›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 061211 - Internet Advertising

RymRym
edited December 2006 in Technology

Tonight on GeekNights, we complain about Internet advertising. In the news, arson science has some important breakthroughs, and humans have evolved more recently than we previously thought.

Scott's Thing - Fast Hands
Rym's Thing - UCB Skit

«1

Comments

  • Your MomYour Mom
    All I am saying is: thank you. Arson science was one of my interests in the Forensics program. And now I have great reading for looking busy tommorrow! ^_^

    I wonder if the Innocence Project will pick up on this idea. If anyone can effectively publicize this, it is Barry Sheck. :P
  • AndrewAndrew
    Google "Battle of Farador" ;)
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    As someone who runs advertising on their blog I'd like to point out a few things:

    In the beginning I was pissed off at people who ran Ad-Block software as I felt they were "cheating" me out of impressions. After a while I noticed something.

    a) ad-blockers will not click on ads
    b) every impression that does not lead to a click lowers my CTR percentage
    c) the higher my CTR percentage the better advertising I receive

    So, I quickly figured out that ad-blockers are good for my site!

    Now, If I had CPM ads rather than CPC ads I might think differently but, CPM ads are very hard to get these days.

    On my blog I run:

    1) Google AdSense - image ad above the fold and two text ads at the bottom of each article.

    2) Affiliate Networks - Noble Knight Games and Fun Again Games. There are some quick links in the sidebar but otherwise these links are targeted to the specific game when I do a game review article. i.e. if I have a review for "Arkham Horror" I will have a fun again link at the end of the review so people can find and buy the game.

    3) Amazon - The Amazon links are also affiliate in nature and they are (mostly) hand picked on a per item basis. The Pokemon articles have a generic search string attached to them but as I get the time, I go through my old entries and target the amazon links. Like the game links above, if the article does not have to do with a product sold by amazon I do not include the link.

    4) Blogkits - This is a new network I am trying out. Mostly because I am lazy and have not tried chasing down more affiliate partnerships. They show random affiliate network ads. The sidebar item is graphic and the one at the end of my articles is a quick text link.

    5) AdGridwork - This is the rebirth of Link Exchange. I don't put much faith in it and if it turns to shit I'll dump it.

    I try to design my blog so the advertising is not in your face.

    If anyone has ad blocking software I would like to know if any of the above "advertising" is not blocked.

    I do not make a lot of money off of the advertising, not by a long shot! It took me over a year to make my first $100 from AdSense! Google does not pay until you reach $100.

    Eventually I will drop most of the advertising from my blog. I'm slowly moving towards targeted affiliate network links as they pay the best. I've seen some from shopping sites that pay as high as 75%!!! I've also seen some strange ones such as a credit card that paid a percentage... I'm not sure how that works out unless their was a balance transfer involved...

    That's my 2 cents.

    Synopsis: If you are not going to ever click on ads, block them, it hurts no one and actually helps everyone!
  • blast flameblast flame
    My mind has a built in ad-blocker
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Wow... so many factual errors in the first couple of minutes!

    Rym, listen to Scott. You don't need a passport to get into Canada. There is a proposal to require a passport in the near future, but most northern state congressmen are fighting hard to make sure this never happens. Currently, there is no such requirement.

    As for border monitoring.... you may think the rural areas are wide open. Trust me, you would be amazed at the level of electronic surveillance there is. In my area, you could walk across the most remote part of the border... and you would be detected. Scores of smugglers who thought that they were safe can attest to this fact. And the technology is just going to improve. I suspect that you are mixing the manpower issue with the surveillance issue. You'll be detected - the question is whether or not they have the manpower to intercept you.

    As to your contention that the portions of Upper Canada lie south of New York City... I suggest you look at a map. Leamington, which is pretty much as far south as you can get, sits at 42 degrees north. (42min 10sec to be exact) New York City sits at N40min 47sec. That's south of Leamington.

    To correct the final error, no part of Upper Canada lies farther south than the southern border of Michigan.
  • AprecheApreche

    As to your contention that the portions of Upper Canada lie south of New York City... I suggest you look at a map. Leamington, which is pretty much as far south as you can get, sits at 42 degrees north. (42min 10sec to be exact) New York City sits at N40min 47sec. That's south of Leamington.
    I don't think we said New York City. I think we just said New York, which is a state. There are parts of the nation of Canada which lie further south than portions of New York State. That's all we said.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited December 2006
    You are correct, you did not specifically say New York City. Damn you!

    However... I assumed you were talking about New York City since referring to New York State was just waaaay too obvious. Did anyone really think that the big empty space on the map was a hole in the universe?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AprecheApreche
    You are correct, you did not specifically say New York City. Damn you!

    However... I assumed you were talking about New York City since referring to New York State was just waaaay to obvious. Did anyone really think that the big empty space on the map was a hole in the universe?
    You'd be surprised how many people think that's all water or just don't consciously realize there is Canadian land there.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    That's just sad.
  • DaveDave
    Atlatl is a real word. :(
  • KilarneyKilarney
    By the way... thanks for the great episode. I did not know about Filter Set G. I always thought Adblock was fairly useless until I downloaded Filter Set G.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    What do you guys think about ditching Adblock and going with Adblock Plus and using one of these filter sets?
  • AprecheApreche
    Atlatlis a real word. :(
    We know that. You just mispronounce it.
  • AprecheApreche
    What do you guys think about ditching Adblock and going withAdblock Plusand using one of thesefilter sets?
    I really don't notice a difference between Adblock Plus and Adblock. I use them interchangeably. If I do a new Firefox install, I'll use plus just because it has the word plus in it. If regular AdBlock is already installed, I'll leave it be. As for those other filter sets, I've never tried them. Filterset G has always worked well, so I've never had to try anything else since I started using it.
  • DaveDave
    edited December 2006
    We know that. You just mispronounce it.
    So it would seem... a quick search on merriam webster confirms this. I'd never heard it pronounced any other way.
    Post edited by Dave on
  • RymRym
    edited December 2006
    I was a little off on my dates for the expansion of passport regulations, but the set of rules by which they will be enforced has been valid and in effect for almost a year already. The second phase of enforcement begins December 31st.

    Beginning last year (December 31, 2005), all U.S. citizens traveling by air or sea to or from the Caribbean, Central America or South America were required to have passports. Canadians will be barred from entering the United States after Dec. 31, 2006 if they do not have a valid passport. Additionally, US citizens arriving in the US from Canada or Mexico via air or sea will be required to present valid passports at this time.

    Enforcement for US citizens over land crossings is to be phased in before the end of 2007.

    Even waaay back before this whole "terrorism" scare, the US side of the border was always generally annoying. The Canadians would let me in without so much as a "who are you," while the US guards would grill me for several minutes while they ran my ID and took pictures of my car.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • RymRym
    However... I assumed you were talking about New York City since referring to New York State was just waaaay too obvious. Did anyone really think that the big empty space on the map was a hole in the universe?
    Back in middle school, during a "Jeopardy day" in social studies, the question "which US state (of the 48 contiguous) has the largest border coastline?" was asked.

    The most common answer was "Texas." Kids didn't seem to realize that Mexico is down there, since most maps in children's classrooms show the US and only the US.

    (The answer is Michigan. ^_~)
  • JasonJason
    As of Jan. 1 you do, in fact, need a passport to GET BACK INTO THE U.S. AFTER VISITING CANADA. My parents live 4 miles from the border in New York state and do quite a bit of business in the area around Montreal. They say U.S. customs guards have been requesting passports for several months now in anticipation of the switch-over.

    Many portions of the border, though, do remain unguarded. One high school teacher of mine was flustered one day in 1998 because he'd been up all night helping police catch the drug ring that was using a back portion of his 20-acre property to drive semi trucks loaded with marijuana into the states. There were also back roads without customs stations that my friends and I would use to come back from drinking trips (because the Canadian drinking age is 18).
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Well... someone ought to tell those border guards that a passport is not required until January 1, 2008. (If not traveling by air.)
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Many portions of the border, though, do remain unguarded.
    That's a manpower issue. Without going into more details... trust me... they know that you are there.
  • JasonJason
    No they don't. Never ascribe too much proficiency or knowledge to the government that brought you the DMV.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    No they don't. Never ascribe too much proficiency or knowledge to the government that brought you the DMV.
    Hmm... Not too sure about that. I don't know for sure, but I would bet on the government keeping tabs on that border.
  • JasonJason
    edited December 2006
    However... I assumed you were talking about New York City since referring to New York State was just waaaay too obvious. Did anyone really think that the big empty space on the map was a hole in the universe?
    Back in middle school, during a "Jeopardy day" in social studies, the question "which US state (of the 48 contiguous) has the largest border coastline?" was asked.

    The most common answer was "Texas." Kids didn't seem to realize that Mexico is down there, since most maps in children's classrooms show the US and only the US.

    (The answer is Michigan. ^_~)
    There are only 44 contiguous states. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virgina are commonwealths ftw.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • RymRym
    There are only 44 contiguous states. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virgina are commonwealths ftw.
    There are 48 contiguous states. While those four may call themselves commonwealths, they are, under US Federal Law, states, and are afforded no special consideration as such.
  • JasonJason
    edited December 2006
    LOL. The difference isn't material or practical, but philosophical. They were formed as commonwealths in the 18th century to protect the ideals of liberty during redcoat occupations. States don't care about commoners or our wealth. They are political machines bent on perpetuating power. Semantic, true, but it makes a difference in my mind.

    Seriously, though, identify these people who argue that it's a moral responsibility to look at/click on ads on the Internet. I've already paid my ISP, thank you very much, and I did not solicit any of the other advertising. I want to laugh at and burn effigies of whomever was trying to defend ads.

    I remember the Money Tree crap, and i even made $36 in 1999 (or 1998?) surfing with one of those desktop monitors. Ah, the golden brass nickel days of Internet usage....
    Post edited by Jason on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    There are 48 contiguous states. While those four may call themselves commonwealths, they are, under US Federal Law, states, and are afforded no special consideration as such.
    If Massachusetts, Virgina, Pennsylvania and Kentucky choose to consider themselves commonwealths, the federal government does not get to say otherwise. It's a little concept called federalism, which just happened to be pretty darned important back in the 1700's. The federal government chooses to treat commonwealths just like states (and to be fair the distinction is meaningless), nonetheless there is no "federal law" that does away with commonwealths.

    Now... here is why you were originally correct. A commonwealth is, technically speaking, a type of state. Not all states, however, are commonwealths. Therefore, there are indeed 48 contiguous states. Just didn't want you to throw federalism out with the bathwater, though.
  • AprecheApreche
    Great. Is this yet another argument about arbitrary labeling?
  • RymRym
    edited December 2006
    As far as any other state or the federal government is concerned, there is no difference whatsoever between a state and a commonwealth. Externally, they are identical. Even internally, the term has no tangible impact, and "commonwealths" are not governed or managed in any substantially different way.

    http://www.magazineusa.com/lv2/politics/i_commonwealth.asp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_(United_States)
    http://ask.yahoo.com/20001117.html
    http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuscommonwealth.htm
    http://www.osv.org/learning/DocumentViewer.php?DocID=2041
    http://www.kidscommonwealth.virginia.gov/FAQs/VaFAQ.asp
    http://www.kdla.ky.gov/resources/kycommonwealth.htm


    Some choice quotations:
    The difference between these commonwealths and the other 46 states is in name alone -- they elected to call themselves commonwealths, a term drawn from political theory. The About.com lawyer assured us that, legally, there is no difference between a state and these four commonwealths.
    it's basically a historical reality and has no political or judicial consequences.
    Well, there isn't really a legal difference at all. Although Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Kentucky all call themselves "commonwealths," the relationship with, and governance of, the people is the same as with a state.
    When the United States was granted separation from Great Britain and its monarchy, the term commonwealth lost its meaning in a democratically governed nation. Thus, the idea to be a state or to be a commonwealth in the United States became identical.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited December 2006
    Yup. That's why I said that the distinction is meaningless. That wasn't the point. The point was that if Kentucky chooses to call themselves a commonwealth, it's not up to the feds to say otherwise - as long as they follow the constitution and principles of our union, they can call themselves whatever the heck they want.

    Oh God, is Rym trying to give the feds greater powers than they currently have? Is the world turning on its head? Help me!
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • RymRym
    As for the Federalism, I agree with you. ^_~ States should be able to govern themselves within the confines of the constitution however they wish.
Sign In or Register to comment.