
Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads - sply
https://www.scribblrs.com/google-now-penalizing-mobile-ads/
======
Smirnoff
I really would like to see Google penalize websites that force you to login
after google showed these websites in the results.

1\. Take Linkedin for example: you search for a person on google; google shows
a linkedin result; you go to linkedin but you are greeted with giant popup
asking you to login to view info. Ridiculous.

2\. Same with Quora: they come in results with basic info, but when you go to
their page, they forward you to registration/login page.

These practices are not ok in my book. Surely, they can do whatever they want
on their websites but if Google indexes you and shows some info in search
results, then you better show that info on your page without forcing me to
register.

PS: To be clear -- this behavior happens on mobile version of their websites.
Not sure how it plays out on desktop.

~~~
cygned
Pinterest is even worse - in Google Images, images are listed but once you
enter the site, you're blocked from accessing whatever you have been looking
for.

~~~
alphonsegaston
What's even worse about Pinterest is that almost all the images are derived
from an outside source, so you're following this insane route to get at the
original content:

source image-> indexed by Pinterest -> Google index of Pinterest index ->
Pinterest page -> source image.

I can't believe that Google is incapable of navigating around this, but
Pinterest would probably block them from indexing if they did.

~~~
frandroid
Pinterest would be foolish to block indexing by Google, though.

~~~
alphonsegaston
Yeah, I would think so too, but if you spend any time with their apps, you can
see how user hostile they are. The UI is awful, data is incredibly difficult
to export. They really want to lock you into their narrow channels.

------
Animats
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, it's from "justuno.com", a spamming service.

These outfits have lost sight of what their web site is for. They're putting
obstacles in front of a customer who's about to give them money. This is
usually considered a big mistake in retail.

[1] [https://www.tushy.me/](https://www.tushy.me/)

~~~
_delirium
Pop-ups asking me to please take a survey about the user experience of the
website, too. Well, I _was_ trying to actually buy something on your website,
before your _goddamn survey pop-up_ got in the way.

~~~
dheera
Also, e-commerce websites that require creation of an account to buy
something. There were countless times that I had a credit card in hand, and I
gave up when the stupid website required me to register a user account in
order to pay and check out.

Extra negative points if your account creation process requires a phone number
or e-mail address verification step.

~~~
fancy_pantser
Just like the "$300m button story" popular in UX circles:
[https://articles.uie.com/three_hund_million_button/](https://articles.uie.com/three_hund_million_button/)

------
ageitgey
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 you
see content and throw up "Download our app!" pop-ups everywhere.

By traditional logic, that seems insane. Why are they putting so many
roadblocks between the user and the content? Surely that must be driving away
users, right?

The reason for this behavior is that Google is systematically destroying the
SEO traffic of these sites by adding their own competitive features to search
result pages that appear above organic results.

If you search for a restaurant / hotel / flight on your phone, Google will
often show its own custom widgets above the organic search results. It's not
unusual that zero organic search results are visible "above the fold". The
more Google does this, the more the share of clicks goes to them instead of to
organic search results in these types of searches.

That means that even if these guide companies have #1 search rankings for
every possible search term, they are seeing their SEO traffic plummet every
month because they can't compete with Google's "above #1 result" placement. So
as a defensive move, some companies are basically giving up on SEO traffic in
the long term and trying to forcefully convert many visitors as possible into
users who visit directly via a native app (and thus bypass Google). They know
that every web user who doesn't download the native app is ever less likely to
ever find them again via a search result page.

So to these companies, they see this change from Google as another anti-
competitive move because Google is taking away one of their last remaining
lifelines for user acquisition.

Personally, I find those full-page ads super annoying and hate them too and
think they should go away. But like anything complicated, this isn't a simple
black and white move to benefit users. It's also a strategic move that helps
Google and hurts some competitors.

~~~
DrScump

      The reason for this behavior is that Google is systematically destroying the SEO traffic of these sites
    

Another reason is that with apps, they have the opportunity to _harvest the
phone owners private data directly_ (contacts, messages, seeing what competing
apps are installed, etc.)

Most people don't pay attention to the overbroad spectrum of access many apps
demand.

Specific example: Samsung changed the Gallery app (default on my GS7 to
display photos from within the Camera app) to _demand_ access to my Calendar.
If I hit Deny, it _aborts_. My _Calendar_? Really?

~~~
nvr219
How much of a problem is this on iOS?

~~~
favorited
Most apps will work fine if you decline their extra permission requests,
though obviously certain features may not work without them. The rest of your
app has to function normally, and you definitely can't crash or otherwise
programmatically quit.

There are one or two apps I use that do require extra permissions to function
– like the NFL Sunday Ticket app won't work unless I enable location services,
because it needs to black-out local games due to broadcast rights.

Some things are simply not available on iOS. For example, your app can't get a
list of other apps you have installed, or send/receive text messages.

Of course, every once in a while someone finds a way to abuse a different API
maliciously. Apple had to limit the availability of the API used to determine
if a URL scheme can be handled by the device because Twitter was spamming it
to determine what apps you had installed (if your device can open a
'dominospizza://' link, they knew you had the Dominos app installed). So now
you have to whitelist up to 50 URL schemes your app might try to launch.

~~~
DrScump
On Android 5.x and earlier, you had to grant all possible requested
permissions up-front during installation.

------
netinstructions
Funny, because Google Adsense offers "Page-level vignette ads" which are full
page interstitial ads shown for mobile devices.

The penalty must not apply because:

> They're displayed when the user leaves a page, rather than when they arrive
> on one, so the user doesn’t have to wait for them to load

[https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/6245304?hl=en](https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/6245304?hl=en)

~~~
robtaylor
I specifically asked Google rep on that point and he said penalty would still
apply.

One G product can affect another it seems.

It is worth bearing in mind that not all sites are reliant on google traffic,
so more cash from Adsense at a hit on ranking may mean more £ and zero traffic
impact.

~~~
QuercusMax
This is absolutely true: in the past when certain Google teams have asked to
have their pages bumped up in ranking, they've been told to work on their SEO
and/or pay for ads.

------
FreakyT
Good. Those have been becoming increasingly prevalent to the mobile web's
detriment.

I don't mind a few ads, but many of these interstitials are downright
maliciously designed, making the entire page load consistent on hitting a tiny
"x" target, presumably designed with the intention of facilitating accidental
clicks on the ad.

------
aresant
You mean intrusive like the AMP header on every !@$! mobile page now that's
not only annoying but breaks the standard UX?

~~~
ArlenBales
On my iPhone 6s Safari AMP sites don't even work. I see the AMP header and
everything below it is just blank. I always have to "Request Desktop Site" to
even load the site.

~~~
chrisper
Are you using an adblocker?

~~~
shostack
Do ad blockers break AMP pages? If so that is a pretty crafty way of killing
them.

"Would you like to search and browse the mobile web through Google? Only if
you disable your ad blocker."

I'd be shocked if they don't try to force AMP on the desktop as well next if
this works out for them.

~~~
Klathmon
Well an "ad blocker" is almost always just a list that some guy or repo online
decides to block.

So if someone decides AMP pages should be blocked, your ad blocker will start
blocking them.

It's actually one of the reasons I stopped using them. The idea of some person
somewhere deciding what I see and don't see didn't quite jive with me. And it
was impacting me by blocking things like Google shopping which I was trying to
use.

~~~
aninhumer
That's not a reason not to use an ad-blocker, it's a reason not to use a
public blocklist. If you want more control, just make your own filter rules.

~~~
Klathmon
It was one of the reasons.

I also never really liked the idea of blocking ads, depriving content creators
of money, and I don't want to always pay for everything with money.

That, combined with the lack of easy control, opinionated ad blocking
utilities (stop blocking webRTC dammit. I know you think it's a problem, I
don't), general breakage across the web, performance issues with most
blockers, and more made me stop using them.

------
alphonsegaston
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 search experience is
rapidly becoming one.

~~~
dsjoerg
I don't find myself having to tweak queries to get what I want. Can you give
an example or two of what you're talking about?

~~~
swang
i think what your parent post refers to is, sometimes searching for <term1>
<term2> <term3> <term4> google will instead just try <term1> <something that
may be a synonym for term 2> and no <term3> or <term4>. then you have to go
back and put <term3> <term4> in quotes to make sure they're actually searched
on.

~~~
alphonsegaston
Yes, ignoring parts of the query has just absurdly diluted result quality. And
if you want something like the term or the term in a phrase, you have to put
it twice and quote both.

~~~
tragic
It has diluted the quality of _some_ results. I find it particularly irksome
when googling for error messages, or other precise technical matters.

For more open ended queries, of course, the fuzziness can be helpful. And I
would assume that the typical Google search is going to benefit more from the
latter approach.

~~~
alphonsegaston
I can only speak to my own experience, no idea where I lay on the spectrum of
users. But I'm an artist who writes code as a hobby, so I'm not constantly
searching for esoteric tech stuff or anything.

------
quadrangle
"Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites with Intrusive Pop-Up Ads"

I totally read this as "Google Has Started Penalizing Mobile Websites… [by
using the penalty of imposed] Intrusive Pop-Up Ads" instead of "…penalizing
those websites that use Intrusive Pop-Up Ads"

------
jrochkind1
Why only "mobile websites"? I hate em just as much when I'm viewing on the
desktop.

~~~
AnOscelot
I can understand why the desktop gets a pass, but I really, really wish they
would consider doing it for sites which pop up those damned "Give us your
email!!" forms. Especially those sites which pop it up almost immediately when
I've arrived at their site for the first time. I don't even know your site
yet. Just followed this link from somewhere else. And you're immediately
demanding my email for your pointless newsletter?

Maybe it's just me, but I think I hate those things more than anything else on
the current web. Maybe even more than autoplay videos.

~~~
lostinny
I agree, though I've unfortunately seen several tests that suggest that they
work. The immediate "Give us your email" is much more effective than requests
that wait for a certain number of pages, trigger after a certain scroll
amount, or wait until you've been on the site for a significant amount of
time.

Of the people who see the pop up, the conversion rate is highest for those who
see it immediately. And there's not a significant effect on bounce rates.

I have no idea why! I would never simply give my email address to an immediate
pop up modal.

~~~
nkkollaw
They probably think they have to give their email to see the site.

We are power users, a lot of people have no idea what they're doing on the
web.

~~~
blauditore
Yes, I even think there's a large amount of users that, when shown a random
popup "please enter your password to continue", would just enter the password
they use for every service, making phishing quite trivial.

~~~
nkkollaw
Definitely.

------
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.

~~~
thirdsun
Is that an Android thing? I have never experienced this on iOS. I didn't even
know browsers could trigger vibration on mobile.

~~~
GordonS
I've never experienced it in my several years as an Android user either!

------
nhumrich
While I applaud Google for doing this, it's also very scary that Google has
that much power that they can basically make anyone on the web do anything by
threatening ranking blackmail. Google is starting to use more grey area
tactics to control things (such as disabling accounts for those who resold a
pixel). Makes me start to actually worry about the power Google has.

~~~
whiddershins
This.

And the conflict of interest is possibly anti-trust level. (IANAL)

A company that gets the majority of their revenue from ads is penalizing sites
in their near-monopoly search results for showing the "wrong" ads.

~~~
whositis
They have been doing this for a while. Look at the "safe browsing" stuff...
Google will blacklist your website if it doesn't like the ads you're showing.
That blacklist is used by firefox, chrome, safari. Your website will then just
show a "safe browsing" blocked error.

 _massive_ abuse of power. It's amazing that the company that controls most
internet advertising, also controls which websites are blacklisted by the vast
majority of browsers.

Not using adsense? Maybe we blacklist that website until they use adsense! :)

And the biggest problem is, there is no oversight, or communication or
recourse. If your website gets blocked, you won't know why, and will just have
to click a "reconsider" button to ask Google to see if it's acceptable now.

------
makecheck
The only thing a web site should need to “measure” is how long its visitors
stay. I know that _the instant_ I see any pop-up garbage, I _immediately_
leave: I don’t _care_ what the pop-up might say, I don’t _care_ where they
might’ve placed a little "X" to dismiss their message, I simply go BACK and I
DON’T return.

Do not allow yourself to be bullied. Yes, services have some nonzero value but
your time _also_ has _tremendous_ value and you should _not_ undersell it by
putting up with stupid crap. Any site that shoves things in your face is being
disrespectful, it is _wasting your time_ , and it is _costing_ you, which is
not OK. Let those sites die out.

------
quadrangle
Use uBlock Origin people! In Firefox on Android. Don't see any pop-up ads! I
can't believe how much pain people subjective themselves to needlessly!

