Skip to main content

Blog ads

I currently host Google ads on this blog, and I've really mixed feelings about it. I have Google ads deployed across most of my websites without any particular issue. On my Popular Science book review site, for example, when I just took a look, the home page ads were for things like BBC Focus magazine and New Scientist. Which seems entirely reasonable and not in any way a problem.

But the trouble is, Google's magic algorithm for determining what to display insists on displaying self-publishing adverts here. Now some of these are, without doubt, respectable - but there is a certain type of "we'll publish your book" advertiser that is, how can I put it, lacking in morals. On the other hand, I certainly can't say the specific ads that come up on a particular day are bad. And sometimes they can be quite amusing. A few days ago, one ad was for a literary agent, the second said "you don't need a literary agent."

For the moment I'll leave them there... but they're under consideration.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Bob O'Hara10 February 2009 at 09:52

    I would have thought that your readers would be sufficiently discerning to recognise the less-than-useful ads. And click through anyway just to give themselves a laugh and you an extra couple of pennies.

    Thanks to AdBlock, I don't see any ads, so sorry. I'll have to buy you a beer instead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg10 February 2009 at 11:42

    I would hope they would be so discerning, yes, Bob. There's just the concern that someone might think that because an ad appears here, I might be endorsing it.

    And do feel free to click through, anyone who can see them - every click does indeed earn me some pennies. Actually I've just seen one I might take a look at myself - 'an innovative new way to put your blog, and more, online, apparently. Sadly I don't get paid anything when I take a look at the ads!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10 February 2009 at 17:26

    I think those ads are there because you wrote a post on the topic the other day, Brian. Write about some other things and you'll see other ads appear. This happens to me quite a bit in Gmail (where you can't "not have the ads" - the ads are what Google text miner thinks are relevant to what your message is about.)
    Ad blockers can have unfortunate side effects, incidentally, such as rendering commenting or bookmarking via bookmarklets impossible. That Google toolbar is lethal from that point of view - I uninstalled it after a day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg11 February 2009 at 09:42

    Thanks, Maxine, I suspect you are right (though it may also pick up on the keywords in the blog's subtitle etc.)

    Agree absolutely about ad blockers - at best they disrupt the look of web pages... and Google toolbar is a pain.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more