Google Ads - let's clear the air
-
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
-
Yikes! We'll now we have the socialist opinion. Don't you guys at CP know that you should be running this simply out of the kindness of your hearts with no regard for your own personal welfare? Hows the view up on that horse Daniel?;)
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose BierceWhere's the socialism on my opinion? I just pointed Chris a failed business model, similar to what he seems to be taking. Then I also pointed him a similar business, but with a different approach, that ruled the market. Not in a single point of my post I talked about CP being free. Nothing more capitalist than ads that do not generate revenue because no one is there to see them. Again, I'd hate to see CP ruin, and, IMO, CP is taking the "easy" approach, but not the wiser one. Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Where's the socialism on my opinion? I just pointed Chris a failed business model, similar to what he seems to be taking. Then I also pointed him a similar business, but with a different approach, that ruled the market. Not in a single point of my post I talked about CP being free. Nothing more capitalist than ads that do not generate revenue because no one is there to see them. Again, I'd hate to see CP ruin, and, IMO, CP is taking the "easy" approach, but not the wiser one. Yes, even I am blogging now!
I was wrong on that, I apologize. I was getting a general feel for the anti faction as I read through the posts and it seems socialist in nature on average, and then I saw your name which I have some sort of memory of having a big discussion with you here about Microsoft or licensing or hackers or open source or some such that was based on your socialist point of view on that issue and my response just kicked in. In fact though, I just re-read your post and I agree that it doesn't appear to be socialist leaning at all, please take it to mean the majority of the other posters in the anti faction who don't feel that anyone should make a living running CodeProject but should simply do it out of the kindness of their hearts while they live apparently in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce -
Chris Maunder wrote: Is it the placement of the ad, or the content? How is this different to banners? Both. The banner ads are generic, everyone gets them. I sort of see them as representing an implicit agreement between me and CP, so that I can post articles and CP can generate revenue. Now, with the banner ads, I feel like I've been violated. I don't agree to having products of dubious nature being specifically targetted based on the content of my article. I have no problem helping CP stay in business by writing (hopefully) decent articles that people can google, and when they go to the CP site they see banner ads. Great. I have a big problem with endorsing and lining the pocket of some shmuck and his shmucky product because his google ad ended up on my article! Let me put it another way. The banner ads are a "community evil". The google ads, while on every article, are my personal evil now, because they are based on what I write about. In no way does that fly with me. An acceptable compromise would be if the google ad were just some random thing based on some huge collection of keywords. But then, it wouldn't provide the "service" that you mentioned. The thing is, I don't want MY articles providing THAT service. Just because I post an article on CP, doesn't mean that I don't retain some sense of ownership of it. People read it and use the code. Google ads add new meaning to "being used". I now feel abused. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog
I'm confused. :confused: Do you feel threatened by a product which competes with your open source/freeware software? Marc, by making fuss/tantrums you are actually making more people to check out the competing product(Xamlon). In fact I just goggled to see what's it about. Don't forget how CPians supported your MyXAML. Remember your posts at lounge about MyXAML. You even advertise for free about your software in your signature. Marc, your code speaks volumes. Don't give a damn about an ad about competing product. In fact, if your software is good then it's the competing company who should be worried not you.
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter". -
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.
I can't see any google ads!!! Have you pulled them out? :confused: But if you ask me (though I don't know how valid my opinion is, since the only article I wrote was for the scrapbook and not a technical article), I don't mind the google ads at all. In fact, I welcome it as it allows CP to keep running smoothly. If it makes money for you, even better. I'm happy for you and all others that worked so hard to make CP what it is today. The Code Project, The Community Project, The Cricket cough cough cough... I think today I am a better developer and a much better person than what I was before I joined CP. So thank you Chris, and thank you everyone on CP. :rose: A small suggestion, that might keep everyone happy: Allow article authors to opt out of google ads on request. Most authors won't mind having the ads on their articles, and those who really do, can tell you about it, and you can add them to a list which stops the ads being displayed on their articles. I am willing to bet most people (newcomers, especially) come here to look for stuff on dialog boxes, various controls, etc. Not highly technical stuff. The audience for such articles is very small. Though I haven't really looked at and compared the page views for different articles so please excuse me if I'm wrong. What this means is, not displaying ads on Marc's articles for example, would not have a tremendous impact on the revenues. Because Marc writes highly technical and sophisticated stuff, which is (excuse me but) not what most visitors to CP come looking for. Asking authors to pay a fees to get rid of the ads on their articles, as some others have suggested, is something I don't like (even though I don't think I have a say on this, but anyway). It's something like saying, pay up or else we show ads on your articles. This "or else" element is not very friendly. CP is a friendly place, right? :) In the end though, I don't see what the big deal is. It's an ad. Ads are a fact of life on the internet. You see them everywhere, so much that most of us have learned to tune them out. Hardly anyone notices them. Also, people should understand three things: 1. CP is a service to the community, not just the article authors. 2. Even though CP provides the service for free, it has to be run like a business. 3. It might boost your ego to think people come looking for you and your articles, but the fact is that they come here just to learn something. Or see how something works. Or even a bit of code they can just use. The don't
-
I can't see any google ads!!! Have you pulled them out? :confused: But if you ask me (though I don't know how valid my opinion is, since the only article I wrote was for the scrapbook and not a technical article), I don't mind the google ads at all. In fact, I welcome it as it allows CP to keep running smoothly. If it makes money for you, even better. I'm happy for you and all others that worked so hard to make CP what it is today. The Code Project, The Community Project, The Cricket cough cough cough... I think today I am a better developer and a much better person than what I was before I joined CP. So thank you Chris, and thank you everyone on CP. :rose: A small suggestion, that might keep everyone happy: Allow article authors to opt out of google ads on request. Most authors won't mind having the ads on their articles, and those who really do, can tell you about it, and you can add them to a list which stops the ads being displayed on their articles. I am willing to bet most people (newcomers, especially) come here to look for stuff on dialog boxes, various controls, etc. Not highly technical stuff. The audience for such articles is very small. Though I haven't really looked at and compared the page views for different articles so please excuse me if I'm wrong. What this means is, not displaying ads on Marc's articles for example, would not have a tremendous impact on the revenues. Because Marc writes highly technical and sophisticated stuff, which is (excuse me but) not what most visitors to CP come looking for. Asking authors to pay a fees to get rid of the ads on their articles, as some others have suggested, is something I don't like (even though I don't think I have a say on this, but anyway). It's something like saying, pay up or else we show ads on your articles. This "or else" element is not very friendly. CP is a friendly place, right? :) In the end though, I don't see what the big deal is. It's an ad. Ads are a fact of life on the internet. You see them everywhere, so much that most of us have learned to tune them out. Hardly anyone notices them. Also, people should understand three things: 1. CP is a service to the community, not just the article authors. 2. Even though CP provides the service for free, it has to be run like a business. 3. It might boost your ego to think people come looking for you and your articles, but the fact is that they come here just to learn something. Or see how something works. Or even a bit of code they can just use. The don't
Rohit Sinha wrote: And really, I must be blind or something. I looked and looked, but can't see the ads. I can see the ads in the articles. (Bottom right corner of the article) BTW, I agree with you 100%.
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter". -
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
Wow now this is one heck of a subject. Here is my take on it. First let me say that I love this site and really appreciate all the articles that have been written for us developers. I can understand that someone would not want an add appearing in an article they had written. But really... what if CP put "Please be advised the following advertisement is here for more information and may ot may not be endorsed by the Author of this Article or CP" or something like that... Atleast this way you "The Author" get a voice and can let the user know that you "The Author" do not have anything to do with the advertisement following your article. just my thoughts William O'Malley
-
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.
Sorry, had to add this as a separate post, in case you'd already read my other one and miss the edit. I don't remember much about adwords, but I think it lets you specify negative keywords (or whatever they are called). Ads matching these negative keywords will NOT be displayed on the page. If this is correct, you can just ask people to specify their -ve keywords. That way that can have a bit of control over what appears on their articles. Again, do this on request only. Don't advertise it too much, or everyone will start doing this, and would defeat the whole purpose of content sensitive ads. ;P Regards, Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
I was wrong on that, I apologize. I was getting a general feel for the anti faction as I read through the posts and it seems socialist in nature on average, and then I saw your name which I have some sort of memory of having a big discussion with you here about Microsoft or licensing or hackers or open source or some such that was based on your socialist point of view on that issue and my response just kicked in. In fact though, I just re-read your post and I agree that it doesn't appear to be socialist leaning at all, please take it to mean the majority of the other posters in the anti faction who don't feel that anyone should make a living running CodeProject but should simply do it out of the kindness of their hearts while they live apparently in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose BierceJohn Cardinal wrote: with you here about Microsoft or licensing or hackers or open source or some such that was based on your socialist point of view on that issue and my response just kicked in. Weird: my friends and relatives often tell me that I am a leftist hater... :eek: Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
I'm confused. :confused: Do you feel threatened by a product which competes with your open source/freeware software? Marc, by making fuss/tantrums you are actually making more people to check out the competing product(Xamlon). In fact I just goggled to see what's it about. Don't forget how CPians supported your MyXAML. Remember your posts at lounge about MyXAML. You even advertise for free about your software in your signature. Marc, your code speaks volumes. Don't give a damn about an ad about competing product. In fact, if your software is good then it's the competing company who should be worried not you.
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter".Kant wrote: I'm confused. hehe. Sorry. The competition thing was a really bad example. What really bugs me about the google ads is that they are targetted ads, based on the article content. That simply doesn't sit right with me. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: And really, I must be blind or something. I looked and looked, but can't see the ads. I can see the ads in the articles. (Bottom right corner of the article) BTW, I agree with you 100%.
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter".Kant wrote: I can see the ads in the articles. (Bottom right corner of the article) I just went to your article. I can't see any ads. I've tried looking at other articles too, but I can't see them. Is it just me, or is anyone else experiencing this "problem"? :confused: Regards, Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Kant wrote: I can see the ads in the articles. (Bottom right corner of the article) I just went to your article. I can't see any ads. I've tried looking at other articles too, but I can't see them. Is it just me, or is anyone else experiencing this "problem"? :confused: Regards, Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: I just went to your article. I can't see any ads. I can see them. Just try and search for 'Google'. Rohit Sinha wrote: I've tried looking at other articles too, but I can't see them. Is it just me, I afraid so, what have you done to CP? :eek: ;)
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter". -
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
I guess it's one of those agree to disagree situations. If the ad does not imply endorsement, then i can't see how the fact of it being targeted or random is relevant. If there was no google ad but the banner ads were targeted would there still be a problem ? The only case i can see is if the article is being used as jump point to a commercial product of your own, in which case the ads are competitive in nature (i'm not saying this is the case here - i don't know). However, in that case i would argue that you are getting free advertising through your article and as such aren't really in a position to argue about other ad content :) ... actually i'll amend that, i would argue that posting your article for the community to view for free is your payment for the advertising you get from the article. Of course all that's exchanged is favors - CP can't survive on favors - sadly ads are here to stay. If the article isn't a jump point for you, and you just dislike certain products so much that you don't want them to be seen near your work ... well i don't see any solution other than withholding your articles for now (which would be a shame). I really don't see how CP is being unethical. I thought Matt Gullett had some good suggestions to get around this problem. ...cmk Save the whales - collect the whole set
-
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.
I don't care about the adds, they don't bother me.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: I just went to your article. I can't see any ads. I can see them. Just try and search for 'Google'. Rohit Sinha wrote: I've tried looking at other articles too, but I can't see them. Is it just me, I afraid so, what have you done to CP? :eek: ;)
Promise only what you can do. And then deliver more than what you promised.
This signature was created by "Code Project Quoter".Kant wrote: I can see them. Just try and search for 'Google'. Tried that too. The ads are just not there. :confused: [EDIT] Now I can see them too, YAY! :) I was starting to feel a bit left out. :) All is well now. [/EDIT] Regards, Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
