Thanks to new regulations, any mobile web page that uses interstitials or pop-up ads will see their Google ranking tumble. Originally announced back in August 2016, Google confirmed that the new algorithm update has officially gone live as of January 10.
Google is targeting what they call "problematic transitions," and gave three specific examples of pages that would be affected. The first is pages that show a pop up that opens right after a user clicks a link or as they scroll through a page, hiding the page's content. Also affected are pages that show an interstitial ad that must be closed out before the user gets to their desired content and pages that keep content "under the fold" with an interstitial on the top of the page. Google has noted that "small" pop ups won't be affected by these rules, but they didn't give any details about what specific size constitutes "small."
The worst offenders are the ones that lock you out of site content because you use an ad blocker. Drives me crazy, ended up dumping several news sources.
Hopefully this move forces sites to find alternative sources of income instead of relying on ads.
The worst offenders are the ones that lock you out of site content because you use an ad blocker. Drives me crazy, ended up dumping several news sources.
Tweaktown is the worst. If they detect ad or script blockers, they'll redirect to a page begging you to disable them in like ten different languages. Not only that, the previous page you were viewing isn't loaded in your browser history, so the back button doesn't work. Forbes isn't much better, though they aren't exactly a tech site, and I can hardly get them to work on my vanilla browser without any extensions at all. There's another site I do like, CPU-World, but the way it handles script blockers is obnoxious. In their database, things like clockspeed and core counts are loaded through HTML, but other specs like cache are loaded through Javascript. If it weren't such a good database I wouldn't browse it on principle with a move like that. There's always Intel Ark but AMD doesn't have their own version.
Contrast with a site like Stack Exchange where the staff not only understands but also encourages ad blocker use and actively removes obnoxious ads. There's another site, I think TechPowerUp, where their ads are nothing more than static image links. While they make it through an adblocker, they're so inoffensive and there's so little scripting that I really can't care. OCN also handles it well with the Overclocked account: either pay a yearly subscription or earn 250 rep to remove ads (or get a shiny badge
). The rep thing is really interesting to me. I'm not actually sure what the official stance on it is, but my interpretation is that users with that much rep contribute so much to the community and site that the traffic they bring in far outweighs their own ad impressions.
I just think it's fascinating that companies can take such dramatically different approaches to ads, and only one group is really driving ad blocker development. I'm also extremely happy that even Apple has allowed content blockers in Safari (old news, I know) and users no longer have to use third-party browsers (usually with in-app purchases because freeware on real OSes == microtransactions on mobile OSes). Mobile ads in particular are infuriating because mobile connections are so much more likely to have datacaps and because there's no guarantee the signal to the tower is any good.
While I understand why most people would think this is good, I think it is bad, very bad. It sets a presidence that Google can dictate site content by dangling repercussions at them. This smells like the beginning of an anti-trust lawsuit...
I just think it's fascinating that companies can take such dramatically different approaches to ads, and only one group is really driving ad blocker development. I'm also extremely happy that even Apple has allowed content blockers in Safari (old news, I know) and users no longer have to use third-party browsers (usually with in-app purchases because freeware on real OSes == microtransactions on mobile OSes). Mobile ads in particular are infuriating because mobile connections are so much more likely to have datacaps and because there's no guarantee the signal to the tower is any good.
While I understand why most people would think this is good, I think it is bad, very bad. It sets a presidence that Google can dictate site content by dangling repercussions at them. This smells like the beginning of an anti-trust lawsuit...
No, that is wrong. The means always needs to be examined least it lead down a bad road. This can very easily be applied to other things.
Alternatively you could say "terrorists=bad, anything that reduces them=good". Now look where we are with digital surveillance...
It is not Google position to regulate the internet.
Edit: If they were entirely altruistic about, sure it might be fine. But Google has a very large stake in the ad business. This might be just another push to gets site using adsense.
Ads=Bad. Anything that reduces them, and doesn't have catastrophic unintended consequences for anyone but the advertiser, and adheres mostly to the Geneva Convention=Good
While I understand why most people would think this is good, I think it is bad, very bad. It sets a presidence that Google can dictate site content by dangling repercussions at them. This smells like the beginning of an anti-trust lawsuit...
Its interesting you mentioned this. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes advocated an anti-trust suit against Google last year for this very reason, and is now being considered for the Federal Trade Commission chairman spot. The previous chair doesn't step down until Feb 10th.
Ads=Bad. Anything that reduces them, and doesn't have catastrophic unintended consequences for anyone but the advertiser, and adheres mostly to the Geneva Convention=Good
While I understand why most people would think this is good, I think it is bad, very bad. It sets a presidence that Google can dictate site content by dangling repercussions at them. This smells like the beginning of an anti-trust lawsuit...
The worst offenders are the ones that lock you out of site content because you use an ad blocker. Drives me crazy, ended up dumping several news sources.
As this was news to me, i just tried opening some articles on tweaktown to see what would happen. Nothing like you described. Is there some sort of page or article i'm supposed to be looking at? It's behaving as expected on my end with ScriptSafe and uBlock Origin.
'Bout time, I was starting to think that my phone had a virus because it has been so bad. can't even use the news app any longer, pop-up city... " congratulations, you won...."
As this was news to me, i just tried opening some articles on tweaktown to see what would happen. Nothing like you described. Is there some sort of page or article i'm supposed to be looking at? It's behaving as expected on my end with ScriptSafe and uBlock Origin.
Not every street has those and they're just as gaudy. They just don't block you from walking past them or intentionally trying to slow you down by holding your legs and ankles.
While I understand why most people would think this is good, I think it is bad, very bad. It sets a presidence that Google can dictate site content by dangling repercussions at them. This smells like the beginning of an anti-trust lawsuit...
Google acting like the internet police infuriates me. They're just another corporation with no authority over anyone else. They should be slapped hard down back to the ground where they belong.
Policing is the police's job, not some corporation's.
About time.
Me reading English translated manga on my ipad with safari = no ads whatsoever, installing chrome and browsing the same page, stuff go wild, open new tabs and saying I have a viruses, and closing those are rather difficult sometimes.
If this stops, I say good job.
While I understand why most people would think this is good, I think it is bad, very bad. It sets a presidence that Google can dictate site content by dangling repercussions at them. This smells like the beginning of an anti-trust lawsuit...
Google acting like the internet police infuriates me. They're just another corporation with no authority over anyone else. They should be slapped hard down back to the ground where they belong.
Policing is the police's job, not some corporation's.
as someone who has done a few sites here and there, google has been dictating how to achieve higher search results on their engine for decades.
no one is trying to police the internet.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!