![]() ![]() These douche-bros will give me totally legit financial advice for free. Neighbouring Swamponia is beautiful in toad season. Half the time, no meaningful match could be made and I get something generic. Chef explains recipe? Cooking classes from lecture video site. Composer explains music theory? Music store. You don't need any tracking for targeted ads.Ī lot of the most relevant ads I see are on Youtube, where I have personalisation turned off. I like the idea of giving smaller players a chance, but: The better ones have a reputation to uphold, so they'll make some effort to protect consumers … from finding out what's really being tracked and when there was a leak. The problem with this is that there still needs to be some ad platform that tracks user IDs. Kind of like auto-bidding on eBay, except more meta. Then they make bids on how much an ad impression is worth to them when a match shows up. The way it's ‘done properly’ right now is that advertisers can subscribe to a segment of consumers who recently looked at X-type products from stores A, B, or C, in region Y. run statistics that determine who gets a special offer with a lower price). Even that much data shouldn't be stored, because it's not needed unless you want to do shady tracking-related stuff (e.g. They shouldn't know any ID, not even one that gets sent only to that one advertiser and is reset after 30 days. > they should only know that a certain device with a certain ID likes X,Y topics ![]() Why would you pay to put an ad on publisher A which may or may not have traffic when you can put the ad on aggregator B which will definitely have traffic? The problem is this means A cannot pay writers and the whole system breaks down. This is a bigger issue, but putting ads on the aggregators creates perverse incentives to promote bad content and not actually pay for it. Use anti-trust to prevent link aggregators from being advertisers. It essentially kills the motivation for the Reddit fraud discussed here. ![]() You can buy placement for next Sunday for $Z." This is how all offline ads are sold, and it's much healthier for everyone than CPM. Instead of selling by CPM, publishers should say "independent analyst X says we have traffic Y on an average Sunday. Pay for ad time slots, not user impressions. Everyone is better off once it's illegal. It's a red queen's race and no one benefits. Never allow dynamic ad content! Ads should be individually approved by publishers and not subject to change after approval. The whole online ad market is diseased and needs to be uprooted. It's all in the timing and it's very frustrating, but actually the developing hazard was incredibly obvious (like a car pulling out of a junction directly into your path) and the only trick was known what it was looking for in terms of your click input.īefore you sit it again, find that insider knowledge, and if there is any way to practice online or on a DVD or something, in a mock test, do that.Every newspaper in America has obvious scam ads on its homepage. You have to click once for each hazard, however the test is actually looking for your reaction to the DEVELOPING hazard which is the one that would cause you to alter your course or speed - then you have to click again. THe UK one shows footage of driving and a number of potential hazards. But find out fro driving instructors or someone with insider knowledge what the test is actually looking for. I've only done the UK one so I can't help you specifically. However, you just have to learn how they work and play the 'game'. I agree, I don't think Hazard Perception tests are great. ![]() WA as in washington or Western Australia? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |