Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

cancel ×


accesslog advertising? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#186894)

One interesting trend that I've noted to rise in the past few months is accesslog advertising; spiders roaming across the network, making false get requests with addresses usually linking to porn sites or various affiliate programs. As with the get itself, different URL is "spoofed" as the referer field.

Requests like this seem to come usually from personal boxes, so I assume there's some kewl Windows program that does this advertising automatically, just insert few advertised URLs or something like that.

This seems to be rising phenomenon as it takes about 10% of all requests on my personal webserver. I just can't see the point of advertising on access logs. Come to think of it, it has very specific target group of IT professionals and enthusiasts, so maybe that could be used to advertise software, geek toys etc. And pr0n!

Oh, forgot, they do that already.


Re:Annoyance generates click-thrus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#186895)

When I get one of these ads I add the hostname of the service to my hosts file with a dummy IP address. That way I never see another ad from that server. The more considerate advertisers I leave alone.

Re:Come on, this is not controlled! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#186896)

Anyone with half a brain is going to read book reviews before they read a "scholarly study". This isn't a controlled study, and the results are useless.

Not only that, but somehow I suspect that many people typing in "modern slavery" in a search engine aren't looking for something with a lot of words :-).

*Very* interesting (2)

Micah (278) | more than 13 years ago | (#186897)

I am about to set up a set of sites on a co-located server. I found the co-lo provider I'm planning on using through a Google search for "co-location". They had one of the AdWords. Had it not been for that, I'm not sure I ever would have found them! As a result, they may well make several thousand dollars from me.

I was planning on using AdWords myself to link to specific stories on one of my sites. So it's quite interesting that the author finds that they don't work well. I'll probably try it anyway -- $50 isn't too much to blow for an experiment like that. It *does* seem to be one of the more targetted advertising systems out there, at least if you're on a budget.

>$1/clickthrough sucks though...

/. (2)

Micah (278) | more than 13 years ago | (#186898)

An ad on Google - $10

An ad on Robot Wisdom - $20

A month of Web hosting - $30

A link on Slashdot's home page - priceless

Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

Re:Web Ad Product Placement (2)

Tony Shepps (333) | more than 13 years ago | (#186899)

While it seems bizarre, you could imagine it working IF AND ONLY IF the products were on-topic for the blog, actually sincerely reviewed by the bloggers, etc.

It works for Robot Wisdom, the blog mentioned here, because RW's owner/operator, Jorn Barger, is madly focused on being earnest in his approach to the web. In this case, not only would he not link to something he didn't believe in, he wouldn't link to something that he felt was poorly designed. Now THAT'S good old-fashioned integrity.

Currently Barger is linking to other blogs that support his political views, which maintains his own integrity but which threatens the integrity of his blog (IMO).

Re:Consistency makes for bad advertising (2)

Chris Johnson (580) | more than 13 years ago | (#186901)

Annoying advertising gets results? Yes, right: and the result, you've mentioned. Annoyance.

Don't ever think of 'the consumer' as something mysterious and targettable. David Ogilvy (who wrote more advertisements than you've ever seen) said, "The consumer is not an idiot, she is your wife". The consumer is you. What is _your_ reaction to being annoyed?

Re:The biggest problem (2)

Chris Hiner (4273) | more than 13 years ago | (#186904)

The other way they track which ad generated the call, is by using different 800 numbers for different ads. This works alot better as it doesn't depend on the caller to do something.

Flash advertisements (1)

Darlock (7305) | more than 13 years ago | (#186905)

I have also seen that people are becoming immune to advertising and are tired of the boring commercials. Instead they want to see something entertaining.

On the web, banner ads suck but I've seen a couple flash advertisements that were very entertaining. The 'I am Canadian' commercials come to mind. What's better is, if you don't want to see the flash ad, close the window. Plain and simple. (1)

thegrommit (13025) | more than 13 years ago | (#186906)

Not only flashing ads, but the more recent large Flash ads are deterrents to surfing at work for those of us without a fast connection at home.

Considering that this is probably the largest portion of the surfing public, I'm surprised at the increasing popularity of the Flash ads in particular. If you're trying to surf surreptiously, having large animated ads on your screen isn't a good idea.

Fewer drawbacks... (1)

Jethro73 (14686) | more than 13 years ago | (#186909)

Advantages of text over graphics:
-faster downloads (and therefore, they are more likely to be seen)
- no distracting flashing gifs (like the one on top of this page)

I will be honest, though. I don't think that they are nearly as visible as those annoying, obnoxious gifs...

Wait... No more Punch The Monkey?! FORGET IT! I love punching that monkey. 8^)


Re:Fewer drawbacks... (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 13 years ago | (#186910)

Another advantage: text ads are likely to be dynamically generated by the same server that dishes up the real content, as opposed to being a reference to somewhere else. This makes all the difference where most filtering software is concerned.

by Web-advertising standards, this is a success (5)

sethg (15187) | more than 13 years ago | (#186911)

Yee bought 667 ad impressions on Google for US$10 and got six click-throughs. In other words, his CPM (advertising cost per thousand audience members) was about $15 and his click-through rate was about 0.9%.

According to this Nielsen//NetRatings press release (PDF) [] , the top 100 Web advertisers in "traditional" industries have a CPM of $20.10 and a click-through rate of 0.22%.

So if I worked for Google's advertising department, I'd be damn proud of Yee's figures.

I think he picked too general a keyword...and... (2)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 13 years ago | (#186912)

What are the chances that someone searching for the word 'modern' are going to be interested in a website about slavery? If he had picked his keywords more cleverly, I think he would have had much beter results. As it is he got ~1% click throughs, so he really can't complain too much.

Also, he was advertising for another website, so I'm not sure that this applies to people who are advertising for a product. I'm way more likely to click on a google ad if I'm searching for a place to buy a particular item then if I'm looking for information.

Re:I think he picked too general a keyword...and.. (2)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 13 years ago | (#186913)

He did say that he used the words 'modern' and 'slavery', so I'm assuming they were seperate. Either way, it would brobably have been more effective if he had used something like the names of places where modern slavery exists or perhaps some terms related to modern slavery instead of the words 'modern' and 'slavery' themselves. Really, if his web page is any good, and someone is searching for 'modern slavery' he'd end up in the search results anyway; so why bother advertising?

moderate up the parent! (3)

x mani x (21412) | more than 13 years ago | (#186914)

Brento is correct, this experiment is essentially uninformative. Danny Yee basically posts his text ads, and when they prove ineffective he draws the conclusion that text ads in general are not as good as other types of internet advertisement. There is simply not enough information to determine whether this type of advertisement is good or not.

I personally think they'll prove "just as" effective as normal graphic ads. People will be more appreciative of the lack of cheesy graphics and such, but not enough to actually click on them. :)

Junkbuster (1)

t-man (25246) | more than 13 years ago | (#186915)

I use junkbuster when surfing the web. It effectively disables all banner-ads and such.

Using text-ads not included with some stupid ilayer or iframe would be much more effective, because junkbuster can't catch them. Simple!

My experience has been the same... (1)

bteeter (25807) | more than 13 years ago | (#186918)

Clearly the author was not scientific in their study. But the anecdotal evidence that they presented - namely that marked advertising such as Google's adwords - doesn't work.

My own experience has been in using Google's adwords twice, with several different messages. I never achieved more than a 0.7% click through ratio. At the price they charge, that is about $1 per click through. It just isn't cost effective.

It would be nice to see a more scientific study comparing the different choices of advertising media, using the same target web site, the same advertising copy (the same message), and where applicable the same graphics. Now THAT would be extremely usefull.

Still, as limited as this study is, it concurs with my experience, so I believe it to be valid.

Take care,


Visit our new Web Development Forum at: []

Re:The biggest problem (3)

Brento (26177) | more than 13 years ago | (#186919)

They see a low number of click-throughs, and a low number of purchaces on click-throughs. So they can see the low response to their adds. They are more willing to spend their money on tv adds where they cant as readily see they are wasting money.

The industry has been fighting this for years. You'll notice that a lot of TV or radio ads say, "Ask for Extension 760". There's no real extension 760, or whatever extension they use, but it's a code that corresponds to where they placed the ad. Of course, most of us don't bother with asking for extensions when we're ordering things.

Print ads have been doing this with their web site tie-ins for a while, too. I just picked up the latest issue of Time off my desk for an example, and Covad's ad says to visit That's a tie-in to the magazine ad, and it's a lot like a click-through.

Re:Page Content (4)

Brento (26177) | more than 13 years ago | (#186920)

The higher questions are, what kind of site *should* host ads, how can advertising be incorporated into the content in such a way as to be visable, interesting, and attractive to users of the site.

Well, I can answer the first one pretty easily. If you're getting free services, you should expect to get hit with obnoxious ads. The more you pay, the less obnoxious the ads are.

For example, take radio stations. If you turn on your radio and listen to the free stations, your content will be interrupted every 10 minutes with a stream of advertisements that make banner ads look positively unobtrusive. You get a decent amount of content, but you have to sit through a lot of ads.

Next up, public radio. If you shell out money directly to the station to support it, there's a lot less commercials. Granted, not everyone shells out the money, so in exchange, guess what? You get a minor amount of commercials. They're much less annoying than regular radio, but they're there.

Finally, if you pony up a whopping $30+ a month for digital radio through your cable provider, you can listen to streaming music without any interruptions at all.

That's how media works. The more you pay, the less someone else has to pay. But sooner or later, somebody has to pay. You can point to things like Shoutcast and whine that you can indeed get free audio, but somebody's paying for that through their bandwidth costs, and so are you. You don't see anybody running Shoutcast stations on free ISP's.

What amazes me is that people are surprised by banner ads. They honestly expect someone to put up a server somewhere and offer services for free. You don't see anybody putting up free radio stations, do you? Sure, Joe Bob might pirate some radio for a while, but when he gets bored, he goes back to work like the rest of us.

Come on, this is not controlled! (5)

Brento (26177) | more than 13 years ago | (#186921)

The text-only ad said:
563 lively book reviews on all subjects

Whereas the Google ad said:
A passionate but scholarly study of modern slavery

Anyone with half a brain is going to read book reviews before they read a "scholarly study". This isn't a controlled study, and the results are useless.

Suggestion to Danny: the next time you do a study, the test has to be set up so that it's not biased. The ads should have exactly the same content, so that you can judge the ad delivery and not the ads themselves. If you were trying to find out who found book reviews interesting as opposed to studies, then you ran a successful study, but otherwise this is totally useless.

I did a Google AdWords -- VERY SUCCESSFUL (5)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 13 years ago | (#186924)

Actually, I did a Google AdWords. But in a trollingly juvenile kind of way. You'll either like my story, or you'll hate it.

I submitted a story about Google's adwords, and how it was very interesting in that *anybody* can place an advertisement, automatically, for anything they wanted. I personally consider this a revolution in the way advertising is handled, and I wish the idea would spread.

Of course, my story was rejected. So, what does any evil Slashdotter do? That's right. I did a Google AdWords banner. It was titled "Get the Slashdot Guide!" with the body something to the effect of "Learn the secrets and make the most out of Slashdot. Ride the Taco!" It was set on the keyword "slashdot". It displayed the URL "".

Effectiveness rate? VERY. I was getting about 12% click-throughs each day. I set a tiny budget of $30. It lasted for a few days. I would say that AdWords can be *very successful* if you correctly target your advertisement. Your experiment was rather bland, IMHO.

Oh. The catch? The ad, while claiming it was directing you to "" and displaying the URL on a MOUSEOVER, actually linked them to the picture. I'm rather surprised that Google didn't put a stop to it. I'm rather surprised I did it.

But it did get my point across when I re-submitted the story about Google AdWords. Even if they didn't follow through on it then and there. Maybe this story has something to do with it? :) (Probably NOT.) (2)

Snowfox (34467) | more than 13 years ago | (#186925)

The micro ads on get my attention far more than the banners. I've become conditioned to not even look toward anything flashing or rectangular with the standard aspects. I don't think I could even tell you what the standard ads are in circulation on Slashdot anymore, despite visiting about twice daily.

Re:Marketing professionals don't understand (1)

cisko (35325) | more than 13 years ago | (#186926)

You've got to learn that there's a such thing as diminishing returns.

Yeah, no kidding. I wonder when we'll reach a general threshold where people ignore advertising because it's become too pervasive, misleading, and just not useful. It's kind of an arms race -- viewers becoming more cynical and jaded, while advertisers become more sophisticated.

I know we're all waiting to see how the partial collapse of web advertising plays out. What's more interesting to me is to wonder what will happen if (when) we see a similar collapse in advertising in other media. Think about how much "stuff" is supported by advertising. Think about how much of your GDP (wherever you are) comes from the flow of advertising dollars. All that stems from a certain confidence in the success of advertising. If that confidence ever wavered, we would face major shifts in the operation of our economy. Whether or not you think that would be a good thing is a different question. =)

Ad on Slashdot.... (1)

Louis Blue (37759) | more than 13 years ago | (#186927)

So Danny, how many hits did you get when you posted it on

Click-through as a Measurement of Success (1)

HippieChick (42869) | more than 13 years ago | (#186929)

I could be totally off my rocker, but I was suffereing under the impression that the reason banner ads were losing popularity was not because there weren't any click-throughs. I thought there were plenty of click-throughs. What I had figured was the problem was the fact that nobody who clicked through ever paid for anything. I never really understood the "Shock the Monkey" banners that were designed to make you click and do nothing else. People clicked, then realized they were duped and backed out. Maybe they got stung by a barrage of pop ups or something, but they didn't really add to the revenue of the advertising site.<p>
I also find myself agreeing with the arguments posted here about how advertising has survived for decades without any click-throughs. An advertisement for on the television serves to permanently link in your mind "travel web sites" to "" (which is why they say the name so much on the commercial). It's designed for name recognition. Nobody gets up and runs to their computer to make travel plans for next summer, so why should people click through right off the bat?<p>
The bottom line is that banner ads should do their best to drill the name of their website into your head. Otherwise the only possible revenue they could attribute is via click-throughs, and we've all been through that rigamarole already.


Re:Bummer (1)

Betcour (50623) | more than 13 years ago | (#186931) went under ? Humm... their site seems to be still up and running - and giving paid links back when doing searches. Or has it been bought out by someone ?

Re:Consistency makes for bad advertising (2)

Betcour (50623) | more than 13 years ago | (#186932)

Imagine a world where television programmers religiously ran their advertising between shows, leaving the content of the shows uninterrupted. Would you ever see ads in such a world?

Yes !! In France for example, public television isn't allowed to cut shows with commercials, and private television is only allowed one cut/show. Both still make ton of money with commercials...

Re:by Web-advertising standards, this is a success (2)

Coward, Anonymous (55185) | more than 13 years ago | (#186933)

The Nielsen/NetRatings report said nothing of the clickthrough rate of highly targeted advertising. From that report, there's no way to tell if 0.9% is good or bad for a search engine with targeted ads.

Now that we know what half-brained folks read... (3)

volpe (58112) | more than 13 years ago | (#186935)

Anyone with half a brain is going to read book reviews before they read a "scholarly study".

And those of us with complete brains will read the scholarly studies.

Seriously, folks, something has to be detailed enough for me to know whether or not I'll be interested in it before I go check it out. "563 lively book reviews on all subjects" is way too general to pique my interest, not to mention the fact that 563 is way too few to cover "all subjects". But I would certainly be interested in finding out what kind of horrific working conditions exist in other parts of the world, and where this stuff is going on.

Banner ads work like impulse shopping. If I go to the supermarket for a quart of milk, and on the way to the dairy department I see a plain opaque box with the word "SNACK" written on it, the chances that I'll throw it in the cart are nil. But if I spot the brand-new taco-flavored Fritos, I might give them a try, because I already have enough information (I know what a taco is, and I've eaten Fritos before) to become interested in it.


<random thought> (2)

babbage (61057) | more than 13 years ago | (#186936)


It occurs to me that banner ads on a search engine are probably doomed to failure anyway: if a visitor comes in specifically looking for topic $foo, they're not gonna care about advertisement $bar. People using the web have notoriously short attention spans -- or I do, anyway :). Most of the time, they aren't likely to allow themselves to be distracted by an ad (or the link beyond it) unless it happens to be *really* close to what they're looking for in the first place. And even then, if I'm searching for e.g. "mistadobalina" and I happen to be shown an ad for Del Tha Funkee Homosapien's home page, I'm going to be skeptical about clicking on it out of fear that that site just wants me to buy something, even if that would otherwise be the exact site I'm looking for.


Ads on Goole? (1)

jaclu (66513) | more than 13 years ago | (#186937)

Since I've heard people talk about it, I asume they must be there somewhere, but I havve been using Google since they started, and I just don't get ads on my Google search results, very weired.

I Don't run any filtering tools, and see plenty of them in altavista etc, so they are not deleted in my end.

I just tried a few sample searches on common words, and none of them turned up any ads

I also cleared my cookies first so my system should have been clean.

Very strange....

Anybody else also unable to see the ads?
/Jacob L

Re:X10 voyeurcam (2)

z4ce (67861) | more than 13 years ago | (#186938)

I have to say this is totally true with me also. It seems you can't go to a site anywhere these days without getting bombarded by X10 popup ads. They're especially sneaky as they don't popup in the foreground, they popup in the background. I don't think website designers realize how much control they give to advertisers by allowing them to do popup ads. I recently was on namezero and their advertisement popup'd up a popup ad, that pop up'd another pop up ad, which pop up'd another pop up ad which was porn. It was totally unbelieveable... it was like the slippery slope of slime. Good site popups annoying site popups bad site popups sick site. Argh. I can't wait until mozilla has the feature to stop popup windows...

The web is becoming way too entrenched in ads. This guys experiment in microads may have failed, but may have chosen poor keywords or uneffective wording. Personally, I know I MUCH more likely to click on a micro-ad. Micro-ads tend to represent what I am looking for. I would say gets about %10 click-through on me, and that is WAY higher than any other site.

I really think very macro ads are really shooting themselves in the foot. I think that online advertisers are starting to forget something even more important than click-through -- brand recognition. In the case of X10, I now dispise their brand. I was planning on buying several hundred dollars of wireless security stuff from there, but they can forget it now. I wouldn't trust them with my credit card number.

I think the big players in advertising -- not other websites -- should start looking at the web more seriously for brand recognition. Really internet advertising is very cheap for the number of impressions especially if the ad is very tasteful. However, I think the annoying flash, popup, multiple banner ads are making online ads undesireable for brand recognition. They are doing nothing more than annoying the customer. Could you imagine on TV if commercials would begin to overlay the current TV show? During the commercial break if the screen broke up into a 3x3 grid of individual ads with their sounds overlapping. This is much like advertisement on the net today. It won't work.


Re:I think he picked too general a keyword...and.. (1)

jhoffoss (73895) | more than 13 years ago | (#186940)

No, it was "modern" and "slavery." Not necessarily both in the same search.

Re:Sucessful advertising (3)

jmorzins (86648) | more than 13 years ago | (#186943)

I'd disagree with your conclusion. The most effective TV commercials might be entertaining ones, but remember that most people's goal when watching television is to be entertained. Web sites vary, but most of the ones I see emphasize information more than they emphasize entertainment. If I'm reading the web looking for stuff to read, even if it's fun reading material, I'm more likely to click through ads that seem to match my current goal than I am to click on ads that are funny.

The best advertisements are the ones that make the viewer think "look at that! yes, this is what I want". Exactly what will make a viewer think this depends on how well you match your ad to the viewers frame of mind.

Re:The biggest problem (1)

Gill Bates (88647) | more than 13 years ago | (#186944)

the ad rate is primarily dependant on subscription rates, not total circulation

But this makes sense, if you think about it. As an advertiser, if you subscribe to a magazine I know you'll be seeing my and next month (and the month after...) whereas if you pick up a magazine at a newsstand, who knows if you'll ever bother to pick up another.

It's the whole "sticky eyeballs" thing in a print context rather than a web-based one.

ad nauseam (1)

blackholebrain (90909) | more than 13 years ago | (#186946)

Online ads are an *acceptable* pest on the first visit to any site... but upon repeat visits, they should disappear, or at least be optional (a cookie-embedded "ad switch" would be nice). If you think about it, ads --by their very nature-- only provide an exit from whatever site they sit on anyway.

And, of course, this is the big difference between online advertising and ads in any other medium. When you look at, or hear, ads elsewhere, you are never required to break continuity with whatever is hosting the ads (think radio, tv, mags, etc.). But web ads don't just say "look at me"... they say "come over here instead".

I would hope that most repeat visitors return to a site because of content, not advertising (think slashdot)... so why should frequent visitors be bombarded with the same crap, hour after hour, day after day, enticing them to leave the very site giving them space?

Online advertising sucks precisely because of this constant nagging of the viewer, and the ever-present threat that site owners face with the matter-of-fact *exit* button functionality that online ads actually represent.

No matter, I like the idea of text-based ads simply for their non-intrusiveness, but would rather not see any ads period. Hey, it's just like the movies to me: you are forced to watch (and occasionally enjoy) movie previews in a theater just because it's part of the experience. But nobody ever likes watching the same stupid crap on the video you rent from blockbuster.

Re:The biggest problem (1)

aron_wallaker (93905) | more than 13 years ago | (#186947)

The advertising industry has always had a strange approach to things (IMHO) - if you look at how they treat magazines the ad rate is primarily dependant on subscription rates, not total circulation. For some reason the industry feels that people that subscribe to a magazine are either more likely to read the ads or are just more valuable than people who pick up a copy at the local bookshop. This is why some magazines give such deep discounts for subscribers - they need that base to boost their add rates which is where their real money is coming from.

Bill Hicks thoughts (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 13 years ago | (#186948)

This reminds me of one of the late comedian Bill Hicks routines.

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing kill yourself. Just a little thought, I am just trying to plant seeds.... Seriously if you are do. No really, there is no rationalization for what you do, and you are satans little helpers. seriously, you are the ruiners of all things good"

Just planting seeds.


Re:Annoyance generates click-thrus (1)

ASM (101804) | more than 13 years ago | (#186949)

You mean it can get more annoying than that stupid monkey? no wait. uses pop up ads. I have to close them just to see my email. I HATE POPUP ads! Well anyway, I don't think it can get any worse than the popup ads. Second to that is the monkey.


ASM (101804) | more than 13 years ago | (#186950)

Don't give them any ideas! I have enough trouble as it is.

Re:The annoying pop-up ads (1)

ASM (101804) | more than 13 years ago | (#186951)

I always close them immediately. I don't think I've ever seen a popup ad load completely.

Not only that, but... (2)

festers (106163) | more than 13 years ago | (#186954)

The thing about TV commercials is that their success isn't measured by how many people run out and buy the product being advertised. It's a "mindshare" kind of thing. This whole click-through idea needs to be rethought...


He's got a fair point (3)

Dr_Cheeks (110261) | more than 13 years ago | (#186955)

I've noticed that my site traffic has gone from about 45/month to about 600 just from leaving a little link in my .sig here on Slashdot. It's great for those of us running small sites in our free time that the search engines ignore. I imagine it wouldn't make much difference to big players though

By the way....

Re:Marketing professionals don't understand (3)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 13 years ago | (#186956)

You've hit the nail squarely on the side. :-)

Most of advertising in any media is designed for one thing: Brand name recognition and Pavlovian conditioning. (OK, that's two things)

In the big North American cities, there are pages of classified ads that have nothing but companies' names. That's an attempt at fostering name recognition (probably a pretty lousy one, but dirt cheap). TV ads are usually funny or sexy skits with heavy product placement. Does that tell you _anything_ about the product? No, but it equates fun or sex with the product in some basal part of your brain, and when you go shopping for whatever it is, that association might tweak you into buying their product over the competition's.

Of course, TV and radio ads like this don't work as soon as you start thinking about what you want to buy. Guess what? People don't think about what they want to buy! Ads like this are enormously successful, no matter how little they say about the product.

The problem with web ads was one of perception. The web is all about linking and clicking, and for some reason the advertisers thought that they could measure interest in their ads (and thus efficacy) by counting clicks. Lo and behold, nobody clicks on the damned ads! At first it looked like web advertising was a bust, but in fact, they're now learning that people don't like traditional media ads any better than web ads, and wouldn't watch them voluntarily either. Now they're discovering the final result: Web banners work, and work in exactly the same way as traditional ads. Name recognition and mood association are just as annoying and effective no matter what the medium; and conversely, 'customer participation' (i.e. clicking through) is equally unlikely and irrelevant no matter what the medium.

So get used to the ads, because they're not going anywhere.

Re:Bummer (1)

shandrew (113220) | more than 13 years ago | (#186957)

Goto is doing extremely well; they're one of the few companies around which are making a profit off of web searches. It turns out to be a very good search engine for goods and services--you get good results because people are paying to be listed.

Most of their traffic is through affiliates large and small, not directly through their site. Some of their affiliates are AOL, Altavista, and MSN.

For sites which make more than $.05 per targeted visitor (meaning, the visitor actually *wants* to view your site, not some random viewer), Goto is the most effective source of traffic you can buy. As far as i know, Goto has significantly more advertisers than any other net company, and has a very interesting mix of fortune-500 advertisers and mom-and-pop-shop advertisers.

Counter Strike Player Decal Advertising (1)

dezwart (113598) | more than 13 years ago | (#186958)

Here's another way of net advertising. Creating a player decal that you spray in the game of Counter Strike (A half-life mod).

So far I don't know if it's working *grin*

very cool (1)

Ryan_Singer (114640) | more than 13 years ago | (#186961)

Micro-advertising actually works very well because the ads have to be targetted to what people are looking for on the site. I am willing to bet that not only will you get much more click-throughs, but the extra webbing will make the site better for your surfers. A win-win all the way.-Ryan Singer

Annoyance generates click-thrus (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 13 years ago | (#186962)

On more than one occasion I can recall having been so annoyed with the time taken for an ad to load (due to heavy java/animation) I have actually been compelled to click it in order to find the e:mail address of the webmaster so I could complain :)
Could be an new source of click-thrus - just make the most annoying banners possible! :))

The annoying pop-up ads (1)

reality-bytes (119275) | more than 13 years ago | (#186963)

Thats another thing; does anyone ever wait for those pop-up ads to load or do they always get the X of death before they even show anything?

Re:Fundamental problems with Web advertising (1)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 13 years ago | (#186964)

The problem with (effective) advertising on the Web is that it gets in the way of content, which is what the user is looking for.

Same can be said for TV advertising.

TV advertisers learned the lesson and tried to make the adverts worth watching. Indeed, on most of the cable channels I get the adverts are the only good programming.

Re:Fundamental problems with Web advertising (1)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 13 years ago | (#186965)

The Web is very different from television: it is mainly a cognitive medium, whereas TV is mainly an emotional medium.

That porn is the one known wokring web business model argues against this. People are people in front of TVs or web browsers.

Somoene else has pointed pout that the TV equivalent of click through (people going to your shop etc.) is also low rate.

However, this doesn't affect my point which was that the advertising has to fit into the medium so that when tit gets in the way it is not percieved as doing so.

A good Tv advert is a tiny programme in it's own right which some proportion of the audience is happy to watch on the same basis as the `real' programming.

A web equivalnt is to fit your advert in as a page on the relevent site which can be used by the browser in the same way hey use the surrouning pages.

For example, imagine one /. headline a day was put there by an advertiser.

A naive advertiser, equivalent to the people who think banner adds are a good idea, would put `Bloonet hubs are K00lL', and no one would click onto the page except the firstposters.

A good advertising agency would craft a story which was relevent to the /. audience, drew people in and caused them to want to argue... oops I mean discuss at great length with some force. Perhaps not directly mentioning `bloonet' at all, perhaps making it incidental (as the Budweiser frogs followups with the chamelians never mention beer). Lots of people click onto the page an absorb the message. Next time one of them wants to buy a hub, `bloonet' springs to mind as a supplier to check out.

BTW if /. starts doing this don't blame me, just send me a cut of the income:-)

Death thou shalt die (4)

larsal (128351) | more than 13 years ago | (#186966)

There was an excellent article [] at last month, pointing out one simple fact:

Banner ads probably do work

The problem has been [to loosely paraphrase] that the companies selling and managing banner ads thought that advertising on the Internet would be different from advertising in other media.

Unfortunately, they're wrong. The clickthrough rates are low, sure. But how often does an ad for, say, jeans, make you head out and buy them [the rough equivalent of a 'click-through']?

Ads are designed to get you to remember the product when you're heading out to buy products, thereby establishing brand recognition and making you more likely to choose that manufacturer's product over the hundred or so nearly identical competing brands'.

Just because it's a new medium doesn't mean we've changed that much, and as the article points out, with the cultural recognition of that damned monkey, it could probably sell us just about anything.


Sucessful advertising (3)

Stott (132670) | more than 13 years ago | (#186968)

Banner ads aren't totally dead. T.V. commercials have found people don't want the mundain information, they want to be entertained. Banner ads just need to be reformatted and reborn.

All your bases are belong to us!

Most effective way to get a lot of hits... (1)

Rushuru (135939) | more than 13 years ago | (#186969) to have your story posted on slashdot

Re:The biggest problem (1)

Doomdark (136619) | more than 13 years ago | (#186970)

whereas if you pick up a magazine at a newsstand, who knows if you'll ever bother to pick up another.

But still, wouldn't circulation be a better metrics, since even if I only read one issue, that wouldn't raise the circulation. There'd have to be 51 (25, whatever) other onetime readers to raise the circulation to match the contribution of just one subscriber? Doesn't it sound like this would actually be better bang-for-buck (52 people of which most are likely to have seen ad once, compared to 1 who has seen it 1 - 52 times?)? [obviously I know nothing about advertising, but I am slightly curious... engineers interested about advertising, what a concept!]

The best way to get hits is to: (1)

ayjay29 (144994) | more than 13 years ago | (#186973)

1 - Post a comment on SlashDot with a link here... []
2 - In time this will get modded up to Score:5, Funny (trust me ;-))
3 - Wait for the SlashDot effect to kick in!

Re:I think he picked too general a keyword...and.. (1)

mmaddox (155681) | more than 13 years ago | (#186975)

I think you've misunderstood him. I believe the search pattern was "modern slavery." This makes a bit more sense, in the context of the book itself (what the ad was for).

Consistency makes for bad advertising (3)

mmaddox (155681) | more than 13 years ago | (#186976)

Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the most obviously distressing point of the article: the sites designed with the most consistency (the most usable content) were the worst for advertising.

Doesn't this just underscore what everyone already knows, that annoying advertising gets results because people pay attention to it? Imagine a world where television programmers religiously ran their advertising between shows, leaving the content of the shows uninterrupted. Would you ever see ads in such a world? Wonderfully usable sites such as Google [] , although conforming to Jakob Nielsen's design ideas, don't create enough ruckus around their ads to create a reliable advertising medium. Television, on the other hand, has awful ads all through its content, with varying ad lengths and spot times to keep the user in his/her seat, expecting the content to return at any minute.

The funny paradox here is that TV continues to attract viewers, even with such practices, while sites that attempt to conform to a more television-like advertising standard merely run off their users. Personally, I believe that this is primarily due to a comparatively higher level of sophistication on the part of web users (say all you least we can turn on the computer, right?); if the web is ever saturated with the masses that TV attracts, then the ad model could well change to the more annoying TV-style (Sign of the apocalypse, btw...), where sites that are inconsistent, confusing, or otherwise forcing the user to see the ads can create a revenue stream based on the ad. (and obligatory junkbuster plug) (1)

YetAnotherDave (159442) | more than 13 years ago | (#186977)

Another benefit to using small text-only ads is that, since they're less bandwidth-wasteful and irritating, it's less likely that I'd bother changing my Junkbuster config to block them.
Thus they actually get viewed, while the 'punch the monkey' ad gets filtered out.

could be more effective... (1)

Der_Perfekt_Drog (160687) | more than 13 years ago | (#186978)

This could be more effective than banner ads (not that that would be real hard...). I have banners disabled through my browser, and when I don't I just ignore them anyway. But I would actually see the text ads. Whether I followed them or not would be a whole different question though. At least the text loads quicker than a banner ad.

Re:X10 voyeurcam (2)

IronChef (164482) | more than 13 years ago | (#186979)

Luckily there are lots of other places to get X10 gear. Check Smarthome [] to start with.

