Whenever I bring up the BBC study showing that only 12 percent of a randomly selected population in a study 12 months ago were able to "spot the ads" when shown a search engine result page, I always get people chiming in saying "well it's obvious to me what are ads, if you can't tell the difference then that's your own fault"
Even when I say 100 times that the ads are not targeted at slashdot or computer savvy people- they are targeted at older adults with disposable income who haven't been on the web for a decade and haven't yet learned to tune the ads out.
Even when I point out that having the tiny light gray "ads by google" 7 inches to the right of a block of ads, totally unconnected, is a bit deceitful considering as you age your vision goes and most people can't even SEE the ads by google text, much less know that it applies to hyperlinks that may be nowhere near it.. Everyone says "well, thats their own fault."
Douglas Adams saw this coming... And no, the last sentence was not added by me. It's in the script---
Prosser: But the plans were on display. Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar. Prosser: That's the display department. Arthur Dent: With a torch. Prosser: The lights had probably gone. Arthur Dent: So had the stairs. Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you? Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
Does putting the word "sponsored links" 7 inches away from the ads on the other side of the page count as "clearly labeled" to you?
You remind me of the quote from hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:
Prosser: But the plans were on display. Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar. Prosser: That's the display department. Arthur Dent: With a torch. Prosser: The lights had probably gone. Arthur Dent: So had the stairs. Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you? Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
google was making TONS of money selling ads that appeared whenever anyone typed in Louis Vuitton. There are hundreds of pirate manufacturers selling fake Louis Vuitton purses, and they were making a mint on Google.
Louis Vuitton sued Google, and Google lost. Badly.
This case is a rehash of that concept, except they have also gone a step further and claimed that Google's entire business model of displaying several paid results before the organic search results is misleading too- since they use the exact same font/size/format.. Do you think your parents or a newbie online knows that the tiny "ads by google" waaaaay over on the right hand side of the screen means that any link to the left of it for 5 inches is a paid ad?
No. They dont. People (not slashdot crowd) think that the first results are the "best" results. They have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA those are ads. None. The BBC did a study last year that showed 12 percent or less of a random sampling of web surfers could point out where the advertisements where on a typical search result page.
That folks, is why this suit is really scaring Google. Hell- even a national news story that mentioned in black and white "Hey guys, you see all this stuff on the right hand side of the screen, and on the top? Those are all paid advertisements, even though they dont look like it" could kill the whole scam.
Google has made a business model out of buying the commercial television time right after the evening's national news show, and hiring a look-alike model with a copycat set to run a second newscast, except pitching paid advertisements. Sure, a very few people might realize that it isn't the real news, but enough people will be fooled that they'll make shitloads of money.
If the newspaper is notified by Nike that you have been placing advertisements for fake Nike shoes in their newspaper for months, and they refuse to take down the advertising, then yes the newspaper is complicit.
Do you realize that over 70% of the keywords bought on Google and Yahoo and MSN are for copyrighted words?
Take away the ability to mislead web surfers and you've just pulled out one of the main financial pillars of the web 2.0 economy.
the second part of this lawsuit states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices.
lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the ads look exactly like the rest of your page. this blending makes users happy and more likely to click on your ads! we promise it's not because you're tricking them, its just because you are making your page look more elegant" BULL FUCKING SHIT.
Do you guys remember back in the late 1990s when the big moral debate at the time was whether or not search engines should start selling placement in their search results to the highest bidder? back then there was a huge uproar because people rightly said that would be deceptive. yet now, every search engine in the world DOES sell placement, because for the overwhelming majority of internet users, people simply cannot distinguish a text ad from an organic result.
there was a BBC study about 12 months ago that showed that less than 12 percent of randomly sampled internet users could "spot the ads" on a google or yahoo search. this lawsuit, besides saying it is illegal to let people trick users with trademarked keyword ads, also says that the entire PLACEMENT and SEPERATION of google's ads on their search page is deceptive.
jesus christ, just go to webmasterworld for a while and read the posts.. 99% of what they discuss is how to "blend" ads to make users more likely to be tricked into clicking on them. and the sad part? this "trick" is the entire financial basis for every web 2.0 company out there.
