Slashdot Mirror
Why Do Contextual Ads Fail?
minstrelmike writes If we give up all our privacy on-line for contextual ads, then how come so many of them are so far off the mark? Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you. And then the online world becomes customized, just for you. The real problem with this scenario is that is we're paying for contextual ads and content with our personal data, but we're not getting what we pay for. Facebook advertising is off target and almost completely irrelevant. The question is: Why? Facebook has a database of our explicitly stated interests, which many users fill out voluntarily. Facebook sees what we post about. It knows who we interact with. It counts our likes, monitors our comments and even follows us around the Web. Yet, while the degree of personal data collection is extreme, the advertising seems totally random.
Facebook sees what we post about. It knows who we interact with. It counts our likes, monitors our comments and even follows us around the Web.
Facebook is banned here, precisely for trying that shit. Facebook domains don't resolve.
Because there's always going to be a disproportionate amount of ads delivered for those willing to spend the most money on them. If there's 30,000 users who actually like fast food, and McDonalds pays for 5 million impressions per day, people who don't like McDonalds are going to have some golden arches shoved in their face.
I don't think that there's any such thing as an advert that I actually want to see.
yeah. I know that when I look for something - like motorcycle boots, I see tons of ads for motorcycle boots. The problem - they are the SAME boots I already looked at. If I wanted THOSE I would have bought them. Give me other boots. Stupid.
Do people really still browse the web without an ad blocker plugin?
Sometimes they are downright hilarious.
One serious problem though: I see tons of advertisements for products I already purchased. Figure that one out and you've made a huge leap forward.
And allow all cookies, you'll soon see a plethora of carefully targeted ads for pretty much every site you ever visit. Like Eve Online? Visit the forums at all? You'll see adverts for Eve Online, regardless that you already subscribe. Want to buy a medical appliance for grandma, visit a couple of websites and you'll see relentless adverts for those incontinence pants no matter where you go.
And then the online world becomes customized, just for you.
Fuck that, just give me the information. I don't need no customization. There's a reason AdBlock exists.
It's bad enough we have to put up with shitty web sites 'designed' by people trying to show off how shiny, but unusable, things can be, we don't need ads trying to predict what we want adding to the damage.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Lack of creativity and decent planning when creating the campaigns is one. Secondly, there's a finite number of campaigns running at any given time, and our actual preferences will always be more refined than the messaging in the ads.
If an ad exists in the same context as that which I'm attempting to read, it's like a gnat buzzing in front of my eyes. It's a distraction, and an annoyance. Annoying those you want to reach isn't the way to communicate your message,
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
I could not disagree with this more. There is nothing "beautiful" about harvesting personal data to serve contextual ads. I doesn't matter how well-targeted the ads are -- ads are not a benefit to me at all. The real problem with this scenario is that my personal data gets harvested in the first place.
I buy stuff on Amazon all the time that it recommends to me.
I'm not on a website with articles to buy something, so the ads aren't targeted at me, no matter how custom they are.
If I'm on a Canon related site, am I going to impulse buy a camera? If I'm on a deals website, will I click on an ad? No. If they give me an extra 10% off for something I was looking to buy cheaper, then yes.
Ads aren't always random. For example, Youtube advertises alcohol to me. And only alcohol. Ever.
I don't drink.
The ads for me are always late. Here are a couple recent examples. I wanted the 5th edition D&D Players handbook. I knew about it from word of mouth within my local D&D group. I went to amazon and ordered it and a big bag-o-dice. For the next day or three, I see advertisements for stuff I have already purchased.
.I don't need any more.
I frequent a blog HomeBrew Finds which is nothing more than a listing of sales around the internet. I saw a fermentor last month and ordered it. After I ordered it, I saw adds for fermentors..
Contextual ads need to be a little more prophetic and a little less "I sold you so."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
between selling, and exploiting someone's voluntary data. not all needs are voluntary - the young, the old, and the mentally ill also use fb.
Well that's news to me, and I work in (the IT department of) one of those agencies... Which shall remain nameless because work.
Are you going to tell us next that the NSA really is respecting the law and protecting us from dangerous terrorists?!?
I don't know what you are smoking, but I definitely want some of it...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Because the advertisers overreach and try to push stuff that their audience is unlikely to want. Advertising is full of wishful thinking about how powerful adverts are etc - many advertisers seem to believe that it is simply a matter of "targeting" their adverts and then people will invariably buy, no matter whether they like, need or can afford the product. The reality, meanwhile, is probably that by far the largest part of adverts are unwelcome, simply because people were not looking to buy and they feel affronted, when they are being slapped in the face with some irrelevant distraction. If you want to sell a product, you have to persuade your customer to like you, but nobody likes SPAM, whether it comes in emails, inserted into your favourite tv-program or through your letter box, and all that kind of advertising achieves is to alienate huge numbers of potential customers.
One of my common experiences is that when I buy something online, for weeks after I get lots of ads for the thing that I just bought. In most cases, my reaction is "Why are you trying to sell this to me? I just bought one, and I won't be buying another for years."
If the folks writing the ad software can't figure out why (for durable rather than consumable goods) this doesn't make sales, it should be no surprise that all the rest of their software's decisions are equally goofy.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I know and deal with a lot of marketing people every day. People get very confused about what marketing really is... to the point that most don't really know. Marketing primary product is: Marketing
They spend about 95% of their time proving they are worth keeping around. They do things like send free gifts to 100 targets considered to be "Leads" Then, later, when a salesman makes a sale to that person they claim "See? We made that happen!" But if you ask the salesman about the deal he says "I call everyone... every month. They launched a marketing campaign for winter coats in October. Of course they bought one. The free pen had nothing to do with it."
So what did the free pen really do? Allowed marketing to run a report showing a correlation between the pen and the sale, then suggest to management that is was a CAUSE not a correlation.
So now we're going down the same rabbit hole with the internet. Want to fix it? Disprove their nonsense data. Show that this garbage doesn't work. It shouldn't be that hard given the amount of data captured. Pop-up adds generate clicks... but do they generate sales? No... and it took a while for the industry to realize that, but they did.
> contextual ads, then how come so
> many of them are so far off the mark?
Simple.
They all are based on the assumption that I want to trade my life's work/income for shit crap junk trash that will end up landfilled.
Make something useful, long-lasting, and worth having.
Amaze me.
That's what I've noticed - I shop for a 16 bay rack mount drive enclosure and for a long time afterward I'll see ads for 16 bay rack mount drive enclosures. Silly, do you think of I bought a rack mount enclosure I might be interested in better cable management for my rack, maybe drives to put in that enclosure, an IP KVM, a good deal on rack screws ... the possibilities are endless. Amazon gets it right on their product pages - people who bought this also bought these things. If I buy this, show my ads for what other people who bought X also bought, not for the exact item I bought a month ago.
So, are you shilling for the ad industry, or do you really believe this is supposed to be a good thing?
Sorry, but I'm not interested in your ads of any form, I'm not interested in targeted ads at all, and I don't trust the entities gathering this information with any of it, or that they won't abuse it.
So, screw your contextual advertising. I will continue to block every ad tracking site I can identify, block your ads, your web bugs, and everything else I can.
If you think letting unknown third parties collect information about you, put cookies on your machine so they can know everywhere else you go, run scripts, run Flash ... or pretty much anything else ... is a good idea, then you're either clueless, or getting paid from this.
I think your entire premise is flawed, or dishonest.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Oh, look, this guy just bought a new fridge. Let's show him lots of fridge ads. Oh, look he clicked one of the fridge ads! Wow, this guy is really into fridges.
Meanwhile in guy's home...
Guy: "Hmm, this fridge looks about as good as the one I bought and the price is about the same. Yeah, I feel good about my purchase. Not going to return it. See you in 15 years, fridge sellers."
Aside from lack of privacy, the main problem i have with contextual ads is: Say i go to Halfords website to buy a few things.. Later that day, i will be inundated with ads for those particular products, from halfords. Why am i being targeted for things i have just bought a hour ago? When the analytics script should catch from the checkout page that i bought these. Contextual ads are always too late for me, I am constantly seeing advertisements for things i have already bought, or have already done.
portfolio
How many contextual ads are for things the user just bought? These people are probably the *least* likely future customers.
I recently reinstalled my OS and started Chrome without AdBlock for the first time in a while. God, the internet is like walking through Times Square on an acid trip without AdBlock. It would be sadly funny if it didn't bring my browser to a crawl.
Online advertising is a waste of money as it often irritates the very people it is intended to draw in as customers. Actually searching online for something is terrible as the results you get are invariably based on page rank, not on the suitability of the product for the customer.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Noone is getting tracking information from me. I don't care if the ads are not personalized then because I don't see them anyway.
Fuck off and get a real job, marketing scum.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Why would you enable ads on the internet, unless you want to reward the site's owner ?
The problem is that I only see ads for something I'm interested in after I've bought the product and I'm not interested anymore. Last week I bought a pair of yoga socks online and now I'm being inundated for the product I just bought. I'll probably never need to buy another pair in my life so what's the point?
Really. Ads are one of the greatest vectors for malware today. Full stop. We all know this. In addition, you lose privacy due to tracking. The business model is broken. It really is.
Everyone, at a minimum, should be using: Adblock Plus and Disconnect. In addition to these, I also disallow DOM storage, CSS history, disable HTTP/S referrer, disable media peerconnect, disable prefetch, and several more things. I send all LSOs to /dev/null so I can use the site, but they think they are writing to my drive. I get the benefits with none of the drawbacks. I also disallow enumeration of my installed fonts and other information.
As a result of the 20 minutes it takes to do the above, I sail with no ads, am not subject to near as much tracking in terms of identifying me, and the Internet is clean as it should be.
Ads are hideous business model. If you cannot be online with money because you actually don't have a product, you should find another way IMO. A year's worth of hosting is very little becoz most hosts offer unlimited bandwidth these days.
Lots and lots of NewEgg.
All of the time.
Forever.
You can never get away...
If you are selling cat toys, it's not that hard to select people that own/are interested in cats.
Same thing with baby food.
But those companies don't need to advertise on the internet that much, because there are much better ways and places to advertise them.
If however, you are selling a dating service, that is much harder to advertise for. Same for boner pills, etc.
Frankly, there simply are not enough people doing web searches for boner pills or dating websites for facebook to give the advertisers what they want.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I have my way of shopping. It just doesn't involve clicking ads. 100% of ads are assumed to either be scams, or they're going to higher-priced since they're having to pay for snake oi-- er I mean-- ads.
I'm probably going to buy a couple Teensy 3.1 boards in the next few months. But every penny you spend showing me an ad for that, is a wasted penny. Your ad isn't going to get me to buy it; I've already decided to buy it and I'll get it when and where I get it.
The dark side of all this: I work in advertising. Every penny I spend on my Teensy, is a penny that someone else spent on an ad.
Look, the truth is that sometimes you get businesses who want to advertise, and they will pay bucketloads for each person coming because of the ad. And because the return is high, FB or whoever will 'drop the threshold' to 'shotgun' the ad campaign, much like ads during the superbowl. Sure some Football Fans have high blood pressure, are overweight and diabetic or pre-diabetic. That doesn't stop the beer and pizza ads with the scantily clad, corn-fed young women with the big pom poms. Call it a cold call if you like; a flyer in the mailbox; a sign behind a plane.
A few years ago I stopped watching cable. I literally cancelled my cable and went to totally online tv viewing. I don't watch sports so it really wasn't a tough transition. However I do find that I miss new movies coming out, I'm unaware of the hot new car, or what the latest bestseller is. I used to get all this info in the advertising I'd watch on TV. In some ways I do miss it. I think OP is saying that contextual adds should be doing a better job of informing us as to what we would enjoy spending our money on, instead of showing us ads for stuff we will never buy. Since advertising is how both tv and web are essentially "paid for" why isn't the advertising better?
Let's just get this out of the way: I, for one, am happy that I never get tampon ads online.
