Google Blurring Distinction Between Ads and Organic Search Results

jfruh writes "For years, paid links returned from Google search queries have been set off from 'real' search results by their placement on the page and by a colored background. But some users have begun to see a different format for these ads: a tiny yellow button that reads 'AD' at the end of the link is the only distinguishing feature. Google is notoriously close-mouthed about this sort of thing, but it may begin rolling the new format out to more users soon."

Comments

Do not overreacht please

[Barryke]

I see weirder A/B tests flash by on a monthly basis at the least. They never get rolled out as seen in these experiments.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[drinkmoreyuengling]

Did you even bother to look? There's no overreachtion here. I just ran the same query and saw the same thing. It's not an A/B test, and it's been this way for a while.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[bulled]

heh, you must be new here. Overreation and car analogies are what powers /.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[Anonymous Coward]

So they finally upgraded from running the server off of the treadmill hooked up to APK's cage?

Re:Do not overreacht please

[cheesybagel]

Regardless it looks like crap. Altavista went into a downward spiral for precisely this reason. It used to be great but it stopped being great when you had to sift thought one and sometimes two pages of ads before actually getting to the result you actually wanted.

If Google doesn't deliver the results people are searching for easily we will just switch search engine again.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[Merk42]

It's not increasing the number of ads, just how they are displayed.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[bigpat]

Bingo. A lot of people forget that Google was several years late to the search engine business. Google gained where other search "engines" decided to replace real results with paid placements. I recall a meeting with Lycos where a first page placement in their "search results" would cost $10k.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[ZahrGnosis]

I consider it an overreaction because the reaction is more against the change rather than to the impact of the change itself. I, for one, prefer the new mechanism. The main reason is that I found the grey boxes and light lines difficult to discern, particularly on poorly calibrated monitors (including some of my own -- I tend to prefer a high monitor temperature that mutes the contrast there).

The big yellow "Ad" symbol is much easier for me to identify. The yellow stands out. It's not garish; they could certainly make it MORE visible, but again, for me, personally, the yellow is easier to spot than the grey, and I consider it an improvement. Yes, I'd probably have preferred that they do both.

Anyway, I'm sure people will disagree, but people disagree on any change... it's not the end of the world. Ads are still labeled and people will get used to it then complain about the next change. That's why it's an overreaction.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google is a data driven company. They watch user behavior very carefully. If this makes money wihile costing very few customers it will stay. If they see people leaving Google for other search engines, the change will disappear quickly. People complain all the time about what they think their preferences are, and how they think they work -- when you look at real behaviors though, there is often a disconnect from what people say they will and won't do.

Everyone says, "I never click on ads." While it is obvious that someone does, or else they would abandon the ad model and change for the service.

2. They have not increased the number of Ads, or the placement of the ads. The ads still appear on the top of oragnic search resultss, are still identified as ads and not search results. Only thing that changed is how they are displayed .

I personally think the big orange "AD" tag is more visable than the light yellow/grey background they used before. You are free to disagree, but that is a matter of taste, and only data on people's actual browsing behavior will tell the whole story.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[pepty]

People complain all the time about what they think their preferences are, and how they think they work -- when you look at real behaviors though, there is often a disconnect from what people say they will and won't do.

Everyone says, "I never click on ads." While it is obvious that someone does, or else they would abandon the ad model and change for the service.

I think Google's revenue extraction ideal is a presentation of ads that clearly differentiates them from search results but still leads people who avoid ads to click on them anyway when they aren't paying close attention. That's why the ad text and formatting matches the search results. A tiny iconprobably works better for that than a completely different background for most users. Shifting formats around occasionally probably helps too since people will eventually condition themselves to any given format.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[AvitarX]

I click on ads all the time.

When I'm trying to do commerce, I find it a better experience clicking on the ad links. If a company is paying for ads, they likely also work on UX of their site too.

Car shopping? the first link is usually the manufacturers link, that's convenient too, and local dealerships. Perhaps that's blackmail though, because the first organic result tends to be the company too.

If people are willing to pay to give me information based on my search, there's a decent chance they have what I'm looking for, that's often a great way to find worthwhile links. This is all simply for when I'm looking to do business though, most of my searches don't apply.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[AvitarX]

A yellow icon that is quite obvious, and an information button telling you why you got the ad?

It's pretty obvious even at a glance, in fact, I'd say the color that is distinct, and no where else on the page makes it easier to see.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[meta-monkey]

Altavista... Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but no. Altavista thought I was curious about US domestic bickering (e.g. politics) when I went there to search for something. (Heck I'm not even American, I don't care about their politics...)

Re:Do not overreacht please

[pr0fessor]

I agree that it is easier to see. I prefer a dim monitor and the yellow ad box stands out more. It doesn't appear that there any more ads than usual. I don't see the big concern.

I also thought most of the people on /. used some kind of Ad-blocker and/or no script that would take care of that anyway. I had to turn ad-block off to see the ads.

Re:Do not overreacht please

[pr0fessor]

There is also the ads that are exactly what you searched for. Try searching newegg or jcpenny the first result is their site and it's tagged as an ad. If I search for ford service center the very first link is listed as an ad and it is also the place I get my car serviced.

 

Re:Do not overreacht please

[Barryke]

772876 < 956533, so you tell me.. :)

Slippery slope

[geeper]

They've been on the slippery slope for a while now. Not exactly evil, but not forthcoming either.

Re:Slippery slope

[MightyYar]

I'm one of the users seeing this. The ads are still obvious to me - I assumed that they did it to make the site more mobile-friendly, but it could be a downward slide down your slope.

Re:Slippery slope

[NIK282000]

Their business is to get people to click some links more often than they click others, there is nothing strange about this. Not to mention you have to be braindead not to notice the big yellow "Ad" button, there is nothing evil about getting free clicks out of people to dumb or lazy to read the entire link before they click it.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

tbh I find them more obvious than their traditional ads. And more obvious makes them more annoying...

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha it's hilarious that this became a story. Really.

At least Google has a "Ad" notifier. If you really want to see ads blatantly disguised as fact, if you want to see "facts" that are bought and paid for, "independent" and "scientific" studies conducted by people on the payroll of the sponsoring corporation, "regulators" who own stock or otherwise have ties to the corporation, a media that gets over 3/4ths of its advertising from these companies so it won't expose them (c.f. Fox BGh lawsuit), and worse ... check out the pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, and big food industries.

So far the online search industries have NOTHING on them.

