Beta
×

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!

Google Unveils Flash Ads

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the hip-hip-hooray dept.

Google 225

Gailin writes "Google has announced and given some examples of their new Flash based ads. They seem to vary from average size to full screen-width Flash advertisements, with some interactive abilities. 'Gadget ads can incorporate real-time data feeds, images, video and much more in a single creative unit and can be developed using Flash, HTML or a combination of both. Designed to act more like content than a typical ad, they run on the Google(TM) content network, competing alongside text, image and video ads for placement. They support both cost-per-click and cost-per-impression pricing models, and offer a variety of contextual, site, geographic and demographic targeting options to ensure the ads reach relevant users with precision and scale.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Target Market (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684611)

a variety of contextual, site, geographic and demographic targeting options to ensure the ads reach relevant users with precision and scale.

And all that's apparently missing is ensuring the surfer has Flash installed.

Personally I detest Flash ads and for this reason keep renaming the NPSWF32.dll file as NPSWF32.dllfsdfsd (while I don't have an instance of Firefox open, lest it track the bastid) when I have no intention of viewing Flash content. Too many pages are so whizzy with Flash I position the browser so the Flash bit is offscreen or simply don't visit the sites at all. I don't see many company/commercial sites since they apparently all now believe their best way to reach the customer is with some bloated object 500K or bigger (i'm still on dial-up) and all whizzy. So all this means is I'll see some more puzzle pieces, unless they detect no-flash and throw animated (ugh) gifs at me.

I'll just have to wrassle with The Morality of Web Advertisement Blocking [slashdot.org] for a while.

Lucky for Google, I'm the exception and shouldn't make much of a dent in their stock value.

Re:Target Market (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20684773)

Check out Noscript and/or FlashBlock for Firefox. I use both and wouldn't surf without them. It's a lot easier than renaming the DLL.

Re:Target Market (2, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685003)

Agreed. Noscript is pretty much an essential part of my browser, more so than Adblock even.

As for this move...if Google's actually not annoying in their ads (punch the monkey) then this might get more clicks. However it's also gonna use more bandwidth (sorry dial-uppers) and be blocked more often. I went through and unblocked Google from my Adblock list (doubleclick remains safely on there thank you very much) because a lot of my favorite sites used those ads to make money and it cost me nothing to let the ads come through as they're just text. With Flash ads there's no way I'm going to see them as I will not disable NoScript to see some ads, that's not happening (and Google remains safely on my untrusted list, stop trying to put cookies on my computer!)

Re:Target Market (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685375)

The ads all seem to come from gmodules.com so blocking them is easy.

Re:Target Market (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685167)

I only aim to eliminate the minimum of content. When it becomes more annoying I may opt for more of a blanket attack on scripts. If there's simply a one-click and flash doesn't appear, without affecting other scripts/plugins that would be very welcome.

Re:Target Market (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685323)

Flashblock blocks all flash by default and only allows the flash you click on. (the flash is replaced by an empty space with play button inside)

Google: Do evil if it pays? (3, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685763)

Google: Do no evil.
is now changed to, "We want to be like the U.S. government."
Google: Do evil if it pays more.

In my opinion, this is the beginning of the end for Google, as the founders lose touch with reality and fly around in their huge corporate jets. If you want responsibility, don't depend on a billionaire to do the work.

Eventually, there will be a new search engine with no Flash ads, and everyone will use that. Eventually, people will say, "Google? What's that?"

The new profit-making Mozilla will probably try to get the U.S. government to ban NoScript [noscript.net] and AdBlock Plus [adblockplus.org] and FlashBlock [mozilla.org] .

The problem with ads is not that I don't like advertising. The problem with ads is that they are nearly always stupid in some way. Some of the ads IBM ran on Slashdot were more than stupid, they were embarassing.

Mostly, ads are written by people with absolutely NO interest in the product they are selling. I'm guessing that more than 50% of ads include at least some dishonesty. It is the ad makers that have given advertising a bad name.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, your usefulness to the world is coming to an end. Please find someone to carry on your original vision, and retire.

Re:Google: Do evil if it pays? (1)

aevans (933829) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686201)

No one pays for an ad to run if they don't approve of the content.

Why both? (2, Informative)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686355)

I installed Noscript on my new computer, and it seems to do everything FlashBlock did for me on my old computer. That is, replace any flash-animation with a button to start it.

Re:Target Market (1)

FreeFull (1043860) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684779)

Why won't you install NoScript (Firefox add-on) and set it so that it blocks flash content? It's just one click in the settings.

Re:Target Market (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684785)

> And all that's apparently missing is ensuring the surfer has Flash installed.

For that matter, that's assuming that *.google-analytics.com isn't blocked just as heavily as Doubleclick.

Re:Target Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685569)

It's not only you, I refuse to even install Flash because of crap like this. I don't tolerate loading plugins to display ads.

No exceptions... if Flash is required to display something on a site, then their message is lost on me. I don't care about "youtube" or similar either. If I can't just download a video clip and view it with mplayer then I'm not going to see it. (I don't do that browser plugin either). I like a nice, clean, stable browser because I do serious work with it. I can't have it randomly segfaulting with a dozen or so tabs open (some of them could be control panels), because I just happened to land on something that invokes plugins.

Re:Target Market (1)

AeroIllini (726211) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686253)

So you dig through .dll files and rename them to create a dirty hack to disable flash (and of course restart your browser every time you want to see the flash, and restart it again when you're done), instead of just installing one elegant extension [mozilla.org] with one-click flash viewing and whitelisting capabilities?

Sheesh.

Interactive? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20684637)

Does this mean I get to keep "Punching the Monkey?" I just can't find enough ways to win free ringtones.

Re:Interactive? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684705)

Does this mean I get to keep "Punching the Monkey?" I just can't find enough ways to win free ringtones.

The news made a fuss over an anniversary of facial pattern recognition in characters ( :-) ) I don't see why they haven't recognised the 10th anniversary of Punching the Monkey. I've seen these ads, initially in java or javascript plus a gif, for at least 10 years.

Re:Interactive? (1)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684781)

Ah yes, punching the monkey. Who would have thought that an ad which not only advocates animal abuse but whose name would be a good euphemism for self abuse would become so popular.

Re:Interactive? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685337)

I, for one, welcome out Monkey Punching overlords!

Re:Interactive? (2, Informative)

Brother Dysk (939885) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685817)

"Punching the monkey" is probably already a euphemism for something, and while it does involve oneself, I probably wouldn't class it as "abuse"...

Re:Interactive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20686099)

I thought the game was to "Spank the Monkey". I guess that explains a lot.

Flashblock is great (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20684667)

Get Flashblock here [mozilla.org]

Re:Flashblock is great (5, Informative)

derrida (918536) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684867)

Adblock plus [adblockplus.org] also lets you block any flash objects.

And SafariPlus (2, Informative)

kherr (602366) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685149)

For those using Safari, SafariPlus [mac.com] is a brilliant way to block Flash (and control unwanted cookies). It shows the rectangle for the Flash content, but you must click inside it to actually start up that Flash dropping. So you can use Flash when you want to, but nobody can make you use it. In these days of those damned embedded YouTube videos stopping Flash is a godsend. Good luck with your new X10-type annoying ads, Google.

Re:Flashblock is great (4, Funny)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685465)

google [google.com] is a great search engine, i've found all kinds of stuff there.

Re:Flashblock is great (4, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685771)

This is the kind of bleeding edge information that keeps me coming back to Slashdot, day after day.

I've tried Google on your recommendation, and it's awesome. It works great on my browser, even though the browser won't support frames until the next version. And Google's search results are so much better than Webcrawler's, I think I might switch permanently.

Re:Flashblock is great (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686151)

I aim to please.

Konqueror... (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686021)

...will load plugins on demand anyway (if you select that option). It can also block plugins for certain domains.

hmm (1)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684671)

didn't certain someone say "do no evil"?

Re:hmm (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684763)

To get all of this relevant content to the user, how far away can the spyware be. It's just to be benefit us the user after all.

Re:hmm (1, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684883)

I'm not even going to stop at spyware. What about murder? How far away can that be? Soon Google will start murdering people. It's just a matter of when.

Re:hmm (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684939)

Yes, this is one step away from murdering babies, those bastards!

Re:hmm (3, Insightful)

buswolley (591500) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685043)

Google made its mark by good search results WITH a CLEAN Interface Design.

Google has forgotten its roots. Sure it might look good in the short term..a new product for more revenue.. But Google will lose in the long term as others offer a clean alternative to Google.

People want uncluttered.

Re:hmm (4, Insightful)

Anti_Climax (447121) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685739)

I didn't see anything mentioning that Google was going to use these ads on their search results page. Obviously they could, but you have to remember that most of the revenue generated by Google comes from ads served up on the pages of others. If a webmaster has the decency to use text ads instead of flash ads, it's still an option. This just allows Google to break into a market where they had no product to offer previously. Though it should be mentioned that some webmasters will want to switch to flash ads offered by Google now that they are available. End result, Google can keep their uncluttered search results, Webmasters that want flash ads can have them like they always could (but now get them with the benefit of Google's system) and the ones that want text ads can keep the status quo.

Re:hmm (1)

pragma_x (644215) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685825)

Well, that was before they became a publicly held company.

Bandwidth & The Beginning of the End (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684673)

Google has announced and given some examples of their new Flash based ads. They seem to vary from average size to full screen-width Flash advertisements, with some interactive abilities. 'Gadget ads can incorporate real-time data feeds, images, video and much more in a single creative unit and can be developed using Flash, HTML or a combination of both. Designed to act more like content than a typical ad, they run on the Google(TM) content network, competing alongside text, image and video ads for placement.
Oh my god those are beautiful. Just beautiful. Whole new products I never wanted to hear anything about done in a new artsy kind of way. Exclusive interviews with bands that I've never heard of or cared about or allowed commercial radio to shove down my throat brought right to my computer screen ... without even asking! And the band is trying to sell me a hybrid car!

So tell me, when I'm trying to use MySpace to reply to a distant friend & my browser slows to a crawl because there's five flash video advertisements of a lonely girl on a webcam waiting to talk to me--that's the kind of experience you want to proliferate through to every site using Google Ads?

How will this affect people on slow connections like out in the boonies operating on a 56k phone line connection? I'm kind of afraid those users are just going to be squished & that Google will leave it to the sites themselves to figure that out while the sites themselves will expect Google to take care of it.

Wait, did you hear that? I believe that was the sound of every single router and switch crying out in anguish.

Ads that are designed to appeal to my eye & take up obnoxious amounts of bandwidth? It must be ... THE FUTURE!

In all seriousness, this is all very bad news to me. A bloated delivery system (by definition it must be since it provides 'content rich' functionality) being forced to a large percent of the internet in the name of delivery unsolicited advertisement. And it's all legal and--get this--is unveiled like it's a new great feature.

The simple concept of character based content delivery system is dead.

Re:Bandwidth & The Beginning of the End (3, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684823)

Geez, you'd think the world was coming to an end....

The simple answer is that a lot of people are going to end up installing browser extensions that do the "click to run flash object" thing. And if they can't figure that out, I'm having a hard time feeling such pity if they are "squished".

Re:Bandwidth & The Beginning of the End (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684941)

The simple answer is that a lot of people are going to end up installing browser extensions that do the "click to run flash object" thing. And if they can't figure that out, I'm having a hard time feeling such pity if they are "squished".
Remember, in order to use the internet, you must be completely knowledgeable & proficient at all underlying technologies. If you aren't, you're a moron and you deserve to have an IE javascript exploit install that virus on your machine.

Unfortunately, 98% of the population doesn't want to have to deal with extensions in order to surf the internet. I mean, you can barely get everyone to keep updating IE, how will you get them to use a Firefox extension? These are the mentalities that cause you to alienate people and if you'd stop and look around you, you'd notice that since you're alienating everyone you're actually alienating yourself. Of course, from what I've seen that seems to be the engineering way ...

Re:Bandwidth & The Beginning of the End (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685281)

Amazingly, many people look at and even click on ads.

While the advanced user / geekset seem to abhor them, this doesn't seem to be a problem for a significant amount of surfing population.

Good: Firefox has extensions, but IE doesn't. (1)

KWTm (808824) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686013)

The simple answer is that a lot of people are going to end up installing browser extensions that do the "click to run flash object" thing.

Yea! More people to use Firefox!

Well fuck (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684683)

Google's /clearly/ given up on "Don't Be Evil".

Adblock+ & NoScript for the win.

Re:Well fuck (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685013)

You misinterpreted - it is actually:

Don't! Be Evil.

(captcha is 'unhappy')

Re:Well fuck (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685361)

No, not really, they just gave up on the little "n't" bit.

X86-64 (2, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684685)

now all i need is a version of flash that works consistantly on 64 bit hardware.

then again, maybe not

Re:X86-64 (2, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684723)

now all i need is a version of flash that works consistantly on 64 bit hardware.


nspluginwrapper, if you're talking about AMD64. See here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=476924 [ubuntuforums.org]

Re:X86-64 (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684985)

Still doesn't make it 64 bit, and the Linux version of Flash doesn't work as nice as the Flash version for Windows.

Re:X86-64 (2, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685399)

Who gives a shit if it's 64 bit, it /works/. With a 64-bit browser, yet.

Re:X86-64 (2, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685095)

Hmm.... Flash on OSX works consistently, even on 64bit hardware... same with Flash on WinXP 64bit...

Flash on 64bit hardware running Linux or FreeBSD would be something else entirely.

Don't Be Evil! (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684701)

... or in this case, annoying.

One thing I've always liked about AdWords is that it's always relevant (well, the vast majority of the time), and it's non-obtrusive. Now I get to stare a million punch-the-monkey ads, or if Google is halfway competent in knowing my patterns, a million flashing "you won X tech gadget!" ads.

Delete your cookies (1)

complexmath (449417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684795)

As far as I know, all information Google stores is associated with a cookie on your machine. So deleting the relevant cookie(s) /should/ cause a new one to be generated which has no association with the old profile Google has stored.

Re:Delete your cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685617)

No, me don't want to delete, me want to eat! /Cookie Monster

Re:Delete your cookies (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685911)

Cookies are a sometime food. Do you want your Cookie Monster to get fat?

Re:Don't Be Evil! (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684855)

They are quickly losing relevancy, though. Now they're laced with "Website [xyz] sucks? Try [abc]!" even though [abc] has nothing to do with and is in no way related to [xyz] plus the flurry of completely lame eBay and Trader ads, like the somewhat-famous "Used Women. Find used women! We have what you need and more. authentictraders.com".

Ads like that spurred me to block Google Ads.

Look at it this way... (1)

rizzle (848961) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684703)

Compared to text-only ads , Flash ads makes it easier for Adblock to detect and block them :)

What flash ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20684729)

Browse with noscript, adblock and flashblock. So much faster & easier.

Re:What flash ads? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684967)

It kind of says something when browsing with 3 different browser extensions that all have to scan the entire page before displaying it is faster than just displaying the page.

Re:What flash ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685613)

Or you can just use Opera and do the same thing without extensions to slow things down.

I just use a whitelist of sites to allow Javascript & Flash. All others just get blocked.

Why why why? (0)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684755)

This may not fall under "Do No Evil" as many will probably liken it to, but it certainly fucking sucks and shows that even with stock prices insanely high and revenue pouring in like mad, that they need to continue to do even more to support those corporate assholes running the show.

While I'm not a diehard Firefox fan I still do use it and suggest that everyone (if you haven't already) install AdBlock Plus [adblockplus.org] . While it isn't going to make much of a difference in Google's bottom line, I really hope that someone comes up with another extension that sends an automated e-mail to Google for every single Flash ad the add-on blocked.

Bastards are getting worse and worse every day.

How are these different than any other site's ads? (2, Insightful)

beef curtains (792692) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684789)

These are the same busy, annoying ads that other sites have plastered all over...putting them next to a paragraph where the ad's designers justify their use of "artistic" flashing/blinking colors makes them no better than the aforementioned "Punch the monkey, win a ringtone" ads found elsewhere.

My hope is that Google bigshots will see what an ugly, terrible effect these have on what their former, critically-acclaimed, clean, simple interface, and will do an about-face.

I do realize how slim the odds of that happening actually are...I guess when one's pupils/irises turn into dollar signs like in the cartoons, one's vision tends to become a bit impaired.

