×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A New Idea, For People Who Want To See More Banner Ads

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the y'know-as-y'do dept.

Advertising 167

Jacob53 writes "Scott Kurnit is a very bright guy. He founded About.com, and has raised over $8,000,000 for his new business AdKeeper. So, who am I to judge? But his new start-up sounds more like a Saturday Night Live skit than an emerging marketplace." As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertising, it sounds only mildly weird to me — the basic idea is to let people easily archive ads they think might be interesting for perusing later.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

167 comments

Forget the article, submitter is weird (1, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672558)

The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?

I suppose this might mean that submitter finds adverts funny, but we have to wonder - doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?

Most of the people I know took deliberate steps to cut advertising entirely out of their lives, and that's been essential to feeling more peace/quiet/sanity. The technologies are there. Why wouldn't someone want to use them?

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (2)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672598)

>doesn't (s)he find them distracting? Doesn't the underlying message "you have to buy stuff to be worthwhile" get old after awhile?

I dunno. I've got NoScript installed, I paintball ads on bus stops, and I saw down billboards. Haven't had time to experiment with the above.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672740)

I dunno. I've got NoScript installed

Introducing new flatbread sandwiches.

think Subway!!!

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672610)

Some people really do like advertising, for some reason. I was watching TV with some friends on Christmas Eve. One of the guys there is really into Apple products and tight clothes. An Apple ad came on during one of the commercial breaks. This guy popped a very apparent stiffy. Yes, that's right, an Apple commercial aroused him sexually. The rest of us were rather shocked.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (2)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672762)

I find this hard to condemn without knowing more about the commercial. Was it straightforward shots of Apple products, or were there scantily-clad females like in most commercials?

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672860)

Nah, the guy probably has a black turtleneck fetish. And Steve Jobs likes 'em tight.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673550)

Nah, the guy probably has a black turtleneck fetish. And Steve Jobs likes 'em tight.

There's and app for that!

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673744)

Uhh, wrong demographic there. Apple customers are generally homosexual.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673644)

I wish there was a '-1 Too Informative' mod.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672624)

Being that you are likely a fan of scifi, why are you being judgemental of what other people enjoy?

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672688)

Being that you are likely a fan of scifi, why are you being judgemental of what other people enjoy?

Some people are masochists and really enjoy physical pain. There's nothing "judgmental" or otherwise faulty about saying that this is pathological. Something is wrong with those people. I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.

One can only be "judgmental" (a thoroughly overused word) when there is a prejudice against one of two equally viable options. You're not being "judgmental" when you say that having $1000 is better than having $10, merely realistic. Thus, to claim that GP is being "judgmental" is equivalent to claiming that banner ads have as much literary and artistic value as a well-written sci-fi novel. If you think you can prove that claim, I'm willing to entertain your evidence, but until then I remain fully skeptical.

Some guy is free to enjoy ads if that's really what he wants to do. Others are free to think that's pretty damned strange. I don't see anyone advocating that either freedom should be taken away, so really what's the problem here?

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672774)

I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.

No, it's a matter of taste/opinion. Just because you feel very strongly on the matter does not make your position correct. I don't agree with it either, but who are you to dictate what others should and should not enjoy?

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672954)

I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.

No, it's a matter of taste/opinion. Just because you feel very strongly on the matter does not make your position correct. I don't agree with it either, but who are you to dictate what others should and should not enjoy?

You said it right there in your last sentence but didn't realize it.

You see, I am not dictating anything. As I explicitly said in my previous post, you're free to enjoy advertisements if you want to do that. I am free to think that's quite strange if I want to do that. Both are OK because in neither case is anyone using force or fraud to coerce anyone into doing what they don't wish to do.

If you want to have some very strange hobbies, like enjoying ads or enjoying physical pain, you have that right. You are entitled to it. What you are not entitled to is to force me to like that or agree with it or support it. At this point you are trying to tell me what I should or should not like. If you are so insecure that you cannot do what you believe is right unless everyone agrees and approves, that is a personal problem and not a problem with people who might disagree. Have some guts, be who you are, make no apologies for it. Most of all, have the strength to understand and appreciate that not everyone feels the same way.

That's why the whole "must not ever offend anybody at all costs" bullshit doesn't hold water. I recognize your freedom to have strange tastes if you want to have them. You do not recognize my freedom to call them strange. That's why you have the inferior position. Yes, that's a judgment call, and I'm making it. I'm making it for a reason. The reason is simple: my respect for freedom includes those things with which I might disagree. Yours apparently does not. That's why any disagreement I voice hits your insecurity and you think I am "dictating" anything by merely speaking my mind.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672990)

No, I recognize your right to call this behavior strange. What I do not recognize is a right to call it "pathological" (which, to me, carries an implication that something is wrong and needs to be fixed), nor to claim that your position is objective truth, rather than simply your preference.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673048)

Just because something is pathalogical does not mean that society intends to fix it. Look at the number of rich and powerful pathalogical liars...
I can call someone a pathalogical sports fan - they would call me a pathalogical couch potato - if they knew the word. Beither of us would feel we could change the other.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673312)

I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the connotations the word has, but I will concede that definitions are what we make of them. It is my experience that when someone says something is "pathological", they mean that it should be fixed, even if it cannot be (or perhaps if we do not have the right to attempt it). Not all, since apparently that is not how you use the word... but it is my experience that most people use it in the way I interpret it.

