Sometime before the end of the work week, this question came from a to-be-unnamed fellow journalist with a competing magazine:
“Do you think Google Ads will contribute to more spam.”
Embedded ads do not fall under the definition of spam. Even so, how does seeing Google Ads (or any other type of embedded ad in a webpage for that matter) add to spam in your mailbox? It’s an advertisement. So long as you don’t click on it to sign up for any gay porn mailing lists, you WON’T get any.
This is the same journalist, who when present at the launching ceremony for a line of notebook computers, asked the company’s managers and bosses, “So what do you do with the older models currently being sold?”
Its amazing how someone can be totally clueless, yet write for a readership of thousands.
Yes, its amazing what questions I can come up with when I hv too much free time on your hands.
I actually encountered the very same situation you did. I was totally amazed at how all that journos was able to do is make wisecracks at other people without contributing anything constructive – just for the sake of appearing eloquent and smart?
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 21, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
But the question i asked was actually do you think Google Ads would cause spam to die out because they are in a way, competing?
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 21, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
the only reason i disagreed with you is because you’re intentionally redefining the term ’spam’ to suit your own purposes and needs. Either way, you could as well replace Google Ads with any other type of advertising; banners, links, intellitext – how then does advertising compete with spam? you don’t see ads for instant inches for the penis on Google Ads do you? besides, spam isn’t ALL about porn, viagra, drugs or illegal software.
Comment by ebolasaurus — March 21, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
Ahem.
Simple question. How does one appear eloquent without saying anything? Your powers of relation is non-existent, apparently. If you cannot come up with a stronger case or a sentence which actually sounds like you gave a crap in trying to hold your stance, then I might actually care to ask just what magazine it is you write for.
Then again, forget that, I probably don’t want to. The ability to speak does not make one intelligent. Just think about that.
Comment by Kim Jong IL — March 21, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
well…. sorry i assumed u knew what i meant by spam. the others i asked did…it was a random survey q i asked peeps… using the layman-est terms ever as i usually do with friends. I guess when dealing with a techie such as yourself, I shouldave been more considerate about the terms i used so as to not offend your more “delicate” sense of understanding. My utmost apologies.
I likened it to spam for the simple reason that embedded ads like spam is unwanted junk. Does it have to appear in the inbox to be inconsiderate, unwanted and a nuisance? Nope.
Thank you for taking time to respond
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 21, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
Kim: If i didnt know any better i would say you are someone that i already know.
Same tone, same condescension, same assumption that you know someone or the stance that they are trying to hold.
This posting’s esteemed author know of the event i spoke of and what happened there.
If you wish to know more, refer to him
Have a nice day:)
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 21, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
Sorry Cat, if I sounded a little harsh, but thats the thing. Words can be easily misinterpreted. Anyhow, it’s cool. Bringing up an argument and having a discussion can be a good thing.
Regardless, you do have a point, but only if you expand the definition of spam to include ads embedded in webpages. Besides, embedded ads, like Google Ads, can be disabled totally. Spam on the other hand, for now, can only be filtered and sometimes blocked, but not all the time.
Comment by ebolasaurus — March 22, 2006 @ 1:18 am
There is some debate about the source of the term, but the generally accepted version is that it comes from the Monty Python song, “Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam…” Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California who gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunchmeat Spam:
Nobody wants it or ever asks for it.
No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree.
Sometimes it is actually tasty, like 1% of junk mail that is really useful to some people.
*excerpts from http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/spam.html
adsense in google is somewhat like spam that in tracking a users surfing habits or by checking content of emails opened in GMail throws out banner ads most relevant to the content or tracking habits. Adsense in a way IS banner ads but smarter.
So if u think about it, it does have certain similar characteristics as dat of spam…
Not wanted.
No want ever gives it a second thought.
For those rare moments, it may catch yer eyes but not for long.
and one thing to add….its an invasion of privacy…
But then Google is smart enough to include certain clauses to protect their asses from getting sued so their smart in dat way…
Basically, I think Google is ONE, BIG HUMONGOUS SPAM engine in disguise of a Search engine…. I doubt majority of users even realised that by using Google, they inadvertently sign away their right to privacy….
Comment by Basil — March 22, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Just imagine a world without anymore spam cos Google Ads was so successful. Far-fetched, yes and even I cant imagine HOW it would happen yet as of now. No kopi buzz yet.
But spam (unwanted junk) is not just in email inboxes anymore and are entering into spaces where they create too much clutter and waste space. They may be more relevant to the visitors of the website, but they are junk nonetheless and for me, at least, they make me scan harder for the content that i REALLY REALLY want.
I know a few (with keen biz acumen) who would beg to differ, however
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 22, 2006 @ 10:50 am
Oi what are u doing here??
All u tech geeks!! ANyway, ok thats another way of looking at.. thanks for the info.
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 22, 2006 @ 10:53 am
please, stop redefining spam to suit your purposes. i might as well redefine flash banner ads as spam while i’m at it. or redefine F1 racing as go-cart racing just because i feel like it. or call a dog a cat because i once saw a horse which could meow.
seriously.
i’m all for debate, but when you start twisting conventional knowledge into something that only makes sense when viewed in one angle, that’s when the discussion becomes irellevant and ultimately, stupid. when someone said “challenge the norm”, he or she so did not mean “argue just to cover my ass, even if i’m making no sense”.
oh by the way, getting your brother in to plead your case… thats just sad.
Comment by ebolasaurus — March 22, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Nothing wrong with asking one’s opinion of things. In fact, it just makes the discussion so much more interesting.
By the way, the casing u sold me, luvly.
Comment by Basil — March 22, 2006 @ 11:14 am
no i didnt ask him to plead my case.
he did it on his accord cos he tot it was stupid too.
and you sounded kind of…. well… you know.
WHy did u start to feel stupid too?
I wasnt covering my ass. A debate becomes useless when u arent flexible (but yea there is a limit).
Comment by Catherine Yong — March 22, 2006 @ 11:14 am
[...] A couple of days back, I blogged about a certain somebody (read this if you have no clue to what i’m talking about). Said person made a big thing about it, making it sound like I have this vendetta against her. Someone going by the nickname ‘Kim Jong Il’ anonymously commenteded on the blog, effectively dissing her. She flipped, in the literal sense, going on an apparent office-wide rampage, resulting in major pwnage from the part of the Editor in Chief and assorted bosses (or something to that effect lah). [...]
Pingback by Journalism: The Art of Bending Over » Journalism, and when to learn how to grow up — April 12, 2006 @ 1:06 am