dazzlindonna - 4:24 am on Jun 14, 2011 (gmt 0)

Most, in fact the vast majority of "users", don't have sites..they don't think like a site owner..telling them they should "compromise" will get a site owner nowhere..

Most, in fact the vast majority of "readers", don't publish magazines...they don't think like a publisher either. Yet they continue to buy magazines that they enjoy reading.

"Users" don't buy nor do they read, magazines that are full of ads unless they are very attractive ads and the magazines have images or text or other content than cannot be found elsewhere..about the subject .

I don't know what magazines you read, but all the ones I pick up have far more ads than content, and no... 2-page ads filled with medical text on the latest drug for fighting high cholesterol doesn't qualify as attractive in my book. Readers do in fact buy all those magazines. And yes, quite likely those magazines do have images or text or other content not found elsewhere, of course! Guess what? My sites do too. I'm not saying crappy content should rank well.

"Users" decide what they consider "great content" not site owners.

Yep. Agreed. No argument from me on that.

Google are not in business to be fair..life is not fair..

Perhaps this was directed at someone else, but I can assure you, I never complained about Google not being fair. Or life for that matter. So if that was aimed at me, please aim that arrow elsewhere. I don't whine about fair.

Google make an exchange with "users"..they have something users want ..and users accept the ads in serps..

That's my entire point. Google is nothing more than a website. All websites have the same opportunity to make an exchange with users...to give users something they want...and expect that users will accept the ads on the site in exchange. If a website gives users what they want, then users should give the website the same courtesy they give Google.

The "users" decide if what you or Google ( you are both running websites with content and ads ) offer by way of content is worth having the ads with it ..

Agreed.

If the "users" don't think a site is worth having with the ads ..that is the site's problem, not the "users"..

No argument from me on that.

Google's ads are discreet ..they are not "in your face"..they are not the first thing that hits you or "users" when you or "users" go to Google search page ( there are no ads on it ) ..and they are not the thing that hits you or "users" most about the serps returned for any search..

Which is why I made the point that website owners need to compromise. I agree that in your face ads need to be pulled back.

Trying to tell the "users" how they should think..is a recipe for failure.

Actually, I don't necessarily agree with that statement, though I understand the sentiment. If that were true, however, there'd be a lot less calls to action on site telling users exactly what to do next.

In any case, I think you've tended to put words in my mouth, and I wanted to clarify.

I'm not arguing for crap content, for bling bling in your face ads, or for fairness from Google, life, or anyone else. But I doubt anything I say at this point will really make a difference, so perhaps a good night's sleep is a better use of my time tonight.