Slashdot Mirror


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."

29 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Slippery slope by geeper · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
    1. Re:Slippery slope by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Slippery slope by NIK282000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    3. Re:Slippery slope by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Informative
      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;
      }
      }

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Slippery slope by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Slippery slope by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Slippery slope by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Slippery slope by paazin · · Score: 2

      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?

  2. It's ok by invictusvoyd · · Score: 2

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

  3. Search poisoning by sinij · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Search poisoning by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Search poisoning by causality · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Search poisoning by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Search poisoning by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Search poisoning by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

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

  4. More obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

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

  5. "Organic" by FuzzNugget · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:"Organic" by causality · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  6. Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious by mrbene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sponsored Links are now MORE obvious by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      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!"

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  7. completely backwards by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:Do not overreacht please by drinkmoreyuengling · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. Re:Running afoul of the EU? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Re:Do not overreacht please by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Phishing sites by rhazz · · Score: 2

    This is already being abused by phishing and scam sites.

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

  12. Re:Do not overreacht please by Merk42 · · Score: 2

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

  13. Re:Do not overreacht please by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Do not overreacht please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Do not overreacht please by AvitarX · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg