Live data from Hacker News

Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

techcrunch.com

301–310 of 311 posts

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I might have misunderstood your comment. Several people on this page provided statistics and reports how they got nothing or next to nothing when Google replaced all ads in the AdWords network with their Chrome ads. As I’m also not interested enough in the topic to research sources just to change your opinion, I don’t care if you’ll downvote me again.

I checked this page and nobody here links to anything supporting ad auction abuse as you say. Are you sure you understand what you're talking about?

I meant "several people on HN mentioned in a post when Chrome was introduced", not "several people in this HN thread". Sorr :/

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#302
post #211

What ad network is it that serves up ads that actually open up the iOS App Store, without having tapped on anything? That's super annoying.

Also how is iOS so bad it just opens the Store without asking?

That's not iOS, just Safari. Tweetbot, for example, prompts you if a webpage within it tries to take you out of the app.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#303
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also how is iOS so bad it just opens the Store without asking?

That's not iOS, just Safari. Tweetbot, for example, prompts you if a webpage within it tries to take you out of the app.

That's an iOS feature. Any app that attempts to redirect you to the App Store will throw up that interstitial.

Safari is the odd one out, there. No idea why it's allowed to avoid it.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#304
post #35

Hopefully Google can distinguish them from the "By browsing this site, you accept the use of Cookies [X]"-popups that EU websites have to implement now.

Unlikely -- those links usually don't contain links to your platform's respective app store.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#305
post #72

Does 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.

Exactly. And, even worse, when trying to play the video on youtube on mobile, I often get "this video is not available in embed mode, please click here to go to youtube, and it reloads the same page -.-

If your rooted, install XDA's framework, they have some youtube modules that give you back control over how youtube works on your device, period!

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#306
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relevant: https://twitter.com/danbarker/status/439125570115223552

I fail to see how providing a short except that is fully attributed and links back to the original source is a problem. If anything, it steers even more traffic to wikipedia.

Is this the "gay" dev forum? No offense, but all of you are bitching like a bunch of women.... or more like faggots.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked this page and nobody here links to anything supporting ad auction abuse as you say. Are you sure you understand what you're talking about?

I meant "several people on HN mentioned in a post when Chrome was introduced", not "several people in this HN thread". Sorr :/

>Several people on this page

That's not what you meant.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 on the discourse: Is anyone using it, like at all, except discourse? I have been waiting since it came for it to become a place for everything that Stack Overflow bans (non trivial questions that need discussion, "how can this be done in an elegant way" etc). And: Can someone please please create a new stackoverflow that rewards solving problems instead of going full Daesh in destroying old artifacts, enforcing du…

I tried to use Discourse but the hardware and software requirements combined would have meant a $20+/month VM rather than a $10/month VM: - Dual core CPU recommended - 1 GB RAM minimum (with swap) - 64 bit Linux compatible with Docker - Postgres 9.3+ (2 GB RAM min?). - Redis 2.6+ - Ruby 2.0+ (we recommend 2.0.0-p353 or higher) Ultimately I wound up putting PHPBB with a different skin back on the server, since it just…

Yup. I had pretty much the same problems, except I didn't even get to installing because the requirements put me off.

I just wanted something that sucks less than PHPBB or SMF, you know? But this thing mainly seems more bloated, and the live demos didn't really quite convince me of the "sucks less" part either.

One thing I haven't even been able to test yet, once you have it running, how much is there to configure in order to tone it down? Because if you want to run a forum for pretty much anything but a tech audience, I would like to get rid of all the "dynamic" and "interactive" javascript stuff. Because it really makes it less interactive/dynamic for people on old, low-powered computers. They need basic HTML full page reloads (assuming the HTML is somewhat lean--leaner than PHPBB/SMF preferably :) ).

Because the unique thing about forums, that still gives them relevance in the 2010s, is that you can gather a community with extremely specialized niche knowledge. If the person who knows everything about, I dunno, stained glass dyes, psychogeography or uh Sumerian breakfast recipes, just happens to have a really old machine you don't tell them to upgrade or suck it, because he or she may be one of the only people in the world with the particular expert niche-in-niche knowledge that brings invaluable quality to the forum, much more than having a shiny slick UI that looks buttersmooth on a new laptop.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#309

Does this apply to "please subscribe to our stupid newsletter" that obscures many sites now?

Per http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/09/mobile-fr... "After November 1, mobile web pages that show an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page will no longer be considered mobile-friendly. This does not affect other types of interstitials." This implies the answer is No, since that's another type of interstitial (not an app instal…

Which is weird because most of the reasons they give are valid for any type of interstitial, there's not a lot of reasons that set app interstitials apart from others that are relevant to the user.

They're basically a new kind of pop-up window, an annoyance that you have to click away.

I don't remember browsers only blocking certain kinds of pop-ups based on content, they just see if it wasn't initiated by a user-action, it'll get blocked.

I suppose for Google there may be some reasons why they want to block the app-interstitials (I guess because they want to encourage keeping the content they index on the web, not in an app?), but even then, that's still no reason not to punish the other types of interstitial just as much. Trying to make the distinction is just making it harder on themselves, they will occasionally get it wrong, or people will complain that their interstitial shouldn't be punished because it is (somehow) not quite about the app--making the criteria a bit broader seems like it's easier for Google and better for the users?

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant "several people on HN mentioned in a post when Chrome was introduced", not "several people in this HN thread". Sorr :/

>Several people on this page That's not what you meant.

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. This page == Hacker News. If I meant this thread, I’d have seat this thread.
Post reply on HN