"Skvazhyny"

I think having advertising on a website is quite justified. At least thanks to it, one can cover direct expenses for hosting, the domain name, and everything else. Of course, we're still far from compensating for the time and effort spent by both the site's authors and its programmer. Another function of advertising is attracting new readers, and this, in particular, justifies having Google ads. Google is more willing to return in search results those pages that carry its advertising. It must be said that sufficiently experienced internet users develop a filtering mechanism thanks to which they don't even see advertising (that is, of course they see it, but don't consciously register what they've seen). But subconsciously, advertising is still analyzed (and that's one reason it's placed, among others). So I go to my own website and feel that something is scratching my eye like a splinter. Ah, "skvazhyny" (screenshot nearby). There's an "i" with a dot in the name, the text seems to be Russian but is missing some commas, and of course, "ZhY" — a blatant spelling violation. Imagine, there's some "Geoburservice." They decided to advertise it, developed an ad block, turned to one of the world's leaders, paid money... Or perhaps there was a subtle calculation here? Without the "zhy" I wouldn't have even noticed this ad, but as it is, I both read it myself and wanted to draw readers' attention to it. Just imagine — a special method of attention manipulation: the calculated embedding of outrage-inducing blunders. [IMG_1] Does such an approach have potential? And you could also speak with errors so that people want to mimic you, stumble so as to attract attention at a crowded gathering... But then again, nothing new. Ladies who used to glue a mouche (a beauty mark — a deliberate defect) onto their face and modern fashionistas who disfigure themselves with piercings use something similar. And interestingly, have similar things arisen in evolution? Isn't there an analogy here with Amotz Zahavi's handicap principle? Zahavi's idea is that by displaying obviously harmful traits, males can "communicate" to females the high quality of their overall genotype and thereby gain an advantage in sexual selection. Since a peacock with its incredibly long "tail" hasn't been eaten yet, it must truly be viable. An interesting but debatable idea. However, I've strayed far from what prompted this discussion. Alas, the most likely explanation is simple illiteracy. What a pity.