Google (finally) releases antidote to Google ad webpage drag Google has rolled out a new AdSense script that will load the company's ubiquitous contextual ads significantly faster than in the past. Last year, at a conference in Silicon Valley, the company acknowledged that AdSense text ads can account for as much as 12 per cent of a webpage's load time. And we thought to ourselves: " …
At risk of stating the obvious, how exactly do you expect them to stay in business without "their bandwidth wasting ad cack"? In case you haven't been "paying attention" the entire time, adverts are their main revenue stream. Perhaps you'd like to pay a monthly subscription to Google in order to use their search engine? Or maybe PAYG searches are more your thing?
I wonder if they're down voting because they disagree with my point (kindly explain your reasoning) or because they just don't like ads (and are therefore idiots because they are down-voting for entirely the wrong reason)?
For the record, I don't like ads (what consumer does?) but I know why they're there and I tolerate and generally ignore them because they enable "free" (as in beer) goods and services. You're reading this comment on just such a "free" service.
Is this reasoning actually beyond the comprehension of some people?
How about a nice easy example?
Without them, we'd all be paying for our email accounts (either by paying for a hosted service or by running our own servers) or we would be stuck with whatever our current ISP happens to provide us, with no option to carry the address over to the next provider.
You can bet this gets reported with a slightly breathless, masturbatory excitement in the reality distortion envelope that surrounds various marketing publications as a huge leap forward that users have been positively begging the industry for since the stone age.
The industry's vanity press never ceases to amaze with its endless self deceit, trying to convince anyone that will listen that not only do users enjoy ads, but they actually sit around getting their rocks off on the latest ad-tech and discussing the brilliance of campaigns rather than say picking their nose or something equally useful.
For an industry that supposedly lives and dies on knowing what we all think before we even think it, they are truly remarkable in their inability to see how the rest of humanity really perceives their tacky, irritating and energy wasting little business.
is it?
It is quite amazing how quickly one becomes unaware of, and forgets the advantages of domain blocking, ad blocking, cookie control and and script filtering.
Of course there is a downside to all this ad blocking, product X from company Y remains a mystery unless I actually look for it. This usually leads to social exclusion from those lofty intellectual conversations concerning consumerism and which pointless faddy doodad one should buy next.
by setting a more advantageous tariff on the new version - maybe temporarily. Just a thought.
I've just commented that I mostly browse with Opera, with JavaScript and Flash and even images disabled for most of the web pages I visit, and occasionally I remember that this means I'm using advert-sponsored web sites without making a contribution (except for Google text ads), and feel a little guilty. But then it's entirely possible for a site to be disabled for users who don't receive ads - although it'll look a bit rmean. But after all, we non-ad-readers are freeloading, is that fair? Then again, can we consider the no-images web site to be the free edition, and the full experience the premium upgrade?
But then again again, I don't think that most online ads make an impression on me. This is bad news for advert-sponsored operations. I know the 1970s are a long time ago but I think I'd look at adverts more if there were pretty women in them more often. And the Far East is a long way away, but quite recently, maybe still, there were adverts in magazines like Personal Computer World where a USB hub or a network card was being held in the graceful hand of a slender East Asian lass in a leotard. Obvious drawbacks are the jolt of unexpected objectification of a human being in a technical publication, the jolt of static electricity liable to interfere with the delicate electronic workings of the product, if only from the nylon, and probably making the thing look larger than it is by having a petite person show it to us, which isn't a virtue in most electronics. But, honestly, they'd probably get me to look.
I'm not sure who this picture is, today I'm going to assume that it represents a dirty old man.
You'll soon be joining the great unclued masses in bad performance when Google gets their way with SPDY, where it's the server who decides what to push down the pipe..
Didn't they say the new Chrome already uses this magical new protocol (secretly) 9 times out of 10?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