Re:Slippery slope

[K. S. Kyosuke]

As long as there is some distinction between the two kinds of links, shouldn't it be possible to use something like Greasemonkey to distinguish them visually?

Re:Slippery slope

[CastrTroy]

Just did this with stylish. Each of the ads are all within an "li" element with the class "ads-ad". Just add a custom style sheet such as the following and all the ads are not shown. Of course, you can add different styles to make them display differently if you want, but hiding them is also a good idea.

@-moz-document domain(www.google.com) {
li.ads-ad{
display: none;
}
}

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to start doing micro-payments properly. Maybe you could opt to be billed an extra amount of your choice every month for your internet - for example, $10/month.

Then you can choose to spend $1 a month for ad-free Google and all related services, $1 a month for ad-free Facebook etc.

If there is a small site you really like, you can give them $1 a month too.

There's a limit to how much money can be gained from online advertising.

Re:Slippery slope

[plopez]

This is what happens when a company goes public. Despite any good intentions the founders, CEOs, and board members; Wall Stree with its immoral eye on profits at any cost ends up calling the shots. Google is well on the way to becoming just another "Evil Empire".

Re:Slippery slope

[drinkmoreyuengling]

True, but if the business is to trick you into clicking the paid link instead of the algo link, then why don't we just be honest about it and go back to paid placement?

Re:Slippery slope

[MozeeToby]

Did you actually click the link? If anything the paid results are more obvious in my opinion. There's a bright yellow icon marking them out explicitly as "ADS" versus a light grey border labeled euphemistically "sponsored results". This is, at most, a step to the side, not a step backwards.

Re:Slippery slope

[ebno-10db]

There's a limit to how much money can be gained from online advertising.

If that limit is anything like Google's limit, I'll happily take it. Basically they're an advertising company with a search engine service. I'm fine with that, as long as the ads are clearly ads, and don't take up half my computer's resources and open security holes (here's looking at you Flash). When I'm looking to buy something, I even find the ads useful. Advertising is fine - surreptitious tracking is another thing.

Re:Slippery slope

[CanHasDIY]

Did you actually click the link? If anything the paid results are more obvious in my opinion. There's a bright yellow icon marking them out explicitly as "ADS" versus a light grey border labeled euphemistically "sponsored results". This is, at most, a step to the side, not a step backwards.

That's what I thought, too.

Heck, personally speaking I find the new ADS icon a lot easier to notice than the background-color-ever-so-slightly-different-than-the-non-ad-background-colors they used in the past.

Also, if you want to see an example of actual shady behavior regarding ads, go over to Yahoo.com and click the "News" link. about every third or fourth "article" in the feed is an advertisement, but apparently the marketing drones over there allow advertisers to make their ads look exactly like the other news feed items.

Re:Slippery slope

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Google *is* evil - and greedy. I use their search engine for one thing only: looking for commercial vendor sites to purchase something. They're good for that. For anything else - fun, interesting non-commercial things, there are better search engines out there. DDG, Blekko... heck even Bing come to mind.

Re:Slippery slope

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Ah, so it's even easier. My idea was that Greasemonkey would you full algorithmic control over the detection process, but yes, as long as Google doesn't try to be so cunning as to make it vastly more difficult and keeps the distinct structure, a CSS tweak will be simpler to implement.

Re:Slippery slope

[Cenan]

if the business is to trick you into clicking the paid link

Google will pretty much hunt you down and kill you outright if you do something like that with their ads on your own site, so I seriously doubt that that is what their m.o. is. The new bright yellow ad sticker, in front of the url many users will scan when deciding if a link is relevant, is a far cry better than their old almost-white background for ads.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop. Google is not the victim here. They willingly decided to go public. They knew what was involved more than anyone else in their position. Teh Ebil Wahl Streetz doesn't force anyone's hand.

Re:Slippery slope

[kukulcan]

This. Wish i had mod points to mod you up.

Re:Slippery slope

[turning in circles]

Point of fact, when I run the browser with Adblock on it, I don't see any of the new Google ads, I just see some white space. I have a different browser without Adblock that I use to watch network TV online, so I know where the ads would be. No argument with me, Google is evil, but now it seems easier to block ads on Google than it used to be.

Re:Slippery slope

[paazin]

there is nothing evil about getting free clicks out of people to dumb or lazy to read the entire link before they click it.

Just like there is nothing evil about throwing mountains of legalese inside a EULA before you are able to use a piece of software?

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

I even think this is a step forward. With certain monitor setups or laptop angles I often had trouble seeing the shading for the add region. The new setup seems much more obvious, especially now that I've trained myself to look for it.

Re:Slippery slope

[kaatochacha]

The problem with this is, all these micro payments add up.
And traditional services will begin splitting everything into micropayments rather than just billing you.
So, instead of internet, you'll be continually micro-billed by your ISP, until your "new" bill is larger than your older bill.
Death by a thousand cuts.

Re:Slippery slope

[kaatochacha]

I concur. On my monitors, I often missed the designations before.

Re:Slippery slope

[IamTheRealMike]

Google went public a decade ago. I think you have to do a better job of showing cause/effect than that.

Re:Slippery slope

[lgw]

Just remember their motto: "Don't, Be Evil!".

I'm a big fan of DDG. It may be mostly the same as Bing, but I prefer the clean front page and lack of tracking. (For some reason MS tracking doesn't bother me the way Google tracking does, perhaps because they're not as good at it, but no tracking is better still!)

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked on google and did a search no ads.. I went to news.yahoo.com and no ads... oh yeah adblock... It has an option "Allow some non-intrusive advertising", uncheck that and you'll be good.

Re:Slippery slope

[tlhIngan]

Their business is to get people to click some links more often than they click others, there is nothing strange about this. Not to mention you have to be braindead not to notice the big yellow "Ad" button, there is nothing evil about getting free clicks out of people to dumb or lazy to read the entire link before they click it.

Just like how GMail swapped the "Delete all email from this folder" link and the ad line on the Spam inbox. Anyone with muscle memory will try to click where the link was, and end cup clicking the ad instead. The link is still there, but the swapped positions means you're now more likely to click the ad by accident because of muscle memory. Took me a few days to figure out why I kept accidentally clicking the ad.

And while it may get Google a few extra clicks from users, advertisers may catch on because they're paying for clicks that aren't useful . They want users who specifically click on their ads, not ones that happen across them by accident.

Re:Slippery slope

[Solandri]

Wall Stree with its immoral eye on profits at any cost ends up calling the shots.

Profit is what the economy translates improved economic efficiency into. So if you improve the efficiency of a useful mechanism or process, the economy converts it into profit for you. Calling it immoral is equivalent to calling all technological progress immoral.

The problem is things other than improved efficiency can also translate into profit (e.g. a scam or con job). Those things deservedly need to be labeled as immoral. But it's also immoral to not even attempt to distinguish between the two. Like calling all men rapists just because they've used their penis.

Re:Slippery slope

[Larry_Dillon]

That slippery slope is making them accelerate downhill at a faster rate.

-- Yet I can't seem to ditch my Gmail account....

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is. In this case more than most it is in fact evil, and it's disappointing to see your comment moderated informative.

Google is selling advertisers the notion that those clicks are engaged users looking for relevant information. It's evil for two reasons- you are pretty much forcing companies to buy advertising so their competitors don't become the link that your so called "dumb and lazy" people are clicking simply because they paid the bribe. It's also evil to a company that buys the ad placement because clicking an ad is in itself intent, either to buy or at least engage. The reason the advertisers believe this is because this is the very justification that Google sales provides for why this form of advertising is superior to traditional forms. If people are being tricked into an action then you are selling advertisers a bullshit story.

If you want to say that everybody does it, then that's one thing. But don't tell me it's not Evil (particularly as Google defines the word). It's the very definition of it.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it seems Google has a different standard for themselves than for their affiliate network.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the top results for Firefox is an advertisement for an adware-laced downloader/installer for Firefox. We should not stop worrying about monopolies yet.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has been profitable the whole time so there is not much need for the shareholders to increase profits yet. But as soon as they plateau you bet Google will become that evil empire.

Re:Slippery slope

[NIK282000]

A Google search result link is barely as long as a tweet, the two are hardly comparable.

It's ok

[invictusvoyd]

Being a non profit non evil organisation does not mean that they can't have a few ad's here n there ..

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

They are for profit. Or did you miss the whole their stock is traded at rather high prices thing. They just offer a lot for free, because that's the best way to keep the market share they have, oh and the fact they already make lots and lots of money without charging people for most of what they do.

Search poisoning

[sinij]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

I don't know what they are thinking, but there is no brand loyalty for any web service. There is only usability and convenience. Sure, Google is convenient, but if they take a dump on usability #2 search engine will laugh all the way to the bank.

Re:Search poisoning

[drinkypoo]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

As long as the ads are marked somehow, a user script will be able to suppress them.

It's sad I need to mangle the web to make it usable, but not as sad as not having a mangling facility would be.

Re:Search poisoning

[superdude72]

I'm sure that Google, with the tens of billions of dollars it has invested in the infrastructure necessary to catalog all the information on Earth, is shaking in its boots. Some 19 year old is building a data center in his dorm room RIGHT NOW...

Re:Search poisoning

[Ol Olsoc]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

Gosh, I know this is Slashdot and all, where, if Ben and Jerry's introduces a new Ice cream flavor it's proof that global warming and evolution was disproved, and that teh eval Guvmintz is tracking your bowel movvements.....

But Google's little yellow box that reads "AD" in front of a link that is an ad telling us that the link is indeed an advertisement is sort of a good thing for people that don't want to click on ads for all their search results.

They might not want to click on that link marked as an ad, or else they might get an ad.

Re:Search poisoning

[causality]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

As long as the ads are marked somehow, a user script will be able to suppress them.

It's sad I need to mangle the web to make it usable, but not as sad as not having a mangling facility would be.

As someone who runs NoScript, Adblock Plus and various other user scripts, I think it's a good thing to be able to take control over your own experience. It's good not to be passive. It's good to see only what you want to see. The more people do this, the more these companies have to comprehend that this is the nature of the network in which they have chosen to participate. The Web would lose most of its appeal to me if it were entirely corporate controlled like television.

What's really sad is that other mediums like television, radio, and periodicals are one-to-many, heavily centralized, and don't include such great control over what you see. They're package deals that require you to accept the crap along with the content and are often not worthwhile.

Re:Search poisoning

[Ol Olsoc]

As long as the ads are marked somehow, a user script will be able to suppress them.

It's sad I need to mangle the web to make it usable, but not as sad as not having a mangling facility would be.

Let me get this straight - you don't want to see ads, so you want to suppress a little yellow box that is warning you that if you follow the link that says you'll be looking at an ad.

I guess you just want to be outraged when you go to a site and find out it was an advertisement, instead of a little warning that you might see something you don't want to see, and therefore you don't click on it. Then you don't get outraged. Damn Google anyhow!

Re:Search poisoning

[StripedCow]

As long as the ads are marked somehow, a user script will be able to suppress them.

If only some open-source organization would provide and maintain that script.
It doesn't make much sense to spend an hour coding every time Google changes their markup, but if the script would be administered centrally, then it might be useful.

Re:Search poisoning

[ehud42]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

And other search engines (that matter) are?

Bing?

My point being, google's dominance in the search space, while not guaranteed, will certainly offer them a fair bit of buffer to experiment.

Re:Search poisoning

[Gothmolly]

Google is a verb. I think they've won. Pass the kleenex please, I need to put a bandaid on this jello.

Re:Search poisoning

[cheesybagel]

Its a search engine. I type keywords and expect certain results. If what I get instead are meaningless ads I'll start using a different service.

Re:Search poisoning

[cheesybagel]

So how many servers did Google have when they started? Oh right a PC in a room in Stanford. How many servers did Altavista have back then?

History repeats itself when people repeat the same mistakes.

Re:Search poisoning

[drinkmoreyuengling]

The folks at TiVo will be glad to read this.

Re:Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

START? Sinij, have you paid attention to Google's primary business model of the last ten years?

Re:Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

GP can suppress the link and the ad. No-script is more powerful than just turning off all JavaScript.

Re:Search poisoning

[camperdave]

If they start poisoning search with for-profit results Google will be quickly reminded that they are not the only search engine in town.

And other search engines (that matter) are?

Just google for search engine.

Re:Search poisoning

[Ol Olsoc]

GP can suppress the link and the ad. No-script is more powerful than just turning off all JavaScript.

Sure. But then if they want to actually shop for something they have to revert back to normal. A pain in just to avoid seeing something.

I'm more inclined to think some of these folk have some anger issues they need to deal with.

All I do is see the little yellow box that reads "Ad". And if I'm not shopping, I don't click on it,

These folk see that, and they want Google to go out of business for forcing that little yellow box on them, and for having the unmitigated gall to allow businesses to post their evil goods for sale.

Re:Search poisoning

[Ol Olsoc]

Its a search engine. I type keywords and expect certain results. If what I get instead are meaningless ads I'll start using a different service.

Have you actually gone there?

If a couple little yellow boxes are able to send you frothing at the mouth, then fine. You do need to go somewhere else, and you'll be making yourself and everyone else happy. I don't always want ads, but then I don't click on the links to them. But sometimes I do buy stuff and want to see the ads. Stupid choices anyhow.

Re:Search poisoning

[cheesybagel]

I used to use Lycos, Hotbot and Altavista. I've changed search engines before.

Re:Search poisoning

[drinkypoo]

As long as the ads are marked somehow, a user script will be able to suppress them.

Let me get this straight

You failed.

you don't want to see ads, so you want to suppress a little yellow box that is warning you that if you follow the link that says you'll be looking at an ad.

English is not your strong suit. I clearly said I would suppress the ads.

Re:Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

"XBoxOne, TiVo Slashdot."

I can't read you insensitive clod.

Re: Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

When Google becomes a verb, they have lost. Oh, they will probably still own the domain..

Re:Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean it's sad you have to be a little inconvenienced because you like free stuff.

I don't like the sketchiness but Companies like Google spend money to provide services. You're not entitled to them and like it or not, the web would be way less developed w/o companies putting money into it looking to make money off advertising.

If you use Google's search and don't like the ads then pay for another one of their multiple services and contribute.

inb4 b-b-ut they have a lot of money!

Re:Search poisoning

[zippthorne]

They have done worse than that. They poison the search with useless results. Starting with their ongoing campaign to pare down and "simplify" the search interface by removing "advanced" search terms and changing the way strings and keywords are handled. (e.g enclosing in quotes no longer results in an exact string search...)

Re:Search poisoning

[sinij]

Dear shill. Nobody wants to see ads, as such "want to see the ads" statement gave you away as a post-for-hire.

Search engine primary function is to facilitate search, any other function, like getting you to buy stuff is very distant secondary purpose. If this secondary purpose impedes primary function in any way, then it is flawed product and is not doing its job well.
 
  If you get too greedy trying to trick us into buying stuff, then you will be shown the door. We will use Yellow Pages if we must.

Re:Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertisers are not entitled to anyone's attention.

Re:Search poisoning

[Ol Olsoc]

Dear shill. Nobody wants to see ads, as such "want to see the ads" statement gave you away as a post-for-hire.

I've been found out! Looks like my plan of:

1. Contact the millions or businesses advertising on the internet.

2. Convincing them all to pay me to squelch any dissent.

3. Hang out on Slashdot and disagree with people

4. PROFIT!

isn't going to be the gold mine I thought it was.

But thans for the chuckle.

Re:Search poisoning

[drinkypoo]

Sure. But then if they want to actually shop for something they have to revert back to normal. A pain in just to avoid seeing something.

How did you get an insightful for this? It's not even vaguely close to true. When is the last time you depended on sponsored advertisements to find a product? Intelligent people shop online by reading articles and reviews first, not by going to the google results for whatever the name of the thing they're looking for might be.

Re:Search poisoning

[Ol Olsoc]

How did you get an insightful for this? It's not even vaguely close to true.

Not everyone shares your version of the truth. Not everyone thinks that anyone that has the temerity to disagree with them is an idiot.

When is the last time you depended on sponsored advertisements to find a product?

Specious question. Although I have gone to sponsored ads, such as from Kenwood.com, for Amateur radio and stereo questions, the real issue here is that Google is giving people the chance to avoid those ads if they want to, or to visit completely legitimate businesses such as Kenwood.

Anyhow, to specifically answer your question, I have gone to sponsored results to Kenwood.com, this week, and to Mouser and Digikey electronics. in the past. There are more, but since you specified the last time I did that, it would be Kenwood.

Intelligent people shop online by reading articles and reviews first, not by going to the google results for whatever the name of the thing they're looking for might be.

Frankly, DrinkeyPoo, Intelligent people use whatever tools are available. In your world, I am apparently stupid because I use all the tools available to me. I will take your criticism under advisement.

In my world, you are limiting your options. I'll reserve judgement because I don't agree with your outlook, but I do think you are intelligent.

As for online reviews, I read them. I'll note when multiple people speak of quality control issues, or terrible service. But outside of that, review sites are subject to the very same problems that people assign to sponsored websites or manufacturer's websites. I personally take those online reviews with a grain of salt, because they suffer from the Tragedy of the Commons, as well as businesses that are trying to manage their own online reputation. Some newb that doesn't operate the equipment correctly writes a damning review that has as much weight as the world rewowned expert in the field. In addition, most of what I buy has technical specifications that some guy on the internet isn't going to be able to figure out or test.

And that, DrinkyPoo, is probably why some folks thought my remark was insightful. I don't take a fit when I see a sponsored ad, and I allow all my options to be open. All I do is just not click on the link if I don't like it.

Re:Search poisoning

[drinkypoo]

In my world, you are limiting your options. I'll reserve judgement because I don't agree with your outlook, but I do think you are intelligent.

My point was that people do not in fact have to do what you say they have to do before they can "shop". They only have to do that before they can get spammed. Therefore, you were incorrect at best.

All I do is just not click on the link if I don't like it.

Funny, that's almost all I do, too. I also make sure I don't see links I probably won't like. Because if people are spending money annoying me by helping google poison my search results, I probably don't want to give them money for that bullshit anyway — I prefer not to fund my own annoyance.

Re:Search poisoning

[drinkypoo]

If only some open-source organization would provide and maintain that script.

You will probably be able to go to userscripts and find several scripts provided by someone else. Some of them will even be maintained. Perhaps adblock plus will include a feature to do it.

It doesn't make much sense to spend an hour coding every time Google changes their markup,

Detecting an element and hiding an element containing it shouldn't take anyone capable of doing the job an hour, unless they have to learn enough Javascript to do it in the bargain. But I agree, it is an annoyance.

Re:Search poisoning

[Anonymous Coward]

So I take it you don't even check your facts, just regurgitate what you heard elsewhere.

Re:Search poisoning

[Samizdata]

And that is slowly driving me away from Google, along with it's "corrections" of your search. I search for a tech term like A, B, C and it "helps me" with AB C or AB and not C. Gah. STOP BEING SO HELPFUL, GOOGLE!

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

For years google has had paid results at the top of the regular results.
This makes the adds easier to spot.

What about

[rossdee]

Inorganic search results

Re:What about

[kav2k]

Users don't react to them well.

Re:What about

[Anonymous Coward]

Inorganic search results

But feces are organic.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, /. became news for your mom when dice bought it.

More obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thinks this makes it more obvious?

Re:More obvious

[ebno-10db]

I'd say it's a wash, therefore I have no objection to the new format. A large yellow box that says "Ad" is not overly subtle.

Unlike what some of the people here apparently think, I've no objection to advertising per se. It's a way for companies to make money, and Google has never claimed to be anything other than a for-profit corporation. Their tracking games, and some of the other things they do are one thing, but clearly labelled advertising is fine. Do people here also object to printed ads in magazines and newspapers (yes, such things still exist)?

The only reason I sometimes suppress ads is because too many have resource intensive and insecure things like Flash, or heavens know how much buggy Javascript, or whatever. Ads per se seem reasonable. I'm even fine with click through ads.

Re:More obvious

[Megane]

Considering as how they previously used a background color that went almost invisible on LCD monitors, probably. I had to search for something generic like "toothpaste" to see this new "little yellow square" format for the first time, and it is indeed more visible than that stealth background color.

Re:More obvious

[Obfuscant]

I had to search for something generic like "toothpaste" to see this new "little yellow square" format for the first time, and it is indeed more visible than that stealth background color.

Thanks for an example that produces this result. I tried non-obvious things like "franklin delano roosevelt" and "golfball handstand" and got no ads. I did notice that the former query gave me a half page (right side) summary of FDR, and the latter had no summary (but left the entire right half of the page blank just in case there might have been one. What a waste.) I think it would be much better to put the "sponsored results" back on the right side since it will be empty otherwise, and it removes the ads from the inline search results.

Yahoo groups with "neo" now puts the ads inline with the messages with just a very light color box -- easy to miss. So many times I've been in a group and wondering why the moderator has allowed a discussion of auto parts in a group that has nothing to do with cars.

Isn't it Google that gets unhappy when people game their system to get prominent search rankings, and yet they're now taking money from people to return prominent, sometimes irrelevant search rankings? Is hypocrite spelled with a 'y' or an 'i'?

Don't Be evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I see their motto is going well....

"Organic"

[FuzzNugget]

That's as bullshitty a term as it is in your supermarket. There *are* no "organic" results when they're calculated based on your tracking history, ad clicks and social connections.

Friends don't let friends get tracked. Use the quack that doesn't track!

Re:"Organic"

[causality]

That's as bullshitty a term as it is in your supermarket. There *are* no "organic" results when they're calculated based on your tracking history, ad clicks and social connections.

Friends don't let friends get tracked. Use the quack that doesn't track!

I use startpage.com myself. I like the idea of getting actual Google search results without any sort of Google tracking. They don't even log your IP address and they're outside of US jurisdiction.

By the way I hope our federal legislators appreciate that. I hope they are proud that now, "outside of US jurisdiction" has become a selling point.

Re:"Organic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could use startpage.com, which gives anonymous, untracked, un-bubbled results from Google, instead of DDG's inferior Bing results.

dkj

Re:"Organic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the US only tracks people in their jurisdiction right? Remember you have no rights if your not american because american's are the new aryans. Sieg hiel!

Re:"Organic"

[causality]

Because the US only tracks people in their jurisdiction right? Remember you have no rights if your not american because american's are the new aryans. Sieg hiel!

I know this is difficult for one-track minds like this AC to understand, but many issues are in fact nuanced and complex. Shockingly, law appears to be one of those. Just to name a single example: data retention laws. They vary by jurisdiction.

Efficiency?

[Monoman]

The ad notation still seems obvious enough to me. Google is also known for efficiently using screen space and bandwidth. Small changes can have significant savings when you are dealing with things on the scale that Google does.

Then again it could just be some evil in the works. :-)

Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[mrbene]

I'm in the test group.

It may be my eyes, the angle at which I use my screen, the brightness and contrast I prefer, or something else, but the background color has always been almost undetectable to me.

The new configuration, a simple yet obvious graphical element indicating "Ad" indenting the sponsored links, highlights them much more effectively for me.

+1 for this change.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[wonkey_monkey]

And +1 to your post, as I've had exactly the same experience (when GreaseMonkey has failed to remove the elements completely, that is), and I rather suspect that was the idea. "See?" says Google, showing the EU commission a CRT screen with a page of search results on it. "The ads are obvious!"

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[blueg3]

I get the same thing on some browsers/devices. The color difference ends up being almost undetectable. (Then, on other browsers, it's perfectly clear.)

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

The background colour has been lightened over the years (I presume deliberately). On modern LCDs, where colour contrast isn't as good as CRTs were (at least with light-yellow on white), the background is effectively invisible. Again, I presume a deliberate choice on Google's part.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this. I think ads are more obvious now, not less.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[BRSloth]

And I wouldn't actually call the button "tiny" either: http://i.imgur.com/023wVgV.png

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 I should have read all the comments before posting, as I basically said the same thing. I also agree with the other comment that they'd lightened the background over the years. I just wasn't sure that it wasn't just my imagination. Google changes things so often, and often so subtly, that I sometimes don't even realize they've changed something until someone else points it out. Although, I will admit, the power of observation alludes me at times.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the Beta Slashdot test group. Beta Slashdot is blurring the lines between "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." and "Oh God, My Eyes! MY EYES!"

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Yellow at that level is not very viewable on most of the lcd screens I have used. The word 'ad' and a yellow shifting to more orange and better contrast to the white background they have is a good thing.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Bill Dimm]

I'm in the test group, too. The very first time I saw it, for a split second my brain wanted to think the ads were part of the organic results due to the lack of background color differentiation. Since then, I've not been at all tempted to accidentally click the ads, so I think it will make no difference a few days after they transition people over to the new layout (if they ever do).

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[StripedCow]

There's tons of ways they could make ads more discernible. And they opt for a small yellowish graphical element that is barely different from the background color? That's not a +1, that's a -1 in my book.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[rahvin112]

I'm not in this test group but I've been in another where the previous colored background went away and there was only a little tiny (font size 4) AD way to the right after the link. I know I was clicking AD's because it tried to bounce me off the doubleclick servers (I use extensions that block redirects without my approval). I thought I'd gone insane at first and was blind but I went back and looked and they had deliberately obfuscated that it was an ad. Without being very careful it was almost impossibly easy to accidentally click ad's because you thought they were real search results.

The new format is WAY better than what I was getting before. I wish I'd taken a screenshot of it but I assumed everyone saw the same thing I did.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[IamTheRealMike]

I think it's something specific to MacBooks. I used to find I could hardly see the background, but if I tilted the screen a bit suddenly there it was back in the old yellow colour. The new yellow "Ad" icon is much easier to see though.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because of matte finish. Glossy 4 life!

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Control-Z]

Yes I think they're more obvious now too. What I don't like is the larger font.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Solandri]

And they opt for a small yellowish graphical element that is barely different from the background color?

I just pulled the new layout into Photoshop. The background is 255, 255, 255 (RGB). The yellow "Ad" label is 234, 176, 53 (RGB), or since we're talking about a white background, 0%, 32%, 92%, 0% in CMYK. If that is "barely different from the background color," you need to throw away your monitor and buy a new one. No don't try to sell it used; it'd be a crime to inflict such a poor screen onto anyone.

Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious

[Solandri]

It may be my eyes, the angle at which I use my screen, the brightness and contrast I prefer, or something else, but the background color has always been almost undetectable to me.

Google's background is white - 255, 255, 255 (RGB). The old sponsored links background was 254, 247, 221 (RGB). Our eyes are pretty bad at detecting differences in blue, so it didn't take much of a bad monitor or settings to clip the colors to where you couldn't distinguish the two backgrounds. This mostly happens on poor quality low-gamut screens (laptops!) where the colors are so pale, the manufacturer or user pushes the saturation to try to make them stand out more. So 0 => 0, 100 => 125, 200 => 250, and anything 205-255 is clipped and the same shade since that's the most saturated color the screen is capable of displaying.

The new "Ad" icon is 234, 176, 53 (RGB). If you can't see it, you either need to replace your monitor (and marvel at all the wonderful pictures on the web you've been missing out), or get your eyes checked.

Q?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dieg...

Running afoul of the EU?

[pr0t0]

Didn't Google just agree in a European Commission settlement to, among other things, make the ads more discernible from the search results?

Re:Running afoul of the EU?

[wonkey_monkey]

make the ads more discernible from the search results?

Which, as far as I can tell, is what they've done. This looks more obvious than the off-white box, to me. YMMV.

alternatively

[SmallFurryCreature]

Friends who are not my friends apparently want me to stop finding meaningful results.

DuckDuckDon't.

Re:alternatively

[lgw]

I've never understood this complaint. I've always found what I was looking for on the first page of DDG results (which of course is usually the same as the first page of Bing results), and almost never see link-farming pages.

Admittedly, I search for C#/MSDN stuff a lot, which one would hope Bing would be good at. What sort of searches is DDG so bad at?

Re:alternatively

[Anonymous Coward]

everything I ever tried, such a common linux problems and academic stuff.

Re:alternatively

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of searches is DDG so bad at?

It's hard to say. As a frequent DDG user, I was once going to send them a note about it one day when some "we value your opinion" thing popped up, but without a list of concrete examples there's not much more to go on other than "sometimes these results really suck" and so I didn't actually send them anything.

It's just that now and then I search for something and get a page full of useless results. There'll be one word that was in my search query that was essential to finding relevant results which DDG apparently chose to completely ignore. It won't appear in the snippets from the pages that DDG shows, and clicking on any of the links and text-searching the pages, I won't find the word that way either. I really need to start keeping notes on which search queries end up doing this, but I don't notice it very often since usually I'm satisfied with whatever Wikipedia has to offer and that's always at the top of the results. In fact, I know I've been using Google a lot more lately, perhaps I now subconsciously choose to use it when I'm looking for something more than what is on Wikipedia.

So I guess I really don't have much to offer other than to suggest that if someone wants to search for things that DDG can't find, then they should try multi-word queries where omitting one word turns the query into something entirely different and far more popular.

Of course, Google has its own problems. Once I was searching for something about decibels, but I knew for certain that what I was looking for would never use the word decibels, but rather, only the abbreviation dB. However, Google insisted that I was using "db" as an abbreviation for "database" and my results were flooded with pages that didn't even say "db" anywhere on them, but only "database," and indeed Google was highlighting "database" in the page snippets as if I'd used it as a search term.

Hell, I recall many times clicking Google's link to view its cached copy of the page only to be told "the following keywords appear only in links pointing to this page" and being pretty damn certain that no one would ever link to that page with those words. So this is certainly a problem that both Google and DDG have, but DDG seems to do it to me a lot more often.

I wish someone would make a search engine that just searches for what I ask it to search for. That'd be fucking awesome.

completely backwards

[slashmydots]

This article is completely ridiculous. Google was scamming everyone with their off-white beige box with almost no border that indicated an ad. Unless you were looking directly at it at a perfectly 90 degree angle, any low to mid grade LCD monitors would turn the color back to white. They should gotten a billion dollar fine for that. I know some many people who had no idea those were ads.

Now it's a huge, bright yellow button that says "ad." Isn't this part of their settlement with somewhere in Europe about making ads more obvious? This is court-ordered. This is not making ads less obvious, it's making them more obvious. Thankfully now all I have to tell stupid people is to look for the word Ad and ignore it.

Re:completely backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is to imagine the reverse and compare. Going from a yellow button that reads "Ad" to merely "placement on the page and a colored background" would be a bad change, therefore what Google did is a good change. The submitter is just annoyed that his mental training to avoid the old ad format is going down the drain.

Re:completely backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the new format with the icon is better, but why do you believe that Google should have been fined for the prior practice of using a near white color?

Google made no claims that the links were not ads, so they did not perpetuate fraud. What is the legal basis for them to be fined for displaying ads in their results even if they are not easily discernible?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here to say this, though not with as much sarcasm. You nailed it though; the yellow "Ad" graphic is a welcome replacement to the nearly invisible background of the current ad scheme. I've found myself nearly clicking on ads because there isn't enough contrast between the ad background and the rest of the page. With this it will be easy to avoid clicking ads. I hope Google doesn't realize this though, or the new format won't last long.

dkj

This actually looks better to me

[wonkey_monkey]

This, at least, looks better to me than the ever-so-pale-background box, which I can barely see unless I'm looking at my screen from an angle.

Not that I ever see it anyway now, thanks to GreaseMonkey.

I click on google ad's all the time ... Why?

[Hohlraum]

Because they are f***ing relevant!

results titles are larger

[Anonymous Coward]

preview text has gotten smaller. As someone who uses preview text more than titles this is annoying.

Browser plugins needed...

