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.

Comments

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:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[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!

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.

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.

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:Why doesn't Google just stop advertising malwar

[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.

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 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.

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.

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.