Unfortunately, common sense does not mean the same thing for the average user, as it does for people on Slashdot.
Based on responses to Over half the people said yes and claimed that I was stupid for being suspicious of strange boxes showing up at my door. such as: Then you are stupid for being suspicious of strange boxes showing up at your door. it apparently does mean the same thing.
The thing is, if an ad were presented the way I'd prefer, I'd probably never see it. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be much of an ad at all. It would be part of a larger site/index where I could browse at my leisure when I was in the market for whatever is being sold. Like www.pricewatch.com
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'd like that too. I'm trying to explain how targeting is (or could be) a step in that direction.
We're not talking about all advertising moving to a certain, presumably less intrusive, format.
Correct, we're talking about some advertising moving to a certain, presumably less intrusive, format. When I'm on Amazon.com, I'm not watching TV ads. As Internet usage increases, other media decline, such as print and TV. So you won't see those ads anymore. This kind of thing is already happening with services like onDemand TV and TiVo, for example. I can watch a show when I want, without commercial interruption.
we'd just be flooded with more "less intrusive" ads
Well, that's partly a separate problem, one of more ads. That is occurring without targeting, and yes, it could occur even with your definition of targeting (again, to me a targeted ad is one that you would want to see, so if you're seeing and ad you don't want to, it's not targeted correctly). But targeting by your definition is not the cause of an increase in ads, it's just a different type of ad, which is presumably less annoying. It is the ability to select which ad you see, nothing more. How can that be bad? I don't want to be "flooded" with ads, and neither does anyone else. Eventually, people will stop looking, and the value of advertising will drop.
So you think that the people who sell ad space are just going to leave blank spaces between ads because the individual advertisers feel that they shouldn't bombard a certain person with ads?
Some of them, yes. If "running" that ad will cost them more than they will gain by not running it.
You know what angers me? The distraction of advertising.
Me too. I can't stand it either. I suppose you could say that an ad that is more intersting is therefore more diverting and more annoying to you, but if it is a choice between something I wouldn't mind seeing and something I have no desire to see, I know which I'll choose. The point of targeting is all about showing people information they're receptive to when they're receptive to it. I suppose you could choose ads that are more easily ingored by you, but since that defeats the whole purpose of advertising, it would be up to you to find a way to translate that into sales.
A rare exception, for sure.
For now, maybe; but as things progress it should move more in that direction.
In conclusion, nothing is perfect, so there's no way to make everybody like it, and I wouldn't begin to try. I can only explain what I like about it, and why I think most people would find it beneficial. If it works for most people, but not you, then I guess it is a bad thing for you. I can't fault you for pointing that out.
why should targetted advertisement be less annoying? Instead of "punching the monkey" for stuff I am not interested in, I will be asked to "punch the monkey" for stuff I might be interested in gee. I feel warm and fuzzy already.
Well, by my definiton of "targeted" that ad wouldn't have been properly targeted. The presentation is just as important as the subject matter, and something marketers pay attention to (though they may not call it targeting). I suppose what we're talking about here as modern targeted advertising is that which is customized for the individual. Ads have been "targeted" for certain "demographics" and such for a very long time.
My idea of a targeted ad for me is one that isn't annoying in and of itself and the product or service is something I am interested in (even if I don't want to buy it). Google's text ads come to mind as a good example of such advertising. They are (generally) related to what I am looking for at the time. Amazon's recommendations are probably even better, because when I'm on Amazon.com, I'm already shopping. I think I've even bought some things that way. You can customize them by removing things you are not interested in. Again, that works for me. Results for others naturally will vary. The point is to use what works by talioring the ads (or even lack thereof) to the individual, thereby making them less intrusive.
Your idea that targetting means less advertising is false.
Not necessarily. Suppose it was determined that certain people actually paid more attention to ads (or more importantly to a marketer, were more likely to buy) when viewed less often? This would be another part of ad customization, or "targeting" as I see it.
No one advertiser can control how much advertising I am exposed to. It just isn't in their power.
True, but they can to some extent control how many of their ads you see. So, theoretically, if you bought inversely proportional to the amount of advertising you saw, the advertising should match that as best it can; those companiess that have products/services you value, and manage no show you no ads or as few as reasonably possible, get business and prosper. Those that don't, get less business, ideally they either get the picture or go out of business due to wasting money on showing you (and others like you) ads, or by showing people he wrong kind of ads. You see, they'll have to be able to keep up with the more profitible companies that are doing it right. Sure, nothing is ideal, so ads won't go away, but if it's being done correctly, you will at least see fewer ads.
Why would I be less pissed off getting 100 adverts for stuff I am not going to buy (although I might technically be interested in them) vs. getting 100 adverts for stuff I am not interested in?
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see something I'm interested in than something I'm not; therefore I'd be less angered. Logically, I think most people would feel that way.
I'm still not buying (most of) it. It is still taking up screen real estate. It is still interuping my TV viewing, etc, etc. It isn't the specific content of advertisment that pisses me off. It is the presentation.
If your "need" is to not see it at all, then the best targeted ad for you is no ad. The act of determining that you don't want to see it, is what I'd call, "targeting." If you've ever signed on to some web service that has several checkboxes about things they want e-mail you, and you've selected, "no thanks," to all of them, then you have participated. If they weren't targeted, you'd be getting all of them.
Right, because no school districts in the U.S. have banned Harry Potter books because they have the "occult" in them.
And Catcher in the Rye is just a favorite all over this great land of ours.
Don't forget that racist Mark Twain and remember that we need to ban his books.
And Janet Jackon's boob. Nobody gets upset over a middle-aged saggy boob on TV. It hardly rates a notice, in fact.
I never mentioned any of that.
None of those things proves any sort of evil conspiracy by the U.S. Government.
So yeah. Those radical loonies are just making stuff up again.
I didn't say anything about "making stuff up." I implied that you'd have to be crazy to believe that the article was proof of some evil plot.
Normally I wouldn't reply to such things, especially posted anonymously, but I had to thank you for proving my point by anonymously posting such an irrational post.
bought by driving 20 meters in my SUV to the doughnut store
What? You didn't have them delivered?
Wait... meters? America doesn't have those. Unless maybe you were driving 20 parking meters? I see why you would need an SUV for that, though I don't know why you would want to take them to the doughnut store. Perhaps to steal the change to pay for the doughnuts?
You're yelling "generating better results" as if that were some laudable goal.
No, he's yelling it because you do not understand that targeted advertising is better (i.e. works better, gets better results for the people who buy the ads, the whole purpose of advertising) precisely because it LESS ubiquitous and annoying.
In other words, targeting is good, because good marketing/advertising people know that they can sell more by advertising to people who want it, in the way they want it. It's exactly that sort of thing you are asking for. You want less advertisement. GOOD marketers will use that information and realize that giving you more ads will be a wasted effort, perhaps even backfiring; therefore, you will get what you want, fewer ads. But they can't do that without finding out somehow that you want less of it (believe it or not, people have different tastes/tolerances for this sort of thing, and marketers are not mind-readers; so they have to ask, or get you to tell them).
The whole point of targeted advertising is not NOT piss you off with ads about things you have no interest in.
I hope the lawyers tear the city apart for wrongful dismissal.
Well, first they'd have to actually dismiss her.
She is clearly a victim.
No, based on the very short article (which you either did not read or did not understand), it's not clear at all.
One important thing missing from the/. blurb is that the library patron in question was a registered sex offender, downloading child pornography.
That being said, the article simply doesn't say how this could have been the librarian's fault. In fact, the City Commissioner declined to comment on it. Perhaps the librarian helped this individual to obtain said illegal materials. We just don't know. We have no evidence one way or the other, so it makes no sense to jump to conclusions.
Of course, this kind of thing gets posted to/. where tinfoil-hat-wearing radical loonies can site it as some sort of "proof" of an evil U.S. agenda/conspiracy. Not that anyone subscribing to such a viewpoint could be swayed by a rational argument.
Usually what the bank does at this point is demand you pay them a large sum of money so that the outstanding balance on the loan is roughly the value of the house again. So I hope you have $20k or more handy if this happens to you.
Since a mortgage is a contract, as long as the borrowers hold up their end of it, the bank actually has no right to demand such a chunk of money unless it's written into the contract.
The situation may be somewhat more risky for the bank, but why would the bank want to foreclose on a deal (which is providing them a return) when they will make more money by keeping the agreement?
A bank is MUCH more likely to foreclose when you only owe a little bit on the loan, because they'll get the entire house, which is worth many times what you owe.
I would guess that the reason for preferring distilled water would be concern for impurities in the fuel, but I hadn't thought about the difficulty of electrolyzing a substance that doesn't conduct electricity well.
I can speak from personal experience on that one. I wrote a Tetris game just for the fun/challenge of it. This was after I made a text adventure as a programming assignment (the assignment was make a text adventure) as part of a regular programming class (not a games-oriented elective). If I were teaching a class in game (or even other complex) programming, a Tetris clone would definitely be an assigned project.
Do I say everyone should be making the types of games I like?
Ah, but what if NO ONE made the types of games that you like, and you didn't have the ability (for whatever reason, e.g. lack of time, computing skill, money, etc.) to make your own? What then would be wrong with asking (not demanding) for someone to make games you like?
Now if this is what the author is suggesting, I think it is a good idea.
If you wish to repost this thread at The World Forum, go ahead. I tried to sign up during the recent upgrade, but I did get a log-on afterwords. I'm not too sure how much I'll be contributing due to the aforementioned time consumption. I'll do what I can.
I know I said I was done, but I just wanted to clear up a misunderstanding. (I told myself I'd only respond to clear up a misunderstanding or if you suggested another forum.)
You hate it?
What you and I have done with our discussion? Absolutely not. It's more that I feel it is off topic, and what I object to is much of the more inflammitory (or one-sided) stuff that gets modded up aroud here (it wasn't your inital comment that dragged me into this, it was the insightful, though still somewhat off-topic, stuff that came later). I think you'll find that people like you and I that discuss things rationally are a minority.
That's unfortunate because you argue very well. Discussing with you has been very interesting. Too often discussions on these issues degenerate into anger. Your arguments have been thought-provoking.
Thank you.
I give you the link anyway, just in case you like such discussions as long as they are on-topic.
I appreciate that. I've been developing a similar site myself (been wanting to for a long time). I'd love to discuss this further in another forum.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a gag partly because Dames Doohan refused to be on the show. James's response was "No way."
I heard this from one of the series's writers (who also showed a rough cut of Route of All Evil) at a convention before the show aired.
Nice album! I think I'll buy it. I hope you get many more sales from your plug. No shame necessary.
See (or not):
caters to a intelligent demographic
. . . or at least a demographic that thinks it is intelligent.
Unfortunately, common sense does not mean the same thing for the average user, as it does for people on Slashdot.
Based on responses to Over half the people said yes and claimed that I was stupid for being suspicious of strange boxes showing up at my door. such as: Then you are stupid for being suspicious of strange boxes showing up at your door. it apparently does mean the same thing.
The thing is, if an ad were presented the way I'd prefer, I'd probably never see it. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be much of an ad at all. It would be part of a larger site/index where I could browse at my leisure when I was in the market for whatever is being sold. Like www.pricewatch.com
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'd like that too. I'm trying to explain how targeting is (or could be) a step in that direction.
We're not talking about all advertising moving to a certain, presumably less intrusive, format.
Correct, we're talking about some advertising moving to a certain, presumably less intrusive, format. When I'm on Amazon.com, I'm not watching TV ads. As Internet usage increases, other media decline, such as print and TV. So you won't see those ads anymore. This kind of thing is already happening with services like onDemand TV and TiVo, for example. I can watch a show when I want, without commercial interruption.
we'd just be flooded with more "less intrusive" ads
Well, that's partly a separate problem, one of more ads. That is occurring without targeting, and yes, it could occur even with your definition of targeting (again, to me a targeted ad is one that you would want to see, so if you're seeing and ad you don't want to, it's not targeted correctly). But targeting by your definition is not the cause of an increase in ads, it's just a different type of ad, which is presumably less annoying. It is the ability to select which ad you see, nothing more. How can that be bad? I don't want to be "flooded" with ads, and neither does anyone else. Eventually, people will stop looking, and the value of advertising will drop.
So you think that the people who sell ad space are just going to leave blank spaces between ads because the individual advertisers feel that they shouldn't bombard a certain person with ads?
Some of them, yes. If "running" that ad will cost them more than they will gain by not running it.
You know what angers me? The distraction of advertising.
Me too. I can't stand it either. I suppose you could say that an ad that is more intersting is therefore more diverting and more annoying to you, but if it is a choice between something I wouldn't mind seeing and something I have no desire to see, I know which I'll choose. The point of targeting is all about showing people information they're receptive to when they're receptive to it. I suppose you could choose ads that are more easily ingored by you, but since that defeats the whole purpose of advertising, it would be up to you to find a way to translate that into sales.
A rare exception, for sure.
For now, maybe; but as things progress it should move more in that direction.
In conclusion, nothing is perfect, so there's no way to make everybody like it, and I wouldn't begin to try. I can only explain what I like about it, and why I think most people would find it beneficial. If it works for most people, but not you, then I guess it is a bad thing for you. I can't fault you for pointing that out.
why should targetted advertisement be less annoying? Instead of "punching the monkey" for stuff I am not interested in, I will be asked to "punch the monkey" for stuff I might be interested in gee. I feel warm and fuzzy already.
Well, by my definiton of "targeted" that ad wouldn't have been properly targeted. The presentation is just as important as the subject matter, and something marketers pay attention to (though they may not call it targeting). I suppose what we're talking about here as modern targeted advertising is that which is customized for the individual. Ads have been "targeted" for certain "demographics" and such for a very long time.
My idea of a targeted ad for me is one that isn't annoying in and of itself and the product or service is something I am interested in (even if I don't want to buy it). Google's text ads come to mind as a good example of such advertising. They are (generally) related to what I am looking for at the time. Amazon's recommendations are probably even better, because when I'm on Amazon.com, I'm already shopping. I think I've even bought some things that way. You can customize them by removing things you are not interested in. Again, that works for me. Results for others naturally will vary. The point is to use what works by talioring the ads (or even lack thereof) to the individual, thereby making them less intrusive.
Your idea that targetting means less advertising is false.
Not necessarily. Suppose it was determined that certain people actually paid more attention to ads (or more importantly to a marketer, were more likely to buy) when viewed less often? This would be another part of ad customization, or "targeting" as I see it.
No one advertiser can control how much advertising I am exposed to. It just isn't in their power.
True, but they can to some extent control how many of their ads you see. So, theoretically, if you bought inversely proportional to the amount of advertising you saw, the advertising should match that as best it can; those companiess that have products/services you value, and manage no show you no ads or as few as reasonably possible, get business and prosper. Those that don't, get less business, ideally they either get the picture or go out of business due to wasting money on showing you (and others like you) ads, or by showing people he wrong kind of ads. You see, they'll have to be able to keep up with the more profitible companies that are doing it right. Sure, nothing is ideal, so ads won't go away, but if it's being done correctly, you will at least see fewer ads.
Why would I be less pissed off getting 100 adverts for stuff I am not going to buy (although I might technically be interested in them) vs. getting 100 adverts for stuff I am not interested in?
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see something I'm interested in than something I'm not; therefore I'd be less angered. Logically, I think most people would feel that way.
I'm still not buying (most of) it. It is still taking up screen real estate. It is still interuping my TV viewing, etc, etc. It isn't the specific content of advertisment that pisses me off. It is the presentation.
If your "need" is to not see it at all, then the best targeted ad for you is no ad. The act of determining that you don't want to see it, is what I'd call, "targeting." If you've ever signed on to some web service that has several checkboxes about things they want e-mail you, and you've selected, "no thanks," to all of them, then you have participated. If they weren't targeted, you'd be getting all of them.
Right, because no school districts in the U.S. have banned Harry Potter books because they have the "occult" in them.
And Catcher in the Rye is just a favorite all over this great land of ours.
Don't forget that racist Mark Twain and remember that we need to ban his books.
And Janet Jackon's boob. Nobody gets upset over a middle-aged saggy boob on TV. It hardly rates a notice, in fact.
I never mentioned any of that.
None of those things proves any sort of evil conspiracy by the U.S. Government.
So yeah. Those radical loonies are just making stuff up again.
I didn't say anything about "making stuff up." I implied that you'd have to be crazy to believe that the article was proof of some evil plot.
Normally I wouldn't reply to such things, especially posted anonymously, but I had to thank you for proving my point by anonymously posting such an irrational post.
bought by driving 20 meters in my SUV to the doughnut store
What? You didn't have them delivered?
Wait... meters? America doesn't have those. Unless maybe you were driving 20 parking meters? I see why you would need an SUV for that, though I don't know why you would want to take them to the doughnut store. Perhaps to steal the change to pay for the doughnuts?
...that was supposed to read:
The whole point of targeted advertising is to NOT piss you off with ads about things you have no interest in.
You're yelling "generating better results" as if that were some laudable goal.
No, he's yelling it because you do not understand that targeted advertising is better (i.e. works better, gets better results for the people who buy the ads, the whole purpose of advertising) precisely because it LESS ubiquitous and annoying.
In other words, targeting is good, because good marketing/advertising people know that they can sell more by advertising to people who want it, in the way they want it. It's exactly that sort of thing you are asking for. You want less advertisement. GOOD marketers will use that information and realize that giving you more ads will be a wasted effort, perhaps even backfiring; therefore, you will get what you want, fewer ads. But they can't do that without finding out somehow that you want less of it (believe it or not, people have different tastes/tolerances for this sort of thing, and marketers are not mind-readers; so they have to ask, or get you to tell them).
