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

91–100 of 406 posts

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

#91

Post by manarth »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #19
jrochkind1 wrote: post #16

Why only "mobile websites"? I hate em just as much when I'm viewing on the desktop.

Probably because it's a much bigger issue on mobile websites where your ability to click precisely on the 'x' is much lower than when your input device is a mouse or trackpad. Edit: I am new to HN, why this was downvoted?

And when the loading speed is slow, which makes the layout move, so your attempt to click the [X] accidentally clicks the advert instead, generating income for the site.

(why are you being downvoted? No idea, you make a reasonable, articulate statement, with a credible explanation. Sometimes it just happens on HN. I like to assume people are accidentally clicking the [▼] character by mistake).

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #19
jrochkind1 wrote: post #16

Why only "mobile websites"? I hate em just as much when I'm viewing on the desktop.

Probably because it's a much bigger issue on mobile websites where your ability to click precisely on the 'x' is much lower than when your input device is a mouse or trackpad. Edit: I am new to HN, why this was downvoted?

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by dawnerd »

lozaning wrote: post #86
jrockway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is usually considered a big mistake in retail. Is it? Grocery stores keep essentials far away from each other so you have to walk past stuff you don't want in order to get to what you want. Imagine a store where they had milk at the checkout counter! That's the retail equivalent of amazon.com ;)

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.

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...

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

#94

Post by komali2 »

Animats wrote: post #47

What's really stupid are sites from which you can buy things, but then pop up an ad for something else. Fandango, which sells movie tickets, does this. As you're trying to get to the "buy ticket" page, they shove movie trailers for other movies in your face. I mentioned a site earlier today which sold plumbing supplies.[1] They pop up a "gimme your email" box which 1) cannot be dismissed , and 2) isn't even theirs, i…

I like your points, but I like even more how you just hopped on and essentially shouted into the internet "hey everyone, I'm trying to buy a bidet."

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

#95

Post by chinhodado »

For me, the most annoying thing while browsing on mobile is the vibration ads/fake alarms. It's horrible. I haven't even seen a single good use of this vibration API, as it is only ever used for things like "Your phone haz virus click here now".

Why isn't there an option to disable it in Chrome is beyond me.

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

#96

Post by Waterluvian »

komali2 wrote: post #94
Animats wrote: post #47

What's really stupid are sites from which you can buy things, but then pop up an ad for something else. Fandango, which sells movie tickets, does this. As you're trying to get to the "buy ticket" page, they shove movie trailers for other movies in your face. I mentioned a site earlier today which sold plumbing supplies.[1] They pop up a "gimme your email" box which 1) cannot be dismissed , and 2) isn't even theirs, i…

I like your points, but I like even more how you just hopped on and essentially shouted into the internet "hey everyone, I'm trying to buy a bidet."

If only we could be so candid, maybe our tushies would get the royal treatment.

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

#97

Post by megous »

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…

They might as well be more open about this on the actual page.

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

#98

Post by ajmurmann »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #15

I'd really like to see them work on improving relevancy instead of swinging their corporate weight around at whatever "benevolent" end they decide is important this week. Considering how much time I have to spend nowadays tweaking queries and futzing with the search tool options to get relevant results, I'm starting to look at all of these moves much more cynically. Taking on anti-patterns is great, but not when your…

I think there is a real market for a software developer focused search engine. None of the issues we have matter for a search a normal person does which is what Google of course optimizes for. A search like "what are the best food carts in Portland" is fundamentally different from looking for the text of an exception that was thrown by a particular library version. Our needs are to small for giant Google to care about. But it might be a big enough market to build a nice little company.

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

#99

Post by manarth »

serge2k wrote: post #12

Oh good, Google abusing their power again. I guess as long as it's for "good" reasons. edit: would any downvoters care to explain how google being able to arbitrarily dictate web content is a power they should have?

  would any downvoters care to explain how google being able to
  arbitrarily dictate web content is a power they should have?
Not actually a downvoter, but I do disagree with the sentiment: Google are simply choosing how to rank web-pages, for the people who visit their own search engine.

If there weren't any monopoly issues in play, there would be no question of Google's behaviour at all.

As it is, there are potentially monopoly issues in play, but in this instance, Google are simply penalising sites that provide a poor UX, which is a reasonable position for a search engine to take: prioritise the sites which provide the best value to visitors.

As an end-user, I would like duck-duck-go, bing, yahoo, and every other search engine, to penalise sites that use popups in this way.

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

#100

Post by jdmichal »

mmanfrin wrote: post #60
Animats wrote: post #47

What's really stupid are sites from which you can buy things, but then pop up an ad for something else. Fandango, which sells movie tickets, does this. As you're trying to get to the "buy ticket" page, they shove movie trailers for other movies in your face. I mentioned a site earlier today which sold plumbing supplies.[1] They pop up a "gimme your email" box which 1) cannot be dismissed , and 2) isn't even theirs, i…

I blame this on A/B tests which ignore externalities. Sure, maybe the 3 metrics you were aiming for were improved, but your brand is fucked. I think brands like Sears/Kenmore/Craftsman were A/Bed to death. So many little 'optimizations' (read: cost cutting that looked-good-on-paper) that eventually destroyed what the brand was about in the first place.

Not to mention that, for abstract judgements like "product quality", these can also compound in non-linear fashion. Three A/B tests could show only minor effects on perception of product quality, but then if you put the original A next to the final B, you'll get much bigger differences.
Post reply on HN