Slashdot Mirror
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.
What ever happened to 'Don't be Evil' ?
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
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.
... but we'll all take it in stride, since we have no other choice, I guess...
Financially, it's a good move. They get a lot of traffic, it's good money.
Socially, perhaps not such a wise choice.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
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.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
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.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
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]
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
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.
Titus Barik
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...
I kill harmless processes for sport
http://www.customizegoogle.com/
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!
Using plain ol' text since 1968
Are they evil now?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
TANSTAAFL
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.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
The day they break out the flash ads or the javascript overlays is the day I get the shark tank ready for their jump.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
go get it
Check out this article from 2004:
s -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?'.
http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2004/10/google
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?
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.
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.
Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax