Author Topic: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)  (Read 6198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Krushert

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 13679
  • FREE BEER Tomorrow!!
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2008, 07:46:59 PM »
your house, I'm just a guest
UCP's and well everyones comments (including Keith's) sum up the way I feel.  For some strange reason with what ever adds get past AdBlock, I can ignore becuase they are off to the side I guess.  My senses don't even registrar them because I am looking for the content of the website.  I click depends for the poll above, becuase like Keith and I imagine others here as well, I have walked away from a site that is over run with ads

Mark, for what little I know of you, I know or believe that you will incorporate the ads in the appropiate fashion.  I have faith. Do what you have to do becuase I would rather have this site with a few ads than no site at all.
I + XI = X is true ...  ... if you change your perspective.

I no longer CAD or Model, I just hang out here picking up the empties beer cans

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2008, 11:40:58 PM »
Some of you already know how I feel in regards to turning the members into 'just another set of eyes to advertise to' as this was part of the problem that let to my being banned from that 'other' cad site when they decided to sell out the members through Solid Vapor.

In the end I think that they really killed the community aspect of the site, as the members were reduced to numbers to market 'partner' products to.  In turn they claim to have a huge member base, although their metric is probably flawed by 250%, in that the 'members' sign up grab the solution they want, and then never return, or do so under another name because they didn't care to write down user name or password; because all they wanted was the answer to a problem at that moment.


I think there might even be enough of us that do not want that to happen here; that should you say the word the money would be on the way to stave off that end state.
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

vegbruiser

  • Guest
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2008, 05:59:31 AM »
I voted Depends:

I've got a couple of websites that I've used Google ads on in the past, and it can certainly be done non-intrusively. I for one don't really mind whether TheSwamp has ads or not, because (when I'm in the office at least) the Internet connection I use is filtered for a fair bit of content anyway. If I'm at home I always use AdblockPlus and NoScript.

If you need the money, go for it.

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2008, 09:39:25 AM »
After doing some more research, the biggest reason I can see as to why to not introduce advertising is that advertisers pay for unique impressions. Those impressions pay at most $0.02 per click, the averages will likely be much less than that, and then they only kick in at a predetermined level, for example, you must have 100 click-throughs. That means that given the current membership of about 2000 members, each member would have to click on at least 1 and many would have to click on 2 distinctly different advertisements each month, just to raise $50.

Imagine the average daily users at 28 ... that means every user would have to click through 90 unique advertisers each month, 3 a day, everyday .. just to raise $50. Will there be 90 unique advertisers on theswamp? I don't think so ...

My objections, for what they may be worth, are that this advertising schema has been shown numerous times to be unprofitable, unreliable and unsustainable. As unpopular as it may be, the offer to host theswamp, given the amount of expected bandwidth usage in the forseeable future, hosting would cost about $30 per year, excluding domain registration.

I know of at least 3 different offers to remove the cost of theswamp and these have been rejected. One was for free hosting for at least 1 year, one was for $30 annual hosting, and one was $60 annual hosting. These were rejected because it would not allow Mark to manage the hardware, upgrade software and tinker with the hardware as he saw fit.

There is nothing wrong with this, but in the interest of full disclosure, I think the membership should know there are other solutions to the cost of hosting theswamp.

Given the wishes, or rather, the lack of serious objections to advertising on theswamp, I suspect it may well come ... just remember, once it is here, very likely there will be no going back. Once theswamp is indexed in google, it will remain there forever, there will be no going back.
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

jnieman

  • Guest
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2008, 09:51:17 AM »
at the risk of sounding fanboyish...
Quote
, but in the interest of full disclosure, I think the membership should know there are other solutions to the cost of hosting theswamp.

I disagree... Mark is up to do whatever he so wishes to do.  He's more aware of trade-offs for every action before hand and will make his choice... it was very nice and courteous of him to ask our input on this topic, maybe to gather more information on the system itself if anyone knows more, or maybe just to see what 'morale' effect it'd have if implemented...

but when it comes down to it... he don't owe us jack.  Other way around, as I see it.  Whether that be 'disclosure' or just an explanation.

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2008, 10:13:51 AM »
I agree that Mark can do what he wants ... but given the nature of this venture (theswamp) and the fact that while Mark is the benevolent host of this online community, he doesn't "own" the community, he only owns the venue. If the membership (the part that makes theswamp what it is) don't agree with his decisions, then there is nothing to keep the cohesiveness that we have all enjoyed, including Mark.

I don't think there is anything that will kill theswamp faster than not giving the membership (what makes theswamp tick) a vested interest in the community, after all, the members are the community, not one person. The members that agree to commence with advertising appear to have done so in response to the growing burden of maintaining and funding the online community we have here.

If you take away the cost of maintaining, the need for advertising goes away. I have offered, as well as others, to remove the cost of maintaining theswamp. Those offers were rejected, so, I must conclude that either I (and the others) are not to be trusted with the future of this site or that cost really isn't the defining reason for introducing advertising. Either way, it is not in the best interest of the membership to carry on in this fashion.

If Mark wants to add advertising to theswamp, he is well within his rights to do so, however, I think if he does, and fully expects to gain the support of the membership, then he should be completely open about the prospects and pitfalls of doing so .. and the membership (the core of theswamp) should be treated as though they have a vested interest. Currently, I feel as though the reasoning is not valid (cost of maintaining theswamp) and thus the solution is neither warranted nor necessary.

Incidently, this feels just like CV at the beginning of its demise.
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

Atook

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 1029
  • AKA Tim
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2008, 10:16:51 AM »
After doing some more research, the biggest reason I can see as to why to not introduce advertising is that advertisers pay for unique impressions. Those impressions pay at most $0.02 per click...
Your interpretation may be flawed. I run Google Adwords on a couple sites, and the methods and pay vary. Certainly more than $.02 per click. We could get into details, but it's not the point of the thread. I do know that Mark would have a good amount of control over the look of the ads (even the content of them if he so desired). I also know that with Adwords, you can turn them on and off at your discretion. So if he decides it's not working, he's not stuck with them, he just removes them.

jnieman

  • Guest
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2008, 10:25:05 AM »
So if he decides it's not working, he's not stuck with them, he just removes them.

I was more pointing out that those ads, which come with indexing, but rather the users that will come with the indexing (thus pointing many more people to the site via searches)  Yes, you can get rid of the ads, but at that point we'll already have increased the number of users a good bit probably... the bandwidth those users pull could incur costs that 'force' the decision to keep the ads to help pay for that cost... that's what I was trying to say... that it would be a one way street POSSIBLY (speculating here, based on assumptions of user growth)

Not that Google would somehow force ad perpetuation.

tjr

  • Guest
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2008, 10:32:01 AM »
So if he decides it's not working, he's not stuck with them, he just removes them.

I was more pointing out that those ads, which come with indexing, but rather the users that will come with the indexing (thus pointing many more people to the site via searches)  Yes, you can get rid of the ads, but at that point we'll already have increased the number of users a good bit probably... the bandwidth those users pull could incur costs that 'force' the decision to keep the ads to help pay for that cost... that's what I was trying to say... that it would be a one way street POSSIBLY (speculating here, based on assumptions of user growth)

Not that Google would somehow force ad perpetuation.
I don't think that's the way it works. If Mark wanted Google to stop displaying search results from here he would just have to revert his robots.txt to the way it is currently. Search results would show up for a little while then get filtered out when the robots tried to reindex.

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2008, 10:37:18 AM »
My poor opinion.... if I may....

First, I agree with mister T - whatever it is needed to have "El Pantano" alive...

But.-
Just hope, this place not end up like others that are not here or are not the same anymore... time will tell.

jnieman

  • Guest
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2008, 10:43:38 AM »
So if he decides it's not working, he's not stuck with them, he just removes them.

I was more pointing out that those ads, which come with indexing, but rather the users that will come with the indexing (thus pointing many more people to the site via searches)  Yes, you can get rid of the ads, but at that point we'll already have increased the number of users a good bit probably... the bandwidth those users pull could incur costs that 'force' the decision to keep the ads to help pay for that cost... that's what I was trying to say... that it would be a one way street POSSIBLY (speculating here, based on assumptions of user growth)

Not that Google would somehow force ad perpetuation.
I don't think that's the way it works. If Mark wanted Google to stop displaying search results from here he would just have to revert his robots.txt to the way it is currently. Search results would show up for a little while then get filtered out when the robots tried to reindex.

ah... I thought I read from someone on here that the indexing comes with the ads... I might have misread it to mean that they are inclusive together but nevermind then..

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2008, 10:47:06 AM »
Incidently, this feels just like CV at the beginning of its demise.

While I agree with most of what you say that statement sounds a bit like Chicken Little. :-)

We've had this discussion at least three times over the past 4 years and still no ads! I don't think there is any one here that hates advertising any more than me.

What started the ads discussion this time was a message I received from another forum owner. He asked why I didn't use advertising in order to help fund theswamp. He explained how well he did with Google's Adsense and how it made his endeavor affordable. So here I am, opening the discussion, once again.
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2008, 10:56:24 AM »
Mark, it may indeed sound like chicken little, but that comment was my feelings on the matter, thus it is entirely correct in the context ... it wasn't meant to be correct as in "this is what is happening" but correct as "this is how I feel about this situation"
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2008, 11:36:03 AM »
I know of at least 3 different offers to remove the cost of theswamp and these have been rejected. One was for free hosting for at least 1 year, one was for $30 annual hosting, and one was $60 annual hosting. These were rejected because it would not allow Mark to manage the hardware, upgrade software and tinker with the hardware as he saw fit.

And every time I explained the reasons I don't like using a hosting service. Lets talk about upgrading the software for a minute.

Here is a list of major hosting providers and the verision of Apache they are running.

Code: [Select]
1&1 Internet Inc.
Operating System        Apache version                  Date
Linux                  Apache/1.3.34 Ben-SSL/1.55      18-Aug-2008
Linux                 Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)            3-Oct-2007
Linux                 Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)            11-May-2007
Linux                 Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)            15-Jun-2006
Linux                 Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)            6-Oct-2005

Bluehost Inc.
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  29-Jul-2008
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  9-Jul-2008
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  29-Apr-2008
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  6-Apr-2008
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  29-Jan-2008
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  6-Jan-2008
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  30-Oct-2007
Linux            Apache/2.0.61 (CentOS)  2-Oct-2007
Linux            Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS)  29-Jul-2007
Linux            Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS)  27-Jul-2007

webhostingpad  Omnis Network, LLC
Linux                   Apache/1.3.39 (Unix)            19-Aug-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.39 (Unix)            19-Dec-2007

Hostgator (ThePlanet.com)
Linux                   Apache/1.3.41 (Unix)            9-Aug-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.41 (Unix)            24-May-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.41 (Unix)            9-May-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.41 (Unix)            8-Apr-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.37 (Unix)            1-Mar-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.37 (Unix)            24-Feb-2008
Linux                   Apache/1.3.37 (Unix)            1-Dec-2007
Linux                   Apache/1.3.37 (Unix)            24-Nov-2007

Now here is some information on the various Apache versions.

Quote
Apache 1.3.41 Released 2008-01-19
The Apache Group is pleased to announce the legacy release of the 1.3.41 version of the Apache HTTP Server.
This version of Apache is principally a security release.

Quote
Apache 2.0.63 Released 2008-01-19
The Apache HTTP Server Project is proud to announce the legacy release of version 2.0.63 of the Apache HTTP Server ("Apache").
This version of Apache is principally a security and bugfix release.

Quote
Apache 2.2.9 Released 2008-06-13
The Apache HTTP Server Project is proud to announce the release of version 2.2.9 of the Apache HTTP Server ("Apache"). This version is principally a security and bugfix release.

This version of Apache is a major release and the start of a new stable branch, and represents the best available version of Apache HTTP Server. New features include Smart Filtering, Improved Caching, AJP Proxy, Proxy Load Balancing, Graceful Shutdown support, Large File Support, the Event MPM, and refactored Authentication/Authorization.

Currently theswamp.org is running Apache 2.2.9
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
Re: Google Ads, bots and the membership (1)
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2008, 11:37:15 AM »
I agree that Mark can do what he wants ... but given the nature of this venture (theswamp) and the fact that while Mark is the benevolent host of this online community, he doesn't "own" the community, he only owns the venue. If the membership (the part that makes theswamp what it is) don't agree with his decisions, then there is nothing to keep the cohesiveness that we have all enjoyed, including Mark.

Nail meet hammer. Perfect!
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)