~~~
herbst
Wait you are telling me it is even worse? I see those popups all the time even
with ublock

~~~
quadrangle
I once saw someone using their phone with no blocking of anything, it was
truly horrifying!

~~~
herbst
I dont block anything on my phone ether. My policy is to bounce whatever
annoys me ASAP. Yes i mostly read only hacker news on my phone

------
bogomipz
The article states"

"In short, if a web page puposely hides content behind an ad or forces
interaction with an ad"

Does this mean that it doesn't include those nauseating "follow us/sign up for
our newsletter" light boxes that plague the web now?

Also why would this only be for mobile? Are they any less of a scourge for
desktops?

------
iwlbebnd
I've largely stopped using chrome on mobile because of the lack of ublock.
When I do use chrome it's with JavaScript disabled.

Despite a few UI differences switching to Firefox on mobile with ublock has
been excellent.

~~~
adamaewong
I've been using Brave for Android which has built in ad-block. Since it's
based on Chromium, it looks and feels almost identical to Chrome, just faster
and without ads.

------
evolve2k
A client has just asked me to add a pop-up "whatch this vid, join our
newsletter", when the user scrolls to about half way down the homepage for
their SAAS startup. Further the pop up is not to reappear for 90 days.

They got the approach from attending an online marketing workshop that
suggested this increases their list.

Felt like a bit of an anti-pattern to me.

Anyone have advice as to if this is effective or if it will be affected by
today's announcement?

~~~
Magicstatic
Pop-ups like that have long been shown to improve conversion rates... at the
increase of pissing off people who wouldn't have been a conversion anyway.

~~~
flukus
Do they increase conversion rates long term? A lot of those pissed off people
might not be customers today but could be in future.

~~~
patmcguire
What was the last hover ad you saw? Closing it is so instinctual I doubt it
even registered. Those people won't remember next time. Annoying people is an
evolutionarily stable strategy.

~~~
flukus
Good point, I'm not sure. My instinct has now transformed to closing the tab
instead of the popup though, the close button is in a predictable place.

~~~
evolve2k
After writing this today, I was reading an interesting (to me) article on
building two sided marketplaces, a pop up came up around half way through,
didn't feel unreasonable actually as I was feeling value from the contents of
the article and it felt likely appropriate moment for them to make the ask.

Thanks for the discussion everyone.

Ref: [https://www.sharetribe.com/academy/how-to-communicate-
your-v...](https://www.sharetribe.com/academy/how-to-communicate-your-value-
proposition-to-your-users/)

------
chmars
What's about intrusive cookie warnings?

(They are apparently mandatory in the European Union and Google made them part
of the Adwords rules some time ago.)

~~~
patmcguire
They are explicitly permitted. From Google's own statement on this
([https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/08/helping-users-
easi...](https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/08/helping-users-easily-
access-content-on.html)):

"By contrast, here are some examples of techniques that, used responsibly,
would not be affected by the new signal:

Interstitials that appear to be in response to a legal obligation, such as for
cookie usage or for age verification."

~~~
funnyfacts365
Funny thing is, they are supposed to let you use the websites while refusing
cookies, but some of them force you to accept the cookies or else all you'll
see is the popup.

------
StuieK
If users hate these, shouldn't google's ability to rank the best pages already
take care of this problem without special casing it?

------
therealmarv
So can we get rid of forbes.com quotes finally?

------
thebspatrol
Kind of scary that Google is so much of a gatekeeper to the entire internet
that they can essentially decide which websites get visited and coerce them
into submission.

------
bradlys
This title confused me. I thought Google was penalizing mobile websites by
injecting intrusive pop-up ads.

------
natch
This is great news... I'm normally not always a fan of Google's every move but
when they use their position to encourage a better web, their power is awesome
and we can look forward to the effects.

The headline was confusing. Google has started using intrusive pop-up ads to
penalize mobile sites? This writing has clarity issues.

>Web pages need ads to operate, but...

Plenty of web pages (websites?) are operated without ads, out of love for a
topic, desire to build a name, or other reasons. Web pages don't NEED ads.
Well some have been built to rely on them, and can only survive with ads, but
certainly not all web pages.

Aside from that and the headline, great level of detail in this article about
the exceptions, the general sizes, and the rollout.

------
valine
I wonder if forbes will have to remove that annoying "Quote of the day page"
or if this only applies to JavaScript popups.

I also wonder how google distinguishes between things like floating nav bars
and elements that obscure content.

------
beefsack
I wonder how much of the internet userbase, like myself, just close a site the
moment a pop-up appears which takes me away from what I want to be doing.

Has anyone here done any AB testing on it and have some numbers?

~~~
herbst
Just on a very small scale on a "funny site" the majority does not seem to
care. Bounce rate only increased minimally and email list growed super fast

------
em3rgent0rdr
How about Google let me install extensions on Chrome in Android?

~~~
johnnydoe9
I don't think that's possible, I'm not a programmer so I can't be sure but I
read somewhere that the way Chrome is built it can't be done.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
interesting...I'd like to know more about the technical reasons why not. I
should note that Firefox on Android is able to run desktop plugins.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Clarificaiton: Add-ons that work with desktop Firefox do not automatically
work in Firefox for Android, but according to
[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/Firefox_for_Andr...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-
ons/Firefox_for_Android) there are only a few things a plugin dev needs to be
aware of.

------
amelius
I want sites penalized when they take part in user-tracking.

------
webartisan
The problem doesn't seem to be related only to web. These dark interstitial
patterns are present in every platform.

Recently used Ola's (Uber's main competitor in India) native app on android,
and right when you're about to book a pool ride, at times, they'll show you a
full page interstitial advertising pool rides. And if that wasn't ridiculous
already, they provide no way to cancel the popup. The only way to proceed is
by clicking "Try share".

And when you do so, it throws a generic "Uh Oh, Something went wrong error",
and you're basically stuck without a ride.

------
digitalmaster
This is actually pretty impressive for a ad company to take steps that are
overwhelmingly better from a UX perspective but also directly target online ad
revenue models. #bold #impressive #hardProblems #thumbsUP

------
shadowSeeker
Many of these pop ups strategically block navigation options in the end adding
up to unnecessary hits on some 2ndry linked page(via intrusive ads) or making
sick stickies keeping us away from main material for which we were initially
there making us dependent on AdBlockers. These sites find that out and stop
access to their content(their concern maybe genuine but ugly process) until we
stop AdBlockers taking away our freedom altogether. I have stopped going to
most News Websites for this.

------
chimpscanfly
Look, popups are great for marketing, but this penalization isn't bad from a
marketing and UX standpoint.

Popups, while effective, are being overused, which means they will become less
and less effective.

On top of that, too many are poorly created and don't work on mobile, making
it difficult to impossible to close out. This is unfortunate.

I've long held that we need a less intrusive "popup" that nudges instead of
disrupts users. Basically a Hello Bar style that while catching my attention
is something I can easily ignore.

------
JumpCrisscross
Looking at you, Forbes...

------
antihero
I think the most annoying trend is those redirect-to-store type ads. I think
they're probably seen as malicious but there needs to be more done to prevent
scummy advertisers doing this. You get to a point where you literally cannot
use sites because the second after the page load you're redirected through a
whole load of dodgy looking servers and eventually to the store to get some
garbage app.

------
notatoad
what about the websites that implement adsense's "please fill out this survey
to view the content" ad? do they get penalized.

------
eumenides1
I wish Google would penalize websites with pay walls

~~~
tyingq
A paywall is a pop up ad, and worse than most, in that you can't dismiss it.

Google would argue that visitors coming via search aren't paywalled, but often
that isn't true. Some give you 3 free views, for example, then cut you off.

To me, if you want a paywall, that's fine...But then your content shouldn't
show up on search engines, or perhaps if it does, it should be clearly marked
as such.

~~~
st3v3r
Why shouldn't people be able to get paid for their work? No one is forcing you
to pay them; it's just the same as anything else has been: If you want the
product of someone's labor, you pay them what they ask for.

~~~
CaptSpify
Where did anyone say that they can't get paid for their work?

~~~
st3v3r
The guy who said that he wants paywalled sites punished for trying to get paid
for their work.

~~~
CaptSpify
Nobody said that. OP said that he wishes google would penalize sites with
paywalls, but that has nothing to do with sites getting paid for their work.

There are many ways to get paid for your work without using a bait-and-switch
method where you show google a different page than the one you are showing to
your users.

~~~
st3v3r
I completely disagree. Google punishing sites for using paywalls will have the
affect of making it harder for people to get paid for their work. And I don't
believe that having a paywall is in any way a "bait-n-switch".

~~~
CaptSpify
You can disagree all you want. It's still a fact that nobody is saying what
you are claiming. Sure, it makes it _harder_ for people to get paid, the same
way that it's hard for me to get paid if I advertise this:
[http://i.imgur.com/fvKbzDZ.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/fvKbzDZ.jpg) but when you
arrive, I try to sell you this:
[http://i.imgur.com/MkhP1MW.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/MkhP1MW.jpg)

------
webartisan
What's disheartening is that many websites have started finding workarounds to
show these interstitials after a delay or in between screen transitions.

The inherent problem is that app experiences somehow lead to better
conversions, and no company would want to lose revenue due to dropped install
numbers.

------
bborud
Good. Fuck'em. This is the most eloquent response these sites deserve. They
know this is annoying so there is no excuse for doing it while claiming it
adds value or somesuch bullshit.

------
TwoBit
Can we penalize web sites that beg people to use their app instead?

~~~
apercu
I occasionally browsed Reddit on my iPad. They force a really crappy mobile
execution now (as in in the last 7 days). I'm not going to install the app, I
just won't visit Reddit on my iPad any more.

On smaller devices they pop up the App download every time you visit. So I had
already stopped browsing Reddit on my phone.

I'm all for responsive web and apps when they add value. And I know responsive
web on complicated sites can be a challenge, but if 50% of web traffic is
mobile now, what does it do to a sites traffic if the mobile experience is
terrible?

------
aphextron
I've never understood this pattern anyways. I swipe right and look for another
website the moment I see a full screen popup on mobile. I can't imagine they
are effective.

------
apercu
This thread is hilarious. I wish I had time to upvote each comment.

------
herbst
I hope this also penalizes facebook. They are using half of the screen to
force me to a account. I know it is supposed to be less, but try with 1600x900

------
amirmansour
How will this affect UI patterns like Modals?

~~~
nkkollaw
Modals don't usually open by themselves.

~~~
amirmansour
I can imagine a scenarios where modal can be conditionally shown based on URL
query params.

------
mikelbring
The worst one by far are those that also vibrate your phone. It should be
illegal, or impossible.

------
Transisto
Brave browser for mobile has only benefits. (the one that is based on chrome)

------
t_fatus
if they could stop showing results in GoogleNow which, once clicked,
immedialtely redirect me to some kind of creepy scary vibrating ringing page
telling me I've a virus on my 'NEXUS 5X - Orange SAS' that would be even
better

~~~
herbst
You are the second that mentions this. How comes i never seen that?

------
NinjaViktor
I guess watching porn would be more enjoyable now.

------
jbicha
But will they penalize mobile apps with intrusive pop-up ads?

------
bluetwo
So... all mobile sites?

------
dhp1161
they need to penalize imgur for doing this

------
agumonkey
additional ideas for google:

\- penalty for non no-js fallback

------
gagginaspinnata
Finally

------
khana
Welcome news.

------
serge2k
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?

~~~
steego
Google's users don't like popup ads so this will likely make them happier with
their search results and make them more loyal Google users.

So why is Google beholden to deliver traffic to websites that use obtrusive
popup ads when Google's users don't like it? Is Google somehow morally
obligated to ensure a website's revenue model isn't disturbed when trying to
provide a better experience for their users?

~~~
tyingq
>Is Google somehow morally obligated to ensure a website's revenue model...

This particular change doesn't irk me, but the one where they penalized for
too many "above the fold" ads did bother me..because Google is the king of
above-the-fold ads in search results. Similar for penalties for "duplicate
content", which is exactly what their kg/widget program is doing...scraping
other people's content.

So, as long they as practice as they preach, it seems reasonable.

