Google Will Reduce Accidental Mobile Ad Clicks, With Mandatory Borders and More

Mark Wilson submits news that Google is throwing a bone to mobile users annoyed by ads that (accidentally, or accidentally-on-purpose) make it too easy to accidentally click, breaking your browsing flow, by making those ads a bit less clickable. Writes Beta News: The company is taking steps to make the 'user experience' of ads a little better. It recognizes that advertisements that get clicked accidentally don't benefit anybody. They end up irritating the clicker, and are unlikely to be of value to the company that placed the ad. With around half of ad clicks being made by mistake, Google is now taking steps to stop this from happening — great news for users advertisers alike. In all, Google is making three key changes to ads that appear on smartphones and tablets, starting off by adding an unclickable border to the outer edges of advertisements.

Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malware?

[urbanriot]

Isn't this idea an aspect of reducing the amount of accidental clicks on malware advertisements? If so, why don't they just stop hosting malware or scam sites. There are certain keywords for legitimate services or products that are always guaranteed to give top hits in malware.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying customers are paying customers. If they start banning malware, then people will ask for bans on clickbait sites, porn sites, stupid FB games, independent news outlets, political campaigns! Think of the children!

Re:

[rtb61]

You host the ad, you promote the product and basically earning a percentage of revenue from that sale, then you should be liable for the message. You get paid to promote the message, you are liable for the message. A lot more civil suits need to start targeting those who promote false messages and think they are free to tell any lie imaginable, in fact an infinite numbers of lies because 'er' 'um' they are greedy and do not want to take any responsibility at all for their actions.

Re:

[Krojack]

Because the companies (malware produces in this case) would scream and kick fowl.

Re:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[ColdWetDog]

In that case, perhaps we can sic PETA on the malware authors. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Re:

[nmb3000]

If so, why don't they just stop hosting malware or scam sites. There are certain keywords for legitimate services or products that are always guaranteed to give top hits in malware.

There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

After several people in my family got bitten by advertising malware, primarily due to clicking the top Google result after searching for popular open source projects such as "firefox" or "open office" or "vlc" (I literally watched as this happened to one of them), I helped them install Firefox if they didn't have it, and AdBlock+ with an auto-updating subscription. The two more tech-savvy I showed NoScr

Won't Get Fooled Again

[tepples]

There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

Meet the new BHOss
Same as the old GWBoss

Re:

[ShaunC]

He said he installed an extension, not a Browser Helper Object!

They did

[rsilvergun]

Google rarely, if ever, allows real malware to slip through. Yes, there is adware and exploitive free to play games, but you can uninstall them and they're gone. What makes malware malware is you need to ffr to get rid of it.

I serve some ads on my site glimmersoft.com (shameless plug) and I only serve Google ads for just that reason. There's plenty of folks with better rates but they just don't have the resources to keep up with the bad guys.

Re:

[cfalcon]

No, fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks that way.

If it tricks me into an installation (or tries), it's malware- period. Block, remove, disable scripting, whatever. If someone who isn't full tech browses to 100 sites and gets 100 bullshit whatever the fucks, he shouldn't have to spend hours running uninstall 100 times, while someone is like "hey, it's not malware, we just hijacked the search result for an open source project, made a name that looked similar, and started serving adds on your desktop, inst

Android

[ThatsNotPudding]

Yes, there is adware and exploitive free to play games, but you can uninstall them and they're gone.

I can't (and never will) speak for iOS, but on Android, when you hit the back button one too many times (overshooting the app main page), boom: full-screen scummy ad.

Please tell us how to 'uninstall' that behavior.

it would be pretty to think so

[fermion]

I suspect the primary reason for this is to maintain high ad prices by not charging advertisers for useless click. For instance, if I were to post this response on a mobile platform, I would first have to close the ad tab at the bottom so I could click the submit button. Sometimes instead of closing the ad, I click it. If the advertiser is getting charged per click, and google were the provider, this would generate revenue for Google while providing negative value for the advertiser, as it would tend to make me dislike the advertiser. This would tend to push ad rates down, which still would not compensate for the negative end user impression.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

I suspect the primary reason for this is to maintain high ad prices by not charging advertisers for useless click. For instance, if I were to post this response on a mobile platform, I would first have to close the ad tab at the bottom so I could click the submit button. Sometimes instead of closing the ad, I click it. If the advertiser is getting charged per click, and google were the provider, this would generate revenue for Google while providing negative value for the advertiser, as it would tend to mak

Just half?

[codepigeon]

I think that might be a liberal estimate. That number is 100% for me. I have been conditioned to immediately click the close button for every add that pops up. I don't even bother to notice what product is being advertised. I learned LONG ago that clicking on the flashy ad usually got me in trouble...followed by a format/reinstall.

I would like to know who does click on ads though. Someone has to be doing it on purpose. Curious minds want to know.

Re:

[penguinoid]

I click on the sponsored link when the sponsored link is the exact url I wanted to go to. I wonder if this marks me as "someone who clicks on ads target him for more ads".

Re:

[TheCarp]

This. The only time I ever click on them is accidentally.

But you have to realize, most people don't really know half of whats going on behind the scenes as they browse the web. Hell, I don't, I know enough to know how much is going on and how to find out more if I want, but who really looks? All the time? At some point you have to trust trust and everyone has to do it at a high level.

Most people don't have any conception of what a potentially hostile environment they have entered. Browsing the web is like r

Good news for Google, anyway

[93 Escort Wagon]

It's good news for Google and their advertisers - fewer unwanted clicks means lower payouts.

I'm not sure whether it's anything but neutral for end users. I don't think Google's ads are the ones with the tiny little close buttons that induce false clicks - THOSE are rather irritating. But if Google really wanted to benefit end users, they'd start screening their ad content more rigorously.

Re:

[Mr Z]

Unless it allows them to raise their per-click rates on the premise of "quality clickthroughs."

Re:

[cfalcon]

This is a real problem on ios. Safari has all manner of powerful placement, and there's no real way around it (maybe with jailbreaks you could temporarily swap Mercury or Atomic into that spot, I dunno). This is all an Apple setup, and beyond the obvious choice of not using Apple, it is rather difficult to get an ad free experience there. Also annoying is the lack of ability to claim, with full and convincing mockery, that the browser is desktop Firefox. Mobile sites are awful, and usually prevent pinch

Now, if Slashdot would fix its mobile ads.

[hackwrench]

They're too close to the Submit button on posts. Slashdot also doesn't do a good job of indicating the post is actually being sent.

Or Stop Using Google

[theshowmecanuck]

I have started to use duckduckgo.com for searches when I'm looking for actual articles or information. I have found that I get better results. On a Google search for some information on SaaS billing integration for example, all I got from Google were spiels from companies selling shit. No articles. I did the exact same search in duckduckgo and found something I could use right away. No I don't work for duckduckgo, but I am getting sick of more and more not being able to get useful results from Google. Maybe Yahoo would give better searches to, but I have tried them lately.

Google should concentrate on better and more useful search results and stop fucking around with pushing more advertising, and to stop forcing web sites to code their sites the Google way [redrovercompany.com] or be kicked so far down the listing as to not be there at all. But I know that'll never happen. Maybe it is easier for Google's algorithms to mess with the sites if they are in a Google approved format. Google should concentrate on returning useful web searches. But I guess they are useful to the advertisers even if it isn't useful so much for people who are trying to use the internet to get things done.

Re:

[cfalcon]

A ringing endorsement for Bing! I also find that Bing actually has solid results. To the point where I'd like my browser to, maybe when shift-enter is pressed on search, open google in the main window and bing in a second tab (generally using duckduckgo to get the Bing results, of course- I like their privacy policy better than Microsoft's).

Bing is an excellent search engine. No, it's no google, but people who have spent just countless hours trying to render google unusable for search terms where a func

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

I have started to use duckduckgo.com for searches when I'm looking for actual articles or information. I have found that I get better results. On a Google search for some information on SaaS billing integration for example, all I got from Google were spiels from companies selling shit. No articles.

Same here. I found little of value, and when using Google, almost never want to go to the first results. So DDG is how I roll.

And they can fornicate themselves if they think they can dictate how I design my site.

Helping out google's algorithm

[tompaulco]

Here is a helpful hint for google's algorithm to determine if the click was accidental:
If I clicked it, it was accidental.
If I did not click it, that was intentional.
The only time I ever click on an ad is when I got suckered in by a deceitful company trying to appear to be a legitimate news article. For example, I got suckered in by "New Law has Insurance Customers Fuming" headline...once. A company that has to fool people into clicking on it's links does not deserve to be in business and should have their IP blacklisted so that no one else will ever accidentally visit their site.

Re:

[Mr Z]

Yeah, that "new law" one is f'ing annoying. It's been a "new law" since, uhm, for as long as I've been buying insurance? News flash: You pay different insurance rates based on your driving profile! WOW. They've started changing up the wording with other non sequiturs, but it's the same crap ad. (Why would the DMV give two shits about how much I'm paying for insurance?)

Nice step, but

[bobmajdakjr]

there are ads on imgur which on windows phone will open the windows phone store, usually to some stupid query involving a shitty dragon game, without you having ever touched the screen. how is that for messing with the flow.

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

All google needs to do is remove fraudlent virus/malware found adverts...

Kinda like blocking all ads.

My solution is better.

[Lumpy]

Root and install a blocking hosts file.

  Bethesda proved that ad's on free games is only for complete crap games. Fallout shelter has ZERO ad's ZERO nags, and they are making money hand over fist with it.

So if your app has ad's, it's a strong sign that it's a complete crap app.

Luckily 99% of all free apps are trash, so I dont use them, the ones that are worth buying, I buy.

a better way...

[tomofumi]

they should just stop the immediate action after the ad click, with a prompt like "OK / Cancel" before launching the ad's site contents.

Worst offender

[crossmr]

The worst I know of is the app "Skout".

They have really scummy tricks. It's really a mystery why google has allowed them to keep doing it.

Basically when you load a chat you see a text box, which normally you'd press to start typing. The kicker? it's not a text box. A moment after the chat loads the text box floats up and is replaced with an ad in it's spot. Even if you click directly on the box and not on the ad, it still brings up the ad. Until the text box locks position above the ad box it's not a text b

Re:

[CockMonster]

I'm pretty sure Skout uses MoPub, not Ad Exchange

Re:

[crossmr]

The app is still under google's purview. It's on the app store, and affects users of android and google services. They do have some rules for apps and deceptive ad practises, regardless of the company should be one of them.