Beta
×

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 Testing Banner Ads On Select Search Results

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the you-must-have-enough-advertisees dept.

Advertising 185

cagraham writes "Google promised in 2005 to never "ever" put banner ads on their search results, but that appears to be changing. The company confirmed to SearchEngineLand that it is running a "small experiment" involving large-scale banners on searches for Southwest Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, and Crate&Barrel, among others. The ads are being shown in less than 5% of searches, and only in the US, for now. Interestingly enough, the Google exec who wrote the no banner ads promise was Marissa Mayer, now CEO of Yahoo."

cancel ×

185 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RIP Google, 2014? (4, Informative)

xtal (49134) | about 10 months ago | (#45225907)

On the upside, banner ads will be pretty easy to target to make never appear with plugins.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226013)

This will be overridden in the Chrome browser.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226255)

They haven't done it yet. Why bother? Only geeks will install Adblock. You probably wouldn't make up the development time needed to implement the "stop the blocking of this specific ad" feature in the ad revenue. Just take the plugin out of the "Chrome Store", so the geeks need to go to some geek website to get it, and you're fine.

See, that's what "don't be evil" means. It means "don't go out of your way to be evil if it won't actually pay off".

It's the same thing they do for Android. Geeky fans want to start up a homemade distribution? Sure, knock yourself out, here's the source code. Asus wants to start selling devices without Play Store preinstalled? Release the trained attack lawyers.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (5, Informative)

pmontra (738736) | about 10 months ago | (#45226329)

It seems there are many Geeks around. Adblock usage was 9.2% overall in US and Europe in 2012. See this PDF link [clarityray.com] for details. Well, maybe there aren't so many geeks but they install Adblock on the computers of friends.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226675)

Installation only occurs once. Usage is ongoing.

Once I got into the habit of installing AdBlock on my systems, I just set it up as part of the normal installation routine for my family's and friends' computers. Most of them don't even know that the web is a festering morass of irritation. I've cured it for them.

Next up, I've now installed system-wide AdBlock on my Android phone. It's not quite ready for non-geeks yet, but it's close. Google's actively fighting it, but fuck 'em.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226951)

If I remember correctly. I started using Google because it didn't have banner ads...because it was clean and gave good results. In that order.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45226899)

I install it on every single computer I touch. Adblock also reduces virus infection vectors drastically as there are a lot of ad's that are virus or malware vectors.

I know I can account for over 100 installs of adblock plus on people's computers.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226407)

Not all the Android source code is available.

Never has been.

Never will be.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226451)

Nope. There's enough of it available to placate the hobbyists (most of the time) but not enough of it for Amazon to be able to seamlessly create their own ecosystem in it without doing a whole lot of work. That's the point.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227039)

Not all the Android source code is available.

Enough is. Enough that we have alternatives like cyanogen. Whatever is missing, there is alternatives or we can live without it.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226431)

Chrome is already forked.

SRWare Iron and Comodo Dragon are known alternatives that don't contain Google tracking and spyware code unlike the original Chrome.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 10 months ago | (#45226445)

On the upside, banner ads will be pretty easy to target to make never appear with plugins.

You're telling me, I had to disable Opera's content blocking to read the story and Slashdot comments because the URLs have "banner-ad" in them.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 10 months ago | (#45226637)

bzzzt! There is *no* upside : )

It's not like some the old ads will go away. These new ads are coming in *addition* to them, so we'll need new and untested heuristics and an increasing number of processing cycles.
This does not even address the fact that some of us use browsers that are already too slow because they do not support adblock, or any other plugins. Expecially on mobile. *Sigh*

Turning javascript off as an ad-fighting measure makes the web useless on android. Try it on slashdot sometime.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226877)

What desktop browser in this day does not support plugins? Safari, IE, Chrome, Firefox and Opera all have plugins. You must be using some no-name browser for it to not support plugins.

Re:RIP Google, 2014? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226943)

You mean extensions, not plugins.

Do No Evil (2, Funny)

mfh (56) | about 10 months ago | (#45225939)

It's not evil to have a banner ad. Right, shareholders?

Zombies nod.

Re:Do No Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226229)

Why would the shareholders be zombies?

Ostensibly its the shareholders demanding more profit which is driving Google to do these things to begin with. Yet then you say these same shareholders are mindless subservient "zombies" to the company they supposedly have such control over...

If you're going to make a shitty capitalism joke, can you at least try for consistency?

Re:Do No Evil (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 10 months ago | (#45226489)

Well, a corp with smart non-majority shareholders who are also CxOs or directors, and with zombie puppet majority shareholders, would certainly act a lot like a corp with ravenous smart aggressive majority shareholders, in terms of greed and evil. Just that the evil plans are hatched and managed in fewers brains.

Re:Do No Evil (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226471)

Seriously? You're throwing that tagline in their face FOR POSTING BANNER ADS??

Wow. The definition of "evil" has changed...

That doesn't make any sense (1)

frinkster (149158) | about 10 months ago | (#45225973)

If I go to Google and search for Southwest Airlines, I plan to visit the Southwest Airlines website. Why would Southwest Airlines pay money to Google for an advertisement that tries to get me to visit the Southwest Airlines website?

Re:That doesn't make any sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226049)

Because they are not the FIRST search result. Google puts news (maybe bad news) sometimes first. When I search right now, this buries the news that "profit is up on higher fares" .. I can see how they would pay to bury that news.

Re:That doesn't make any sense (4, Interesting)

frinkster (149158) | about 10 months ago | (#45226069)

The linked article has a follow-on FAQ that you can click over to. That answers the question.

It's protection money. If Southwest Airlines buys the ad, Google won't put other advertising up. If they don't, any other advertiser is welcome to pay Google money to put up a text ad above the search result.

Re:That doesn't make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227037)

Ahhh, I was wondering how they would determine if it was a sucess or failure being that this is an "experiment" and all that.

Re:That doesn't make any sense (3, Insightful)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 10 months ago | (#45226073)

To be sure you dont visit Expidia or Orbitz or some such. At least that's what I assume the reasoning is.

Still that banner is hugely obnoxious looking (IMHO). This is a bad move by Google.

Re:That doesn't make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226099)

Today it is Southwest Airlines. Tomorrow it will be airline. Soon it will show up when you google any type of travel or vacation topic. Frog in a boiling pot.

Re:That doesn't make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226105)

I suppose it reinforces branding. Not all ads have the *direct* goal to sell you something. Sometimes it's brand recognition. After all, why does Delta (or any airline) bother to put their logo on the seats, or publish and put their own magazines in their *own* flights?

Re:That doesn't make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226337)

See what happens in bing.

Non-Saavy Users (3, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 10 months ago | (#45226515)

For many people, they simply don't understand the difference between putting a website address in the address bar and in Google's search. This leads to competitors buying ad space on the search results, hoping you'll also check out their brand.

This is a major problem with non-technical users trying to find the phone number for technical support and finding shady service companies pushing yearlong contracts. Try any AV brand + support or phone, and you'll see many other companies offering "Support for X" and making a killing.

What if nobody bought stuff from those companies? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45225983)

Could we fix this? What if nobody bought stuff from the companies that advertised on the banners? I can dream, can't I...

Re:What if nobody bought stuff from those companie (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45226933)

"Could we fix this? "

Yes, start install adblock plus on every single computer within your reach. Only you can stop web advertising.

when you become a monopoly you can relax (5, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 10 months ago | (#45226009)

and start being evil, or at least really really annoying.

Re:when you become a monopoly you can relax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226617)

Start?

Re:when you become a monopoly you can relax (3, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45226821)

So putting up an advertisement on a free service is 'evil' now? Google makes their money by advertising. They provide a free service for you and pay for it by selling advertising space to others.

Re:when you become a monopoly you can relax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227103)

Fuck advertising. If Google wants money, they can ask me for some. I won't be advertised at.

Well that is it really. Ads ain't evil (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 10 months ago | (#45227413)

Ads ain't evil, they just really annoy me. And Google should know this. What is top plugin for their own browser? What is the main reason people root android? Right, ad blockers. They should know people HATE ads. Hate them with a passion that causes them to foam at the mouth at the slightest exposure.

And frankly the ad-blockers I have installed work well enough. So far the battle between advertisers and humanity is going fully in favor of humanity.

Until recently google seemed to accept that a portion of their users had the skills and desire to block all ads and let them get away with in exchange for market share. They were not going to be able to push ads on these people but at least they used their services, enabling them to grow as a company and then sell ads to those that don't mind them. (Just as slashdot allows contributors to hide ads).

That changed, ad blockers are banned from the android store. So I use firefox mobile and install a plugin for that browser and don't run programs that use ads. And waiting for a moment to root my new phone.

