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!

This Headline Is Not for Sale

simoniker posted more than 9 years ago | from the nickel-for-the dept.

Media 275

r.jimenezz writes "Adam Penenberg's latest article on Wired News discusses the growing trend of inserting ads more directly into online content, as publishers strive to keep readers clicking and to stretch advertising dollars, most of which go to a few big companies. He mentions the example of Vibrant Media, which links 'certain words in an article' directly to ads, and has been covered before on Slashdot, as have Penenberg's previous articles."

cancel ×


frist? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011201)


Re:frist? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011271)

YEAH!! I FINALLY got a fp!!


Re:frist? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011327)

LOL YHBT YHL HAND KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE ^_________________________________________________ __^


Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Re:frist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011333)

In AdAge, Kelly McBride, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute

"McBride" and "ethics" used in the same sentence?!?! What next!.

Re:frist? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011367)

I don't know, eh? Perhaps you growing a penis?

3rd post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011202)

Or did I fail it?

owned (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011204)

fp 4 stef zozoozozozozo

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011209)


How to block them ... (4, Informative)

Chran (142121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011210)

I use Mozilla Firefox and it's a breeze to block those ads using AdBlock []

Just create a rule to either block 'vibrantmedia' and 'intellitxt'.

Easy as pie!

Re:How to block them ... (1, Funny)

iMMersE (226214) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011251)

Does AdBlock block ads such as, err, I dunno, the one in my sig?

Re:How to block them ... (4, Insightful)

clifyt (11768) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011401)

"Does AdBlock block ads such as, err, I dunno, the one in my sig?"

Some of these systems do.

My day job is as a researcher at a university. Over the last two months I've been tearing my hair out because one of the evaluation tools we'd been using online has not been working right for the subjects. They get to a link and all of a sudden its not there. I had been trying to replicate this on a dozen browsers, going through all the validation services and unfortunately, these people are not the most technically advanced in the world.

Well, it all came down to our default DDNS Indiana University, they are

That ADS means Active Directory Services...not ADvertisementS.

Yes, Microsoft runs much of the back end of our campus, sadly, but its just a tool like anything else.

Anywho, it seems that any links that have this ADS name in it were being removed wholesale from the pages. Meaning my survey instrument was not working for idiots that ran this software. I'm told the Symantec internet protection tools (I forget the name) is actually sold on 7 out of 10 laptops in the US these days (lucky its probably only a 30 day demo).

This has pissed me off to no extent. Here I've been blamed for it not working, yet its these ad blockers that are ruining the content to purify things for idiots that can't be bothered with an ad here or there are the sole cause. You know what Symantecs answer to this was? Change your URL.

Fuck you symantec.

On the side, I run a website dedicated to music technology that is advertising based. Even my own stuff that we sell is using the same ad servers. I never wanted to have a whore'd link that said Store in the menubar, but after researching the pervasiveness of this at my university setting, I realized I had to. Otherwise, it would be destroyed in the content.

I can understand why folks kill popups. you control your browser and as such, should be able to say if you want a window to show up or not. You shouldn't, however, be killing inline ads if you want the information from the source you are getting it at.

Right now, I am running nonstandard sized banners on my site, much to my clients despise, but when I explain this to them, they are generally happy with it and send me a modified ad. I am thinking of using Apache's rewrite commands on my ad server so that nothing involved looks like a url coming from this particular software.

These few changes I've made have made several users ask me when I started postings ads, as well as my page views and my banner views are now coming into parity for this last month. I have a feeling its going to be an endless battle with the moochers of society vs. those of us that provide content.

So to answer your question, yes these fucking adblocking softwares do block as innocuous items as inline text so long as its pointing as something that looks like it might be an advertisement to the software.

Re:How to block them ... (3, Insightful)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011256)

The reason links are being incorperated directly into content are because the web advertising model isn't working. There are many reasons for this, but certainly one of them is that people like you block adverts.

Why do you do it? Do you think that servers and bandwidth pay for themselves? How do you expect sites to put up impartial (read: not sponsored) content without some way for the site owners to make enough money to pay the bills?

The only thing ad blocking does is push webmasters into new directions to find advertising revenues. This latest spate of content adverts are just a result of this trend. I suspect soon we'll see adverts incorperated into a site's content at the server-side (e.g. PHP, Perl, JSP includes into the site's content) rather than the client-side (e.g. embedded images, flash from third party servers).

These will be much more difficult to block, but ultimately, unless you WANT a subscription based Internet, what is a webmaster of a large site supposed to do? Take out another job or extra mortgage to pay his or her $1000 a month server bills?

Yes, in an ideal Internet anyone would be able to publish any content for nothing, but we live in a capitalist society (all the countries that really matter on the Internet are free or nearly-free markets, even China).

Re:How to block them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011281)

I've never responded to an online ad; I never will respond to an online ad. How does my blocking ads change the fact that they don't influence my purchases?

Re:How to block them ... (1)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011322)

I doubt the response-rate for online adverts is much different than for television adverts, but certainly advertisers seem to think these are effective and worth the money.

Re:How to block them ... (3, Insightful)

killerc (462845) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011362)

A click-through response isn't necessary. These days, a great deal of online advertising is sold on a Cost-Per-Impression model, where the webmaster gets paid a small amount each time an ad on their page is viewed. So by blocking the ads, you're cheating the webmaster out of their ad revenue.

Re:How to block them ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011406)

So by blocking the ads, you're cheating the webmaster out of their ad revenue.

Oh this like skipping the ads with your Tivo equating to "theft?"

Re:How to block them ... (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011457)

It's like the business model for pr0n sites. They all get very rich by putting up banner ads for each other's sites.

Re:How to block them ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011459)

Many ads are done by number of impressions, when you go to a site and block an ad you're taking away an impression the website operator otherwise would have gotten. I too hate most advertising, but I also operate a website and that costs me more money the more popular my site gets. If I were to become sponsored by some company, I would be under great pressure to skew facts in the sponsor's favor out of fear I would lose their support. This isn't even considering the fact that I've spent hundreds of hours and produced thousands of lines of code to power my site. No one is forcing me to put something online, but I do it because I like to. I also feel I am providing a service for the people who use my site, so simply dropping offline because of increasing costs isn't ideal. Putting a single advertisement up can pay for the entire site's hosting for the month. So, you can block ads, but you can also help keep a website running for allowing an image or some text to load (you don't even have to look at it!)

Re:How to block them ... (5, Insightful)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011312)

I never click on the banners, and since most revenue is now derived from click-throughs, I don't see the point in displaying them on my machine. Why should I be *forced* to see some ad when I don't have to. In any case, those greedy bastards would expand advertising into every possible medium, not because they aren't already making money (they are) but because they always want more money. On the very few sites which carry ads I am interested in I let the server display them (Penny Arcade, SlashDot).

Re:How to block them ... (2, Insightful)

Chran (142121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011355)

No, I don't think bandwidth and whatever pays for itself, but like many others have also said, I simply don't click on ads, so the difference for the advertisers is the same.

Also, I'd like to decide for myself what I want to display on my computer and what I don't.

Don't block, hide (5, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011369)

Instead of blocking advertisements, the good strategy is to load them, but just don't display them. I was even thinking here of trying to patch some ad-removing proxy for that, and also making some kind of program that would "click" on ads at night.

Main point of that is that you get to see the site, and if it's well done, neither the advertiser nor the site have any way of finding what are you doing on your end, so the site still gets paid.

Of course, that'll probably accelerate the inclusion of links to ads in content, but that can be easily dealt with by the same proxy which already does pattern matching for URLs anyway. It won't take long until ad blockers start appending [ad!] after those links.

Re:How to block them ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011375)

The internet was around long before there was advertising on it, and it will be around long after all advertising is gone. The internet is a pull medium, not a push medium. I don't want to see any ads, and I have the power to control that (unlike television).

If content providers insist on popping up mind-numbingly deceptive ads like "hit the monkey" and fake Windows dialog boxes, I am going to block them. If they don't like it, they can try to make me subscribe to their site. Once they do that, then I simply move on to another site with similar quality non-subscription content.

I don't mind ads like the way Google incorporates them; text-only, and not SCREAMING IN MY FACE or popping up all over the place telling me my IP address is being broadcast to the internet.

Re:How to block them ... (1)

Alex Brasetvik (554885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011381)

I see your point, but how would I, by downloading the advertisements and consuming the web site's bandwith, but by ignoring the advertisements on the page, help them? By being number in statistics?

I can't remember to ever have bought anything as a result of seeing an advertisement on the web. If I want something, I go out and look for it myself. :)

I might not be the perfect consumer, but blocking such ads gives me a better surfing experience and I don't consume their expensive bandwith unnecessarily.

Re:How to block them ... (1)

Zamis (81530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011400)

I don't usually block a sites graphics unless they do that blink thing or they are some animated gif that changes and distracts from reading the article.

I do use the "Flash click to play" plugin on Mozilla though. Those flash animations are just too distracting.

Re:How to block them ... (1, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011461)

unless you WANT a subscription based Internet

And here I was paying my internet bill every month like a sucker!

Re:How to block them ... (1)

Currant (806691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011474)

You must be joking. Are you this stupid, or is this a joke. It has to be a joke. NOBODY forces advertising on someone, I don't give a damn what it pays for. I really could care less if the server is paid for or not. The companies that sponsor that server, are *NOT* losing any money, you moron. Its just like TV ads. They are enticing you to watch their lame ass ads, so you will be the products. I suppose you never turn the channel during a commercial or simply not pay attention during the commercials eh? Or maybe you are the sheep that are sucked in and buy everything they see. I have been following ads and complaints about Spam for years. I have been wondering if there are people like you that actually believe this BS about companies needing money to pay for the server. First of all, the SERVER is already paid for. Secondly, 99% of these ads are run in at least 3 other places.. TV, Magazines, and Newspaper. Most are targeted in trade mags that specifically geared toward techs.., which is what that ad is for. You know what, I am wasting my time even explaining myself, anyone that is this retarded and believes everything they read and see, is just too stupid to live. Why don't you remove yourself from newsgroup, and play with your Cabbage Patch dolls, because someone weaned your stupid ass from your mama too early, punk. You have the be the lamest person ever to actually believe *I* owe the company something by reading their ads. F&@K! the ads. I will strip, delete, deny, ignore, and block EVERY ad as I see fit, because News is free. Websites were meant to be free. The Internet was designed to be free.. not so big business could *again* find a way to make a few more million dollars. They aren't getting it from me, unless I am upgrading a machine or buying products I actually use, like Games and Hardware. Other than that, stay the hell off my webpage viewing, because you are waisting ad space.. You have no idea what you are talking about, those same companies that advertise on the website are doing just fine. That webmaster isn't broke either, he will get paid. $1000.00 / mo for a server. Hahaha.. Dude you are delusional. Nobody pays that kind of money to maintain a server.. and if you are, you are worried a few users block the content. You are living in dream land if you think there will *EVER* be a subscription based internet.. that's the propaganda, but we will just boycott it. Then where will they be? Giving us FREE ad-less/Internet, that's where. You are just a zero going the other way, do us all a favor, disconnect yourself from the net. You are taking bandwidth from some of us that can actually use it for something useful.

Re:How to block them ... (1)

Freshie (626007) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011496)

I do it because the flashing blinking bouncing flash based "rich media' is so annoying that I can't read the content, because my eyes are distracted. It's like the bottom of your television being eaten away by ads now. If that was constantly flashing and changing "as I'm sure it soon will be". You'd probably duct tape the bottom of your screen so you can pay attention to the tv show and not the ads.

Re:Why I block them (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011505)

I only block certain kinds of advertisements that I consider egregious abuses of the medium. These include popup and popover ads and ads from companies that have abused their ability to track my movements on the Net in the past (like DoubleClick). For 'stealth' ads like these, I will block the ones that I can find a way to block, too. If you use fancy JavaScript ads that dance across the webpage I'm trying to read and I can't find a way to get rid of them, I will just avoid your site.

Banner ads and even clickthrough ads don't bother me. Yeah, they're advertising and advertising is inhrently annoying, but if it's an ad that interests me, I'll even click it to see what's up.

Re:How to block them ... (1)

SpiritOfGrandeur (686449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011297)

Now only if AdBlock could get rid of the in page ad's such as the ones that come on GMAIL... I know it is an impossible dream because of how they where generated, but it would still be cool ;)

if you want a solution on serverlevel... (1)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011418)

Or if you have a proxy, and you want everybody who connects to it to benefit from it you can use bannerfilter [] . It works with squid [] . Alot of rules are automaticly created and you can set your own rules as well ofcourse. Works as a filter for banners as well as popups (it replaces the popup with a self-closing javascript page). I'm using it for quite some time now and haven't been able to detect any flaws.

