
Google Adds Ads to Image Search... It Really Sucks. - mrtwitter
http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2008/12/14/google-image-search-now-with-text-ads-ugh/
======
Niten
All right, this has to be the first time I've seen someone vocally complain
that they visited a web page and didn't see _enough_ large, visually
distracting, bandwidth-sucking graphical advertisements.

I think these ads on Image Search are great—they stay out of the way, they
don't slow down my web browsing, and they're generally relevant to the search
query. As for whether or not this will generate an extra $200 million in
revenue, I trust Google's calculated and informed estimation on that account
far more than I trust this random blogger's gut feeling to the contrary.

------
redorb
what really sucks is when a blogger has "rich jerk" large image ads; much
worse then adwords in image search

------
rw
How do advertisers feel, now that their clickthrough rates will likely
decrease as a result of being on the seemingly-irrelevant images page?

~~~
josefresco
The beauty of AdWords is you can track conversions and exclude domains/sites
that don't convert well. Most AdWords advertisers will welcome an increase
like this in inventory.

------
sh1mmer
I think the author really nails it. He isn't object to the ads existing, he is
objecting to them being irrelevant.

Ads that are relevant almost aren't Ads, they are almost content.

~~~
jonknee
How are they irrelevant? He searched for Brett Farve and got ads about Brett
Farve. He was just bummed that they were text ads, not images.

~~~
sh1mmer
Isn't relevance defined by context?

If he was doing an image search he wanted images, not text.

What about Ads for products or Stock photography or Celeb sites with more
photos?

