, they should be learning their lesson now) and hadn't added enough servers to their cluster.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Sorry mac. Looks like you're finally going to find out the real purpose of the Google images servers. Just wait till Imageshack and Photobucket get in on the deal as well.

Image Adblockers are history.

You used to be cool Google.

[Anonymous Coward]

This definitly would seem to be a step backwards.

The lack of graphics is what made google adds so
unique and tolerable.

Lets hope they reconsider.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Lardmonster]

True. And if Google used IFRAMEs, then I'd block them...

So much for don't be evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Tell customers you aren't evil.
2. Become big corporation
3. BE EVIL.
4. Profit.

Mod this guy up!

[mister_llah]

If I had not posted, I would have modded you up, but I'm glad you posted the search.yahoo.com link...

I actually did not know there was a search-only part of Yahoo, when Google starts with their ads I will have to switch to that!

Thanks!

Re:Mod this guy up!

[capnchicken]

Too bad Yahoo! already integrates paid links into the search without labeling them as such. *Sigh* Looks like I'm switching my home page to MS or maybe http://www.scroogle.org/

The guy might be a hypocrite, but he does have a nice quick proxy to the Google search engine.

At least there's an opt out

[stavromueller]

On your own websites, you can opt out of recieving image based ads, but I still hate this idea. Maybe I'll try Yahoo's new program...

Hmm

[tsa]

I sometimes click on a sponsored link in Google's pages, but if Adblock blocks them all in the future because they are grapical, or, heaven forbid, flash advertisements, then that will be a thing of the past. I'm not sure that is the result they are aiming for...

Easy enough to fix

[Pengo]

http://www.customizegoogle.com/

Damn

[jfb3]

Just damn.

Ermhfgdjffned.

[NTiOzymandias]

Allow me to speak for everyone:

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo

Clusty also serves Google ads...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Clusty also serves Google ads. How do I know? I just looked up myself on Clusty and my Google text ad popped up. Interesting nonetheless; I'll add it to my search collection for a while and see how it goes.

AOL Taint

[augustz]

The AOL taint begins :)

Actually, be interesting to see how this all unwinds. AOL probably has much more agressive corporate power politics type players. Sometimes the nice places aren't prepared to manage that, though in this case I'd imagine Google will be able to.

Only thing that is worrying is that companies with declining revenue (aol) can be tempted to try bad ideas. Let's hope google doesn't try too many of them itself.

There goes the neighborhood

[franksands]

Preety soon we will be seing those anoying flash animations and what not on the still clean google page... :(

looks like it's time

[DangerSteel]

for a new home page...

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[petabyte]

Image Adblockers are history.

*Hands you a book on Regular Expressions*

I rarely see ads and yet, photo albums such as yahoo are still working fine ...

Pop-ups

[Foobartacus]

Now it's only a matter of time before Google has its own popup ads, too. :-(

I am glad I got firefox with adblock

[beforewisdom]

I think google was onto something when they kept ads as text. I think people find graphic ads obnoxious and as a result train themselves not to look.

I actually didn't mind looking at the text based ads on google.

Good thing I have firefox with adblock.

Re:I am glad I got firefox with adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people find graphic ads obnoxious and as a result train themselves not to look.

Exactly: I run some affiliate programs for loans on a website, the programs have animated banners to place on your site but I replaced them with textads looking a bit like Google's. They make way more money and my site doesn't look like a pile of crap.

Already let advertisers use cookies

[crow]

I have my browser set to notify me when new cookies are created, and I've noticed for a while that I'm getting them from various sites from the results of a Google search.

Re:Already let advertisers use cookies

[program21]

I don't think it's advertisers on Google; instead, Google is telling your browser to "preload" the page for the first search result, with the effect of any cookies from that page being set.

Going Spare

[SeanDuggan]

On the off chance you aren't just cracking a joke over alternate meanings, "spare" can also mean "healthily lean" or "not liberal or profuse", both of which would fit for Google's site.

Personally, I looked at that line, and thought they misspelled "sparse" at first although in retrospect, the adjective would be modifying the wrong noun.

and competition is good

[QuaintRealist]

You're exactly right about Yahoo bashing - I use Google for search, but Yahoo's IM client works better with Linux. And Google (still) has made little to no effort to make their "beta" Google Earth work with Linux (which I use) or Mac OSX (which my wife uses). So why does Google get all the good press on Slashdot (and elsewhere)?

And I have a gmail and yahoo email account - waiting to see which one turns evil first!

Re:and competition is good

[brunes69]

I also have a Yahoo! mail and GMail account. I currently use GMail, but only because of it's threading capability. Since my ISP gives my Yahoo! mail account 5 GB of storage,, GMail really has no benefit on that front either.

It will be interesting to see Yahoo!'s new AJAX mail client. I may switch to them then - especially since they have great calendering as well.

Re:and competition is good

[chrisgeleven]

Actually, there is a beta of Google Earth that leaked for OS X.

Re:and competition is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Release something unstable and unfinished to Mac users, but call it "leaked" or "rumors" and they'll fall all over themselves for a chance to see it crash.

Scoff.

Re:and competition is good

[brokencomputer]

Ummm.... google earth works on OS X. I have a beta of it and I haven't noticed any bugs, other than the fact that it uses a little too much CPU....

Re:and competition is good

[idlemachine]

So why does Google get all the good press on Slashdot (and elsewhere)?

Many of us still remember the pre-Google Yahoo! and the monstrousity of their portal. They may have made some interesting decisions & purchases lately but it all seems to be a response to trend & behavioural shifts that others are initiating.

