Live data from Hacker News

Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

twitter.com

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#31
post #3

Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true (in selected cases) ! There are certain categories of websites and search results pages, where ads actually improve user experience, measured by nearly any metric you want to pick, from user perception to CTR/conversion, etc. There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/produc…

I don't think you deserve any downvotes, but there is also somewhat of a tragedy of the commons effect at play. I hear people Google "Facebook" to find the Facebook login page. No doubt, Facebook has ads for that search so that people click the right link. This ends up being expensive; people should have just clicked their bookmark, but don't really understand URLs, so there is just a tax on big companies to have tha…

That makes it sound like we just need a new UX for web browsing without a traditional search engine. It doesn't sound unrealistic to be able to recreate the "app homescreen icon" experience for the web. One of the biggest blockers is that the speed of google search (and success rate for things like "facebook login") means it's barely even a pain point for users, or not one they're aware of anyway.

At the end of the day I strongly believe the web is a better future for the world. Letting the future of the internet sit behind 2 mega gatekeepers seems to be an objectively worse path looking 10+ years down the line.

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#33
post #3

Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true (in selected cases) ! There are certain categories of websites and search results pages, where ads actually improve user experience, measured by nearly any metric you want to pick, from user perception to CTR/conversion, etc. There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/produc…

> Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true

Only a very small percentage of bad people acknowledge it. Most evil people create mental models where they are actually working for the greater good. Your defense of the google exec quote is one of the ugliest attempts of turning bad into good that I have seen and knowing that this is the normal at Google I'm hoping for a good outcome of the antitrust trial (for society).

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#34
post #3

Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true (in selected cases) ! There are certain categories of websites and search results pages, where ads actually improve user experience, measured by nearly any metric you want to pick, from user perception to CTR/conversion, etc. There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/produc…

I'm sure ads bring something to be experience, but ultimately when I have to scroll past 5 somewhat relevant ads before even seeing my results and once I finally see that my results are not very good because of SEO abusing blog spam... I'm going to use another service.

I was not on the "google sucks" train until very recently. It sucks now.

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#35
post #3

Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true (in selected cases) ! There are certain categories of websites and search results pages, where ads actually improve user experience, measured by nearly any metric you want to pick, from user perception to CTR/conversion, etc. There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/produc…

I don't think you deserve any downvotes, but there is also somewhat of a tragedy of the commons effect at play. I hear people Google "Facebook" to find the Facebook login page. No doubt, Facebook has ads for that search so that people click the right link. This ends up being expensive; people should have just clicked their bookmark, but don't really understand URLs, so there is just a tax on big companies to have tha…

>I hear people Google "Facebook" to find the Facebook login page. No doubt, Facebook has ads for that search so that people click the right link.

This reminds me how back in the dark ages, Yahoo! Search got sufficient searches for Google that someone decided it was worthwhile to return a second search box in the results before the real results to trick those users into inputting their real search instead of clicking the link to Google...

Users failing to remember trivial domains is sadly not a new thing...

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#36
post #3

Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true (in selected cases) ! There are certain categories of websites and search results pages, where ads actually improve user experience, measured by nearly any metric you want to pick, from user perception to CTR/conversion, etc. There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/produc…

Another second-order benefit is the fact that innovation in ad tech has bled over into other kinds of content recommendation. If you can figure out which ads I would likely click on, you can also probably figure out what news stories I’m interested in.

That being said, while ads may improve certain kinds of content, it is strictly negative for other kinds. For example, pretty much every kind of ad online which is intrusive. It’s intrusive because it’s not wanted. I don’t want a full screen Dior ad in the middle of an article about the auto worker strike.

So sometimes the interests of advertisers and users are aligned, but many times they are not. And ad tech companies know which kinds of content are improved with ads and which damage the user experience. They could measure this if they wanted. But because they are trying to maximize ad revenue rather than user experience, so the ads win.

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#37
post #26
post #3

Before HN jumps all over this, I worked at Google and other ads and search companies... and this is technically true (in selected cases) ! There are certain categories of websites and search results pages, where ads actually improve user experience, measured by nearly any metric you want to pick, from user perception to CTR/conversion, etc. There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/produc…

> There's lots of random categories, but the obvious ones are commercial/product searches where you're looking to buy something. I believe that you believe this while also believing that your metrics must be so horribly biased towards indicating that "ads are good" that you miss the forest for the trees. I have entirely stopped using google to search for products because of ads. It is impossible to research products…

I google for one app and google store shows a paid app with similar name and colors as the first result, leading me to install other apps by mistake and deleting just after while google still gets the money from the installation. I'd call this a scam to both the customers buying ads and the customers of the play store.

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you deserve any downvotes, but there is also somewhat of a tragedy of the commons effect at play. I hear people Google "Facebook" to find the Facebook login page. No doubt, Facebook has ads for that search so that people click the right link. This ends up being expensive; people should have just clicked their bookmark, but don't really understand URLs, so there is just a tax on big companies to have tha…

> Meanwhile the alternative is mobile apps and an icon on your homescreen, an effect that makes Apple and Google rich for taking a % of the revenue from those apps, and one of the largest job programs ever for software engineers. Not to mention that you suffer the same problem in the App Store when you go searching for the Faceboook app. They have to bid for ads against competitors that want to show up when users try…

Something I think about a lot is what the world would look like without advertising, i.e., you'd have to make every decision on its merits, and never rely on bought opinions. Like imagine you walk into a grocery store, and every shelf is lined with plain cardboard boxes with the name of the product on it ("chocolate-covered breakfast cereal") and a nutrition label. You walk in and there is nothing other than the merits of the product itself to guide your purchasing decision. Nothing else would influence you.

Would that world be better than today's explosion of colors and brands and talking heads and size 100 font "NEW FORMULA!!!"? In today's world, if you're not sure what to buy, you just pick the thing with the most colorful box or whatever you heard about on TV, and you probably end up with something that's fine. (Occasionally, the thing you heard about on TV is actually good, and you wouldn't have thought to buy it otherwise. It's almost a win-win though I am somewhat hesitant to use that term to describe advertising on HN ;)

Advertising is that; you don't care what brand of light switch you buy, you just want a light switch, so there is a race to convince someone you trust to recommend their brand to you. They pay someone money, you buy a light switch, it switches your lights, you're happy, they're happy, and this random third party ad company is happy. Multiple people are bidding against each other for this recommendation, and so advertising ends up costing a lot. (You, of course, pay the cost, not the company doing the advertising. But if everyone is doing it, it's not like you can choose.)

That's the app store thing; Apple prides itself on how every iPhone app is the greatest thing ever created, and because sometimes that's true, you trust them. Well, what if they just approve everything and let people pay for recommendations? Now you have ads in the app store. Someone looking for a random app gets a random app. They're probably happy with their $0.99 purchase. They never think about it again and move on with their life, and Apple's execs get a cooler yacht, and some random software engineer also got 10 cents or whatever. This all seems a little wrong -- ideas and products should only be popular because of their merit in the global marketplace of ideas -- but is it actually? It's really just making a lot of money from making decisions that aren't worth making.

It does sound really dystopian... don't think about anything, just CONSUME what we say to consume... but is researching light switches so that the true best light switch maker gets your money actually better than spending an hour playing with your dog or whatever? I don't know. It's difficult. I should think about it less.

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#39

Anyone else feel that Google as a search engine has gotten really bad these past few years? Finding information outside of looking up restaurants, songs or products the results are often times completely irrelevant and limited now.

I don't see it as a Google thing, it's just that the internet as a whole sucks more, as do the people on it. It doesn't really matter how they change their search engine because people will find ways to game it, and are heavily incentivized to do so.

Re: Google ad exec: “it is a worse user experience to not have ads on the page”

#40
post #30

I believe this quote explains the situation well; "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

I think it can be true in some situations. If you think of magazines, it would be a disappointment for Rolling Stone to contain no ads. Same for camera magazines. News content really doesn't benefit, though. Just clickbait stuff.

> If you think of magazines, it would be a disappointment for Rolling Stone to contain no ads.

I'll bite…because they're pretty? Or because how else would one stay on top of the latest Axe body spray releases?

Post reply on HN