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

Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 311 posts

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#291

Post by bduerst »

x0x0 wrote: post #289
gizmo686 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Against whom is Google being anti-competitive with this move. How should we prevent this move from being illegal, without specifying what metrics Google is and is not allowed to use?

If google where to just use bounce rate as a ranking measure, that's fine -- if interstitials increase bounce rate, then site owners will have to determine for themselves whether it's worth the price. otoh, deciding to arbitrarily lower the rank because they don't like a particular type of advertising is exactly anti-competitive. So ranking measures derived from user behavior: great. Ranking measures designed to prio…

Many websites with pop-up ads (Forbes, etc.) display a 2-5s timer countdown to dismiss the ad and view the content, which engages users long enough to stay on the site. This games the bounce rate and would defeat a solution that is base solely on on it.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#292

Post by x0x0 »

bduerst wrote: post #291
x0x0 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If google where to just use bounce rate as a ranking measure, that's fine -- if interstitials increase bounce rate, then site owners will have to determine for themselves whether it's worth the price. otoh, deciding to arbitrarily lower the rank because they don't like a particular type of advertising is exactly anti-competitive. So ranking measures derived from user behavior: great. Ranking measures designed to prio…

Many websites with pop-up ads (Forbes, etc.) display a 2-5s timer countdown to dismiss the ad and view the content, which engages users long enough to stay on the site. This games the bounce rate and would defeat a solution that is base solely on on it.

I don't think you understood, or I wasn't clear.

Users will bounce if they don't like ads, with or without countdown timers. Acting based on observed user behavior is great. If they don't like it, they bounce. If they tolerate it, they don't bounce. Over time, users will migrate to less-annoying sites. Ranking sites on observed bounced rates, whether caused by ads, low quality, or what ever else, is awesome and should have no anti-trust implications. That's not what google did.

After all, if these ads really annoyed users in general, that would show up in their behavior, and thus naturally be picked up on by ranking algorithms, no? (They annoy me, but I'm not all users.)

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#293

Post by reilly3000 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #283
jbigelow76 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be in the minority but the Tapatalk app seems okay to me. It takes the cruft and ads out of the forum you are on and just presents you the content in a relatively stripped down format. Maybe my use case is out of the ordinary compared to a lot of HN, I use it for a single forum that I am an active member of, and I can't recall the last time I googled something and was redirected to a result that was a forum en…

I think people aren't complaining about the quality of the app. Rather we dislike the fact that when clicking a link to a forum we are forced to decline to install their app before we can view what we are looking for. Personally I close the page. I really hope the creators of tapatalk go out of business.

If Google, phpBB and tapatalk and get their shit together they would support deeplinking and make the experience seemless. It's not even that technically challenging but could run afoul of existing ad models...

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#294

Post by neoCrimeLabs »

roasm wrote: post #150
neoCrimeLabs wrote: post #71

This is a little curmudgeonly, but this is how I feel... If your developers are not capable of making your website mobible friendly in 2015, any app they develop is likely worse. This is especially true when your app demands access to everything on my phone even though it doesn't need any of it to function.

You're suggesting that you can make something as usable on a mobile browser as you can with a native app. That's just not true; if it were, there wouldn't be any native apps. For many use cases (games, highly interactive experiences, camera or microphone using app, etc.), a native app may just be better, and guiding users there might be a better experience and a better conversion funnel. Yes, you can make a website m…

It's absolutely true that a native application can be more functional than a mobile friendly website.

When it comes to websites that try to force their app upon you when visiting their mobile website, my experience has almost always bee n the application is as bad as, if not worse than, the website's functionality. This gets to my point that if your developers are not capable of building a decent mobile friendly website then they are probably not any better at building an app.

Also I hinted at the fact that in many cases these apps appear to be designed to track users and invade users privacy. Why else do so many need access to contact lists and more when their functionality doesn't remotely require it.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#295

Post by stcredzero »

ianstallings wrote: post #284
stcredzero wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, the native app is just as bad or worse! At least the just-as-bad native app didn't soak up your time and bandwidth!

If that were the case no one would ever install native apps. But the reality is given the choice, most people will use the app. I know this is a fact because mobile is my bread and butter. But if you need some evidence just go look at any of the analytics data that's out there. The majority of time spent on mobile by a user is using an app, with a much smaller percentage of time using the browser.

Most apps are ok, or at least no worse than the browser. Some are way worse. In no case does the interstitial take into account your momentary cost/benefit for downloading/installing or if the app is any good.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#296

Post by kuschku »

bduerst wrote: post #290
kuschku wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their TV ads were mostly ignored, but most people ended up accidentally clicking one of the Chrome ads, and then actually tried it out. There were days where every single YouTube preroll ad was for Chrome, every side ad was for chrome, every ad in the bottom of the video was for Chrome, every single ad served by AdWords was for Chrome, on Google.com were ads for Chrome in the top right with an animated arrow, there w…

And you know this how? When they launched chrome, the browser wars had long since been won. Everyone who knew what a browser was had installed firefox, and everyone else thought IE was the internet. Just because you ignored the ads doesn't mean the general public did. It sounds like you're being biased. If you're going to attribute Chrome's growth to "accidental clicks on ad manipulation" instead of the massive aware…

Well, in Germany Firefox is still far larger than Chrome. Chrome eats up the share of IE, but can’t touch FF.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#297

Post by mada299 »

EricBurnett wrote: post #187
mada299 wrote: post #151

I think it's interesting that they are making this decision - one that clearly pushed users to stay on the mobile web which is beneficial for Google - based on a study that was pretty flawed. This article debunks their methodology pretty well: https://medium.com/@alexaustin/just-because-it-s-google-does...

Thanks for the link, that's a nice critique. That said, much of their arguments don't apply here. The article take the publisher's ("businesses") perspective, but that's not consistent with a search engine in this case - the original study is more accurate from the perspective of optimizing for the search user. The business wants to convert low-value mobile users into high-value app installers, and would happily sacr…

Hi Eric, good points. But what about the case in which what a user is looking for is actually inside the app? More of mobile traffic is moving into apps - shouldn't we find ways to also index and show content as well?

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#298

Post by bduerst »

kuschku wrote: post #296
bduerst wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you know this how? When they launched chrome, the browser wars had long since been won. Everyone who knew what a browser was had installed firefox, and everyone else thought IE was the internet. Just because you ignored the ads doesn't mean the general public did. It sounds like you're being biased. If you're going to attribute Chrome's growth to "accidental clicks on ad manipulation" instead of the massive aware…

Well, in Germany Firefox is still far larger than Chrome. Chrome eats up the share of IE, but can’t touch FF.

How does that equate to ad auction abuse?

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#299

Post by kuschku »

bduerst wrote: post #298
kuschku wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in Germany Firefox is still far larger than Chrome. Chrome eats up the share of IE, but can’t touch FF.

How does that equate to ad auction abuse?

Sorry, I might have misunderstood your comment.

Several people on this page provided statistics and reports how they got nothing or next to nothing when Google replaced all ads in the AdWords network with their Chrome ads.

As I’m also not interested enough in the topic to research sources just to change your opinion, I don’t care if you’ll downvote me again.

Re: Google Will Soon Start Punishing Mobile Sites that Use Annoying App Install Ads

#300

Post by bduerst »

kuschku wrote: post #299
bduerst wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that equate to ad auction abuse?

Sorry, I might have misunderstood your comment. Several people on this page provided statistics and reports how they got nothing or next to nothing when Google replaced all ads in the AdWords network with their Chrome ads. As I’m also not interested enough in the topic to research sources just to change your opinion, I don’t care if you’ll downvote me again.

I checked this page and nobody here links to anything supporting ad auction abuse as you say.

Are you sure you understand what you're talking about?

Post reply on HN