They are not going to push ads on me but I am perfectly happy to instruct everyone around me how to block them. Fight me google and you will find millions of nerds telling all their friends how to block them. You want to fight us? We made you what you are, we can kill you just as easily as we killed altavista. Reduce you as Yahoo has been reduced. Do you want to join the ranks of AOL?

Then keep your ads to those that don't mind them.

You would think that a company that offers their own phone to offer customers a clean phone without vendor or phone company malware would understand this. It seems sales has overtaken google as well.

Look at what happened to other companies were the sales guy was not killed when he utters the words "I got an idea". Your making billions google, be happy with it. Because there is no way in hell I am going to watch your ads. Ever. I and countless other rage filled nerds will see you dead and buried first. We did it before and unlike MS, we can do it again.

Go ahead. (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45226061)

Go ahead, add the banner ads.

I already block google analytics at my firewall. I'll just block these with something.

Google just seems to constantly get worse over time.

Re:Go ahead. (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45226961)

This is what happens at any company when the people that started it are no longer in charge. All companies will degenerate into a moneygrubbing greed machine only interested in the next quarter profits without the person that gave it birth at the wheel.

Re:Go ahead. (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45226991)

This is what happens at any company when the people that started it are no longer in charge.

I've seen it happen at companies where the people who started it are still in charge.

So, we can amend what you just said to: All companies will degenerate into a moneygrubbing greed machine only interested in the next quarter profits

Re:Go ahead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227221)

This is what happens at any company when the people that started it are no longer in charge.

I've seen it happen at companies where the people who started it are still in charge.

So, we can amend what you just said to: All companies will degenerate into a moneygrubbing greed machine only interested in the next quarter profits

I would amend it to All publicly traded companies will degenerate into a moneygrubbing greed machine only interested in the next quarter profits.

Disappointing (3, Interesting)

slasho81 (455509) | about 10 months ago | (#45226095)

I thought Google had at least 10 more good years before the corporate culture take over completely.

Re:Disappointing (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45226479)

It's been a lousy search engine for the last few years ('why give them the five results they asked for when we can give them five million results they didn't?'), so this is only just step down into the steaming pit of suck.

Re:Disappointing (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45227641)

Remember, you are on Internet time. Ten years was yesterday.

(What version is Chrome up to these days? 256 or something like that?)

In other words: (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 10 months ago | (#45226103)

"Dear Human Products,

Google will be placing large, targeted ads across your search results.
Thank you for your personal information.

Do Know Evil,
Google

Re:In other words: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226167)

You forgot to end your double quote and Google's automated evil Python script always ends its quotes...

Re:In other words: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227341)

Nah, the Google evil Python script is still in beta, expect some errors.

Not really evil (2)

twocows (1216842) | about 10 months ago | (#45226107)

Google's business has always been ads. I really don't see how static banner ads are any more evil than text ads, especially when they're just running them on search results. The only way it's really any worse is that it's mildly more distracting and takes up a trivially larger amount of bandwidth. There are other competitors who don't do this if it bothers you, or you can just Adblock them. I'd be more concerned with the targeting they're probably doing over this because that's something that's arguably evil. Now if they started allowing Flash ads or ads with movement, that would bother me, sure.

Re:Not really evil (5, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about 10 months ago | (#45226599)

Google's business has always been ads. I really don't see how sponsored links embedded in results are any more evil than text ads, especially when they're just running them on search results

Google's business has always been ads. I really don't see how animated banner ads are any more evil than static banner ads, especially when they're just running them on search results

Google's business has always been ads. I really don't see how flash ads are any more evil than animated banner ads, especially when they're just running them on search results

Re:Not really evil (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45226851)

So vote with your eyeballs. Go somewhere else and let them know that you're not pleased right at step one.

Re:Not really evil (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 10 months ago | (#45227041)

Did that two years ago, when I found qrobe (who then started doing the embedding thing, sending me to DDG) :)

Re:Not really evil (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45226897)

The slippery slope rarely ends in genocide.

It's important to note that Google's goal isn't to be a search engine, directing you to pages that might have the content that you're searching for, but to be an ANSWER engine, giving you the result of your query.

If you type "southwest airlines" without "fourth quarter earnings" or "lost my luggage" into Google, they should pretty much show you Southwest Airlines' site and options on that site immediately. Look at the picture from the article:

http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2013/10/google-full-page-sponsored-image-ad.jpg [searchengineland.com]

That's pretty much the ANSWER to typing "Southwest Airlines" in the combo box -- which is where everyone's being taught to "just type whatever they want" and end up in the right place.

It's silly for Google not to monetize this if they can -- because they're still going to give the answer.

If you don't believe Google's "search" engine isn't shifting to an answer engine, try some searches like "new york to california by car" or "alfonso cuaron" and see if a good answer to your query doesn't just appear.

Yes, they want our metadata.
Yes, they want to see ads.

These "banners" are the answer to our queries.

Bring them on.

It takes up much more mental bandwidth (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 10 months ago | (#45226849)

Remember - One word = 1 milli-picture.

Promises of no banner ads: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 10 months ago | (#45226115)

From the movie, Little Big Man: "Land that would be theirs as long as grass grow, wind blow, and the sky is blue."

Yeah. Uh huh. Suuure...

It's Been A Long Time Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226119)

I started using Google because they had the simplest page and when you're on dial-up that really mattered. They've long since abandoned simplicity. I'm glad browsers have integrated search bars so I never need to visit a search engine's home page again.

Tuppe666 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226123)

Help us Tuppe666, tell us how Google is good and Apple is evil!

OK with me (5, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | about 10 months ago | (#45226135)

I'd rather have banner ads than have 3 or 4 ads at the top that are almost indistinguishable from the search results.

Re:OK with me (4, Insightful)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 10 months ago | (#45226189)

I'd rather have banner ads than have 3 or 4 ads at the top that are almost indistinguishable from the search results.

That's a good point.

We know they have to advertise - that's how we get this awesome free search service. At least an ad that is plainly an ad is pretty easy to ignore.

Re:OK with me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226395)

Ugh, you sound like a typical Google fanboy and a drone who's fine with all the crap Google throws at you.

Re:OK with me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226633)

This.

I learned to tune out banner ads in the 90's. And now there are tools for that.

Handbrake (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226153)

Does anyone use Handbrake to convert videos?? I've been using it for quite some time (many versions of it).

There's that famous dialog box that pops up when the video is converted: "Put down that cocktail!! ..."

It's so funny how, this time, that statement was ALMOST right...oh so close!! Indeed, I washed my hands and then came back and pressed "OK"

youtube ads (4, Insightful)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 10 months ago | (#45226163)

On the subject of aggressive advertising...

It feels like YouTube ads have become much more common and obnoxious in the past few years. Has anyone else noticed this? I used to be content to click on a YouTube link but now each time I do a cost-benefit calculation -- is it really worth sitting through 30secs of irritating car ads or whatever just to see this little funny clip of two kittens and a tortoise? (or other material :) ).

Usually for me, the answer is now "no".

Re:youtube ads (5, Insightful)

T-Bucket (823202) | about 10 months ago | (#45226259)

I haven't seen a youtube ad, EVER. Why are you not using adblock?!

Re:youtube ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226289)

Large pop up banner ad's are what pushed me over the edge into using adblocking software and using google in the first place.

Just sayin...

Re:youtube ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226321)

Well depends what that tortoise does to the kittens? Does it kick their ass? Does it outrun them? mmm Outrun, that was a nice game.

Re:youtube ads (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 10 months ago | (#45226335)

I have noticed this too, but you can usually still ad-block them (at least the dynamic ones). Although they have been getting better about forcing it, there is also usually an option to skip after 5 seconds.

Still, you had to kind of expected that with YouTube. But these giant image ads on search results are surprising to me, and disappointing.

Though most of all I find video ads on YouTube mobile to be more irritating. Using my bandwidth. And most of all ? The complete fail of the aggressive attempts to push people to use real names on youtube. (I understand why, but they should have stopped pushing it after I said no the first time).

Re:youtube ads (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 10 months ago | (#45226351)

YouTube has ads?

I think you're doing it wrong.

Re:youtube ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226905)

Yeah, I noticed that when my wife uses YouTube.

I was like, huh, why isn't your video playing?

Re:youtube ads (1)

adolf (21054) | about 10 months ago | (#45226809)

No, I've never noticed any ads at all on Youtube.

Perhaps you're just holding it wrong.

Re:youtube ads (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 10 months ago | (#45227461)

Adblock takes care of them. Without adblock, I've never had to sit through more than the first 5 seconds of an add, then click "skip". Eh, I guess it just doesn't bother me much.

Re:youtube ads (3, Interesting)

addie (470476) | about 10 months ago | (#45227549)

The reason is that a number of YouTubers are starting to actually make a career out of making videos. I consume the majority of my shows on YouTube now, rather than TV or traditional media. Many channels have multiple updates per week.

Am I willing to sit through 30 seconds of advertising (or more likely 5 seconds before being allowed to skip) in order to get such content, and promote independent videographers? Yes. I am.

Shows worth watching:
- Veritasium, 2
- SciShow
- VSauce, 2, 3
- Nerd3
- MinutePhysics
- Numberphile, Computerphile, Sixty Symbols, etc

Well, you know what Google says ... (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 10 months ago | (#45226175)

Remember,

"First Do No Evil, Unless It's Profitable"

Ad blocking, banners, revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226339)

I'm a big fan of adblock, mostly because I consider it the best security software available. (Most infections come from ad networks, either intenionally from sleazy ones or from ones that have been compromised/DNS hijacked/MITMd)

I do understand that ad revenue is how a lot of sites operate. I watch a LOT of stuff from professional youtubers and streamers on twichTV and I think the best feature on adblock plus is the ability to easily whitelist pages. I don't mind seeing ads to support those people.

Adblock is talking about creating a feature that would let you whitelist whole ad networks that are proven safe and trustworthy. (Don't sell ads for scams, spread malware, etc) I think this is alright, considering much of the services I now enjoy are entirely ad supported. As far as Ad networks are conserned, I'd probably assert that the ones Google run are the safest.

Marissa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226345)

That ignorant fool totally wrecked Flickr and is bragging that it's doing great.

I have an idea (1)

goblinspy (2738809) | about 10 months ago | (#45226355)

As google already scans their services they could have robots (not people) place adds inline of the messages as if they are being suggested by the sender.

Bing is looking better every day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226359)

I've been using Bing for 95%+ of my searches for the past few months. I haven't missed much at all and it's nice to know that my searches aren't being recorded by the same company that attempts to track me everywhere I go with Google Analytics (seriously, download RequestPolicy for Firefox and see how many places it's used) and reads many of my contacts' emails. As an added benefit, Bing doesn't use redirects for exit links like Google does (which is annoying with RequestPolicy enabled).

Bing! - The sound made when... (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 10 months ago | (#45226949)

one of its users' heads is tapped lightly.

Sorry that was totally gratuitous M$oft bashing. I'm sure the company they bought that made Bing had a lot of smart people.

I'm running a small experiment myself now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226371)

I will be doing my searches through duckduckgo [duckduckgo.com] , some third party anonymizer that strips the ads or god forbid [bing.com] .

Re:I'm running a small experiment myself now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226583)

duck duck go uses bing already.

Try startpage.com

Re:I'm running a small experiment myself now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227297)

startpage.com [startpage.com] was the "third party" I was referring to. Thank you.

Some other things make me wonder... (3, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 10 months ago | (#45226391)

I was just in a google hangout using it as a video conference. During that conference call a particular service was mentioned. I had never heard of the service before, haven't searched for it, and yet mysteriously I'm seeing ads for it pop up all over the place undoubtedly served up by Google.

Makes me wonder....

Re:Some other things make me wonder... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227205)

I've had Google spam me with ads for new products of companies selling development libraries (obscure ones) that I incidentally had linked to as part of my job. I don't recall ever doing a search for them, though I probably did visit their support forums at some point. There's something distressingly next-level about the specificity and lack of clarity of the origin of the connection. There doesn't seem to be any natural line to this slippery-slope that we can expect Google or anyone else to respect.

Will Google host their own banners? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 10 months ago | (#45226405)

I have set up my DNS to block lots of places that have abusive ads (like Flash, animated GIF, etc). It seems that once I did that, almost all the other ad places disappeared, too. But if a web site hosts their own ads for themselves, they can get through (hint to Slashdot admins).

Re:Will Google host their own banners? (1)

Dwedit (232252) | about 10 months ago | (#45227633)

Element hiding helper for Adblock Plus helps against the first party ads, since it hides elements on the pages, making the ads never appear or load. Of course, it's much easier to use when the ads say <div id="ad">.

Ad limiting (2)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45226423)

I'm the author of Ad Limiter [adlimiter.com] , which blocks most ads in search results from Google and Bing. By default, it lets just one ad display, the best one based on our site legitimacy ratings.

So this is something else to identify, rate and block.

(I'm surprised that Google is getting into banners. Targeted search ads are much more valuable than banners. Banner ad click-through rates are so low as to barely be measurable.)

Re:Ad limiting (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 10 months ago | (#45227015)

Please add a feature to let me change the background of all AD's on google so they are obvious to older people. I have some older clients that if I could get a plugin to make the google search ad background BRIGHT RED it will help them see they are not actual search results.

Ad marking (2)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45227387)

Please add a feature to let me change the background of all AD's on google so they are obvious to older people.

Now that's an interesting idea. We dim out lower-rated search results slightly, but it's so subtle visually that few people notice. We certainly could do something to make it easier to identify ads.

Re:Ad limiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227079)

"Ad Limiter puts ratings next to ads and search results. We pick the best ad and block the others."

Best ads...who is "we"? Is there a community voting mechanism or is "we" strictly within your company walls?

If it's the former, you've got a good chance at succeeding.

If it's the latter...sorry, doa.

Re:Ad limiting (1)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45227313)

Best ads...who is "we"? Is there a community voting mechanism or is "we" strictly within your company walls? If it's the former, you've got a good chance at succeeding.

We know that "community voting" doesn't work. It's so heavily spammed it's useless. [slashdot.org]

What we do is find info about the company from public records, business databases, etc. If we can't find the real-world business behind the web site, we downrate it. It's a filter for "bottom-feeders", businesses hiding behind a web site and an email address.

Their is a market for this? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 10 months ago | (#45227433)

Ad limitting? So I have to go through the hassle of doing something by installing a program and then that program only does half the job?

I am lazy but when with the same amount of effort I can install a program that blocks all ads, why the hell would I use your program?

That is like being to lazy to scratch your ass but when you do finally scratch it, not scratch it enough to kill the itch.

Re:Ad limiting (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 10 months ago | (#45227645)

(I'm surprised that Google is getting into banners. Targeted search ads are much more valuable than banners. Banner ad click-through rates are so low as to barely be measurable.)

I'm guessing they ran the Google Analytics on it and discovered that too many people are blocking ads by their subsidiaries (DoubleClick, etc). So now they're going to pipe some of those DoubleClick ads through Google.com as it's a lot harder to block banners that way.

And website owners can have a lot of fun because they can do things that set off a lot of ad blockers inadvertently. The Daily WTF, when they run their classic ads, puts all the images under "ads", so the URLs contain "ads". Naturally, the first few posts are from people with ad blockers asking where the ads were.

Before you know it, self-hosted ads and putting contents alongside ad assets will become a lot more common.

consider the source (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 10 months ago | (#45226639)

the Google exec who wrote the no banner ads promise was Marissa Mayer, now CEO of Yahoo.

That says it all, really. She has a knack for these things.

Re:consider the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227141)

Natch, she has a knack. And nice nook and knockers. That says it all, really.

Advertisers are Idiots (1)

kat_skan (5219) | about 10 months ago | (#45226739)

The other day I also noticed their text ads sometimes now have contact forms in them with my email address pre-populated. In response I turned off the option in my ad blocker that allowed their text ads. Advertisers are idiots.

Slippery Slope Doomsdayers ASSEMBLE!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226889)

The banner ad looks fine. It's not really obtrusive, nor is it a popup, and i assume there's no sound. So it's exactly the banner ad that everyone is always claiming they wouldn't block on adblock if porn and movie sites would switch over to it. I don't see the big deal.

As for reneging on a promise. It was said 7 years ago by a former VP. "But it's their official blog, so it's still a company statement" Well she said exactly this:

"- There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever."

One could argue that the "ever" only applies to the last sentence, and this would then still conform to that promise. In any case, I surely don't care because I have AdBlock.

lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45226985)

That's pretty lame, Google.

That promise is no longer expedient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227065)

Multiple choice:

1. That was then, this is now.

2. Get real.

3. We're in a war.

4. So what?

shiTt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227321)

Never understood the hatred for banner ads (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 10 months ago | (#45227393)

They're not that intrusive and they help website make money for their employees. Now, if it turns into some clickwhoring site where the webpage is 75% ads and 25% content, that's different.

Re:Never understood the hatred for banner ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227661)

punch the monkey to win your prize!

But some pigs are more equal than others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45227483)

Steps back, looks at modified document and admires it. Goes on about business. Contemplates next edit...

No wait, that's Animal Farm. I thought we were talking about Big Brother...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>