Unless Google make it a benefit in search rankings in which case some (possibly many) will for SEO purposes, bit still not enough I'd wager (and the balance would be such that lower quality sites, that prioritise SEO over actually useful content, would be the majority of those that went for it).
This feels a bit like way-back-when, when BT and a couple of other UK ISPs toyed with a system that would insert ads into web content, sometimes replacing existing ads, simultaneously bothering their users (to make money out of them on top of existing subscription payments), screwing site runners (being associated with ads they had no control or even knowledgeless knowledge of, and potentially losing ad revenue), and screwing other advert providers.
I would assume that anyway. Who other than sites using Google analytics or ads (so part of the tracking network anyway) would opt in to being part of the tracking network that (unless they switch to Google's ads too) offers little or no benefit to them?
Who would opt in if it was?
What benefit would there be to opting in?
Unless Google make it a benefit in search rankings in which case some (possibly many) will for SEO purposes, bit still not enough I'd wager (and the balance would be such that lower quality sites, that prioritise SEO over actually useful content, would be the majority of those that went for it).
This feels a bit like way-back-when, when BT and a couple of other UK ISPs toyed with a system that would insert ads into web content, sometimes replacing existing ads, simultaneously bothering their users (to make money out of them on top of existing subscription payments), screwing site runners (being associated with ads they had no control or even knowledgeless knowledge of, and potentially losing ad revenue), and screwing other advert providers.