Google Ads - let's clear the air
-
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
-
Brian 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
Jeremy Falcon wrote: 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. Yeah.. I saw that when I read down further through the posts. :-D 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 -
Jason 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
Jeremy Falcon 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. I'm not the one that flew off the handle saying this was it, CP is now CodeGuru or whatever. The bigger picture is this: Appreciate the fact that you have a site like CP that is free, before maligning Chris because of some silly Google ads.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
OK, what did you do with the real tigress?
Software Zen:
delete this;Shhh ;) 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, I'll have to say that I've not really noticed anything different the last couple of days. After looking at some of the posts here, I went back to see what I'd missed. I found it pretty quickly. Can't say that I'm bothered by it at all. To be honest, I'd probably seen them today and yesterday (before that even?) and quite frankly, totally ignored it as it wasn't something that was part of the article. Haven't taken much time to see how well it matches up content to ads yet but can't see how that will change my mind. My $0.02 is that I can live with it and hope that it helps CodeProject keep going. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Mike
-
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, I've been reading through all the msgs regarding this topic. It seems to me that people are taking it very personally. There are those who don't mind ads, those that don't like ads at all, and those that prefer their work doesn't promote software and companies that they don't approve of. When it comes down to it, I think article writers benefit greatly from CodeProject. Whether it be from the sense of achievement in helping their fellow programmers, or from promoting their own ideas, concepts and code. Some people would be benefit financially by getting work they would not have otherwise obtained or written books they might not have had the chance of writing. I don't see why CodeProject can't benefit from the authors, as the authors have benefitted from CodeProject. In reality, you have over a million members (not including non-members) that frequently visit the site and look at the articles. That is a hell of a lot of free advertising for the authors. Why is it, that when the community gets so big that financially it needs help, the community looks in shock when their assistance is required? I believe that the google-ads are not obtrusive. They look different enough that you can spot them, and also ignore them. I rarely follow ads on sites. After using the net for a couple of weeks, you build up a filter in your brain so your eyes just flow over them and make no reference to them at all. If the google-ads provide the financial benefits that CodeProject needs to sustain its existence. I'm all for it. You've placed them in the perfect place on the articles. My question is, do you strictly get paid for having the google-ads on the site, or for when users click on the links advertised? Jubjub