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

181–190 of 406 posts

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

#181

Post by _delirium »

magicalist wrote: post #173
_delirium wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The UI affordance is terrible, but it's there if you scroll over the search categories, under "Search Tools" at the end (also, not sure if the GP is in some test or something, but date range and verbatim are still there for me on desktop and mobile)

Oh, weird. I had no idea what you were talking about, but just tried in mobile Chrome on the off chance it rendered differently, and I do see it there. In mobile Firefox the toolbar has many fewer options, and Search Tools isn't one of them. Looking around a bit, it seems that's been the case for years now: http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/22/google-search-results-on-fi...

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

#182

Post by alphonsegaston »

tragic wrote: post #57
alphonsegaston wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can only speak to my own experience, no idea where I lay on the spectrum of users. But I'm an artist who writes code as a hobby, so I'm not constantly searching for esoteric tech stuff or anything.

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

#183

Post by drewg123 »

walrus01 wrote: post #89
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…

It's a good thing that ublock origin can be installed on firefox mobile (android). Firefox on Android isn't nearly as fast in UI performance as chrome, but the ability to use standard firefox plugins makes up for it.

I use firefox on mobile for exactly this reason, which is funny, as I use chrome on the desktop.

It used to be that Google Now obeyed your browser choice when opening links. When it started forcing chrome, I had to actually uninstall chrome in order to make it use firefox to open the news article tiles it presents to me.

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

#184

Post by Klathmon »

aninhumer wrote: post #158
Klathmon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well an "ad blocker" is almost always just a list that some guy or repo online decides to block. So if someone decides AMP pages should be blocked, your ad blocker will start blocking them. It's actually one of the reasons I stopped using them. The idea of some person somewhere deciding what I see and don't see didn't quite jive with me. And it was impacting me by blocking things like Google shopping which I was tryi…

That's not a reason not to use an ad-blocker, it's a reason not to use a public blocklist. If you want more control, just make your own filter rules.

It was one of the reasons.

I also never really liked the idea of blocking ads, depriving content creators of money, and I don't want to always pay for everything with money.

That, combined with the lack of easy control, opinionated ad blocking utilities (stop blocking webRTC dammit. I know you think it's a problem, I don't), general breakage across the web, performance issues with most blockers, and more made me stop using them.

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

#185

Post by jdavis703 »

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…

Some of these sites might make more money selling ads than selling the actual product depending on their conversion. Just because the site isn't designed for your goal (buying plumbing supplies), doesn't mean it's not making the owner a profit (which is probably their goal).

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by QuercusMax »

robtaylor wrote: post #66
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

I specifically asked Google rep on that point and he said penalty would still apply. One G product can affect another it seems. It is worth bearing in mind that not all sites are reliant on google traffic, so more cash from Adsense at a hit on ranking may mean more £ and zero traffic impact.

This is absolutely true: in the past when certain Google teams have asked to have their pages bumped up in ranking, they've been told to work on their SEO and/or pay for ads.

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

#188

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

Turnabout is fair play for people like this.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by taeric »

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."

The cynic in me:. It is a great natural rate limiter to keep from too many customers seeing sold out while progressing directly through the process.
Post reply on HN