[Lumpy]

To detect the AD and color it's background blood RED. 90% of the ad's when you search for a program's name are scumware that pollute the users computer. Google knows this and they refuse to fix it because they make money off of it.

I really hope that someone finds a way to identify the ad's so adblock can strip them, or we can at least warn people away from them.

What's the big deal?

[andyring]

I started seeing this recently too. I don't recall exactly when, but I barely gave it a thought. Something akin to "Oh, Google changed their layout a bit." It's still quite blatant which items are ads, and I wouldn't consider the "ad" tag to be a "tiny yellow button." It sticks out like a sore thumb, and furthermore, just looking at the titles of those particular "search" results makes it obvious the first few are ads.

Interestingly enough, the new layout has actually prompted me to deliberately click on some of the ads I've seen. In the past, they were easier to not even notice by being off to the side. But now, I've seen some of them, and knowing full well it's an ad, clicked anyway because I was curious or I thought (rightfully so in some cases) that the ad would take me where I wanted to go.

Phishing sites

[Martin S.]

This is already being abused by phishing and scam sites.

Search for the Car Tax, Driving licence or DVLA (UK Driving Vehicle licencing agency) and you see three ads for application scams sites.

The same for a UK fishing licence, or European Health insurance card.

Re:Phishing sites

[rhazz]

This is already being abused by phishing and scam sites.

How exactly are phishing/scam sites abusing a stylesheet change in google search results?

Re:Phishing sites

[advantis]

They did that before the layout change too. Even I got tricked by them for a while. Never gave them any money, but they frustrated me quite a bit, as the information I wanted wasn't there. They looked like the government websites I was used to - same layout, same fonts, same colour theme - so it took me quite a few minutes to force my eyes onto the URL and realise that it's a $placeholder-gov.co.uk website instead of the $placeholder.gov.uk I expected.

It's gotten so bad that it warranted some press attention.

Blurred?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite get how this is "blurring" the ads/search results. To me those little yellow buttons stand out more than the sometimes slightly off color background that used to be in the background. I always warn people not to click the 1st couple of results because they're ads, which most people have never noticed... because they never noticed the different color background. (Granted it said sponsored results, but peoples eyes are always directed towards the link descriptions)

Parents "iTunes" download

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is the reason my parents downloaded the incorrect version of iTunes. Twice. Both top links were ads, and now their computer is infected.

Guess who "gets" to fix it...?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Think Larry, Sergey, and Eric with don't read Slashdot? :D

Not Worth the Aggro

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the aggro over seeing the change when you can simply install your favourite adblock software and be done with it. Really. I haven't seen an ad for ages. And before you rabid capitalists start frothing about the mouth, I pay to use the Internet like you do. I also pay for email (Fastmail), I pay for streaming content. I'm not a leech, but I won't allow the malware vector that ads have become to soil my computer with rubbish.

Install Adblock Edge and forget about it.

Re:Heh: I never, EVER, even see 'em

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ah, I see the rumors of Francis Dec's demise were greatly exaggerated.

Ah, I see the rumors of

[Anonymous Coward]

/, tech knowiedge were greatly exaggerated (since THAT crap = "the best you got" & you obviously can't disprove my points on hosts adding speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity, validly).

* :)

APK

P.S.=> All you trolls do when you do this crap, is make ME look GOOD - & yourselves? Well... lol, "not so good"...

... apk

Top search results...

[grumpyman]

are like that for a while..... That's how it gave me virus.

Odd.

[Anonymous Coward]

there is nothing evil about getting free clicks out of people to dumb or lazy

Is it psychopathy which causes this sort of attitude? I've never really understood it.

Re:Odd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cynism I would say...

No, not really

[ironicsky]

Yes, they got rid of the pinkish coloured background from top ads, and removed the separator from the side bar. But the ads are still separated by a grey line, have a yellow icon in front of the ad with the word "Ad" in it, and an exclamation mark in a circle beside the ad blocks. If you can't tell they are ads, you aren't paying attention.

Re:No, not really

[PPH]

I must have classic view selected. Because I still see the pinkish background (and no yellow icons).

To be honest, I'd rather have the icons. The background color is difficult to see on crappy monitors.

Adblock = INFERIOR + 'souled out'

[Anonymous Coward]

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> You also *MAY* want to lookup CLARITYRAY - since it WILL be the death of AdBlock (but, not hosts files)...

... apk

Does it matter?

[MeNeXT]

If the first link is an ad and it's what I'm looking for does it matter?

How ads are identified doesn't matter when it is evident it is an ad. What matters is that I find what I'm looking for on the first page with the least amount of clicks. As a customer of Google I do not want people who are not looking to buy to come to my site. If someone is looking to learn about diamonds they most likely are not looking to buy. So a generic search of diamonds may lead to a page of jewelers a user would not click on any ad links but would refine the search. If all users are stupid and click on links identified as ads for jewelers then jewelers sales will not improve and advertising costs increase or be less effective, therefore they may stop advertising with Google.

In order for Google to continue being relevant they need to be relevant to people who search otherwise Google's product dries up. If ads are relevant then I don't care

Re:Adblock = APK cant code

[Anonymous Coward]

I though your doctor changed your meds and you were acting sane.

Thoughts

[DaMattster]

I have not only noticed this with Google but I've also seen something similar on legitimate file download sites like FileHippo, CNET, and others. They plaster the site with download links and you might not actually be downloading the original file(s) that you have intended but adware. It's actually hard to decipher the download link that you actually want to click. I have lost count of the number of computers I've had to clean up because of this. It's really dishonest.

Its all rather easy to sort out

[Anonymous Coward]

This just reinforces the antonymical nature of all public statements and releases these days. Pretty much anything some entity states emphatically can be understood as truth as long as you assume the exact opposite of what they are stating. Remember this farcical motto "Don't be Evil" well its true but you just have to have to run it through an antonym filter.

Start with Blekko, DuckDuckGo, and Wolfram Alpha

[ikhider]

Use other search engines, other social media (like GNU Social), and let us take the hegemony out of the 'net.

For a guy that can't code?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've shut you up easily + MY app's so good (along with what it offers doing more than "almost all ads blocked" by far and better with less moving parts complexity and room for breakdown) that the "best you got" = PURE TROLL B.S., & nothing more - fact!

* :)

(As usual, I dust ANY & ALL puny trolls, with ease... & facts + results!)

APK

P.S.=> Now, you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, don't you? Of course you do:

THIS?

This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" especially when I reduce the technically inept TROLLS around here to their 'natural habitat' of PROJECTING their OWN "ISSUES" & doing effete ineffectual off-topic useless illogical ad hominem attacks!