However, since we can ultimately define the word however we wish, that doesn't invalidate what you're saying. I do understand where you're coming from.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673076)

No, I recognize your right to call this behavior strange. What I do not recognize is a right to call it "pathological" (which, to me, carries an implication that something is wrong and needs to be fixed), nor to claim that your position is objective truth, rather than simply your preference.

I'm not advocating that government or anyone else use force or threat of force to coerce anyone into fixing anything. So if I call something pathological, you may agree or disagree with that assessment. But how is it anything other than my exercise of my free speech? Incidentally, that's something I am going to exercise anyway with no regard to how you feel about whether I should. Where are the courageous, noble men like Voltaire who feel that "while I may disagree with what you say, I will defend with my life your ability to say it?" All I see are a bunch of cowards who can't stand that somebody might not like what they do.

The whole relativism thing doesn't even work, and yes that's what this is about. If you say there is no absolute truth, I can easily defeat that by asking "are you absolutely sure?" If there is no absolute truth, then on what basis would you answer that question? So why even bother?

I note that no one has truly answered my earlier challenge. Not one person is prepared to demonstrate why advertisements carry the same literary and artistic value as something like a well-written sci-fi novel. They can't, and that is why. The best they can do is try a dismissal tactic and claim that the value of a thing has nothing to do with whether someone should enjoy it, and that's a cop-out, the refuge of the weak who want something to be so, yet cannot truly defend their position.

Again, if you are so thoroughly convinced that something is worthy of your time then do it. Do it even though there are guys like me who won't agree with you that it is a worthy use of your limited time as a mortal being on Earth. I don't see anywhere near that level of courage or strength of character or conviction from the "how dare you disagree with me, I'm offended!" crowd. That much was predictable from any crowd that derives their legitimacy from the agreement and approval of others. Tell me, if you are so thoroughly convinced of the legitimacy and inherent value of a thing, why do you care what anyone else thinks? Answer: because you're not so convinced and need the security of being part of the bandwagon. It's really that simple.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673104)

This is laughable. Not only is your position stupid, because I can just as easily challenge you to prove that advertisements do not carry literary and artistic value (hint: you can't prove this about anything, because those are subjective concepts), but you don't even remember what I said originally. I don't personally find any value in advertisements, and I have no desire to watch them. This has nothing to do with me trying to boost my ego by convincing someone else that my activities are OK; it is about me saying that you don't have the right to take a subjective thing you think, and declare that it is true for everyone.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673130)

This is laughable. Not only is your position stupid, because I can just as easily challenge you to prove that advertisements do not carry literary and artistic value (hint: you can't prove this about anything, because those are subjective concepts), but you don't even remember what I said originally. I don't personally find any value in advertisements, and I have no desire to watch them. This has nothing to do with me trying to boost my ego by convincing someone else that my activities are OK; it is about me saying that you don't have the right to take a subjective thing you think, and declare that it is true for everyone.

It's really simple. Your premise is self-defeating. That's why you are not committed to your own premise.

If you were committed to your own premise, then when I say something is "pathological" then you would regard that as "my opinion, to which I am entitled" or "my equally valid perspective" or "my particular viewpoint". But no, there are opinions and perspectives and viewpoints you regard as valid and invalid. So you do adhere to an absolute reference. The problem is, that totally contradicts the position of relativism you advocate for those who do anything I would call "pathological."

Like I said, you are not prepared to apply your own premise to someone with whom you disagree. That's why it is not valid; it's merely a tool you use to paint with the same "right and wrong" brush you accuse me of using. Pot -> Kettle -> Black.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673294)

No. You are applying the same reasoning to two entirely different concepts. My premise is that there is no objective truth for how someone should enjoy themselves. You are applying that reasoning to the area in which I am calling you out, which is different. What I'm calling you out for is how you treat others, not what you choose to find enjoyable.

Different facets of people interacting with each other can, and should, be judged by different standards. Some can (and should) be judged with a position that all is relative; some should be judged from the position that there is an absolute right and wrong. To do otherwise leads to two equally bad extremes: if one is always permissive of others' views, then one will turn a blind eye to all kinds of situations caused by a tyranny of the majority because, well, it's their right to run their affairs how they see fit. If one is always absolutist, then there is no tolerance for anyone who has a differing point of view. Neither is a just perspective.

In that spirit, I am judging people's preferences for enjoyment as something that should be viewed permissively, where there is no right answer. I am also judging the way one chooses to react to those preferences as something where there is a right answer, and expressing my belief that you are on the wrong side of that line. You may disagree with my judgement of how these two situations should be regarded (and, I would say you almost certainly do). Fine, I take no issue with that. However, the mere fact that I don't have one single way to approach all situations doesn't invalidate my position on its face.

I most certainly do apply my premise to someone with whom I disagree. In fact, I have already applied it to the people who are masochists or who enjoy advertisements. I don't understand it, nor will I ever understand (or agree) with it. However, I am content to live and let live, even though we disagree.

I also, to return to something you said earlier, find it highly ironic that you lament that people are not willing to adopt Voltaire's attitude of being willing to defend the right of someone to say things they disagree with. I have done so already, in your case. I could have simply done what so many moderators do here, and used my mod points to try to drag your comment down. I didn't, because I don't believe anyone has the right to try to censor you (despite the fact that I disagree with what you are saying). My attempting to change your mind through discussion does not constitute an unwillingness to defend your right to say what you wish. No one is using force here, even if I am expressing the opinion that your handling of a given situation should not be considered acceptable.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673324)

No. You are applying the same reasoning to two entirely different concepts. My premise is that there is no objective truth for how someone should enjoy themselves. You are applying that reasoning to the area in which I am calling you out, which is different. What I'm calling you out for is how you treat others, not what you choose to find enjoyable.

Different facets of people interacting with each other can, and should, be judged by different standards. Some can (and should) be judged with a position that all is relative; some should be judged from the position that there is an absolute right and wrong. To do otherwise leads to two equally bad extremes: if one is always permissive of others' views, then one will turn a blind eye to all kinds of situations caused by a tyranny of the majority because, well, it's their right to run their affairs how they see fit. If one is always absolutist, then there is no tolerance for anyone who has a differing point of view. Neither is a just perspective.

In that spirit, I am judging people's preferences for enjoyment as something that should be viewed permissively, where there is no right answer. I am also judging the way one chooses to react to those preferences as something where there is a right answer, and expressing my belief that you are on the wrong side of that line. You may disagree with my judgement of how these two situations should be regarded (and, I would say you almost certainly do). Fine, I take no issue with that. However, the mere fact that I don't have one single way to approach all situations doesn't invalidate my position on its face.

I most certainly do apply my premise to someone with whom I disagree. In fact, I have already applied it to the people who are masochists or who enjoy advertisements. I don't understand it, nor will I ever understand (or agree) with it. However, I am content to live and let live, even though we disagree.

I also, to return to something you said earlier, find it highly ironic that you lament that people are not willing to adopt Voltaire's attitude of being willing to defend the right of someone to say things they disagree with. I have done so already, in your case. I could have simply done what so many moderators do here, and used my mod points to try to drag your comment down. I didn't, because I don't believe anyone has the right to try to censor you (despite the fact that I disagree with what you are saying). My attempting to change your mind through discussion does not constitute an unwillingness to defend your right to say what you wish. No one is using force here, even if I am expressing the opinion that your handling of a given situation should not be considered acceptable.

How I treat others is very simple. I respect their freedom of speech even though they may say things with great conviction that I find abhorrent. Where I draw the line is when they insist on using force or fraud to coerce others into agreement.

You have contradicted yourself left and right to try and show that my speech is somehow unacceptable while that of another is perfectly valid. Now you stumble over yourself and backpeddle to pretend that you shared my ethos about free speech all along.

This is beneath you.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673364)

You still don't get it, do you? I haven't backpedaled at all, my position is the same as it always was: you, and they, are engaging in different kinds of speech which should be treated differently. It is that simple. You apparently don't agree with this, and I don't really have a problem with that... but the fact that you don't agree doesn't mean it hasn't been part of my premise the entire time.

At no point in this discussion have I contradicted myself. You may have perceived it that way, because you reject part of my premise, but that's not my fault. I thought that if I clarified, and spelled it out for you exactly, you would understand and we would at least be able to reach a point of understanding, if not agreement. I guess not.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673304)

That's a flawed analogy. You should know better.

Pain is meant to be an indication of harm or danger, so if people enjoy it is isn't generally working as it should. Even then when people enjoy it in small does or in limited contexts, i.e. sex, that doesn't count as objectively 'wrong'.

Ads are quite a different thing, and many are funny or entertaining or memorable. Given that such shows exist such as worlds funniest commercials, I think it is fair to say that many people enjoy ads. You can certainly think it strange, but you would probably be in the minority, and the evidence would indicate you're not enjoyings ads is closer to an objective abnormality.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672852)

If someone says having $10 is better than having $1,000, and you think they are masochistic, you are being judgemental of them until the moment you ask them 'why'. 'Equally viable' is not a part of it for reasons way too obvious to list.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673014)

I don't care if pointing that out offends you because it's the truth, not merely a matter of taste or opinion.

Quid est veritas?

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673032)

Agreed. Someone who reads intelligent and interesting thing such as SciFi is likely to be open minded enough to not be critical of too many bizzarre ideas/people.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672672)

I think it is more about how helpful ads are in finding things you like.

I absolutely don't mind ads at all, unless they are abusive.
And by abusive, i don't mean what the average adblocker is told to believe, i mean:
Animated too much, more than 0.25fps is bad.
Flash anything. (for that matter, plugin-anything. I even saw a Java ad once)
Auto-audio on
HUGE
pop up/under/over
redirecters

I've found many great things from ads. There are decent advertisers out there.
Tracking? Why would i care about that? Maybe i want to have an image of my personality created since i don't care for golf, i don't want to buy Shitney Spears new album, nor do i care much for the latest and greatest sports cars.
I actually want ads to be tailored for me. Any sites where i sign up to, i instantly check settings for things that the site will show me based on my interests.
If advertisers just let people choose the things they'd want to see, instead of all these shady stalking practices, it would be much better for them, for us and for the companies advertising.

If it wasn't for advertising in some form, most people probably wouldn't even be on this website as it is, never mind half the websites out there.
Even Search itself is a form of advertising ("word-of-mouth"[Google, Microsoft, etc.]) since most sites have meta-tags on them that search engines use to categorize things with, as well as content on pages combined with simple heuristics applied. (Search Engine Optimization and all that fun stuff)

Not everyone hates advertising, as strange as it may seem. I like being informed of new stuff, i like signing up to mailing lists.
I have too much to do in a day to be going out there searching for things on my own. Non-obtrusive, annoying ads are a godsend.
Of course, non-obtrusive and annoying are in the eyes of the beholder to define, so to each their own i guess.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672676)

It's not the submitter - they think the idea is weird. The guy who "enjoys a lot of advertising" is our very own Slashdot editor, Timothy. Demonstrating once again how representative our wonderful editors are!

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672704)

Geico Insurance

15 minutes or less

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (2)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673058)

Like you I enjoy some ads as well. Here are a few examples:

Watch This Space. [google.com]
"The Walk" [youtube.com]

To me, advertising is an art, and if done well it can become a piece of culture, like the old Coca Cola commercials. The problem is that there are too many low quality LOUD adverts. I guess advertisers feel shouting at the American public is the best way to get them to buy something. In any case, some advertising is masterful. Being able to economize and tell a story in 30-60 seconds is not an easy thing to do. If you don't believe me, give it a try and for an added level of difficulty, don't use words.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673524)

Some ads are fun.

ONCE!

The main problem with ads isn't that they must be boring. The main problem is that even your favorite show would get boring if you get the same episode slapped in your face over and over and over and...

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672714)

I think your quoting Timothy, not the submitter.

Still....Ads are unquestionably distracting, but as a consumer, wanting to be exposed to them to find out about new products you find interesting seems perfectly reasonable. Personally I get my fill from billboards and tube trains, so am more than happy to entirely cut them out of the websites I browse using AdBlock. I don't think it's particularly weird to enjoy them though. Also, I've never thought the underlying message was about self worth (except in ads about cosmetic products, or 'lifetsyle brands') but rather trying to make you think a particular product was a better investment than a competitor, or how a new product could enhance your life.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

Faerunner (1077423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673696)

Whether you recognize it or not, almost every ad you see is hinting at your sense of self worth in some way. Take the JC Penney ad ("The Walk") linked above. That ad, as beautifully made as it is, has a very direct message: "If you really love your mother (and you should!), you should show her your appreciation with a gift from our store!". That of course implies that if you -don't- buy your mother a gift, or if you buy it somewhere else, you're clearly not the best kid ever and should feel bad about yourself.

Now, most people will not process that message on a conscious level, and many won't be affected by it in ways anyone can pinpoint, but imagine a lifetime of "buy this for your family/friends/self" (with the unspoken idea that buying will make you rich/successful/sexy/appreciated by your family) and what that could do to your behavior. Eventually, you start buying because when you don't buy you feel guilty for "being cheap" or you feel like you're not showing your appreciation of others properly, or you'll never be rich/successful/sexy/appreciated by your family, because you can't buy them everything the ads show.

I know you know people who, if they didn't receive an appropriately expensive gift from you, would assume you hated them. THAT is what ads do best.

I still appreciate the art that goes into a well-crafted 60-second piece, though. And I might save them for later, if they were relevant to my interests.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (4, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672840)

This dumb-seeming idea is potentially a great way of getting those people who are still susceptible to advertising to stick their hands up and shout 'hey, advertisers, over here'. That's it's actual value, it potentially allows targetting of ad spending on people who don't adblock.

Scott 'dilbert' Adams pointed out a while ago that the holy grail for advertisers is an accurate list of people who are gullible, rich and not resistant to ads. He uses the example of a absurdly expensive house-cozy (like a tea cozy, but for your house). It's so stupid and over-priced that only a handful of people in the whole would be rich and dumb enough to buy one, so it's an awful idea for a business... unless you know exactly who those handful people are. If you do then then you have a workable business model.

Cable TV (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673412)

It works great for cable TV... People pay a ton of money every month for lots of advertising and crappy content that's usually available elsewhere for free.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

Digicrat (973598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673100)

It depends on the context.

Online ads can be beneficial when related to your search terms.

Commercials on broadcast television can occasionally be informative (ie: finding out what new shows are coming out). To be fair though, I've got MythTV and have been routinely skipping commercials for years. Every now and then though, I do let the commercials play, or on occasion even repeat them. That's not to say I'm watching the commercials, just that repeating a commercial break can be productive background sound while working on something else, before getting back to the show (assuming the show itself isn't pure background noise in its own right).

So, while I can see some scenarios where watching/repeating/flagging commercials might make sense, I can't think of any possible use for this service (as described in the summary).

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

dogsbreath (730413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673150)

The submitter "actually enjoys a lot of advertising"? What's wrong with them?

The only ads that bug me are:
1. oversize ads that temporarily obliterate what I am trying to interact with or otherwise annoy with obtrusive sounds or attention grabbing optical effects.
2. ads that load first and prevent the rest of the page loading in parallel.

Other than that, who cares? I have a highly developed ability to ignore the stuff I don't care about.

OTOH, there have been many times that I have seen an ad that I was interested in and I wish I could have bookmarked it quickly for later examination. umm, mostly technology items but also mundane stuff like local services (plumbers!). I want to continue on with whatever I'm doing at the time and not be distracted but if I come back to the page later the ad servers often put up a different ad. Usually I open the ad in another tab and that's normally OK. Mobile on a BB or iPhone there is no satisfactory way to do this. Ur, this is a very low grade issue but still...

The best advertising helps the consumer; it doesn't just trigger a "buy" reaction. In the tech area, advertising is part of staying current with products and changes in trends/standards. I always save vendor product emails, especially when they link to hard information such as white papers with succinct information about functionality, performance and cost. It's amazing how often it is useful to go back to these files.

Advertising can also be more than just annoying; it can be downright disruptive and interfere with productivity.

I would support and use an adkeeper that provided the ability to quickly tag/bookmark an ad for later use and which provided a feedback channel to indicate what was useful / not useful about an ad.

I doubt if this would help improve laundry detergent ads but it could help in many sectors.

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673564)

Presumably submitter is from the place that posted the article - a firm that does market research, eg directly or indirectly makes its livign from advertising. Of *course* submitter is going to enjoy advertising

That said, the commercials that amuse me have a much better chance of not getting skipped than those that don't. Not necessarily a better chance of selling me anything (I'll not get Geico no matter how entertaining I find their commercials -- they can't beat my current rate -- but the first time a new Geico commerical comes on, I'll watch it. Not the 2nd through 1000th times though...)

Re:Forget the article, submitter is weird (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673732)

Eh, what?

What about the other message that advertising sometimes sends, "Here's something you may not know about that might be useful to you."

Stuff like that exists.

Right-click, save as. (2)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672562)

CTRL-D, tag on del.icio.us.

Uh, ... how hard is it now? What big headache does this new pill solve???

Re:Right-click, save as. (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672792)

Nothing, I think it's advertisement for advertisement. How ironic. If only we also got to get on slashdot for inventing a new function().

Re:Right-click, save as. (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672886)

CTRL-D, tag on del.icio.us.

Uh, ... how hard is it now? What big headache does this new pill solve???

Makes it easier to tag and review? Especially for the average user? I've seen ads that I was interested in, but not right away. Of course, they go away so I never click through. This make sit more magazine like; which is good, IMHO.

Re:Right-click, save as. (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673118)

Flash banner ads are a little more difficult, especially if they are delivered via a javascript tag that randomly returns one of several ads, and the one you want is actually in the form of a second javascript tag that returns the flash banner you need. I've never tried to save one of these ads before, but I work for a company that has a website, and sometimes, both we and our advertisers will use javascript-based invocation code, so that we can each do our own ad tracking and verify that the other party is being honest.

With that having been said, I know it can be done, but I don't know how, without having to install additional software and/or firefox plug-ins. I would expect that this would save someone the headache of having to learn how.

Of course I'm just reading this because I was hoping from the title that it would provide a way for people to support the sites they visit with less risk of viruses. Oh, well...

Adkeeper (2)

MikeDataLink (536925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672564)

I hate to say it, but I've actually wished in the past I could save an ad for later. But then I realized I could just click the ad and use the "bookmark this page" in my browser. Derp.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672596)

I hate to say it, but I've actually wished in the past I could save an ad for later. But then I realized I could just click the ad and use the "bookmark this page" in my browser. Derp.

So you keep clicking the bookmark until the ad cycles around again.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

MikeDataLink (536925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672618)

No. You visit the page where the ad takes you to... and bookmark THAT.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672658)

That's not the ad you're bookmarking.

