|
ROLE:
Poster/Sharer of additional news source
Idea generator
Poster
did not give the link to slash dot, but I believe this is the mention of ads
on google. The second poster
on the site explained the ad system very briefly in the thread.
|
I
looked at an “article” self published on
I saw this on /. I
think, and while I thought it was a clever idea, it violates the purpose of
Ad Words.
I find her worry about this being a free speech issue to be pretty tenuous,
as well. Freedom of speech is not the right to have private companies promote
your message. Google is perfectly justified to deny her service. They
probably would have been more lenient if she had just offered some sort of
product for sale, like a t-shirt with relevant words on it through CafePress,
or something. It would have made the experiment last a little longer, at
least.
posted
by insomnyuk
at 10:45 PM PST on
April 17
|
|
ROLE: Idea
generator
Quoter
|
[I]magine the day
when a search engine will rule the whole textual content of the web, in which
the memory of mankind will be stored.
Seems like Google shares the author's concept, oddly enough. Google seems
mainly interested in preserving the associative link between the ads and the
keywords with which they're associated. As a "brain," it's simply
trying to filter out nonsensical associations. This makes it function better.
Put it another way: here's the author's idea of cool:
I like imagining that somebody looking for something is suddenly projected
into a completely different area. You look for "virgin Mary" and
you end up on a site about symptoms and net art!
If your brain did this all the time, you would punish it.
posted
by coelecanth
at 11:04 PM PST on
April 17
|
|
ROLE:
Flame
thrower
|
Did you even read the
page? It has nothing to do with " Getting more hits on his site".
Not AT ALL. I mean, not even close.
posted
by benh57
at 11:13 PM PST on
April 17
|
|
ROLE: Facilitor
Idea
generator
|
Yeah, I think you're
missing out on some fun, Kafei. ;)
Hmm. I also think brains actually work like that all the time, coelecanth.
"July - sweat - cigarette - oral sex - [forced superego interruption] -
weird words - effluvia - Portland" is a pretty logical chain in my
brain's associative process.
That is why Jacques Lacan's advice to a young psychoanalyst was "Do
crossword puzzles." Words bubble from our mouths in shortened self-made
code as a signal of a desire or a memory.
Christophe expresses disappointment that an interesting opportunity for play
is being subjugated to the rigid order of commerce. Don't get me wrong: I
want order from links returned by my search engines, too. But it seems like
such a dull structure to insist on this coherence in advertising.
(Particularly if every time I search google for, in yesterday's instance, a
place to purchase polyvinyl soundproof curtains in New York City, I get an
adword for Broadway theatre tickets? Tiresome.)
It's nice to have anarchy intrude. I depend on the internet for some
disruption, some surprise. If I didn't get that surprise sometimes, I'd
probably stop browsing. Particularly with the advent of text ads like MeFi's,
internet advertising has already become abstracted poetry, with a nearly
unguessable click-through destination.
posted
by RJ
Reynolds at 11:29
PM PST on April 17
|
|
ROLE: Facilitator
Idea
generator
Quoter
|
benh57 - sure it was.
whether or not the author stated it explicitly, the ads were taken out with
the intent of driving traffic to their website.
from the site:
My first satisfaction occured when somebody who had typed "hemorroid
symptom" on Google arrived on my website, after having clicked on my ad.
sounds like someone's satisfied to have drawn traffic to their site, doesn't
it?
anyway, it's sad to see someone take a clever idea, run with it, and then
throw a tantrum when google doesn't play along. google doesn't have any
obligation, legal or ethical, to allow someone to damage the functionality of
their service.
posted
by chrisege
at 11:38 PM PST on
April 17
|
|
ROLE: Contrarian
Quoter
|
RJ Reynolds:
It's nice to have anarchy intrude.
It may be nice to have anarchy intrude, but google wouldn't be so great if
anarchy ruled. this isn't a case of the rigid rules of commerce, it's a case
of the rigid rules of order required to keep an effective index of the entire
world wide web.
compare this to graffiti artists or "culture jammers" cleverly
defacing billboards. both are widely regarded as valid artforms. but neither the
graffiti artists nor the billboard defacers expect their art to be permanent.
they also don't cry "censorship" when the owner of the property
paints over whatever they've done.
part of the beauty of fucking with the system is knowing that whatever you've
done can't possibly last, and waiting and watching to see how long it is
before somebody notices and takes it down.
crying censorship does absolutely no good, and in this case it may have
stopped a potentially very interesting artform dead in its tracks.
posted
by chrisege
at 11:50 PM PST on
April 17
|
|
ROLE: Humorist/Summary
|
*busts out paypal
account, launches stealthy e-commerce anti-campaign, shakes idealistic and
silly fist at uncaring heavens...*
posted
by RJ
Reynolds at 12:05
AM PST on April 18
|
|
ROLE: Idea generator
|
This is symtomatic of
all that is wrong with contemporary art. What's fun about 'play' (though I
hate this kind of academic buzzword) is that it is random. I want to randomly
make associations between 'Einstein' and 'Wisconsin butter'. I don't want
some post-art-school grad directing my freedom of association. If you want to
be a good artist, make something, a poem, a word, a painting, a carving,
whatever, and put it out there and let me do the 'play'. This is the same
argument I use against 'pre-sexualizing' everything by the media and
advertisers. It takes the fun out of polymorphous perversion. We are all
sentient beings. We can all make associations that are far more abstract and
compelling than any 'intervention' artist ever could.
And Google is not, as pointed out, necessarily a medium for free speech. If
you impede my ability to get the correct ad when I type in 'suntan lotion' or
'deep vein thrombosis', you should be forced to sit in a 5 hour seminar on
British imperial history and its effect on feudal stonecutting guilds, rather
than your usual cushy little "Lacan, the Frankfurt school, and the new
millenium: critical issues in art practice" wank session.
Why, yes, I'm in a bad mood. Grr.
posted
by evanizer
at 12:30 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Facilitator
Quoter
|
I like that term
'pre-sexualizing'. I've never quite thought of advertising, though wholly
sexual, in that term before.
It's interesting also evanizer, that you pull out of your magic hat, the
abstract 'Wisconsin butter'. I happen to be affiliated with its production.
posted
by crasspastor
at 1:21 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Contrarian
|
evaniser: That's
downright conservative of you. Let me know when I should stop donating to
PBS.
I can see the danger of one company controling the processes of information
and cross-referencing, but since this is Google, and not the Library of
Congress, I don't see much of a problem with it. Besides, Google makes the
distinctions of their "AdWords" and the actual results of
the search very clear. This is why "Googlewhacking" is a more
rational "art" exercise than the AdWords — it tips the scales of
referencing towards a particular term through word-of-mouth and meme-based
support, rather than just paying for an artificial boost by buying an AdWord.
I noticed there was no conclusion reached. Why should there be? The Internet
changes by the nanosecond, and the definition of any one term can change
instantly.
posted
by Down10
at 2:39 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Humorist/Summarist
|
Communism is more
expensive per click than capitalism. Proof, if proof were needed, that the
right people won the Cold War.
posted
by vbfg
at 4:59 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Idea Generator
Quoter
|
it's sad to see
someone take a clever idea, run with it, and then throw a tantrum when google
doesn't play along.
Where are you seeing a tantrum? It seems to me that the guy is taking the
death of his new art form pretty well.
posted
by rcade
at 5:37 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE:
Poster/Sharer of news
Idea
generator
|
this reminds me of poems on the underground -
using advertising space for something non commercial.
i think the poet's problem here was that they used the adwords select
system rather than the original adwords program.
the select version only charges for clickthroughs and does suspend ads when
their clickthrough rate is too low, you aren't paying google anything so they
ask you to make your ad more relevant if you want them to continue showing
it. the poet here wasn't "censored" as he says, i've had the exact
same emails for low success rate campaigns.
if the poet had used the original system he would have been paying each time
the ad was displayed which would be a closer analogy to the poems on the
underground system (apart from potu have the agreement of the advertising
space owner i guess), i don't know if google pull those ads for low success
rates too though but i doubt that they do it so soon.
posted
by kirsty
at 6:26 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Summarist
|
I was very surprised to
see that someone had purchased a Google adword on B1FF.
Man, talk about narrowcasting.
posted
by NortonDC
at 6:36 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE:
Poster/Sharer of news
Idea
generator
Quoter
|
I was with him right up
until he started busting out the CritSpeaktm:
From a more general point of view, it seems to me that we are faced with
the emergence of a new era in which censorship totally unveils its economic
side, as was first noticed by Karl Marx about history and by Sigmund Freud
about the unconscious.
Has anybody written a Random Conceptual Art Generator yet?
posted
by ook
at 6:56 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Flamer? Or
Contrarian
|
Hey, get
employed writing better Google text ads, as a Creative Maximizer.
posted
by Mo Nickels
at 7:09 AM PST on
April 18
|
|
ROLE: Quoter
Idea Generator
|
And Google is not, as
pointed out, necessarily a medium for free speech.
There are no grounds for free speech complaints here whatsoever -- commercial
speech is not protected under the First Amendment. Bruno's Adword Art (may
or) may not have been commercially driven, but they were paid placements, putting
them in the realm of commerce and out of the realm of free speech.
I thought the idea was pretty cool, but he'd have much better luck (as would
anyone else interested in the concept) buying text ads on MeFi, K5, etc.,
where the art would have a more receptive audience, even if the original
connection to specific search terms was lost.
posted
by me3dia
at 9:11 AM PST on
April 18
|