[Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

[Anthony]

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> It can save a step.  Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better
>> screened than Google's ads.
>
> Going to Wikipedia seems to be adding a step, not removing one.

In some cases.  Not all though.

Another huge advantage would be that the ads would sometimes be much
better targeted, as there would be clarification and disambiguation
which doesn't occur in a typical Google search.

> We can't do any significant screening of ads. We can remove obvious scams
> and really annoying ads, but anything more than that wouldn't be
> neutral.

How is it "neutral" to remove obvious scams?

>> I can't think of any site that has opt-in advertising, so no.
>
> And why do you think that is?

I don't know.  I guess mostly because opt-in advertising is pretty
much guaranteed to make less money than non-opt-in advertising.

Although, who knows, maybe it's just because no one major has ever tried it.

> Sure, I'm speculating, but the fact that
> neither of us knows of any site that is actually doing it suggests my
> speculation is accurate.

No, sorry, it doesn't.  What it suggests is that opt-in advertising is
pretty much guaranteed to make less money than non-opt-in advertising.
 That wasn't the disagreement.