February 24, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Grant Fritchey (2/24/2011)
Ian Scarlett (2/24/2011)
Does this sort of irritating Spam really work? http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1068979-392-1.aspxIf I was in the market for one of those, I wouldn't buy from a company that does that sort of thing (spam a SQL forum) on principle.:angry:
I'd say no, there's no way it works... except that companies keep doing it. Over time, most actions become rational. They must actually get a return on it, however small, or they'd stop after a while.
I know a guy who has a business that hires people in the Phillipeans to go to forums and suggest links to web sites he's been hired to market. They're supposed to make sure the links are relevant to the people reading the forums they are linking from, but they get paid by the hour and based on the quantity of links they post per hour, so it's not always professionally done.
He's not the one posting stuff here (I asked), but if that's a valid business model for him, it's gotta be in use by others too.
In which case, the company paying for the marketing may not benefit from this kind of post, but the person doing the post gets paid for it. So, yes, someone benefits, and doesn't care if it gets any results or gets deleted.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 12:44 pm
How do they prove they posted the link if it gets deleted?
February 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/24/2011)
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Most won't go that far, but business competition is ... well ... competitive. Sun Tzu's Art of War applies.As I get older, I think this isn't true. There is so much business out there, so many companies. No one needs to dominate completely to succeed. Most companies can be wildly successful alongside their competitors.
Evolution generally favors either suicidal levels of cooperation (worker ants and warrior ants giving their lives for their hill), or rabid levels of competitiveness (male lions), and humans tend towards the competitive side of that scale. We compete for limited resources, and cooperate against common threats (but generally without completly dropping competition even then).
Take a look at Game Theory (the Prisoner's Dillema comes to mind here) for a lot more data on this.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Brandie Tarvin (2/24/2011)
How do they prove they posted the link if it gets deleted?
I don't know. If I get the chance, I'll ask.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Brandie Tarvin (2/24/2011)
How do they prove they posted the link if it gets deleted?
I'm sure there's logging software available that will record the site and if data is uploaded to that site and what that data is. After a very short period of time, people responsible for checking those logs probably ignore the last part and just count how many uploads there were.
At least, if I were employing people to do this, that's the kind of software I'd use. I think the practice is a waste of time though.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 24, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
Brandie Tarvin (2/24/2011)
How do they prove they posted the link if it gets deleted?I'm sure there's logging software available that will record the site and if data is uploaded to that site and what that data is. After a very short period of time, people responsible for checking those logs probably ignore the last part and just count how many uploads there were.
At least, if I were employing people to do this, that's the kind of software I'd use. I think the practice is a waste of time though.
Yep, logging software.
They call it "social marketing", and he gets paid for it, and pays them for their work on it. It's not enough to make him a living, but it takes little work on his part and supplements his salary-income a bit.
It probably does get a few results, just sort of "shotgun effect"-wise.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
Brandie Tarvin (2/24/2011)
How do they prove they posted the link if it gets deleted?I'm sure there's logging software available that will record the site and if data is uploaded to that site and what that data is. After a very short period of time, people responsible for checking those logs probably ignore the last part and just count how many uploads there were.
At least, if I were employing people to do this, that's the kind of software I'd use. I think the practice is a waste of time though.
Yep, logging software.
They call it "social marketing", and he gets paid for it, and pays them for their work on it. It's not enough to make him a living, but it takes little work on his part and supplements his salary-income a bit.
It probably does get a few results, just sort of "shotgun effect"-wise.
I'm hoping that internet advertising catches up to traditional advertising soon. Internet advertising tends to pay on click-throughs while traditional advertising pays on estimated viewings. I know some sites get paid by the page-loaded with the ad, but AFIK most still only get paid by ad clicked.
There's no reason for web-sites to be on a different payment scheme since the ads getting "eyeballs" have the same effect as magazine, tv, newspaper, etc... ads getting "eyeballs". Any click-throughs should either generate bonus revenue for the site hosting the ad or be considered value-added by the advertiser.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 24, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
I'm hoping that internet advertising catches up to traditional advertising soon. Internet advertising tends to pay on click-throughs while traditional advertising pays on estimated viewings. I know some sites get paid by the page-loaded with the ad, but AFIK most still only get paid by ad clicked.There's no reason for web-sites to be on a different payment scheme since the ads getting "eyeballs" have the same effect as magazine, tv, newspaper, etc... ads getting "eyeballs". Any click-throughs should either generate bonus revenue for the site hosting the ad or be considered value-added by the advertiser.
Click-through is more effective tracking of ad effectiveness.
People can walk away or fast-forward (TiVo) through television ads, and they'll still count as "eyeballed". Same for banner ads that the human eye can be trained to completely bypass. Unless someone misses their intended link, a click-through shows an actual impact of the ad.
Much better than surveys asking, "How did you first hear about our business?"
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 1:45 pm
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
I'm hoping that internet advertising catches up to traditional advertising soon. Internet advertising tends to pay on click-throughs while traditional advertising pays on estimated viewings. I know some sites get paid by the page-loaded with the ad, but AFIK most still only get paid by ad clicked.There's no reason for web-sites to be on a different payment scheme since the ads getting "eyeballs" have the same effect as magazine, tv, newspaper, etc... ads getting "eyeballs". Any click-throughs should either generate bonus revenue for the site hosting the ad or be considered value-added by the advertiser.
Click-through is more effective tracking of ad effectiveness.
People can walk away or fast-forward (TiVo) through television ads, and they'll still count as "eyeballed". Same for banner ads that the human eye can be trained to completely bypass. Unless someone misses their intended link, a click-through shows an actual impact of the ad.
Much better than surveys asking, "How did you first hear about our business?"
Sure, but my point is that banner ads on a website are no worse than tv ads or magazine ads, why should they draw less revenue? And I'd counter that click-through is only more effective tracking of drawing a person to your web-site. If you're selling something that people are just as likely or more likely to buy off-line, then click-through isn't effective tracking of ad effectiveness at all.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 24, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
I'm hoping that internet advertising catches up to traditional advertising soon. Internet advertising tends to pay on click-throughs while traditional advertising pays on estimated viewings. I know some sites get paid by the page-loaded with the ad, but AFIK most still only get paid by ad clicked.There's no reason for web-sites to be on a different payment scheme since the ads getting "eyeballs" have the same effect as magazine, tv, newspaper, etc... ads getting "eyeballs". Any click-throughs should either generate bonus revenue for the site hosting the ad or be considered value-added by the advertiser.
Click-through is more effective tracking of ad effectiveness.
People can walk away or fast-forward (TiVo) through television ads, and they'll still count as "eyeballed". Same for banner ads that the human eye can be trained to completely bypass. Unless someone misses their intended link, a click-through shows an actual impact of the ad.
Much better than surveys asking, "How did you first hear about our business?"
Sure, but my point is that banner ads on a website are no worse than tv ads or magazine ads, why should they draw less revenue? And I'd counter that click-through is only more effective tracking of drawing a person to your web-site. If you're selling something that people are just as likely or more likely to buy off-line, then click-through isn't effective tracking of ad effectiveness at all.
All relatively true.
But even if you're not buying a car through a website, a car ad that you click through to get info on the car is still measurably more effective than one that people scan past without noticing.
Of course, the Evony ads (do those still exist?) were an extreme example of getting clicks because of curiosity (or other reasons that aren't family friendly), which had NOTHING to do with the product/service advertised. Very false click-through rate. Most people clicking that had zero interest in their game, after all. Online version of bait-and-switch.
TV ads and such do the same thing. A lot of the time, I'll see an ad and have zero idea what they're selling. Not the faintest clue. And no interest in finding out.
And for advertising something other than what's being sold, if beer ads were selling what they're advertising, Coors would be a national chain of brothels, not a drink.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 2:01 pm
GSquared (2/24/2011)
... And for advertising something other than what's being sold, if beer ads were selling what they're advertising, Coors would be a national chain of brothels, not a drink.
And Budwiser would be a horse farm. 🙂
Hey guys, check out our girls!!!!!!!! (Oh, yeah, we have some tasty beer, too...)
GoDaddy is about as bad about this, but they do it pretty tongue in cheek. I think the only beer company that doesn't really do that is Sam Adams... in which case the keep showing the owner talking about the beer... and a couple of other men. I drink Heinicken/Stella, and when it's cheap domestics only, I usually will drink Coors Light.
Guess it works on some level, 'eh?
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
February 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
I'm hoping that internet advertising catches up to traditional advertising soon. Internet advertising tends to pay on click-throughs while traditional advertising pays on estimated viewings. I know some sites get paid by the page-loaded with the ad, but AFIK most still only get paid by ad clicked.There's no reason for web-sites to be on a different payment scheme since the ads getting "eyeballs" have the same effect as magazine, tv, newspaper, etc... ads getting "eyeballs". Any click-throughs should either generate bonus revenue for the site hosting the ad or be considered value-added by the advertiser.
Click-through is more effective tracking of ad effectiveness.
People can walk away or fast-forward (TiVo) through television ads, and they'll still count as "eyeballed". Same for banner ads that the human eye can be trained to completely bypass. Unless someone misses their intended link, a click-through shows an actual impact of the ad.
Much better than surveys asking, "How did you first hear about our business?"
Sure, but my point is that banner ads on a website are no worse than tv ads or magazine ads, why should they draw less revenue? And I'd counter that click-through is only more effective tracking of drawing a person to your web-site. If you're selling something that people are just as likely or more likely to buy off-line, then click-through isn't effective tracking of ad effectiveness at all.
All relatively true.
But even if you're not buying a car through a website, a car ad that you click through to get info on the car is still measurably more effective than one that people scan past without noticing.
Of course, the Evony ads (do those still exist?) were an extreme example of getting clicks because of curiosity (or other reasons that aren't family friendly), which had NOTHING to do with the product/service advertised. Very false click-through rate. Most people clicking that had zero interest in their game, after all. Online version of bait-and-switch.
TV ads and such do the same thing. A lot of the time, I'll see an ad and have zero idea what they're selling. Not the faintest clue. And no interest in finding out.
And for advertising something other than what's being sold, if beer ads were selling what they're advertising, Coors would be a national chain of brothels, not a drink.
Yeah, most beer ads annoy the hell out of me, not only are they primarily selling sex, everyone in them is stupid and an alcoholic.
car ad that you click through to get info on the car is still measurably more effective than one that people scan past without noticing.
Quite possibly true, but if that is the case, why aren't advertisers paying more for such ads than they are for tv/magazine/newspaper ads that people can ignore or skip? I'm just saying internet ads should be paid for by the page load, not the click through because they're just as effective as more traditional ads even before the click-through and are arguably more accurately measured because you know exactly how many people have loaded the page your ad is on, while you don't know how many people are getting a sandwich during your commercial, have skipped the half of the magazine or section of the newspaper your ad is in.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 24, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
car ad that you click through to get info on the car is still measurably more effective than one that people scan past without noticing.
Quite possibly true, but if that is the case, why aren't advertisers paying more for such ads than they are for tv/magazine/newspaper ads that people can ignore or skip? I'm just saying internet ads should be paid for by the page load, not the click through because they're just as effective as more traditional ads even before the click-through and are arguably more accurately measured because you know exactly how many people have loaded the page your ad is on, while you don't know how many people are getting a sandwich during your commercial, have skipped the half of the magazine or section of the newspaper your ad is in.
You have a point, and some companies probably want it that way.
Google really sets the rules for online advertising, since anyone selling it is competing with them. They decided to do it their way, and it would appear to be working out okay for them. Everyone else really has to follow suit, or come up with something that can blow Google out of the water. There really isn't a viable "in between" on that.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm
GSquared (2/24/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/24/2011)
car ad that you click through to get info on the car is still measurably more effective than one that people scan past without noticing.
Quite possibly true, but if that is the case, why aren't advertisers paying more for such ads than they are for tv/magazine/newspaper ads that people can ignore or skip? I'm just saying internet ads should be paid for by the page load, not the click through because they're just as effective as more traditional ads even before the click-through and are arguably more accurately measured because you know exactly how many people have loaded the page your ad is on, while you don't know how many people are getting a sandwich during your commercial, have skipped the half of the magazine or section of the newspaper your ad is in.
You have a point, and some companies probably want it that way.
Google really sets the rules for online advertising, since anyone selling it is competing with them. They decided to do it their way, and it would appear to be working out okay for them. Everyone else really has to follow suit, or come up with something that can blow Google out of the water. There really isn't a viable "in between" on that.
They are the 1,000 lb gorilla. I don't know that you necessarily have to compete with them though. Google just gets you to a destination, if you want targeted ads when you get to your destination you have someone else to deal with. I'd think a different pricing scheme could work pretty well and I know there are some sites out there charging per unique user page load instead of click-through. Just like cable channels don't price exactly the same way broadcast channels do or how ads in newspapers are priced differently from want ads.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 24, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Ian Scarlett (2/24/2011)
SQLkiwi (2/24/2011)
I hadn't realized until just now that 'Ten Centuries' was your age, not points rank :w00t:I'm indestructable.
Hold on, you're probably too young to have seen Captain Scarlet, so you won't have a clue what I'm on about. 😀
That one was on the radio right after The Shadow, right? Bing Crosby did voice-over? :hehe::-P
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
Viewing 15 posts - 24,301 through 24,315 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply