<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Making Ads More Interesting&#8230;for Users or for Google?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/11/making-ads-more-interestingfor-users-or-for-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/11/making-ads-more-interestingfor-users-or-for-google/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:45:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeremy</title>
		<link>http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/11/making-ads-more-interestingfor-users-or-for-google/comment-page-1/#comment-2289</link>
		<dc:creator>jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=1619#comment-2289</guid>
		<description>To be fair to Google, I don&#039;t think they ever said they were specifically against the behavioral model.  I think they said that they had looked at it, and it didn&#039;t work.  And they&#039;re only against things that didn&#039;t work.  

So maybe, just maybe, they did more research in these intervening years and came up with that one, sweet algorithm that really makes behavioral data work, when it hadn&#039;t before.  Once they discovered that algorithm, then it was full steam ahead, without hypocrisy.  

Maybe.  

Frankly, I don&#039;t believe that is what they did.  I think they&#039;re desperate to keep their revenue numbers up quarter-by-quarter (which also contradicts things they&#039;ve said in the past as well).  So that&#039;s why they&#039;ve started to show non-relevant banner ads on YouTube, and why they&#039;re also trying to increase their revenue on other ads, by any means possible.  

But I do not know this for sure; I have no inside 
knowledge.  So it depends on how much slack you/I/we are willing to cut Google.  Maybe they did indeed come up with that magic algorithm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair to Google, I don&#8217;t think they ever said they were specifically against the behavioral model.  I think they said that they had looked at it, and it didn&#8217;t work.  And they&#8217;re only against things that didn&#8217;t work.  </p>
<p>So maybe, just maybe, they did more research in these intervening years and came up with that one, sweet algorithm that really makes behavioral data work, when it hadn&#8217;t before.  Once they discovered that algorithm, then it was full steam ahead, without hypocrisy.  </p>
<p>Maybe.  </p>
<p>Frankly, I don&#8217;t believe that is what they did.  I think they&#8217;re desperate to keep their revenue numbers up quarter-by-quarter (which also contradicts things they&#8217;ve said in the past as well).  So that&#8217;s why they&#8217;ve started to show non-relevant banner ads on YouTube, and why they&#8217;re also trying to increase their revenue on other ads, by any means possible.  </p>
<p>But I do not know this for sure; I have no inside<br />
knowledge.  So it depends on how much slack you/I/we are willing to cut Google.  Maybe they did indeed come up with that magic algorithm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