I almost never patronize

Keeping 'free' quality sites up (2)

andr0meda (167375) | more than 13 years ago | (#186980)

Actually there is just such a way to keep quality sites up. People paying for ad campaings on sites are not just the only ones that can keep them alive, you can too. Consider it a bit like 'paying to get no banner ads tagged onto your email', only that it`s not email and that now you are expressing an appreciation or need for the content. By simply donating money to services you are fond of, people can donate money to sites they want to keep up and banner free for isntance.

Reflecting on this a bit, the problem with these kind of thing is that this model can`t work because individual payment is an uncoordinated and crude event. You can`t possibly go about and give every good site your money, and the effect you try to resort might be disproportional to what you had in mind. So maybe it`s time to build something like, an organisation you are free to donate money to and which you can instruct to support a certain company with that money up to a certai degree. You can of course consult previous efforts in that direction.. the runs by voting on policy issues, and those who donate cna vote and suggest policy changs. Seems like to me like a nice idea to help and sustain Open Source Projects.

Flaws? Comments?

Not complete opposite approach.... (2)

ongdesign (170749) | more than 13 years ago | (#186981)

How exactly is this the complete opposite approach to "traditional" Web advertising? Advertising is when you pay third-party editorial sources to promote your interests. In addition, you generally supply the creative to do this, whether it's text, images, or sound.

The fact that this guy spent less (i.e., smaller media buy) doesn't make this some new form of advertising.... and it's not like every advertiser doesn't run their own metrics to determine efficacy.

The test of a successful campaign is to define the acceptable cost per unit of acceptable result (results may range from "improve awareness by 1%" to "sell 1 unit of product"). Then determine if the advertisement delivered those results at or below acceptable cost.

Not sure how this "experiment" was deemed a failure... was there an expectation in advance about how many clickthroughs the Google ad should deliver per impression? A roughly 1% clickthrough rate is quite decent, by the standards of this industry, and the CPM he describes is quite reasonable, as well.

Similar to my exp. (1)

tcdk (173945) | more than 13 years ago | (#186982)

I got 8 clickthoughs for my $10 used on a Google ad. Kind of expensive :-).

Banner adds are, maybe not dead, but close to it, at least when it's used as a way to generate traffic.

A friend of mine controls a *mumble*porn*mumble* site, getting 40.000 unique page view pr. day and as a favour added a banner for a new site I had made (not the SFBook one, but not a porn site either).

Ten clickthroughs - in a week, non of then going further than my front page.

On a happy note, the number of google search hits on my site had doubled the last month (200->400ish).

Attention-deprived snotty-nosed kids of the web (1)

xmark (177899) | more than 13 years ago | (#186984)

Why does TV advertising work better than web advertising? A lot of people get hung up on the "customizability" of banner ads. Harumph. I don't go to the web for ads - no matter how customized - I go for content, just like with TV. Television does not carry its ads inside its content; it alternates content with ads. In contrast, banner ads are embedded inside content. They annoy because they break concentration on the content - destroy, so to speak, the gestalt of the content. I don't know about you, but my undercaffeinated, sleep-deprived, likely hung-over, and not-all-that-Leonardolike-to-begin-with brain needs fewer distractions, not more. I WANT to focus on one thing at a time. On tube, the ads represent a couple of minutes to relax, maybe grab the pretzels or take a leak, before re-connecting with the content. On the web, they're just one more snotty kid yelling at me, waving its tumescent little hand, and preventing me from focusing on what I went to the web for in the first place. Fix that, and you fix the banner ad problem.

Re:Come on, this is not controlled! (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 13 years ago | (#186985)

This isn't a controlled study, and the results are useless.

He also missed out on comparing it to banner ads (the defacto web advertising medium) and identifying how many of the impressions were unique (which is particularly important in the case of the weblog, where you'll have the same people visiting the site over and over).

X10 voyeurcam (2)

blunte (183182) | more than 13 years ago | (#186986)

all I have to say is,

X10 can bite me! long ago I had planned on experimenting with X10 controls in my future house (which doesn't exist yet), but I'm so sick of their flipping popup ads that I'm not buying anything from them ever.

I wonder if the their ad department has considered how many potential customers they may be running off with their damned annoying (and obviously sexually suggestive) ads for their stupid little camera.

Interest level in general? (1)

DrPascal (185005) | more than 13 years ago | (#186987)

Is it just me, or is it possible that during the "two days" (a week, even), not a whole lot of people were that interested in reading about "Modern Slavery."

Let's get real people ... who sees "modern slavery" or "scholarly study" and veers off their search to read it?

I'd say to pick a topic more likely to be searched for, although I couldn't offer a suggestion.

Most Sucessful advertising (1)

kilroy_hau (187226) | more than 13 years ago | (#186988)

Put your ad as a plain text on a /. submission
Wait for the clickthroughs!

Marketing professionals don't understand (3)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 13 years ago | (#186991)

Does advertising work? It depends on what you want it to achieve.

I don't see anyone challenging the viability of print, television, or radio ads. But I can't remember a single time when I saw something advertised, dropped everything I was doing, and ran out immediately and bought that item.

So why is it that you expect that I'm going to buy something just because I see a link to it from some webpage I'm visiting?

I also don't buy products in order to reward them for sponsoring a content provider I happen to like. Advertisers think they subsidize popular entertainment, which

If I buy something, I buy it because I need it or because I want it and also because I know it exists. Advertising can't tell me if I need something. Most advertising does a lousy job in telling me why I should want something. Aside from infomercials, most advertising these days doesn't try to tell me why I should want something at all. But one thing that advertising does a pretty good job of is letting me know that some product exists.

Advertisers should also know that the world was saturated with advertising and people clamoring for my money long before the internet ever came into existance, and simply providing more room for advertising via the invention of cyberspace won't give me any more dollars in my wallet to spend on stuff. I'm already spending at the highest rate that I can sustain with my income. You've got to learn that there's a such thing as diminishing returns.