Inevitable

[Blackknight]

As long as Google remains a publically traded company they're going to have to keep the stock holders happy. The only way to do that is to make more money.

There's also the fact that running a major site like there's isn't free. Somebody has to pay for the fiber connections, server hardware, power, and cooling. There's also labor costs involved.

As long as the ads aren't those annoying animated banners I don't think I'll really mind.

You don't even need to use google's web page any way, just use the google search box in firefox or galeon.

Re:Inevitable

[YU Nicks NE Way]

As long as Google remains a publically traded company they're going to have to keep the stock holders happy.

Actually, in Google's case, no. In a typically Googlish piece of brilliance, the triumvirate reached back to techniques from the Gilded Age when they IPO'ed. Google has a two-tiered stock offering. Class A shares are held entirely by company insiders, and have ten times the voting power of the Class B shares which were offered to the public. As a result, those $400+ shares of GOOG not only pay no dividends, they offer no control. The only use they have as shares of stock is for luring in greater fools.

Re:Inevitable

[smoker2]

You don't even need to use google's web page any way, just use the google search box in firefox or galeon.

Which takes you to...

Google web pages !

There's also the fact that running a major site like there's isn't free. Somebody has to pay for the fiber connections, server hardware, power, and cooling.

Us apparently.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Gulthek]

You may find http://www.regular-expressions.info/ helpful. Adblock supports regex strings. I yearn for the day when a search engine does as well.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[CAIMLAS]

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking too - but only for a moment.

Slight caveat: then you can just block one domain and be rid of most ads.

Beginning of the End

[espek]

Google Has Jumped AOL. It was so neat to watch Google don its white jump suit and crash helmet. And somwhow I guess it was kind of exciting when it did the actual jump, but somehow it's different now. It's not the same Google as before.

I for one welcome our Ad-Block overloads

[fab13n]

I'd love to see graphic charts, showing how evolves the percentage of people blocking adSense with their favorite ad-blocker. I wouldn't be surprized to see a major loss in tech-savvy, genuinely interested potential customers. Sure, that won't hurt vi@gr@ vendors a lot...

Personnaly, I'll stick to my usual policy: the first time they'll serve me an ad that hurts my eyes, be it through animation or annoying colors, will be the last one, as I'll ad-block on the whole adSense domain name!

That'd be a shame, as it's one of the very last major ad server that I don't block already, and as I'm sometimes genuinely interested by what they serve me.

And A9 as well

[msbmsb]

Don't forget A9 - nice interface, text-only ads.

Prefetching is a Firefox feature

[tppublic]

I think you're referring to link prefetching?

I'd also note it's not related to the ads, but the first search result.

Yahoo!'s JSON search results

[Anonymous Coward]

Readers looking for ad-free^H^H^H^H^H^H faster access to search results may find enlightenment in Yahoo!'s JSON documentation and JavaScript Developer Center. See especially the JSON area of the Code Samples, Tools, and Libraries section in the latter, which has pointers to working examples.

Hey, buddy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you spare a site.

Users of Google's search engine will soon see something they are not used to on the notoriously spare site: advertising with logos and graphics.
That line is a direct quote from the NYT article so it must be proper usage.

Perhaps it's a NYC sort of thing?

Or the rapper known as "Notoriously Spare (S.P.A.R.E?)".

AC OT

AnimalFarm

[Anonymous Coward]

All of us here (at Google) are good, but some of us are more good.

Bills are due

[tnk1]

Google has made a bunch of money on ads and a ton of capital on stock sales. It's now time for them to pay their owners and justify that stock price. And writing cool, but free software can't be the solution by itself.

The hope is, however, that even if they are on the downslide to pop-under flash ads, that it at least takes them awhile to get there.

There's nothing inherently wrong with picture ads, it's when the picture ads take up the entire viewing space, start blinking at you, and then cause page transfer rates to slow to a crawl that they become an issue. Maybe they will show some restraint and we'll have respectfully sized and presented picture ads. That may be tolerable. We'll just have to see.

Re:Bills are due

[dotdevin]

Yes, there is. Images take up bandwidth and add no value to the ads other than to 'trick' users into looking at them. Text only ads provide very rich content that a reader can quickly digest. And, when the ads are worth looking at user will. -D

A9 uses Google

[brunes69]

Not only is A9's search powered by Google, but it's ads are as well.

So it is unknown how this deal will effect them. You may see graphics in A9's results as well.

Block those adds!

[Wizzandabe]

Im glad you can block the adds using firefox! What a shame, who will be the next google? Google wont be the same now, just yet another search engine (its gone from a search engine to another yahoo, msn) and now adds!!

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[sqlrob]

They do. I've had them blocked since the "Download Ep3 here!" and "Get your free PS3" ads. If it's not IFRAME's, then it's script tags with an external source. Either way, it's blockable with AdBlock.

Trade Marks? Or graphic advertising?

[RingDev]

I'm lazy and did not read TFA. But are we talking about a Dell Logo next to the standard text add? Or are we talking about a marketing supplied advertising graphic?

I would be fine with logos. The are small, simple, and not too distracting. The let me immediately associate a link with a corporate entity.

I along with pretty much everyone else here would throw google adds in the block list if they start tossing out animated gifs, flash, or even just tacky images. I waste enough of my employer's bandwidth with out having to deal with that crap.

-Rick

Wind changes directions

[Stan Vassilev]

If this happens let's see how long will the Google fanatics that always defend them in their actions go to the other extreme. Because such fans are exactly the kind of people that react first when their idol goes out of their well defined way.

