Arstechnica.com Encouraging Visitors to View Ads

  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13503
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

If this were a smaller company or individual, Google would have disabled the account and confiscated any unpaid earnings the moment it hit Diggs home page with a generic You are a risk to our advertisers email under the "Encouraging Clicks" Adsense policy. For some reason, Arstechnica is getting away with it though.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/20 ... u-love.ars
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • cipher
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 157

Post 3+ Months Ago

I see what you're saying but I think it's a bit of a stretch given the way they crafted it to the general issue of "Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love".
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13503
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I see what you're saying but I think it's a bit of a stretch given the way they crafted it to the general issue of "Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love".


It's not a stretch. The article is nothing more than encouragement for people to view ads for the sole purpose of getting the publishers, and it's veiled (thinly) to look like they're a hero of site owners. The article and what it suggests are a prime example of the behavior that "encouraging clicks" and "paid traffic" clauses are created for in the first place.

The entire spirit of the clause is not to encourage your visitors to feign interest in advertisements just so you can get paid.

Quote:
There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue.


Then charge the people viewing your site an access fee. If people don't want to pay an access fee it doesn't make it right to tell people they can get something for free if they help you screw someone else over.

A "click" is the result of a visitor expressing interest in the advertisement. It requires an action on the visitors part. By default, an indirect "view" of an advertisement on a page requires no action on the part of the visitor. A "click" and a "view" are two different things by default.

This changes when an ad blocker comes into play though. An ad blockers intended purpose is to prevent advertisements from being shown. If you ask visitors to turn off their ad blocker when your payment metric is based on views, you're essentially doing the exact same thing as telling someone to click on advertisements. You're telling someone to feign interest for the sole purpose of you getting paid. Which is the exact same reason the "Encouraging Clicks" clause is in place to begin with.

Viewing or clicking advertisements to support site owners isn't a noble thing to do like the article tries to make it out to be. You're essentially a tool that publishers are using to steal from service and product providers indirectly. You're forcing the people who make the things you may or may not buy to raise their prices so that someone else can show you things you don't want anyways. How retarded is that ?

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 3 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.