• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Google Contributor - A way to finally have GAF Gold?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure how I feel about that... I don't like ads, but I don't like the idea of paying a private company to browse the internet "in peace" either.
 
Interesting approach but I wonder how this affects the revenue of the site. Like others have said the ads here aren't intrusive and my brain barely registers them unless they are funny in context to the thread they display on.
 
Alx said:
I'm not sure how I feel about that... I don't like ads, but I don't like the idea of paying a private company to browse the internet "in peace" either.
Click to expand...

The money at least partly goes to the web sties you browse.. just like browsing (and clicking) ads does.

If it actually increases the amount of money going to them over ad impressions, then it's a way of paying them extra.. which I think is the goal. It's designed to increase the revenue for the web sites involved.

And since everything about this is easier than hosting an ad network.. it makes sense. Google can provide extra revenue for sites while not cutting into Google's own bottom line.

edit: For the record.. the above is just me being hopeful.. but it's almost guaranteed it's essentially the same revenue as ads, otherwise these sites wouldn't participate.
 
I would also pay a couple of bucks for this - ads don't normally bother me but I get frustrated as hell when you get those banner ads with audio (and you can never find it) or crappy ads that freeze your PC or redirect you.
 
...what is the point of this if the space is still being taken up and interrupting the experience? might as well just scroll through an ad rather than a block that thanks me.
 
Alx said:
I'm not sure how I feel about that... I don't like ads, but I don't like the idea of paying a private company to browse the internet "in peace" either.
Click to expand...

Why is it being a private company relevant? How are you at any more peace than you would be otherwise?
 
jediyoshi said:
Why is it being a private company relevant? How are you at any more peace than you would be otherwise?
Click to expand...

Because the internet is a public space, and not owned by a private institution (even if in that case we're dealing with private websites, I'm well aware of that). I'm not saying I'd be glad to pay a public institution for that either, but them being private makes me even more uneasy.
And yeah the main idea is that people would rather pay money through that system than get through ads that can be annoying. But I never liked that business model of "everything's free, but give me money if you want me to stop bothering you with ads".

If anything, I'd rather pay a full subscription to the website itself if I think they deserve my money. But in that case, why would Google be the middle man ? If they consider themselves as a provider of a paying platform, I don't want it to be "I'm paying Google to access those sites without ads", but "I'm paying those sites to access their content, and they can choose Google to handle their account management or whatever I don't care".

*edit : funnily enough, it's quite reminiscent of the way MS from the Gates era conceived the internet for the mass, trying to "privatize" it and requiring an MSN subscription to access the websites that are part of their program...
 
tarius1210 said:
Are you kidding me? This is a terrible idea.

I'm not paying to use GAF.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not kidding.

I'm also not planning on paying for this (yet); just think it's a cool idea.

If it turns out that web sites make more money from this than ads, I'd consider an account. This isn't as simple as "paying to use GAF."

GAF would have to be participating for this to even apply to GAF, and I see no indication of that.

At this point.. advertisers pay for me to use GAF and every web site on earth. Web sites are a service I enjoy, and I don't see why I wouldn't consider paying for that service. Ads don't bother me enough for this to excite me from a personal perspective of enjoying the web.. but from the perspective of new ways to get revenue for "the web".. I like it.
 
Cømet;139832572 said:
What's wrong with adblock/adblock pro?
Click to expand...

With this you actually support the site you are visiting by giving them money. Adblock is taking away the chance of revenue by blocking any chance of revenue from ads.
 
Lotta you gonna be talking about already having gaf gold and gonna get this thread locked.

ads can sometime be hilarious when they line up with the thread topic.
 
I'm not going to pay to use GAF. I'm okay with ads as long as they aren't intrusive. GAF has some of the least intrusive ones I've seen on the net.

tarius1210 said:
Your post is a bannable offense.

I'm not kidding.
Click to expand...

Only bannable if you state you use that service to block ads on GAF afaik.
 
tarius1210 said:
Are you kidding me? This is a terrible idea.

I'm not paying to use GAF.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much it can cost to host something as simple as a message forum, especially when it's visited by as many people as visit GAF? Why is the idea of paying to support something you enjoy using such a bad one?


Cømet;139832572 said:
What's wrong with adblock/adblock pro?
Click to expand...

Just so you know, if you use adblockers here on GAF, you'll get banned. Ads help bring in money so that the forum can stay alive, and have enough resources to try its best to stay up and usable during the crazy load times of the year.
 
riotous said:
No, I'm not kidding.

I'm also not planning on paying for this (yet); just think it's a cool idea.

If it turns out that web sites make more money from this than ads, I'd consider an account. This isn't as simple as "paying to use GAF."

GAF would have to be participating for this to even apply to GAF, and I see no indication of that.

At this point.. advertisers pay for me to use GAF and every web site on earth. Web sites are a service I enjoy, and I don't see why I wouldn't consider paying for that service. Ads don't bother me enough for this to excite me from a personal perspective of enjoying the web.. but from the perspective of new ways to get revenue for "the web".. I like it.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I look at it.
 
Cømet;139832572 said:
What's wrong with adblock/adblock pro?
Click to expand...

rip

cup-of-water-tremble.gif
 
Alx said:
Because the internet is a public space, and not owned by a private institution (even if in that case we're dealing with private websites, I'm well aware of that). I'm not saying I'd be glad to pay a public institution for that either, but them being private makes me even more uneasy.
And yeah the main idea is that people would rather pay money through that system than get through ads that can be annoying. But I never liked that business model of "everything's free, but give me money if you want me to stop bothering you with ads".

If anything, I'd rather pay a full subscription to the website itself if I think they deserve my money. But in that case, why would Google be the middle man ? If they consider themselves as a provider of a paying platform, I don't want it to be "I'm paying Google to access those sites without ads", but "I'm paying those sites to access their content, and they can choose Google to handle their account management or whatever I don't care".
Click to expand...

That's an odd question dodge. Why is the entirety of the internet relevant? All the parties involved here are already "private". What does that business model have to do with anything? I don't follow the rest of your logic, Google's role in this scheme specifically is the one they already hold in that they just manage ads. There's value in site holders not having to do the business deals themselves. Everything else for the end user is functionally identical, this program isn't some feature addition of what they're currently doing. It's essentially just an aesthetic change.
 
Also, I hardly browse gaf on my laptop, most of the time I am on mobile. Those ads are like little strips on the top and bottom, are they really that big a nuisance if they help keep gaf going?
 
AuthenticM said:
Wouldn't that steal revenue from websites ? Wouldn't Google be getting the money instead of them ?
Click to expand...
No, this isn't like a paid ad block. This is saying, if you don't want ads, but still want to support web sites, just pay a buck or 2, and they'll still get money when you visit their site.
 
shidoshi said:
Do you realize how much it can cost to host something as simple as a message forum, especially when it's visited by as many people as visit GAF? Why is the idea of paying to support something you enjoy using such a bad one?
Click to expand...
If Tyler was asking for donations (like Wikipedia) then you guys would have a point. But he seems to be doing very well and never implied that times were tough for himself or the site.

Plus, the ads on GAF don't bother me.
 
jediyoshi said:
That's an odd question dodge. Why is the entirety of the internet relevant? All the parties involved here are already "private". What does that business model have to do with anything? I don't follow the rest of your logic, Google's role in this scheme specifically is the one they already hold in that they just manage ads. There's value in site holders not having to do the business deals themselves. Everything else for the end user is functionally identical, this program isn't some feature addition of what they're currently doing. It's essentially just an aesthetic change.
Click to expand...

Well I am extrapolating the concept to what it would become if it was successful and generalized (which would happen with the control that Google has on online advertising).
And the business model is relevant because that's what I don't like, and I don't like the idea of Google being a paid "content provider" through that system (just like I didn't like it when it was MS trying to do it in the 90s).
I'm not saying it's "bad" either, just that I don't like it. But it's mainly because it's the internet and it's not how it was meant to work, when you think about it it's quite similar to how TV broadcasting works.
 
GAF Gold already is a thing. I'm personally working on my 7th (out of 10) approvals for GAF platinum.

Feeling blessed 😊
 
I used to use ad block for a lot of sites. But I turned it off for GAF a long time ago, because I love the site, and I've never found the ads to be intrusive. My actual views on ads across all sites have changed in the last couple of years actually. Having run a site before, it puts things into perspective about how things can't always be for free, and it needs to be supported some how. Especially for a site like GAF that has so much heavy traffic.

I would gladly pay GAF for a sub fee (if they had extra content). I would do anything to support it. But yeah, as long as ads aren't intrusive or dangerous, I will now allow them on sites (I don't use Ad block as default anymore, I'm more flexible. And will only add sites to it if I find their ads unacceptable). But the sties that have pop up ads, ads with noise, ads that take up the entire sides of the site, ads that will put an overlay on the actual site...fuck that.
 
Azula said:
I use ad block for a lot of sites. But I turned them off for GAF a long time ago, because I love the site, and I've never found the ads to be intrusive
Click to expand...

So all those other sites aren't useful to you?

Must be why you browse them?

The internet has really de-valued everything.. created a generation of people essentially willing to be "virtual thieves." And converted pretty much all generations to that really.. the younger you are the more entitled you are likely to act, but plenty of middle-age people pirating TV shows and movies and installing Ad Block because it's essentially an accepted practice.

Hell, if anything.. it's unacceptable to even say anything about it. Gotten almost yelled at trying to ask people why they pirate and how they think it affects people, etc.

It's not worth anything, we only spend all of our time on it.

Another irony of it all:

Endlessly demanding everything be free or super cheap.. crying fowl any time anyone tries to implement fees or raise prices.. has made it so the only way to survive is to funnel more and more profits to massive global advertising companies.. All while many of the internet's users claim they are against funding the global corporate culture.
 
This is actually an interesting thread.

Neogaf in the last week has been giving me problems. The ads on the top page keep downloading and refreshing constantly, like every second. I can see in the lower bar of Chrome that it keeps trying to download a new ad from a new location. If I let my browser just sit there, Neogaf will eventually crash Chrome and I have to reload it.

This is killing my machine. I'd pay money to remove ads. Right now trying to troubleshoot why this has been happening to me. We run Websense at work, and I can see the ads show up for a split second and then another one shows up and then goes and another one shows up....

EDIT: HA! http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=139838218#post139838218 my issue is known.
 
Why are people so apprehensive to pay for a private site that you frequent often?

Hosting isn't free. Servers aren't free. A staff isn't free. Neither is maintaining code or back ends of website.

None of these things are free, nor should they be free.

I'd pay for GAF along the lines of a subscription model. The information on GAF is often better than formal game magazine coverage.

I hate this sentient of avoiding to pay for stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Google Chrome is pushing a 4GB AI model to your device without asking
News 
34
837
ntropy replied
Price Increases and Token Limits is coming to Google Gemini
News 
12
411
Dice replied
  • Poll
Which way do you rotate your phone?
20
365
ReBurn replied
Vacation GAF
22
482
Trogdor1123 replied
Is this true? We finally found it?!?
20
531
Ikutachi replied
Top Bottom