Hi ph0rque, the theory is that even the most ardent of ad-downvoters would eventually like an ad enough to not down it (or, that they would get bored of compulsive negativity, and start being more selective). That one ad would be an extremely valuable piece of information.
-Luke
There is no useful information gained if people never touch the system. Clearly non-downvoting means something for people who periodically downvote. But the way I plan to use the service is ... not at all.
I see, I miss-read what you wrote. I had thought we were still talking about "ardent down-voters" Yes, in order for them to glean any information from a particular user there will have to be some clicks. And indeed, the most common way that a user uses this system might very well be "not at all".
This will be an interesting experiment to watch. Its taking the reddit/digg style voting to the world of internet ads and hoping that users will tell what kind of ads they want to see. If every user is like me, it'll mean no ads... maybe everyone is not like me.
Actually, most people aren't. Apparently, most people actually LIKE ads--so long as they are relevant.
I don't know about you guys, but I actually enjoy looking through the ads in Wired. Usually they're catchy and they are almost always relevant for me. I can't say that about most ads on the web, and certainly not for TV (I will never buy a truck in my life so stop 'effin showing me ads for them!) Obviously the problem with these last two mediums is that they don't have enough information about me.
Honestly, I would submit my personal tastes/preference to some sort of central advertising database which authorized companies could then plug into. Right now, it would make a lot of sense if Google hosted that database, but it should really be something open so that any advertiser can use it.
Edit: so long as they are relevant and done well. Despite, for example, my desire to buy a Wii, I would not tolerate a "hit the monkey and win a Wii" ad.