Re:How are these different than any other site's a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685169)

Yeah! Now every site can look like /.

hmm..that's cool + it's fighting back @ MS (2, Interesting)

fadilnet (1124231) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684807)

That's good (ok, if you find it bad, use your flashblock/content blocker) because the widgets (aka Google Gadgets) are interactive, and they add some 'colours' to pages and make them cooler. Those are like the widgets one uses in wordpress for e.g, just in advert form.

Plus, it's optional - one can still go for the usual word tag based adverts

What's really interesting - Google went for Flash ads. MS. which had been touting its Silverlight since long, has not yet started giving the silverlight adverts. I don't want to flame anyone but it's really a slap right in MS. face, metaphorically speaking. An increase in SWF on the web is not that good for MS. That's the tough competitive world. Oh well, geeks don't click ads (unless it's for generating money lol. We block'em :P

Do no evil? (2, Interesting)

SeaSolder (979866) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684811)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think this goes against Google's unofficial "Do no evil" mission statement.

Thank god for Adblock...

Open adblock, new filter, add *. gmodules.com.... (5, Informative)

MikeyVB (787338) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684909)

...and blocked.

Google, you probably have, sorry, had, one of the only set of ad servers I never blocked. Until now.

Sorry, but anything that moves without my propmpting it is a distraction and will be blocked.

And to kill them all... (2, Interesting)

hottoh (540941) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685373)

I make good use of the FlashSwitch application. FlashSwitch is a utility to instantly turn MacromediaFlash playback on and off.

http://www.flashswitch.com// [flashswitch.com]

Sites heavily dependent on flash are faster with it off, and of course flash only sites will not work when you have flash turned off.

Less revenue for Google (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684915)

I don't know what they're thinking. They're going to sell the same number of ads, minus all of the people (like me) who don't accept Flash ads. Truly a bone-headed move by Google.

Thanks adblock, thanks flashblock (1)

uberjoe (726765) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684921)

And thank you google, now your ads are even easier to block.

Well, duh (2, Interesting)

JamesP (688957) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684933)

At the same time Google has the highest barrier for entry (employee-wise), they buy DoubleCrap (stupid) and take everybody (or, at least, most) inside (DoubleStupid).

And then people at DoubleCrap start having funny ideas, management at G accepts it and now we have DoubleCrap ads as GAds.

Remember, people at Google, what GAds was all about and why it was so successful.

Flashblock caught all of them (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684957)

Flashblock caught all of them, so we're OK for now.

Thank you, Google (5, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684961)

Thank you for creating flash ads-- because I was having a hard time filtering out the embedded text stuff with Adblock.

A large, clear, well-defined target is always appreciated.

Hey, look, Google is evil! (2, Interesting)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 7 years ago | (#20684997)

C'mon, I want to see you all trip over yourselves to apologize for Google. Because I'm sure that somehow, this is okay. There has to be some small technicality that redeems this company because the halo effect is not something that just goes away.

Anyway, life is good with Adblock and Filterset-G. They can use full-screen Flash ads for all I care.

Adblock Plus (1)

markg11cdn (1087925) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685039)

The guy who came up with the idea of Adblock deserves a nobel prize for allowing us to block all of this 'stuff'. Henrik Aasted Sorensen according to http://adblockplus.org/en/history [adblockplus.org] .

I'll give them credit... (1)

ral315 (741081) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685045)

I don't like Flash ads at all, but they're relatively non-obtrusive (c.f. the many sites that load video and audio without permission, spank the monkey and win an iPod, etc.) I'd rather have seen them stay out of Flash media altogether, but this is certainly better than what it could be.

How does this violate the do no evil credo? (2, Interesting)

EvilSpudBoy (1159091) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685063)

How does this violate the do no evil credo? Google is in the advertising business. They have an obligation to offer a product that is competitive to other company's offerings. Otherwise they will lose marketshare. There is a big flash ad for splunk at the top of this page. I guess Slashdot is evil too.

Re:How does this violate the do no evil credo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685223)

They are in the ripping-off publisher business you mean...

Adblock Plus.... (1)

Vozmozno (985521) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685093)

just set gmodules.com to not load in Adblock....

adblock filter: *gadgetads.googlecode.com* (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685115)

unlike other filter suggestions here, this one blocks them all.

Re:adblock filter: *gadgetads.googlecode.com* (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685649)

One extension to block them all and in the darkness bind them

no sex in heaven (1)

clubhi (1086577) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685129)

If the internet gets so bad that I can't even use it anymore, maybe I will make some time to use that PS3 I bought. This reminds of when I was a kid and didn't want to go to heaven because I couldn't have sex. I thought that there couldn't possibly be anything better. I don't think anyone is going to destroy the internet, and if they do their will always be someone lined up to offer you something better. There's always a demand for better.

Yes! Oh God YES! (2, Funny)

gozu (541069) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685135)

How often did I wake up at night, my pillow soaked in bitter tears, cursing google for not offering flash ads. Finally, we shall be rid of the boring text ads we've been shackled with for so long, finally, we will experience web 3.0, an infinite land of beautiful colored, animated flash ads that shall bring us happiness and hope for a new bolder, brighter, blinkier future. On behalf of slashdotters everywhere, I want to thank you google! Thank you! Let the flash goodness begin!

Flowers (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686191)

Basically adverts for bees.

 

The Beginning of the End (1)

BBPursell (814973) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685195)

What is it that allowed Google to completely take over the Internet advertising market? As I recall, it was non-intrusive advertising...

I think that someone over there at Google has forgotten what earned them their place in the market, and are looking to be undone.

What about AdSense users? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685237)

Is there a way to prevent Flash adverts being shown on my site if I use AdSense? I don't want to subject people to that crap when they read my poorly-written overly-technical site.

Oh noes, now I CAN'T see them (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685269)

Google has turned me into a thief and leech and I'm going to be locked out of websites.

No flash here, what am I going to doooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Will sound be allowed? (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685279)

I can deal with animated, as long as they don't make any sound until clicked on.

And they must stay in their little box unless I click on them; no expanding on just a mouseover.

Full screen huh? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685311)

A wave of full screen ads will certainly increase the Firefox browser market share really quickly and will basically mean the end of Flash as an internet medium since everybody and their dog will block it completely.

Re:Full screen huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685979)

No, because Firefox doesn't have any kind of ad blocking built-in... Until you install specific extensions. Good luck getting Grandma to do that.

plus 1, T$roLl) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685369)

Of open-sourc3. BSD's acclaimed

Pre-conceived Notions of Flash (1)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685411)

The problem here isn't that Flash is an inherently bad medium, bandwitdh concerns aside, for advertising. The problem is that there have been countless other, absolutely obnoxious, intrusive, deceptive, and/or fradulent flash advertisements, and those all came first.


The viewing public, myself included, is jaded by the predecessors and is likely now consciously or subconsiously trained to ignore the flash ads in favor of focusing on the text of the article (or whatever) in question. Anything that moves on my browser, bereft of my decision, gets ignored. And that will include Google's new ads.


For the record, I actually DO click on the google text-based advertisements. They're tasteful, obviously advertisements, non-intrusive, and they've (admittedly) done a good job of targeting my interests.

Flesh Ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685419)

Am I the only one to misread the title?

Google flash cookie? (4, Interesting)

rg3 (858575) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685479)

It would be interesting to see if they start storing a "flash cookie" (not really a cookie) to track your movements on the web. More information on the flash cookie here [wordpress.com] . Sorry to link my own blog. Text here if you don't want to click:

Yesterday I found out something quite interesting while reading a thread at LinuxQuestions.org [linuxquestions.org] . Summary: the flash browser plugin lets flash applications store information persistently on your hard drive. Sorry if this is common knowledge, but I didnt know it and Im quite shocked. That information can (may or may not) be used as browser cookies, as the thread shows. These days many people take their cookies seriously, maybe disabling them or deleting them from time to time or adjusting the browser cookie settings so it considers every cookie a session cookie that should be deleted when the browser is closed. Now, you need to be aware of a new battle front. Under Linux (and probably other Unix systems), these pieces of information are stored under $HOME/.macromedia/. Run find ~/.macromedia -print to get an overview.

