Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tomComb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tomComb

I'd rather be influenced by relevant ads that could possibly be useful than ones that will just annoy me.

And I'd rather not make ads less effective because that would mean either more ads or fewer publishers.

View on HN

> I'd rather be influenced by relevant ads that could possibly be useful than ones that will just annoy me.

It's easier to ignore ads that are totally irrelevant.

The ads that are targeted are the most distracting.

I'd rather see ads about some detergent than about a new SSD drive that will catch my attention and makes me forget what I was looking for in the first place. When I need a new SSD, I will just visit a shop. I don't need ads for that.

But i'm happen to need a better mousetrap and so if you can in some way let me know you are selling one I'll be glad to take a chance in yours.

Sure I can ignore ads for feminine supplies (as a male they are obviously useless to me), but I'd prefer if I didn't have to.

This is a silly argument. Don't you think you'll have a much better chance of finding a better mouse trap by actively searching Google for it than by waiting for some targeted ads to come by?

Let's say that your search for mouse traps comes back with the classic type that kills.

Wouldn't it be better that you see an ad for a no kill mouse trap that you didn't even know was a thing? Ads can sometimes inform people about products that they didn't even think existed.

But a Google search is specifically designed to solve this problem. Targeted ads, however, also could mislead, distract, cause overconsumption, and invade your privacy.

And if there was a better mouse trap, then any salesman would quickly learn about it (e.g. at business conferences etc), so you could just go to a shop and ask.

Finally, if you really insist that targeted ads are superior to anything else, then you could just opt-in to a service that provides ads. And you could tell the service all your private details so it knows how to better serve you (without the service having to guess at it).

Just don't assume that someone else needs targeted ads to have a fulfilling life.

I almost always hold off on purchases for a few days to compare what I eventually put in my cart (if anything) to ad-served competitors. There's usually very little overlap with them and the products I was already looking through, so it's a nice additional avenue of shopping around. Sometimes the ads include discounts/promotions as well, which is an added bonus.

Not if you don't know that the better mouse trap was even possible. You are not going to search for "breathable, waterproof shoes" if you don't know GoreTex is a thing.

Granted somewhere in the last 20 years we have mostly stopped innovating and started optimizing and so now you get ads for branded Skinner boxes (sorry, free to play mobile games) rather than, say, cancer cures but if there were innovating products worth buying, you wouldn't search for them because you wouldn't even be able to imagine them.

> Not if you don't know that the better mouse trap was even possible. You are not going to search for "breathable, waterproof shoes" if you don't know GoreTex is a thing.

Sure I am, if I care about shoes being breathable and waterproof. Why would I not do that, and instead hope a magic box will read my mind and guess what I need?

Most people who get wet shoes just accept it as part of life. They don't get on Google and ask how to prevent wet shoes because they don't want to go around wearing kayaking shoes all the time.

The fact that there exists normal-looking waterproof shoes isn't something that they know about or would search about

Evolution will take care of people who don't know how to address their own needs.

If we don't let that happen, this might be the result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

Growing up in the pacific northwest, I don't think this is a most people thing. :) everyone I know walking around there cares about wet feet, since it's likely to happen 270 days out of the year.

I did search last year, before it was invented. Why am I supposed to search again in hopes one exists now?

If you need it you'll search for it. Then an ad is relevant. Otherwise it's probably trying to manipulate you to buy something you don't need or in very rare cases inform you of something you needed but didn't know existed. I have a feeling the latter is fiction.

Why pick either of those alternatives? Block all ads, whether "relevant" or not, so they don't compete for your valuable attention.

> And I'd rather not make ads less effective because that would mean either more ads or fewer publishers.

I'd rather make ads so ineffective that they go away entirely. Some publishers will find a way to adapt.

The Ad matching service gets paid when you buy something, regardless of whether it is relevant, useful or needed by you. What is effective for you, and effective for the ad network are two separate things. Also, ads by their very nature are designed to manipulate you into buying a product. The more personal information they have, the easier it is to manipulate you. Maybe you're still OK with that, but many people think that this is the wrong direction for the web.

Oh no, nobody depends on linking up an ad impression with an actual purchase. Not only is that incredibly hard to do, with few exceptions, the conversion rate is abysmal.

Money changes hands at the time the advertiser agrees to buy the space on the publisher, based on the CPM of the offer. A publisher that can more reliably link ad impression with sales can charge a higher CPM, but nobody in their right mind would buy and sell ads based only on conversion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com