Re:Adkeeper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672664)

Exactly. It's better.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672670)

No, it's not. You're trying to save face.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672876)

He is fine, the problem seems to be that you are missing his point. He is not interested in saving ads for later so he can appreciate their creative merit. He is interested in the ad because of the product it is advertising. Therefore saving the link to the product itself does everything he needs.

My assumption is that this ad saver service is also for people who are interested in products and not the ads themselves.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672942)

Except the term they use the entite time is 'banner-ads", which makes sense coinsidering that approach doesn't give the false impression of ad-clicks.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673040)

You're stupid.

Re:Adkeeper (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673080)

You're right. Instead of showing a concise list of small graphical banner ads already designed to inform you enough to grab your interest, the far less efficient method that was suggested is so much more sensible that Im stupid for challenging it. Thanks to you I am deservedy humbled.

As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672572)

"As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertising"

That explains SOOOOO much about timmy.

A New Idea... (4, Insightful)

Looce (1062620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672580)

Disable your ad blocker. Ding, instant shitload of ads.

Re:A New Idea... (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672636)

Damn. Crap, shit. Why didn't I think of that?

*slaps head*

Can we turn that into a product? Something that disables people's adblocker for them? Randy, can you get that Russian programmer of yours on the line??

Wait-- I got it-- we turn your adblocker off, and replace the ads you've been blocking with.... OUR ADS!

Re:A New Idea... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672864)

As batshit crazy as the online advertising world is you can bet someone has already been looking into that.

No - this is a great idea! (4, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672592)

Convince advertisers that you'll look at their ads later if they don't bug you with them right now. That'll be the compromise. Get your lousy popups and spam off of the pages I'm interested in and you betcha I'll read them later.

Then set up a cron job to wipe the folder every so often.

xjlm (3, Insightful)

xjlm (1073928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672600)

I don't understand people. I use a 16,000 line /etc/hosts file to keep from seeing crap like that. Faster browsing, less spyware/adware/crapware, and I see what I want.

Who remembers AllAdvantage? (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672668)

I use a 16,000 line /etc/hosts file to keep from seeing crap like that.

And a decade ago, people signed up for a toolbar that showed a banner ad every minute, just for an extra 50 cents per hour of surfing the web. Some people even memorized the best startup sequence so that they could get GetPaid4, Spedia, and AllAdvantage running all at the same time.

Re:Who remembers AllAdvantage? (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673300)

I use a 16,000 line /etc/hosts file to keep from seeing crap like that.

And a decade ago, people signed up for a toolbar that showed a banner ad every minute, just for an extra 50 cents per hour of surfing the web. Some people even memorized the best startup sequence so that they could get GetPaid4, Spedia, and AllAdvantage running all at the same time.

There are still ventures like that. There was one that would give you free net access, another gave you a free pc, and there are still a ton of sites where you can fill in surveys and crap for coupons or even money.

There seems to be a whole industry oriented around people not doing any work and not getting paid for it.

Re:xjlm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672726)

Well, sometimes, people just want to see things they are looking for.
If they want to find something, they will find it on their own.

Others don't have the time to find things on their own and would much rather have a 3rd party show them deals, ads or sign up to mailing lists. (myself)

And then there are those who just hate everything and anything, because someone else told them to.
Sadly, most people who block ads fall in this because "ooo, they are invading my privacy and stuff", when they already don't have any privacy in society to begin with and don't have the slightest clue what they are on about, just repeating words of others and think they are winning the argument.

So, which are you?

Not your kind (0)

xjlm (1073928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672830)

You sound like some sort of conspiracy theorist. I'll bet you buy gold and listen to Alex Jones, don't you? Sign up for mailing lists because you don't have time to research on your own, that's a new one. 'Yep, I like spam because it keeps me informed.'

Re:xjlm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672836)

Well Done!

My /etc/hosts file currently has 167,949 lines.

Re:xjlm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672916)

Most of them are blank lines?

Re:xjlm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672846)

Ad blocking has been around for quite some time, and people see ads as something new, a novelty. I have use ad blocking on every browser I use, so, when I visited a friend who didn't, and used his PC. It felt like stepping in a whole new world, full of colour, animation and sound. Quite wonderful really. Wanted to try it at home as well, but by the time I got back, I was stone cold sober.

Re:xjlm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672888)

If you only see things you want, then you only see things you already know. Ignorance is bliss.

Re:xjlm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672932)

DEAR SIR,

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE NIGERIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $47,500,000.00 (FORTY SEVEN MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS. THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM AN OVER-INVOICED CONTRACT, EXECUTED COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS (5) AGO BY A FOREIGN CONTRACTOR. THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA APEX BANK.

WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS AND THAT IS WHERE YOU COME IN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS CIVIL SERVANTS, WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE A FOREIGN ACCOUNT; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE. THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS: 70% FOR US, 25% FOR YOU AND 5% FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.

THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES. I AM AN ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC). IF YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE, WE SHALL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

(A) YOUR BANKER'S NAME, TELEPHONE, ACCOUNT AND FAX NUMBERS.

(B) YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS -- FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND EASY COMMUNICATION.

(C) YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER STAMPED AND SIGNED.

ALTERNATIVELY WE WILL FURNISH YOU WITH THE TEXT OF WHAT TO TYPE INTO YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER, ALONG WITH A BREAKDOWN EXPLAINING, COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE REQUIRE OF YOU. THE BUSINESS WILL TAKE US THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.

PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.

BEST REGARDS

Re:xjlm (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673342)

APK? Noo....what you wrote is literate, it couldn't be...

Yet, you still advocate hosts file nonsense despite having a variety of much better solutions. Odd

I already use adkeeper. (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672620)

It works perfectly, I love it.

Oh, wait, that's Adblock. My bad. //This won't go anywhere. But he'll get some nice cash out of venture capitalists before they figure it out.

Very short term review would be useful too. (0)

Gribflex (177733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672644)

I don't know about savings ads for a long time, but I would love a queue of the last 100 ads that I've seen pass my screen.
So many times I've clicked a link on a web page and at the last second seen some interesting looking ad out of the corner of my eye. When I hit back on the browser, the random-ad-generator hates me, and won't show what I've just been looking at.

Sounds stupid, but it would be really super useful.

Slashdot is actually one of the biggest offenders here (that, and a few of the webcomics I frequent).

Yes, I have the "Disable Advertising" option.
No, I don't use it.

Re:Very short term review would be useful too. (2)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672730)

I don't know about savings ads for a long time, but I would love a queue of the last 100 ads that I've seen pass my screen

that would be 99 ads of "you are the lucky 1,000,000 visitor to our sie and have won a sony PS3/Ipod/some of piece of junk"

Advertisements for the poor (2)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672646)

Has anyone ever thought of making a website where you watch nothing but advertisements with the knowledge that the money made for the website goes directly to feeding the poor?

If you're not all out altruistic, you could say 1/2 the money goes to the poor.

All you would need to do is throw in occasional captcha like mechanisms to make sure they're still watching behind their computer.

People would get a running tally of how much money they earned for the poor.

Re:Advertisements for the poor (3, Funny)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672678)

"Three poor children for sale. Make good workers, or if you can't afford to feed them, may be fricaseed to make a great meal!"

Great wording (1)

hhr (909621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672652)

"Think of it as a wine cellar for ads, " I love that phrase. I'm going to paraphrase it everytime I want to bull-shit someone. Think of your cooking as a wine celler for garbage.

Only if the ads are good. (1)

antant007 (1702214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672656)

A while back I took survey that was an ad on /., it disabled the ads. Occasionally I enable the ads just to see what is being advertised. So as long as I'm interested in whats being advertised and its not too obnoxious (i.e. a video banner ad that enlarges on rollover) I actually like ads.

Not a bad idea (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672686)

People click on ads. I don't and you probably don't but some people do, otherwise companies wouldn't spend money on them. I presume this is more geared towards special offers, kinda like collecting coupons that you don't want to use right now but you might later. Not sure if it's worth $8 mil. but I can see people using it and having a button on every ad on every site that takes them to your site is a valuable thing.

mod 04 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672698)

Believe their obligated to ca8e SUBSoCRIBERS. PLEASE are incompatible

not what you might think... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672772)

The first thing that came to mind is, "People are gonna use this and love it and I'll get richer!" but "Companies are stupid and think that people want to see MORE ads - they'll love this and will give me lots of money do to this and I'll get richer!"

Might not be the business model you THINK (or that it claims). Kinda like all that Starbucks-branded junk in Starbucks is mainly sold to Starbucks employees...

Oh no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672838)

As someone who actually enjoys a lot of advertising, it sounds only mildly weird to me

Something has gone wrong with you. I blame the Internet.

Now you know how much it took to not laugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34672966)

..when I interviewed with these geniuses(hence the anon post), my exact thoughts as I heard the detailed description. "If I get desperate then not a bad place to scam a paycheck for a year before they go bankrupt."

Thankfully I've moved onto a better position at a sane company with an established business model(and working on other revenue streams too!)

I also enjoy ads (1)

thechemic (1329333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673008)

I really like ads also. Ads have made me laugh uncontrollably. They've introduced products and services which have improved my quality of life.

Disable Advertising (1)

thechemic (1329333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673016)

Infact... on Slashdot, how do you disable the "Disable Advertising" block? It's extremely annoying. Great, so I contributed something positive to slashdot. Now you want to take advertising away from and if I dont submit to this you're going to nag me with a "Disable Advertising" block? [rolls eyes]

Pop music , pop caps, pop life (1)

hennyjack (1933170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673020)

nfl jerseys [jerseysshopsonline.com] , wholesale jersey [jerseysshopsonline.com] , cheap jersey [jerseysshopsonline.com] , football jerseys [jerseysshopsonline.com] , nba shop [jerseysshopsonline.com] , nfl jersey [jerseysshopsonline.com] wholesale jersey [jerseysshopsonline.com] cheap jersey [jerseysshopsonline.com] nba shop [jerseysshopsonline.com] nfl jersey [jerseysshopsonline.com] nba shop [jerseysshopsonline.com] football jerseys [jerseysshopsonline.com] winter cap [popbrandcaps.com] , red bull cap [popbrandcaps.com] , monster hat [popbrandcaps.com] , music hats [popbrandcaps.com] , dc winter cap [popbrandcaps.com] , winter cap [popbrandcaps.com] red bull cap [popbrandcaps.com] monster hat [popbrandcaps.com] music hats [popbrandcaps.com] dc winter cap [popbrandcaps.com] music Hats [popbrandcaps.com] red bull caps [popbrandcaps.com] winter caps [popbrandcaps.com] http://www.jerseysshopsonline.com/ [jerseysshopsonline.com] Our email:jerseysshopsonline@hotmail.com http://www.popbrandcaps.com/ [popbrandcaps.com] Our email:popbrandcaps@hotmail.com

The only time I wanted to archive an ad (3, Interesting)

lavagolemking (1352431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673028)

The only time I wanted to archive an ad was when I was complaining to the company that booked my flight about their shady behind-the-scenes sale of my credit card number. I got this ad in my itinerary promising me 20% cash back from my purchase if I signed onto a trial for this "Great Fun Site" (run by Trilegiant). Thing is, I'm pretty detail oriented (what most people call "weird") and I actually read the terms of use. Sure enough, although they ask for only my e-mail address, the terms of use said Priceline already handed them my credit card information before I even entered anything. The idea behind this company is that after the 1-month free trial (where I hear you don't really get any of the coupons they promise), they start billing you monthly and you have to call their customer service line to cancel (entering your e-mail address is formal agreement to their billing terms). Naturally, I didn't enter anything.

At the time, I had more important/productive things to do than complain about it. A few months later, I wound up with around $700 of international charges for Cyprus-based adult websites on that same credit card. It was a new card, and in protest to bad practices of banks I always pay with cash when possible, so Priceline was the only company I gave the information to. So, when I went to complain and show them the link, the ad was conveniently gone so I had no evidence. Priceline insisted they did not send anything to Trilegiant (even though the terms from the ad said they already had it) because I didn't enter my e-mail address nothing was sent, and their systems were "unbreakable" and had "never been hacked as long as Priceline existed".

I guess in summary, the only reason I would want to save an ad is for legal documentation when the advertiser oversteps his/her bounds.

To be fair, in this case it could go either way. The issuing bank, 5/3 Bank, has been careless and tried to pass the cost of fraud onto me several times in the past (this time by refusing to dispute the international transaction fees). I can narrow it down between 5/3 Bank or Priceline & Friends, but in my opinion they're both equally shady and equally likely to have had a data breach somewhere they're not telling anyone about.

Honestly... (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673148)

Actually, I think it's brilliant.  I would never use it, but I can easily imagine that many people would.

Seems to be a lot of traction with embeddable javascript buttons these days, and this concept is simple enough to work.

Possibly good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673216)

If it does anything to lessen the glut of advertising that is constantly thrust on those of us who aren't interested in or influenced by online advertising in any way other than heightened blood pressure then I'm all for it. For instance I'm not interested in watching a 30 second ad every single time I want to watch a 10 second clip on youtube. Advertising is almost bacterial. It's fine if it goes mostly unnoticed, but when it hits a critical threshold or becomes malignant then an immune system like response kicks in and you either tune it out, move to less annoying products, or banish the ads and sometimes the medium entirely.

Marketing in general needs a serious reality check. Advertising is failure. You can polish a turd and dress it up all you want and people will still be annoyed that you're sticking it in their face every time they turn around. Even more so if you're screaming at them to buy it while interrupting what they'd rather be doing.

Good ads aren't that bad (1)

cooldev (204270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34673438)

Lately I've been pleased by the ads I get on most sites. After having recently shopped for a luxury car I got almost nothing but BMW, Infinti, Acura, etc. ads for months. None of which were intrusive. This Christmas I did some online shopping for some pajamas for the GF at Victoria's Secret and lo and behold now I'm greeted with Victoria's Secret models on a number of sites. Not only can I live with that, I can proclaim complete innocence when she's looking over my shoulder.

I even clicked through on a couple of the car ones while I was making up my mind, and afterwards as a bit of a reward for sites that host decent non-intrusive ads.

On the other hand, sites that have intersticials or Javascript pop-up/fly-overs that can't be blocked without disabling script, can DIAF. I have a bookmarklet that nukes most of them, otherwise I just immediately close the tab.

It has uses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673516)

It sounds like a good way to save randomly shown coupon links, or signup offers. Of course, those vendors likely wouldn't be the ones that opt in... just random normal ads.

For example, how many would have saved Pinecone Research banners a while back, before they went downhill?

Yep, this is were the site failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34673590)

Marketers and graphic designers invaded...it was a tech site long ago.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...