Of course! (4, Interesting)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011213)

Not that Slashdot is guilty [] of it ...

This was bound to happen sooner or later (5, Insightful)

HMA2000 (728266) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011214)

This is one of the promises of the early web coming true. Hyperlinked text that will take you anywhere you want to go. Considering that it is advertisers (usually) that pay the salaries of online media folk it is not at all surprising that advertisers get what they want.

Does Slashdot do this? (5, Interesting)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011217)

There's been some speculation that articles like this [] are paid-for (NOTE: they always seem to be posted by CmdrTaco).

Re:Does Slashdot do this? (2)

Durzel (137902) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011235)

I'd have to agree with this sentiment.

I can't see the merit of that PSU article at all. It's nothing new, 500w is hardly ground-breaking (ok its a lot of wattage but there have been Enermax 550w out for years).

Why is it relevant?

Not just CmdrTaco (3, Insightful)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011253)

Here's a more blatant showpiece [] from our all-time favourite, Michael.

MOD PARENT UP, Slashdot = Hypocrits (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011260)

Slashdot is blatently guilty of posting "stories" that are nothing more than marketing blurbs for so-and-so product.

This Headline IS For Sale (1)

BubbaThePirate (805480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011388)

Actually, I'm not complaining, as I'm not a paying member, and something has to pay my bill.

Let's assume they are payed ads, disguised as articles, should they still be visible to subscribers?

Toms Hardware (5, Insightful)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011224)

I find the trend of inserting ads into article text annoying and distracting. I, for one, would never buy anything off of such a link, but obviously people are, or else this practice would die down. See this is practice with any of the articles at: []

Re:Toms Hardware (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011258)

but obviously people are, or else this practice would die down.
There's lots of advertising that has zero effectiveness, but is continued due to inertia or protecting your turf, in any large organization.

This continues because we don't have proper metrics for all forms of advertising - just guestimates. Look at radio's rating system. Listen to a station for 15 seconds, and you're counted in their listen-during-a-15-minute block.

Or spam. The only ones making money off spam are the tools selling the tools of the "trade".

Re:Toms Hardware (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011318)

The metrics on TomsHardware type ads are defineable though, since they require a click to go to the destination site. Spam, though, remains pointless, but you know that there are at least a few people looking for "g3n3ric dr/ugs fr0m ch|eap phjarmacees"

Re:Toms Hardware (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011373)

One good thing about the spammers switching to html to "hide/present" their message is that it's easier for those of us who think html mail should be shot on sight to classify stuff as spam.

As for the metrics on TomsHardware type ads, there are programs out there to request the page then request the ad page, to generate fake click-thru stats.

I don't mind google-style text ads - but what's really getting my goat nowadays is the stupid flash ads. Makes me really tempted to remove flash from firefox.

Re:Toms Hardware (2)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011427)

Theres an extension called NukeFlash or something like that - I really recommend it. Replaces all Flash animations with an icon you click to play it. I can get you the exact name if you want it.

Re:Toms Hardware (3, Insightful)

Durzel (137902) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011259)

Not to mention that otherwise plain text articles with huge great popup/popover Flash adverts, or even those that are broken up by an animated image/Flash movie of some kind are a nightmare on a PDA.

I have tried browsing to a site with a useful HOWTO using my phone (P900 over GPRS) when I have no had any other Internet access and ended up using up to 10x as much bandwidth than was actually necessary had the article been true plain text.

(and GPRS bandwidth is hella expensive in the UK)

Re:Toms Hardware (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011288)

Thats why I try to browse sites on my phone that have dedicated sites with just plaintext or make sure my browser will eliminate such BW hogs. A problem, indeed, though.

That site is literally 75% ads at this point (1)

bogie (31020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011527)

The main content gets a small amount on space in the middle on the page but on the top, left, right, and bottom your competely surrounded by ads. Its all really too much and as a result the ads are all one big blur. In short they are getting the exact opposite effect of zero eyes when if they just had say one ad in the middle of the content people might actually pay attention. I mean banner ads in 2004? Who TF has looked at one of them since the mid 90's?
Lastly those "keyword" ads are just horrible. At work I use IE and it makes those sites even more annoying. Popup bubbles on mouseover's for like every other word gets to you after a while. Thank God for Firefox.

Just like traditional print media (3, Interesting)

Brento (26177) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011226)

I'm not concerned about media outlets that push banner ads and journalists who sneak in keyword-link ads. Magazines like Car & Driver take ad money from the very companies whose products they review, and they've withstood the test of time. Online media will go through the same ethical quandries. The ones that don't make the right choices will wash themselves out.

Re:Just like traditional print media (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011387)

I can't speak for Car and Driver, but I know PC World's ratings of Dell computers and service plummeted when Dell stopped buying so much advertising. In one case, I saw them compare two machines (a Dell and another brand) head-to-head and still appoint Dell the winner despite the fact that the second brand was better in nearly every aspect - by the facts in their own article.

PC World hasn't "washed out". Instead, they found a model that makes money. However, those who don't know about PC World's bias may fall for it.

I'm not a fan of Consumer Reports, but I have to admit they have the right idea (no advertisements from anyone) when it comes to rating things. Of course they still could be biased, but it seems like they've done what they can to remove as much bias as possible. The downside to this is that if they are biased, there's no easy way to tell like there is in PC World.

Maybe we should invent a magazine-rating system: if Brand X is on top, count the number of ads in the magazine by Brand X relative to other brands and reduce their rating appropriately.


When has it gone too far? (4, Insightful)

kneecarrot (646291) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011229)

Advertisers will continue to find new ways to market to the public. These ways will inevitably become more and more invasive. They will rely on the public's apathy and penchant for "free stuff". But if you don't want to watch 10 minutes of commercials before every movie you see or you don't want to have you children's school walls plastered with ads then DO SOMETHING! Speak to the manager of the movie theatre. Call your children's principal. Stop using websites that have blurred the lines between information and advertisements.

Re:When has it gone too far? (1)

MrsPReDiToR (736605) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011315)

Speaking of kids school walls being plasterd with ads you remind me of Max Barry's book "Jennifer Government" truly the most humorous and insightful book written about the future of corporatism in the future. If you fancy a look at the online rpg based on the book it can be found here at []

This Post Brought To You By Toyota (4, Funny)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011231)

What's the problem with ads being interspersed anyway? I'm sure most of us are used to reading an article and then skipping down

That's no concept truck you're looking at. Its 18-inch 45-series V-rated radials and alloy wheels are for real. Its 0-to-60 [1] in just over 7 seconds and its 240-horsepower V6 with 275 lb.-ft. of torque are for real. Yes, the X-Runner's(TM)©® one tough street truck. And soon it'll be within your grasp.

a few lines to get back to the content.

Well, I guess it get's really really


annoying sometimes.

No thanks (3, Funny)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011329)

I just bought a Canyonero, and talk about a smooth ride...

Re:No thanks (1, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011345)

what are you, some kind of clown?

Re:This Post Brought To You By Toyota (4, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011383)

But that isn't what they're talking about. What is being discussed is a situation where, for example, an article is talking about caffeine containing drinks, and you'll suddenly find a random link... perhaps they'd be talking about coffee [] and then when you click on the link you find it isn't more information as you'd expect, but is rather somewhere trying to _sell_ coffee.

I recommend the Ethiopian Yirgacheffe, by the way. ;)

This Headline is Not For Sale (4, Funny)

dmayle (200765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011242)

This Headline is Not For Sale

How amusing... I just subsribed, and this is the first headline I paid to see before anyone else...

In addition, with all the astrotufing at Slashdot lately, I don't think it has to be for sale, because we're eager to see see it for free...

This is what you get (4, Insightful)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011245)

When the you go from a half dozen news channels and a few dozen large newspapers to thousands of news websites. The content is spread thinly across many sources and readers. Companies who advertise must spend more time than they did 10 years ago to figure out who to buy advertising space and how much. I think this is a great improvement over how things in the past because every news site can be a niche and have a focused audience.

As long as the advertisements themselves don't interfere with the content, I don't care. If I'm reading an article about an Audi S8 and there is an advertisement on the right of the screen for Audis, I'll take notice and possibly look somewhere else for my car reviews. But if I'm reading an article summary on Slashdot about kernel 2.6.8 being released and there is an ad for Microsoft Windows Server 2003 I won't care so much. Actually I'll laugh knowing Microsoft is funding these hours a day wasted on Slashdot. It all depends on the website and advertisement.

Hardly new (3, Interesting)

CaptainCheese (724779) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011247)

A while back this was heavily rumoured to be a feature in IE6. Microsoft were rumoured to be adding a "feature" where they would add contextual(i.e advertising)hyperlinks to plain text. Thank god they didn't! They must have realised no-one wants to pay or ad-ware...

Information or commercial? (5, Insightful)

jstave (734089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011249)

...because readers are in control; they have the option of running their mouse over the words and clicking on the links.

Except, now there's apparently no way to tell the difference between an informational link inserted by the author and commercial crap that will just waste your time if you click on it.

Unless there's some way to turn this off, or filter it out, this just looks like another step in the removal of the internet's informational utility to me.

Re:Information or commercial? (1)

meganthom (259885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011292)

Well, if you looked at the IntelliTxT demo, you'd know there's a mouse-over that tells you it's a sponsored link. Personally, I think this feature makes the adds far less annoying, but do they really have to link each occurrance of a particular keyword? In an article about, say, firewalls, that could get quite distracting to read.

Also, it seems you're SOL if your mouse-overs don't work properly...

My content is getting claustrophobic (3, Funny)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011257)

Marketers can have the sides, top and bottom of a page to peddle products and services, but the body must remain pure.

You can have your body...

Click for next page

Hmmm, that *does* look familiar.

Re:My content is getting claustrophobic (2, Interesting)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011374)

That is just about every online "news" site out there. Notice how the article is broken up into 3-10 pages so you have to see the advertising (banner, left side, right side, body copy ads, footer ads) 3-10 times for one article which is often itself a thinly veiled review/ad for the product.

Here's the future of advertising, inside our FPS games there will be billboards which have a simple web browser built in. They will display ads for shit like the latest Alienware hardware or NVidia cards, and you can click the board and use the browser inside the game. The bastards will probably even use the Mozilla engine to do this, except it will render to a DirectX buffer instead of the screen.

Next step, your subsidised mobile phone will display ads while you're not actively talking on it. It'll pull them over GPRS and 3G and use it's flashy colour screen to sell you shit. Advertising isn't quite all pervasive yet, but it will be one day.

Money talks (2, Insightful)

broothal (186066) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011262)

All sites with a sufficient amount of readers will sell out eventually. Even Slashdot. []

It proves its own point (3, Interesting)

grunt107 (739510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011267)

I love how the article on embedded advertising has embedded advertising - great way to prove your own point.

There will probably be more of this type of marketing, as pop-ups get deflated and the up-front sign-up gets 'spoofed' (i.e.- false) user data.

This could spark the return of text-only browsers, or even web text readers that spawn on user-directed sites and remove the graphical content themselves.

If this is what I think he's talking about (3, Insightful)

Soporific (595477) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011269)

They are the most annoying ads in the world. Lots of pages have words with hyperlinks in the paragraph going to other parts of the site or to references. All these do is make it more difficult to weed out real links versus ad links, although they are getting easier for me to notice which are which, by the general words they use, i.e., cpu, motherboard, networking, etc.


Re:If this is what I think he's talking about (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011396)

The article claims that an ad would pop up on mouse-over. Since I generally keep te mouse pointer outside the text I'm reading it would be easy enough to avoid the ads.

Re:If this is what I think he's talking about (1)

Soporific (595477) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011425)

You are correct on that point. Sometimes I'm trying to move fast through a site and click on one. They are avoidable though.


adblock, flashblock, hosts file (5, Informative)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011272)

remeber to use a custom hosts [] file. It increases browing sanity a LOT. Much more than just using adblock and flashblock (which I use too).

Sometimes when I have to browse on someone's else computer I'm almost stunned by the number of ads that appear on sites. Yeah it's easy to get accustomed to comfort of browsing without ads.

So... don't wait any longer! install custom hosts file NOW!

BTW: I'm curious if it will soon be included into some of linux distros by default, it would be great - self maintaining and updating custom hosts file... (it works with windows too, but I doubt it will be a part of default windows install anytime ;)

The Two Biggies (1)

TheAmazingBob (801587) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011458)

I created DNS lookup zones for and on our local DNS servers and pointed wildcards at a fake internal host. Just by adding those two domains, the number of ads dropped tremendously, especially on some of my favorite sites. I haven't heard anyone else scream, so it must've been a good thing.

IntelliText (4, Insightful)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011274)

Such a smart and simple idea - it's surprising nobody's thought of it before.
And yet, it's so wrong. The author's hit the nail on the head - journalistic content must be seen to be as free from outside influences as possible whether it's a personal bias, litigious pressure, or (as in this case) finacial incentives. Otherwise, the message becomes diluted as people begin to wonder what they're not being told.
In a way this reminds me of the data systems in Starship Troopers. This system could be adapted easily to provide information instead. But not a hope in hell of that, now the Marketing departments have got their teeth into it.
And yes, I do dislike marketers. Thanks for noticing.

I can see how this would affect Slashdot, but.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011280)

Hail the GNAA!



Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Please try to keep posts on topic.message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Please try to keep posts on topic. message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Please try to keep posts on topic.

This Headline Is Not for Sale (4, Interesting)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011282)

Yes [] , it [] is [] .

Slashdot -- Worst Of Both Worlds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011285)

Not only does Slashdot post items that are clearly puff pieces from marketing departments disguised as stories, they also accept advertising from Microsoft (has everyone seen the bar graph ad yet?). Slashdot deriedes all that is Microsoft, yet won't hesitate to accept some advertising cash from them.

Uh-oh... (3, Funny)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011290)

I think that IntelliTxt could work well for publications that have no pretense of objectivity or don't draw a strong distinction between advertising and editorial copy.

Look out Slashdot, here we come!

I hope it fails (3, Funny)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011291)

[IntelliTxt by Vibrant Media] works by underlining certain words in an article so that when a reader runs his cursor over one of them, an ad springs up. For example, in a story on antivirus software, words like "virus," "security" and "worms" might be highlighted. Then readers, if they so choose, could mouse over one or all of them, click on a "sponsored link" and go straight to the advertiser's website.
This [] would [] truly [] suck [] if [] [] [] became [] popular [] .

Clown college (1)

rharder (218037) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011305)

Yep, I bought everything I was supposed to buy, but I'm definitely not going to enroll in that Clown College.

Re:Clown college (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011316)

This is a blatant ripoff of the sipmsons, you fucking troll.

Re:Clown college (1)

rharder (218037) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011379)


Normal ads just aren't effective anymore (4, Interesting)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011310)

I think what we can take from this is that people are becoming "immunized" to ordinary advertisements...they just aren't clicking. So advertisers have to turn to other methods to try to pull in those dollars. One thing you can say for the ad-words thing is that at least it's not intrusive. Who normally runs their mouse over text in a news article anyway? And at least when reading a printed media article you're expecting to be advertised to, unlike with the DejaNews ad-words [] flap of a few years back.

Something I found interesting in the same vein was another Wired story [] the other day, about [] --an advertising site where, if you complete a trial offer from one of an assortment of merchants and get five other people to complete one too, they send you an advertiser-paid-for iPod (or $250 iTMS gift certificate). I've searched the web for stories about these people and everything I find suggests they're legitimate.

The whole thing seems to me to suggest that the advertisers participating in that program are finally starting to get the idea that if they want to advertise to us, they need to make it worth our while.

(Full disclosure: okay, so the FreeiPods [] link is a referral link [] for me. I was going to compare and contrast its advertising model anyway, and given that I was going to mention it anyway, it would be dumb not to include the referral link instead of just a plain-vanilla one, given that they both pull up the website just the same and I might as well benefit from the traffic as not. So don't accuse me of trying to sneak something by you.)

Re:Normal ads just aren't effective anymore (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011392)

...and then I see the first page of the article, with two or three other free iPod referral links [] on it that appear well in front of mine, and realize I might as well not have bothered disclaiming anything... :P

Re:Normal ads just aren't effective anymore (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011420)

whoops. didn't even paste the right URL [] in that last comment. Darn this copy paste buffer anyway.

anandtech (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011317)

I get those dumbass ad words on anandtech. Its always a technical word, and I usually am expecting some relevant information to be revealed. Instead its an uninformative advertisement.

It might make sense if say, anandtech was reviewing a Pentium VI, and say had an advert showing their Pentium VI price. But they are hardly ever so revelant and only distratcing.

Pentium VI (1)

TheAmazingBob (801587) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011525)

What is the price on a Pentium 6 these days, anyway?

What about the page rankings? (3, Insightful)

Mahdi_AB (745741) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011321)

Will all this article adds (links) effect googles page rankings?

A good idea for a FireFox plugin (5, Interesting)

BubbaThePirate (805480) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011336)

Just like Adblock: parsing all hyperlinks in a webpage, and weeding out the ones you've previously marked as Ads, blocking them, and possibly even crossing them out (so that you'll know why they aren't working), or another visual notification.

Adblock works wonderfully (especially the Collapse feature), why shouldn't this?

Linkblock, anyone?

Mod Parent UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011354)


block 90% of ads (1)

musikit (716987) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011337)

i only really get text ads from any website.

i use opera so i have built in pop up blocking and i set it to only display cached images. about the only ads i get are the google text ads here []

Future Shock! (4, Interesting)

UncleBiggims (526644) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011349)

I read an interview [] with Matt Groening about Futurama, where (as you know) advertising comes out of your pillow and into your dreams. Anyway, I thought this quote was interesting:

Is there anything you've changed your mind about in the last 20 years?
I used to be amused by how pervasive advertising was in our society. But seeing ads on the little divider bars on the conveyer belts at grocery store checkouts made me think, That's enough. I read Future Shock in the early '70s and said, Future shock will never happen to me. It has. At least in regard to advertising.

Intellitext pitched OSDN (now known as OSTG) (5, Interesting)

Roblimo (357) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011351)

We said no. We have many editorial links in stories on all our sites, so having paid links mixed in wouldn't be right. Advertising is one thing. Mixing it with the actual news content is another. IMO it's simply wrong.

Part of Intellitext's pitch was that plenty of "respected" news sites are doing this. My response: "Didn't your mother ever ask, 'If all the other kids were jumping off a cliff, would that mean you'd have to jump, too?'"


- Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Editor in Chief, OSTG

Re:Intellitext pitched OSDN (now known as OSTG) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011391)

Good for you Mr. Miller. You (and OSDN) have always earned my respect for your support of the little guys, like me.

I am only 5'2".

If only Slashdot got paid . . . (1)

KageMonkey (740043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011365)

'certain words in an article' directly to ads If only Slashdot got paid for every hit that was referred by the 'sometimes-over-abundant-use-of-links' articles, Slashdot would be richer than Bill Gates. Ok, maybe not . . .

The whole idea is crazy!!! (0)

armando_wall (714879) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011368)

I don't get it...

Oh, well, I know I'm no ObviousGuy [] .

I just wasted a few.... (1)

gmby (205626) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011384)

I just wasted a feww hundred clicks of thier bandwidth... how about you...what have you done good today?

Boring. (1)

doppleganger871 (303020) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011389)

Yay, a story about something everybody already knows about. Yee. Hoo.


just add this to your hosts file... (3, Informative)

me101 (264338) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011397)

and hey presto, they disappear!

or you could always install a much larger hosts [] file which takes care of quite a few nasties :)

rolling ads everywhere (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011402)

Message boards nowdays even have sig saless - with some sigs going up to $1000 and over. Crazy how marketing gets

Selected quote (1, Funny)

Khali (526578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011407)

And Vibrant supplies the advertisers and splits the revenue that is generated with the publisher. In a sense,
it's like found money.

And you thought money grew on trees? You idiot! Money grows in news websites!

It's always fun when people come in and explain they have found a new way to generate money out of nothing. Fun or sad, depends on your local mood I suppose.

BTW, I have been quoting a quote (from Vibrant) in the article, not the article itself, which is really interesting and well-written.

How about just paying editors to run stories? (3, Insightful)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011414)

The media is for sale. Period. Admit it.

And it is not illegal. But they do it.

Consequence:authorship of articles becomes unclear (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10011421)

Unless there's a mechanism that clearly separates the ad links from the links the author inserted to annotate his story, you won't be able to distinguish between the two.
Or IOW, ads become an editorial influence.

so what/ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011463)

I don't care because...I have a brain!

Watch out! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011468)

This is reverse psychology! This slashdot headline is not for sale because Vibrant Media [] already bought it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10011484)

adverts ? what adverts ? []

the internet worked when it was invented without advertisers so it can work again, perhaps it would be a nicer place to be when the financial incentives for creating content are removed, maybe writing will go back to its roots as an ARTFORM

if you cant afford to publish content on the internet then quite simply dont bother oh and dont let the door hit you on the way out

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