Gadgetopia Comments http://gadgetopia.com/ en-us deane@deanebarker.net Copyright 2010 2010-03-17T11:49:36-06:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Comment on "Joel Spolsky on Twitter" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7060#CommentID_1101713 Agreed. I have not been able to figure out the tangable benefit of twitter. It is certainly very poor at threading a conversation (though twitter.com could collate messages and remove RTs to great effect). Perhaps I should tweet the idea.

But tweeting is effective. People can complain out load in their cubicals, mention some company's name, and get attention from that company. It's easier than going to that company's web site and going through channels.

It's a little like writing to the newspaper's editorial page to turn up the heat on a company with whom you have a complaint.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7060@http://gadgetopia.com/ Agreed. I have not been able to figure out the tangable benefit of twitter. It is certainly very poor at threading a conversation (though twitter.com could collate messages and remove RTs to great effect). Perhaps I should tweet the idea.

But tweeting is effective. People can complain out load in their cubicals, mention some company's name, and get attention from that company. It's easier than going to that company's web site and going through channels.

It's a little like writing to the newspaper's editorial page to turn up the heat on a company with whom you have a complaint.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Joel Spolsky on Twitter 2010-03-16T10:42:15-06:00 Doug D Comment on "Joel Spolsky on Twitter" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7060#CommentID_1101585 Absolutely agree with Joel. One of my new year's resolutions was to check Twitter only once a week, but soon it became simple enough not to check it at all. I now just post a random saying every week or two, but I never read it anymore, and I couldn't be happier without it.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7060@http://gadgetopia.com/ Absolutely agree with Joel. One of my new year's resolutions was to check Twitter only once a week, but soon it became simple enough not to check it at all. I now just post a random saying every week or two, but I never read it anymore, and I couldn't be happier without it.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Joel Spolsky on Twitter 2010-03-15T10:43:54-06:00 Brade Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101578 Good discussion here. These comments have got me thinking about alternate possibilities for online advertising. For me personally, paying a subscription fee for website content is an absolute no-go. There will always be free sources of information on the web, and that's exactly where most of us will go if a website starts charging.

So I think the real solution might be the email/newsletter paradigm. Sites could allow you to view all their content for free, but only if you sign up for an account and provide an email address, so you can get a regular email with a mix of news and special offers. There are a few sites that already do this, but the email newsletter could be where marketing efforts are made. And the websites could (and should) be straightforward about this--support our website by agreeing to get, say, a weekly or monthly email with some bonus content and advertising.

Personally I don't mind having to sift through this type of stuff in an email. I already subscribe to some newsletters for things like Quizno's and Ben & Jerry's because every now and then, they give you some nice coupons. This same process could easily apply to a site like Ars Technica, with the only difference being the special offers would be from paid sponsors. It's a win-win for everyone.

Plus there are some great tools out there for tracking the effectiveness of email marketing (such as Campaign Monitor and iContact), much better in my opinion than trying to use website analytics for this purpose. If Ars Technica went with this approach, I'd sign up in a flash.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ Good discussion here. These comments have got me thinking about alternate possibilities for online advertising. For me personally, paying a subscription fee for website content is an absolute no-go. There will always be free sources of information on the web, and that's exactly where most of us will go if a website starts charging.

So I think the real solution might be the email/newsletter paradigm. Sites could allow you to view all their content for free, but only if you sign up for an account and provide an email address, so you can get a regular email with a mix of news and special offers. There are a few sites that already do this, but the email newsletter could be where marketing efforts are made. And the websites could (and should) be straightforward about this--support our website by agreeing to get, say, a weekly or monthly email with some bonus content and advertising.

Personally I don't mind having to sift through this type of stuff in an email. I already subscribe to some newsletters for things like Quizno's and Ben & Jerry's because every now and then, they give you some nice coupons. This same process could easily apply to a site like Ars Technica, with the only difference being the special offers would be from paid sponsors. It's a win-win for everyone.

Plus there are some great tools out there for tracking the effectiveness of email marketing (such as Campaign Monitor and iContact), much better in my opinion than trying to use website analytics for this purpose. If Ars Technica went with this approach, I'd sign up in a flash.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-15T09:49:27-06:00 Brade Comment on "Joel Spolsky on Twitter" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7060#CommentID_1101563 He has summed it up very well, but the problem is that you can sum up a lot of products and services and theoretically they won't work.

But twitter still works, for a huge group of people. If you break something down, you can convince yourself and others of the flaws, but if people still use it then it's doing something right.

I like the constraints. I like the limited space. It forces you to make your point quickly and move on.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7060@http://gadgetopia.com/ He has summed it up very well, but the problem is that you can sum up a lot of products and services and theoretically they won't work.

But twitter still works, for a huge group of people. If you break something down, you can convince yourself and others of the flaws, but if people still use it then it's doing something right.

I like the constraints. I like the limited space. It forces you to make your point quickly and move on.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Joel Spolsky on Twitter 2010-03-15T05:58:27-06:00 Tomas Breen Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101531 I never see any of the ads on CNN (I visit daily), or MSNBC (again, daily), or even here - the latest version of AdBlock is really effective. I also agree with the idea that depending on advertising revenue isn't (nor should it be) considered a reliable revenue stream.

News sites would continue to exist so long as they were an adjunct to the broadcast arm; if and when CNN or any of the other media outlets I bother with these days attempt to force me to view content without AdBlock, I'll get my news elsewhere.

I'd miss visiting Gadgetopia, certainly, but attempts to force advertising down a viewer's throat would backfire with me - I can be treated statistically as a "consumer", but I will continue to see myself as a visitor, and not as an advertiser's audience. This is a blog, after all, and not a site that I am required to visit - I choose to come here and read the articles and opinions you, Joe, and others post here - but I am not, nor do I believe I (or anyone else) should be expected to pay to read opinions or be forced to wade through a sales pitch before I can read them. That would be like saying I should pay to read Glen Beck's stuff, or Rush Limbaugh's - why pay for opinions, regardless of publication medium?

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ I never see any of the ads on CNN (I visit daily), or MSNBC (again, daily), or even here - the latest version of AdBlock is really effective. I also agree with the idea that depending on advertising revenue isn't (nor should it be) considered a reliable revenue stream.

News sites would continue to exist so long as they were an adjunct to the broadcast arm; if and when CNN or any of the other media outlets I bother with these days attempt to force me to view content without AdBlock, I'll get my news elsewhere.

I'd miss visiting Gadgetopia, certainly, but attempts to force advertising down a viewer's throat would backfire with me - I can be treated statistically as a "consumer", but I will continue to see myself as a visitor, and not as an advertiser's audience. This is a blog, after all, and not a site that I am required to visit - I choose to come here and read the articles and opinions you, Joe, and others post here - but I am not, nor do I believe I (or anyone else) should be expected to pay to read opinions or be forced to wade through a sales pitch before I can read them. That would be like saying I should pay to read Glen Beck's stuff, or Rush Limbaugh's - why pay for opinions, regardless of publication medium?

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-15T01:03:21-06:00 Rick Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101512 Rick, while I appreciate the purity of your position, let's pretend for a minute if everyone had your same position. Why would 90% of the media/news/etc. sites in existence stay in business?

I think it's fine to take your position...if you never consume any free, ad-supported content on the Net. But once you start visiting and enjoying something like Ars, CNN, or whatever (Gadgetopia?), your position becomes less tenable.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ Rick, while I appreciate the purity of your position, let's pretend for a minute if everyone had your same position. Why would 90% of the media/news/etc. sites in existence stay in business?

I think it's fine to take your position...if you never consume any free, ad-supported content on the Net. But once you start visiting and enjoying something like Ars, CNN, or whatever (Gadgetopia?), your position becomes less tenable.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-14T21:49:54-06:00 Deane Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101508 "But the fact is that people who take the time to install adblock are precisely the ones who hate ads and won't click on them anyway."

I'm likely in the minority, and as stated in reply to previous posts on this subject, I'm an online advertiser's nightmare in that I use AdBlock Plus because I hate being "sold to" whether online or off. I won't click on an ad on any site I visit; if I visit a site to make a purchase, I'll have done my research already and am ready to spend. Text-based ads? Easier to live with (thinking about GMail here - unobtrusive). Flash-based? Irritating at the very least.

Sales and marketing people, sorry - I have little sympathy for your positions when you are trying to sell me things I neither need nor want, and can usually ill afford. Perhaps you can find another job that doesn't involve pushing people to spend?

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ "But the fact is that people who take the time to install adblock are precisely the ones who hate ads and won't click on them anyway."

I'm likely in the minority, and as stated in reply to previous posts on this subject, I'm an online advertiser's nightmare in that I use AdBlock Plus because I hate being "sold to" whether online or off. I won't click on an ad on any site I visit; if I visit a site to make a purchase, I'll have done my research already and am ready to spend. Text-based ads? Easier to live with (thinking about GMail here - unobtrusive). Flash-based? Irritating at the very least.

Sales and marketing people, sorry - I have little sympathy for your positions when you are trying to sell me things I neither need nor want, and can usually ill afford. Perhaps you can find another job that doesn't involve pushing people to spend?

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-14T21:20:40-06:00 Rick Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101277 I agree with Brade and Mark. While I think advertising is legitimate and warranted, it's really about how it's presented. Google's text-based ads are unobtrusive and are actually more likely to get my attention and click-through than flashy, bright, obnoxious, Flash-based ads that pop-up or sit on a page demanding to be clicked. The latter are the ones that I block.

Merchants/vendors that also offer "subscription-based" offerings (in addition to "free" offerings), at a reasonable price that include ad-removal and "premium features/content" are also more likely to get me to sign up if their wares are worth my money.

Depending on advertising as a reliable source of revenue is not a practical business model. It can supplement other, more stable revenue streams, but as Mark points out, bandwidth (and hardware) is paid out by the consumer, so to have these aggressive ads that suck up bandwidth and CPU cycles is not going to win people over; it works against the site/advertisers.

Brade summed it up nicely in his last paragraph. It's akin to direct marketing. You know a certain percentage of the mailings are for naught and will generate opt-out requests (equivalent to blocking online ads) or no response at all (online's version would be not to click an ad), so you need to focus on catering to the consumers who are likely to take you up on what you are offering for your marketing to be continually successful, making a profit.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ I agree with Brade and Mark. While I think advertising is legitimate and warranted, it's really about how it's presented. Google's text-based ads are unobtrusive and are actually more likely to get my attention and click-through than flashy, bright, obnoxious, Flash-based ads that pop-up or sit on a page demanding to be clicked. The latter are the ones that I block.

Merchants/vendors that also offer "subscription-based" offerings (in addition to "free" offerings), at a reasonable price that include ad-removal and "premium features/content" are also more likely to get me to sign up if their wares are worth my money.

Depending on advertising as a reliable source of revenue is not a practical business model. It can supplement other, more stable revenue streams, but as Mark points out, bandwidth (and hardware) is paid out by the consumer, so to have these aggressive ads that suck up bandwidth and CPU cycles is not going to win people over; it works against the site/advertisers.

Brade summed it up nicely in his last paragraph. It's akin to direct marketing. You know a certain percentage of the mailings are for naught and will generate opt-out requests (equivalent to blocking online ads) or no response at all (online's version would be not to click an ad), so you need to focus on catering to the consumers who are likely to take you up on what you are offering for your marketing to be continually successful, making a profit.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-12T21:36:12-06:00 Jarrett Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101267 To begin the net is not free, for me it's 90 bucks a month. Not to mention I paid for my pc and spent my time building it, and configuring it. IMHO, if you have to tell people how they are going to use their paid for items, you have a failed business model.

IMHO, here are your 3 options if you wish to earn a "living" online:

  1. Pay wall. If your content is worth it people will pay.

  2. Like Trek, Bose, Apple and a bazillion other sites, the site is part of their line item called advertisement and helps to sell their product. I.e. a loss.

  3. Affiliate links. You get paid when you actually have someone click thru and buy something. When I bought a domain I used the HAK5 code. I got a discount, and they proven that people were actually watching the ads. Being paid for views, images, marks, or any other term is a lie and a scam.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ To begin the net is not free, for me it's 90 bucks a month. Not to mention I paid for my pc and spent my time building it, and configuring it. IMHO, if you have to tell people how they are going to use their paid for items, you have a failed business model.

IMHO, here are your 3 options if you wish to earn a "living" online:

  1. Pay wall. If your content is worth it people will pay.

  2. Like Trek, Bose, Apple and a bazillion other sites, the site is part of their line item called advertisement and helps to sell their product. I.e. a loss.

  3. Affiliate links. You get paid when you actually have someone click thru and buy something. When I bought a domain I used the HAK5 code. I got a discount, and they proven that people were actually watching the ads. Being paid for views, images, marks, or any other term is a lie and a scam.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-12T16:43:45-06:00 Mark Comment on "EPiServer Goes Public" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7056#CommentID_1101255 If you're really interested, here are three articles about how to do this; I skimmed each of these and on a quick look the first article seems best. Keep in mind that foreign investment can be riskier than other investments because of country-specific risks (probably low in this case, but I don't know) and currency risk (exchange rate fluctuation):

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7056@http://gadgetopia.com/ If you're really interested, here are three articles about how to do this; I skimmed each of these and on a quick look the first article seems best. Keep in mind that foreign investment can be riskier than other investments because of country-specific risks (probably low in this case, but I don't know) and currency risk (exchange rate fluctuation):

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> EPiServer Goes Public 2010-03-12T10:39:04-06:00 cmadler Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101253 I can sympathize with this somewhat, but not too much. The percentage of total browsers using adblock is still quite low. One site showed a result of 14% of Firefox users which equated to about 7% of his total traffic: http://wpmarketing.org/2009/08/fighting-adblock/

The ratio admittedly is likely higher for Ars Technica, given their reader base. But the fact is that people who take the time to install adblock are precisely the ones who hate ads and won't click on them anyway. I equate it with those who DVR all their favorite shows so they can fast-forward thru the commercials.

The solution is to be more creative about advertising. One thing that might work is within the article itself, write a paragraph about some sponsor's product, without setting it apart in an easily located DIV tag.

Overall, businesses need to be smart about their customer base and realize that a certain portion of them are simply not going to be affected by advertising. They need to concentrate on reaching those who are actually moved to action by ads, and that's never going to be the entire user base.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ I can sympathize with this somewhat, but not too much. The percentage of total browsers using adblock is still quite low. One site showed a result of 14% of Firefox users which equated to about 7% of his total traffic: http://wpmarketing.org/2009/08/fighting-adblock/

The ratio admittedly is likely higher for Ars Technica, given their reader base. But the fact is that people who take the time to install adblock are precisely the ones who hate ads and won't click on them anyway. I equate it with those who DVR all their favorite shows so they can fast-forward thru the commercials.

The solution is to be more creative about advertising. One thing that might work is within the article itself, write a paragraph about some sponsor's product, without setting it apart in an easily located DIV tag.

Overall, businesses need to be smart about their customer base and realize that a certain portion of them are simply not going to be affected by advertising. They need to concentrate on reaching those who are actually moved to action by ads, and that's never going to be the entire user base.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-12T09:02:46-06:00 Brade Comment on "Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7055#CommentID_1101210 Actually, I disagree.

I think if we block the traditional methods, while we may lose some sources of content, and we may spur on some more obnoxious methods, we'll also see better, more integrated, more useful advertising that we don't want to block. I don't block The Deck. I could, but I don't have any desire to.

Likewise, I don't mind completely integrated, but entirely related, sponsored content. (See daringfireball.net for an example of advertising well-done.)

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7055@http://gadgetopia.com/ Actually, I disagree.

I think if we block the traditional methods, while we may lose some sources of content, and we may spur on some more obnoxious methods, we'll also see better, more integrated, more useful advertising that we don't want to block. I don't block The Deck. I could, but I don't have any desire to.

Likewise, I don't mind completely integrated, but entirely related, sponsored content. (See daringfireball.net for an example of advertising well-done.)

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> Why Ad Blocking Kinda Sucks 2010-03-12T00:05:25-06:00 Dan Hudlow Comment on "MousePath" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7053#CommentID_1099819 They've moved to a real location, now: http://iographica.com/

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7053@http://gadgetopia.com/ They've moved to a real location, now: http://iographica.com/

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> MousePath 2010-03-03T16:53:40-06:00 Corey V. Comment on "What is Metadata in WCM?" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7047#CommentID_1098749 Hi everyone i just need to become a great hacker if anyone could please give me some information so i can start my carrier i'll be happy. An you'll be rewarded too My Email Address is dwayneb123@yahoo.com

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7047@http://gadgetopia.com/ Hi everyone i just need to become a great hacker if anyone could please give me some information so i can start my carrier i'll be happy. An you'll be rewarded too My Email Address is dwayneb123@yahoo.com

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> What is Metadata in WCM? 2010-02-26T08:38:25-06:00 Dwayne Brown Comment on "What is Metadata in WCM?" http://gadgetopia.com/post/7047#CommentID_1094779 What makes it "meta" is that it's used for some purpose other than just reading. Typically this means it's used to share content, or apply particular structures or workflows. I agree that in terms of the technology there's virtually no difference, except that the underlying CMS schema can be structured to deliver metadata more quickly than the rest of the data: i.e. to generate navigation, you don't need the full article you just need its content type, date, subject, title, etc. People get way too tied up in this kind of thing: just think about it all as content, who or what's going to use it and how you can make it useful.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> 7047@http://gadgetopia.com/ What makes it "meta" is that it's used for some purpose other than just reading. Typically this means it's used to share content, or apply particular structures or workflows. I agree that in terms of the technology there's virtually no difference, except that the underlying CMS schema can be structured to deliver metadata more quickly than the rest of the data: i.e. to generate navigation, you don't need the full article you just need its content type, date, subject, title, etc. People get way too tied up in this kind of thing: just think about it all as content, who or what's going to use it and how you can make it useful.

Click here to reply to this comment

]]> What is Metadata in WCM? 2010-02-10T05:01:54-06:00 Philippe Parker