Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • I'm not sure how ads really work. I haven't clicked on one for ages (or maybe only on accident). I cannot remember any thing about an ad I have seen lately. Typically my mind goes blank for some time, when I recognize advertisement. I really don't care about ads. I think they are an utter waste of time and a useful ad is as rare as a pink moon. But I guess companies also pay simply for getting on my screen even without a click. Or not? Commented Dec 11, 2025 at 22:31
  • 3
    hopefully you will realize that "being turned off by a page where the ads are more important than the content" and preventing people noticing by making it so that "(the ads) don't look like ads at first glance" is precisely "making the ads look like part of the page to trick people". I don't care if this is because they also hope to get user to click the ads by mistake or simply not realize that the page is as bad as the dailymail one and it is just looking better because they don't even have the spine to be blatant about what is actually an ads and what isn't. Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 8:34
  • 4
    You really think that the dailymail example is worse? Having to choose between two ads-filled pages I would choose the one where the ads don't try to disguise themselves at content everyday. Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 8:34
  • @ꓢPArcheon I see you're unfamiliar with the Daily Mail. Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 11:03
  • 1
    @wizzwizz4 I don't know if they also try to disguise ads as content, but my point was the same as this other answer here: "The thing you call "Native ADs" is - while less overtly aggressive - even worse, in a sense, because it poses as genuine content, only to be an ad instead." Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 11:37
  • 1
    @ꓢPArcheon Yes, the ads are meant to trick people into thinking they are looking at a page that has more content than it does; I don’t think the goal is to trick people into clicking on them. I agree that it’s worse to camouflage the ads so that people mistake them for content and read them. I’ll try to find some time to reword this to make that more clear. Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 12:02
  • 1
    something like "I thing their main goal is to make people at least read the ads by mistake, actually clicking it by mistake is probably not part of the plan"? Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 12:06
  • 3
    Yes. The ads are clearly marked, and they do put the “sponsored” bit first and replace the voting buttons, so it’s not as evil as it could be. The shadiest thing about them is adding the tags IMO. Explaining why an ad was served up could be accomplished by other means, and the lie that the tags are about transparency pisses me off. Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 12:15
  • 1
    And no, I don't think the dailymail page is worse - that is an example of how I believe some people will perceive the SE page once they recognize the ads. And yeah, they'll probably be annoyed they were tricked. Commented Dec 12, 2025 at 12:34