Google Adds Ads to Image Search... It Really Sucks.

Re:Google Adds Ads to Image Search... It Really Sucks. by sh1mmer on Sunday December 14, 2008 @10:58PM (#397995)

I think the author really nails it. He isn't object to the ads existing, he is objecting to them being irrelevant.

Ads that are relevant almost aren't Ads, they are almost content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Adds Ads to Image Search... It Really Sucks. by jonknee on Sunday December 14, 2008 @11:36PM (#398026)

How are they irrelevant? He searched for Brett Farve and got ads about Brett Farve. He was just bummed that they were text ads, not images.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Adds Ads to Image Search... It Really Sucks. by sh1mmer on Monday December 15, 2008 @02:07PM (#398636)

Isn't relevance defined by context?

If he was doing an image search he wanted images, not text.

What about Ads for products or Stock photography or Celeb sites with more photos?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Adds Ads to Image Search... It Really Sucks. by snprbob86 on Sunday December 14, 2008 @11:05PM (#398003)

I agree, but you can't fault them for releasing this as a stop gap solution. The data will surely show that click through rates are lower than web search; when it does, they can be motivated to improving that. Release early, release often?

[ Parent | on HN ]