Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by SquareWheel » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:56 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #12

Oh good, Google abusing their power again. I guess as long as it's for "good" reasons. edit: would any downvoters care to explain how google being able to arbitrarily dictate web content is a power they should have?

>edit: would any downvoters care to explain how google being able to arbitrarily dictate web content is a power they should have?

Because that's literally how search engines work. They look at hundreds of metrics to try to return the most useful result.

If you want a metric-free search engine, you might as well ctrl+f for a list of the world's domains, because anything else will have subjectivity involved.

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

#102

Post by Retra » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:56 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #76

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…

> This is usually considered a big mistake in retail. Is it? Grocery stores keep essentials far away from each other so you have to walk past stuff you don't want in order to get to what you want. Imagine a store where they had milk at the checkout counter! That's the retail equivalent of amazon.com ;)

Physical store layout has nothing to do with online shopping.

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

#103

Post by cossatot » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:56 PM UTC

ageitgey wrote: post #82

Most users hate these pop-ups and cheer this move from Google. But let me add a little context to why these ads are so prevalent and why some companies view this move as Google abusing their power. If you visit to any "guide" website like TripAdviser, Yelp, etc, these days on a mobile browser, you'll notice that the sites often barely let you do anything without downloading the native app. They all but refuse to let…

Kinda makes you wonder if people will stop using Google search if it keeps them within the walled garden of other Google services. It wouldn't surprise me if Google is the next AOL in a decade or two, for reasons including this one.

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

#104

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:56 PM UTC

dawnerd wrote: post #93

lozaning wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milk is kept at the back of the store because that's the easiest please to put it from a logistics stand point. The truck the milk comes in pulls up to the back of the store and can immediately unload it into the giant refrigerated rooms at the back of the store. The fact that it helps "build the basket" by being at the back is a happy coincidence for the store.

Every Target I've been to has the milk before just about every other grocery item. Strangely enough, the seasonal stuff is tucked away in a corner. Then again, I guess if you're going to target for milk you're probably doing it wrong...

Your last sentence is more relevant than it seems on first glance. If the majority of Target shoppers are looking for the seasonal section and not milk, then it's actually pretty equivalent.

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

#105

Post by nothrabannosir » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #76

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…

> This is usually considered a big mistake in retail. Is it? Grocery stores keep essentials far away from each other so you have to walk past stuff you don't want in order to get to what you want. Imagine a store where they had milk at the checkout counter! That's the retail equivalent of amazon.com ;)

Planet Money #555: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/07/23/334076398/episo...

Their conclusion: the jury is out, but "never breaking the cold chain" is a good contender.

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

#106

Post by st3v3r » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:58 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #64

eumenides1 wrote: post #2

I wish Google would penalize websites with pay walls

A paywall is a pop up ad, and worse than most, in that you can't dismiss it. Google would argue that visitors coming via search aren't paywalled, but often that isn't true. Some give you 3 free views, for example, then cut you off. To me, if you want a paywall, that's fine...But then your content shouldn't show up on search engines, or perhaps if it does, it should be clearly marked as such.

Why shouldn't people be able to get paid for their work? No one is forcing you to pay them; it's just the same as anything else has been: If you want the product of someone's labor, you pay them what they ask for.

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

#107

Post by patmcguire » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

chinhodado wrote: post #95

For me, the most annoying thing while browsing on mobile is the vibration ads/fake alarms. It's horrible. I haven't even seen a single good use of this vibration API, as it is only ever used for things like "Your phone haz virus click here now". Why isn't there an option to disable it in Chrome is beyond me.

I would love a way to disable window.location, or for Google to punish all the sites that are just bait for a delayed JS redirect.

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

#108

Post by Retra » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 12:00 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #39

ashark wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the best content on the Internet was created by volunteers, for free, in my experience. The rise of ad-funded content has done more harm than good, overall.

> Most of the best content on the Internet was created by volunteers, for free What content is that? It costs money to host/serve that content at the very minimum. If it's videos like youtube, etc.. .the content creators absolutely get paid. Most people's blogs have ads to help offset hosting costs. There might be a few select examples - but in general, somebody's got to pay the bills.

How many HN posters do you think are paid to comment here?

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

#109

Post by baddox » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 12:00 AM UTC

mmanfrin wrote: post #60

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.

In the case of Fandango showing an interstitial ad when attempting to check out, I can't imagine that wouldn't hurt conversion, and I can't imagine that conversion wouldn't be one the key metrics they would test with. I would guess it's more just a lack of care. Someone said "we need our website to make more money" and someone else said "okay, I hear that ads are for making more money."

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

#110

Post by tyingq » Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 12:02 AM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #106

tyingq wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A paywall is a pop up ad, and worse than most, in that you can't dismiss it. Google would argue that visitors coming via search aren't paywalled, but often that isn't true. Some give you 3 free views, for example, then cut you off. To me, if you want a paywall, that's fine...But then your content shouldn't show up on search engines, or perhaps if it does, it should be clearly marked as such.

Why shouldn't people be able to get paid for their work? No one is forcing you to pay them; it's just the same as anything else has been: If you want the product of someone's labor, you pay them what they ask for.

They can get paid. It's just whether they should enjoy free traffic from a search engine when their content isn't free. At the very least, if there's a possibility I'm hitting a paywall, the search engine should put a [paid content] label on the search result.