(Especially the "mental" ones, lol, when the trolls doing them have NO certification or license to offer their "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.' snap prognoses - minus a formal examination given me in a professional psychiatric environs OR degrees, certifications, + licenses to LEGALLY do so)

That's LIBEL, morons!...

... apk

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Your precious hosts file will just crap out once the advertisers will serve ads from the same domains as the content.

But AdBlock will keep on chuggin'

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainty vs. your fantasy:: ClarityRay makes AdBlock 'crap out'!

Re:Stupid

[Gavagai80]

If ads started being served from the same domains as the content, web pages would suddenly be much faster. Mission accomplished.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll never happen or it would have by now. Even IF it does? Doesn't matter: My app would still provide SLEWS of benefits that "Almost ALL ADS Blocked" can't even begin to scratch, much less offer... period.

* FACT!

APK

P.S.=> Like what? Well, ok: You'd still go faster (due to hardcoding it offers), safer for SURE (something adblock can't touch as far as being proof to known purveyors of malware & botnets of all types), more reliable (vs. redirection @ site server levels (ala beta, I never see it due to hosts) & also @ the DNS level (notoriously unpatched due to difficulties with MX Exchanges setups for DNSSEC, vs. the Kaminsky redirection flaw 99% of ISP level DNS servers are vulnerable to), & even more anonymity (vs. DNS request logs OR DNSBLs even)...

... apk

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

They ought to read these 2 links http://search.slashdot.org/com... and http://search.slashdot.org/com...

APK

P.S.=> So much for that, lol... apk

Tiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

The font used in the word "Ad" isn't "tiny". It's larger than the URL, the description, and the tag words. The only thing larger than the word "Ad" is the main link.

Usa Adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem solved.

Maybe in your delusional world

[Anonymous Coward]

Since advertisers don't trust sites on counts of clicks/views, period... It is JUST not how it is done (from the advertisers' side), nor will it EVER be on local websites (for bandwidth reasons also - pretty much like how adbanners STEAL YOUR BANDWIDTH & SPEED on YOUR CONNECTION you PAID for mind you), because of those facts....

(Heck - a website could say a SINGLE AD got 8 zillion views, lying of course, easily...)

APK

P.S.=> Get used to 1 thing troll: You just do NOT possess the intellect, or technical saavy of things networking or programming to EVER get the "better of", me... period!

... apk

Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and bear with me here...

I could continue using all the ad-supported sites while running Adblock.

I'm sure Google's shareholders will be vastly affected by my choice.

Really?

[RobertM1968]

Anyone who can't see the yellow box with the word "Ad" in it shouldn't be in the Internet. My opinion on this, is that this new method actually makes it far easier to see which ones are ads, since each such result is clearly labeled right at the beginning of the link-out.

The people who would miss this or be confused by it are the same ones who'd already have so many infections on their computer from clicking idiotic things that it's unlikely their browser would even load Google. ;-)

Blurring the lines...

[Anonymous Coward]

OP blurring the distinction between FUD and news.

Re:Heh: I never, EVER, even see 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't quote that sorry excuse for a movie. Quote the book.

Re:Heh: I never, EVER, even see 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter what he quotes. He's right on all levels.

Already been slipping in for years

[whitroth]

As I think I've posted here before, the last three or four years, google results have been getting worse and worse - I regularly see things I've excluded with a -"search term" that have that term, explicitly, in the semi-para that's displayed, And the ads are *much* worse. I was looking for mens boots -ladies -women -womens (and yes, if you give or do not give a plural, the other will show up), and saw a sponsored ad for women's boots

ROI has definitely cut into usefullness. And why hide the advanced search?

                mark

Re: Do not overreact please

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to how it was a few years ago, it seems to me that Google's web search has been going downhill. How much of it is the fault of 'smarter' search algorithms (i.e. algorithms that think they know what you want better than you do) and how much is the fault of SEO people I don't know, but it's getting to be that the entire first page is filled with sites trying to sell me something and/or make me believe some sensationalist nonsense. If it keeps getting worse, I'm going to be looking for alternatives. I hope Google is listening to this.

One account. All of [you, for sale, by] Google

[Anonymous Coward]

One account. All of [you, for sale, by] Google.
Sign in with your Google Account
[We've checked the "stay" box for you]

Alas. I remember the promise of the search engine.
I should be able to look for what I want, using my criteria.
Instead, they set it up so _they_ could search for _me_.

Hosts also won't crap out

[Anonymous Coward]

Vs. botnet C&C Servers or your favs sped up, moron... Adblock craps out vs. CLARITYRAY though, bigtime (inevitable death for adblock that) & "almost all ads blocked" can't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for you either... fact/period.

APK

P.S.=> You FAIL, dolt... apk

Fuc$ U Google

[Anonymous Coward]

It has become harder and harder to easily see what is an Ad vice what is content I have asked for. Not just with google, but with many sites. All Ads should have to be CLEARLY identified for people with poor vision, not just 18 year old vision.

There is no 'blur'

[nurb432]

Its quite clear what is going on, and the difference between honest results based on popularity, and paid results, based on how much you can afford to pay.

Ff

[Anonymous Coward]

To that other search engine that delivers great results?

Re:Heh: I never, EVER, even see 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking at the hosts level causes a lot of false positives. A lot of websites are blocked when you do it this way.

NOT with my program

[Anonymous Coward]

IF it does? It makes it EASY to delete the potentially "offending entries" & the sources I get the data from (the security community) are reputable & CHECK FOR THAT...

* :)

(Additionally - I spent a lot of time checking the "major portals" online, so I would NOT do that, & yes - I filter above & beyond what MY SOURCES noted above, supply...)

APK

P.S.=> See for yourself -> http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 ... apk

More obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

As other users have stated, Google is being more obvious about things.

I find them much harder to discern

[blackpaw]

Have been caught several times by that damn firefox re-packager when searching for the mozilla firefox download. Their ad looks very similar to a legit search result and is at the top.

Never.

[edibobb]

"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."
Marissa Mayer, December 2005

Underlines

[zenbi]

Everyone seems so busy talking about the yellow "Ad" box they completely ignore the worst part of the change. All the links are no longer underlined. It looks naked and less obvious on which words are clickable.

I got two words for that...

[wazafoojitsu]

duck duck go!

Re:Heh: I never, EVER, even see 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

All your detractors have as usual is unjustifiable downmods.

I never see 'em (ever)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

How? This: Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk