Disappointing, considering how ubiquitous Disqus is on American news sites. This means we'll be seeing more ads and promos on pages already packed with commercial messages.
FWIW, I rarely bother reading Disqus threads (glacial load times and poor sorting) and stopped contributing after many of my comments started being flagged as spam.
I already have Ghostery set to block Disqus both because of the slow load times and because 99% of the commentary on news websites and blogs is mind-polluting drivel. I struggle with clinical depression and ADD, and I've taken up using blockers and CSS restylers to hide the comment interface completely on most websites I visit because I reliazed I was only look at them to get an emotional kick similar to troll venom.
I think there's a much better business model that Ghostery (and many other vendros) have completely missed, but I'm pretty sure I would gt heavily flamed for proposing it.
I am sure they will be pilloried for this, but I never begrudge a company trying to come up with a sustainable revenue model. Nobody ever thought "I sure wish I saw more ads online" and people gripe every time they pop up somewhere new, and yet everyone wants free services. So I say good luck brothers.
They were okay.. but I actually sent back some feedback to them by showing other "related" articles. The trashy ones. You know, showing a picture of someone groping their belly fat and mentioning some diet.
This was on a programmer's static blog compiled by octopress. I really felt like it lowered the quality of my experience reading the post, even though it was entirely Disqus's fault and not the author.
> Sponsored Comments let businesses deliver a message to the people they need to reach. A Sponsored Comment can use all types of media to get their point across, just like any other Disqus comment. But they’re not part of the discussion happening on that thread or community itself. That’s too disruptive.
So instead, they’re pinned to the top of the discussion environment where things are just getting started. It’s like movie previews.
So...why not call them by their old fashioned name: "ads"? I don't disapprove of ad-based models, but something seems a bit disingenuous to use the term "Comments" when they are not "comments" at all. Unless users are able to respond to them and not have their comments hidden.
It's hard to imagine advertisers being happy about users getting to attach negative comments onto the ads. And if those threads get to be a snark train, then that pushes all the regular discussion down even further. So either the "sponsored comment"-discussions are hidden, or advertisers AND site-users are inconvenienced.
> Unless users are able to respond to them and not have their comments hidden.
In the screenshots, there's a "Reply" button under the ad^W"Sponsored Comment". Want to take bets on how long it'll be until that goes away? I can see exactly what you described happening.
Let me say up front that I have a strong dislike for marketing and sales people. They surprise me sometimes, though.
FTA:
> "If we can complement the experience people already enjoy using Disqus ..."
> "So instead, they’re pinned to the top of the discussion environment where things are just getting started. It’s like movie previews. It’s not the thing you came for, but if done well, it adds a little bit to your experience ..."
I've learned over the years that some of these folks really truly believe this -- that they are making the world^Wweb a better place by displaying more ads in more places.
I don't remember the last time I left a comment on a site that uses Disqus but, seriously, who the "enjoy[s] using Disqus"? It's just not something that you "enjoy" doing, although the marketing/P.R. people would seem to believe that you do.
I do own a couple websites using disqus but I don't care too much about what comment makes it first. But for a personal blog, or a company that makes a lot of money, seeing people advertising in your comments would be a good excuse to start coding a home-made comment system.
A. Commenting at scale is hard. Believe me, I know. We run the largest Wordpress website out there, and decided to rewrite commenting inhouse. It's been... hard.
B. There are a handful of other good providers out there that hopefully this will give more business to.
How do you propose Disqus earn revenue/stay in business. There's little incentive for publishes to pay for a commenting platform when they could just go back to using a shitty internal solution. (Although, admittedly, some publishers do pay discuss for enterprise solutions, but if that were more lucrative than ads, why would the bother with ads?)
I never cease to be amazed by people who bitch about seeing ads within a product/service they use for free. Someone has to pay for this.
Ads are annoying. People bitch about annoyances. No wonder there.
"Someone has to pay for this" is the wrong attitude. Either the service provider provides the service or he doesn't. If I'm not in a contract to pay them, I don't assume responsibility for paying anything...
Honestly I think this is promising. The format is not "shady" or disruptive, and the company seems to have a good understanding that adds done poorly can be damaging.
[+] [-] ilamont|12 years ago|reply
FWIW, I rarely bother reading Disqus threads (glacial load times and poor sorting) and stopped contributing after many of my comments started being flagged as spam.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
I think there's a much better business model that Ghostery (and many other vendros) have completely missed, but I'm pretty sure I would gt heavily flamed for proposing it.
[+] [-] singlequote|12 years ago|reply
But honestly, YouTube is a good example of this model. It's the go-to site for videos, and bombards you with ads.
[+] [-] mattmaroon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|12 years ago|reply
A lot of the sites I consider high-value don't do advertising at all. Khanacademy, Coursera, Hackernews, Github ...
It's like saying open source software is created by students trying to avoid license fees.
[+] [-] minimaxir|12 years ago|reply
Ads were OK when they were text link to another site a la AdWords: it was clear that they are ads. Native comment ads, however, can be deceptive.
[+] [-] cordite|12 years ago|reply
This was on a programmer's static blog compiled by octopress. I really felt like it lowered the quality of my experience reading the post, even though it was entirely Disqus's fault and not the author.
[+] [-] bergie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bentlegen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jqm|12 years ago|reply
Because if so, I think the program has already started
[+] [-] rebel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
> Sponsored Comments let businesses deliver a message to the people they need to reach. A Sponsored Comment can use all types of media to get their point across, just like any other Disqus comment. But they’re not part of the discussion happening on that thread or community itself. That’s too disruptive.
So instead, they’re pinned to the top of the discussion environment where things are just getting started. It’s like movie previews.
So...why not call them by their old fashioned name: "ads"? I don't disapprove of ad-based models, but something seems a bit disingenuous to use the term "Comments" when they are not "comments" at all. Unless users are able to respond to them and not have their comments hidden.
It's hard to imagine advertisers being happy about users getting to attach negative comments onto the ads. And if those threads get to be a snark train, then that pushes all the regular discussion down even further. So either the "sponsored comment"-discussions are hidden, or advertisers AND site-users are inconvenienced.
[+] [-] jlgaddis|12 years ago|reply
In the screenshots, there's a "Reply" button under the ad^W"Sponsored Comment". Want to take bets on how long it'll be until that goes away? I can see exactly what you described happening.
[+] [-] xxxmadraxxx|12 years ago|reply
Oh well. Won't bother me. I've already got Ghostery configured to block Disqus.
[+] [-] jlgaddis|12 years ago|reply
Let me say up front that I have a strong dislike for marketing and sales people. They surprise me sometimes, though.
FTA:
> "If we can complement the experience people already enjoy using Disqus ..."
> "So instead, they’re pinned to the top of the discussion environment where things are just getting started. It’s like movie previews. It’s not the thing you came for, but if done well, it adds a little bit to your experience ..."
I've learned over the years that some of these folks really truly believe this -- that they are making the world^Wweb a better place by displaying more ads in more places.
I don't remember the last time I left a comment on a site that uses Disqus but, seriously, who the "enjoy[s] using Disqus"? It's just not something that you "enjoy" doing, although the marketing/P.R. people would seem to believe that you do.
[+] [-] baby|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brokentone|12 years ago|reply
B. There are a handful of other good providers out there that hopefully this will give more business to.
[+] [-] ycombasks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noodlezrulez|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] booruguru|12 years ago|reply
I never cease to be amazed by people who bitch about seeing ads within a product/service they use for free. Someone has to pay for this.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|12 years ago|reply
"Someone has to pay for this" is the wrong attitude. Either the service provider provides the service or he doesn't. If I'm not in a contract to pay them, I don't assume responsibility for paying anything...
[+] [-] nilved|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bentlegen|12 years ago|reply
> This is no longer true – they're opt-in. And by invitation only.
[+] [-] leejoramo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opendais|12 years ago|reply
I guess an opportunity for someone to go build one? ;)
[+] [-] lnlyplnt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akilism|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beerz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2012|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] na85|12 years ago|reply