Google Ads - let's clear the air
-
I hate to argue with you of all people, Marc, but the AdWords are in a section at the bottom of your article AFTER your profile where there was links to similar articles already. It's not technically in your article content and - as I said - there was already links to similar articles that you probably didn't endorse as well.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: It's not technically in your article content and - as I said - there was already links to similar articles that you probably didn't endorse as well. True. Where the ad is, isn't the point. Targetted ads to other free articles found on CP (or anywhere else) is great. Targetted ads to commercial products is not acceptable in my opinion. I am not interested in advertising other people's products with my article content. How much simpler can I say it? Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Ok, I noticed the ads pretty much as soon as they went up and asked a few other CPians on Messenger if they saw them of if I had some adware sneekily download itself. As they saw them I assumed they were legit so didn't pay any further attention to them. However, if they more closely matched then site rather than looking like a Gator ad I don't tihnk that initial query would have happened. And to be perfectly honest, if I am searching for articles to help me with something it may be useful to have them to see if anyone is offering something to help.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
-
No big deal to me as long as you don't charge *me* for access to the site. However, I would put the ads at the bottom unless Google has specifically contracted you for placement in another location. If I can hang with this (being the most vocally critical member of the board), all of you snivelling foreigners can damn well deal with it as well. How's that Chris? :) ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Since CP is based in Toronto I assume that by snivelling foreigners you mean US citizens ? ;P The tigress is here :-D
-
Fine, you pay for the hosting. Personally I have yet to see a free site that compares with CP. Not only that but I'm on John Simmons side so he must be right :wtf: The tigress is here :-D
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Chris, you must be right because I find my self agreeing with John Simmons :wtf: The tigress is here :-D
-
Since CP is based in Toronto I assume that by snivelling foreigners you mean US citizens ? ;P The tigress is here :-D
-
Chris, you must be right because I find my self agreeing with John Simmons :wtf: The tigress is here :-D
:omg: What have I done?? cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
-
My position: The minute Chris, et al hired employees, Code Project became a business. As such, they have to make enough money to pay those who do the dirty work. As you all know, a business that is not growing is a business that is dying. I applaud the CP team for trying to raise enough money to purchase capital that will make this site a better resource for all of us. Likewise, I applaud the move to hire extra staff so that Chris can focus on the overall development and direction of CP. I don't think that CP will become unjustly enriched by placing Google ads at the bottom of every article. How often do you actually click on them? I don't recall doing it anywhere on the Web - ever. And besides, what with new equipment purchases and personnel acquisitions and retention, a lot of the money that comes in is probably going straight back into the business. Furthermore, even if CP is getting more money this way, what is wrong with that? As long as this continues to be an improving, valuable service to the development community, why would anyone care whether Chris or Nish or Smitha has a nicer automobile or an upgraded apartment? Who among us doesn't like nicer things? (If you're one of the few who enjoys subsisting on nuts and berries, please go here[^].) As an aside, I don't think it's fair to criticize CP for having an Xbox game room, or for making trips to conferences around the world. As I understand it, CP is headquartered in Dundas's offices, so it's a shared resource, one that I would venture to guess was paid for by Dundas. And besides, it's not like Nish and Smitha can just plug in and play. Secondly, part of Chris's job is to develop a feel for industry trends and stay abreast of developing technologies. How can he do that if he's not at the conferences where the bleeding-edge technologies of the future are unveiled? Bottom line: businesses need money to run. CP is a business, and we all take advantage of the services it provides. Our contributions are our articles, and let's face it - CP attracts so many visitors because of the content of these articles. Therefore it is not completely unnatural for CP to try to grow their business by making a little bit of money from said articles. Also, if I had wanted to make money from my articles, I wouldn’t have posted them here, for free, for the entire world to consume; I would have tried to develop them into commer
Sidenote: Jon your definition of a business is a bit different to mine. To me a business is an entity with a financial basis that is saleable. The end result is the same as your arguements though. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Yikes! Your attacking Chris and co. and the hard work they do every day for your principles? What are your principles? Communism?
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce -
Heath Stewart wrote: It's not technically in your article content and - as I said - there was already links to similar articles that you probably didn't endorse as well. True. Where the ad is, isn't the point. Targetted ads to other free articles found on CP (or anywhere else) is great. Targetted ads to commercial products is not acceptable in my opinion. I am not interested in advertising other people's products with my article content. How much simpler can I say it? Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog
Marc Clifton wrote: I am not interested in advertising other people's products with my article content. How much simpler can I say it? First off let me say that i agree with the principle that you imply (although i recognize it may differ from your intent) - CP should/can not use your articles to imply that you endorse anothers product. It's such a basic premise they've even made laws about it. :) However, YOU aren't advertising other people's product - CP is. If you can make a case, that when people see the google ads on your article they believe you endorse the advertised prduct, then i think you have a very good argument to pull the article or remove the ads. If you can't make that case, then the ads, in fact, are no different than the banner ads. Based on the location and nature of the ads, i don't feel that people will imply that you endorse the products - sorry. ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
Fine, you pay for the hosting. Personally I have yet to see a free site that compares with CP. Not only that but I'm on John Simmons side so he must be right :wtf: The tigress is here :-D
-
Who's Chris and why is he more important then anyone else? Yes, and now let's start talking about communism.... /\ |_ E X E GG
He rocks ! :cool:
Tomáš Petříček
www.eeeksoft.net | Photos | Fractal Snow -
Marc Clifton wrote: I am not interested in advertising other people's products with my article content. How much simpler can I say it? First off let me say that i agree with the principle that you imply (although i recognize it may differ from your intent) - CP should/can not use your articles to imply that you endorse anothers product. It's such a basic premise they've even made laws about it. :) However, YOU aren't advertising other people's product - CP is. If you can make a case, that when people see the google ads on your article they believe you endorse the advertised prduct, then i think you have a very good argument to pull the article or remove the ads. If you can't make that case, then the ads, in fact, are no different than the banner ads. Based on the location and nature of the ads, i don't feel that people will imply that you endorse the products - sorry. ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
cmk wrote: However, YOU aren't advertising other people's product - CP is. I disagree. Since the ad is keyed by the content of my article, I have, by virtue of the article, created a targetted ad. cmk wrote: Based on the location and nature of the ads, i don't feel that people will imply that you endorse the products - sorry. I agree with you. I'll throw the endorsement argument out, but I'll keep the argument that it is unethical to use my article content to generate targetted ads. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog
-
Personally, the ads don't bother me, but I can appreciate the way others feel about them. I fully understand the need for a reliable, recurring way to pay the bills. Donations sound fine until you get into the tax issues involved and the unreliable/non-recurring nature of them. Subscriptions will cull the ranks of developers who visit CP and will make developers from less developed countries (or unemployed developers in developed countries) drop out. Also, a subscription fee would require certain financial/tax issues as well. I love CP and have participated quite a bit in the past, but have been side-lined by time and legal issues. However, I would hate to see CP go the way of CodeGuru, and I would hate to see it go away completely. As with any business (CP is a business after all), there is a need to have value in order to receive compensation. So, I would suggest the following... 1) Keep the ads, including the new google ads. This provides ad revenue and ensures many/most visitors see ads. 2) Provide a subscription service whereby visitors can optionally see no ads. This provides recurring revenue on a small scale whereby visitors can feel free from ads and feel that they are helping CP. 3) Provide a subscription service whereby article publishers have no ads attached to their articles. Obviously, authros should have the right to remove their articles when they no longer can/wish to pay the subscription. This provides recurring revenue and protects the authors. 4) Allow article publishers to "donate" their articles to CP, in the sense that they will always be eligible for AD rotation, etc. This would allow authors with a subscription to allow some articles to be used for ads. Some authors would do this as a courtesy to CP (myself included), especially with less major articles. 5) Consider providing a donation system. (Personally, I see this as a negative, but it may work for CP.) Just my 2 cents. Sadly, my suggestions require a somewhat complicated approach, but maybe it would work.
-
No big deal to me as long as you don't charge *me* for access to the site. However, I would put the ads at the bottom unless Google has specifically contracted you for placement in another location. If I can hang with this (being the most vocally critical member of the board), all of you snivelling foreigners can damn well deal with it as well. How's that Chris? :) ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Got my 5. Hey folks unless you promise to buy Chris his meals, pay for his room, and etc... having a few adds around is not a bad deal. He does have to live some way. Keep up the good work Chris! I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Very, very different situation Jeremy. While Zafir and I ran CodeGuru it was as simple as we could keep it. He decided enough was enough, sold it lock, stock and barrel, and EarthWeb did their magic. Because of that experience - in the realities and economics of running sites, in seeing someone simply give up after years of work because he'd had enough, and in seeing what unobstructed commercialism can do - I'm being very, very careful. Gimme some credit here. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Chris Maunder wrote: Gimme some credit here. Got it from me. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
OK - the initial reaction has been pretty dark from a few of you. I honestly want to know why you hate it so much, why you see it as unethical, and why it is so much more obscene than, say, if we'd introduced a different sized banner. Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? The fact that ads are shown based on the article's content? The fact that it's Google? The fact that we make money off advertising? The design? This is not a precursor to subscription based article viewing nor is it a tip of any iceberg. This is an experiment to see if it works, if it's valuable, if we can achieve a balance, and, importantly, if it's acceptable. We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. So let's talk this out - but please - if anyone doesn't mind or has positive comments then I'd like to hear those comments too. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Come on everyone, i had to really look for an ad on the page When I actually saw it , I found a free VS IDE UML Modeller. Not a problem. .netter
-
No big deal to me as long as you don't charge *me* for access to the site. However, I would put the ads at the bottom unless Google has specifically contracted you for placement in another location. If I can hang with this (being the most vocally critical member of the board), all of you snivelling foreigners can damn well deal with it as well. How's that Chris? :) ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Is it the straw that broke the camel's back? That's my vote. Chris Maunder wrote: We want to provide advertising that is relevant, not just blast you with stuff that you simply don't care about. Most of the advertising is somewhat relevant anyway. It's for developers and we're developers. But, if you want to take the Google extreme fine, just keep the ads out of the articles and rotate them with the regular ads or something. I don't know about the other article writers, but for me all these ads make me feel as if my efforts are being used for your financial benefit (whether it be by toys, trips, or money). And, I can't imagine many people being motivated by that to write more articles with that in mind. Like I said before, maybe I'm wrong about what goes under the hood in CP, but that's the impression I get. Jeremy Falcon
You are wrong. CodeProject advertises so it can stay alive. They have bills to pay you know. Servers, bandwith and office space costs money. And salaries too. I see nothing wrong with employees of CodeProject making a decent living. Dont forget that these article are here for your benefit. The CodeProject people put a lot of sweat, blood and tears into this site. These advertising dollars make this site better. 60% of statistics are made up on the spot
