Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Let's suppose you didn't deliberately bias the question. I think Gruber is right. Arguing that if you slanted the question you could slant the result is beside the point.

Second, if Google can't do a good job of showing me relevant ads in gmail -- and it can't -- I don't think its cookies will help it. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

Three, there's also no evidence that making ads better targeted has been good for the ad industry (whose overall revenues have if anything fallen) or ad quality (when's the last time you saw a great online ad? I've seen plenty of great print and tv ads).




What do you mean "no evidence that making ads better targeted has been good"? You mean no evidence as in you A/B tested your on app and found no reasonable increase? Or you mean no evidence, as in you never bothered looking for evidence?

Judging from my personal anecdote with A/B testing targeted ads, there's a lot of evidence that it's good for both advertisers and users. Just try running tests and you'll see it for yourself.


Nice how you left off part of my sentence. Targeting ads is good for (some) advertisers (whether it's good for customers is debatable) but I said "good for the ad industry".

If a/b testing increases conversions all that demonstrates is you can get more revenue per ad dollar. Whether any "good" occurs is an entirely different matter. You might be selling penis enlargement pills.


Your second point really hits home for me; honestly, I would love to know what Google (or most any other modern ad company) /is/ doing with its cookies, as it never seems like any of the ads I see are even remotely well-targeted.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: