What is Digg?59 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+42There is always someone out there willing to ***** you (your mom for instance).
So you have a choice, bend over and get lubed, or take your business elsewhere. - Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27This is the most confusing description I have ever read.
- spd998, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30You are sick.
- scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Irrelevant. The point is a billion-dollar company like Google shouldn't be launching critical elements like this with such detrimental bugs.
- m00kie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16yeah, you could take your business elsewhere in a capitalist society.
- Ricapar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19..but right.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Go back to 4chan.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10So much for "Don't be evil"....
To be fair, paying extra and staying with Google is still better than going elsewhere.... - stisaac, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I love how every time a random blogger accuses google of doing the wrong thing, they always validate their argument with google's "Do no evil" slogan. Just because they're not doing evil doesn't mean they have to please everybody. If you feel like you're being overcharged, don't buy adwords for a while. They're free to charge whatever they want for whatever reason they want, even if its a bug. Additionally, this blog post is devoid of original content other than the aforementioned "Do not evil" conclusion.
AND It's not greedy. If google is accidentally charging above their optimal price point, they're also losing money, just like the advertisers. - Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@scotty, Google might dominate the PPC market, but there are tons of alternatives out there. Yahoo/Overture, MSN/Live, Miva, GoClick, 7search... just to name a few.
- M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6>So if you went to the store and the cashier said I know this item only costs you $1 but the register is broken and I have to charge you $2, but we’re working on it, would that be acceptable?
Yes. I'd take my business elsewhere - ElumEnopee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Some of my keywords in my account have been rendered inactive until I increase the CPC to $10! Ten F-ing dollars!
- LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"now google == microsoft"
google always was microsoft, just better PR. - scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dear advertisers: I haven't clicked on an ad since 1996. Bye.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9stisaac...I love how if this was Microsoft, you would not be so quick to defend them..If this truly is a bug, then they do NOt have the right to charge that much because it is not what was agreed upon.
- scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's hard when Google has a near-monopoly on the PPC market.
- Skitzzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, here's the thing. I think Google is as evil as they come. However, I don't think this has to do with their greed. In fact, they are losing money on this screw up.
When the minimum costs per click got jacked up to $10.00 per click, it automatically deactivated the words that it affected. So, for example, I spent 75% LESS over the past two days than I normally do, because the idiots deactivated half my account. So, while the minimum CPC is through the roof, that doesn't mean anyone is paying it. If they are, first of all they're fools and second of all, they chose to do so. - LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"It is hard for Google to fix this problem immediately too."
Gimme a break with all the geniuses that Google has it should have been fixed in less time than it takes to cut a check. Google may be playing the odds and only paying off those they have to. Google is evil, they just have a good PR department that's how they get people who spent a fortune getting degrees from Ivy league schools to work for hamburgers. - scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3...for now.
- diggalf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I never click on ads, let alone look at them. I think I've become immune to them. Why aren't more people like me and why is Google so successful?
- petergerickson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Google has a monopoly on text ads. It won't last forever if they continue to be bullish like this. Advertisers are already flocking to GOOG alternatives like Quigo and this only helps their competitors. Also, one day Yahoo will get there ***** together. ...Well, maybe.
- shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2is it just me, or did none of the english on any of those pages make sense? its probably just me...
- geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So if you went to the store and the cashier said I know this item only costs you $1 but the register is broken and I have to charge you $2, but we’re working on it, would that be acceptable?"
A black and white issue was incorrectly framed as a philosophical question here, and you losers are going out of your way to answer it. But as skittzo pointed out, those keywords are inactivated once the price per click rises that much, so both Google and the account holder are losing money, and the problem needs to be fixed ASAP.
From skittzo:
"When the minimum costs per click got jacked up to $10.00 per click, it automatically deactivated the words that it affected. So, for example, I spent 75% LESS over the past two days than I normally do, because the idiots deactivated half my account. So, while the minimum CPC is through the roof, that doesn't mean anyone is paying it. If they are, first of all they're fools and second of all, they chose to do so." - LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I assume that means you potentially lost 75% of your normal business.
- dimension, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Apples and Oranges. You can't compare the two. It is a bad example. It is a reletively simple thing for a cashier standing in front of you to fix something. It takes a lot more effort to change code and servers etc
- psyno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To answer op's question: yes. Don't buy it.
- geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're damn right they don't have a right to my money, so if they want it they better offer me their product at the right price. And of course there are legal remedies for being overcharged (gouged) by Google even if it is a technical issue that merely needs to be corrected in the code. You would start looking at legal recourses if Google refuses over time to correct their mistake.
But still you miss the point. Any low-quality keyword that got jacked up this much in price automatically became inactive, thus it can't be bought by anyone, thus there is nothing to go after Google for. Google loses money on what would have been successful transactions. Account holders lose money on ad campaigns they would have run. Nobody wins (popular song by the way). You, Jack Minardi, lose too.
Loser. - Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another Project for you OSS groupies. Write a program that tracks the total Bandwith utilized by these sites on your computer, and the files they place on your computer without asking you. Upload the results to a central server which then starts automatic class action lawsuits for repayment of unrequested bandwith utilization.
You DO NOT goto these sites intentionally. They are cross-linked from the sites you DO goto. They take your bandwith, and put stuff on your computer without your consent.
Get them to pay for your bandwidth.
NOW THAT IS NET NEUTRALITY! - jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I answered the question proposed and you loser went out of you way to call me a loser.
Even if they are losing money, they can do what ever they want, within the bounds of the law. It is YOUR choice to buy what they sell at that price and it is THEIR choice to sell at that price. That is about as black and white as it gets. If it is not worth it to you, don't buy, if they are losing money, top selling.
You do not have a right to their product, they do not have a right to your money. - szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How is this a 'tech deal'?
- Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$10 says the people that dugg me down are doing this themselves. Most likely Advertizing execs in which case they certainly are doing this.
- Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Better Yet! Write the program to Monitor these results and the download Host file updates for the major offenders to redirect the ads to preconfigured OSS utilities hosted from Non-Profit Organizations. Then Charge for their download of those utilities.
It is YOUR Hosts file. You can do whatever you want with it. Take away the ad revenue of the biggest advertizers via redirection in a Hosts file download. Make them earn a living....
That IS your point isn't it? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Uh, as long as the advertisers are content to still pay for it, then YES, it is acceptable. Thats why its called capitalism, not communism, you retard.
- MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@broomett There are no overpayments. Google simply upped the prices accidently, but the prices are posted properly. Noone is paying more for their advertisements than they agreed to pay. Unless they automated it which they can say I will pay any amount between X and Y and now they are getting charged more, but they still agreed to it. The complaint is that the posted price and the cashiers price is $2 even though its a known error, but the cashier can't fix it and is saying... Well do you want the apple or not??? Hu??
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1As usual, adwords are priced dynamically. If the price rises higher than you want to pay no matter what the reason, you are free to not purchase the adword.
If the price goes that high and the adwords keep selling, who's to say they are overpriced? - springah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1fix what? why doesnt the post say what the problem actually is? :/
- jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I know I would lose, and I know google would lose. Seeing as that is beneficial to no one, why would there have to be legal remedies to stop it?
Thats like saying I can not buy an item on sale because the manufacturer would lose money. Its ridiculous. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+099% of people aren't like you
- Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1BTW - Ads on the net have been increasing greatly, and are becomming more sophisticated as well (Flash, shockwaye, etc...). Requiring more bandwidth to download. They bring cookies and ad/spyware as well. Using this file removes the adds, cookies, spyware, adware, and recovers the bandwidth. The file is not huge, and gets cached into RAM. So if you don't like to read ads then this is for you, but make sure you are not depending on your Hosts file. Then again if you are then you likely have bigger problems to worry about at this point. I just wish there were one for TV that didn't cost a fortune and one for Billboards on the road.
Just a thought for you OSS Groupies. Start a project (or link a project that exists that I am not aware of to this thread) that is a program like Tivo that runs on a computer that can be used as an HD Tuner. To skip Ads. THAT would be awesome! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Your example is even worse. It is easy for the cashier to fix the situation by giving you the difference in what you paid and what you should have paid.
It is JUST as easy for Google to do the same.
It is extremely difficult for the cashier to fix the problem in the system to make it not happen again. It is hard for Google to fix this problem immediately too.
However, that supermarket WOULD take measures to ensure that people were not overcharged for that item in the meantime. They would tell all cashiers to manually scan them in, or whatever they had to do Google is not only not fixing the problem right away (acceptable to a degree) but they are not refunding hte overpayments. - Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2From what? If it's from a buck, I'd be outraged too. But if it's from $9.97, it doesn't mean much.
- jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So if you went to the store and the cashier said I know this item only costs you $1 but the register is broken and I have to charge you $2, but we’re working on it, would that be acceptable?
If it was worth $2 to me I would pay, if it wasnt worth $2 i wouldnt. This is how life works. - TeCuervo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There are three choices that companies can chose from.
1. Stop advertising with Google (like that is going to happen)
2. Continue advertising and deal with the extra charges
3. Continue advertising and start litigation procedures.
I think that the bigger companies might chose number three, if I were a small business owner I would probably deal with number two... but I live in a van down the river.
Google is very powerful and they know it.
I'm not sure I quite get the analogy... I wonder about slipdisc's childhood... Thinking about getting *bleeped* by my mom is... well... disturbing... very, very disturbing... Maybe Stifler's mom... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not necessarily. With Google's new bribery requirement every time they up the ante with a new "quality score" update, my ROI (return on investment) goes into the negative. Sure they can do what they want, but two years ago I had a six-figure annual ad budget. Now I don't give Google one penny, because it doesn't make sense for me. It costs me more than I can make. Instead, the only PPC networks I can afford to use are Yahoo, MSN, etc. which are much smaller. Apparently it makes sense for them in the short term, but if they want to be profitable in the long term they need to re-evaluate how much they push around their advertisers.
- Ambicar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Hosts File Add Blocking - Put in your Hosts file
Block Google Adds
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
Link for installable Hosts file that blocks most adds in this fashion
http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html - stisaac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2broomett,
I'm not sure why you get that feeling. You see, digg has this great feature that allows you to see what a user dugg. If you click on my name, you too can see for yourself that I have not dugg any of those stories either. - jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So because people rely on it for a living google now owes to it people? Im sorry, that is not how it works. Google can charge whatever the ***** they want, you have no claim on them.
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2stisaac you gotta be ***** kidding me. Don't buy adwords for a while? do you realize people make a living off the products they advertise through adwords? What are they supposed to do, not pay rent for a while? Stop eating for a while? You say its capitalism but look around you, how many large search engines are there? Yahoo has a 3rd of its volume and MSN has around 10%. If you have an adwords campaign with thousands of keywords, are you supposed to copy paste them into Yahoo or MSN and pretend that nothing happened? Google makes billions in profit each year from these advertisers, this has nothing to do with "do no evil" - this is about respecting your clients.
- bobchicken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I wonder how long it will take to fix. And I wonder how long Google thinks it will take...
- Hipple, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I actually asked one of our IT guys if this has been a problem for our company, and he said that someone sued Google over it and they sent our company a check to cover the overages. Sounds like they're doing the right thing to me, at least in one case...
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is