The problem is he built up a kinship with his viewers which included his financial plight:
I film myself huddling around a tray of candles in the boat as the ice slides past the hull in the winter.
Then he tells them a way he makes money:
yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers
You say that's not encouragement? Well, others thought it was enough to comment about extra ad clicking and even proudly email him about it. His response? That he "preferred" they only clicked ads they were interested in. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Ironically, they thought they were helping him out...
Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited.
Yes, they do.
That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me.
I didn't read it as a wink-wink; I read it as a clear and honest explanation of his views: "If my users are going to click on ads because they want to help me instead of because they want to buy things, I hope they at least click on ads that interest them, so there's a CHANCE they'll buy."
You're telling me multiple site visitors, who feel no emotional connection to a site, will click "loads of ads" then comment and send emails about it of their own accord? I don't think so.
It's not up to him only to suggest how his visitors interact with the ads. There are two other parties with a financial interest in the AdSense actions, one actually paying the bills.
When I say 'emotional' I mean feeling emotionally compelled to take some action. Everyone feels some emotion toward sites even if it's just loving Amazon.com for having low prices. However, unlike the crowd at HN average Internet users don't even know what a browser is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ) let alone how AdSense ads work. So, no, I don't think multiple average site visitors would have it pop into their brain to click loads of ads then comment and email about their actions if unsolicited.
We have two sides of this story - Dylan Winter's words, and Google's cold, hard data. Google dumped him because there were lots of clicks and they didn't generate revenue, which indicates either click fraud or violation of the rules.
Dylan Winter apparently was not aware that his very high CPC rate was a problem. From that I assume he also didn't do a very good job communicating to his users to not click on the links. Telling your users that you make money from clicks seems like a very bad idea.
And why would you edit out comments that encourage users to click more? What you should do is edit it, and replace it with a statement saying to please not do this.
It's a story of coulda woulda shoulda, and honestly I think Google should have consulted with the "wronged" advertisers first and see what they say - maybe give them a simple option to flag or not flag the site.
For Mr. Winter it seems he could now try to get all these sites to rent ad space on his site bypassing Google. Since the site is very specialized in its audience, such a deal might work out better for everyone involved. After all you are cutting out the middle man.
The problem is he built up a kinship with his viewers which included his financial plight: I film myself huddling around a tray of candles in the boat as the ice slides past the hull in the winter.
I think you're reading way too much into his remarks.
Most small sailing boats have only small auxiliary engines or batteries providing DC power. Safety requires power conservation. But video cameras require light to record an image, and most pro video lighting consumers a lot of juice but doesn't run on DC power. If it's not windy, candles efficiently provide both heat and light, and solve other video problems as well (color aesthetics).
My dad sails, I've worked most of the last decade in independent film. Anyone who's into sailing or pro video understands that both are fairly high-maintenance activities with a significant cost of both time and equipment (and that discussions of this overhead is a regular conversation topic). I find it quite easy to believe he makes an overall loss on the sailing vids at present, although over a few years it has the potential to provide greater revenue (eg a documentary of the entire journey, gradual accumulation of subscribers etc.).
I believe I'm reading his remarks pretty much at face value. According to him he bought his boat (aka the "Slug") for 2K pounds, and regularly patched pieces of it back together. He shared all of this with his audience as well as letting them know making the films was costly.
Regardless of the technical reasons for it, I believe the huddling around a tray of candles with ice sliding by is striking visual imagery. Heck, even I feel moved by that, and I'd feel ten times more connected to this guy if I were a regular sailor.
If you were a regular sailor you'd understand the wisdom of keeping a box of candles on board, and wouldn't find anything striking about the idea of using them.
I film myself huddling around a tray of candles in the boat as the ice slides past the hull in the winter.
Then he tells them a way he makes money:
yes, I told my subscribers that I got some money if they visited the websites of those advertisers
You say that's not encouragement? Well, others thought it was enough to comment about extra ad clicking and even proudly email him about it. His response? That he "preferred" they only clicked ads they were interested in. That sounds almost like a wink-wink to me. Web visitors do not exhibit that type of behavior of their own accord if unsolicited. Ironically, they thought they were helping him out...