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

111–120 of 406 posts

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

#111

Post by baddox »

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…

Where do they expect these visitors to come from, if not from Google searches? It doesn't add up to me. If people can only get to your site from Google by scrolling past Google's own widgets, why make your site worse and thus discouraging them from scrolling down next time?

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

#112

Post by jsz0 »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #15

I'd really like to see them work on improving relevancy instead of swinging their corporate weight around at whatever "benevolent" end they decide is important this week. Considering how much time I have to spend nowadays tweaking queries and futzing with the search tool options to get relevant results, I'm starting to look at all of these moves much more cynically. Taking on anti-patterns is great, but not when your…

I keep seeing a bunch of the same search spam sites show up in the first page of results. Seems like something they should be able to fix. I actually started blocking a bunch of these search spam sites on my firewall so I don't accidentally waste my time looking at them.

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

#113

Post by patwalls »

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…

Wow didn't know this. Is this also why many e-commerce sites beg for your email every time you visit?

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

#114

Post by theWatcher37 »

cossatot wrote: post #103
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.

If AMP is an indicator of their long term strategy AOL2.0 is definitely in the cards.

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

#115

Post by ssharp »

baddox wrote: post #109
mmanfrin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It could be that the ads are making more money than they're losing from conversion decrease.

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

#116

Post by Alupis »

Retra wrote: post #108
Alupis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

How many articles that HN posters discuss were written for free, have no ads on the site/blog, nor are behind a paywall, nor have some ulterior motive for the content (recognition, advertising/promotion, etc)?

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

#118

Post by patmcguire »

flukus wrote: post #75
Magicstatic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pop-ups like that have long been shown to improve conversion rates... at the increase of pissing off people who wouldn't have been a conversion anyway.

Do they increase conversion rates long term? A lot of those pissed off people might not be customers today but could be in future.

What was the last hover ad you saw? Closing it is so instinctual I doubt it even registered. Those people won't remember next time. Annoying people is an evolutionarily stable strategy.

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

#119

Post by patmcguire »

baddox wrote: post #109
mmanfrin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It's probable that there is no grand strategy, but it might make sense if their model finds you unlikely to convert and the conversion price is very low. It's not necessarily flat per movie, they may be losing money on that one as part of a package deal.
Post reply on HN