I remember one of the reasons people started to care about cookies in the first place was that sites like doubleclick (recently bought by Google) would serve ads for thousands of websites on the net, and those ads would store a cookie in your hard drive identifying you, so they could in theory track what you visited on the net and build a profile. Today the problem would still exist because sometimes ads are served in flash format.

You can, however, configure the flash plugin so it doesnt let anybody store anything in your hard drive. It must be noted that to do so you must visit macromedia.com [macromedia.com] and adjust the plugin settings from a flash application that is available on their site. Moreover, if you completely disable data storage, you are warned that some sites may stop working. Amazing. So this problem is hard to avoid. My personal recommendation is to use a browser plugin like the typical FlashBlock for Firefox or the Load plugins on demand setting under Konqueror, so every flash application is blocked unless you specify otherwise. And, you may want to delete the $HOME/.macromedia/ directory from time to time, or at least part of its contents (settings are also stored in that directory). Its also worth mentioning that the settings and data are cross-browser, obviously. They are stored by the flash plugins no matter what browser youre running the plugin from.

Its a shame so many websites require flash for basic browsing, as well as the lack of a flash plugin for many platforms. The plugin could also have an option to delete any hard drive data when closing it, similar to the option to treat all cookies as session cookies that many browsers feature.

Re:Google flash cookie? (1)

scruffy (29773) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686307)

Thanks, I hadn't heard of flash cookies. Maybe I'm the last one to know. It appears that Firefox needs a new option to manage these things.

I also noticed that Firefox has made cookie management a little harder as well. You used to be able to set the number of days to keep cookies in Edit: Preferences: Privacy, but now it looks like you have to go to about:config and modify network.cookie.lifetime.days.

Much as I like Google (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685511)

That's the very definition of "evil".

Definition of evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685805)

www.dictionary.com

Gadgets (1)

Kwesadilo (942453) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685547)

It was kind of hard to tell from the article, but I think that these are gadgets for your customized search page, not ads to be placed on other websites.

Text search now requires broadband. (1)

professorguy (1108737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685557)

This must be great news for ISPs who now will get plenty of new customers who need broadband just to use google.

My problem is I have a 26.4k connection (less than HALF 56k dial-up). And, no, I'm not cheap, I live where no broadband exists (not even satellite). So I have to move in order to do a web search? Great. The internet has gone from providing the people not in cities with the same library access they have, back to where you have to live in a city to get any info.

We're just bounding forward, aren't we?

Using Flash? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685577)

I believe that it would have shown a level of greater software based intelligence, and licensing costs if Google have walked the path using SVG.

I only need know one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20685703)

What does the base url these bastards are served from look like? I want to add it to Adblock.

-hamr

What I think alot of you are missing... (1)

raving griff (1157645) | more than 7 years ago | (#20685819)

...Is that these aren't bad ads. How many of you have actually looked at their ad gallery yourselves? The ads are silent until you tell them not to be, don't animate unnecessarily, and provide content without having to actually go to the site. Now, I'm not saying that all of the developers of these ads are going to be as good at developing unobtrusive advertisements, but, from what I've seen so far, these ads are not bad.

Wait... (1, Funny)

thomas.galvin (551471) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686065)

I must be missing something... all I see is a bunch of stylized "F"s in boxes.

Fine with me (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686115)

I'm enthusiastically in favor of advertising, because something to has to pay the bills, and if a bit of screen real estate (within reason) that doesn't cost me anything buys the cornacopia of free content that's out there, then I like it.

I actually prefer Flash ads, because they seem to be smaller and faster loading than gifs or jpgs.

I only really get annoyed when some ad starts blasting sound at me. Those people should definitely be brought out in the public square and beaten.

Is it just me? (1)

entmike (469980) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686267)

I don't think the ads are that bad, personally. It's to the point that you will have to accept them just like TV commercials, so save the nerd rage for other things, IMO.

This could be the first and last straw (4, Insightful)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#20686387)

Google's served me very well over the years and I've preferred it because of the non-intrusive ads (that can be blocked with AdBlock and CustomizeGoogle). If, for some reason, I cannot block or opt-out of these Flash ads, then that will mark my permanent departure from Google.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?