×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Updates Algorithm To Punish Websites With Excessive Ads

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the killing-the-Interstitial-ads dept.

Google 321

hypnosec writes "Google has decided to take punitive actions against those websites that flood the top of their web pages with ads due to which the visitors have to scroll down to finally view the relevant contents on the page. According to Google, this type of layouts annoys the users and thus the web search company will be penalizing those websites through search results. The company disclosed this on its blog. According to Google over the top ads is not good for user experience and thus such websites might not get high ranking on Google web search."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

321 comments

Please buy my product. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790339)

Or face the consequences.

Some people don't need this (1)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790349)

Because they use AdBlock (and before any troll comments on the new mode; go to the menu and uncheck the allow acceptable ads section)!

There are no acceptable ads. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790513)

Any ad which uses Javascript has a performance hit, which lets face it is ALL ads. And it's noticeable since all ad serving "platforms" are old-skool, chain-loading, document.writing, bloated piles of shit.

Check the waterfall diagram for a simple adsense text unit. Yep, that's what I'm talking about.

Re:There are no acceptable ads. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790543)

Even worse are the flash ads, with sound, and flash is so bugged that put 2-3 of them in a single page and you have a 70% chance of crashing.

Re:There are no acceptable ads. (5, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790787)

Even much worse...

The upcoming HTML5 ads which will be as invasive as Flash and just a resource hogging. But have NO ability to disable to turn off. ;-)

Welcome to the world you requested.

Noscript (5, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790891)

Except those ads will have the same Achilles heel of all ads; they're served from a relatively small number of large companies, and so can be taken out with noscript.

If a site served an ad from their own domain, it would waltz straight though my defences, but I can sleep soundly knowing that will never happen.

Re:There are no acceptable ads. (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790907)

It's possible to turn-off embedded [image] loading, so you should be able to turn==off embedded [video] too. It's just a matter of picking a browser that has the option to load or not load images/videos, like Opera (located in the bottom right corner).

Re:There are no acceptable ads. (3, Informative)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38791013)

Agreed. Adblock Pro, plus NoScript, plus RemoveItPermanently make my web browsing experience a lot more stable and secure.

In fact, I won't run a browser without them anymore.

Re:Some people don't need this (4, Insightful)

jakrmaster (2559049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790515)

It's not about what people want, it's about what Google wants. They don't want to send people from organic results to ads owned by other ad networks, they want to send people to their own ads in search results.

Re:Some people don't need this (5, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790699)

Nothing wrong with that. Google grew to be the most popular search engine by understanding and implementing what is most acceptable to users of a search page.

Applying the same sort of rating when ranking results is a logical extension and only makes Google more attractive to users.

Next step: deprecate Flash.

Re:Some people don't need this (1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790785)

No the next step is for Google to decide to "punish websites" that contain content google does not approve of. Like infowars.com or foxnews.com or ronpaul2012.com, by giving them lower rankings.

I'd really prefer that google Not be ranking websites because of content.

IMHO

Re:Some people don't need this (1)

jakrmaster (2559049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790789)

Next step: deprecate Flash.

Google owns the largest site on planet that almost fully uses Flash (YouTube). You really think they're going to drop its rankings?

Re:Some people don't need this (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790845)

It's only a matter of time until Youtube goes fully HTML-5. They already reject Flash video uploads. (I get an "unsupported format" error.)

Re:Some people don't need this (4, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790929)

Then youtube should also be punished because it is using lots of obnoxious ads above the fold. Even worse as they are often in flash and therefore competing with the video player itself for resources.

Re:Some people don't need this (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790985)

"It's not about what people want, it's about what Google wants" I think you are missing a genuine happenstance in this case.

Re:Some people don't need this (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38791009)

I think a simpler answer is that blocking "ad farm" type pages will simply improve the relevance of search results - no matter where the ads are coming from.

except google (4, Insightful)

PiMuNu (865592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790355)

Presumably not punishing google ads (ducks)

Re:except google (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790427)

Presumably not punishing google ads(ducks)

Google ads aren't generally splashed over the entire top of the intial screen loaded page. While I don't want to sound like a google shill here, I really don't get how they make their money - aren't google ads generally little text areas with "Advertisement" written above them? I am not one to click on ads, but I know that I have clicked on a few by mistake - but never Google ones that I knew of - they really seem to make their ads be known as ads.

