Question about the advertising banners that appear on this page

[bicker]

cant buy that theory.....

It's not a theory. It's the way things are. Mass-market economics is a pretty well-understood subject.

you cannot tell me that if i do not want viagra commercials that i cannot refuse to air them.

You're not paying attention: No one has said anything like that. I think you need to read the messages being posted much more closely because you're not understanding what is being posted.

if Mr Werner and his partners did indeed specify categories as you suggest then you are flying in the face of your own logic.

Not even a little. Again, I think you need to read the messages being posted much more closely because you're not understanding what is being posted.

 

[dalt01]

i would think that Mr Werner or one of his partners would decide what is acceptable advertising.

Not on an advertisement-by-advertisement basis. That's impractical.

i do not want to advertise anything about............cheerios...........foot massage.............ear wax treatments...............dog beds............oil based paints................oh and politics...................seems pretty easy.

Right, and I bet he did that. Which is why I indicated earlier that it could have been a categorization error on Google's part.

That doesn't work very well in our mass-market society.

the discussion, for me, is based on this part of the exchange. it seems to me that you are saying first that they can then that they cant then that they can. i moved forward from that platform. if i am misunderstanding anything it is because the way you are presenting it isnt getting through to me.i will be the first one to jump away if i dont have the high ground. so, it seems to me that the bottom line is that i dont think anyone should have to compromise because of prepackaging or preset parameters, and that is all i am saying. you say it is unavoidable. if that is not what you are saying then perhaps we were going back and forth over two different things. either way its all good with me, i needed to kill an hour or so

 

[metalis4ever]

This "google syndication" advertisement has not worked I am still voting for Mickey Mouse tomorrow

 

[AshleyW]

the discussion, for me, is based on this part of the exchange. it seems to me that you are saying first that they can then that they cant then that they can. i moved forward from that platform. if i am misunderstanding anything it is because the way you are presenting it isnt getting through to me.i will be the first one to jump away if i dont have the high ground. so, it seems to me that the bottom line is that i dont think anyone should have to compromise because of prepackaging or preset parameters, and that is all i am saying. you say it is unavoidable. if that is not what you are saying then perhaps we were going back and forth over two different things. either way its all good with me, i needed to kill an hour or so

Basically, from how I understand it (and someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong) - ads target certain keywords in posts. Whoever runs this site may have said: No ads targeted at politics. However, there might be a "MITT ROMNEY 2012" ad that you and I know is political based. However, it might have "Massachusetts" and "2012" as keywords, and not anything political. There wouldn't be a way to deny that ad, because it's not technically in the "politics" category. If the owners of the site DO choose the content of the ads, they do it by keywords/categories, and not on an ad-by-ad basis - which would be completely impractical.

 

[dalt01]

This "google syndication" advertisement has not worked I am still voting for Mickey Mouse tomorrow

Basically, from how I understand it (and someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong) - ads target certain keywords in posts. Whoever runs this site may have said: No ads targeted at politics. However, there might be a "MITT ROMNEY 2012" ad that you and I know is political based. However, it might have "Massachusetts" and "2012" as keywords, and not anything political. There wouldn't be a way to deny that ad, because it's not technically in the "politics" category. If the owners of the site DO choose the content of the ads, they do it by keywords/categories, and not on an ad-by-ad basis - which would be completely impractical.

the two best responses yet............where i veer off is that i think it should not have to be "completely inpractical"!! in other words if there can be inclusionary keys words it should also be possible to have exclusionary key words to keep the "ear wax treatments" of the world out. i think i am just to anal.

 

[bumbershoot]

the two best responses yet............where i veer off is that i think it should not have to be "completely inpractical"!! in other words if there can be inclusionary keys words it should also be possible to have exclusionary key words to keep the "ear wax treatments" of the world out. i think i am just to anal.

I think there are just too many ways around that.

You might think you've excluded ear wax treatment.

So then the company would call it Aural Liquid Protocol.

And you'd get ads for the exact same thing.


For exclusions with politics, someone would have to take their time typing in every single policitian out there. I can't imagine the dis would remain free for us if someone had to do that for the whole country, every single election!

 

[bicker]

The DIS can provide parameters within which the advertising is supposed to comply

I suspect, that the DIS has explicitly asked Google to not provide political ads, so the best guess would be that Google miscategorized the advertisement you saw.

i would think that Mr Werner or one of his partners would decide what is acceptable advertising.

Not on an advertisement-by-advertisement basis. That's impractical.

i do not want to advertise anything about............(a bunch of categories)

the discussion, for me, is based on this part of the exchange. it seems to me that you are saying first that they can then that they cant then that they can.

As you can see, above, what I said is that advertising from syndicates can (and are) on a category-by-category basis, and not on an advertisement-by-advertisement basis. I think you've missed all the distinctions I made between control over individual advertisements, and control over categories of advertisements. I hope this clears it up for you.

so, it seems to me that the bottom line is that i dont think anyone should have to compromise because of prepackaging or preset parameters, and that is all i am saying. you say it is unavoidable.

No, no one said that. What I said is that subscribers to syndicated advertising cannot decide on an advertisement-by-advertisement basis whether they want a specific advertisement. Instead, going back to the first thing I wrote, they agree to parameters for the advertising with the syndicate, i.e., categories, and perhaps even specific companies that should not be presented. (For example, I'm not sure they do, but the DIS might even specify a list of competitors to site sponsors, and direct the syndicate to not provide advertising from those specific companies.) However, again, the website doesn't get to review each advertisement before it is presented. Instead, then the syndicate decides what advertising will be presented, based on the parameters specified in advance (and the keyword matching with the page being displayed, and any demographic data available for the user, etc.), and that's what gets presented.

And drawing this back to relevance... all indications have been that the DIS has indeed indicated that political ads shouldn't be presented, and so what is most likely to have happened is that Google miscategorized the advertisement in question, and that's why it made it through to users.

 

[bicker]

Basically, from how I understand it (and someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong) - ads target certain keywords in posts. Whoever runs this site may have said: No ads targeted at politics. However, there might be a "MITT ROMNEY 2012" ad that you and I know is political based. However, it might have "Massachusetts" and "2012" as keywords, and not anything political. There wouldn't be a way to deny that ad, because it's not technically in the "politics" category.

I'm pretty sure that none of the major advertising syndicates rely on keywords for categorizing advertisements. They rely on keywords for determining relevance to the specific page, but in terms of categorization, itself, I am pretty sure that that is a deliberate, human operation, i.e., some real person is responsible for determining whether an advertisement is political or not, is sexually explicit or not, etc. There are very good reasons why such things are not left up to keywords, even though the actual determination of what advertisement to present on a specific page does rely on keywords.

If the owners of the site DO choose the content of the ads, they do it by keywords/categories, and not on an ad-by-ad basis - which would be completely impractical.

I was going to say that that's what I was trying to say, but I checked... that's pretty-much exactly what I said.

 

[dalt01]

As you can see, above, what I said is that advertising from syndicates can (and are) on a category-by-category basis, and not on an advertisement-by-advertisement basis. I think you've missed all the distinctions I made between control over individual advertisements, and control over categories of advertisements. I hope this clears it up for you.

No, no one said that. What I said is that
subscribers to syndicated advertising cannot decide on an advertisement-by-advertisement basis whether they want a specific advertisement. Instead, going back to the first thing I wrote, agree to parameters for the advertising with the syndicate, i.e., categories, and perhaps even specific companies that should not be presented. (For example, I'm not sure they do, but the DIS might even specify a list of competitors to site sponsors, and direct the syndicate to not provide advertising from those specific companies.) However, again, the website doesn't get to review each advertisement before it is presented. Instead, then the syndicate decides what advertising will be presented, based on the parameters, and that's what gets presented.

And drawing this back to relevance... all indicates have been that the DIS has indeed indicated that political ads shouldn't be presented, and so what is most likely to have happened is that Google miscategorized the advertisement in question, and that's why it made it through to users.

im out..................i am running out of big words.............but................i would still want to know about EVERY add on my sight if my reputation was at stake...................i'm just sayin.............

 

[npmommie]

Basically, from how I understand it (and someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong) - ads target certain keywords in posts. Whoever runs this site may have said: No ads targeted at politics. However, there might be a "MITT ROMNEY 2012" ad that you and I know is political based. However, it might have "Massachusetts" and "2012" as keywords, and not anything political. There wouldn't be a way to deny that ad, because it's not technically in the "politics" category. If the owners of the site DO choose the content of the ads, they do it by keywords/categories, and not on an ad-by-ad basis - which would be completely impractical.

great post

This "google syndication" advertisement has not worked I am still voting for Mickey Mouse tomorrow

I voted for him for President!! LOL

the Scott Brown ads don't bother me in the least. love them.

 

[cinmell]

Does that mean someone on the Dis is a scott brown supporter?

I come on here to get away from reality for a few minutes........LOL........
we are being bombarded up here with political ads, and to see it here too............ugggh!
can't wait til tomorrow night when its done

The ad I see at the top of this page is against Scott Brown. I'm in MA and I agree with you, I'm so sick of all of the ads (and phone calls) and I can't wait until tomorrow night!

 

[bicker]

Yes, and that's what we're saying is impractical. Figure that there is Pete, and then Alex and Kathy, and I think that's it with regard to folks who are at that "level" here at the DIS. If I recall correctly, this their job, for any of them. Pete is the owner, and Alex handle the technical issues, but to review every advertisement before it is posted would require having someone dedicated to that for a certain period of time per day. That's simply (again) impractical. And it isn't what any of the syndicators offer, at least not in my memory. (It's been a while since I've been that close to it.)

This is even how it works on larger websites. There is a tacit understanding, on the part of most users, that the website isn't necessarily responsible for the content of the advertising. Utilizing the capabilities we've already discussed, i.e., rejecting certain categories of advertising, is the extent of scrutiny that most advertising goes through, with regard to the hosting website. They rely on the syndicates to properly categorize advertisements, and especially to ensure that the content is legal. It isn't really a matter of reputation, because most users fully understand the nature of advertising, and that advertising doesn't generally constitute endorsement of what is being advertised.

 

[dalt01]

It isn't really a matter of reputation, because most users fully understand the nature of advertising, and that advertising doesn't generally constitute endorsement of what is being advertised.

ya just keep drawing me back in............if that were true the michael vicks of the world would still be in our livingrooms nightly...........and............in small business reputation is everything.............and...............most users fully understand what??????????? if i had a nickel.................. we the people percieve things in a manor that benefits us..............i have been in retail all my life and these are thing i know.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I agree, if we can't talk about Scott Brown then why have a banner ad every page I open?
I don't see Martha, wonder why?

Because Martha's campaign committee didn't have the foresight to purchase internet advertising?

This "google syndication" advertisement has not worked I am still voting for Mickey Mouse tomorrow

As long as you realize (a) you will need to write in your vote and (b) your candidate needs a valid in-state address.

 

[metalis4ever]

Because Martha's campaign committee didn't have the foresight to purchase internet advertising?

As long as you realize (a) you will need to write in your vote and (b) your candidate needs a valid in-state address.

Really?........ I guess my vote will have to go to either Pat the Patriot or Wally the Green Monster

Clearly I was kidding....I am voting tomorrow for real for one of the two major candidates

 

[DisneyKevin]

im out..................i am running out of big words.............but................i would still want to know about EVERY add on my sight if my reputation was at stake...................i'm just sayin.............

Who's reputation is at stake?

Google ads are bundled...as has been explained.

That being said...the ads can also be random.

Unacceptable ads have slipped through occasionally.

If you see an objectionable ad...email webmaster@wdwinfo.com...as was suggested earlier.

The ads at the top or bottom of your screen help subsidize your opportunity to discuss the ads at the top or bottom of your screen.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Really?........ I guess my vote will have to go to either Pat the Patriot or Wally the Green Monster

Clearly I was kidding....I am voting tomorrow for real and not for Scott no matter how much money he spends on advertising

This can be construed as political discussion which is against Dis Board policy.

 

[metalis4ever]

This can be construed as political discussion which is against Dis Board policy.

ok I take it back

 

[DisneyKevin]

ok I take it back

 

[dalt01]

Who's reputation is at stake?

[/B]

the comment was rhetoricle. we are known by the company we keep............we are also known by the type of company we are resonsible for. poor choices in content can and will reflect back on those responsible. no one was saying that your reputation or anyone associated with you for that matter was in any danger of reputation damage........just saying i would like to have control over all content if it was me.