Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

Firstly, this will work on ad networks other than Google, so it''s more broad reaching than anything they could do just within AdSense. This is good.

Secondly, and arguably more importantly, the way to stop these adverts is for them to cost the advertiser (in either money or time) without giving them the reward of revenue. If the ads stop working then people won't have a reason to make them. By stopping the ads in AdSense rogue advertisers would just change to a different ad network. The problem wouldn't stop.

This is a good move by Google.

View on HN

"more broad reaching than anything they could do just within AdSense"

... as long as you don't care about browsers which don't run Google's Safe Browsing service.

You know another way to stop these ads? Make available an advertising network which doesn't serve them. Website owners who don't want to install malware on their users' computers - which is probably most of us - would prefer that network to the others. As-is, with even Google's network serving up malicious ads, the choice for a website that wants to run display ads appears to be either build out a sales team & manage inventory itself, or accept that some percentage of its users will get scammed.

I wonder if Mozila will attempt to create a list of scam advertisements and automatically block those...

Surely it would make the most sense to build it into both AdSense and Chrome. That way Google know they're not running a network facilitating this, and they are also able to block malicious ads from other networks in the browser.

I've actually built an advertising network[1] that is not focused on serving display ads, but linking to content directly in images. Video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GfKBvs53Ss

The thought is that if "advertising" is actually a feature of a website, then it solves the problem of users trying to avoid being shown ads. If you could hover your mouse over an object on any image on the internet and be taken directly to where you can buy that without all the hassle, I'd see that as a big win.

Note: Just onboarded our first customer yesterday. He's using it to promote iPhone cases based on his instagram feed[2]. Hover over the cases on a desktop, and you'll see what the case is. Click on it, and it takes you directly to the product page.

[1] http://pleenq.com

[2] http://www.obeythekorean.net/pages/instagram-feed

That's pretty good. The issue I have with it is that without this prior knowledge, I can't tell what will happen when I click - the URL isn't informative, and there's no alt-text.

What would you like to see it do? I've been thinking of tons of different ways of displaying that to a user, but I figured I'd just put it out there and see what people suggested.

This is the first ad platform I've seen that is innovative in a good way, instead of the usual remarketing/tracking/native/data whatever bullshit. Seriously, awesome idea and execution. Have you gotten any press for this?

No press, just a reddit post[1]. Do you know anyone? :)

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/43qnen/if_you...

This is undoubtedly interesting content for writers and bloggers. I'll think on it and PM you if I come up with anything worthwhile.

In my experience as a consumer, project wonderful ad system thingy ads seem to be unobjectionable.

They are paid per length of time, not by click or view, and they are determined by a continuous auction.

This does not make any sense. Advertisers paying per view do not get charged for a view if crome prevents the user from viewing the page.

The good news here is we now have official admission by google that allowing adsense ads without filtering is dangerous. And those of us who do not have sophisticated techniques that can detect deceptive ads have no choice to but to block the entire network serving them, if we want to be secure.

>Advertisers paying per view do not get charged for a view if crome prevents the user from viewing the page.

The cost isn't in money, it's in views. By not letting you click a fake DL button, the malicious ad doesn't lead you to the site it wants you to end up on, which is usually plastered with other ads and sometimes has malware lying around on it. The end result is that the malicious party can't make money off their own site's ads and can't redirect you to download god-knows-what onto your system.

Any blockning of "malverts" should arguably just emulate view so it costs the advertiser even more than the lost view. If Google don't want to do that themselves (which would be understandable) they could likely expose it in APIs so plugins like ad blockers can do it.

Google can't do that. It'd be fraud.

I don't think it would be fraud if they did it to ads from non-Google networks. But yeah, they shouldn't fake views on ads that come from their own networks.

Why not block it at the source instead? Prevent these types of ads from being submitted to AdSense in the first place.

It's a necessary but not sufficient step. They should also block all such ads within AdSense.

> By stopping the ads in AdSense rogue advertisers would just change to a different ad network. The problem wouldn't stop.

It would stop the problem on every Google's partner that decided to trust it by displaying its ads.

> By stopping the ads in AdSense rogue advertisers would just change to a different ad network

The sites that "everyday folk" browse are much more likely to be running ads from the AdSense network. Forcing the rogue advertisers to place ads on a smaller network serves to cost them (money or time) without the reward of the revenue they'd otherwise get from AdSense-enabled drive-bys.

It's a good move, but it seems unlikely that they going to block a site that's only using AdSense to serve up deceptive ads. Where is the announcement that adsense/adwords will detect those ads as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com