Re:except google (5, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790615)

Google's little text-only ads are the only ones I (and many others) find acceptable. They tend to be relevant, are easily ignored, and don't detract from the aesthetics of the page. For those reasons, I generally don't block Google's ads and have once or twice clicked on them because they really were relevant.

The ones I really hate are the ones that come up over the content and you have to search for a way to close it... especially the ads that do this behavior when you accidentally move the mouse over the ad.

Re:except google (4, Interesting)

glop (181086) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790721)

Actually some websites actually manage to make Google ads very unpleasant by putting so many of them on the top of the page, in the middle of the content etc.
This probably leads to people clicking on them by mistake which from the advertiser's perspective is bad. The advertisers are likely to complain to Google and any ad agency or even to ask Google for refunds for such clicks.

So a page full of ads is not just bad for the user, it's bad for targeted advertising which is what Google does.

Re:except google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790817)

Thank you, SHillman. I find that Google Ads are the least easy to ignore because they blend in with the rest of the page (or would if I didn't block them). Google know this which is why they have chosen their particular format and why they are by far the most successful Internet ad broker on the planet.

Allow me to use argument by analogy to Will Smith. In Men In Black he shoots the little girl because she is obviously out of place walking toward you through a crowd of aliens, which means she must be the most dangerous alien of all. HTH.

Re:except google (1)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790823)

The ones I really hate are the ones that come up over the content and you have to search for a way to close it

I'm looking at you Wired...

Re:except google (1)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790869)

Agreed, and don't have a problem with ads on pages as long as they aren't obtrusive. For all of you complaining about ads would you rather face the alternative and pay for all the content that you are currently enjoying for free?
Yes, mouseover ads suck, huge full-page ads are rude, but a small, relevant ad here and there doesn't distract from the page and if it lets the content provider continue to, well, provide content then more power to 'em.

They are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790691)

All of these awful sites are loaded with Google adverts. Google should kick them all down just the same.

You know the sort of sites they're after, they have one or two sentences, sandwiched between big adverts, most of the initial screen pixels are advertising. I'll be happy to see them gone.

Re:except google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790853)

I ran a Google ad for a month at a minimum budget (used my free $50 coupon). and it doubled trafic to my site while it was up.

I even got mention on a blog for it (aparently the blogger liked my slogan and thought it deserved a shout-out). Google ads do work. Notably they show up on the Google search page.

I suspect that Google gets good money from people who want their ad run on the search page and end up not paying much to people who run google ads on their page.

Re:except google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790901)

While I don't want to sound like a google shill here, I really don't get how they make their money

Funding from CIA and NSA fronts.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:except google (3, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790439)

No need to duck. You are likely correct.

I personally expect every kind of ad save Google Adwords and other Google-based ads to be equally punished after awhile. Google makes their money primarily from advertising. Why in the world would they help people who buy from their competitors? Makes perfect sense.

Oh, and before anyone gets all upset, this isn't "monopoly behavior" This is just smart business. You don't help your competitor advertise, particularly on your own network. When was the last time you saw an ad for the CBS evening lineup on ABC or NBC? (Hint: Never)

If you are uncomfortable with this arrangement, may I suggest Bing or Ask as alternative search engines?

Re:except google (4, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790619)

It would open them up to anti-trust lawsuit since they're using their majority market share in the search business to hurt competitors in the advertising market.

Re:except google (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790955)

It would open them up to anti-trust lawsuit since they're using their majority market share in the search business to hurt competitors in the advertising market.

No google just has to bribe the campaigns of Bush #2 (Obama) and Bush #3 (Romney), so they will continue to Not prosecute that particular law. Lobbyists use politicians in order to gain monopolistic protection and punish any new upstarts/competitors (like isohunt search).

Re:except google (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790975)

Anti-trust laws don't apply to you solely because you are a majority. It requires you are a monopoly. Google, currently, is not such by any standards in search.

Re:except google (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790679)

You are likely correct.

Based on what? They did punish their own browser due to the sponsored results, so they obviously care about been seen as impartial (regardless of what actually motivates that desire).

Re:except google (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790795)

If Google downranked web pages relevant to your search query because they didn't use Google as an advertiser, Google would lose their position as the most frequently used search engine in the western world. "Bing; Serving relevant pages, regardless of advertiser!" and Google suddenly becomes an also-ran.

Re:except google (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38791003)

The only people more stupid than the Bing marketing department in that analogy would be any users convinced by it. Is it a dickish move to whitelist your own ads? Certainly. It isn't going to even register as an issue for most users, though.

Speaking of ducks... (3, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790653)

I've developed a habit of using duckduckgo for most routine searches.

I find the thumbnails of neckbeards in Google to be extremely irritating, while duckduckgo shows favicons which can occasionally be useful visual clues.

Re:except google (2)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790685)

Presumably not punishing google ads

(ducks)

I think you might be wrong. If you have a website that has multiple Google ads on top, and you find this website via Google search, you probably click away. Promoting websites like this is shortsided, even if it means that they will earn a little more money. In the long run the user starts to distrust Google and will try something else. So it is in Google's interest to do this for all sites, no matter if they have Google ads or not.

Re:except google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790809)

short-sighted, idiot

Re:except google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38791011)

You mean shortsighted.

Re:except google (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790733)

Google plays a dangerous game. Ads competitors may call for "unfair competition", as their pages rate are going to be decreased by the Google algorithm.
In the future, Google may have to prove in front of a court that the algorithm is fair - maybe having experts from external companies doing the audit, taking the risk to give away the most protected program at Google: the heart of the algorithm.

BAM Born Above Many (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790357)

http://youtu.be/Bnw19qa-mRE
we are bam

I guess Slashdot is screwed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790367)

with their top posted ad...

Re:I guess Slashdot is screwed (3, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790731)

One ~100px tall advert isn't going to trip this, even if it is full page width.

The intention as I see it is to "punish" sites where, on common browser window sizes, you need to scroll before you see anything that isn't advertising of site logos.

It could be a pain for sites that use images an other binary objects for what should be textual content, but they need a slap any way.

I don't believe (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790379)

that Google does this for altruistic reasons. Where is the snake under the grass ?

Re:I don't believe (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790403)

you're supposed to stop buying your ads through the obnoxious ad network that does these ads and buy through google to come up in google search

Re:I don't believe (2)

hughbar (579555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790423)

Well brand pollution/dilution if Google Ads just look 'spammy', so self-interest and user-interest coincide somewhat here. Actually websites that are covered in ads and affiliate links + the traditional 'you are a winner' popup aren't my first choice for shopping or reliable information, in fact. Is that a -big- surprise?

Re:I don't believe (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790445)

that Google does this for altruistic reasons. Where is the snake under the grass ?

Profit. They don't want to be known as the search provider to be avoided because they point to link farmers / aggregators / web spammers.

If 90% of power users actively decide to block site X because it completely sucks when logged in using

http://www.google.com/reviews/t?hl=en [google.com]

Then they may as well block that site for everybody.

Re:I don't believe (5, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790775)

And yet they let experts-exchange get away with their faking out google, despite the fact that it's well-known that they do it AND google has said that's explicitly a no-no...

Re:I don't believe (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790457)

I agree with you... but you have to admit that it does benefit them when most searches through them, and their algorithm would possibly drop hits on other marketing firms. It's good that they're doing it, and I'm for it... but it does make sense from their standpoint. If they can do this, why can't they stop fake sites who datamine and post fake results on pages with no real content?

Re:I don't believe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790469)

Crappy search results make Google search look bad, and search users might go elsewhere. It's not altruism, it's customer retention.

Re:I don't believe (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790631)

I don't believe that Google does this for altruistic reasons. Where is the snake under the grass ?

Perhaps they don't, but page ranking is supposed to indicate the usefulness of a page as a result to a query. If a page does not allow you to quickly get to what you're looking for due to an obnoxious flood of ads, it seems safe to assume that the page deserves a certain penalty.

Although, I'd personally implement a penalty for Comic Sans as the page font or pink as background or foreground color, and a double penalty for both on the same page.

Re:I don't believe (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790669)

Well it's not entirely altruistic, but it's still beneficial.

The problem is sites like Expert Exchange, any IT person will have searched for an IT problem and got an Experts Exchange link only to click it and find nothing but ads - so many professional IT workers don't realise that the content is actually hidden away at the bottom, after pages of fake blocking content trying to convince you to subscribe such that many go to the page, scroll down a bit, see nothing but ads, then leave the page and try a different link.

If this happens too often people wont get fed up with those sites, they'll get fed up of Google not returning nice results and Google risks losing them to the likes of Bing and Yahoo.

So sure it's not altruistic, it's about keeping users on board by providing the most pleasing results to users as it can, but it's still a good thing IMO.

Many people today probably don't even remember the pre-Google search engines, where you'd far more frequently have to click well past the 1st page of results to find what you want, and had to click into and exit out of far more results because they weren't what you wanted.

The fact is, if Google first searches based on relevance of content, and then given roughly equally content relevance to the search query then starts ranking those pages based on how pleasant they are to use then that makes searching a much less stressful endeavour. As a search engine, the user experience of a search engine is somewhat linked to the user experience of the results it returns - if two search engines return the same results equally ordered by relevance, but then one of them ranks the most pleasant to use sites first where relevance is pretty much identical, which are you going to use? The one where you have to deal with annoying sites to find your answer, or the one where you don't?

Will they punish themselves? (1)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790393)

Will they punish themselves?

Re:Will they punish themselves? (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790507)

Not necessarily. Considering sites with their ads will be removed from the equation, you'll probably have sites using their ad system more often.

Re:Will they punish themselves? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790697)

Considering sites with their ads will be removed from the equation

They will? Where did you read that?

measurement (4, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790401)

So, is there a place where we can measure how well our websites conform to google's ideas of user-friendliness?

Or do we have to find out the hard way?

Re:measurement (0)

lambent (234167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790499)

[sarcasm] Well, if you don't like it, start your own search engine. Free market, private company, blah blah blah blah. This is totally not an abuse of a monopolistic position at all. [/sarcasm]

Re:measurement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790559)

Maybe because they're not a monopoly? Be flippant if you must but know you're wrong for it just the same.

Re:measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790663)

What else would you call 72% of search marketshare in the US? You don't have to be 100% to be a monopoly, as proven by the Microsoft lawsuits.

Re:measurement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790893)

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act would like to have a talk with you...

Re:measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790655)

It's their company, they can decide how results are placed and for what reasons, providing they are not abusing their market position.
 

Re:measurement (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790657)

Usually I'd be happy to jump on the anticompetitive bandwagon (which has knives on the wheels to damage any other bandwagons it passes), but the Google search engine does not really enjoy a monopoly. As of last September, Google had about 64% of the search engine market in the USA (less elsewhere) but, more importantly, they have no lock in. It's trivial to switch to using one of their competitors. I switched to DuckDuckGo over a year ago, and I have not seen any reason to want to switch back. I just got an Android phone, and it now has a DDG search box on the home screen instead of a Google one.

Re:measurement (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790701)

I'm not sure I see the point of sarcastically complaining about something that you're imagining in your head.

Hmm... (2)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790407)

It must be a pretty impressive algorithm if it's going to sort out good from bad sites... and it'd be interesting to see if it counts its own ads on pages if they're bundled in a bunch of others. I think they need to work on data mining sites which duplicate searches and put them on their sites to pull in clicks when no significant subject matter is really contained within the site itself. That would be better than ad sites.. and this pretty much wreaks of sneakiness.

Re:Hmm... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790517)

There are human testers involved. I did this for a while. Basically you get thrown 10 pages that are mostly all alike and you have to pick the best one. So the page with fewer ads and the same content will be marked as better by the testers. This will then push that page higher in the algorithm. Other test include visiting 10 sites for a search query and marking which ones display the data, which ones are virus filled, which ones have too many ads etc. There is a review process as well. I also vaguely remember doing a test where a previous tester said these things about a page, are they correct? It's subjective, but you definitely can tell a good page from a bad page quickly.

Re:Hmm... (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790613)

I think is not too difficult... One way is simply count how many ads the page have, one page with 15, 20 ads from many sources is a good sign of problem.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790881)

It would probably be a layout thing. IE they could have 20 ads below the content and 1 above and to each side, but if you have to scroll to see the content then it will be punished. I remember that they told us that if our eyes had trouble finding the content when we first opened the page then, it was worse then other pages with similar content. I don't quite remember, but I think that we had to evaluate how the page loaded, so if the page loaded with a javascript "ad" that covered the page, we had to evaluate the page as such and if we couldn't see the content behind the ad then it was punished.

