What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
77 Comments
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Before people get upset about annoying sound, flashy graphics, etc, please read the article:
"The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button." - vxsarin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28But it makes the money that keeps sites like these free.
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Hopefully the ads aren't displayed in such a way to interfere with browsing.
- ionut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13From Adwords blog: http://adwords.blogspot.com/2006/05/click-to-play-video-ads-for-adwords.html
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Google is sticking to text ads for its own page, but if its advertisers want video ads, and if website owners want to display video ads, why shouldn't Google let them? Google implemented graphical ads just fine, and it appears they've done a similar job with video ads. Google is making sure that the ads are not going to be able to annoy the user and still makes sure that the ads are relevant. I don't see any thing majorly wrong with this, some services and products are simply better marketed through different froms of media. A travel service or car company can probably get a point across better if they can show a brief video of what they are trying to interest you in. Once again though, what kind of ads displayed are entirely up to the website owners. Google is doing nothing wrong here.
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Flashblock
- aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Great, so how many websites have you donated your money to?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Or maybe write a Firefox extension to selectively get rid of these.
- domr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+81. It'll be Google's bandwidth, not yours.
2. Advertising is what keeps sites like Digg free.
Sure, they can be over-done and annoying, but they allow people to provide web services where previously they would wouldn't have been viable at all. If I had to choose between a digg.com with ads, or no digg.com at all, I'd choose a Digg with ads any day.
If video ads provide a bit of extra revenue and help keep a few good sites going, then I think it's very much a good thing. - ManInTheBunker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It would be really funny if they only out this press release out to scare the ***** out of yahoo and MS to scramble together an expensive video ad system... and then Google gave them a "nah, we we're just kidding."
Keep 'em on their toes... - aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I can't decide if this is going to be very cool or very annoying.
Mostly, I'm surprised that of all places... the screenshot is of purevolume.com - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It won't play unless you click play. And they are short, I believe limited to 30 seconds.
- hanshasuro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6From the adsense blog:
"Finally, unlike some intrusive advertising, users will have complete control. When a page loads, only a static image will be visible; the video will not start playing until the user initiates it. He or she will be able to advance the video, pause it, adjust the volume or click through to the advertiser's site..." - domr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Localzuk:
I believe he was dugg down because *he* isn't donating money at all. Advertisers are paying the money.
As an aside, I really hope he isn't just clicking ads because he thinks it helps the site. As an Adsense publisher myself, I find this kind of thing really annoying, and usually does more harm than good. - sammykrupa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11The videos will probably be Flash. So just block Flash like you should already be doing (-:
- NeonDemon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Google hasn't let me down yet, their ads have always been out of the way and tasteful. I'm hoping that they will continue this legacy of caring about their fans. i don't see any reason they would not. if they start getting more like yahoo they'll start loosing customers.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You shouldn't spam in your comments, jl101.
- kufurex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The video ad won't play unless the user clicks on a play button.
- liquidizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@lnxaddct: the article says ads can be up to two minutes
- localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why was vxsarin dugg down? He is correct. When you click on a link, you are providing funds to that website. I for one don't block adverts (the only thing I do is prevent animated adverts from running).
If people want websites to remain as good and free as they are, they have to put up or shut up really. By put up, I mean put up with adverts or donate to them. If a site could be ran without needing adverts purely on donations, I am sure it would be - look at wikipedia. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Jugulator, it's just another baby-step towards "HIT THE MONKEY! HIT THE MONKEY!"
- mikeabundo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Autoplay is annoyance. Advertisers need to realize that permission-based clickable video ads are superior to interruption-based autoplaying video ads. Google is in the best position to teach them that.
- localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why Nooo? The ad's, as others have said and the FA says, are completely controlled by the user with only a static image being shown unless the user clicks play. How is this worse than any other form of advertising?
- JoPettitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I run a movie review website so targeted video ads I can see could be quite effective.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You pay by the MB? Didn't think so. The only one who is paying for bandwidth are the sites. They recoup costs by displaying advertising.
I'm torn between the idea that adblock users are idiots, or just selfish idiots. Do you all cry when your free magazine subscriptions include ads too? The widespread usage of plugins like adblock will cause the worst of outcomes: more and more quality sites having to turn to subscription based access.
I'm sure I'll get a whole bunch of angry responses, but I really don't care. If a site's advertising is overly intrusive, just don't go to the site. The quality of the advertising and how much of a hassle it is to ignore is generally a reflection of the quality of the site's content. - Judman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.flickr.com/photos/judxapp/151892200/
- Judman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Google has been doing this for a good while. I remember seeing a MI3 trailer on adsense once. I probably have the screenshot laying around too.
- bjowoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yea all that bandwidth that digg uses is free also. Doesn't cost them a cent...
- chadell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How best can you market movies? Trailers via adsense.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4does no one realize that this is the biggest news for google in years? if this is true, it is a huge turning point for google (and the internet itself), time to buy stocks..
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5sound on web pages should be a crime, punishable by death
- MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ok its kind of hypocritical to say that this is a bad move for Google, then say that Google needs to focus their efforts (Gmail, Gtalk, Calandar, Video, etc.)
The way I see it, this is a perfect move for Google, they are an advertising company, that is where their money comes in, now they are giving a purpose to their other products, and weather you like it or not, advertising is here to stay (especially from Google)
-Mike - NJank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"How does it do more harm than good? OK it costs those who are advertising but..."
question answered. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Waste my bandwidth and slow loading time? Eh, I don't think so.
If this gets deployed, time to edit my HOSTS file to point Google ad servers to 127.0.0.1. - matx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Video ads are most likely going to have sound too, thats is going to be very annoying trying to read a webpage, listen to music, whatch video, when the ad is playing in the back ground. They also waste bandwidth, but most probably be low resolution.i just think they make things more annoying, text ads are fine, they dont bother me and they dont make annoying sounds and animations.Also some websites it would be pointless having them if the visitor is only going to be on the site for a few seconds.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wired: Consumer's Own Decision Making Abilities
Tired: Viral Marketing/Making You Think You're Not Advertising For Them
Expired: Everything Else - localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would guess it won't pay any different. It is just another way to encourage users to click. If it encourages them to click more than a text ad, you get more due to an increase in clicks.
- metajoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If it makes the loading time longer for the page I'm trying to get to, I will be pissed. I might have cable, but it's still slow as hell (200-250kbs or so) compared to what others have.
- EV1L, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It better pay better than the txtlinks !
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess heavy bandwidth would require to load this video ads... stil prefer text ads
- pornel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I prefer watching HD versions from apple.com/trailers, and only when I want to.
- FuzzyCat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
Every time you click a Google adsense ad, God kills a kitten. - lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3liquidizer,
thanks for the correction :) But still, 2 minutes isn't all that bad, especially when it is your option to view it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hm... ive seen these around for a while now... with go daddy ads and movie ads. I guess it was beta testing.
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2On one hand: there goes the neighborhood.
On the other hand: I'm glad it's Google. I can think of a few other big players that would more than likely, have the ad content just stream automatically, which would be quite sad for dialup users, and those with slower systems. - bostonscott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This will have a profound impact on Internet marketing. The big question... will this shift power from small advertisers to larger advertisers on the Internet? The playing field has been as level as it could be... now that may change.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Looks to be the right article for me...
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://adblock.mozdev.org/
- MagiTekSoldier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, I would think that clicking Google Adsense ads make people more likely to use Google's non-intrusive ads as opposed to flashy "SHOOT TEH MONKEY WIN A PRIZE!!!!!" ads.
- will42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As long I can still select 'text ads only' for the AdSense on my site I don't mind. It'll have minimal effect on me as a web-browser, but I don't want the loading of my website's pages slowed or my visitors annoyed.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is