Google Ads - let's clear the air
-
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
-
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: How much simpler can I say it? I'm not a stupid person and do understand your point, but how do you expect CP to make enough money to remain free, which brings up my idea... Are you familiar with /.? A while back they went to an optional subscription that eliminates the ads while browsing (at least in certain places - I think the banner ad at the very top is still there, just no ads in the content). The site is still free, but ad supported for non-subscribers. Would you be willing (just out of curiosity) to pay a small fee to offset the cost of eliminating ads from your articles (which I think makes more sense that eliminating all ads while you're browsing the site)? Your articles are great and I'd like to see them and more from you here (I've used a lot of other sites and CP wins hands down). But CP needs money to survive and apparently the banners ads aren't doing it.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
Marc Clifton wrote: How much simpler can I say it? I'm not a stupid person and do understand your point, but how do you expect CP to make enough money to remain free, which brings up my idea... Are you familiar with /.? A while back they went to an optional subscription that eliminates the ads while browsing (at least in certain places - I think the banner ad at the very top is still there, just no ads in the content). The site is still free, but ad supported for non-subscribers. Would you be willing (just out of curiosity) to pay a small fee to offset the cost of eliminating ads from your articles (which I think makes more sense that eliminating all ads while you're browsing the site)? Your articles are great and I'd like to see them and more from you here (I've used a lot of other sites and CP wins hands down). But CP needs money to survive and apparently the banners ads aren't doing it.
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
Heath Stewart wrote: I'm not a stupid person and do understand your point, Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were or anything like that. I was getting frustrated with the whole issue. Heath Stewart wrote: but how do you expect CP to make enough money to remain free I have no problem with banner ads, donate buttons, subscriber benefits, etc. Heath Stewart wrote: Would you be willing (just out of curiosity) to pay a small fee to offset the cost of eliminating ads from your articles (which I think makes more sense that eliminating all ads while you're browsing the site)? Absolutely. And not necessarily just a small fee. CP is very valuable to me. On par with an MSDN subscription. Speaking strictly for myself, I'd wouldn't even blink at, say, $500/yr! Heath Stewart wrote: Your articles are great and I'd like to see them and more from you here Thanks! Heath Stewart wrote: I've used a lot of other sites and CP wins hands down 110% agreement. Heath Stewart wrote: But CP needs money to survive and apparently the banners ads aren't doing it. So where's the donate button!!! Show me a donate button and I'll put my money where my mouth (err, fingers) are! 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.
Humm, well you must have already got this suggestion but here it is again, can that ad not be formated properly? It really does not go with CP website.
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
-
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.
This is a great idea Chris. Targeted ads should give you more money for less real estate which is a plus as far as I am concerned. However, I just checked my articles and I don't understand why I get all these cow manure links. :confused: :rolleyes: :laugh: Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but for me all these ads make me feel as if my efforts are being used for your financial benefit They are, and I think rightly so. Chris et al deserve to be paid for their efforts. Without direct, full financial support from a) subscribers or b) Microsoft, c) advertising is pretty much all that's left. Jeremy Falcon wrote: And, I can't imagine many people being motivated by that to write more articles with that in mind Sharing with the community of devs is what should motivate people to write articles (and is what I think motivates contributers to Code Project). Do you believe that the knowledge that their articles will be displayed alongside targeted ads will de-motivate article writers? I can understand the knee-jerk reaction that 'hey - I wrote that! Why are trying to make money off of it?' in general. However, that reaction just doesn't make much sense in a free-for-all site like Code Project. If you're a good article writer, there are plenty of developers who have gained financially directly or indirectly from your articles. Does that make you cringe? -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
rightly pointed...:-D
It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature.
suhredayan@gmail.commessenger :suhredayan@hotmail.com
-
Nope - We're a separate company. We just piggy-backed on Dundas's infrastructure for a time to save cash. cheers, Chris Maunder Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
-
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.
It would seem that you managed to stir up the pot rather nicely with this one, Chris. I've read most of the posts, and there are some very strong arguments, pro and con, about the ads and the manner in which they are implemented. For myself, I can only say that I don't care one way or another. The Google ads don't in any way detract from the value of the articles I read, nor do they imply any endorsement by the author(s) of the product offerred. All of the ads on CP want to induce me to buy things I neither need nor can afford, so I've learned not to notice them. I'm sure that's not what your advertisers want to hear, but it's a fact. If tacking ads onto articles helps to keep CP alive, I'm all in favor of them. CodeProject is an invaluable resource for me, being the only source of intelligent conversation I have access to. If it ever goes to a subscription based service, I'll have to drop it; ads are an innocuous way to support my habit, and I have no problem with the Google ads at all. Carry on, lad - a job well done... Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
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
If you would care to contribute towards bandwidth costs Jeremy... Personally I think the CP team word £$%^&*)very hard to keep things going and with over a million people joind and thousands of articles they have their work cut out. Elaine :rose: 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.
Hey Chris, Just want to say that I'm all for it if it helps to keep CP going and if it helps ye guys to continue making the advancements and improvements to CP (and :bob:) that have been made of late. I don't see any problem with it.. other then the fact that the ads are relevant and I will probably click on them and thus temporarily taking me away from CP (for as long as it takes me to hit ALT+TAB)... but then again, that is the point. You have my support and I'll gladly beat up anybody who bugs you about it. There is no reason for people to be acting so stupid (unless of couse you are giving google all that personal information that you collect about us ;-) ). Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS Feed -
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
Come on Jeremy... CP needs money to survive. I've personally see great improvements lately in the speed and accessibility of CP and I'm presuming that this came at a cost. If this is the way CP needs to go to keep it up and running, or to make advancements or improvements, then I'm all for it. Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS Feed -
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
Well said Jon. I agree with you 100% Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS Feed -
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, use the ads. I checked my articles (OK, OK, my only article[^]), and while the ads listed didn't especially relate to the article topic, I don't find them objectionable. The ads are at the end of the article, and are no more intrusive than the banners at the left. Targeted ads relating to the article topic seems like a 'value-added' proposition for the reader, making the article more useful for them. The objections are coming from authors, who somehow seem slighted. Given that you serve over 1.1 million readers, and a much smaller group of authors, I don't think it will hurt the author population. Code Project is an important resource to me as a developer. It's also part of my online 'social life' (the Lounge). You and your crew do an exemplary job of catering to the whims and tastes of this herd of cats. Aside to potential critics: Yeah, I'm sucking up. So what. This is my favorite web site, period. The web is an extremely ephemeral place. I want CP to stick around, and if Chris & Co. need the ad revenue to do that, so be it.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Chris, you must be right because I find my self agreeing with John Simmons :wtf: The tigress is here :-D
OK, what did you do with the real tigress?
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You've got it all backwards. It's because of the articles that ppl visist this site. Do you think 1.1 million developers would've registered for a site with no content? Do you think a site with 1.1 million developers and no fees will make money? Jeremy Falcon wrote: That's one thing I don't understand about you people. Why in the hell do you assume I'm screaming bloody murder all the time? Is it because I'm blunt? Um, maybe. Okay, yeah. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Piddly in your eyes maybe. Which just goes to proving my point. You need to learn to see the bigger picture I guess.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Um, maybe. Okay, yeah. Nice point you make. Jason Henderson wrote: You need to learn to see the bigger picture I guess. You guess wrong. What, just because I beleive articles are the reason CP is what it is I don't see the bigger picture? Give me a break already. 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
Joshua Nussbaum חיים wrote: Dont forget that these article are here for your benefit. That's just it. If they are for our benefit, then the people that write them and the CP staff deserve something. Not just one or the other. Jeremy Falcon
-
Come on Jeremy... CP needs money to survive. I've personally see great improvements lately in the speed and accessibility of CP and I'm presuming that this came at a cost. If this is the way CP needs to go to keep it up and running, or to make advancements or improvements, then I'm all for it. Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS FeedBrian Delahunty wrote: Come on Jeremy... CP needs money to survive. I've personally see great improvements lately in the speed and accessibility of CP and I'm presuming that this came at a cost. They changed ISPs. That doesn't mean it necessarily cost more. Either way, I jumped the gun because I felt cheated the whole Godeguru thing popped up in my head again. I already apologized to Chris for jumping to conclusions. Jeremy Falcon