We’re dropping Google Ads

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by erikbigelow on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @01:21AM (#14094993)

I hate the ad model too, but you're stealing bandwidth and hosting. Delivering those pictures and text comes from somewhere, and ads are how they're hoping to pay for it. Justify it to yourself how you want, but it's true.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by baddox on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @02:28AM (#14095285)

It's not stealing, because you request the resource from the server and the server explicitly decides to fulfill your request. And this isn't exploiting a bug or security vulnerability. The server is deliberately programmed to fulfill requests regardless of whether the requester's client.

If running an ad blocker is stealing, then so is disabling JavaScript or using curl.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by Dylan16807 on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @02:43AM (#14095348)

A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth.

Should they download the ad and pretend to display it? Then the site still gets the impression and everybody wins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by chongli on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @03:24AM (#14095531)

A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth

The user uses less of her own bandwidth, but not the publisher's. Ads are served from third-party networks, not the publisher's servers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by jacquesm on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @06:04AM (#14096217)

That's easy to solve by the publisher: serve up the ads directly, ad blocking problem goes away. And that's exactly how this will end.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by chongli on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @06:10AM (#14096248)

There are other comments (including one by me) discussing this. I'm totally fine with it. Others have said that most advertisers won't pay for these ads due to an inability to audit and track users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by jacquesm on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @06:23AM (#14096306)

Well, they were happy to pay for them in the past that way and likely will be happy to pay for them again if the only other option is not to be able to advertise at all.

The target of a link could still be redirected, this would not allow the ad agency to track visitors but would allow them to track the effectiveness of a campaign.

That's about as much as they should be getting anyway.

But it would kill most RTB schemes and it would get rid of the majority of the tracking, which would be a good thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by beagle3 on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @10:03AM (#14097763)

It wouldn't even kill RTB - it's just that the RTB response would include the actual ad to be displayed, and we'd be back to Nielsen style outfits figuring out how many of those ads were actually displayed.

And the world is likely to be a better place for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by bandrami on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @11:34AM (#14098665)

Funny, advertisers seem willing to pay for billboards and television ads. Remind me what the auditing and tracking capabilities there are?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We’re dropping Google Ads by chongli on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @07:08PM (#14102588)

I think the companies who rely on tracking, auditing, and preying on vulnerable users aren't typically those who would benefit from billboard or TV ads.

The companies who do advertise in more traditional forms of media tend to be larger and more brand focused. They don't rely on manipulating their customers in very short term, impulse situations. They rely on visibility and try to generate goodwill through elaborate PR campaigns.

[ Parent | on HN ]