Ads are chosen by advertisers, not some personal shopping assistant. The ads I've seen on FB and Youtube (which is where I actually see most of the online ads) tend to be at least tangentially related to my life. Tech stuff that I might actually be interested in. Concerts for genres I like. I know that they're trying to sell me stuff that I don't have* so there will be misses. YT ads normally allow a bypass after 5 seconds. There have been two cases in the last month that I've watched the whole ad, because it happened to be something I was interested in or wanted more information about (but not badly enough to go look it up). That's an advertising win right there.
Except LG. I've seen more ads for the G3 that I already own on FB than for possibly any other single product. Note to LG marketing: I'm not going to buy a second one just for fun; you can stop.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I've always maintained that a large part of advertising's influence extends way beyond the purchase of specific products. It creates a context and a culture of expectation, desire, and need, such that an advertisement for one product may in fact sub-consciously prompt you to buy another, entirely different kind of product. If advertisers are pissing off buyers with targeted ads for items already purchased, aren't they poisoning the entire advertising ecosystem, both for themselves and for other advertisers?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I crowdsourced some questions about contextual advertising and contextual content on Google+. It was an unscientific survey, of course. But several strong consensuses formed that perfectly matched my own observations.
How un-surprising.
The geek preens himself for his rigorous logic and mathematical literacy ---
but will swallow an utterly worthless blog spam post like this without a second thought,
We've been sold the false promise of only being shown ads for stuff we want. But figuring out what we "want" isn't a matter of profiling. It is an AI problem because "want" is a human thing not an analytical thing. Until we get AI's smart enough to be human, we'll never have the promise of ads for stuff we really want. And if we do get that kind of AI, it will probably get bored as hell doing that job and quit.
What is already happening is that contextual ads are turning to the same old advertising tactic of creating a need. And they are getting a whole lot better at it. It is called "micro-targetting." Until recently ads have been broadly targetted, if you are selling diapers show happy babies and happy mothers. But now they can show babies that look like your baby - same race, age, hair-color, eye-color even the environment can match yours (if your are middle-class the ad will be set in middle-class home, if you are a 1%er the ad will be shot in a mansion). Or if they are selling beer, not only do they show you bikini babes, they show you bikini babes that look a lot like your ex-girlfriends with emphasis on the ones you had the longest relationships with or maybe the ones where you spent the most disposable income while dating.
But it can get more pernicious than that. Imagine they've figured out you have a father and a brother who are alcoholics, given that alcoholism is partially genetic they'll know to push alcohol ads at you much more heavily because if you bite, chances are you'll end up buying a lot of alcohol. Or what if they know you are a smoker, but they notice that you've bought any smokes in the last month. Time to really push hard on ads for cigarettes, maybe with extra-filtering so you can feel better about buying them since they aren't "as bad" as your old brand.
This is the future of advertising - not informing you of cool stuff, but of pressing your buttons to trick you into spending money that you wouldn't have spent otherwise.
Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you.
Leaving the "privately and securely" bit to other commenters who will roundly correct you, I'm sure.
I've done personalized targeting of ads, and it is not necessarily a beautiful thing. The problem is a mismatch in the objectives of the advertiser, the objectives of the consumer, and the GDP maximizing outcome.
The GDP maximizing outcome is the thing that maximizes the total satisfaction of wants for the entire society. In theory, that should match the objective of the consumer. In practice, it does not, because the consumer is rarely perfectly informed or perfectly rational. Flaws at this level result in reduced consumer satisfaction, which result in reduced economic activity, and lackluster GDP growth in the long run.
In advertising, these flaws can be either explicitly or implicitly induced. The explicit way is the world of Edward Bernays and the world of PR; a fascinating subject in its own right. The advertisement targeting mismatch is about how success is measured and iterated into the targeting algorithm.
The personalized advertiser's objective is generally either to maximize revenue or earnings during the run of the ad campaign. This results in short-run oriented behavior which can be significantly mismatched with maximal satisfaction -- not necessarily intentionally, but because the system has no regard for satisfaction. Consumer satisfaction doesn't go into the algorithm explicitly and since campaign success can be most easily measured in the relative short run (did this impression result in a sale during the 30 day window that the customer is considered "owned" by this ad campaign), long run satisfaction cannot even show up implicitly. Most notably, impulse purchasing is strongly favored by the most profitable ad personalization strategies.
Ad personalization is good for short term revenue or earnings (or whatever is being measured), but it is not very good for long run GDP. From a strict economic standpoint, algorithmic targeting optimizes for flashy, shoddy products.
I know, because I did it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Mostly it shows me ads for things I've purchased recently. I recently bought a car. Now I see ads for that car everywhere online all the time.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't understand all the comments expressing bafflement as to why you get ads for something you already purchased. The contextual advertising company has no access to your purchase history... if they are going to serve an ad, guessing that you might have already not made a purchase is not a bad start. Is it usually wrong? Sure! Most ads are ineffective. But it's way better than showing the same ad to some random schmuck.
And why do you see Amazon ads after you've already purchased something from Amazon? Well, if you did ANY web browsing at all about it prior to the purchase, it likely got picked up by a contextual advertising company, which, again, has no access to your purchase history, and therefore has no idea they are serving an Amazon ad for something you already bought. The ad may not even be paid for by Amazon; it could just as easily be an affiliate marketer.
The problem is that the data collection is assuming the same user by trying to associate different things. However, we tend to share systems more, making it extremely difficult to validate that any given "user" is the same "user". It's the same as any authentication problem where more than one person uses the same credentials.
And that doesn't even get into the multi-faceted view of the human psyche - we where different hats at different times for different activities, and those don't always jive well together; in fact, they're often in conflict with each other - a conflict that even us non-computers have a hard time justifying, let alone trying to code it up into a way that computers could figure it out.
All-in-all, this completely screws up the "contextual" part. Whether because the account is being used by several literal people (Jane, Bob, Sue, and Alfonso), or several figurative people (Jane as Jane, Jane as Janie, Jane as Jan, etc) all using the same accounts.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Steam shows me ads for _games_ when I log in. Some look interesting so I'll add them to my wishlist for when they go on sale.
I'll tolerate the ads on Steam because they show ONE THING that I'm interested in: Games.
If they started showing ads for other shit there would be a huge uproar.
So fail? It depends on the
a) Audience
b) The *type* of ads -- HOW relevant are they?
Aaargh, http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/10/07/1513255/why-do-contextual-ads-fail?nobeta=1 does NOT work without javascript enabled. Can you slashdot developers primarily please just kill off this horrible beta thing, or secondarily fix ?nobeta=1 to work flawlessly under all circumstances!
It's not only this.
The main issue is that the systems generally show the "best match" rather than showing only ads that meet a minimum threshold. So if no one is paying to advertise anything you are interested in you get ads you're not interested in. Similarly you'll get the same vaguely relavent ad all over because it's the only one close to matching your predicted interests.
Additionally people frequently provide junk info which cause them to get badly targeted ads, or claim that ads are badly targeted because they don't want to admit that they're seeing ads for Tinkerbell movies because they bought "My little Pony" DVDs, etc. This can also happen when multiple people with divergent interest share a computer (say a family).
There's also a lot of targeted ad systems that are just badly designed; lack distinctions between durable goods and consumable goods (show ads for other brands of camera because you just bought a camera), or don't try to predict what you want and simply show random stuff from stores you've visited recently.
This is because all slashdotters refuse cookies, have ad blockers and everything else possible to be anonymous. If they can't do any tracking, all you are going to get acai berry ads. If you come over to the dark side you can get the awesome deals from Thinkgeek.
Facebook is not trying to accurately place adverts only to the people who would want to buy the advertised good.
Facebook is trying to sell adverts.
If they can say 'targeted ads have a 30% higher click-rate' - then that may be enough to get people to buy them.
Even if it's off-topic for 95% of the people it's shown to.
...which means tracking algorithm are still in infancy or I am a freaking good pretender. They just cant seem to target my real interests.
yes i'm 46 and single but none of the dating sites marketed to me on facebook were credible organizations capable of helping me to find a mate. and no, my penis works fine so spam offering me pills for my dick is just bothersome noise which i tune out.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing.
Who writes this? Personalized ads are creep-tatstic they scream to their victim ... **WE'RE STALKING YOU**
They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you.
Except of course the next person who uses the computer.
"Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing."
