INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER Bookmark this page

  
Display: Sort:
License to Spy | 44 comments (44 topical) | Post A Comment
Please look into your advertising[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by wantobe on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 03:17:51 AM PDT

Ed, I fully back your supporting this site with targeted ads as I want this site to continue to provide the powerful voice that it does. However, in most cases the ads are ridiculously inappropriate. I know they are targeted at keywords in the articles, which means that whichever company is being ranted against is also getting free advertising. Since most of the readers here are savvy enough to know how the ads work, and aren't likely to click on an ad from a bad advertisor, it doesn't seem to be much of a problem, but why bother with the ads? We aren't going to click through, so you don't even get the credit for running them.

Worse, today's article about Gator displays ads for programs that supposedly remove Gator from a system. That's fine on the surface, but if you look into the programs that are being offered, it turns out that some are just as bad in regards to spyware as Gator is. Of the four advertised, only Giant Antispyware is listed at Spyware Warrior as being a legitimate product; two are specifically listed as rogue/suspect.

Ed, again I don't mind you using ads to support the site, but isn't there some way you can make sure legitimate ads get displayed, even if not related to the articles? They'd be more effective than what you currently have going.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This ]



But these ads...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Fri Dec 03, 2004 at 06:23:09 AM PDT

... especially the "Gator Removal Software" ads are wonderfully appropriate to this piece. (altho I can't fathom why anyone would want Gator on their computer in the first place :) )

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


They aren't appropriate...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by wantobe on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 04:35:27 AM PDT

if they are just as bad as Gator itself is. My point is that in most cases the ads simply aren't going to get clicked, so they don't really support Ed's site at all. And in this case, two of the ads are for known spyware, and a third one is suspicious. If they get clicked by someone niaive enough (which is admittedly unlikely with Ed's general readership, but still possible) it might help suppor the site, but at what cost?


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



The very calibre[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 09:02:32 AM PDT

of Ed's readers make the ads meaningless. Secondly, they aren't pop up ads, they are designed as part of Ed's page specifically. Granted, they're parsing of Ed's text may suck in terms what ads they present, but still... I make it a point to NEVER click an ad and don't allow ads to affect my shopping habits, the same should go for everyone, even the dumb. You will never get rid of ads, it's sickening yes, but advertising is everywhere and it's out of control. The only hope is to let these companies advertised know WHY you aren't doing business with them, otherwise the ad explosion will continue....

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: They aren't appropriate[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Ed Foster on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 12:09:20 PM PDT

I must say I don't quite understand what the objection is. These are Google contextual ads -- sometimes the ones that are displayed are fairly appropriate, sometimes they are way off the mark. (My site is understandably a little harder for the ad servers to figure out than most.) But I haven't seen any ads here that look like spyware -- they mostly appear to be spyware removal. So what is it that bothers you about them? -- Ed Foster

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: They aren't appropriate[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by wantobe on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 04:39:24 AM PDT

Originally, my problem with these ads in particular was that two were listed at Spyware Warrior (http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm ) as rogue or suspect (Spyhunter and Adware Spy). Since then, I've discovered that they've moved Spyhunter off of the "bad" list because the company has stopped the most obnoxious of their advertisements. They still don't recommend the product, but it's not considered one of the bad products. Adware Spy is still considered rogue, however.

My point was that the ads usually seem to be directed towards the companies that are targeted in a particular article. That means you're unlikely to get many click throughs for them, therefore the site isn't getting supported the way it could with better placed ads.

However, if you get credit just for having the ads up even when you don't get click-throughs, then I'm all for it, and I apologize for the original complaint. If you're ranting about HP and getting revenue from HP ads that aren't going to generate even one click-through, it's good irony.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Re: Re: They aren't appropriate[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Ed Foster on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 11:24:42 AM PDT

I'll grant you it often seems incongruous that the ads are offering products from a company about which I'm reporting reader gripes. But even then, the ads may not be inappropriate for everyone who comes to the site. The ads are usually from third party suppliers, not the company itself. It's possible those third party suppliers could be a source of help for those readers who find that page because they're having the same problem readers are griping about. At least that's the theory.

I'm certainly open to considering alternatives, or getting rid of the ads altogether, so if other readers have strong feelings about this, I'd like to hear them. It's not a huge source of revenue. On the other hand, at least it doesn't require me to spend any of my time selling ads, which I don't want to do. So any suggestions would be welcome.

Ed Foster



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Suggestion for Google, maybe...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Reziac on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:36:42 AM PDT

Apparently however the ads are being delivered, they're invisible in my preferred old Netscape 3.04 (but there is something screwy with the table structure on some of your pages, and that might be hiding it). And to think here I suggested text ads, if you must have ads!

As to the Google-feed textads not being appropriate: ISTM it would be relatively simple for Google to set it up so those using 'em could have "block advertiser" and "allow advertiser" lists, both by advertiser name AND by keyword (since keywords like "Gator" tend to collect nothing but junkware ads). This would prevent "inappropriate content" from being fed to your site, and if everyone gets on the bandwagon, could have a very negative effect on ads by scumware merchants who masquerade as legitimate products.

This would also help prevent dilution of the effect of legit Google TextAds.

[I like that idea so much, I'm going off to suggest it to Google even as we speak. :)
~REZ~
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Re: Suggestion for Google, maybe...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Ed Foster on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

Google does have a way of blocking specific URLs. But since the ads are usually from third party resellers, it doesn't make much of a difference. And blocking ads related to particular keywords would defeat the whole purpose of contextual advertising. -- Ed

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Suggestion for Google, maybe...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 01:44:13 PM PDT

That's an over-extension of your argument, Ed. While blocking a multitude of key words would defeat the purpose, Reziac's point about excluding PARTICULAR key words is appropriate. Particular key words are going to always return junk ads; being able to nullify the results on those key words would be useful.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Gripeline Ads[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:21:41 AM PDT

I had no idea that the site even had ads. I hope I'm not missing anything.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I don't see any ads...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 09:31:25 AM PDT

Seriously, I don't see ads on this site, nor on most others. Mozilla offers this nifty little privacy setting where you can tell it to load only images from the same server as the page that called it. Voila...no more third-party ads in my browser. You can further extend this convenience by adding specific sites or domains to the iamge block/allow list. So, I always see the images on CNN, but not their ads.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


License to Spy | 44 comments (44 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:

Menu
· create account
· faq
· search

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

 HOME  NEWS  COLUMNS  BLOGS  PODCASTS  TECHNOLOGIES  TEST CENTER  EVENTS  CAREERS  IT EXEC-CONNECT   About Awards Contact Us 

Copyright © 2006, Reprints, Permissions, Licensing, IDG Network, Privacy Policy.
All Rights reserved. InfoWorld is a leading publisher of technology information and product reviews on topics including viruses,
phishing, worms, firewalls, security, servers, storage, networking, wireless, databases, and web services.

 ComputerWorld :: LinuxWorld :: Network World :: CIO :: PC World :: Darwin :: CMO :: CSO
IT Careers :: JavaWorld :: Macworld :: Mac Central :: Playlist :: GamePro :: GameStar :: Gamerhelp
ITWorld Canada :: Computerwoche :: Techworld UK :: tecChannel :: IDG.se :: IDG.no :: IDG.pl

create account | faq | search