Google's text ads aren't a smash hit because they are "relevant", they are a smash hit because text ads look just like hyperlinks and people don't even recognize them as ads!
if your father recommends a good car dealership he's dealt with for decades, you would give that recommendation more weight than if a car salesman in a cheap flashy suit walked up to you on the sidewalk and told you he sold great cars, right?
banner ads = the cheap flashy suit salesman. text ads = you think it's just part of an unbiased website, giving you helpful advice, and you have no idea the advice was paid for.
in NY and other major cities, premium liquor manufacturers pay actors/models to go around to all the hottest clubs and conspicuously order drinks made with the manufacturer's booze, and then even tell people around them how great it tastes, etc etc.. is this really what we want the web to become?
the second part states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices.
lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the ads look exactly like the rest of your page. this blending makes users happy and more likely to click on your ads! we promise it's not because you're tricking them, its just because you are making your page look more elegant"
BULL FUCKING SHIT. Do you guys remember back in the late 1990s when the big moral debate at the time was whether or not search engines should start selling placement in their search results to the highest bidder? back then there was a huge uproar because people rightly said that would be deceptive.
yet now, every search engine in the world DOES sell placement, because for the overwhelming majority of internet users, people simply cannot distinguish a text ad from an organic result.
there was a BBC study about 12 months ago that showed that less than 12 percent of randomly sampled internet users could "spot the ads" on a google or yahoo search. this lawsuit, besides saying it is illegal to let people trick users with trademarked keyword ads, also says that the entire PLACEMENT and SEPERATION of google's ads on their search page is deceptive.
jesus christ, just go to webmasterworld for a while and read the posts.. 99% of what they discuss is how to "blend" ads to make users more likely to be tricked into clicking on them.
and the sad part? this "trick" is the entire financial basis for every web 2.0 company out there. Google's text ads aren't a smash hit because they are "relevant", they are a smash hit because text ads look just like hyperlinks and people don't even recognize them as ads!
if your father recommends a good car dealership he's dealt with for decades, you would give that recommendation more weight than if a car salesman in a cheap flashy suit walked up to you on the sidewalk and told you he sold great cars, right?
banner ads = the cheap flashy suit salesman.
text ads = you think it's just part of an unbiased website, giving you helpful advice, and you have no idea the advice was paid for.
in NY and other major cities, premium liquor manufacturers pay actors/models to go around to all the hottest clubs and conspicuously order drinks made with the manufacturer's booze, and then even tell people around them how great it tastes, etc etc..
is this really what we want the web to become?
Slashdot Mirror
Quit shilling for facebook, you astroturfing troll.
Whenever I bring up the BBC study showing that only 12 percent of a randomly selected population in a study 12 months ago were able to "spot the ads" when shown a search engine result page, I always get people chiming in saying "well it's obvious to me what are ads, if you can't tell the difference then that's your own fault"
Even when I say 100 times that the ads are not targeted at slashdot or computer savvy people- they are targeted at older adults with disposable income who haven't been on the web for a decade and haven't yet learned to tune the ads out.
Even when I point out that having the tiny light gray "ads by google" 7 inches to the right of a block of ads, totally unconnected, is a bit deceitful considering as you age your vision goes and most people can't even SEE the ads by google text, much less know that it applies to hyperlinks that may be nowhere near it.. Everyone says "well, thats their own fault."
Douglas Adams saw this coming... And no, the last sentence was not added by me. It's in the script---
Prosser: But the plans were on display.
Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
Prosser: That's the display department.
Arthur Dent: With a torch.
Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
Define your definition of "labeling"
Does putting the word "sponsored links" 7 inches away from the ads on the other side of the page count as "clearly labeled" to you?
You remind me of the quote from hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:
Prosser: But the plans were on display.
Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
Prosser: That's the display department.
Arthur Dent: With a torch.
Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?
google was making TONS of money selling ads that appeared whenever anyone typed in Louis Vuitton. There are hundreds of pirate manufacturers selling fake Louis Vuitton purses, and they were making a mint on Google.
Louis Vuitton sued Google, and Google lost. Badly.
This case is a rehash of that concept, except they have also gone a step further and claimed that Google's entire business model of displaying several paid results before the organic search results is misleading too- since they use the exact same font/size/format.. Do you think your parents or a newbie online knows that the tiny "ads by google" waaaaay over on the right hand side of the screen means that any link to the left of it for 5 inches is a paid ad?
No. They dont. People (not slashdot crowd) think that the first results are the "best" results. They have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA those are ads. None. The BBC did a study last year that showed 12 percent or less of a random sampling of web surfers could point out where the advertisements where on a typical search result page.
That folks, is why this suit is really scaring Google. Hell- even a national news story that mentioned in black and white "Hey guys, you see all this stuff on the right hand side of the screen, and on the top? Those are all paid advertisements, even though they dont look like it" could kill the whole scam.
Google has made a business model out of buying the commercial television time right after the evening's national news show, and hiring a look-alike model with a copycat set to run a second newscast, except pitching paid advertisements. Sure, a very few people might realize that it isn't the real news, but enough people will be fooled that they'll make shitloads of money.
If the newspaper is notified by Nike that you have been placing advertisements for fake Nike shoes in their newspaper for months, and they refuse to take down the advertising, then yes the newspaper is complicit.
Do you realize that over 70% of the keywords bought on Google and Yahoo and MSN are for copyrighted words?
Take away the ability to mislead web surfers and you've just pulled out one of the main financial pillars of the web 2.0 economy.
sorry about the formatting:
the second part of this lawsuit states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices.
lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the ads look exactly like the rest of your page. this blending makes users happy and more likely to click on your ads! we promise it's not because you're tricking them, its just because you are making your page look more elegant" BULL FUCKING SHIT.
Do you guys remember back in the late 1990s when the big moral debate at the time was whether or not search engines should start selling placement in their search results to the highest bidder? back then there was a huge uproar because people rightly said that would be deceptive. yet now, every search engine in the world DOES sell placement, because for the overwhelming majority of internet users, people simply cannot distinguish a text ad from an organic result.
there was a BBC study about 12 months ago that showed that less than 12 percent of randomly sampled internet users could "spot the ads" on a google or yahoo search. this lawsuit, besides saying it is illegal to let people trick users with trademarked keyword ads, also says that the entire PLACEMENT and SEPERATION of google's ads on their search page is deceptive.
jesus christ, just go to webmasterworld for a while and read the posts.. 99% of what they discuss is how to "blend" ads to make users more likely to be tricked into clicking on them. and the sad part? this "trick" is the entire financial basis for every web 2.0 company out there.
Google's text ads aren't a smash hit because they are "relevant", they are a smash hit because text ads look just like hyperlinks and people don't even recognize them as ads!
if your father recommends a good car dealership he's dealt with for decades, you would give that recommendation more weight than if a car salesman in a cheap flashy suit walked up to you on the sidewalk and told you he sold great cars, right?
banner ads = the cheap flashy suit salesman. text ads = you think it's just part of an unbiased website, giving you helpful advice, and you have no idea the advice was paid for.
in NY and other major cities, premium liquor manufacturers pay actors/models to go around to all the hottest clubs and conspicuously order drinks made with the manufacturer's booze, and then even tell people around them how great it tastes, etc etc.. is this really what we want the web to become?
the second part states that Google's entire business model of placing advertising in the first 3 slots of any search result -yet making it so subtly seperated that most people are unaware that those results are paid for- constitutes deceptive trade practices. lets face it folks, even if you go to google's own FAQ section on how to make more money with adsense, 100% of the methods they tell webmasters to use are basically "blend in the colors and the font so that the ads look exactly like the rest of your page. this blending makes users happy and more likely to click on your ads! we promise it's not because you're tricking them, its just because you are making your page look more elegant" BULL FUCKING SHIT. Do you guys remember back in the late 1990s when the big moral debate at the time was whether or not search engines should start selling placement in their search results to the highest bidder? back then there was a huge uproar because people rightly said that would be deceptive. yet now, every search engine in the world DOES sell placement, because for the overwhelming majority of internet users, people simply cannot distinguish a text ad from an organic result. there was a BBC study about 12 months ago that showed that less than 12 percent of randomly sampled internet users could "spot the ads" on a google or yahoo search. this lawsuit, besides saying it is illegal to let people trick users with trademarked keyword ads, also says that the entire PLACEMENT and SEPERATION of google's ads on their search page is deceptive. jesus christ, just go to webmasterworld for a while and read the posts.. 99% of what they discuss is how to "blend" ads to make users more likely to be tricked into clicking on them. and the sad part? this "trick" is the entire financial basis for every web 2.0 company out there. Google's text ads aren't a smash hit because they are "relevant", they are a smash hit because text ads look just like hyperlinks and people don't even recognize them as ads! if your father recommends a good car dealership he's dealt with for decades, you would give that recommendation more weight than if a car salesman in a cheap flashy suit walked up to you on the sidewalk and told you he sold great cars, right? banner ads = the cheap flashy suit salesman. text ads = you think it's just part of an unbiased website, giving you helpful advice, and you have no idea the advice was paid for. in NY and other major cities, premium liquor manufacturers pay actors/models to go around to all the hottest clubs and conspicuously order drinks made with the manufacturer's booze, and then even tell people around them how great it tastes, etc etc.. is this really what we want the web to become?
oops bad linkage http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com
seriously funny shit- too bad the original fuckedcompany has absolutely NOTHING about this disaster.