viewing the eyetracking link we see that when people view google ads at the right they just see maybe three of them;

I think a clever toning background or a near threshold of perception lightening effect could be shown to stretch the amount of google ads actually seen n Measurably remembered

as Google is worth billions yet only the top few ads get the visual play this is a bit of a risk

its quite possible that a bigger visual field with a different revenue scheme could up their revenue hundreds of millions n give their stock a reason to rise

I'm just thinking this is a job that Ian Tindale could do n even patent the Ian version; all I write is public domain
-- beanangel, Feb 28 2008

eyetracking google ads http://megabluewave...ggoldentriangle.jpg
[beanangel, Feb 28 2008]

Living in Treon World is even worse than I imagined.
-- WcW, Feb 28 2008


I suspect the limit of three is how many ads people are prepared to read, and is not a measure of how far their eyes wander. So, even if you could get their eyes to wander further down the page, they won't be reading any more ads.

(I'm puzzled: I don't read any Google ads at all. Or maybe that's consciously.)
-- DrCurry, Feb 28 2008


//a clever toning background or a near threshold of perception lightening effect//

Someone hasn't been to the internet's underbelly, lately. That's all they do. I think "trashy" might explain why it's not done on google.
-- daseva, Feb 28 2008


Growing eyespace does sound interesting, in a science fiction kind of context.
-- bnip, Mar 02 2008


wcw wrote an item much like which I edited

What inspired the title? Fairnessizer? People pay more for top placement and "fairly" less for less desireable realestate. And you don't [create an idea] to change the fairnes-size at all......

----------- ------------------ ---------------------- -------------------- --------- WcW, Feb 27 2008
-- beanangel, Mar 05 2008


Now i vote against.
-- WcW, Mar 06 2008



random, halfbakery