Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Best to read this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/mdudas/status/638792939842469893

This only applies to page covering ads for app installs. Not other interstitials. In fact Google recently did a study showing how 69% of people leave the page when faced with an interstitial [1], yet they also recently released an updated format for their own Google overlay ad [2] (although this is for apps). They don't want to lose web/search traffic to apps, but they make plenty of money running these formats themselves. A good summary of the various conflicts of interest is here [3].

1. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/07/google-ca...

2. http://adwords.blogspot.com/2015/08/beautiful-new-designs-fo...

3. http://searchengineland.com/google-goes-app-interstitial-pro...




Sorry, but what?

What does an ad that shows between levels of angry birds on your phone have to do with ads blocking you from getting your search result?

This sounds like some weird sort of misdirection attempt.


Edited for clarity:

Google is claiming to do this to improve user experience, however:

- they do these exact ads on every site they have

- they arent stopping other interstitials so sites can be just as annoying on the first page

- a site with great content should not be penalized for the site's own choices on ads

- they're forcing a change that affects everyone else except them

The PR signal doesnt match the execution. It's a monopolistic move and raises questions about their involvement in so many layers of the ads/web stack.


The only thing you just said that made sense was:

> the signal is that they don't want their search results to annoy users by showing them app install ads on the first hit

which is absolutely great. Well done Google.

Everything else in your post is weird and contradictory. They're apparently fine with advertising and non-annoying app install banners but they're going to make annoying app install banners less visible in search results. I'm really not seeing the problem.

> It might be good for the consumer but that's just a side effect.

See what I mean? So it's a great move and should be celebrated, but lets not congratulate Google on their motives? OK, I think we can all live with that.


I think I just wrote too much, edited the other comment for clarity.


> a site with great content should not be penalized for the site's own choices on ads

Yes it should! If those ads are hostile to the user they should definitely be penalized no matter how great their content is.


Again, Google does this on their own sites. And where does this line stop?


69% of people using YouTube leave when faced with an interstitial.

Different statistic.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: