When the ad's go back to editorial approved ad's hosted and run by the companies providing the content
Then you'll start seeing a lot more "inventory" (ad spaces) occupied by "Your ad here" ads, followed by sites going out of business when not enough would-be advertisers click through. As I understand it, the major brands prefer to deal with established ad networks rather than tiny sites that can't be trusted not to inflate the reach (view and click) statistics that are provided to advertisers. So how should a site operator get advertisers to actually fill out the form to place an ad?
Unless you're developing a game in an inherently point-and-click genre, such as adventure games or strategy games, there's only so much you can do with just a touch screen. The Nintendo 3DS works around that by including a directional control and fire buttons alongside the touch screen. There are controllers that clip onto a phone, such as BD&A's MOGA line, and there exist gaming tablets with buttons on either side, such as NVIDIA's SHIELD tablet and plenty of tablets made by JXD. But I haven't seen any sales figures for those products, and without sales figures, developers can't be sure that there's enough audience for a port of their games.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that if this bot launched in the USA, it'd be classified similarly to LegalZoom and other document preparation services, not to mention individual income tax preparation services such as TurboTax and H&R Block At Home.
I would like such a micropayment platform to exist, but none does as far as I can tell, and after Perfect 10 v. Adult Check, it's unlikely that another will take off.
That's the first step. The second is to provide a web form for advertisers to upload suitably sized images and set the placement, caption, link target, and start and end dates, so that you can just approve, approve, reject, approve.
This leaves two problems: finding what rate to charge, and getting advertisers to find this contact information page.
And there's no way most banks are going to let me pay her card from my account.
Since when are banks that issue payment cards no longer willing to let a cardmember add a joint account holder?
Hell...Discover, for example, won't even let me manage my own two cards from the same account...I need a separate online account for each card.
Then perhaps that bank needs to Discover some cardmembers that aren't you. Facebook gets a lot of things wrong, but separating auth and auth is one thing it gets right: each person has one account, and that account is connected to resources.
But thanks for clarifying. Now I have a sound bite to use against cookie haters: Basic auth is broken because logout in long-running browsers is broken.
Want me to see ads mixed in wtih your content? Serve up the ads yourself...
That might work for a publication as big as Wired, which is big enough to have its own ad sales department. But what should the operator of a smaller site do to pay the hosting bill?
if they dropped it to some micropayment (give us $5 now and we'll deduct 10 cents per visit and re-bill you $5 when you run out)
If you read one article on each of twenty different sites, which is entirely plausible if you find articles through an aggregator such as reddit, SoylentNews, Slashdot, or the Twitter accounts you follow, how much will you have paid in total to set up these micropayment accounts?
If you run this proxy on your machine, your ISP will bill you for the downloaded but unused data. Satellite and mobile ISPs tend to charge $5 to $15 per GB. If you lease a VPS to run this proxy, the site will block the VPS provider.
They'll do what The Wall Street Journal and academic journals also do: serve only the first paragraph to search engines and other non-subscribers without script. It's been standard journalistic practice for decades to keyword-stuff in the lead; they call it an inverted pyramid.
Cellular and satellite ISPs tend to charge $5 to $15 per GB. If the ads (especially video ads) in the Wired articles you read total 200 MB to 67 MB per week, you come out ahead by subscribing. But another large fraction of readership hits one article and leaves.
Can I buy one subscription and have it work across multiple sites? Otherwise, if I read one article per week on each of 20 different sites, it's not $1 per week as much as $1 per article.
That's fine if a site is sticky, such as a forum. Something Awful succeeds with a paywall because forums are sticky. But say you read ten different articles on ten different websites in one day. Are you willing to pay $1 and key in your payment information for each article?
But I would suggest that one of the first things that is done is get rid of the ad networks that track people around the Internet
I can see how "interest-based ads" based on the content of pages in your browsing history are intrusive. But without any form of tracking at all, how do you propose to not repeatedly show the same ad to the same user?
Say someone operates a website as a hobby, but then the site outgrows the $10 per month VPS it started on. This means its operator will start to need to sell ad space to pay the hosting bill. Can you recommend a guide for the operator of a relatively small site to learn how to sell ad space?
It makes advertisers less willing to advertise on a particular site.
The sooner those advertising fools are parted with their money the sooner we can all go back to a cleaner, less corrupt internet.
And have to buy a year's subscription to five different sites in order to view one page on each site. Would you be willing to subscribe to Slashdot and to each site hosting at least one article currently on its front page?
Slashdot Mirror
When the ad's go back to editorial approved ad's hosted and run by the companies providing the content
Then you'll start seeing a lot more "inventory" (ad spaces) occupied by "Your ad here" ads, followed by sites going out of business when not enough would-be advertisers click through. As I understand it, the major brands prefer to deal with established ad networks rather than tiny sites that can't be trusted not to inflate the reach (view and click) statistics that are provided to advertisers. So how should a site operator get advertisers to actually fill out the form to place an ad?
I cancelled cable and only subscribe to streaming services that don't have ads (e.g. Netflix, Amazon)
Which don't carry live news and political commentary or live sports.
or I buy DVDs outright (for the cost that I save in cable fees, I can buy at least one disk a week and still come out ahead).
Then you have to violate anti-circumvention law (17 USC 1201 and foreign counterparts) to skip the forced previews.
Unless you're developing a game in an inherently point-and-click genre, such as adventure games or strategy games, there's only so much you can do with just a touch screen. The Nintendo 3DS works around that by including a directional control and fire buttons alongside the touch screen. There are controllers that clip onto a phone, such as BD&A's MOGA line, and there exist gaming tablets with buttons on either side, such as NVIDIA's SHIELD tablet and plenty of tablets made by JXD. But I haven't seen any sales figures for those products, and without sales figures, developers can't be sure that there's enough audience for a port of their games.
It's an online multiplayer game, so do please explain how this could be achieved without connecting to a network.
By connecting to a private computer network that is disconnected from the Internet. They used to call that a "LAN party".
I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that if this bot launched in the USA, it'd be classified similarly to LegalZoom and other document preparation services, not to mention individual income tax preparation services such as TurboTax and H&R Block At Home.
I would like such a micropayment platform to exist, but none does as far as I can tell, and after Perfect 10 v. Adult Check, it's unlikely that another will take off.
That's the first step. The second is to provide a web form for advertisers to upload suitably sized images and set the placement, caption, link target, and start and end dates, so that you can just approve, approve, reject, approve.
This leaves two problems: finding what rate to charge, and getting advertisers to find this contact information page.
And there's no way most banks are going to let me pay her card from my account.
Since when are banks that issue payment cards no longer willing to let a cardmember add a joint account holder?
Hell...Discover, for example, won't even let me manage my own two cards from the same account...I need a separate online account for each card.
Then perhaps that bank needs to Discover some cardmembers that aren't you. Facebook gets a lot of things wrong, but separating auth and auth is one thing it gets right: each person has one account, and that account is connected to resources.
But thanks for clarifying. Now I have a sound bite to use against cookie haters: Basic auth is broken because logout in long-running browsers is broken.
Want me to see ads mixed in wtih your content? Serve up the ads yourself...
That might work for a publication as big as Wired, which is big enough to have its own ad sales department. But what should the operator of a smaller site do to pay the hosting bill?
if they dropped it to some micropayment (give us $5 now and we'll deduct 10 cents per visit and re-bill you $5 when you run out)
If you read one article on each of twenty different sites, which is entirely plausible if you find articles through an aggregator such as reddit, SoylentNews, Slashdot, or the Twitter accounts you follow, how much will you have paid in total to set up these micropayment accounts?
I bet they don't block search spiders
Then provide an excerpt to a spider. See replies to Arkh89's comment.
If you run this proxy on your machine, your ISP will bill you for the downloaded but unused data. Satellite and mobile ISPs tend to charge $5 to $15 per GB. If you lease a VPS to run this proxy, the site will block the VPS provider.
They'll do what The Wall Street Journal and academic journals also do: serve only the first paragraph to search engines and other non-subscribers without script. It's been standard journalistic practice for decades to keyword-stuff in the lead; they call it an inverted pyramid.
Maybe pretend to be in print mode too
That's why Ars Technica puts print mode behind a paywall.
Cellular and satellite ISPs tend to charge $5 to $15 per GB. If the ads (especially video ads) in the Wired articles you read total 200 MB to 67 MB per week, you come out ahead by subscribing. But another large fraction of readership hits one article and leaves.
Can I buy one subscription and have it work across multiple sites? Otherwise, if I read one article per week on each of 20 different sites, it's not $1 per week as much as $1 per article.
"Phone"? Video ads will eat up your 3 GB per month fairly quickly.
Noone makes you go to an ad-supported website and read their content.
Then fire that hermit.
More seriously, on Slashdot, does "I couldn't see the article through the obnoxious ads" count as a valid excuse not to read the featured article?
That's fine if a site is sticky, such as a forum. Something Awful succeeds with a paywall because forums are sticky. But say you read ten different articles on ten different websites in one day. Are you willing to pay $1 and key in your payment information for each article?
Ad-blockers can pretend to download the ads, but not show the ads. Not detectable by a web site.
Still detectable by your ISP, which will start billing you for data usage overages.
What I would be willing to do is fund a micropayment account, and then pay sites a few cents per page view to replace the revenue they'd get from ads.
Sort of like the Adult Check network back in the late 1990s?
I see this type of comment fairly frequently, and I understand the sentiment, but what exactly do you propose that they do instead? Just go bankrupt?
If bingoUV has anything to say about it: Yes.
But I would suggest that one of the first things that is done is get rid of the ad networks that track people around the Internet
I can see how "interest-based ads" based on the content of pages in your browsing history are intrusive. But without any form of tracking at all, how do you propose to not repeatedly show the same ad to the same user?
If they want to sell ads, actually sell the space
Say someone operates a website as a hobby, but then the site outgrows the $10 per month VPS it started on. This means its operator will start to need to sell ad space to pay the hosting bill. Can you recommend a guide for the operator of a relatively small site to learn how to sell ad space?
What's wrong with reporting incorrect numbers?
It makes advertisers less willing to advertise on a particular site.
The sooner those advertising fools are parted with their money the sooner we can all go back to a cleaner, less corrupt internet.
And have to buy a year's subscription to five different sites in order to view one page on each site. Would you be willing to subscribe to Slashdot and to each site hosting at least one article currently on its front page?