The whole point of targeted advertising is not NOT piss you off with ads about things you have no interest in.
I hope the lawyers tear the city apart for wrongful dismissal.
/. blurb is that the library patron in question was a registered sex offender, downloading child pornography.
/. where tinfoil-hat-wearing radical loonies can site it as some sort of "proof" of an evil U.S. agenda/conspiracy. Not that anyone subscribing to such a viewpoint could be swayed by a rational argument.
Well, first they'd have to actually dismiss her.
She is clearly a victim.
No, based on the very short article (which you either did not read or did not understand), it's not clear at all.
One important thing missing from the
That being said, the article simply doesn't say how this could have been the librarian's fault. In fact, the City Commissioner declined to comment on it. Perhaps the librarian helped this individual to obtain said illegal materials. We just don't know. We have no evidence one way or the other, so it makes no sense to jump to conclusions.
Of course, this kind of thing gets posted to
Usually what the bank does at this point is demand you pay them a large sum of money so that the outstanding balance on the loan is roughly the value of the house again. So I hope you have $20k or more handy if this happens to you.
Since a mortgage is a contract, as long as the borrowers hold up their end of it, the bank actually has no right to demand such a chunk of money unless it's written into the contract.
The situation may be somewhat more risky for the bank, but why would the bank want to foreclose on a deal (which is providing them a return) when they will make more money by keeping the agreement?
A bank is MUCH more likely to foreclose when you only owe a little bit on the loan, because they'll get the entire house, which is worth many times what you owe.
"an online community for teenage girls" sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
if the Australian government doesn't want pictures to be [observed], they should not be putting them on the internet in the first place.
They're not. It's not Google Images, but Google Maps (the satellite photos) that they are complaining about.
I would guess that the reason for preferring distilled water would be concern for impurities in the fuel, but I hadn't thought about the difficulty of electrolyzing a substance that doesn't conduct electricity well.
Doesn't this remind you of.. Arnold... Mars... Had to pull the thing of out his nose... wtf was that movie...
You seem to be having TOTAL difficulty RECALLing the name of the movie.
But that's not fire from water.
Well, neither is this thing fire from water. It's fire from Hydrogen which came from water.
And . . .
'Ordinary tap water (preferably distilled)'
is a contradiction in terms.
This reminds me of Dalek Robomen.
I can speak from personal experience on that one. I wrote a Tetris game just for the fun/challenge of it. This was after I made a text adventure as a programming assignment (the assignment was make a text adventure) as part of a regular programming class (not a games-oriented elective). If I were teaching a class in game (or even other complex) programming, a Tetris clone would definitely be an assigned project.
Do I say everyone should be making the types of games I like?
Ah, but what if NO ONE made the types of games that you like, and you didn't have the ability (for whatever reason, e.g. lack of time, computing skill, money, etc.) to make your own? What then would be wrong with asking (not demanding) for someone to make games you like?
Now if this is what the author is suggesting, I think it is a good idea.
If you wish to repost this thread at The World Forum, go ahead.
I tried to sign up during the recent upgrade, but I did get a log-on afterwords.
I'm not too sure how much I'll be contributing due to the aforementioned time consumption. I'll do what I can.
The collective term for Unix systems is boxen.
The collective term for Windows is "crap"
What about Xbox? Would the plural of that be Xcrap?
If it were Apple, could it be iCrap? Then I could get a laptop and take my iCrap in the bathroom!
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
Old people in Korea
But does in run Linux?
"Obligitory" references to Simpsons, Monty Python, and the like.
I know I said I was done, but I just wanted to clear up a misunderstanding. (I told myself I'd only respond to clear up a misunderstanding or if you suggested another forum.)
You hate it?
What you and I have done with our discussion? Absolutely not. It's more that I feel it is off topic, and what I object to is much of the more inflammitory (or one-sided) stuff that gets modded up aroud here (it wasn't your inital comment that dragged me into this, it was the insightful, though still somewhat off-topic, stuff that came later). I think you'll find that people like you and I that discuss things rationally are a minority.
That's unfortunate because you argue very well. Discussing with you has been very interesting. Too often discussions on these issues degenerate into anger. Your arguments have been thought-provoking.
Thank you.
I give you the link anyway, just in case you like such discussions as long as they are on-topic.
I appreciate that. I've been developing a similar site myself (been wanting to for a long time). I'd love to discuss this further in another forum.