And someone else said that if they show flash popups it'll be the first day in their demise... Nope, it'll be the last day. What they are doing now will be the first day, unless it's extremely refined and subtle.

Why Images are evil.

[hackwrench]

They use more bandwidth than text. On a dial-up connection it's really noticable, but when you are constantly downloading, every bit helps.

Images = evil

[chord.wav]

Images is the path to the dark side!! Sooner than you think, Google will partner with Gator and you'll see Bonzi Buddy dancing in your desktop!!

Re:Images = evil

[mopslik]

Google will partner with Gator

Gatoooooooooooooooor?

Re:Images = evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Google will partner with Gator and you'll see Bonzi Buddy dancing in your desktop!!

That's Google's desktop.

Seeking Start up funds

[sxmjmae]

I am going to start up a text based only on-line ad service.
I am looking for start up captial.
I am gong to call my service "Community Advertising Shopping Helper".
All funds can be made out to the Acronym C.A.S.H.

The good people at "Society Helping Inept Technicians" (S.H.I.T.) is already on board!

What I want to know is...

[JourneyExpertApe]

When are ./ users going to be able to display graphic ads in their sigs? Hell, the blink tag doesn't even work around here. I mean, I've got a mountain of ipods just sitting around waiting to be claimed.

They've had graphics for awhile

[slashkitty]

They have been using graphical image ads for a long time for their own products. I currently see this at the bottom of my search results. http://www.google.com/images/firefox_toolbar.gif They also have been using image ads in their adsense network for ages. They also put graphical themes in the text ads for the holidays: Just search for Christmas I don't see why anyone can be upset with this minor change.

So who is next?

[blair1q]

Now that Google's sold out, who's the new Google going to be?

Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims

[Stan Vassilev]

I wonder how many of your folks actually remember that Yahoo had the same status in our minds like what Google is (up to) now.

We were all in awe about the few kids that decided to start their small search engine business, and how the original Yahoo logo was drawn in Paintbrush with a mouse (and that aliased rough version was their logo for a long time before it switched to the nice refined version we see now).

Noone thought of Yahoo like some evil commercial entity trying to cram ads in your throat... But things change. And I suppose every big business is prone to go this way, Google is no exception.

MSN has seriously improved

[tomcres]

I'm amazed at the leaps and bounds by which MSN Search has improved over the last several months. There have been many instances where I've done the same search in Google and MSN and MSN provided more relevant results. I like it when Microsoft gets hungry. They can actually deliver when they're forced to compete.

One word

[Darius Jedburgh]

TANSTAAFL

Re:One word

[macsox]

for those who have no idea what parent means, trans: no such thing as a free lunch.

(i didn't know either. so i looked it up.

Good by Google (what a joke!)

[Anonymous Coward]

What a joke! Google is disgusting! greedy bastards! I will quit using google right now, shame on google, google sucks!

Sorry nerds.......

[m93]

the honeymoon is over!

Lost sight of original philosophy

[filipvh]

I'm in the middle of reading "The Google Story" which, for me at least, provides some interesting insight into the origins of this "Do No Evil" company. What stood out for me was their philosophy of developing great ideas first and monetizing them second.

The irony is that the trends that are emerging in press articles: the AOL purchase, special ads and graphics in ads are pure commercialism: They are not about the user, or about innovation. They are about the dollars, plain and simpl.

This coming in the wake of recent "doomsday" articles about growth in server power consumption makes me think that perhaps innovation is dead at Google: Maybe they are beginning to think that they can no longer beat their competitors (MS? Yahoo?) by out-innovating them, and are now simply collecting the cash on the lead they still have.

I hope not, I'm just saying, is all...

Text Ads Good,

[kalirion]

Banner Ads Better.

Now the question is, who's gonna be sent to the glue boiler?

Still Won't be Effective

[EBFoxbat]

Yes it sort of stinks. But I don't care. I don't see Google ads. I just don't. It's some type of physio/psyco -logical effect. I'm POSITIVE I'm not the only one. I'm just so used to seeing the parts of the page that I want to, I just don't see the other parts. It's true for me with all pages, including /. and CNN and other sites that I visit 5+ times a day. The pictures might distract me for a while, I'll tune those out soon enough. Pop-up ads (remember those?) worked until I stopped getting them thanks to things like pop-up blockers and Firefox and anti-adware programs. Intellitext, or whatever, I ca't ignore. It drives me nuts that when I leave the cursor in the middle of the page and scroll down with the scroll wheel, I hit them sometimes. Some sites are worse than other. If I notice them I instinctivly throw the cursor over to the far right (where there is a scroll bar and no text) and use my scroll wheel. It's instinct. Just like cat's land on the feet, I ignore ads. Its one of many accrued computer instincts that I have, like typing. Or running from a DOD:S granade when I could toss it back. Nonetheless, these ads will be no more effective on me. But if it gives Google more money ro devop fun things, I'm for it.

Crap. I just bought google stock.

[Unknown Poltroon]

Time to sell.

HELP READING TFA

[opablo]

i saw once in slashdot a site that let you read articles from payd sources like this one (www.nytimes.com) and others. i remember something about "stopbugging" or "dontbugme" or something like that.

Does anyone know that address !?!?

Re:HELP READING TFA

[jnd3]

I believe you're looking for BugMeNot.

Re:HELP READING TFA

[sethadam1]

You mean these guys?

Google beware

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Google started up as this benevolent, Do No Evil company whose goals were to consolidate Internet data making it easier to search for and catalogue web sites.

Since then, they adopted a heavily utilized advertising program that is generating billions in revenu.

Since then, they initiated a program where people can buy their web site rankings.

Since then, the have progressivly increased exporsure on the internet by ripping off ideas from other web services and making their own version, undermining other benign ad-free efforts and placing Google advertising prevalent throughout their services.

Since then, hardly a website has enough balls not to pepper themseleves with Google Ads or Ad Words because of the bribes Google offers to include the feature.

Since then, Google is initiating services which have questionable legal merits, such as the recent Google Print service ignoring pleas by publishers and authors to be included in deciding if this feature violates copyright laws.

With billions in hand and ubiquitous web presence, can we safely believe that Google intends no evil? Like any company that gains power, power corrupts. Google is no different from Microsoft or any other technology company that suddenly finds themselves making money hand over fist and being adored as an industry leader. Only Google is deluded into believing they intend no evil. They are and will continue to grow and become an ad cluttered web service whoring themselves to anyone throwing them a buck, skewing search results in favour of those who throw enough money in Google's direction, supporting Google to create more rip off and malevolent services.

Re:Google beware

[Ciaran_H]

Since then, they initiated a program where people can buy their web site rankings.

What program is that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tell Google what you think:

[stinky wizzleteats]

In their forum.

Ads will take up more bandwidth.

[qualico]

No doubt there is a lot of bandwidth to Google, regardless won't this slow down the Internet to some extent due in most part to its popularity?

Google is making some really bad moves.
It's like watching Blind Date and the guy is just saying the wrong things.
AOL?!? Now ad clutter?

Frankly, Google is *not* that great of a search engine.
There is so much more needing to be improved in search technology.
Guess, I'll have to show them how it's done. :->

More, the amount of Google reporting is getting a little overboard.
Worse, they are turning into a corporate greedy black hole, devouring companies like M$.

Sure glad I did not pursue employment with Google.
"Do no evil" my ass.

Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Google knows how important it is for them to keep a clutter-free web search. I would have thought the graphical ads will only be appearing on publishers' websites.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[lowrydr310]

How? I couldn't figure out how to do that, or how to block flash. When I get an annoying flash ad, I choose the "overlay flash" option, but it's only set for that browser session. I'd like to permanently disable all flash and only allow certain things that I want to see. I'd also like to eliminate google ads.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[shreevatsa]

You mean you haven't heard of Flashblock? (Install it from here.)

It does exactly what you want—blocks all Flash with a box with a Play button on it, which you can click if you want to allow that Flash object to play.

ads might have the opposite effect

[mapmaker]

I wonder if the inclusion of graphical ads might not actually result in a loss of advertising revenue for Google. As it stands now, I don't block Google's ads, as they are unobtrusive and inoffensive. Sometimes I even click on them. But if text ads are replaced with seizure-inducing "whack the monkey" type ads, I will definitely be adding them to my adblocker's filter list. And I suspect I'm typical of a lot of Google's users. This might then result in fewer ad clicks for Google, and since they get paid per click that should translate into less money.

I don't see too much harm in it

[llamaxing]

Google probably won't put those long banner ads on the top of their page (you know, the ones that LOVE giving us seizures). I think the best approach would be to use tiny images of the site's logo, or something that really distinguishes it from competitors. By keeping it tiny, the pages will still load fairly quickly, I'll get my kick-a** results as usual, and have some decent eye candy on the side. Besides, I can't recall how many times I can remember a website's logo but couldn't remember what the URL was to it. I know when I first ran into NewEgg, I forgot what it was called, but I remembered they sold computer hardware, so I typed some keywords, and after random clicking around, I finally found it. It would have been so much more convenient if I had something to visually see pertaining to the site (aka, logo), and I wouldn't have wasted so much time looking for it.

Now I see

[eheldreth]

Microsoft realy was the highest bidder, they are just keeping it quiet until AOL finishes off Google.

this calls for...

[muhgcee]

Time to sell my google stock and register a domain name.

you are all drunk.

[macsox]

people started using google because it gave the best search results, not its clean interface. as long as it continues to do that, it will continue to lead the search market.

Re:you are all drunk.

[xnot]

Sorry, no. I started using google was because it didn't look like yahoo, which was a bunch of crap AND maybe search on the side. Google gave me what I came there to do, which was search.

And as strange as this may sound, I don't think a lot of people really care how accurate a search engine is, compared to all the other ones. That's a slashdotters view, but it's not the average person's view. The average person doesn't really know if the results are "accurate" or not- and typically they don't care. As long as they get good websites that have information around the topic they are looking for, then it's a good engine. For example, searchiing "washing cars" might turn up 100 sites that have info on how to wash a car. Is #1 really better then #100? Some engines might say yes, and some engines might say no. Who is "right?" Me, as long as I get something resembling washing a car, whatever site it may be, that's good enough for me.

Re:you are all drunk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me - in fact, I'm the exact opposite. Content is king. Regarding search, accurate results are important to me. Pre-google days, I'd search 10 pages deep to find an article that I was looking for.

The clean interface - while great - wasn't as big a seller. Take for instance that I still use my yahoo mail more than my gmail account - even if gmail was a bit faster. I liked yahoo because I was going to be using it anyway for finance, my yahoo, movies, IM.

Slower and less relevent.

[Comboman]

I do hope that whatever Google does about displaying logos, images, etc, they do not sacrifice the decent speed the search engine has right now.

Google's servers are already pushed to the limit according to this article.http://www.byteandswitch.com/document.asp? doc_id=85804&WT.svl=news1_2 Graphical ads are sure to slow them down even further.

Also, graphical ads are almost certain to be less relevent to the search results than the current text based ads (which is the other reason most people don't mind them). I'm sure mass-market advertisers like Coke or Ford would love to get graphical ads on Google, but how many people are searching for 'cola' or 'crappy+cars'?

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[CableModemSniper]

I yearn for the day when a search engine does as well.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Somehow I doubt google keeps a copy of every web page and greps it every time you do a search. It would make for very long searches, since it would be O(n) (where n is the number of characters in web pages searched by google.). You can't hash a regex to speed up searches. (Well you could but thats only useful if someone had previously typed in the same regex you wanted and sat around waiting for it to complete.)

CustomizeGoogle Extension For Firefox

[Jagrafess]

Besides letting you do other cool things with Google-related webpages, it also allows you to turn off their ads in Gmail, search, etc. Unless this move to graphical ads changes things, I doubt I'll ever see a Google ad again.

Winamp != Dead

[HockeyPuck]

I still use winamp.. Infact I like how it now has preset XM Radio stations preset into Winamp. Same small footprint as the old days, but now I can click my "Advertising Free" way to the radio station of my choice.

Re:Winamp != Dead

[toddestan]

I've heard that Winamp is basically dead now - no new features, and no changes other than the occasional bug fix and marketing tie-in.

With that said, I use Winamp and even if development stopped tomorrow, would probably still use the current version until it no longer compatible with what whatever system I would be using.

Alternative Search Engines

[Yartrebo]

Does anyone know of halfway decent alternatives to Google? I've done a quick look at the ones I can remember (Altavista, Yahoo, Microsoft Network), and they all suck (advertising, bais, and depth of results). Altavista's news section seems to be a shallow ploy to promote the New York Times and a handful of other major conservative papers. Microsoft holds no punches when you enter "Linux" as a search term. Yahoo has more advertisements than Times Square.

Google has been seriously pissing me off (censoring results, ever increasing ads, heavy duty monitoring and tracking) and I am looking for a decent alternative.

Re:Alternative Search Engines

[AlXtreme]

Try the Clusty meta searchengine. Clean interface, clear privacy policy, Wikipedia-specific searching and your results are clustered into relevant groups. It tends to be a bit slower, but the results are on par.

I haven't been using Google for a few months now, there are valid alternatives.

The bigger they are the harder they fall.

[vhold]

Jumping the shark doesn't imply they will immediately and noticably start failing. It can be the turning point which begins a long and drawn out decline.

I can see how graphical ads on google's search pages, could potentially be that point. The lack of annoying graphical ads is perhaps the biggest reason google grew so fast. The relevancy of their search results has been slowly declining over the course of years (at least in my opinion) as people get better and better at gaming them.

Go look as Ask Jeeves's and MSN's search results pages, no graphical ads. They had to do that to compete with Google, but now it could give them the edge they need to start taking back noticable numbers of people.

Workaround

[NardofDoom]

I think it's time for an open-source search engine. There's enough computing power and bandwidth to do both crawling and data retrieval peer-to-peer. How many people have SETI@Home running on their machines? Now how many of those folks would donate some CPU cycles, some bandwidth and a bit of HD space for a search engine that is guaranteed to never have ads?

Secret Prototype of New Google Homepage!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Prototype

Shh! Don't tell anyone!

An Ethical Breach

[Ryouga3]

Google, with this deal, has with one move destroyed the reputation that led to their success.

I'm calling it unethical, but not because banner ads are "unethical". The unethical act that they've committed is that they've broke the rule they set for themselves of not being annoying to their users.

They may in an aboslute sense, not be evil by doing displaying visual ads, but by knowingly choosing to bring in annoying content, they are.

Graphic ads.

[CCFreak2K]

Wh..wha? Graphical advertisements? Why, that will revolutionize world wide web advertising as we know it!

cookies

[contrapunctus]

I'm already annoyed with Google because I can see pages that I haven't clicked on wanting to set cookies on my computer.

Re:cookies

[RedStar]

I would say you are using Firefox with the option network.prefetch-next set to true. Set it to false in about:config and you should stop the 'feature'.

Re:cookies

[contrapunctus]

You are correct. Thank you.

whoa

[seanismdotcom]

They haven't even released it and everyone is calling them evil and yada yada yada. Remember this IS google and I wouldnt be surprised if they released there ads with images but in a different non obtrusive way. I think we should all just wait and see what happens first.

That's the end of Google.

[Futurepower(R)]

That's the end of Google. Anyone want to make a billion dollars by providing a search engine that is not annoying?

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[lowrydr310]

Ah... I was just using Adblock, which has some "flash overlay" option that disables flash whenever I set it. Flashblock is what I'm looking for. Thanks!

Re:Ads in gmail

[DocSavage64109]

Are there really ads in gmail? I've been using it several times per day for months and have never noticed.

The need of AOL

[rjamestaylor]

I do not understand the need to partner with AOL.

Advertising, as you surmised is undoubtedly important, but my gut reaction is that this is about AIM. When AOL was the king of online-service providers (when that mattered more than the nascent Internet to corporatedom, I mean) IM was the killer-app that sped AOLs growth. That and chat rooms (shudder). Recall that Google recently enabled a Jabber service for its registered customers; there was some noise when it started (with a well-placed "leak" on this site, IIRC) but I haven't heard anything about it in a long time nor have my tech friends deigned to use it instead of their regular IM services they're already comfortable with (which includes ICQ, AIM, Yahoo, MSN, and private Jabber servers).

Google, now a public company with a stock price that needs to be maintained with a show of increasing force and domination in markets it gives the appearance of making a presence needs to succeed in IM, mail, ads, content (the personalization page is fairly sparse and devoid of content selections for the masses unlike Yahoo, MSN, Netscape/AOL), news (Google news is still beta, remember, and doesn't stem from relationships with news providers, some of which have already begun telling Google to cease and desist crawling their pages for news headlines; thus, having a dubious future), community (usenet, webloging, etc.).

What Google can't do on it's own, it has already shown it will do by acquisition and partnership -- which is similar to a successful early tech industry company called MicroSoft, funnily enough.

The only effect...

[Hymer]

...will be that people start to block Google ads...

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, since you don't need to search every webpage with regexp, only your 'indexes'. A simplified regexp syntax is quite feasible... but I can't actually think of many cases where I've needed regexp on a search.

Is this really new?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I've had Google's AdSense ads on my website for a couple years now. Some time ago (maybe a year, maybe a bit less) graphical ads became part of AdSense - but they are optional. I preferred the lower-key original approach, so my site still is limited to text-only Google ads.

Frankly, though, I don't see graphical ads as being evil in and of themselves. It's how they're implemented, and how relevant they are that matter to me. Sometimes a graphical ad makes a lot more sense within the context of the particular product being advertised.

email not working?

[tcoady]

Dear CmdrTaco
I have been using Google Mail and thought you might like to try it out. Here is an invitation to create an account...

ASCII Ads!

[gQuigs]

I wouldn't mind some ASCII art ads.

Re:The horse and the barn

[symbolic]

Remember those? Prevention is a lot easier than cleaning up the mess once it happens.

I liked google because the ads were there IF YOU NEEDED them, but didn't suck the life out of you if you weren't interested. Further, images by their very nature, are designed to attract and entice, thus moving Google from the informational realm, to the motivational realm.

Ad images are distracting, add to the visual clutter, and make the overall experience less desirable. There are some local TV stations with web sites that are so CRAMMED with junk (small ads along each side) I rarely visit them.

Scroogle

[Anonymous Coward]

Scroogle has no adds, no cookies, and all the results from google.

Blocking ads soon to be illegal

[RedneckJack]

I am sure Rep. Francis James Sensenbrenner will include in the pro-RIAA/MPAA legislation that he just introduced that will make it illegal to block ads such as pop-up's and pop-after's.

I have to comment on Google's ads. They were simple to look at, no annoying flash or pop up's. I even bought an item through a Google ad. I like the soon to be no longer simple, barebones ads.

A prediction from 2004

[Stan Vassilev]

Check out this article from 2004:

http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/10/googles -image-ads-success.html See how it ends: 'So, is the "do no evil" search engine already feeling the pressure from Wall Street? Could we ultimately see Google displaying Image ads at Google.com?'.

I can't wait . . .

[superultra]

. . . to start collecting Google CDs! I just hope they do no evil and use those easy to remove address stickers on the DVD case mailings.

This is a Microsoft conspiracy

[melted]

1. Pretend you're bidding for AOL to "cut off Google's air supply"
2. Let Google win the bid at astronomical and unreasonable price
3. Have your golf buddies at AOL force Google to fuck up its advertising practices by showing penis enlargement and bonzi buddy ads
4. Microsoft launches its own contextual ad system based solely on text ads
5. People pissed off by animated gifs at Google use MSN Search instead (as a search engine it's already pretty good, it's user experience is not as good as Google, tho)
6. Profit!

If this is what it is, Microsoft has made a brilliant move and fucked up Google without spending a dime. Bravo.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[StarkRG]

I yearn for the day when a search engine does as well.

So make one...

Don't forget...

[rbochan]

Search Bastard!

The rise and fall of Google

[somejeff]

I wonder who will be the first to write the ultimate article titled: The rise and fall of Google.

"Imageshack and Photobucket" OH NOES!!1five!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OH NO, I will "miss" all those "brilliant" forum image sigs, and 1 to 2 good photos that are not a sig! Yep... I love adding an adblock for each 1000000000.0004 signature I come across, not including the 12344635453 times a day the owner changes them.....

WTF... My confirm word is "condom"?? Seems much like one of the crappy/non-witty image sigs I block, too much shit to good image coming out of those two sites for me not to block them. I don't browse web forums much or go to real scummy ones, but when I do this annoyance really sticks out.

It's "Don't Be Evil," not ..

[MrNougat]

... "Don't Be Stupid."

Blocking Google's text Ads in Firefox

[conchur]

The Firefox plugin at http://www.customizegoogle.com/ has various options, including filtering out specified domains from all searches, removing ads and adding site thumbnails...

You knew this was cuming...

[cffrost]

Google has been lubing us up for years... Now it is time for Google to ease its cock into our collective asshole.

Re:Ads in gmail

[Yartrebo]

The ads are added to the email and the recipient sees it. I've never touched Gmail, but it is extremely annoying when people send me electronic mail from their accounts with Google.

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me how and you got yourself a deal! This question is worth 50 points on your final exam.

This better be true!

[TheDredd]

Because I already canceled my gmail account!!

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[sqlrob]

googlesyndication.com is the domain, IIRC, just use that as a filter (straight, no http in front of it)

I'm using Filterset.G through the extension right now, so I don't have the list I used to use any more.

Design Gaff

[umbrellasd]

The non-invasive low-key text approach of their adds was what was good about them. Now you'll have a mixed hodgepodge ("Oh, look! A bright blue square next to a bright red square!") of flashy "pay attention to me" shit. The exact type of shit that Google did not have in the past and that was so tolerable to those of us that prefer to go looking on a page for what we want rather to have it trying to rip our eyeballs out of our head.

Dumbest but most predictable change to get in bed with big money move for Google yet. This is the first time I've ever bashed Google. A big company is like a cancer. At a certain point it must grow to survive and that is when the beautiful things begin to die.

"Can we have animated images in our ads, please? Just really tiny ones...we'll pay you 20 billion dollars...please?"

Will Google be any different?

Isn't it Google based ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Clusty Google-based ?
Doesn't it mean that if it gets 'overly' popular, Google would just pull a plug on them ?

Re:Isn't it Google based ?

[spif]

Clusty is based on the Vivisimo Velocity engine

I don't understand why....

[Supergibbs]

Didn't Google purchase 5% of AOL? Why should AOL have any say on what Google does. Hopefully Google can push AOL to do things (like AIM -> Jabber). I am not too worried, so far Google hasn't become evil so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They will prob only have small icons with a kb size limit. They tend to do these things right...

-Jesse

King of bad ideas

[squoozer]

Google has lost the plot in their race to get as much money as possible. The only ads I don't block are google text ads simply because they are not overly intrusive and they don't move. If google starts using wide spread static graphical ads I will seriously consider blocking them. If the ads are animated or flash they will most certainly be blocked along with all the other google ads. The collatoral damage for google if a lot of people do this could be huge.

On the flip side though. The way for the advertisers to beat this (and I'm supprised none do this) is to make the ads appear to come from the same domain as the content. It wouldn't be hard to write an ad proxy for a site. The only down side being the extra bandwidth needed. This sort of ad proxying could be very hard to block.

Execs dont care- they've cashed out BILLIONS:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/

There's Larry Page, sipping a beer, enjoying the company of a lady that would be totally out of his league if not for the billions of dollars worth of stock he's sold. (not to mention the PERSONAL 767 jetliner tricked out like a middle eastern oil prince)

This year alone, Google insiders have sold nearly 7 billion dollars of stock. That's more than Microsoft employees sold in the first DECADE they were a public company.

That 7 billion dollars is around 7 times what Google Inc. reported as profit this year.

Google is in the business of selling stock. They are not in the business of selling advertising, or search, or email, or maps. They are in the business of selling STOCK.

If you owned a liquor store and made 99.9% of your profit through selling NOTHING BUT BOOZE, and every other week you sold a 25 cent gumball from the vending machine, would you honestly be able to claim you are running a gumball store? NO. You are running a liquor store.

The amount of stock google insiders are unloading is so far, so fast, beyond any other public company in HISTORY (yes, history) that it is beyond ridiculous.

Do you really think the top execs care anymore? If you had a billion dollars, cash, in your pocket, would you give a shit what the fanboys on slashdot thought?

Hell, even the CHEF at Google quit a while back because he earned 15 million through stock options and left to start his own restaurant. You don't think that's happening to the rank and file employees? When you have 15 million in your pocket, do you really think you're going to sit around in a cubicle all day, away from your family, just so you can eat great cafeteria food and design more complicated ways to deliver advertising?

For the first time I will be saying...

[reclusivemonkey]

...I see Google Ads.

No advertising for home page

[Damien Conlon]

The article is unclear on whether the graphical ads will appear next to the main (text) search results. I don't think they will:


One format being discussed is a box, which may include a photograph and a logo, that would appear on the main search results pages toward the bottom of the advertisements in the right-hand column. Traditional banner ads may appear on Google Image Search and the Froogle shopping site, which already include many photographs, an executive involved said. No advertising is contemplated for the Google home page.


I think having commerical graphics on pages that already display many graphics is a good compromise.

BOYCOTT will not make the investors happy

[vistic]

Deal with Investors?

I wonder how the investors would feel about this decision if a boycott was staged until Google agreed not to become an annoying clone of everyone else.

Stop the ads... boycott.

Wise Motto

[DollyTheSheep]

Google said: Don't be evil.
They didn't say: Don't be annoying.

But what, if annoying is felt as a bit like evil, too?

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Cal Paterson]

Image Adblockers are history.

If this is the case (which I don't believe it is) then i will disable all images. They're generally just eye candy anyway, and any site that uses them for navigation with leaving an ALT caption doesn't deserve my attention.

Optimism?

[gold23]

After reading all the comments with the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, I have to say this:

Given the success of Google, and the decline of AOL, isn't it possible that the flow of culture from one to the other might be primarily from Google to AOL, with Google's positive aspects effecting a positive change in AOL's behavior, rather than AOL's crassness infecting Google?

Yeah, it's hard for me to believe too. But the horse might just sing.

Flashblock sucks.

[ArmorFiend]

Flashblock sucks.
It blocks all flash except for the flash it doesn't block.
It causes firefox to crash on certain pages (e.g. links from Huffington post),
If you use firefox's built in extension updater, flashblock runs amok and corrupts your preferences.
Flashblocks uninstaller doesn't actually work, you have to fire up emacs to cleanly uninstall or upgrade it.

Run away, far away.

Re:Flashblock sucks.

[PReDiToR]

Not to mention that if you use FlashBlock with Kerio firewall (Windows free firewall) the flash won't play at all, even if you click the play button.
FlashBlock claim this is some sort of HTML rewrite that Kerio does to the page.

This should have been fixed eons ago =/

Re:Flashblock sucks.

[dave1g]

Ever since I switched to firefox 1.5 with the newest flashblock thsi has been happeneding to me also, but I dont have the firewall you speak of.

Are there any other causes of this? When I click on play the flash movies dont appear.

For the love of all that is good and holy . . .

[Amiasian]

. . . NO!
Gah. Farking capitalistic motivations corrupting a very efficient minimalist design. Sure, this might be modded as flamebait, but I don't care.
I was recently praising google for getting ads right - meaning minimalist and relevant. I hate graphical ads with a passion. Maybe this stupidity will inspire more people to download ad-blockers and discourage the use of graphical ads.

Hopefully this is just rumor, or an outcry against it will rescind this idea.

such a bad move

[mieses]

discreet html text advertising was google's biggest differentiator. if they care about their brand they should reconsider. this opens the doors for a competitor to out-simplify google.

Re:Ads in gmail

[DocSavage64109]

I just sent a test message to my work account and there weren't any ads. Granted that is just a small sample, but I wonder what is going on...

Are these image ads limited to third party sites?

[thanasakis]

It is my impression that the google search site does not (at least not yet) use image ads. I have seen image ads on third party sites that use adsense however, but that's ok because these ads are negligible compared to what other advertising firms are doing.

To me the whole point is whether they are going to be putting image ads on their search pages. If not, I really don't care, these guys have been so far extremely careful not to annoy.

Comment should be sent here

[theolein]

Google is difficult to contact directly, but they do have a public discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.suppo rt.general

Use that and let them you'll be setting yahoo as your default search engine if they start to include images.

Not good

[xnot]

I'm wondering if google isn't starting to cave in to business pressure. The demand on a company of that size to start doing unethical things is very great. I'm probably going a bit overboard, but I think if google starts introducing graphical ads people will start switching. Google is right on their "about us" pages- one of the major reasons I use them is because they are not like every other stupid company out there that bombards users with graphical, punch-the-monkey, blinking, in-your-face ad crap. There is no place on the web for stuff like that, especially when yahoo is just a click a way.

Opera Windows users

[baadger]

Ad Muncher Usage Statistics for v4.7 Build 19331/1225 *BETA*
Adverts removed by Ad Muncher: 101,443
Approximate bandwidth saved: 792 MB
Counter started: May 7, 2005

http://www.admuncher.com/ - $20 for a life time license (including new versions), well worth it.

Re:Opera Windows users

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up, butt muncher

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[drinkypoo]

Lots of sites have google and amazon ad chunks that are just a table that looks like a banner. That makes them much harder to block...

Re:Graphic ads where there since a while

[Ciaran_H]

That link was about AdSense. That was ages ago.

This is about ads next to Google's own search results.

Re:Theocracy Coming To Gulag Amerika: +1, True

[heinousjay]

I'm not going to comment on the message of your post, but...

Redumbyacan

are you even trying? That's just fucking terrible. Seriously. If you want to seem like anything more than retarded, you've gotta do better than that.

Don't be evil?

[C3ntaur]

Hah. This is just the latest in a long slide since they went public. In ten years, I predict we will be bashing Google just as much as we currently do Microsoft.

I can see it now!

[riversky]

Ads are their business model. First it will be this, then flash, then TV style ads embedded in pages for broadband users. I can see it now. Search for a hemriod product today and the next time you launch Google a cheesy TV drug commerical in a box will start playing along side your search AND a map to the drug store will pop up...This is Google's future.

Just heard on NPR about this story and they kept on referring to the "Google Empire"....Looks like they are now the new Microsoft in computing!

Have you been living under a rock?

[Ayanami Rei]

They're called SEOs.

And they obsess about Google pagerank. It's a bit of a science, nay, an arcane art, getting your term bumped up in Google search results.

They use it to farm ad impressions, amazon and eBay referrals. And they sell this service to whomever has the most change to spare.

*sigh*

It's just that Yahoo isn't hot right now for search, nor do they have that nifty SOAP API to check the results of your SEO efforts, so they aren't targeted by these internet hustlers as much.

Google becoming adversarial with customers?

[Futurepower(R)]

The end of Google?

It might be the "turning point" now.

[jZnat]

Maybe the turning point in ads that Armstrong was referring to a couple weeks ago has something to do with this?

For those playing at home

[tepples]

"Root access" is the term used in the UNIX OS for privileges that are roughly equivalent to those of the Administrators group in the Windows OS.

(Apologies to those who cannot tolerate a helpful response to an allegedly sarcastic comment.)

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Baloo Ursidae]

Y'all are trying too hard. Just get your ISP to install Adzapper on their proxy.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google

[Koiu Lpoi]

Is there anything comperable to adblock for opera? It's the only thing I miss from firefox.

Google and AOL have opposing philosophies...

[LupusCanis]

... it is my humble opinion that if this partnership continues and grows, only one of the philosophies will remain intact. Let's hope Google's is the victor. Ideally I'd like to see Google acquire AOL, but ... meh, we'll see. It's not that likely but...

The beginning of the end

[Snaller]

Make a note in your diaries.

All that ad blocking work and now this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Custom hosts file. Surf with images turned off. Surf with java turned off. Surf with javascript turned off. De-installed Flash. Allow gif images to loop only once. Carefully allow only certain sites to use javascript by default. Months spent tweaking the hosts file...

and now, after all that work...

I get jumping and dancing ads pushed in my face again?

yay.



---



Taper shank drills, silver & deming drills, surface treated jobbers length drills, polished flute jobbers drills, all high speed steel, right here