Google to Distribute Image Ads, Plans Email List Service 333
comforteagle writes "For the next shot in the search engine advertising war Google has launched image ads in addition to their popular text AdSense program. From Google's explanation page: 'Image ads will show in rotation with text ads. On a page by page basis, Google's technology determines whether text ads or image ads are likely to make you more money, and serves the best ads to your page.'" Another reader writes: "eWEEK.com is reporting that Google has begun testing a new mailing list service, Google Groups 2, sure to go head-to-head with Yahoo Groups. It eventually will replace what is today only a Usenet archive. Users of the new beta can start their own mailing lists (public or private) and in typical Google fashion, it is promising to put search front and center (even hinting at postings being included in Web search one day)."
Here we go again? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the brief write-ups that the the summary linked to (no, I'm not new here). The first thing that came to my mind was: "gee, this is how things should have been done X years ago." It's a fairly brilliant extension of their already successful idea. Snatching words and serving ads isn't perfect (I mentioned earlier that if you did it here, people might think they'd make a killing selling copies of Beowulf), but it's better than the old "cast a huge net and pray" method. I'm curious how they are going to deal with the capability for annoyance when you throw images into the mix (please, please, static images only). I didn't see anything immediately, but I am sure they already have something in mind, given how popular their plain, stripped-down interface has made them.
Makes me wonder how the Internet community would treat banner ads today if they were targetted then the way Google does AdSense now. Maybe there would have never been a Punch the Monkey campaign, or banners disguised like Windows dialog boxes, seizure-inducing flashes, or irritating popups. More likely, my morning tea has not yet kicked in.
"only" (Score:5, Insightful)
sure to go head-to-head with Yahoo Groups. It eventually will replace what is today only a Usenet archive
"only" a Usenet archive? Yeah, those are a dime-a-dozen.
Google Faith (Score:1, Insightful)
When will Faith in Google be concretized into a religion? There seem to be enough devoted believers already...
Google Groups (Score:5, Insightful)
Google: I hope you don't screw this up. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, yeah, Profitability is somewhat of a mandatory thing (duh!) and there isn't alot of "paying" to google for it's services outside of advertising.
To Me, text ads have been far more successful, with the exception of the ThinkGeek ads sometimes shown here. I've clicked on more Text Ads than anything else.
I sure as heck don't click on Flash ads, or ones that do funky groovy DHTML overlay crap. Even if I was interested, I sure ain't now.
Somehow, I'm sure that Google will find a balance that doesn't piss people off.
Re:Google Faith (Score:2, Insightful)
Fear and loathing. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Usenet archive is tremendously useful and, I feel, should be protected at all costs. The thought of the Usenet archive being abandoned or terminated scares me quite a bit. I hope that my concerns are unfounded.
Re:Here we go again? (Score:3, Insightful)
The good thing is the only images on the page will be the advertisements. You can easily disable all images on the page and STILL be able to use it.
You won't find this true of many other sites...
Re:Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
Catches most stuff for me right now, and I've only got like 10 filters.
No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Load times (Score:2, Insightful)
I know Image adverts are not going to appear on Google itself, but 50KB is still 13 seconds for most modem users!
Bandwidth concerns for me (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, I actually didn't mind the text ads. I even used them on occasion. Now, I'm going to have people putting in goddamn obnoxious animated gifs and the like. The FAQ says they are limited to 50KB size. That's about 500 times more than a current text ad.
This is a slippery slope, I think.
Re:Google Faith (Score:2, Insightful)
I've switched a lot of people from MSN by just showing them the alternatives.
Welcome to the world of ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's no longer easy to make the decisions solely on the behalf of your users.
Re:Google Faith (Score:4, Insightful)
AltaVista.Digital.com - this was my second search engine. It's a lesson in everything that can go wrong with a search engine (first - by spinning off from digital). Then by becoming an Ad-Engine.
Google's spot on top is far more precarious than most might think. They've had a long hold, but be sure, those whom use it are likely open to alternatives.
If your statement were blanket truth, then everyone would still be using MSN Search for everything.
Google - Simplicity is key (Score:2, Insightful)
i must admit that i like the current method of them suggesting relevant links, as they normally ARE relevant - so they get more click throughs from me than any other site.
do people really mind Google suggesting relevant sponsered links, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the others?
Re:Google Groups (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:1, Insightful)
This is my first thought any time I see an announcement of a new Google service: why don't you fix your search engine first?
Google Groups is more useful than Google these days for finding information about ANY commodity product... if you use Google to search for information on anything with a brand name, you may as well just use Froogle, because all you'll get are link-farming retail sites for the first 5 pages.
Goning the way of ICQ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google Faith (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Intrusive ads (pop up/unders)
2) Ads which take longer to download than the content
3) Mis-leading ads
4) Completely random ads.
Personally I've never cared or complained about the Slashdot banner ads, or a myriad of other well executed ads. But I won't even consider browsing to MSN.com anymore because of the intrusiveness
Personally, I like to buy things, I don't always know everything I want to buy upfront, advertising targetted to my demographic is not something I see any reason to shun... especially seeing as it's revenue is what allows for alot of content.
Re:Google Faith (Score:2, Insightful)
But they're all JUST COMPANIES. Without any 'personality'.
Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
I accept your apology; yes, they do bother me that much. If I go to a website I want to see the content (if any), not the ads. If I can block ads I will block as many as possible.
If you don't like them are they that hard to ignore?
Nope. I don't even notice ads/porn when they do appear, but if you can block them and prevent from displaying and even downloading at all, why wouldn't you? I don't find them useful.
I don't need to be advertised to any more than I am already thanks.
They are useful and (more to the point) they provide pretty much the sole revenue stream to our favorite company.
No sympathy here. If that's the best Google can do, then they can die for all I care. There's always someone else.
Re:Here we go again? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nicely put.
To my mind, the most important point is 4), which Google refers to as "relevance." For example, when I'm watching Friends, I see about 8 car ads over the course of a half hour, even though I'm not in the market to buy a car right now.
In contrast, Google ads are keyed off what you are searching for or what you are reading, so their relevance is somewhere between "modestly related" and "exactly what I was looking for." Sometimes the page you end up on isn't what you wanted, but the ad is!
If all advertising was relevant, people wouldn't hate advertising.
Re:Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, if you don't notice them, why -would- you block them, when others have pointed out that they are relevant, and support a company who is providing a service to you? You say that you don't find them useful, but if you are blocking the ads, you don't find them at all, and can't really evaluate whether they are useful or not. You are assuming that because they are an ad, they aren't useful, but that isn't the case. The ads google provides are to services directly related to the search you have performed.
No sympathy here. If that's the best Google can do, then they can die for all I care. There's always someone else.
This is foolish. It is a shortsighted view at best. If a model does not work, it will die. From everything you have said, you like uncluttered, simple results, and probably a similar interface. Google provides both of these things for free. The least you can do is show a little support. If google does go under, sure, there may be someone else, but they're going to look at google's fate and say, well, that didn't work, so we're going to have to be more invasive, or less simple, or charge for our service...or whatever. None of which are better than simply letting relevant ads work for you.
Companies aren't going to provide search capabilities as a charity, so service users are going to have to support them in one manner or another. Simple relevant text ads may not be as good as no ads at all, but I can't think of a better alternative that will ensure that a good compromise between perfection and realism can continue. Unless you can, show some support.
Headline: Public loses reason to use Google. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if that mindset has anything to do with this [slashdot.org].
Re:Google Faith (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't like open source or linux (although they seem to be getting a little better about the open source part; probably a little scared.) The thing is, if you don't like someone, they often not-like you right back. That's why those of us in the open source community or those of us who spend all our time working specifically on linux (because penguins are just so cool, by geographic definition), don't like Microsoft. (It's also their evil efficiency at pursuing and destroying our "personal" reputation.)
I don't know about you. I don't like Apple. I'm not a graphicy artisty guy. I'm a hard code, massive cluster, text based phreak who likes to have all the universe at his fingertips. Apple has a personality that appeals to certain geeks. They value aesthetics a lot. Probably more than they value money, although who knows the reasons behind their actions - as with any other entity, you can only judge by the actions themselves, not the reasoning, because you don't KNOW the reasoning. Philosophy 101...
IBM? Honestly, I don't know much about these guys. So I don't have much of an opinion. That's pretty simple right? They don't seem to have a personality, so I'll ignore them.
Now why do we like Google? Let's look at their actions: they give us a great search engine with low interference, high signal to noise ratio, and now they're rolling out all sorts of new features that we like. How could you not like a gigabyte of storage? Well, a lot of people are scared of change, and they're trying not to like it, and that's OKAY. If you don't like change, you don't have to like Google. If you like your privacy, you don't have to like Google (although I personally don't care if some anonymous entity is watching me. Actually, it makes me feel kind of wanted. Sure, target your ads. Maybe I'll find something I like. Bet you didn't think of that, did you, Privacy Pundit?)
There is a trend on Slashdot to hate Microsoft, to love the little guy, and to misjustify our emotional reactions to various stimuli. Don't -fight- the trend, just -be yourself-.
Re:Not on the main Google site, though ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Obnoxious Google Groups terms (Score:3, Insightful)
Rights users get: Google authorizes you to view and download a single copy of the Materials solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may not sell or modify the Materials or reproduce, display, publicly perform, distribute, or otherwise use the Materials in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the written permission of Google.
Stick with Netnews. Nobody owns it. The protocols are open. The source is open. And it works.
Sounds cool, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people think I am being too fussy about privacy concerns.
I think those people are biased.
If MS had done this rather then Google ( geek hero ) the ranting would still be going on.
I say this and I hate M$, am a Java programmer, and I am a GNU/Linux user.
Put THAT in your coke can and drink it!
Steve
Re:Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, you must be interested in reading content only from trust fund babies or rich folks who want you to think *their* way. Because other folks need some revenue to pay for that content you are looking at.
Hey, I'm not defending those jerks who use this as an excuse to hit you with pop-ups, flash ads and java junk that takes over your page. But Google finally came up with a system that text-based, highly targeted and unobstrusive.
Those text ads are making it possible for non-corporate voices to produce content full-time and expand websites. But they won't be able to continue to do that if the very people most likely to support non-corporate media (and I count Sladotters among them), undercut their revenue by blocking Google ads.
Look, block doubleclick, et al, all you want. Block popups on Firefox. But help out your brothers on the content side and leave the Google ads alone. You might be pleasantly surprised to find some ads that you are interested in.
And, by the way, publishers can block individual advertisers from their sites. Don't screw other publishers because you're mad at OSDN for not blocking the BSA ads.
Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you click on ads because you pity the poor site? News for you: Down that path lies decreasing ad-revenue, because higher click-through rates mean nothing if they're not followed by more sales.
Where the hell did I say that? My point was that Google's ads are relevant to your search eight or nine times out of ten (in my experience). By blocking them you are denying yourself access to a valuable service and acting like a complete leech towards Google. I have found information that I was looking for countless times via Google ads (both on Google and other sites) -- and it has led me towards not a few sales.
What's the problem here? Would you prefer something else? Perhaps the aforementioned flashing monkey banner? Or maybe Google should just run itself at a loss until they run out of money and then ask Uncle Sam for a bailout.
Why we are *not* ethically bound to view ads (Score:2, Insightful)
Advertisers would argue (and have you believe) that if they place an ad in content, you are somehow ethically obligated to view it. To do otherwise, they suggest, is "stealing" the content because they pay for it with the ads.
However, this argument is rubbish. People are under no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to support a company's chosen business model. Unless a person has legitimately entered into an agreement with the advertisers, under which the advertisers can expect the person to view their advertisements, there can be no ethical argument to the contrary.
Here, advertisers would argue that merely viewing a web site or watching a television program indicates our implicit agreement to watch the associated ads -- i.e., we have entered (legitimately) into an implicit contract with them -- but this argument is also flawed. Merely participating in an event that some interested party has attached a hidden contract to does not enter you into that contract.
In order for a contract to be binding, ethically or legally, its details must be fully disclosed beforehand, both parties must receive something of fair value from entering into the contract, and both parties must enter into the contact of their own free will and not under the influence of coercion. It is clear that the advertisers do not state the terms of their implied contract up front. Likewise, it is questionable whether the annoyance and time sunk into reading or watching advertisements is a fair trade-off for all potential readers or viewers. Finally, it is easy to make the case that there is some coercion at play. Advertisers often slip ads into content unannounced or with increasing frequency over time so that the full annoyance of their ads is revealed only after consumers have made a significant investment or commitment to the content they are already reading or viewing. At this point, consumers are coerced, if mildly, into continuing by the prospect of having wasted their investment thus far or by the prospect of having to find suitable replacement content.
Therefore, after having given much thought to the subject, I must conclude that we are under absolutely no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to view advertisements.
Family safe? By which standard? (Score:3, Insightful)
This raises interesting questions for a global Internet company. "Family safe" by which standard? US? European? Tunisian? South-African?
All regions in the world have very different standards for morality in general (at least in various details), and particularly for sexually or simply nudity-related images.
Europeans in general could not quite understand the fuss in the US about Janet Jackson's nipple on TV, and were quite amused by the uproar. For the fuss about Clinton's private life, some Europeans were shocked like a part of the American public seemed to be, while others felt that his sex-life was nobody's business.
Some "family safe" content in the US would be quite shocking for many Muslims (as it might also have been for many Christians just a few decades ago).
etc.
So, which standard will they apply? The US standard because Google is a US company? The standard of the country of the web site? The standard of the country of the advertizer?
Feel free to post a few links for an interesting comparative study...
You can leave out goatse.cx and it's variants; we all know these already. But I really wonder what is considered "osé" (or even "sexy") but still acceptable on an Iranian web site.
ummm...what? (Score:2, Insightful)
And there are some things that are better expressed graphically. "Buy this super cute toy!" in image form is so much more convincing.
Anyway, I just think it's funny that every time Google has tried to innovate, this group of people cries foul, "Oh dear lord! The end of Google is nigh!" and pretty much every freakin' time, they actually do something that ends up being super-cool.
Like someone said earlier, I may not have faith in Google, but they haven't let me down yet...
~jeddz