Google is like an evil Mr. Rogers (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790415)

and that good for you mayor villain from Demolition Man. They try to say it's good for you when all they are doing is trying to lock out the competition

Re:Google is like an evil Mr. Rogers (3, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790681)

It's hard to jump on the Anti-Google bandwagon on a move like this. Google's ads have historically been unobtrusive and don't break the flow of a page. Some of the "competition" on the other hand is the very reason adblockers exist.

Having once seen a full page advert that had a broken close function and actually outright prevented me from getting to the content I want I for one welcome this move.

Re:Google is like an evil Mr. Rogers (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38791021)

They try to say it's good for you when all they are doing is trying to lock out the competition

A single-sentence definition of the U.S. government.

Google, please don't... (3, Interesting)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790417)

All things considered, if a site scores high in search results because it has the most relevant results, I'm okay with scrolling down past the ads that I ignore. If I'm searching for something in a content search engine, it's because I want relevant content; the fluff surrounding that content doesn't really matter to me.

It's all very nice that Google in their infinite wisdom wants to protect me from those harmful ads that I can ignore, but to make the search results less useful is not what I consider an overall positive outcome.

(Mind you, I use Yahoo, so Google needn't listen to me too much.)

Re:Google, please don't... (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790505)

it will probably make it more useful

every time i search for SQL related info i get crap from exchange-admins or some site like that where a forum question is on top and the rest of the page is ads and a link to make me sign up and pay for the rest of the posts. why can't google link to free info first?

Re:Google, please don't... (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790645)

Me too. Okay, of course I can filter the crap pages myself, but if the Google can do a "first-pass crap filter", he is welcome.

Re:Google, please don't... (2)

The Jynx (806942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790687)

(Mind you, I use Yahoo, so Google needn't listen to me too much.)

Holy crap, I knew someone out there had to be using Yahoo search but I didn't think I'd ever find them - and I knew they wouldn't have a hope of finding me...

Shouldn't be surprised (5, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790433)

In the war for eyeballs, a search engine needs to produce the "best" results for your query, and provide meaningful, useful pages at the top of the list. If your searches on a given provider just bring up link farms or pages which are so strewn with ads that its hard to find the content, you're going to try another search engine. Google makes its money by getting people to search using their engine, and by delivering relevant ads.

I'm a bit surprised they haven't been more aggressive at weeding out crap pages. Or it could just be that they're losing market share, and they looked into why people were going elsewhere.

Re:Shouldn't be surprised (1)

jakrmaster (2559049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790649)

No, they need their service engine to make them the most money. By dropping sites that have advertisers, they're forcing people to use AdWords to get interested buyers, therefore increasing the ad click prices and the amount of advertisers they have. Don't think ever for a second that Google does this for quality purposes - they do it for their monetary benefit.

Does it take into account onload? (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790459)

Good. The thumbnail sized content will be at the top. Bad. The page will reset to the bottom after the onload image refresh script runs.

onload='fuxWithGoogle(evt)'

function fuxWithGoogle(evt) { window.scrollBy(0,100); }

Re:Does it take into account onload? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790585)

AFAIUnderstand Google has for a very long time now been running javascript code when spidering, exactly because otherwise it would be a bit too easy to present entirely different views to googlebot and normal browser. AFAIRecall They will also punish anyone who actively tries to present different view to the bot vs normal users.

Re:Does it take into account onload? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790641)

Google seems to do their page preview rendering with a modified version of Chrome (plugins are rendered with Chrome's "blocked plugin" image). So they're using a REAL web browser (even if automated) to check these pages so they can't just use JavaScript to trick Google because the JavaScript is likely being parsed and taken into account.

What about multi-page 'stories' (2)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790479)

What about sites where people have to wade through pages of ads and links to get the actual content they were after, including news that is clipped into small pieces, and spread over a lot of pages, all with lots of ads?

Sex Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790509)

Hopefully this will send Expert Sex Change into oblivion.

So tired of their results.

Re:Sex Change (2)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790693)

1. Click Expert Sex Change result
2. Click back
3. You will see a link appear offering to "block all expertsexchange.com" links from your search results.

Only works if you are logged in to Google in some way, of course.

Ad block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790535)

Don't we all use an ad blocker?

Like Slashdot (1)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790589)

Amusingly enough, when I loaded /. today there was a banner ad across the top of the homepage (at work, so can't install ABP here).

Right move for the wrong reason (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790599)

The correct reason to punish those sites is that there is a very high correlation between excessive ads and crap content (or good content that has been copied illegaly from other sites that will now get a better rating.)

Considering the alternatives... (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790601)

there are a lot of sites meant to display as much ads as they can, with some copied content from somewhere else and every trick in the SEO books to attrack traffic. And how you decide that a site is doing that, like specifically tricking the search engine to think it is normal? Their next move should be to lower the amount of ads, and then the users, if well will keep falling there, at least won't load as much ads as usual.

About "normal" sites, with original content, and lots of ads to make them profitable, probably other factors could keep ranking them higher, and if the line they put between normal use of ads and abusive is high enough could end not hurting a lot and forcing the sites that abuse to give a better end user experience.

Editing (4, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790621)

From the "Good god, would it kill you to edit submissions for basic grammar" department.

According to Google over the top ads is not good for user experience and thus such websites might not get high ranking on Google web search

Is barely a coherent sentence.

Re:Editing (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790637)

It's not that bad. It really should say "are" instead of "is" but otherwise it's okay.

Re:Editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790999)

It's quite bad, considering that two poorly-worded, essentially redundant sentences compose half the summary!

Read it one more time:

"According to Google, this type of layouts annoys the users and thus the web search company will be penalizing those websites through search results. [Seven words here.] According to Google over the top ads is not good for user experience and thus such websites might not get high ranking on Google web search."

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790729)

It look like prefectly good english to me. I should know, I speek english real good!

Yay, but what about Wikipedia Content Scrapers? (5, Interesting)

Jenny Z (1028212) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790643)

My pet peeve with google searches is when I get page after page of pages which have just stolen the text from Wikipedia and placed it on their site with ads.

Re:Yay, but what about Wikipedia Content Scrapers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790779)

stolen the text from Wikipedia

We (will) have SOPA/Protect IP for this

Punishing websites for their content? (0)

teslar (706653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790723)

So who died and made Google legislator, judge and executor on crimes against appropriate webpage content?

Re:Punishing websites for their content? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790835)

So who died and made Google legislator, judge and executor on crimes against appropriate webpage content?

Google have always had complete control over what appears on their own web pages after filtering through their own ranking systems. They aren't making decisions on appropriate content for all web pages on the entire internet, they're making them for pages on their own sites. If you don't like the way Google filters web pages there is nothing to stop you using the other big search engines or even designing your own.

I know there are arguments about what sort of responsibility Google should have due to the sheer size and popularity of their site, but Google didn't ever sign an agreement promising that they'd filter the results exactly the way site owner X wanted them. If someone is really so dependent Google showing them at the top of the results page and on a page stuffed full of adverts to keep their site running then maybe they need to reconsider their business model.

What a stupid summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38790857)

"According to Google, this type of layouts annoys the users and thus the web search company will be penalizing those websites through search results."

Oh, of course! That totally makes sense, because, you see, Google really doesn't want anyone on the internet to be annoyed! It's part of their business plan!

Phone numbers (0)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790923)

Really, that is all I wish Google would quit asking for. Seriously, why do they need it? I say no over and over again and still they insist they need it to protect me from me! Why? They know what IP I connect from, and they know who I email. Why they fuck do they keep asking for a phone number?

Google, after you fix that glitch in you system, please quit trying to force me into using an interface I hate. All I want is to be able to read my email, and all that requires is the exchange of text. I sign on, you deliver data. What could be more simple?

What annoys me... the "+" modifier (5, Informative)

ljw1004 (764174) | more than 2 years ago | (#38790993)

What annoys me is when I search for a particular word or phrase, and Google takes me to a page which lacks that word.

I used to be able to type "+blankie" and google would show only those pages that had the word blankie in them. No longer. It just says that + is no longer supported, and takes me to a load of pages without that word.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...