Google will punish sites that use annoying pop-up ads
theverge.com
theverge.com
Get to Google faster.
Switch your default search engine to Google.
Yes, show me.
(Google is my default search engine. I just have their tracking blocked, so they can't check this. Lame.)
I have also noticed that Google's Captcha is more annoying than it is on Chrome.
I didn't think it was possible but I switched and I don't miss Google 99% of the time.
The biggest exception I've found is that the maps from open street map don't have street view.
Both force an ad to be looked at before granting you access to the content you came for. I don't get the distinction.
Meaning: you shouldn't always assume the worst, especially if there's evidence against it.
so no, it doesn't work on a larger scale. it's like suggesting to hack MS Windows checks if provided licence key is valid in order to use OS. It works, but for narrow audience, and we should discuss about how to solve issue for all users.
Not mobile.
(I had, at one point, some 2,000 or so personally modified wepage CSS files under Stylish for just this sort of crap.)
The equivalent YouTube ad would be if it started playing and didn't pause the video you're trying to watch.
Here's Google's post about it: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/08/helping-users-easi...
Over 95% of the stuff I watch on Youtube is gameplays, collagehumor and tech reviews, yet all my ads are diapers or clothing softeners. I've no idea why their algorithm sucks so much for my account.
I don't see how either of these would be alright by this new pseudo-policy, but your argument most definitely does not apply to the latter kind.
In line ads always confuse the hell out of me especially now that they are getting so camouflaged into the content and content sites have the scroll to next piece of content functionality.
How will Google punish themselves? Or will Google just punish the publishers who bothered to follow their repeated recommendations to run page level ads on their site?
Meaning it won't show when coming from a Google search, until the user navigates to a second page of the same site.
I guess it's okay to irritate users if it's at least one step away from search?
In fact, there's often less waiting with overlays on top of text content.
I'm so tired of those and there seems no way of blocking, even after blocking notifications in Chrome settings.
I understand that this instance is seen as a net positive for the end user, but Google should not have the power to force websites to conform to whatever Google decides is the new standard, or become irrelevant.
The end user should be deciding what is and isn't worthwhile content, or where to shop, or what have you. Not Google.
If people come in through Google because they are searching for something and instead of arriving at the content that was advertised in search results, see a content covering popup, that's not really informed decision making. I think Google has legitimate right to rank sites that do this lower.
Not to worry, the days of the U.S. government busting up monopolies seem behind us.
Your business is dependent on Google for traffic. You can embrace it and be beholden to platform rules, or you can build a direct audience and brand. The latter is hard but more defensible and there are many case studies to follow of other companies doing this.
http://searchengineland.com/google-confirms-rolling-mobile-i...
I actually just added a full-screen video popup to a site a few days ago, and I made it so that it won't appear to googlebot. This wasn't for deceptive purposes, just because it wasn't relevant. I only show the video once to users, and it doesn't appear when they go back to the site...it's just a walkthrough of our products, which many people seem to need. I suspect many sites will check for googlebot and not show their popups to avoid this penalty.
For sites that always show the popup to users and never show it to gbot, I agree. However I've seen a lot of scammy sites that do this kind of time so I don't know how likely google is to find out about it.
I know that there are practical concerns here, but Google has done a masterful job of shaping the conversation so that many people think anything not sanctioned by Almighty Google with regard to SEO (let alone actual "blackhat" tactics) is illegal or immoral.
So it's not illegal, but if you think you're beating Google by doing it, they're well aware of this workaround and will punish you harder.
If you don't care about ranking, then no biggie. But why would you manipulate your web server like that if you weren't trying to rank.
No one needs permission to request a web page, and that includes bots. But if that still bothers you, why not create arobots.txt with your preferences?
It also covers the adsense product - so using google product can affect your google rank.
HOWEVER there are many many news websites that have not been penalised despite a full range of pop ups, interstitial and screen take over adverts.
Anyone from Google able to explain why there is such a discrepancy?
This seems rather analogous to digging up a corpse to give it a spiteful kick in the ribs and bury it again.
Given all the SEO spam in the Google search index, it is a misplaced priority to make a target out of sites with popups.
So yes, one google product can result in a penalty with another. You will probably make a few quid more on adsense though.
I mean, look at my submission/comment history, I'm literally the voice of Google criticism on this website. But it's hard to see how this little diversion has to do with pop-up ads. It's not advertising, first and foremost.
http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/google-issues-ultimatu...