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

381–390 of 406 posts

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

#381

Post by squarefoot »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #331
Smirnoff wrote: post #273

I really would like to see Google penalize websites that force you to login after google showed these websites in the results. 1. Take Linkedin for example: you search for a person on google; google shows a linkedin result; you go to linkedin but you are greeted with giant popup asking you to login to view info. Ridiculous. 2. Same with Quora: they come in results with basic info, but when you go to their page, they…

I frequently have to delete these kinds of HTML nodes off the page just to see if it actually has something I want. I debated rolling my own extension for the common sites where I run into this, but ended up just throwing up my hands at the absurdity of the situation.

Same here. uBlock Origin works nice to remove the nags, but some sites just recreate them automatically using random identifiers so that they keep throwing the nagscreens at you at each page reload. Maybe it's time to put those recent AI wonders to some real useful work, say an embedded hardware proxy or an extension that recognizes and deletes nagware on the fly.

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

#382

Post by dang »

st3v3r wrote: post #362
dang wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This crosses into incivility, which breaks the site guidelines. Please don't do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13440624 and marked it off-topic.

How is this incivility?

You didn't just build a strawman, you made it an asshole and attributed it to the other commenter. That's not a civil move in discussion.

Please take better care to address others respectfully when commenting here.

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

#383

Post by Kadin »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #309
LordDragonfang wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to what you would think as a consumer, grocery chains almost always want you to buy their brand (the less expensive one) because the margins on store-brand items are much better. That's why the stores bother selling them in the first place (and why margin-hungry companies like CVS will have every popular placed side-by-side with a store brand)

Name brands pay for premium shelf/fridge space.

And that is probably the reason for the milk up front. The name-brand milk producer is paying big bucks for space in that cooler near the checkout, enough to offset the supermarket's probable loss in sales of their own store-brand milk in its normal location in back.

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

#384

Post by Kadin »

ozaark wrote: post #129
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.

The amount of consumer studies done on grocer layouts is enormous. The direction of foot traffic has been decided from rtl despite our common ltr reading format because it's more profitable to do so, the checkout line with small items marked higher than in other parts of the same store for the same reason, and so much more. If your sentiment were true, most heavily weighted expendables would all be located in the bac…

> most heavily weighted expendables would all be located in the back simply because of labor

They are. At least in almost every grocery store I've been in. The milk coolers are almost invariably against the back wall, accessible from the stockroom (which itself has the loading dock), as is the butcher / meat department. Both of those departments are probably getting daily deliveries, and it's of stuff that needs to be kept cold, has a short shelf life, and in the case of milk specifically, it needs to be stocked from the back of the shelves so that the oldest items get bought first (i.e. it's FIFO not FILO). It's a real pain to do this if you can't get to the back of the cooler.

Bread, however, is generally in its own aisle because it's not stocked by the store. Vendors (the bakeries) send their own delivery/logistics people in to stock it, so the stores don't really care about how easy it is, and those vendors also pull expired or near-expired items back off.

Produce, despite being expendable and delicate, tends to be towards the front because it's very high-margin for the store and also requires a lot of continual employee attention (and it generally has dedicated employees who just do that). It's admittedly been a long time since I worked in a grocery store, but back in the day in the pecking order of grocery-store floor workers, the produce guys were sort of at the top of the heap. (Although maybe that was because they could hook you up with the "damaged" fruit...)

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

#385

Post by dragonwriter »

Spooky23 wrote: post #210
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.

The cold chain thing is plausible, but I doubt it. Supermarkets have varying strategies for stuff, including cold items. The supermarkets around me put ice cream in either a center aisle or the second to last aisle, in the front of the store. The "smarter" store from a data standpoint has pint ice cream in an end cap next to the florist to nab women. Milk is always back corner. If they can figure out how to maintain…

They almost certainly move vastly higher volumes of milk than ice cream, making logistics a bigger concern.

It not that it's impossible to maintain the cold chain with other placements, it's that there is a cost (including that imposed by floor traffic) in doing so. Putting it someplace where a large volume walk-in cooler can be directly loaded from a truck and the display stocked from that without employee floor traffic across the store reduces the costs (labor, losses, and otherwise) of selling milk.

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

#386

Post by dragonwriter »

nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #244
dawnerd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Definitely down to personal preference, but the milk at our Target is generally in better condition, tastes better, and lasts longer than the milk from Safeway. And the shopping experience in general is much nicer than Safeway.

Safeway is pretty much the bottom-of-the-barrel grocery store in my area, so while I'd agree with that comparison of Safeway to Target, it's less true of Target than just about any competing conventional grocery store.

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

#387

Post by st3v3r »

dang wrote: post #382
st3v3r wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this incivility?

You didn't just build a strawman, you made it an asshole and attributed it to the other commenter. That's not a civil move in discussion. Please take better care to address others respectfully when commenting here.

No, I presented the consequences of their goal. Removing paywalled results from search engines will result in it being harder for people to be paid for their work. Why is it considered bad form to remind people of that?

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

#388

Post by st3v3r »

CaptSpify wrote: post #380
st3v3r wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy who said that he wants paywalled sites punished for trying to get paid for their work.

Nobody said that. OP said that he wishes google would penalize sites with paywalls, but that has nothing to do with sites getting paid for their work. There are many ways to get paid for your work without using a bait-and-switch method where you show google a different page than the one you are showing to your users.

I completely disagree. Google punishing sites for using paywalls will have the affect of making it harder for people to get paid for their work. And I don't believe that having a paywall is in any way a "bait-n-switch".

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

#389

Post by CaptSpify »

st3v3r wrote: post #388
CaptSpify wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said that. OP said that he wishes google would penalize sites with paywalls, but that has nothing to do with sites getting paid for their work. There are many ways to get paid for your work without using a bait-and-switch method where you show google a different page than the one you are showing to your users.

I completely disagree. Google punishing sites for using paywalls will have the affect of making it harder for people to get paid for their work. And I don't believe that having a paywall is in any way a "bait-n-switch".

You can disagree all you want. It's still a fact that nobody is saying what you are claiming. Sure, it makes it harder for people to get paid, the same way that it's hard for me to get paid if I advertise this: http://i.imgur.com/fvKbzDZ.jpg but when you arrive, I try to sell you this: http://i.imgur.com/MkhP1MW.jpg

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

#390

Post by DrScump »

DrScump wrote: post #151
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…

The reason for this behavior is that Google is systematically destroying the SEO traffic of these sites Another reason is that with apps, they have the opportunity to harvest the phone owners private data directly (contacts, messages, seeing what competing apps are installed, etc.) Most people don't pay attention to the overbroad spectrum of access many apps demand. Specific example: Samsung changed the Gallery app (…

Perhaps I should clarify that the "they" I referred to are the app publishers, not necessarily Google.
Post reply on HN