I'm not sure how the ads get chosen in the example systems above - maybe they're random - but I've seen some amazingly bad Google ads matchups while reading the Age. I guessed they must be selected through keyword match, like other Google ads, and that in a newspaper context this can backfire, leading to examples like the above. Does anyone know if the 'picture' ads above are inadvertently chosen via word-match or whether they're random?
They are generally word-matched, which can result in problems, hence these amusing juxtapositions. However, apparently recently Google has created a sort of black-list of words (ie. suicide, slaughter) that, if they're present in an email, will result in no ads being shown...so they're aware of the problem: http://homepage.mac.com/joester5/art/gmail.html
this could lead to people appending their e-mails with a list of such words (suicide etc) much as some did (was it late 90s? post-911?) with lists of terror-related and ordinary-subversive-related words, back in the day
I think the appending emails stunt was around 99, certainly before 9/11 at least. From memory it started as a way to "thwart" the surveillance tactics of the man by including so much noise into emails it would be impossible for (and I forget the name of the computer that was meant to do this) the machine to keep up..
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.