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

Sun Nov 7 15:50:56 UTC 2010

>> On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident
>>>>
>>>> That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility
>>>> between Google's policies and the site. If we fell victim to the same
>>>> policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with
>>>> (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their
>>>> adverts on our sites and would relax their policies).
>>>
>>> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in
>>> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules).
>>> I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though.
>>
>> I'm not convinced opt-in ads would get any significant revenue. Very
>> few people would opt-in and those that do would probably be people
>> that are just doing it to get us money and aren't going to click on
>> the ads, so we wouldn't actually get any money.
>
> No, no, no. We sell ads on a page marked "advertisements" at the top of
> each article. The ads are tailored to the article and the advertiser bids
> for the space and pays weekly, monthly, or annually and pays up front. No
> clicking through to it.
>
> Fred

We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has
to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating
products, you will.

Fred