Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#101

Post by lotu »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #58
killwhitey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference seems to be that today even getting the top organic search result doesn't provide enough clicks for advertisers, so they feel obliged to purchase ads for their own brand names even when they already rank first. It should be noted that this instance is simply a test and should not be taken as an indication of how these ads will be purchased. While I'm sure there will be numerous advertisers who fee…

This may be fallout from trademark owners losing their various lawsuits against Google for allowing competitors to advertise on their trademark as keyword. (See this article: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/05/google_crushes.... ) So now they may be the top organic result (or even a navigation result) but JetBlue or United or whatever can buy a banner on top that has their airline telling the searcher how m…

I'm pretty sure the banner can only appear when you have the top organic search result. So JetBlue couldn't buy the banner for Southwest. Furthermore, the idea is that the user is trying to find Southwest so redirecting them to JetBlue would make not sense.

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#102

Post by [deleted] »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

[deleted]

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#104

Post by alanctgardner2 »

mindcrime wrote: post #90
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As pointed out below, these images aren't "pushing" anything down anything. They are about the same height as the stuff they replaced. http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2013/10/...

> As pointed out below, these images aren't "pushing" anything down anything. They are about the same height as the stuff they replaced. Doesn't matter. Users are going to see this, and their mind is going to register "huge fucking banner ad". They aren't going to go find old screenshots, break out a ruler and do pixel by pixel comparisons.

If the "pushing" issue is that negative results can be put below the fold, or further down the screen, size is totally relevant. As somebody pointed out, this folds in the top organic search result. It's more like a natural evolution of the author pictures Google indexes.

Yes it's eye catching, but you could just as easily end up with the juxtaposition of a big AA ad, followed immediately by an article about a hijacking. Plus there's the argument that people have been trained to ignore banner ads. This could bite advertisers depending on the other organic results and their demographic.

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#105

Post by radley »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

Any bets this is Google's second step towards a kind of Facebook page? (First step was the right-side card)

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#107

Post by mindcrime »

alanctgardner2 wrote: post #104
mindcrime wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As pointed out below, these images aren't "pushing" anything down anything. They are about the same height as the stuff they replaced. Doesn't matter. Users are going to see this, and their mind is going to register "huge fucking banner ad". They aren't going to go find old screenshots, break out a ruler and do pixel by pixel comparisons.

If the "pushing" issue is that negative results can be put below the fold, or further down the screen, size is totally relevant. As somebody pointed out, this folds in the top organic search result. It's more like a natural evolution of the author pictures Google indexes. Yes it's eye catching, but you could just as easily end up with the juxtaposition of a big AA ad, followed immediately by an article about a hijack…

If the "pushing" issue is that negative results can be put below the fold, or further down the screen, size is totally relevant. As somebody pointed out, this folds in the top organic search result.

If the issue about following content being above or below "the fold" were the only issue at stake, I'd agree. But from the pics in the article, I feel like people are going to see this and have an immediate, visceral, negative reaction, because it looks and feels like a huge banner ad.

But, if, as some people are saying, this is ONLY going to be for very specific brands and situations where the linked "ad" really would have been the top organic anyway, then maybe it won't be so bad. I had originally thought that this kind of ad was going to be allowed broadly and that they would be popping up all over.

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#108

Post by vxNsr »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

The issue as I see it is that when I click on an ad, I'm not just clicking on another link, I'm adding a bunch of extra cookies to my browser that now track my experience and try to target me even more. By removing the organic search result you've essentially given me no choice, now I HAVE to click on the cookie generating link, and I HAVE to deal with all that fall out, I might begin searching with Private Browsing because of this, at least then I know that all cookie are destroyed at the end of the session...

I'm very against getting targeted results because it destroys creativity and discovery. It used to be that when I watched a video on youtube when the video was over I'd get a bunch of related videos that were concerned with the same topic (whatever that was) now instead I see links to past videos I've watched that I'm simply not interested at the moment, basically thanks to google's attempt to make me stay on the site longer I usually only watch the video that brought me there before leaving because I'm not interested in watching cat videos or whatever nonsense I watched once but now is appearing next to the videos like a bad non sequitur.

And finally for my last rant: Why did google begin hiding their product from me? it used to be that all their products were prominently displayed at the top of the page, now if I want to use a different product I need to click a non-obvious icon and then scroll to find the product that I want to use, which UX guy came up with this?

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#109

Post by znowi »

anon1385 wrote: post #31

Page and Brin themselves once pointed out the problems of accepting ads or paid placement, with some rather ironic examples: Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's homepage when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad,…

What else can you expect from the Empire? Anakin was once a honest Jedi, too. But the evil forces of greed overpowered him :)

Choose the path of the Jedi - use DDG!

https://duckduckgo.com/

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#110

Post by cbhl »

vxNsr wrote: post #108
spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

The issue as I see it is that when I click on an ad, I'm not just clicking on another link, I'm adding a bunch of extra cookies to my browser that now track my experience and try to target me even more. By removing the organic search result you've essentially given me no choice, now I HAVE to click on the cookie generating link, and I HAVE to deal with all that fall out, I might begin searching with Private Browsing…

All of the links off google.com (including organic ones!) actually redirect you through a google server to:

1. track which one you clicked

2. remove the referer (sic.) field so that the target website doesn't know what search terms you used

Also, you should consider using the Chrome App Launcher for Windows and Mac OS X.

Post reply on HN