You must be insane. Nobody thinks contextual ads are a good thing or a benefit except advertisers and those who sell advertising. Advertising sucks, contextual advertising sucks even more because they are gathering and harvesting my data.
Why? Facebook has a database of our explicitly stated interests, which many users fill out voluntarily. Facebook sees what we post about. It knows who we interact with. It counts our likes, monitors our comments and even follows us around the Web. Yet, while the degree of personal data collection is extreme, the advertising seems totally random.
"Facebook sees what we post about" - You have your answer right there.
Do you more often post:
"Hey, check out my new iPhone", after which you'll receive a deluge of ads for phones and carriers... Or...
"Gee I sure could use a new mouse - Should I go with a Logitech LS1, a Microsoft Natural 6000, or the el-cheapo HP X4000?".
In my experience, most people do the former, not the latter, while basing ads off products you mention would only work well for the latter.
Of course, all that assumes you even post about yourself. You might mention that your mother needs a new car (resulting in a flood of car ads that do you no good), or your cats, or just random news clips you saw.
I don't watch much live TV, but when I do, I have the habit of pressing the "Mute" button during commercial breaks - I figure have better things to do than self-indoctrinate into the culture of consumerism. However, I'm always amazed by peoples reactions to my muting the television. Many people respond, "OMG!? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?! I'M TRYING TO WATCH THE COMMERCIALS!!!!" Few, if any say "Hey, that's a great idea!" Do people actually want to see the schlock that fills the commercial breaks? I'm baffled.
I went to visit my parents the other day and used my dad's computer to to look for a a part for his car. It was the first time in about 7 years that I've used a computer without adblock/noscript. To me, the flashing banners, ugly pictures in the middle of the page, and annoying popovers made his computer virtually unsuable. How can people actually be productive with so much ads? Yet, when I asked if I should install adblock for him, he said, "No, sometimes they have interesting things." I do not understand.
I understand that companies that develop new and innovative products need to have a way to bring them into the public's eye, but I would more likely to buy something that is mentioned in an article and has decent reviews by third parties than I would be to buy something based on the fact a flashing window popped over the window I was trying to type in. How is all this time and effort placed into advertizing actually causing a result? Are people (sheeple?) really that gullible?
Ads, by their very nature cannot be personalized. Unless they are being generated on the fly by some very clever AI, all you're getting is an ad that targets you as part of a group. And you can be lumped into that group pretty much willy-nilly, because of ONE data-point.
For example. I am on Facebook. My status is SINGLE. Yet, I have made very clear on my posts, and me NOT liking "match.com" and other dating sites ads, that dating sites are all scams. I've tried at least 75% of them and they all suck. In fact, they pretty much did the opposite, they convinced me it wasn't worth my time to even try anymore. And I've made that CLEAR via many Facebook posts.
However, Facebook doesn't read my posts; all they need is to see that my status is SINGLE, and I'm inundated with dating site ads. Because of that ONE data-point, I'm lumped into a group that gets served that ad for that product.
Nothing about it is "personalized" and I doubt it will ever be because no "product" exists for single guys who believe that dating sites are a scam and a waste of time. And therefore, I am served the ad that comes in as the closest match given Facebook's limited set of advertisers.
Other things facebook should know about me but doesn't, is my interest in vintage volkswagens. But no such advertisers exist for facebook, so it ignores this data-point entirely.
The point is that people are too diverse to ever have truly targeted advertising.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I've seen some really cool ads that were right on target - like the time I played a James May video on YouTube and the ad that popped up was for an electron microscope. I couldn't begin to afford the one the advertiser wanted me to buy, but I actually did poke around eBay to see if there were any old ones out there I might be able to afford. I've hit paydirt many times when Amazon and others pointed out "people who bought this also bought..."
That's the way it's supposed to work.
Then there are the way off base ads. I wonder if they are genuinely being blasted out to everybody, or if I fall off too many if-then-elses for anything more relevant to come up. These ads are invariably back-of-the-comics and/or cable tv infomercial quality, like the perennial "weird trick for belly fat" ads. I suppose I get those because Facebook et al know I'm a woman.
That's the deal we made, I suppose. A quasi-free internet supported by advertising. And, like all things, 99% of internet advertising is crap.
...laura
Advertising is not all about creating a purchase right then and there.
Repeated exposure to advertising changes your brain. I would like to think that /. is comprised of an elite group impervious to the advertising, but we are not. We like to think we make informed purchasing decisions based on reviews et al., but really our brain favors the messaging its received. We can't help it, cognitive function can only go so far against hard-wired pathways, pathways that change with each repeated viewing.
I'm not talking about subliminal adverts here, just straight ahead psychology.
The same psychology is encoded into the advertising algorithms. It's far from perfect, but it's not so direct as I looked on a website and then got an ad for products on that website.
Remember, too, it's a long game. Sure, I just bought a computer, why advertise one now? Well, I'm gonna buy another on in the future. Why not capitalize now on my buyer's remorse? After seeing enough ads, and other marketing exposure, I may have a subconscious preference for your brand next time.
Also, some advertising is super-effective. Apple's for example. Their image association techniques are beyond compare. Another example is Phish. Both companies are expert at identity association. Their products are very effectively designed to enhance that association.
"And then the online world becomes customized, just for you."
That is not true. it becomes the internet YOU want. Here's a hint, the vast majority of people surfing the internet are not here to maker YOU rich. I/WE am under no obligations to click ads. I/WE are under no obligation to buy stuff you have for sale or advertise. That's is what you need to get through your thick skulls. Spying makes people pissed off claiming humans cant or wont look at the data is 100% an untruth and we know its for sale to the highest bidders. You are not doing this for us your doing it for you. We already know that, you don't.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Whoever wrote this evidently has never used the internet nor Facebook.
Facebook contextual ads are COMPLETELY on target. They take your browser history and open tabs up until the current nanosecond and use them to funnel ads to you in Facebook for the exact same thing you SO COINCIDENTALLY happened to be looking at 2 minutes ago on Amazon.
Contextual ads fail because people all people aren't fucking retarded. They know you're tracking the shit out of them and they don't appreciate it. Those who do either use Tor, or extensive privacy software, or alternatively, they get on FB and see the same shit they just looked at and purposely ignore it because it's disgusting.
People don't actually fit the marketing stereotypes (buckets) we try to shove them into.
Marketing stereotypes are useful in writing programs, but not in understanding people per se.
There's your problem.
I laugh at advertising that incorrectly thinks I'm gay or smoke MJ, when I do neither. I just like freedom.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The right context is the content user interacts with at this very moment, and not anything to do with the user profile. User profile targeted ads are waste of money, caused by the barrage of digital consultant's four-squares of successful companies in the digital age.
They gather information about you, then they adapt their ads to that. I googled for a printer 12 months ago. I bought a printer 12 months ago. I still get printer ads for those printers today.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Makes perfect sense as a sentence gramatically and semantically, but fails to understand idioms and context. One of my favorites of this in action can be seen here. The software did an excellent job matching duck to duck, but it ends up being entirely inappropriate because it doesn't understand the context the ad is placed in.
Just goes to show that while we like to see ourselves as logical, not everything can be figured out through logic, and sometimes trying to apply logical rules can create the biggest failures. And unfortunately, logic also does not come naturally as well, but is something which has to be learned.
Whether "fanboys" or well informed, the fact is we are biased about what we know and the products we use. BMW vs Audio, Sony vs Nintendo, iOS vs Android. Show us ads for a category of something we are already familiar with and we'll immediately be skeptical of it due to our personal experiences with products in that category. The better ad is on that shows you something you are not familiar with and have not yet thought about, thus the ad gets you thinking about it and will have a greater chance that you'll click the ad for more information about it.
Ads don't work on nerds though since we all use AdBlock and are too skeptical of everything and everyone on Earth having grown up with the knowledge that everyone and everything is full of bullshit.
I have a 22 in wide screen monitor. My brain ignores the right one third of the screen. Ad and flash blockers and Noscript keep most annoying things at bay.
There are I think 2 reasons why companies market:
1). To obtain new sales, ones they would not make without marketing. By nature and purpose then, the ads for this must go to people who are not currently buying that product from that company. The conversion rate here is never going to be perfect though and for customers not persuaded, the ads can get irritating quickly;
2). To lock in existing customers. You are targeting current standing and existing buying arrangements to prevent straying to a competitor. This likely has to be subtle because unless these customers are actively looking elsewhere, they will start to wonder why their attention is being called to something they might not be thinking much about.
Much modern commerce is built upon an unspoken assumption, which is that consumer attention is unlimited and marketing needs to command that unlimited space. The customers just want to be educated!
But I don't think that's true. Marketing can easily cross the line into overbearing used car salesman territory.
This is a well known practice in advertising companies. Targeting advertising that's too accurate is creepy, so they filter in junk content so you don't feel uncomfortable. Here's an interesting article about the practice: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I think theyre suggesting what you watch on Youtube can only be enjoyed drunk...
This article gives advertisers way too much credit. When we hear "advertiser," we think of the big corporations with big ad budgets, who might actually care about relefant ads. Lots of Internet advertisers are just a guy with a computer, mucking around trying to make a quick buck. They put together bots that generate ads for every imaginable keyword, spraying them all over the Internet indiscriminately. The framework for placing ads in a relevant way might be there, but these guys work really hard to find loopholes, to game the system. Much of the time, they don't even care if you buy something, they just want clicks, because that's what they get paid for.
People run businesses where the *only* source of new customers are those targeted ads that apparently "don't work". Clearly, they work well enough, for some people.
If you look at engagement rings, the internet will be filled with engagement ring ads for a week. Obviously, you'll ignore most of them (unless you buy a thousand rings?), but those companies would have gone broke if it wasn't working. They're spending a lot of cash. The thing is, those ads might cost something like $5 per thousand "impressions". If the average sale nets you $300, it's worth your while if the ad works at a rate better than once per 60,000 views. A lot of these companies carefully tweak their bid prices, and sometimes make no sales for long periods because they've been outbid in the areas they're targeting.
Would it be worth running those ads with no targeting? Probably not. People don't buy that many engagement rings in their life. Jewelry companies have always carefully placed ads so that they'd be seen by people who were likely to actually buy jewelry.
Facebook stalks you constantly. I have searched for items on Amazon and Googled items that promptly are advertised to me on Facebook - the exact item, from the exact vendor. They are tracking what goes on in other tabs.
I read this "article" and it was as rubbish as it claims contextual advertising is. I wish I hadn't found this on Slashdot. I've only recently started coming here, but this is not the kind of crap I want to spend my time reading. Whoever posted this didn't consider that someone like me actually expects there to be an answer to the question, especially when the link is on a site that would appear to have some thought put into it, unlike much of the content on CNet/ZNet or other grossly verbose, fluff-filled websites that pass for technology "news".
Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you. And then the online world becomes customized, just for you.
This is not my definition of a "beautiful thing". "Privately and securely"? Only if you really trust what the right hand (PR) to tell us what the left hand (advertisers) are actually doing. And an online world that is "customized, just for you" is an online world where nobody shares the same experience. We are being increasingly isolated from each other based on our own poorly conceived personal preferences, more and more incapable of forming a powerful social consensus, and you call this a "beautiful thing"?
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
If there are four people in your household then LG wants to sell all of them a G3.
If you don't want Peter Noone to track you, perhaps you should stop listening to Herman's Hermits.
Disable DOM storage and you won't be able to use web applications offline because they will have no way of storing the changes you made to sync once you are online again. And several web games save the campaign state to DOM storage, such as Cookie Clicker. Enjoy starting over every time. Disable Referer and you end up disabling images entirely on sites that use anti-hotlinking scripts. And hosting isn't the only expense; what business model should sites use to pay writers?
My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do these 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That'd be illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do these 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That'd be illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do these 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That'd be illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
If "consumer" is a bad word, then what's a better term for someone who buys a good or service without the intent of using it to produce and sell another good or service?
Your hosts file program is worthless. For example, it won't do a fucking thing about the forum spam you post everywhere. Fuck off and die faggot....apk
Why can't you validly disprove apk's points on hosts superiority vs. AdBlock http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?
My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do these 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That'd be illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk