Ads on the Internet

Oh, yeah, we've got to write that. I've been interested in the watts and amps for some time. I'm almost done with a pile of summer work, and then Chuck and I can write that puppy. I suspect no one has written an inside-the-data-center view of this in any depth -- I can't find one.

chuck goolsbee wrote:

>> Is this more "stuff" useful to society? Well that's as much a
>> philosophical debate as a logical one. :)
>>
>> David Ross
>
> We have clients running stuff ranging all over the map of Internet
> possibility: ecommerce systems, VOIP, medical imaging, online games,
> airline reservations, software distribution, logistics for cargo
> shipping, live broadcasts, real-time and predictive traffic data,
> patient check-in, to just plain old websites.
>
> Some of that has got to be useful to somebody, right?
>
> But I'm not here to debate those values, merely to cash in on the
> process. ;)

Ah, ha. An example I can talk about. My wife has worked for a major airline in one of their reservations call centers for about 20 years. My how times have changed. :)

20 years ago people wanting to fly could call up or visit the airline or a travel agent. That was about it. And the reservation systems were not as bandwidth intensive by any of today's standards. They made (and still do if you drop into the CLI) a UNIX CLI look down right verbose.

Now folks can check flights, book tickets, check flight status, bid for cheap seats, track a flight across the US, etc... all from home. (One thing they seem to excel at is screwing up but that's another story.) This is "stuff" that folks like Chuck provide via their power usage that didn't exist 20 years ago. So there is less head count at the reservations center, less driving to airline offices and travel agents, fewer phone calls (but not nearly the reduction the execs had hoped for), etc...

So in the grand scheme of things I'm thinking Chuck's current day kilowatts are replacing many more old kilowatts elsewhere but a total end to end calculation would be hard to do. But in general I think Chuck is reducing the world's power needs. :)

David Ross

On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Glenn Fleishman wrote:

> Oh, yeah, we've got to write that. I've been interested in the
> watts and amps for some time. I'm almost done with a pile of summer
> work, and then Chuck and I can write that puppy. I suspect no one
> has written an inside-the-data-center view of this in any depth --
> I can't find one.

I'll bet there are some "inside" papers about it in various places
(Google, Yahoo!, IBM, Intel, AMD, Digital Forest... (Pirate Bay?)).

   --John

>I suspect no one has written an inside-the-data-center view of this
>in any depth -- I can't find one.

Not from the outside of the business looking in, at least not with
much accuracy. Within this miniature industry though, there has been
reams of electrons wasted on it. ;)

It usually goes under the guise (misnomer if you ask me) of "Green
Datacenter" blather, but look a little and you'll find it Glenn.

--chuck

On Sep 20, 2007, at 12:08 PM, David Ross wrote:

> This is "stuff" that folks like Chuck provide via their power usage
> that didn't exist 20 years ago. So there is less head count at the
> reservations center, less driving to airline offices and travel
> agents, fewer phone calls (but not nearly the reduction the execs
> had hoped for), etc...

And don't forget the annoying "reconfirmation" ritual (with tickets
already in hand). (Which probably in fact reduced customer double-
booking and airline overbooking, and bumping of "confirmed"
reservation holders, by dumping the not-reconfirmed reservations in
time to resell the seats.)

   --John

johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2007, at 12:08 PM, David Ross wrote:
>
>> This is "stuff" that folks like Chuck provide via their power usage
>> that didn't exist 20 years ago. So there is less head count at the
>> reservations center, less driving to airline offices and travel
>> agents, fewer phone calls (but not nearly the reduction the execs
>> had hoped for), etc...
>
> And don't forget the annoying "reconfirmation" ritual (with tickets
> already in hand). (Which probably in fact reduced customer double-
> booking and airline overbooking, and bumping of "confirmed"
> reservation holders, by dumping the not-reconfirmed reservations in
> time to resell the seats.)

[I'm going to let this through, but let's not let this thread continue on a tangent to a tangent. -Joe]

Just a data point. The airlines would love to never bump anyone. But then they'd have to sell you a SEAT on a FLIGHT, not a ticket for air transportation from "here" to "there". As long as folks want to no-show flights w/o losing ALL their money., overbooking will exist.

As someone who's seen this from the "other" side, the public is getting what they want. They love the plus side. They just don't want to own up to the minus side of the deal.

Most flights out of major cities are oversold. Most by 5% to 20%. Some much more. But it's very rarely in the total passenger count that someone gets bumped. They work real hard to avoid it. That story on Oprah isn't worth it. All the majors have very detailed stats on which flights on which days of the week at which times between which cities will be no showed by what kinds of tickets. And they do their best to sell just under the number of seats that will cause a bump. There is a group at each airline that monitors flights and seats sold day to day for a year out to make this work.

Now one thing I've heard is "I see folks all the time that don't get on a flight." That's us, the families of employees. We fly for almost nothing on the plus side but have to line up at the end of the line until a seat is available. I've spend 8 hours in an airport trying to get somewhere before giving up and heading home. My wife has been pulled off flights to allow someone with a "real" ticket to get on. Virtually all of those bumps you see are for non-revenue travel, not paying passengers. And yes I know there are exceptions. Especially during OSO (off schedule operations) times.

David

Speaking of ads on the Internet (we were, once, I think), it's not
entirely true that ads are necessary in order to have content. There
still are other models

See <http://historylink.org/> (whose founder, Walt Crowley just died,
taking me back to the site). The only ads I see are the small one at
the top left of the top page, for their own bookstore, and some logos
with names on the "Sponsors" page.

See <http://stanford.edu>

See <http://mit.edu> (OK, I suppose the middle of the top page at the
moment can be called an ad (for a free lecture about a new not-free
book.) (For why "Smoot's Ear" could be part of the title of a book
about measurement, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Smoot>.)

For that matter, see Wikipedia.

However, a lot of content would indeed go away without ads.

   --John

On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:19 PM, John W Baxter wrote:

> However, a lot of content would indeed go away without ads.

I use an ad filter (and don't start telling me that's unethical),
because ads are so invasive that I can't read articles on, say, the
New York Times because of them. It's one thing where there are just
banners and skyscrapers, but now with all those jiggling Flash ads,
it's impossible.

One model that's interesting is Salon - you watch one ad, then you
get free access to their content.

Personally, I'd rather there be a micro-payment model. I hate ads.
Anywhere.


Kirk

On 09/23/2007 15:09 PM, "Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmcelhearn.com> wrote:

> Personally, I'd rather there be a micro-payment model. I hate ads.
> Anywhere.

If you don't like the content with the ads or you get mislead, right now,
you lose no money. You say "that sucked" and don't go back. What happens
when you lose actual money?

--
John C. Welch

> One model that's interesting is Salon - you watch one ad, then you
> get free access to their content.
>
> Personally, I'd rather there be a micro-payment model. I hate ads.
> Anywhere.

One way to reduce ad exposure (and make an article easier to read) is
to see if the there is a link or button on the page to go to a print-
formatted version of the page. If so and the article spans multiple
web pages, it is usually preferable to avail yourself of the print
option, even if the article never reaches paper.

Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
aforkoshmac.com

On Sep 24, 2007, at 8:35 AM, John C. Welch wrote:

>> Personally, I'd rather there be a micro-payment model. I hate ads.
>> Anywhere.
>
> If you don't like the content with the ads or you get mislead,
> right now,
> you lose no money. You say "that sucked" and don't go back. What
> happens
> when you lose actual money?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. How will I lose "actual
money"?

Kirk

On Sep 25, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Alan Forkosh wrote:

> One way to reduce ad exposure (and make an article easier to read) is
> to see if the there is a link or button on the page to go to a print-
> formatted version of the page. If so and the article spans multiple
> web pages, it is usually preferable to avail yourself of the print
> option, even if the article never reaches paper.

Yes, that's what I generally do on the NYT, at least for articles
that are more than one page.


Kirk

On 09/25/2007 03:35 AM, "Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmcelhearn.com> wrote:

>>> Personally, I'd rather there be a micro-payment model. I hate ads.
>>> Anywhere.
>>
>> If you don't like the content with the ads or you get mislead,
>> right now,
>> you lose no money. You say "that sucked" and don't go back. What
>> happens when you lose actual money?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. How will I lose "actual
> money"?

Well, under a micro-payment model, you pay to see the content. That would
mean you pay *before* you see the content, whether it is worth it or not.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

At 1:35 AM -0700 9/25/07, Alan Forkosh wrote:
>One way to reduce ad exposure (and make an article easier to read) is
>to see if the there is a link or button on the page to go to a print-
>formatted version of the page. If so and the article spans multiple
>web pages, it is usually preferable to avail yourself of the print
>option, even if the article never reaches paper.

I have found some sites that when you click on print option, they que
up article without ads to printer rather than display on screen. They
allow a cancel before it prints--at least so far.

--Jim

--On 9/25/2007 6:47 AM -0700 John C. Welch wrote:

> Well, under a micro-payment model, you pay to see the content. That would
> mean you pay *before* you see the content, whether it is worth it or not.

And how is that different from the way we pay for any other
non-ad-supported content in this world? Movies, books, magazines, CDs--you
pay before you consume the content, and you don't get a refund for deciding
that it's not worth it.

The idea behind a micro-payment model is to make the cost so low that the
regret when you don't like content is negligible.

Dave

On 9/25/2007 at 6:47 AM -0700, Jim Carr jimcarr-at-mac.com
|TidBITS/1.0-Allow| wrote:

>At 1:35 AM -0700 9/25/07, Alan Forkosh wrote:
>>One way to reduce ad exposure (and make an article easier to read) is
>>to see if the there is a link or button on the page to go to a print-
>>formatted version of the page. If so and the article spans multiple
>>web pages, it is usually preferable to avail yourself of the print
>>option, even if the article never reaches paper.
>
>I have found some sites that when you click on print option, they que
>up article without ads to printer rather than display on screen. They
>allow a cancel before it prints--at least so far.

When available, I use the "Print" or "Printer friendly" option almost
exclusively when reading articles on the web for a couple of reasons.
First, since there is more content on web pages these days, often the
text of an article gets squeezed in the middle and in many cases is
fairly small. Increasing the font size often results in just a few
words on each line for the article text. Second, reading a lot of text
on a white background is hard on my aging eyes. Firefox allows me to
assign a style sheet so I am able to read in a larger font with longer
lines and a light gray background, much easier when I read page after
page. And when I save an article, I can just save as html without the
need for any graphics or anything else.

Ed H.

On 09/25/2007 09:34 AM, "Dave Scocca" <davescocca.org> wrote:

>> Well, under a micro-payment model, you pay to see the content. That would
>> mean you pay *before* you see the content, whether it is worth it or not.
>
> And how is that different from the way we pay for any other
> non-ad-supported content in this world? Movies, books, magazines, CDs--you
> pay before you consume the content, and you don't get a refund for deciding
> that it's not worth it.

Actually, I DO get to preview magazines and books before I buy them. It's
one of the reasons why I like things like brick and mortar book stores /
Libraries better than Amazon. Amazon is for books I already know I like or
presents. When it comes to new books, it's in person all the way.

Same thing with movies...those "preview" things are so important to my
see/don't see decision.

That's why most sites that charge for content give you some of it for free.
The same would have to be true for a micropayment system.

> The idea behind a micro-payment model is to make the cost so low that the
> regret when you don't like content is negligible.

Or it devalues the content. If it only costs me a nickel, why bother? It'll
show up somewhere else for free within days. The echo chamber of the
"blogosphere" *guarantees* this. If you think that charging even a few
pennies for content is going to keep it from being available for free six
minutes after you put it up, then you need to pay more attention to the
current state of the intartubes.

--
John C. Welch

On 25-Sep-2007, at 07:47, Jim Carr wrote:
> I have found some sites that when you click on print option, they que
> up article without ads to printer rather than display on screen.

"Preview"

:)

On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Jim Carr wrote:
>
> I have found some sites that when you click on print option, they que
> up article without ads to printer rather than display on screen. They
> allow a cancel before it prints--at least so far.

If you are forced to print, you still don't need to go to ink and
paper. You can click the Preview button to open the print image in
Preview (and then, perhaps save the file), or if you know you want to
save it for future reading, save directly via the PDF button.


Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
aforkoshmac.com

If you subscribe to magazines, or go to the movies, or subscribe to Cable or Satellite TV, you pay before consuming the content and *still* get the ads! That's true of the Internet itself, come to think of it, assuming you pay an ISP. The micropayment model only has appeal if it eliminates the advertising. I'm not at all interested in paying more money for no added value. I mean, I find it really obnoxious to have movie theaters to both raise ticket prices and start running all those irritating advertisements. The risk of micropayments is sites which decide, "Hey, we're making money off these micropayments, but we could make even more with micropayments *and* selling ads!"

--Steve--