Graphics Coming to Google Ads 466
Firmafest writes "New York Times reports that "Users of Google's search engine will soon see something they are not used to on the notoriously spare site: advertising with logos and graphics. And the advertisers will not be limited to America Online, whose talks with Google prompted the change in policy, according to two executives close to the companies' negotiations." The Financial Times has more on the partnership" CT: Sorry folks. My email is broken this morning and i'm not getting error reports.
Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google! (Score:5, Funny)
-Eric
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:5, Informative)
It does exactly what you want—blocks all Flash with a box with a Play button on it, which you can click if you want to allow that Flash object to play.
Flashblock sucks. (Score:3, Informative)
It blocks all flash except for the flash it doesn't block.
It causes firefox to crash on certain pages (e.g. links from Huffington post),
If you use firefox's built in extension updater, flashblock runs amok and corrupts your preferences.
Flashblocks uninstaller doesn't actually work, you have to fire up emacs to cleanly uninstall or upgrade it.
Run away, far away.
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:2)
Image Adblockers are history.
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:2)
*Hands you a book on Regular Expressions*
I rarely see ads and yet, photo albums such as yahoo are still working fine
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:2)
Slight caveat: then you can just block one domain and be rid of most ads.
Re:Finally a chance to user my adblocker on Google (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is the case (which I don't believe it is) then i will disable all images. They're generally just eye candy anyway, and any site that uses them for navigation with leaving an ALT caption doesn't deserve my attention.
Bleh (Score:2, Funny)
code (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:code (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be ammended to:
Re:code (Score:5, Funny)
Re:code (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, it's like Godwin, only with the nazis. Don't cry bloody murder every time something happens that you don't 100% approve of (and that goes for the grandparent just as much as you).
Re:code (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:code (Score:3, Interesting)
and dropping them from my site. I use google ads to offset some of my hosting costs (pays for about 1/2 year of hosting. If they do anything animated I'm not using them as an advertiser, and I'm blocking thier ads.
-nB
Re:code (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:code (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:code (Score:4, Insightful)
Communism and Laissez Faire both fail to account for the human element of selfishness in their theories. Communism fails to recognize that people need success/failure motivation, and laissez faire fails to recognize that people hoard resources, and put very little value on other people's health, wealth, or happiness.
Both systems are flawed because they fail to see trees for the forest. It's not coincidental that there has never been a true economy (of more than a couple hundred people) that is either truly communist or truly capitalist.
Additionally, there is no perfect balance, and deliberately remaining in a static system due to some philosophical conviction (e.g. "we can't do that it's anti-American) is potentially more dangerous than tweaking the system at the wrong time or the wrong way.
Re:code (Score:4, Informative)
Re:code (Score:5, Insightful)
If you wait until someone goes "too far" before complaining, then they have already gone too far.
Re:code (Score:4, Funny)
Re:code (Score:3, Informative)
As for finding it on google.com, try here [google.com].
Re:code (Score:2)
And what makes images evil? To me, it's only annoying...
Re:code (Score:2)
Re:code (Score:5, Interesting)
The good news is that the ads generally quite good, and try not to annoy you. As an adsense partner, you can also chose whether you have the ads on or off.
Re:code (Score:2, Funny)
Re:code (Score:2)
AdBlock (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AdBlock (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AdBlock (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AdBlock (Score:5, Informative)
Also, "advert" matches "inadvertant", and Yahoo! puts some of their navigational graphics on *.a1.yimg.com as I found when I blocked that site (though I still block it).
There's a good reason that those banner blocking proxys, etc, use hostnames and more specific rules, and why in general you want regexps to be as specific as possible. It's not because people like excessive busywork.
As a service to those who would say "fine, what would *you* do," here's the relevant part of my squid.conf, which blocks a big chunk of the annoying ads on sites I regularly visit (including a big chunk of the google ads that I got pissed off at a while back):Using the thumbsdown icon I can see that it's working - I like that a little better than my previous use of a 1x1 clear
Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Informative)
I would just assume that the site was broken or that it was "enhanced" for IE and move on {shrug}
Re:AdBlock (Score:3, Informative)
And this is modded informative?
Re:AdBlock (Score:4, Insightful)
Site owners aren't in the business of dictating what users do. Site owners simply provide a starting point with a site design that customers can tweak through the use of browser preferences, extensions, and modifications to the way pages are displayed. It's a web designer's job to accomodate the customer, since it's the customer that has control, not the designer.
I guess that's a foreign concept to media that are used to spoon-feeding us everything from a silver platter and being in total control. Guess what. The world has changed. The customer/reader has the control now.
Don't like it? Not our fault; your site's broken. Fix it.
Re:AdBlock (Score:4, Informative)
Better yet: CustomizeGoogle [customizegoogle.com]
Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims (Score:5, Interesting)
Financially, it's a good move. They get a lot of traffic, it's good money.
Socially, perhaps not such a wise choice.
Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims (Score:2)
You *do* have choices (Score:5, Informative)
MSN Search [msn.com] has only text ads. Sure, it is MS, but the new engine is actually pretty accurate and has useful features like encarta integration.
Yahoo! search [yahoo.com] also has no image-based ads. Funny how people are constantly bashing Yahoo!, and now Google is going to have image ads on it's search, where Yahoo! removed them a long time ago.
It's called a free market, we wil see how it plays out. If Google alienates their customers, they will migrate elsewhere.
Mod this guy up! (Score:2)
I actually did not know there was a search-only part of Yahoo, when Google starts with their ads I will have to switch to that!
Thanks!
and competition is good (Score:3, Interesting)
And I have a gmail and yahoo email account - waiting to see which one turns evil first!
Re:and competition is good (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You *do* have choices (Score:3, Informative)
MSN has seriously improved (Score:3, Insightful)
A9 uses Google (Score:3, Informative)
So it is unknown how this deal will effect them. You may see graphics in A9's results as well.
Re:Google vs. Yahoo, the gap slims (Score:4, Insightful)
From the FT article, it's more defensive than offensive. They could not lose AOL's 10% of their advertising revenue, especially not if that meant giving Microsoft a chance to establish a real presence in the ad-driven content market.
They also have gotten themselves into some deal with AOL-TW to "jointly develop" video search with Google. That kind of "joint development" is a real loser for Google - they could just as easily build video search themselves, and own it without any encumbrance from AOL. Not only that, but they have been obligated to shift advertising back to graphic-driven ads, which strikes me a distinct downmarket move. Google's users up to now were the educated and the internet-savvy. AOL's subscribers are, en masse, essentially the opposite.
Just goes to show you - even if AOL is the dying beast it appears to be, it still commands a lot of clout. And it's a milestone in the maturation of a company when it becomes constrained by the extent of the current market. Google basically can't just leave AOL behind, so it's forced to slow down and wait for it. AOL seems to have cleaned up on this one.
Indeed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Irony!
I wonder if the process will repeat itself with another search engine... ?
[but I doubt it, I think we'll all just suck it up]
Who's hosting the logos? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who's hosting the logos? (Score:3, Funny)
google? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:google? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:google? (Score:5, Funny)
About a year ago, I was contracted to install a Linux server for a client. The client used a vertical accounting app which ran only on SCO Unix and Linux. The client wanted to ditch SCO, and I was happy to help.
The vendor for this app insisted that the server be publically accessible so that their tech people could perform updates (my suggestion that we restrict via IP address was shot down, as apparently their tech support worked from their homes, and didn't have static IP addresses) via *TELNET*.
I recommended that they remove telnet, and use SSH (after all, would you want your accounting data to be available to everyone on the internet?) The client agreed, and we informed the vendor that they'd need to use SSH/Putty/whatever to access the server.
I got a call from one of their "tech" people, who asked why she couldn't log in. I told her that for (what I thought were obvious) security reasons, she'd need to use SSH.
She started bitching about "I don't know what that is! Nobody told me how to use that!", etc. After she calmed down a bit, I explained to her what SSH was, and how there were free SSH clients, such as Putty. She asked where she could go to download Putty, and I told her "Just go to Google, and enter 'putty SSH'", and click "I'm feeling lucky".
Her response floored me.
"What's Google?"
I can't believe that someone who has root access on god knows how many Unix and Linux boxes, and whose job it is to support these boxes, had absolutely no idea who Google was.
Re:google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:google? (Score:3, Funny)
I think they're all there, but you have to count them.
It was bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe time to find a new search engine. Anyone any suggestions?
Re:It was bound to happen (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It was bound to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until now I've refrained from using any kind of blocking mechanism on google's ads because they are always restrained and discreet, and I suspect I'm not the only one who's formed their banner-blocking behavior in this way.
Re:It was bound to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It was bound to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Small logos and such will be annoying, but if the ads are still primarily text I could cope with it. Google puts a lot of ads on each page, though, so if they go to mostly ads that are just one big image, their site will become an absurd eyesore and if my ad-blocker doesn't take care of it I'll start looking for another search engine.
My dream
Re:It was bound to happen (Score:2, Redundant)
Here's my suggestion:I've been using it for quite a while, and while it's not a complete replacement for Google, it's certainly useful.
Clusty also serves Google ads... (Score:3, Informative)
Goofy search engine names... (Score:2)
Here is a list of a few suggestions:
Burglecut [the unlikable mayor from Willow]
Flomizzle [nonsense word]
Jimbert [a combination of two names, see if you can guess which two]
^_^
Re:Goofy search engine names... (Score:2)
you are all drunk. (Score:3, Interesting)
At last... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At last... (Score:2)
Beginning of the end? (Score:2)
No flash, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No flash, please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No flash, please! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No flash, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the pervasiveness of advertising today is that eventually you become numb to it and just wade through it trying to get to wherever you were going (the next exit, the next page, the next tv show...). So then they have to ramp up the volume on their message to try to break the monotony and make you pay attention (loud commercials, bulky magazine inserts, moving billboards...).
What Google has done is take us back to a time when advertising was little more than attempting to get the word out for something that may not be widely known. They put ads on pages in a classy way, then attempted to ensure those ads were context sensitive so that it may actually help people find things. Adding classy touches that are subtle but noticeable, like small graphics and preferred placement, make a difference without changing the purpose.
Of course, they also are a precursor to the inundation of advertisement that we get everywhere else. The good news is that the people at Google acknowledged this problem long ago and may be aware that their success is tied to it.
Concern (Score:3, Insightful)
Also... [AOL + Google] (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say it's downright Lovecraftian, but that might be a little melodramatic.
Re:Also... [AOL + Google] (Score:5, Insightful)
Google: "Don't be evil."
AOL: "Don't appear to be evil."
Re:Also... [AOL + Google] (Score:3, Funny)
OMG ME TOO!!!!!!
Google, or the content network? (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, if it _is_ for google too, this could easily make me use another search engine if it's at all obtrusive. One of the few reasons I use google is because it's simple, so it's quick to load and easier to find what you're actually looking for.
Re:Google, or the content network? (Score:2)
"One format being discussed is a box, which may include a photograph and a logo, that would appear on the main search results pages toward the bottom of the advertisements in the right-hand column. Traditional banner ads may appear on Google Image Search and the Froogle shopping site, which already include many photographs, an executive involved said. No advertising is contemplated for the Google home page."
The Adsense graphical-ads rollout was first, but it looks like
Staying the course.... (Score:5, Funny)
Search on Windows - 10 results and 50 million ads. "Hi, have you thought about double pane windows for your home?"
Search on Linux - "Hi, have you thought about fuzzy penguin slippers for Christmas?"
Search on Cars - "Test drive the new Ford 150 today! Print this google ad and we'll give you a gallon of free gasoline"
Search on Slashdot - "Xerox - for when you want to make your own dupes"
Can they do it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not understand the need to partner with AOL, except that AOL perhaps brings in quite a bit of advertising revenue. The downside, though, is obvious. Google has lost their independence and is slowly succumbing to AOL's wishes. First is image advertisements.
I wonder what the general consensus at Google is about this latest deal. Perhaps they don't expect to lose users when the new ads arrive, or maybe they are strapped for cash and AOL's money is bailing them out. I don't know, but I do know that I don't like AOL, and I don't like image advertisements. It's why I have Adblock installed and why I don't frequent certain other sites anymore.
This is a big mistake, I think. In a long-term business sense, I simply don't see what could possibly be so attractive. Then again, I haven't seen the check that AOL used to buy Google's soul. It may have been worth it.
Brilliant! (Score:5, Interesting)
Google: widely respected and quite profitable.
AOL: being bought out, and gets exactly the respect it deserves.
[closed captioning for the humor impaired: sarcasm to follow]
Obviously Google should be taking AOL's advice about how to finally achieve some real success, right?
[end sarcasm]
Adblock to the rescue (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, get Adblock here: http://adblock.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]
Sad Day (Score:5, Funny)
Party's Over Folks (Score:4, Funny)
X10 ads on Google? (Score:2)
Sigh.... *disillusionment*
Jumped the Shark (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad Google is around. They're providing some much needed competition in the web area, but I fear that things are going to get much worse before they get better.
Google has a lot of great technologies, but all of their income comes from advertising. So if they want to expand, and maintain free services, their only option is basically to ramp up their advertising. Whether they can do that without annoying their users remains to be seen.
Hmm (Score:2)
Easy enough to fix (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.customizegoogle.com/ [customizegoogle.com]
AOL Taint (Score:2)
Actually, be interesting to see how this all unwinds. AOL probably has much more agressive corporate power politics type players. Sometimes the nice places aren't prepared to manage that, though in this case I'd imagine Google will be able to.
Only thing that is worrying is that companies with declining revenue (aol) can be tempted to try bad ideas. Let's hope google doesn't try too many of them itself.
I am glad I got firefox with adblock (Score:2)
I actually didn't mind looking at the text based ads on google.
Good thing I have firefox with adblock.
Already let advertisers use cookies (Score:2)
Prefetching is a Firefox feature (Score:2, Informative)
I'd also note it's not related to the ads [searchenginewatch.com], but the first search result.
Inevitable (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also the fact that running a major site like there's isn't free. Somebody has to pay for the fiber connections, server hardware, power, and cooling. There's also labor costs involved.
As long as the ads aren't those annoying animated banners I don't think I'll really mind.
You don't even need to use google's web page any way, just use the google search box in firefox or galeon.
Re:Inevitable (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, in Google's case, no. In a typically Googlish piece of brilliance, the triumvirate reached back to techniques from the Gilded Age when they IPO'ed. Google has a two-tiered stock offering. Class A shares are held entirely by company insiders, and have ten times the voting power of the Class B shares which were offered to the public. As a result, those $400+ shares of GOOG not only pay no
Trade Marks? Or graphic advertising? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be fine with logos. The are small, simple, and not too distracting. The let me immediately associate a link with a corporate entity.
I along with pretty much everyone else here would throw google adds in the block list if they start tossing out animated gifs, flash, or even just tacky images. I waste enough of my employer's bandwidth with out having to deal with that crap.
-Rick
Images = evil (Score:5, Funny)
I can't wait . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Optimism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the success of Google, and the decline of AOL, isn't it possible that the flow of culture from one to the other might be primarily from Google to AOL, with Google's positive aspects effecting a positive change in AOL's behavior, rather than AOL's crassness infecting Google?
Yeah, it's hard for me to believe too. But the horse might just sing.