Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

scribblrs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 406 posts

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#51

Post by flukus »

evolve2k wrote: post #32

A client has just asked me to add a pop-up "whatch this vid, join our newsletter", when the user scrolls to about half way down the homepage for their SAAS startup. Further the pop up is not to reappear for 90 days. They got the approach from attending an online marketing workshop that suggested this increases their list. Felt like a bit of an anti-pattern to me. Anyone have advice as to if this is effective or if it…

Does this actually helps signups? You could be the best product in the world and showing a popup like that would ensure that I never, ever signup.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#52

Post by lostinny »

AnOscelot wrote: post #26
jrochkind1 wrote: post #16

Why only "mobile websites"? I hate em just as much when I'm viewing on the desktop.

I can understand why the desktop gets a pass, but I really, really wish they would consider doing it for sites which pop up those damned "Give us your email!!" forms. Especially those sites which pop it up almost immediately when I've arrived at their site for the first time. I don't even know your site yet. Just followed this link from somewhere else. And you're immediately demanding my email for your pointless news…

I agree, though I've unfortunately seen several tests that suggest that they work. The immediate "Give us your email" is much more effective than requests that wait for a certain number of pages, trigger after a certain scroll amount, or wait until you've been on the site for a significant amount of time.

Of the people who see the pop up, the conversion rate is highest for those who see it immediately. And there's not a significant effect on bounce rates.

I have no idea why! I would never simply give my email address to an immediate pop up modal.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#53

Post by sixtypoundhound »

netinstructions wrote: post #9

Funny, because Google Adsense offers "Page-level vignette ads" which are full page interstitial ads shown for mobile devices. The penalty must not apply because: > They're displayed when the user leaves a page, rather than when they arrive on one, so the user doesn’t have to wait for them to load https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/6245304?hl=en

Actually, they supposedly are also only displayed when Google's algorithms believe the user experience isn't negatively affected by the pop up. Not sure how much they have behind the scenes on this, but I recall them showing up erratically when I tested them for my site.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#54

Post by flukus »

chmars wrote: post #8

What's about intrusive cookie warnings? (They are apparently mandatory in the European Union and Google made them part of the Adwords rules some time ago.)

Why do cookie warnings have to be a popup? Not to mention that the vast majority of times these warnings come up cookies are in no way required for the site.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#55

Post by _delirium »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #38
dsjoerg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find myself having to tweak queries to get what I want. Can you give an example or two of what you're talking about?

The biggest problem I've had recently is that verbatim results can't be combined with a date range. Quoted text seems to be real hit or miss now, so if I'm looking for something narrowly defined and date limited, well...good luck!

Unless I'm missing it, there's no date range option at all on the mobile search page, which is even worse. I find the mobile search hard to use as a result, especially for tech-related subjects. I'll search for how to do something on Android, and the results will be a bunch of blog posts that give me information about how to find the option I want in the Android settings... of Android circa 2011.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#56

Post by pyrophane »

funnyfacts365 wrote: post #35
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most paywalls which offer the Googlebot the full site also offer the full site if you follow a Google search result to the article. So while you're correct that providing the Googlebot and people coming from Google Search different results is prohibited, most paywall sites just don't show the paywall for either.

Why does it matter where you come from? Content cloaking is content cloaking, referrers shouldn't matter.

Google cares that if you click a link in a Google search result that the content you see is the same as what they crawl, so paywalled sites give Google search traffic a pass because they don't want to be penalized by Google.

Of course, I agree with you in principle.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#57

Post by tragic »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #40
swang wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think what your parent post refers to is, sometimes searching for google will instead just try and no or . then you have to go back and put in quotes to make sure they're actually searched on.

Yes, ignoring parts of the query has just absurdly diluted result quality. And if you want something like the term or the term in a phrase, you have to put it twice and quote both.

It has diluted the quality of some results. I find it particularly irksome when googling for error messages, or other precise technical matters.

For more open ended queries, of course, the fuzziness can be helpful. And I would assume that the typical Google search is going to benefit more from the latter approach.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#58

Post by prawn »

evolve2k wrote: post #32

A client has just asked me to add a pop-up "whatch this vid, join our newsletter", when the user scrolls to about half way down the homepage for their SAAS startup. Further the pop up is not to reappear for 90 days. They got the approach from attending an online marketing workshop that suggested this increases their list. Felt like a bit of an anti-pattern to me. Anyone have advice as to if this is effective or if it…

I get all these demands too. This is how sites end up covered in distracting junk.

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#59

Post by Shoop »

user5994461 wrote: post #46
evolve2k wrote: post #32

A client has just asked me to add a pop-up "whatch this vid, join our newsletter", when the user scrolls to about half way down the homepage for their SAAS startup. Further the pop up is not to reappear for 90 days. They got the approach from attending an online marketing workshop that suggested this increases their list. Felt like a bit of an anti-pattern to me. Anyone have advice as to if this is effective or if it…

Do it and measure how many more (or less) registrations you get.

You will probably get more registrations at the expense of pissing everyone else off

Re: Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads

#60

Post by mmanfrin »

Animats wrote: post #47

What's really stupid are sites from which you can buy things, but then pop up an ad for something else. Fandango, which sells movie tickets, does this. As you're trying to get to the "buy ticket" page, they shove movie trailers for other movies in your face. I mentioned a site earlier today which sold plumbing supplies.[1] They pop up a "gimme your email" box which 1) cannot be dismissed , and 2) isn't even theirs, i…

I blame this on A/B tests which ignore externalities. Sure, maybe the 3 metrics you were aiming for were improved, but your brand is fucked. I think brands like Sears/Kenmore/Craftsman were A/Bed to death. So many little 'optimizations' (read: cost cutting that looked-good-on-paper) that eventually destroyed what the brand was about in the first place.
Post reply on HN