I have not accepted any compensation for anything I’ve done on this blog. But folks keep offering to pay me to put their ads on this blog. I wonder: am I being too prudish? Presumably the more money I make blogging, the more I’ll blog.
Now that you bring this up, I would actively encourage garish ads here on OB if we got unintended, humorous juxtapositions on a consistent enough basis.
Robin, now that you've asked, I'd only really care if ads significantly hurt your page load time and browser stability. By this I mean: please, please use flash sparingly. Please.
I do not care. As the others say, as an economist I almost expect you to - at the very least - recoup hosting costs. And since I have good ad-blockers, it will never affect me.
Nor will I feel particularly outraged as I only contribute occasional comments. If LessWrong or Wikipedia were to start running ads, though...
I have not accepted any compensation for anything I’ve done on this blog. But folks keep offering to pay me to put their ads on this blog. I wonder: am I being too prudish? Presumably the more money I make blogging, the more I’ll blog.
I'd prefer you blogged less, but blogged better (your best articles are incomparably good, but a lot of them are like drive-by shootings: a random spray of bullets at some subject, without getting out of the car or stopping to see what you were aiming at). Since adds would make you presumably blog more, I'd be against them.
"Why does it depend on how much money you are being offered?"
Why wouldn't it? If offered sufficiently high compensation, I'm sure Robin Hanson would run any legal ad. Enough donations to an appropriate charitable cause could offset any harm from a simple ad, surely.
Hmm, maybe even illegal-but-ethical ads, for absurd compensation... ? ;)
Ads would not change my OB consumption. I enjoy the content here and greatly appreciate the effort you exert to provide this material to the public at large.
Everybody is trying to sell me (or all of us) something, I'm tired of that. You have never sold your blog, you've always shared your thoughts and ideas. You started out writing in your blog becuase it meant something to you and that was all. Keep it that way. Let sales people know that some things will never be for sale.
Why not use the space for socially productive purposes? Perhaps your site could help find a lost child through your network of blog followers. I'm sure you can come up with many other worthwhile causes. I find it remarkable that in the 90 odd comments, not one thought of this!
Too bad there is no edit function here. I should add that people are signaling not just caring enough about Robin to endure the ads, but caring enough to actively encourage him to put up ads.
Let me explain myself, because my intended meaning probably wasn't clear. When people say that they won't think less of Robin, I think what they're signaling is that they value Robin's blog highly, Robin deserves being compensated for his work, and they care enough about him to put up with being annoyed by ads.
But if Robin actually puts up ads, that signals that he values the extra money highly (i.e. is poor or greedy), and/or that he doesn't value the time and attention of his readers (as highly as if he didn't put up ads). Even if you want to see Robin compensated, there is no way to block out the implications of his actions in your brain.
Now that you bring this up, I would actively encourage garish ads here on OB if we got unintended, humorous juxtapositions on a consistent enough basis.
Robin, now that you've asked, I'd only really care if ads significantly hurt your page load time and browser stability. By this I mean: please, please use flash sparingly. Please.
I do not care. As the others say, as an economist I almost expect you to - at the very least - recoup hosting costs. And since I have good ad-blockers, it will never affect me.
Nor will I feel particularly outraged as I only contribute occasional comments. If LessWrong or Wikipedia were to start running ads, though...
I would think less of you as a free-market economist if you refused to put ads on your blog.
are you a professor or an entrepreneur? Are these mutually exclusive?
+1
What would be an unfakeably honest signal that ads would not affect your editorial? I can't think of one, but I bet there's one out there...
I have not accepted any compensation for anything I’ve done on this blog. But folks keep offering to pay me to put their ads on this blog. I wonder: am I being too prudish? Presumably the more money I make blogging, the more I’ll blog.
I'd prefer you blogged less, but blogged better (your best articles are incomparably good, but a lot of them are like drive-by shootings: a random spray of bullets at some subject, without getting out of the car or stopping to see what you were aiming at). Since adds would make you presumably blog more, I'd be against them.
"Why does it depend on how much money you are being offered?"
Why wouldn't it? If offered sufficiently high compensation, I'm sure Robin Hanson would run any legal ad. Enough donations to an appropriate charitable cause could offset any harm from a simple ad, surely.
Hmm, maybe even illegal-but-ethical ads, for absurd compensation... ? ;)
Ads would not change my OB consumption. I enjoy the content here and greatly appreciate the effort you exert to provide this material to the public at large.
Everybody is trying to sell me (or all of us) something, I'm tired of that. You have never sold your blog, you've always shared your thoughts and ideas. You started out writing in your blog becuase it meant something to you and that was all. Keep it that way. Let sales people know that some things will never be for sale.
Why not use the space for socially productive purposes? Perhaps your site could help find a lost child through your network of blog followers. I'm sure you can come up with many other worthwhile causes. I find it remarkable that in the 90 odd comments, not one thought of this!
Go nuts with the ads. It's easy to block them :)
I just read this today. Might be of some help - http://www.blogherald.com/2...
Regards,Parimala Shankaraiah
Too bad there is no edit function here. I should add that people are signaling not just caring enough about Robin to endure the ads, but caring enough to actively encourage him to put up ads.
Let me explain myself, because my intended meaning probably wasn't clear. When people say that they won't think less of Robin, I think what they're signaling is that they value Robin's blog highly, Robin deserves being compensated for his work, and they care enough about him to put up with being annoyed by ads.
But if Robin actually puts up ads, that signals that he values the extra money highly (i.e. is poor or greedy), and/or that he doesn't value the time and attention of his readers (as highly as if he didn't put up ads). Even if you want to see Robin compensated, there is no way to block out the implications of his actions in your brain.