[laythea]

Presumably ads are so valuable because people click through them and go on to purchase.

I realise I am in a minority, but I have never clicked on a digital ad and went through to buy something, and I never will.

The minute I see ads on a webpage, I automatically associate that site with trash. (Please take note HN :))

It is as if humanity cannot be trusted with technology. This creates a certain "ceiling" for us in terms of development as a species. Such a shame.

[bduerst]

The ads you're referring to here are called display ads. Most of these ads are not about getting you to click, but about awareness.

It's the same thing as a full-page advert in a magazine that you flip through. For some readers, they will stop an read it, raising awareness to that brand/product/company etc.

[laythea]

I take your point about being "exposed" to the product, however it must be the case that ads want you to click them, otherwise clicking them would not do anything. Which is not the case.

A company spamming my eyeballs with visual ads to "raise awareness" does not get my money. I take particular offence to that, as it is my screen. Not a Billboard for example.

My point is proven in the HN website, where it enjoys a large readership, largely influenced by the sites clean, ad-free design.

Slashdot used to be like that until they started displaying ads, and that is what brought me to HN. Thank you HN for not doing this.

[tapland]

> The minute I see ads on a webpage, I automatically associate that site with trash.

You might want to reconsider

[laythea]

Care to elaborate a little?

[tapland]

I've visited plenty of sites made by small developers who simply use them to try to offset hosting costs with a banner ad. Hosting isn't a negligible cost for everyone and content should be judged based of content, but you can of course judge a site as a whole with ads included.

[laythea]

That does not excuse it in my book.

[craftinator]

You might not want to reconsider.