Re:Sucessful advertising (1)

nekid_singularity (196486) | more than 13 years ago | (#186992)

I think your right. The best banner add was this really slick mini-golf java app with six holes! I spent at least TEN MINUTES playing with that damn banner add, and this was over a year ago and I still remember it. How many banner adds from a year ago do you remember?

waiting for name placement ads, not come and buy` (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | more than 13 years ago | (#186994)

all the ads on the internet are typically, come here and buy this.. come to my pages and see what i'm selling. hopefully soon the day will come when the ads are more typical product name recognition ads (even entertaining). most tv comercials don't send you out to your local grocery store to buy coffee, they just show you an unbelieveably calm morning waking up with foldgers in the cup. then you remember that when you're in the store.
how about something like: " read the news for nerds or just watch the trolls bash the next Katz article". then some little trolls come along and start bashing a Katz article to shreds. not even a click through. just an animaged gif or whatever.
on another tangent related to tv advertising, most tv commercials aren't about other tv programs or channels or whatever, they're about products you go to buy. why does it seem that 99%(that's being a little generous) of the internet ads are about other web sites. the entire web advertising revenue is coming from other broke companies. i can see an entertainment site having ads for a "place' that sells stuff.. well.. there's just too many people selling stuff on the web when most people just want the news for nerds, and stuff that matters :)

Re:Fundamental problems with Web advertising (2)

CraigoFL (201165) | more than 13 years ago | (#186995)

From Nielsen's article:
The Web is very different from television: it is mainly a cognitive medium, whereas TV is mainly an emotional medium. This makes TV much more suited for the traditional type of advertising which is flashy and promotes superficial qualities of products. While watching TV, people approach a vegetable state and the main goal of a commercial is to minimize interaction by keeping the user's hand off the remote control. As long as the user watches, you can keep them engaged by high production values and a message that says very little besides "we are good."

Where TV is warm, the Web is cold. It is a user-driven experience, where the user is actively engaged in determining where to go next. The user is usually on the Web for a purpose and is not likely to be distracted from the goal by an advertisement (one of the main reasons click-through is so low). This active user engagement makes the Web more cognitive, since the user has to think about what hypertext links to click and how to navigate. This again makes the Web less suited for purely emotional advertising. The user is not on the Web to "get an experience" but to get something done. The Web is not simply a "customer-oriented" medium; it's a customer-dominated medium. The user owns the Back button. Get over it: there is no way of trapping users in an ad if they don't want it. []

Fundamental problems with Web advertising (4)

CraigoFL (201165) | more than 13 years ago | (#186996)

From the article:
Another problem Google and Robot Wisdom both face is that they are too well designed and consistent... But I'd hate to see either Robot Wisdom or Google damage their functionality in order to improve the effectiveness of advertising.
The problem with (effective) advertising on the Web is that it gets in the way of content, which is what the user is looking for. Any site that promotes advertising over content loses credibility and user experience. Any site that promotes content over advertising loses advertising effectiveness and cash.

For a more in-depth analysis (and a better test program) I recommend reading Jakob Nielsen's columns on web usability [] , starting with one specifically about web-based advertising [] .

Here's the URLs:

Re:Annoyance generates click-thrus (3)

david duncan scott (206421) | more than 13 years ago | (#186998)

I have read that the very first commercial jingle (for gum, as I recall) was carefully timed to some 10 seconds -- long enough to be memorably irritating, but not quite long enough to get up and turn the radio dial.

Web Ad Product Placement (5)

tenzig_112 (213387) | more than 13 years ago | (#186999)

It seems that ad revenue plummits even as web usage rises. What to do? At some of the sites I work with, we've been slowly introducing "sneaky" advertising like product placement.

Here's a sample of what your average 'blog will look like by the end of the Summer:


Just sitting here at my new Dell Dimension [] sipping a Jolt [] and I began to wonder about the future of the Internet. I mean, my Comcast @ Home [] service is wicked-fast. But what's next? I want to be able to stream the new LOTR [] trailer and snag the demo for Half-Life 2 [] without a long download.

I can't imagine sites pimping misleading links [] . But it could happen.

FWIW.. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#187000)

I click through some of the ThinkGeek stuff on Slashdot, from time to time, same for Yahoo and a few other sites I visit. 100% of the time, though, is because there's something in the ad I'm already interested in at some level ($200 DVD player w/built in wasabi dispenser and turnip twaddler, or such)

Definitely there's a lot of science to advertising, and that's based heavily in statistics (time of day, geographic location, demographics, what can you tell about this person by querying their browser?), some common sense (don't advertise meat to vegetarians), and a certain level of risk (let's see if adults will buy Lego brand building blocks, too.)

You're off to a start, but there's a long way to go before you can really draw a meaninful conclusion. IMHO your test was too limited to tell anything.

All your .sig are belong to us!

Re:Sucessful advertising-All Your Base .. (OT) (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#187001)

Advertising doesn't mean squat if your homepage reads like this one [] Would you trust all your base next power supplies for this companies?

All your .sig are belong to us!

Poor Method of Experimentation (3)

Foggy Tristan (220356) | more than 13 years ago | (#187002)

The problem with the experiment is that the ads contained different text, and the author even identifies this in his analysis.

His Google ad was very specifically oriented towards one book review; his RobotWisdom ad geared toward numerous reviews. THe expectations of users seeing the link then passing through the link would be radically different, and not surprisingly give his RobotWisdom ad the edge.

If they had both been geared toward the site overall, I'd believe that the results were valid. Instead, I have to question what factor really resulted in the difference in clickthroughs. This has made me want to run my own experiment with my own site, but being more careful about the wording of the two ads.

The biggest problem (4)

bmongar (230600) | more than 13 years ago | (#187003)

The biggest problem with click-through ads is that they are countable. This is why the advertising industry is pulling their advertising. They see a low number of click-throughs, and a low number of purchaces on click-throughs. So they can see the low response to their adds. They are more willing to spend their money on tv adds where they cant as readily see they are wasting money.

Come to think of it (1)

ishrat (235467) | more than 13 years ago | (#187005)

I am sure his article would have got a higher click through than his add via Google.

Re:Sucessful advertising (1)

slaytanic killer (264559) | more than 13 years ago | (#187008)

Heh, that one from Sun? If you like these sorts of games, you might wish to look at JHLabs [] . Looking at the HTML sources, they don't even require downloading Sun's plug-in.

Its bigger than this (2)

Razzious (313108) | more than 13 years ago | (#187011)

Having worked for 2 different failed dot BOMBS that were based on an advertisment business model, I think its safe to say that advertisment online has been grossly overestimated regardless of how you approach it.
For years there has been a difference in how advertisers approached their buyers. INFOMERCIALS go for the BUY NOW OR MISS OUT. Coca-Cola goes for the NAME NAME NAME. When you think softdrink think COKE. BUD WEIS EERRRRR...etc.
Thus far none of pure dot coms(not the brick and mortar that have a website to back them up) companies have found a way to breech that gap.
The only way I see anything changing online is for the "permission based marketing" to take over. Example: You know I am interested in puchasing a product because in a survey etc I told you so. You are partnered with a company that sells or distributes that product. You send me an ad because I told you that you could and its a product I am wanting more infomation on. Past that its a dark deep bottomless money pit that ALOT of venture capital money helps make deeper and darker.
Razzious Domini

Re:Come on, this is not controlled! (1)

dublsik (412582) | more than 13 years ago | (#187015)

Anyone with half a brain is going to read book reviews before they read a "scholarly study"

True, but anyone with a full brain would read the scholarly study first.

How Banner Ads Really Work (1)

K4GPB (413101) | more than 13 years ago | (#187016)

Banner Ads [] explained and what they cost.

web banners (1)

deus_X_machina (413485) | more than 13 years ago | (#187017)

The difference between web advertsing and TV advertising is impulse buying. I know from first hand experience that web buying isn't impulsive 90% of the time (not to say that I haven't logged onto Ebay and bought something "random" once or twice), but generally I go on the 'net knowing exactly what I want and how much I want to spend to aquire it. When I go to the mall, however, I usually somehow come home with more stuff than I wanted and less money in my pockets then I had hoped for. Also, I don't think I've ever purchased one item that I found about through a banner ad, nor do I know anyone who has. Everytime you click on one of those, 20 more ads come up. There's tons of revenue to be made on the internet, it's just comapnies have a harder time utilizing impulse buying. In other words, God forbid, people may actually be buying things they want, instead of buying the crap coorperations would like to shove down everyone's throat!

weren't people tricking Google that way? (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 13 years ago | (#187018)

I've seen people write Blogs & Livejournal entries just like that.. linking to whatever they were talking about. It's helpful, but IIRC (which I probably don't) people were using links and stuff to trick Google results a while back and lead people off to pr0n sites. Weren't they?

Re:Interesting (1)

redcup (441955) | more than 13 years ago | (#187019)

Click through a page watch a 10 sec ad. Continue on. Or pay the site and skip the ad's ya know like tv but with options?????

I don't know what kind of TV you watch , but I can see it now...
<baseball game>
pitch on the way... [cut to shameless plug] - (stay tuned to see if the batter swings!)
</baseball game>

  1. I flip the channel during TV commercials.
  2. I didn't get broadband to wait 10 seconds for the information I want to load.
  3. A site that makes people sit through even 2 seconds of ads to view a page that may be completely useless will lose 99.999999% (rounding down) of their users and alienate them to the product advertised in nothing flat.


Re:The biggest problem (2)

redcup (441955) | more than 13 years ago | (#187020)

Especially with the decline in internet advertising demand, rates and revenue, agencies are focusing less on the click-through metric and more on "branding."

Much like traditional "highway billboard" advertising - where the number of impressions is nothing more than an estimate of how many people drive by, brand recognition in invaluable on the internet even if people don't click on the text or banner ad. There is value in advertisements even with a low click-through rate.


I don't want another credit card (1)

superflippy (442879) | more than 13 years ago | (#187021)

I agree with you wholeheartedly! Does anyone still charge for online ads based on "pageviews" or "eyeballs"? People lamented the inaccuracy of those statistics, but I think they're at least as good as TV's Nielsen ratings.

Another reason I'm guessing people don't click on banner ads, though, is because 50% of them are for credit cards. One can only go so far into debt before the spectre of bankruptcy looms. The other 50% are for expensive computer hardware and software I don't need (think I'm going to use Oracle 8i to run my personal web site?).

Re:Interesting (1)

darkpenguin (442917) | more than 13 years ago | (#187022)

I think this idea would be instant death to anyone who tried it. I think we can all agree that we hate commercials on TV and I'm sure some of us would even pay more for commercial-free TV. The difference is that with TV, you either watch it or you don't. There isn't any real way to avoid commercials right now. There are however, possibly thousands of alternatives to a web site. If you are going to make your users pay to not see anoying ads, then I know I would just go somewhere else.

I know banner ads on Slashdot don't work (1)

President of The US (443103) | more than 13 years ago | (#187023)

I couldn't even tell you the last time I clicked or even noticed one of those banner ads thinkgeekwishlists at the top of the page. Even with all the flashing and animation seehotsexywomenandgetfired they don't do anything but make me want to scroll down getoraclecertified the page to get rid of them. I wonder what the click-through rates penguincomputing for /. banner ads are. I doubt that they are cluelessnesstherearenostupidquestionsbutthereareal otofinquisitiveidiots very high.

Bummer (1)

spacefem (443435) | more than 13 years ago | (#187024)

Oh how sad! I had hopes for text ads, they're so nice and unobtrusive, I click them just to support the idea of an ad that doesn't flash at me and scream "SHOCK MY MONKEY!" or something like that. I was very dissapointed when fell under, it's that same thing, I want to think business should be rewarded for being noble but it seems like in the computer world they aren't any more. Oh hell, forget the computer world, maybe it's not as new as I think, the old "nice guys don't get laid thing," hell. Mean people suck. This has gotten offtopic, I'll stop ranting.

oops (1)

spacefem (443435) | more than 13 years ago | (#187025)

Crap did I say goto? I meant go. I smoke a lot of crack on the weekends.

Interesting (1)

newt_sd (443682) | more than 13 years ago | (#187026)

I think studies on the effectivness of ad's on the internet seem to be the hot topic. Everyone is looking for the holy grail that will make adverstisers jump back on the cash flow bandwagon and start dumping large sums of money at Websites. What do you guys think about the commercial flash type format for a news site. Click through a page watch a 10 sec ad. Continue on. Or pay the site and skip the ad's ya know like tv but with options?????

Re:Interesting (1)

newt_sd (443682) | more than 13 years ago | (#187027)

My point being whether we like it or not most companies do not succeed on the web. Have you looked most of their business models no wonder why they fail but the realization here is that we have got lots of stuff for free for a long time and those days are coming to a close. I don't like commercials anymore then the next guy but they might be a neccessary evil. Look at this way. Go play Inklink on they throw in a flash commercial every other round or so and it doesn't disrupt game play much at all I think they are doing it correctly.

Page Content (2)

RalphTWaP (447267) | more than 13 years ago | (#187028)

The article points out that the pages displaying the ads were so well organized (or at least consistant) that users of the pages didn't look around very much, they didn't see the ads in other words.

Well, ... good. The ads obviously weren't crafted into the content model of either service, just grafted on top, so I'd say the article provides a huge kudos to the site designers.

The higher questions are, what kind of site *should* host ads, how can advertising be incorporated into the content in such a way as to be visable, interesting, and attractive to users of the site.

Thank god I don't know the answer, otherwise I'd be upstairs in marketing instead of reading /.

Nietzsche on Diku:
sn; at god ba g
:Backstab >KILLS< god.

Re:Come on, this is not controlled! (1)

decathexis (451196) | more than 13 years ago | (#187031)

Not to mention the fact that he is compairing the results of 600 impressions on Google with 30000 impessions on Robot Wisdom. More impressions result in more click-throughs. Wow. How did this article get posted on /. in the first place?
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>
Create a Slashdot Account