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

391–400 of 406 posts

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

#391

Post by xkiwi »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #305
Smirnoff wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could make lots of guesses why you don't experience Quora the same way I do. None of that would change the fact that I can't see the information I am being promised to see on Google. Here is a screenshot of the page I am being forwarded to automatically: http://pho.to/Aatuj It is a disguised register page because after you make 10 selections, you are forced to sign up.

That's because you seem to be halfway through making an account and they want you to finish. The actual behavior of Quora, if you aren't midway through account signup is: if you go through Google search it shows you the page promised. If, from that page, you click on another question it will open the second question but give you the sign up modal. You can bypass a signup modal and get the normal page by appending ?sh…

When I made that quora complain before, HN readers are kind enough to show me how to avoid it. Without the ?share=1 trick, I probably don't even know how Quora looks like.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483049

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

#392

Post by username223 »

chinhodado wrote: post #233
username223 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this API even exist? I thought the "Security and privacy considerations" section [1] was a good example of how hostile the Modern Web has become, but anyone who thought that allowing web pages to vibrate your phone was a good idea was either malicious or oblivious. [1] https://w3c.github.io/vibration/

To be fair there have been a drive of exposing web API for everything on the local machine, including USB, Bluetooth, etc. However, just like with location, camera, microphone, etc. access to vibration should be granted by the user, not automatically granted like right now.

It's too late for the web app/page ecosystem to be fixed, and adding more access just makes it worse. Most web stuff is so bloated with tracking and indirect third-party software installation that it's difficult for even the creator of a page/app to figure out what code gets run (see e.g. [1], scroll down to "Fad Ads"). There are still social norms for what native programs should do -- tracking and automatic forced update are frowned upon -- and developers who do these things are shunned.

The browser has become a sandbox for hostile actors, and it seems like a terrible idea to make that sandbox larger.

[1] http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

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

#395

Post by odysseus »

nvr219 wrote: post #194
DrScump wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

How much of a problem is this on iOS?

Check out verify.ly to get some surprising info on what iOS apps are doing behind the scenes. There are plenty of apps that have the ability read your full contact data or your calendar without ever asking you. Skitch, Amazon, and Skype do one or more of those. I have deleted them and gone back to the web app for Amazon. FaceTime replaced Skype, and I'm stuck with Markup in Photos as a poor replacement for Skitch.

Of course there are plenty of safe apps that do not abuse APIs - for example, the Deliveries app by JuneCloud.

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

#397

Post by SnowingXIV »

Rezo wrote: post #328
RRL wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has tried repeatedly to challenge Yelp. Every attempt fails, but they insist on hurting Yelp and businesses like it that have provided value over many years. This goes back to Larry asking his teams to answer the users' query on the Google landing page. He wants the entire users' session to be in Google products. These companies are as much at fault for relying on Google so heavily. Google is as much as fault…

I think Google has just recently reached a "good enough" state for Yelp like use-cases, while Yelp has simultaneously declined, that I'm nowadays more likely to just use Google.

I don't use yelp anymore, all the places around me google reviews seems to become more and more popular. Instantly I get nice photos, hours, directions, and just as quality of reviews. The best thing, sometimes a direct link to the menu. Show times are much better than going to fandango etc. I want to spend less time on my phone navigating sites and more time giving options to my wife or friend who's traveling with me

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

#398

Post by asdfasdfa11112 »

Angostura wrote: post #292
asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called a "moat". Build it for your company, it's a good thing for an entrepreneur. To be significantly successful, you need to stop thinking this way. Start thinking about what benefits you & your company. It may seem like contempt for the consumer, and perhaps it is. But it's also possible the consumer is irrational and you can benefit in the short and long term. I work in marketing, and have seen scant evid…

> I work in marketing, and have seen scant evidence for the value of a "brand" To what do you attribute the success of, say Coca Cola, rather than generic cola? Price and a good distribution network? Surely brand must contribute a little.

I don't know much about how branding works at that scale. But I don't think it's very effective for small/medium companies, and can be quite a money sink.

In nearly every SMB branding exercise/project I've participated in, the need for a brand, and the benefits it provides, are entirely limited to the egos of the employees.

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

#399

Post by asdfasdfa11112 »

macNchz wrote: post #330
asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called a "moat". Build it for your company, it's a good thing for an entrepreneur. To be significantly successful, you need to stop thinking this way. Start thinking about what benefits you & your company. It may seem like contempt for the consumer, and perhaps it is. But it's also possible the consumer is irrational and you can benefit in the short and long term. I work in marketing, and have seen scant evid…

I have seen this "we can't measure branding but we can measure conversion rates so let's optimize optimize optimize" approach borne out to create some of the worst websites. High converting, surely, but spammy, ugly, constantly trying to jam you into the funnel, full of dark patterns etc. Usually utterly forgettable, but often memorable for how crappy the experience is. In my experience companies that do this are thi…

The problem with a brand is that you don't know if it's the most effective use of the resources that go into it.

Coca Cola has nearly infinite resources, compared to the jobs I've worked (Even then, can they prove the value of their brand is an effective use of their marketing dollars? What I've read has a lot of correlations that could be explained by other causes.

For a good read on this, check out the Intel Inside section on this article: https://conversionxl.com/cro-vs-branding/

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

#400

Post by asdfasdfa11112 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #360
asdfasdfa11112 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called a "moat". Build it for your company, it's a good thing for an entrepreneur. To be significantly successful, you need to stop thinking this way. Start thinking about what benefits you & your company. It may seem like contempt for the consumer, and perhaps it is. But it's also possible the consumer is irrational and you can benefit in the short and long term. I work in marketing, and have seen scant evid…

It's difficult to measure the value of a brand, and most companies don't bother. It's expensive, because you have to pay actual people to talk to other people in a systematic way, over a long period of time. Brand awareness is the measurement of the degree to which potential customers know that your product or service is an option when they are ready to make a purchase. You can't measure it from your marketing intera…

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Honestly, it makes a lot of sense.

I don't have any experience with billion dollar companies. Have you worked in the industry and seen how they measure their campaign efficacies in huge companies? I bet it's really different than what I've seen.

Based on what I've seen, it's a lot of story telling that "branding" works. The question is, does it work better than if the company had put those resources into other avenues? Improve the product. Decrease the cost to consumer. Better customer service.

Here's a good cro vs. branding article, check out the Intel Inside section. [0].

There's a lot of money being made by people working in branding. If their field actually wasn't very effective, I wonder if it would be possible for them to accept it. I generally wouldn't want to find out that my career has essentially been a waste, and I created no value. (insert sinclair quote here)

[0] https://conversionxl.com/cro-vs-branding/

Post reply on HN