Is it Google's "job" to police websites in this fashion?
Ffs yes. Google's entire point of existence is to rank sites. Literally that's the only function of a search engine.
Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
181–190 of 311 posts
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#182I think it's interesting that they are making this decision - one that clearly pushed users to stay on the mobile web which is beneficial for Google - based on a study that was pretty flawed. This article debunks their methodology pretty well: https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-does...
Hush, don't tell them--they might decide not to do it.
[deleted]
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#183Does that mean they'll block youtube? Try playing a video on a phone that does not have the youtube app installed, it's just about impossible to get it right, it's a roulette that's rigged with more than half the links going to the youtube app page on google play. Highly annoying since there is no reason why the youtube page of some video should even have that app installation link at all.
Is that an android thing? I only have iOS and cannot recognize that at all.
I use both iOS and Android and I experience the problem pretty often, regardless of which mobile OS I'm using. It might actually be more common on iOS since there are more apps in the App Store than in Play Store, however I don't have numbers backing my guess. In either case it's very annoying, as this type of interstitial prevents you from accessing the content. As the article explains, small install banners at the top of the page as still OK (and honestly I'm OK with that too).
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#184I think it's interesting that they are making this decision - one that clearly pushed users to stay on the mobile web which is beneficial for Google - based on a study that was pretty flawed. This article debunks their methodology pretty well: https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-does...
Hush, don't tell them--they might decide not to do it.
I built an app without having a website before so I get the perspective of the app developer here too - trying to get people to their app. But I agree that interstitials is not the answer. We ended up building mobile app content previews (deepviews) for all the apps using our deeplinks (I work for Branch.io) which work much better.
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ohhh. I like that idea. I'm going to start doing that.
Your installs are improving their App Store ranking anyway though!
Are they? I don't think so. And especially not if the all is uninstalled within minutes. Apple puts much more weight into the ranking than into 'total downloads' (which would be the only increasing metric in this case.
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#186May be only me, I dont really find those annoying, in fact i find them helpful when they tell me my favorite site has an App and I dont need to use Mobile Browser to Read.
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#187I think it's interesting that they are making this decision - one that clearly pushed users to stay on the mobile web which is beneficial for Google - based on a study that was pretty flawed. This article debunks their methodology pretty well: https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-does...
Thanks for the link, that's a nice critique. That said, much of their arguments don't apply here. The article take the publisher's ("businesses") perspective, but that's not consistent with a search engine in this case - the original study is more accurate from the perspective of optimizing for the search user.
The business wants to convert low-value mobile users into high-value app installers, and would happily sacrifice most to get a few installs if that's net positive on long-term value. The search engine, on the other hand, wants as many users as possible to be successful in finding what they're looking for. These perspectives are not aligned - high abandonment rates due to interstitials can be fine for the business, yet penalized as destinations from a search engine. The underlying question is who Google optimizes for in this case, the user or the destination.
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#188I think it's interesting that they are making this decision - one that clearly pushed users to stay on the mobile web which is beneficial for Google - based on a study that was pretty flawed. This article debunks their methodology pretty well: https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-does...
[deleted]
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#189Does that mean they'll block youtube? Try playing a video on a phone that does not have the youtube app installed, it's just about impossible to get it right, it's a roulette that's rigged with more than half the links going to the youtube app page on google play. Highly annoying since there is no reason why the youtube page of some video should even have that app installation link at all.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Except google _has_ punished its own sites before, so calling them hypocrites so early seems a bit too trigger-happy to me
Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
As search becomes something that society depends upon, start treating it as a public utility . > without specifying what metrics Google is and is not allowed to use? Why not? If society depends on something, we regulate it. There are many different possible degrees of regulation, so this is not a boolean condition, even though painting such situations as a boolean choice between pure laissez-faire and nationalizing a…
Google would break if it were transparent. I'm frustrated by the status quo; I run a site where users who found it through search contact me to say that it should've been higher in the search results. I think this would only get worse if it were transparent, though. Gaming Google would become predictable and mechanized. The outcome would be ugly.
Fraud doesn't become legal just because someone has a clever idea for SEO. You're scenario only works in a totally unregulated environment. Internet businesses are not magically except from the types of regulation found in every other industry. The entire point of a regulation is to place limits on behaviors that harm society when left on their own.
However, focusing on my suggestion of transparency and verification misses the point. The method by which Google regains (and maintains) the public trust is their problem, and I'm sure that more than one solution exists.
My point is it would probably be in Google's best interest to fix this problem, because waiting too long has consequences. At some point, the people who feel that are treated unfairly by Google - it doesn't matter if they are correct in that belief - will fight back, which has already started in small, preliminary ways.
> The outcome would be ugly.
The outcome would also be ugly in a future where a socially-necessary service is controlled entirely by a single entity. As usual in these situations, the best situation is somewhere in the middle.