[tortilla]

I just don't understand this. I hardly ever see the ads and when I do, they don't bother me. Why take such extreme measures? If the ads bother someone that much, why not use a different service or pay for one? Seems to me the cure is worse than the disease.

[DenisM]

It's still a clever hack. Some hacks are beautiful, even if not "profitable".

[Semiapies]

Google says they try to avoid serving ads beside tragic emails. So...they put tragic phrases in emails to avoid ads.

The threshold for the terms "clever" and "hack" must have dropped.

[foulmouthboy]

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's obviously trying to be sensitive in not displaying ads to people who might be in mourning and this "hack" exploits that. It's like hitting on women at a funeral.

[tilly]

"It's like hitting on women at a funeral."

Am I the only person who was reminded of Ryan O'Neil? (For those who don't know, he accidentally hit on his own daughter at his SO's funeral not long ago.)

But back to the point, I agree that exploiting Google's desire to be sensitive is tacky.

[_pius]

Actually, I thought of Wedding Crashers. But I digress.

[Confusion]

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's [..] trying to be sensitive.

[Confusion]

Obviously I was being unclear. My point is that Google's behaviour is already like 'hitting at women at a funeral'. Do you honestly believe they are taking trouble to 'respect sensitivities' out of sheer goodness? Hell no, the budget for that was approved by the PR department. It's already a case of exploiting cultural sensitivities.

[mbrubeck]

To me the hack is not about wanting to hide the ads, it's about revealing the details of Google's decision and algorithm to hide ads on "tragic" emails. (I especially love the fact that you need one tragic word for every 167 non-tragic words.)