Google's ad filter

There is really one way to avoid annoying pop up ads online. Download an ad blocker extension or use a separate browser like “Brave”. The advantages of a blocker are pretty obvious. The ads disappear and browsing becomes a much easier experience. On the downside they seem a little slower to me. Restricting the web page from bringing up ads causes a slower loading time. For most people this is still not bad considering pages that have ads don’t load until the ads are present anyway. I tried using one for a while but quickly discovered I couldn’t add clip images to my blog the way I could with Chrome. Also, it didn’t save my work website passwords for easy access. I am sure with a little tinkering I could have fixed that problem as well, but I don’t like tinkering. I want as simple an experience as possible and things that don’t work right the first time are useless to me. “Patience and diligence” what’s that?

 So I went back to Chrome. 

I was pretty pumped when I read that Google was updating its Chrome browser with an “ad filtering” feature. This is big news for a couple of reasons. First, Google relies heavily on money from advertisers for a big chunk of their revenue. Without looking I’d say most of it. Telling advertisers what they can and can’t use on their platform seems like cutting off the tree limb your sitting on. But it isn’t. Chrome has something like 60% of the traffic (of the entire web) using their platform. That makes it a big player and one that can set effective parameters for advertisers.

Walmart tried something like this over a decade ago. They set requirements to vendors who hoped to put product on their shelves by dictating terms. Before that vendors had exclusive rights to decided details like packaging, price and quality. Afterwards, sellers lined up to adjust product offerings for a chance at selling to the largest market share in the country. Only a large player like Walmart could have pulled that off. Market share is everything.

Tech blogs are not impressed with Google however. Mostly their criticism revolves around privacy concerns of regular users and not Google’s war on annoying pop ups. Most of the ones I scanned don’t think it will make a difference to the overall experience of users. I disagree. By establishing guidelines, Google forces advertisers to eliminate the most egregious ads, the ones that drive people to use blockers in the first place. I can’t speak for all PC users but that was my situation. The types of ads on the chopping block are the ones with video and sound, the full screen ones where you can’t find the exit button and those grating countdown timers that explode out of nowhere. It’s a simple request but one that should stem the tide, for a while, on consumers ditching traditional browsers for blockers.

Why now? In other words why didn’t they do this years ago when the internet was crawling with adware like lice on a dead sparrow? Ad blockers were not very good and the sheer number of users who had them wouldn’t fill out a subreddit thread. They weren’t a threat to any of the major browsers. But now they are. A whopping 26% of users employ an ad blocker on their desktops and 15% do it on their phone. My concern though is with desktop software since I use an Iphone and don’t have issues on the mobile side. Also I do all my work on my laptop and until I can afford a Mac (Safari), I’ll stick with Chrome. Google is losing ad money to consumers who have checked out, tired of the onslaught of flashing, obnoxious advertising.

There is another problem for desktop PC users who don’t utilize a blocker, more page interference than ever before. When your boat capsizes everyone is exposed to sharks. Those who climb into the life raft avoid the feeding frenzy. Anyone still in the water when the sharks come by has to fend off additional attacks. Same situation for those still on traditional browsers, they catch the ads that were meant to be spread out among a larger number of viewers. Fewer people mean more ads. It’s a cyclical mess that promotes leaving Chrome altogether, it seems like Google is finally getting it. Their model is threatened without seriously reigning in the worst types of pop ups.  

I can deal with some types of internet advertising. I expect shoe companies to target me when I search for Mizuno or Nike sneakers. The targeted ads that appear in the margins of your favorite news site are just a result of recent searches anyway. I’d rather not see it at all but considering I am browsing for free, the trade-off doesn’t bother me as much as it does some people. Anyway with more news sites opting for paywalls it doesn’t leave many quality freebies. It may yet resemble a neighborhood after the good stores leave and all that’s left is liquor marts and pay day lenders; or more appropriately Breitbart and Buzzfeed.

In the early days of web surfing (mid 90’s) everything was free (mostly) but given the limited use advertisers didn’t bother paying for slots on pages. Some did, but it wasn’t targeted like now. The availability of tracking data and site click minutiae didn’t exist. The openness and ‘share anything’ culture created stars and popular bloggers pushing out their own content. People still get famous for weird, silly, creative and awful behavior but the sheer amount of devices online now means getting noticed as the next great singer is tougher, making it sort of like life before the web. Singers, writers, actors, film makers and artists have to go through the same tiered systems as always.

Create content and market the content.  Hope someone notices the content and pays for more similar content. This was true before the internet and it’s true now.  

This might sound like pinning for the good ol’ free days. I promise it isn’t. The internet is much more efficient now despite the odd insurance commercial that plays at full volume.  As much as we all hate it advertising makes a lot of stuff free that we would otherwise pay for. Nothing is really free after all and consumers ultimately decide how much is too much with regard to ads. Google’s move in creating a built in ad filter is just the first step in an effort to keep advertisers in check and hold on to a dwindling base.

More to come on ad restrictions? I certainly hope so.  

Cherry Ho!

There’s only one way to eat cherry turnovers---enthusiastically. I don’t mean one sensible bite at a time, between alternating sips of Earl Grey. Really get in there, like a pitbull munching on a tennis ball. Don’t let a second of time pass between the brief chewing phase and the next massive chomp. Chew a bit, swallow, and chomp. Repeat the process until the sugary pastry is kaput. Then grab another.

I discover this little quirk every time I buy a box (Awww... is that for me?). I’ve tried to just eat one. It must be easier to cure diabetes than tear oneself away from the ribbon festooned box with the warm bakery scent wafting through the paper bag. Some people have trouble walking past a shoe store, others can’t miss a good garage sale but even fewer pass by a bakery without that Pavolovian twitch in the taste buds. For me cherry turnovers are it. The all.

When baked just right, the corners fold together evenly like a stack of napkins at an upscale restaurant; the pebble sized sugar bits sink into the cooling dough and rest neatly on top like pillows on a bedspread. The melted frosting pools delicately around the base. When done poorly…still not bad actually-nothing the microwave can’t fix. They get overcooked sometimes which is worse than being under cooked for the same reason people eat raw cookie dough and not burnt cookies.

The toughest time is bringing back the gift box of warm turnovers. My appetite for sweets gets stronger on the long ride home from the bakery. I become engaged in a mind battle, a struggle for the soul.

Stomach: “I’ll just eat one, save one for breakfast and maybe polish it off tomorrow.”

Brain: “Yeah…heard that before”

Stomach: “Oh my Goooood, so good! I am getting another”

Brain: “You said. You promised. One and done…remember?”

Stomach: “It’s only two, that’ll leave two for tomorrow, perfect even number. Although, maybe just one more before bed, glass of milk to wash it down.”

Brain: “You realize that’s a family size box right? Three! Are you kidding, don’t do it!

Stomach: “Well, only one left. Don’t think that’ll be enough for breakfast, may as well finish it off.”

Brain: “You make me sick, disgusted really.”

Stomach: “Did we remember to get Tums? I don’t feel so well.”

I don’t pretend I can bake them but I know what passes for success and what decides failure. Under this logic I could be a host on a baking show and make the contestants bring me a platter with sweets. I could pick a favorite but would have no advice for how to make the bland ones better, “Umm probably needs more sugar”. “Yes, definitely more sugar. And what else did you use, frosting? Use more of that too.”

 Those shows seemed more concerned with presentation than taste, which makes sense in a fancy setting but doesn’t work with me. Maybe it’s how I am wired but taste should come first since it has the longest memory tail. I’ve only been to one of those expensive dinners where everyone wears ties and gets their portions in drips and drabs. “Oh look dear, they arranged the veal with a little parsnip and marinara sauce!” I remember the dinner was good but I like to eat faster than the 2.5 hours it takes the place to send out waiters to the table like Western Union couriers delivering telegrams. I remember the dessert, French silk pie with a perfect balance of rich whip cream and melted chocolate. Point being I remember the dessert and wait time, not the presentation.

Apparently it is rude to ask for seconds, thirds are out of question. I don’t want to be that guy, but I kind of am.

I’ve even bought the frozen pre-cut cherry turnovers before too. They aren’t bad but the taste is in the ingredients and something tells me the ingredients in frozen packaging are sub par. Same goes for the little packets of frosting and cherry filling, they end of tasting closer to a “Toaster Strudel” than a baked turnover. I’ll try a few different brands and see what sticks.

The same problem is likely to arise, so many turnovers so little time. Saving money requires buying in bulk but the only bulk I keep get to keep is in the stomach area.

Till next time, happy eating.

    

"The Cuban Affair": Review

 In doing research for this book Nelson Demille visited Cuba, probably shortly after the Obama administration tried to normalize relations. I didn’t check to see how long he was there but it is a safe assumption he spend at least a week or more. His detail of the roads and layout of the city is impressive, not only in Havana but also some of the other spots.

The Cuban Affair builds intrigue slowly, revealing just enough about the mission to keep anyone interested.

His hero is a retired Army officer named Daniel McCormick (Mac) who owns a charter boat in Key West that he uses to take fishing groups on excursions in the Gulf. One day a wealthy businessman offers him a chance of a lifetime. Through a series of events, he is to join a tour group from the states, under an assumed identity, and bring back some secret documents and money. He is joined by a Cuban American woman (Sara Ortega) who helps him get around the country What could go wrong?

 Despite the risks he agrees to the terms. A fishing tournament off the shores of Cayo Guillermo serves as the opening for a way to get the hidden loot from its hiding spot in Cuba to Mac’s boat just off the coast. It’s a risky stunt and we are never sure what the real value of the hidden treasure is. Like any good story it unfolds a little at a time, never giving too much away and continually raising the stakes.

Mac has a grouchy old partner who enters the fishing tournament while Mac and Sara join an official tour group as a way to get into the country.

I’ve always like the way Demille writes dialogue. The story unfolds from the mind of the lead and the reader sees the plot develop around them. This puts us in the head of the main character, what he is really thinking. It’s funny too.

Sara: “I want to do it now…in case I don’t get back”.

 Mac: “In that case it doesn’t matter”

Sara: “Yes…but…it’s the right thing to do. Even if you cheat, you shouldn’t lie.”

Really? I though lying and cheating went together. But maybe Catholics need to confess. 

Mac: “Let’s decide tomorrow.”

Demille’s leads are sarcastic and pepper the story with one-liners and inside jokes. And since he writes from first person (mostly) we follow the plot from Mac’s point of view.

The story isn't forced since Mac isn’t political or passionate about causes. He doesn’t preach to us about the cruelty of the Cuban police state, he lets the story develop that way and leave no doubt. It’s sympathetic to anti-Communists and harsh with citizen informants “los chivatos” who are really just stand-ins for the police. They report suspicious activity regarding foreigners. 

I’ve always thought there was too much romanticism surrounding Cuba from Americans. Partly because of Ernest Hemingway (he had a home there) and partly because of the “What might have been?” aspect of almost 60 year embargo. This book will not make anyone think the US made a mistake in slamming the door to trade on the Castros. It keeps the history pretty light assumes readers understand how the island came to be run by thugs. 

The Cuban Affair blames the decay of the country as the fault of the leaders only, not of the citizens trying to scrape by on $20 a month.

What results is an adventure with plenty of romance, scuttled plans and an impressive knowledge of the city layout in Havana.

Who Owns the Tip?

What is the purpose behind the tip at a restaurant? Is it the friendly attitude and ‘can-I-help-you’ demeanor of the waiter or waitress? Does it depend on how long it took to cook that “extra anchovy” pizza? Is the food quality the reason, or is it all decorum and timing?

I guess everyone has an imaginary sliding scale in their head on what determines a fair tip. Since the service is what I notice first, I tend to weigh it higher than food quality. Everyone is different though. 

The one thing most people know about the restaurant business is that competition is fierce. That Korean BBQ place you like might go belly up in a few years, that local deli with the perfect Ruben might be close to bankruptcy. Even profitable ones are often one slow season from shutting the doors forever. The reasons are pretty simple. Alternatives exist and even most small cities have a handful of options for dinning out. From steak houses to Applebees and everything in between, this country is chock full of places to gorge. Owners decide daily on how to cut costs and remain profitable. One measure is in salary for employees whether wait staff, cooks or bus workers. Retaining good cooks, especially at swanky places, is imperative for offering top quality. With such tight profit margins owners are sometimes forced to use tip pooling schemes to pad the salaries of everyone.

Understandably this doesn’t sit well with servers. At least in those cases where they are used to tips as a part of their income, a ‘pooling’ requirement would undercut their totals. Currently the Department of Labor is considering tossing out the Obama era’s policy that make’s pooling illegal. The existing law bars restaurant owners from using server tips as a means to pay cooks, bartenders and bus boys for their labor. President Trump’s proposal would overturn that requirement, giving owners total control over payroll. At its core, this law gives owners the freedom to make choices in the best interest of their businesses.

 Without the freedom to make payroll choices though restaurants may find themselves quickly out of business. The best option for any company trying to survive is to make choices that fit their model and make sure everyone working there understands it.

Some businesses get around the pooling law by adding a percentage fee (10%) to the total bill after the sales tax. That way half the tip (assuming a 20% gratuity) is already spoken for. It usually gets added to a salary fund and divided among the ‘back of the room’ staff like cooks. This does seem a bit like taking money from the servers, but again it depends on what the tip represents. Is it a reward for excellent service, or payment for a great meal and wonderful experience? If the former, than steeling the server’s income is what it feels like. If the latter, than the staff shares in the reward due to everyone.

I think the old model of servers getting the whole portion of the tip is on the way out, probably has been for a while. I never think to ask when eating out “How exactly is my tip being spent?” but most establishments have probably figured out what works best for them by now. I imagine if too many dine in places go the pooling route, good wait service will see a huge drop off. That’s the downside. Removing the incentive for great service means removing great service. There is some question as to how much of a link there is between customer care and tip percentage. Most people put down between 15% and 20% for even mediocre service; Acting ‘extra nice’ to paying customers doesn’t seem to garner a higher percentage.

I don’t want to live in a country that doesn’t prize customer service though.

 US companies generally prize customer service, this is especially true for dinning out. I went to Ireland a few years ago and ate nearly every meal out, some at fast food short order places and some at proper dining restaurants. In the short week I was there I noticed that places used to hosting foreigners had decent to good service. One place even cooked for us after the kitchen had closed from catering an all-day wedding. The burger and fry joints were universally bad though, the service was worse than an 8 hour license check at the DMV. Slow moving workers, forgetful cashiers and bland (really bland) food were the norm. “For the love of taste, has anyone ever heard of seasoning salt!?”

The best incentive in customer service is money. I like a culture that emphasizes taking care of paying customers. We shouldn’t take away that importance altogether even if it means the dinning business has to rethink some core methods for paying its help.

FirstPrinciples believes a one size fits all approach to paying workers is bad business and hurts those with a unique model and a varied customer base. Let enterprising owners decide how to hire and pay their own staff according to the model best suited. Who can say what creative marketing ploy they might devise anyway to attract hungry diners. If tipping wait staff for excellent service is what customers want, use it as a selling point for your new venture. “Waiters get to take home any extra tips” as a model, might just work for a large enough segment of your city’s foodies. It would certainly attract good servers eager to earn higher rates than the competition.

For exactly the same reasons I was against the smoking ban for restaurants over twenty years ago. Some places cater to smokers. It seemed silly to insist they all ban it. Don’t like working in a smoke filled dinner? Don’t. You don’t like eating in a restaurant with a smoking section? Don’t. There were plenty of places going smoke free before the ‘ban’. Let owners decide which (smoking or non) is a better fit.

Putting one size fits all regulations on company restricts their ability to compete. Put choice before out dated requirements.