First, if this were to take off it would move the industry to impression based pricing wholesale. Reprinted content is already on of the biggest problems today, and with this model there is obvious risk that original creators get nothing as reprinters take everything.
Second, given that we can't have a monopoly on this business, a webmaster is incentivized to join every Contributor-like program there is. We would end up with every website loading hundreds of javascripts for tracking visits from every provider there is, which would massively increase load times on the web.
Third, there are also incentives to game the system by splitting your content over many web sites, using iframes or javascript, each making a call to every possible provider. Similar ad fraud schemes are already a problem today and this will only make them easier.
One easy fix would be to make a system opt-in for the end user on a site-by-site basis. This is similar to how Flattr and Patreon works. I pay to both of them, and will probably not join Contributor, but it will be very exciting to see where Google is taking this.
I don't think any of these are problems that don't already exist with the way that ads are done.
As the article states, all Google Contributor does is buy the ad impression on the page you're visiting. One way or the other, there will be an ad impression on that page. This doesn't incentivize webmasters to put any more ads on than they already do, as far as I can tell. From their perspective, ads are working normally.
To my knowledge, Contributor uses the same infrastructure and technology as ads, but with a different payload. All 3 problems you mentioned are problems being experienced today:
1. Google is already able to guage 'low quality' pages, co temt farms and pirates. This doesn't change
2. This happenens with ads, Google can add a rule saying you "can't have x amount of ads of you want to be on our network "
3.Likely to stay the same: I don't see how contributor makes fraud easier
Absolutely, those are problem we know exist and this model risks making worse. The basic arguments is the big move towards cost by impressions if this catches on and becomes a dominant model, and the fact that banners of limited visibility is easier to stack. Huge white, or even invisible, banners littering the page will not disturb the casual user.
Google lost the fight on content farms several years ago. You are more likely to find reprints than original material if you google a breaking story or meme for example, even if there are exceptions.
First, if this were to take off it would move the industry to impression based pricing wholesale. Reprinted content is already on of the biggest problems today, and with this model there is obvious risk that original creators get nothing as reprinters take everything.
Second, given that we can't have a monopoly on this business, a webmaster is incentivized to join every Contributor-like program there is. We would end up with every website loading hundreds of javascripts for tracking visits from every provider there is, which would massively increase load times on the web.
Third, there are also incentives to game the system by splitting your content over many web sites, using iframes or javascript, each making a call to every possible provider. Similar ad fraud schemes are already a problem today and this will only make them easier.
One easy fix would be to make a system opt-in for the end user on a site-by-site basis. This is similar to how Flattr and Patreon works. I pay to both of them, and will probably not join Contributor, but it will be very exciting to see where Google is taking this.