2

This question already has an answer here:

Why is Stack Exchange allowing Google ads though they have their own profitable revenue model via https://stackoverflow.com/jobs?

I mean, I just recently saw Google ads here. Don't you think it adds extra noise to the site? I mean I don't want to see ads; please don't show it.

Enter image description here

Enter image description here

enter image description here

marked as duplicate by Rand al'Thor, Robert Longson, rene discussion Sep 15 at 14:38

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 8
    Get to 200 reputation and earn the reduced ads privilege ... or install an ad-blocker. – rene Sep 15 at 13:21
  • 1
    @rene but my question is they have very good revenue model, the company is very profitable, still they want to show us ads. Why? – Pratik Sep 15 at 13:27
  • 8
    Gotta love shady ads... Seriously, get an ad blocker. SE doesn't care about privacy (or at least their actions point to that). They have also explicitly stated they're going to run ads that're considered distracting (if you think normal ads were bad, just wait 'til you stumble over animated ones...). – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 13:28
  • 2
    @Pratik we don't know. They're not sharing numbers. – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 13:28
  • @Olivia but stack overflow is a trillian dollar company like Apple, Microsoft, Google. They probably dont need ads to make revenue as its already high. – Pratik Sep 15 at 13:30
  • 4
    @Pratik: "but stack overflow is a trillian dollar company like Apple, Microsoft, Google." What would make you think that? – Nicol Bolas Sep 15 at 13:32
  • 2
    @Pratik They're running ads and refusing to share revenue numbers. If you want my guess, their revenue isn't high enough. Them not being open about that just makes it look shady. From what I've heard, they had to lay off a bunch of people a while ago. That doesn't exactly scream "high enough revenue". In my opinion, they're still going about it very wrong. I don't mind ads, but the way they're used around the network isn't going to get people to whitelist SE from their ad blockers, but that's a separate discussion. And besides, even Google runs ads. Ever noticed those sponsored results? Ads. – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 13:34
  • 8
    @Olivia: "Them not being open about that just makes it look shady." ... what? You're not entitled to know the exact revenue of a company, and them not divulging that information is not being "shady". – Nicol Bolas Sep 15 at 13:36
  • 1
    "A while" apparently being in 2017. Still, if they somehow ended up with debt, that could affect them later. – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 13:36
  • 1
    @NicolBolas I know. But when they start an extremely aggressive advertising system without disclosing the reason (or at least a general one), ignore community feedback, and actively damage the UX in the process, it's definitely not without a reason. I honestly don't care about the specific numbers - "we're having trouble with our finances" as a reason is more than enough. – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 13:39
  • 3
    @Olivia: ""we're having trouble with our finances" as a reason is more than enough." I cannot see how saying that would in any way be advantageous to SE. Many people tend to want to avoid interacting with companies in financial trouble, so admitting that would only cause more financial trouble. Plus, it wouldn't stop criticism of what they're doing; it would only exacerbate it. People would start suggesting alternative revenue streams instead of ads, and using the statement about financial trouble as justification. And so on; it only creates more drama. – Nicol Bolas Sep 15 at 13:58
  • 2
    Actually - SO was making money off ads before careers was a thing and careers wasn't as sucessful as they expected it to be - so much so they shed a bunch of staff. Ads have always been a pretty big part of their revenue stream. – Journeyman Geek Sep 15 at 14:50
  • 5
    But so many people suggesting each other to use ad-blockers, dont they cut short the effectiveness of ads and thus revenue itself? – ankii Sep 15 at 16:05
  • 3
    @ankii It does. So if SE doesn't fix their ads and more people recommend ad blockers, it will affect the revenue stream. One good thing Facebook did by failing to protect data is that more and more people are becoming aware of privacy. I'd imagine more people are using ad blockers now, and SE isn't making a compelling argument to whitelist SE from ad blockers. At this point, they're doing the exact opposite of what they should do if revenue is a real concern. – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 18:19
  • 1
    I personally try to seek out ad topics on MSE and MSO and recommend ad blockers where relevant, purely because I hope a noticeable increase in ad blockers (and therefore a decrease in revenue) will make SE reconsider the way they're using ads. I'm perfectly fine with ads, but not in the way most companies handle it, SE included. – Zoe the transgirl Sep 15 at 18:25