8/20    Anybody else troubled by Google's valuation and growth prospects?  I
        don't think their ad supported revenue model can grow much higher.
        When I first started using google I clicked on those links.  But after
        a few times of not finding what I wanted I stopped clicking on ad
        supported links.  Same deal with Yahoo.  I use yahoo finance everyday.
        I've mentally tuned out of the ad banners.  I barely see them anymore.
        I think when one becomes used to the web site and becomes a power user
        of the site, one only looks at the relevant information.  The only way
        an ad can get my attention is if it appears in the same page and
        blocks the text I'm reading.  Only using IE do I see those.  Google
        is the best search engine out there.  But if people aren't clicking
        on those ad links, they will lose advertisers.
        \_ I block ads using the AdBlock Firefox plugin which works pretty
           nicely to and often removes even the space where the ad would be.
           Ha ha! fuck you, Internet! Google's ads don't bother me but then
           I never click them either. Other people must though and re: the guy
           below intentionally googling for ads, well I don't buy that much
           stuff but it's a case where Google's ad model is the most useful
           to me versus any other web site. If I bought more stuff that is.
        \_ The quality of Google's searches has dropped dramatically in the
           last year similar to what we saw circa 1999 or so.  "Best search
           engine out there" doesn't mean what it used to.  Everything used
           to be a front page hit with a few key terms.  Now I can punch in
           6 or more very specific terms, double quote phrases, etc, and not
           find something until 10+ pages deep.
           \_ I agree, and it makes me sad.  What makes me even sadder is that
              this is inherent to how google works.  Google made an HTML link
              valuable.  The market does the rest. -- ilyas
           \_ YOUR FU IZ WEAK,  MINE 1Z STRONG!
        \_ I buy really hard to find expensive stuff fairly frequently, and
           I often use google specifically with the intention of clicking
           on their targeted ads.  I have no idea how much money that
           makes google, but I definitely find it useful.  It seems to me that
           this kind of advertising is very useful for companies that sell
           small numbers of really expensive stuff, like microfabrication
           equipment.
        \_ Part of the problem is that click-through remains the main standard
           for evaluating the effectiveness of Internet advertising.  With
           other forms of visual ads, such as billboards, advertisers can
           only assess the outcome of a campaign by its effect on sales.
           They don't expect "click-through" because there is no such thing.
           Internet advertising often works on the same subconcious level as
           a billboard or a television commercial, so why should be it held
           to this higher standard?  This doesn't necessarily apply to paid
           placement of text as it doesn't really penetrate subconciously
           the way a strong image can - I guess I'm thinking more of banner
           ads, which you refer to.
           \_ It isn't a case of "should be".  It is a case of "can be" so it
              is.  As an advertiser you would insist upon using an available
              and valuable metric like click throughs.
              \_ AdWords advertisers pay per click.  The clickthrough
                 is not the most important metric to them.
                 \_ If it is measurable, it should be measured.  As the paying
                    customer, the advertiser, why would you not want to see
                    the available metrics showing the effectiveness of your
                    ad on that site and pay by that?
              \_ Except that the "value" of advertising, at least in the case
                 of mass market brands, is the subconsious impact of the
                 advertising image itself.  Why do you think SuperBowl ads
                 are so expensive?  Millions of eyes thinking they're ignoring
                 that Coca-Cola logo in front of them.  Your point is more valid
                 in the case of niche markets.
                 advertising image itself.  Why do you think SuperBowl ads are
                 so expensive?  Millions of eyes thinking they're ignoring
                 that Coca-Cola logo in front of them.  Your point is more
                 valid in the case of niche markets.
                 \_ If they could measure it, you know they would and there
                    would be contracted financial terms based in part on those
                    measurements.  Since they don't have hard numbers, they
                    spend a lot of money on market research to determine how
                    effective an ad campaign was.  They don't just spend
                    millions of dollars on an ad and hope for the best.
        \_ Gmail + Google Search == The most powerful market research firm
           ever. They intend to make money by predicting where you will go
           next (past performance is a good indicator of future direction)
           and selling that information.
           \_ As if you knew.