Slashdot Mirror


Google Cleans Up Search Results By Ditching Sidebar Ads (theverge.com)

Mark Wilson writes: Google generates a huge amount of revenue through advertising but it's not afraid to try mixing things up a little. Ads in search results have long-been controversial, but the latest change is likely to go down well with many people -- the ads that currently appear in the right-hand sidebar of search results are to be dropped.

The change means that ads will only be displayed above and below search results. There will be seven Google AdWords ads in total -- four above the search results and three below. The right-hand side of the page will be left free for Google's own Product Listing Ads. Google also confirmed that the change is global and affects all languages.

105 comments

  1. So no more escorts for me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am addicted to love!

    1. Re:So no more escorts for me? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Hint: they only love your money. Dole it out slower so it lasts longer.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From a user's perspective, isn't the sidebar an ideal place for ads so they don't mix in with search results?

    1. Re:Confused by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, that's the problem.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Confused by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      so they don't mix in with search results?

      Exactly, they want to confuse you. Why would they do anything that would decrease ad revenue? It's probably easier to trick folks into clicking when they aren't aware of the ads.

    3. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. More "black is white" bullshit from the marcomm machines.

    4. Re:Confused by gnupun · · Score: 2

      That's like the yahoo! homepage that randomly mixes article headlines and ads. The ads have a light blue background color, but unless you correctly angle your screen, the background color looks white, like the article headline's background. Both headlines and ads have the same look and format.

      How the heck can companies get away with such blatant deception?

    5. Re:Confused by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      > There will be seven Google AdWords ads in total -- four above the search results and three below.

      so now there will be 17 search results shown, ten of which are organic and seven of which are keyword-targeted ads. 59% signal to noise ratio, go google! keep up the stellar work! meanwhile i'll be at duckduckgo.com along with everybody else.

    6. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblock/uBlock already removes both types of spam. It's been years since I've seen an advertisement in a Google product on my PC.

      For the times when I use Google on a friend or relative's computer, I've already trained myself to skip the sponsored link even when it's the site I'm trying to find. And then I take the opportunity to tell that person that they can remove the paid advertisements with Adblock or uBlock.

    7. Re:Confused by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      There are ads on Google? Since when?
      Oh, you mean I have to disable ublock/noscript to see them?
      Sorry, Google, no can do.

    8. Re:Confused by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      From a user's perspective, isn't the sidebar an ideal place for ads so they don't mix in with search results?

      No, research shows that users would prefer to see ads mixed in with links (link - ad - link - ad). It is even better if links jump around under your mouse or at least regularly obscured with a surprise overlay banner "subscribe here!".

      Users only liked unobtrusive ads in the 90s -- tastes have clearly changed.

    9. Re:Confused by BeauHD · · Score: 1

      Right, it's all about wording. Plus it goes without saying Google (or any company for that matter) wouldn't willingly remove a large source of their revenue stream. Simplifying or reshuffling their ad placement? Sure... why not?

    10. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still use google but have ad block so I never see any of that crap. You cry baby bitches are hilarious.

    11. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deception? LOL, you are an idiot. 99% of news articles are advertisements. There is no news, no real content.

    12. Re:Confused by MacTO · · Score: 1

      While I do have duckduckgo setup as my default search engine, I find myself frequenting Google a lot. The quality of that 59% matters quite a bit.

    13. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are opposed to online ads why are you commenting on a website that finances itself through ads? Oh, wait, I thought you people had principles... oops. My bad.

      False equivalence and you may even know it.

      Being opposed to ads and having principles would mean "this site refuses to serve me unless I turn off my ad blocker, and I will respect this instead of circumventing it." It also means "the site owner has chosen to allow adblocking users to access the site, that is the choice they made".

      It does not mean "I am opposed to ads but use sites that try to push them anyway". That's your poor attempt to misrepresent the position without ever actually arguing against it.

    14. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a user's perspective, isn't the sidebar an ideal place for ads so they don't mix in with search results?

      That may depend on what you're searching for. If I'm searching for something because I want to buy it, having the ads front and center is useful because they generally take me to exactly the sort of site I'm looking for.

    15. Re:Confused by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I clicked on a news link today and saw some words covering the page that said, "the thing about ad blockers is..." and after closing the tab I finished the sentence for them: "... that users who use them, use them!" LOL And then I just clicked a different link.

      I don't give a squat what some company's financial plan is. That isn't the basis for what content I consume. Did they ask my permission as a future potential reader to put ads on it? No? Well, it explains why I didn't worry about their opinion of my ad blocker. It is a totally symmetrical issue, and we (me and them both, together) never agreed for me to look at their ads. They don't want me to view their content? No hard feelings! I mean that genuinely with all my heart. They can suck however they want, it is their prerogative. I'm not asking them to change so that I would want to use their site. If what they want to provide and what I want to consume are in alignment, then network packets will happily exchange.

      These people who imagine that I should view ads because the content provider wants me to, they neglect that I wasn't a party to the decision, and might not agree; and might happily not consume their content if they want to make it a requirement. It is totally up to them if they want their game to be "no purchase necessary to play" or "customers only."

      I also only own a TV so I can watch PBS. Why should I care what some company I don't do business with wants me to watch?

      Slashdot has long had a "disable advertising" checkbox. The funny thing... when the cookie resets and the box isn't checked, it annoys me. I have an ad blocker; I still don't see the ads. But I appreciate the respect that the box shows. I always click it even though it is effectively a no-op.

    16. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait, I thought you people had principles...

      Nope! None.

      Principles are for suckers.

    17. Re:Confused by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yep the ads on the RHS have gone, I've noticed (over time) that the one or two ads (clearly marked as such) at the top of the list has now grown into a localised map with numbered pins identifying the locations of the businesses in the three or four ads below it. The adverts now take up so much screen estate that only the top two unpaid hits are visible at the bottom of my (large) monitor!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Confused by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      While I do have duckduckgo setup as my default search engine, I find myself frequenting Google a lot. The quality of that 59% matters quite a bit.

      I love using DDG...until I need to sort my search results by date posted.

      *sigh*, okay Google, let's dance again...just this once, though, then I'm heading to the showers...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    19. Re:Confused by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      This is a good thing, it makes it very easy to write a greasemonkey script to STRIP all the fucking "sponsored" search results.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    20. Re:Confused by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I love those adblocker whine images. I left click on them and "make new rule" then block them. They go away and I am happily blocking even more.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    21. Re:Confused by dohzer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. I've never noticed the ads.
      Or am I not meant to tell the advertisers that?

    22. Re:Confused by KGIII · · Score: 1

      For reasons,* I adhere to their wishes. If they specifically request that I not view their content without allowing their ads, I close the tab. I even open most links in new tabs just to be able to close it.

      * I figure it is their property and I am their guest. I am there by their graces. They set the rules. They do not want me to view the content unless I disable my ad blocking application. It is up to them to decide to place whatever controls they want on their property. If I want the content bad enough, I can disable my ad blocking utility. I've never once seen any content compelling enough for me to disable my ad blocking. Funny...

      Also, I sort of cheat. I will change the http:/// to cache:// and bring up the Google cache. Why? If they wanted to present a different version for Google and allow Google to cache it then I will simply view their cache. That is no longer their hardware, it is no longer their property. Thus, I will block the ads as needed/desired per the request of the property owner. I am making use of their hardware, they can set the rules and I'm a good guest and will adhere to any rules they want to impose if I want to use their hardware. I do not accept their rules, I do not use their hardware.

      I dunno? It makes sense to me. It's how I've rolled for a long time. They've been detecting ad blockers for a very long time and they've been issuing notices because of it. It's now much more common than it used to be. I still don't turn off my ad blocking to use their hardware. I just get it elsewhere or go without. 'Snot really likely that I can't find the information elsewhere.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the search. Vague searches, answer this partially defined question? Google all the way. I'm looking for this quite specific information/phrase/data? DuckDuckGo beats google so badly it's almost funny.

    24. Re:Confused by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the trick to use ddg as the default, and when you need to jump the google, use the bang. So when I find I'm not getting the results I'm looking for, I add a "!g" to the search box and jump directly to google.

    25. Re:Confused by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I think adblock doesn't box the search add inserts? It's just text and hyperlinks, so I don't see how adblock could identify it or cut it out.

    26. Re:Confused by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. It took me a while to get used to there being ads above the search results... Very frustrating, so much harder to distinguish commercial from organic results. No problem with the commercial results, I'll even click on them occasionally, but I do like to know beforehand how that result came there.

    27. Re:Confused by Zanadou · · Score: 2

      Or just use startpage.com.

    28. Re:Confused by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      If you are opposed to online ads why are you commenting on a website that finances itself through ads? Oh, wait, I thought you people had principles... oops. My bad.

      I do have principles and one of them is: no ads, thank you.
      If a site doesn't let me accesss it without disabling adblocking and/or enabling scripts from a shitload of third party domains then I don't access it.

    29. Re:Confused by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. I shop online. I don't rely on the advertisements. Of course, with noscript, ublock, request policy, and more, I don't see the ads.

      If I want a thingamabob, I search for thingamabob. If I know what brand I want, then I search for Bob's thingamabob. I don't get adverts, instead I get hits on stories, articles, and vendor's sites. Someone evaluated all of Bob's thingamabobs, and found that they aren't all the same quality - his cheapest item sucks, his most expensive item doesn't suck, but it's highly overpriced. The remaining three items have lesser suckiness vs price as the price increases.

      Time and again, I've found that I want the second tier in the price range of the product. Sometimes the third tier is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Maybe I'll only use that thingamabob twice a year, so I don't really need to pay for the second tier quality.

      Advertising would have you believe that you always want the top price tier item, all the time.

      I would much rather read technical reviews, customer blogs, and vendor comments, than any advertising. Any of my preferred pages may or may not be wrong, but they are far more likely to be honest than advertising is. Adverts are always dishonest.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:Confused by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Or just use startpage.com.

      Very interesting...will check it out! Thanks for the tip!

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    31. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think adblock doesn't box the search add inserts? It's just text and hyperlinks, so I don't see how adblock could identify it or cut it out.

      The question of "how" is possibly irrelevant. I use uBlock Origin 1.6.0 on Chromium 48.0.2564.82 on 64-bit Xubuntu 14.04, and can assure you that google search does not provide any adwords-related links ever. I always get just the ten that result from the search.

    32. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's inability to actually search for what I want to search for is what drove me off of Google some time ago. Yes, I know you can put the words in quotes, add plus signs, whatever, but it seems that those tricks only work for so long before Google starts ignoring them, and its back to whatever Google thinks I want to search for again.

      I haven't really used Google search now for several years. Is it really 41% ads now?

    33. Re: Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the ads are on the right is due to formatting information such as DIV tags, class names and so forth. It's trivial to detect such things and modify the DOM to hide or remove them. You can experiment with such things yourself using greasemonkey plugin, for example

    34. Re:Confused by Nunya666 · · Score: 0

      I used startpage.com as my default search engine for several months. Unfortunately, I found their search results to be extremely limited. I ended up rerunning most of my searches on Google.

      I now use DDG as my default in both Linux and Windoze. Although I occasionally still have to rerun my searches on Google, that doesn't happen near as often as it did with startpage.

    35. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit lately, mostly for local news.

      The Denver Post seems to be largely promotional material for the NFL and more specifically the Denver Broncos. You can't go to their website without a dozen Broncos or Peyton Manning "articles" showing up.

      How much of that is there because people really are interested in the Broncos and how much is there because it generates interest for the Broncos.

      I have my own bias - I don't give a shit about pro sports - but it's quite obvious that many, many others think about it constantly. I may be exaggerating a bit, I mean didn't they just win the World Series or something?

      Are they pandering to their readers or to the NFL? Why not both?

      Similarly one of the local news stations likes to feature a local or regional business from time to time and it often comes across as a marketing opportunity for the business. OTOH, as long as the news station isn't getting compensated by the business they're actually just informing the public of something that they might be interested in even if I'm not.

      Does the press cover Hillary more than Sanders because they'd rather she win the presidency? Well, maybe. In some cases, that's obviously true but in other cases? It is news. How objectively we process it is really up to us.

      What about big news like immigrants in Europe, fighting in the Middle East, Zika virus or natural disasters?

      Much of the coverage of these is very similar even if you seek non-Western sources of news. Are they all advertising the same thing? Maybe it's all just self-promotion.

      I was actually quite baffled last night because RT was running a story about prisoner abuse in Russian prisons. At first, I was expecting it to about prisoner abuse in US prisons since they love a good expose on anything bad in the West, especially the US but no - they were actually talking about something bad...in RUSSIA.

      And quite frankly my opinion that RT is nothing more than a propaganda outlet is so strong that the only reason I can imagine them doing it is so they can deflect criticism of themselves by saying "See? When Russia has a problem, we are forthright and open about it UNLIKE Fox or MSNBC would be" (Their self-promos constantly compare themselves to other news outlets and claim not to be fluffy mouthpieces).

      It's not always so clearcut whether a news article is an advertisement and if so what that advertisement is actually for.

  3. Removes dupes by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

    I think that the issue is that a lot of them were getting repetitive. I research a lot of products at work and regularly click on the ads in addition to the search results. The ads are usually pretty relevant and in some cases better than what the search terms are providing. But I was noticing that a single company's ads might be shown 2-4 times across all of the locations. I can see how that could cause issues.

  4. So they're leaving the ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that look like search results? Sounds like a negative.

    1. Re: So they're leaving the ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations have always stood against the people.

  5. um... by Nate+the+greatest · · Score: 1

    "The right-hand side of the page will be left free for Google's own Product Listing Ads. "

    So the ads in the sidebar ... will be replaced by a different type of advert? That doesn't exactly sound like Google is ditching anything.

  6. At least they are trying... kinda sorta. by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    I remember at the very first of the year Google was trying something new. The number of advertisements before the search results had doubled. I was pretty pissed. Apparently so were a lot of other people and Google listened because I don't think it lasted more than a week. There are already posts below this that mention the sidebar is actually an ideal place for ads because there is no room for confusion, and that this might be the reason they are "dropping" them. After all, the ads must still be present somehow. The fact of the matter is, Google's bread and butter is advertising. It is what they do. There is likely no perfect way to insert ads into Google search results, yet they still must do it for the sake of their bottom line. They have no choice (awaiting arguments against that statement). All I can say is at least they try mixing things up from time to time to make things more palatable (awaiting argument against that wording). I personally believe online advertising is a far less effective than consultants numbers say kind of deal, and that eventually companies will figure that out and there will be a bubble burst. I see an eventual future with far less advertising that costs more but is also more effective over the current situation where we are faced with so many ads, even if there is something in there of interest, they are often overlooked as they all drown each other out. I can say this. I am sick and tired of searching for something oddball on a whim and then having "related" advertising follow me for the next five years. We should at least be able to opt-out of some things. Amazon is even worse about this.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:At least they are trying... kinda sorta. by fermion · · Score: 1
      Not really, the implication is that they are trying to generate clicks by mixing ads and results. I suspect soon the ads, clearly marked, will be completely mixed in the results.

      The Google page has become messy and much less useful. Recall that one of Google innovations was a clear, transparent, and clean results page. It is now necessary to analyze the page pretty completely before understanding what is relevant.

      Also, less ads means that the advertisers have to bid higher amounts to get on the page. I can see this as simple attempt to combat the claim that most ads generate no real results for the advertiser. Now the advertiser might have more of a chance of being seen, but a much higher price that may not be commensurate with the increased visibility.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:At least they are trying... kinda sorta. by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      I've actually been experimenting with alternate search engines. Although they are all based on google and or bing. Yahoo is not on my list at all. I am not sure what is behind webcrawler these days (yes, either still around or back). But they have a moderate button right next to search. They still have ads at the top, but the super simplicity of the layout makes clear what is what. The moderate link offers pretty slim options, but they are very sane options. If google has something similar, it is not front and center so I have never seen it.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    3. Re:At least they are trying... kinda sorta. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google allows you to opt out of there targeted advertizing, they also allow you to delete your search history from their servers. whether that history is actually deleted or not I have no idea.

  7. Google is abusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is becoming more and more abusive.

    Google has been so abusive with Android that Samsung is making its own phone operating system.

  8. Hello, new owners? by sacrilicious · · Score: 0

    New owners: this sounds like a puff piece for Google, put in front of slashdot readers without explanation of why this is in fact better, just singing its praises. If you don't intend to run the site this way, now would be a *great* time to comment saying so. I'll take the absence of an authoritative response to mean you intended this or at least don't care.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:Hello, new owners? by whipslash · · Score: 1

      It's news about the world's largest search engine significantly changing their ad layout. Not a puff piece or a takedown. It's news. I'm looking at the new SERPs right now and it does look a lot cleaner. That is my opinion.

    2. Re:Hello, new owners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just pointing out how great removing sidebar ads is. You know, the kind like Slashdot has.

    3. Re:Hello, new owners? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the problem.

      If Slashdot ownership decides to keep posting submitted stories as-is, some people are going to complain about perceived biases in the stories.

      If Slashdot ownership chooses to have their editors rewrite the submissions before they're posted, some people will start complaining that Slashdot is controlling the news and attempting to put its own spin on everything. ... and I expect the Venn Diagram of the two groups would mostly overlap.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Hello, new owners? by whipslash · · Score: 1

      You know what you're talking about. Thank you.

    5. Re:Hello, new owners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As long as there's a link to the original submission, the editors can rewrite it as they please (and be called out on bias).
      Best of both worlds.

    6. Re:Hello, new owners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's news about the world's largest search engine significantly changing their ad layout. Not a puff piece or a takedown. It's news. I'm looking at the new SERPs right now and it does look a lot cleaner. That is my opinion.

      Nahhh...

      Google sidebar ads are enforcing their "right to be forgotten".....

    7. Re:Hello, new owners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree is is tech news, not a puff piece, and should be posted here. My problem with it is the bias in the summary. Who in their right minds thinks this is a good change and will be welcomed by Google's users? I would like the editors here to remove bias, granted that is not an easy job, and fix obvious errors in the submission, and further, be transparent about what they do edit.

      For Google I prefer having the ads at the side, it clearly separates the adverts from the content. Text based ads which were separate from the content was one of the great, and much-praised, features of Google when they were a new search engine.

    8. Re:Hello, new owners? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      I'd be ok with the editors reworking the submissions, but what I'm asking for in this case is for the editors to simply have passed over this submission, filtered it out. And filtering is something the editors do as a matter of course, and there's really no escaping the fact that editor bias will thusly shape what appears on the site. The art of being a good editor is therefor not to try not to filter (that's impossible), but to filter in such a way that *good* submissions get through, while keeping out submissions that constitute naked PR and advertisements.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  9. Google has ads? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    I've never seen any ads on Google. The right hand side is completely blank. Are there people that don't run adblockers in 2016?

    1. Re: Google has ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without the ads the sites look naked

    2. Re:Google has ads? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy but Google is one of the few white-listed in ABP.

      Their ads are often useful when I'm searching for commercial offerings - when I specifically want to buy something. The regular search results give the product info, the ads give great starting points to buy.

      Also they're not intrusive and easy to filter out - though that's getting harder and harder with first the appearance of ads above and below the search results, and now the disappearance of the side bar altogether. Google is at risk here of losing their exception.

    3. Re:Google has ads? by citizenr · · Score: 1

      completely blank? that means your adblocker is broken and kills rhs_block altogether

      google movie/car/game etc and rhs_block will fill up with most relevant info

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    4. Re: Google has ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it should be. It's a fucking search engine, not a billboard.

    5. Re:Google has ads? by Nunya666 · · Score: 0

      completely blank? that means your adblocker is broken and kills rhs_block altogether

      No, that means your adblocker is ineffective. I haven't seen ads on the right side for so long that I had forgotten they were there.

  10. Before vs after by dbarclay10 · · Score: 1

    So anybody have any before vs after pics?

    In particular, I'm wondering if we're going from 1-2 in-line ads and 1-2 sidebar ads to 3-7 in-line ads. (In other words, is this "cleaning" just an excuse to put more ads in-line with the search results? Let's not forget this is Google, who won market-share in part by way of putting ads on a noticeable yellow background. Anybody noticed the background colour for ads these days? :)

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)
    1. Re:Before vs after by whipslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's an after photo: http://www.thesempost.com/wp-c... (this one shows Google product listings in the right sidebar.) If it doesn't surface a product listing then the right sidebar is blank. The before only had 3 search ads on top, and then more in the sidebar.

    2. Re:Before vs after by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Altavista tried this approach before Google ate their lunch.

      When people are searching for something they want results, not ads. The ads drive revenue but the revenue comes from having users to begin with.

    3. Re:Before vs after by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Which also reminds me that the best ads are the ones where the website deals with the business direct instead of using some ad middleman. That's how Slashdot used to be able to pay for itself IIRC. We had ThinkGeek and even Microsoft and Oracle ads. Blech. But at least those ads were specific to this target audience.

    4. Re:Before vs after by 742Evergreen · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link!

      Since I have your attention now, this might be a good place to post this request. I'd love to have the option of opening links in discussions in a new tab.

      I just wanted to see what the new lay-out was and continue with reading the rest of the thread. Now I accidentally forgot to "open in new tab", saw the picture and had to use the "Back" button in the browser. Losing the position in the discussion in the process.

      Links in the comment part of an article are almost always something you would want to read in addition to the rest of the discussion.

      Just my two cents. From reading your other replies, you seem to have a lot of ideas for improving the site already.

    5. Re:Before vs after by whipslash · · Score: 1

      Yeah we will make the default open a new tab instead of load in the main one. Until then, I'd just CTRL + click

  11. Thanks, Google! by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 1

    It's been tough to push myself away from Google, to using (hopefully) less evil and intrusive alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Ixquick. But moves like this will really help me kick the Google habit. Thanks a lot, Google!

    --
    Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
  12. Yep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dotty has a cuckoo.

  13. There's Ads? by thundercattt · · Score: 1

    Guess I've used adblockers for so long, I've never noticed any.

  14. it's an antitrust workaround by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    ...to head off those court cases where various people and countries suspect that Google is giving its own products "undue prominence" in search results - by putting their own products in a separate column to the right (and perhaps then dialing down alleged prominence algorithm) they're now no longer in violation of anything

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  15. Bring back alta Vista by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    and Overdrive ads.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  16. Download Now by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Will they also be using a large green arrow so I can immediately get the software or movie I googled. Those are really helpful when they are mixed in with search results.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  17. The top ads are the worst by fulldecent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I run a website, it is called acls.net. Lots of people compete with us.

    Sometimes we will get a customer on the phone that got our phone number from a friend and they want to login and buy our course. I tell them to type acls.net into the address bar. Just explaining where the address bar was hard enough. One older gentleman finally types it in and guess what... he lands on our competitor's website!

    So then we go through this again. Type it in... hit enter... and then same result. So what happened is this guy is getting to the Google search results page and our competitor created an ad with the headline "acls.net". Luckily I figured this out, then just told him to click on acls.net that is green.

    Turns out this guy is color blind. After 15-minutes of him patiently and whole-heartedly working with me, I could not get him to navigate to our 8-character URL website. I printed out the page and mailed it to him, and he mailed me a check for about $500 to sign up.

    This is a real story, honest. Now think about how much money my competitors want to pay Google to make sure the customer that DIDN'T call me ends up on their site...

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    1. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, so there's an issue about ads getting embedded in search results, but, I see what you did there - embedding an ad in your comment. Perhaps that kind of sneaky embedding is why a search for acls.net has a "Fraud Warning - American Heart Association" show up so prominently just below your website. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/...

    2. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...and I clicked through on all the ads that show up, just to cost them a little money. You're welcome. Sometimes, when think about ambulance-chasing attorneys, I type mesothelioma into the search bar and click on the ads. [Full disclosure: I own some GOOG and GOOGL]

    3. Re:The top ads are the worst by fulldecent · · Score: 2

      The product on our website is for doctors and I seriously doubt Slashdotters want to buy it. You can check my posting history, I rarely talk about work or promote anything other than my open source projects.

      I am glad you're engaged to check that out. Yes, this industry (any competitive industry) has lots of scams. And I provided that link so you can see the kind of shady shit that's going on. Of course, Google encourages all this and they make lots of money from this exact situation. As to why my company is the good guy and most others are scams, you can PM me if you want to hear the details about that.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    4. Re:The top ads are the worst by Solandri · · Score: 1

      FYI, ctrl-l is the shortcut to select the URL bar in all the major browsers. That's a good way to insure you're not typing in some search engine's form.

      If he was in fact typing in the URL bar and getting a search engine result, it sounds like he had some malware installed on his browser which redirected all URLs and searches to their own website.

    5. Re:The top ads are the worst by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      FYI, ctrl-l is the shortcut to select the URL bar in all the major browsers.

      Damn you, sans serif!

      I was going to say that ctrl-i does nothing in my browser, and I was halfway through writing my reply before I twigged you might be talking about lowercase L instead.

    6. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other problem there is web browsers mixing address bars with search bars.

      Having a Intranet or local/wireless network with its own DNS can get pretty frustrating too. On Andriod phones I have found it to be the worst and just type the IP in instead.

    7. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Http://(your URL)
      You're welcome.

    8. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the same thing as the GP AC as I visited your site too. I was curious what your business was too and sure enough, it's not something I'm interested in personally.

      I'm curious if you saw a spike (even if minor) after posting that comment.

    9. Re:The top ads are the worst by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      Five people clicked the aforementioned, and forgot to install Privacy Badger beforehand.

      WARNING, THE REMAINING PART OF THIS COMMENT IS SPAM

      For comparison, another time I linked to my blog fulldecent.blogspot.com for something that was probably more relevant (I forget what link). There were seven clicks.

      For more comparison, once I posted a link to privacylog.blogspot.com and it made the front page -- about 1,000 people accessed the story.

      https://imgur.com/a/Ep6Sg

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    10. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daaang. I just re-created your experience, (for science), and yes it can be very misdirecting. Wow google including ads inline with the results column is very disingenuous, (to us searchers- not for them).

    11. Re:The top ads are the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, your inclusion of your website is hardly worthy of being damned as an advertisement- it's just a supporting part of your good story. don't mind ac as he's looking to accuse (helps him feel better about his IT writing aspirations).

  18. Great start! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Now if they'll ditch that useless, waste-of-space left sidebar containing that "Anytime" crap, then allow us to disable suggestions, and auto complete and ... just about everything that doesn't work w/o Javascript then the various Google pages may be usable w/o me having to use NoScript, and HTTP (through Proxomitron) to make it simply palatable. Seriously, having it shuffle words with every character typed is so fucking annoying (and a waste of bandwidth) - their keystroke analysis be damned.

    All I want is a simple, clean entry form where I can think and type in peace until I press Enter.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Great start! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go into your Google account > Personal Info > Search settings

  19. They had advertising there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've not seen adverts there, or pretty much anywhere, in years. I don't care so much about advertising but they are pretty much the most active vector for viruses to infect your machine... so no. No thanks.

  20. They need to ditch the ads ABOVE the results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are the ones that get people. I've had to clean more than one laptop of fake antivirus programs that I traced back to ads on Google search results pages.

  21. "likely to go down well with many people " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " likely to go down well with many people "
    Why?

    I never look there anyway.

  22. Does Google Have Ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Google have ads? I've never seen any.

  23. Great, more wasted white space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they moved the search options from the nice blank space to the left of the search results to a pulldown that make you use 2 clicks rather than 1, and now they're getting rid of the stuff on the right, presumably for a "cleaner" look. Which leaves most people with who have a reasonable resolution monitor with more than half a page of blank space for every search.

    Google used to work for usefulness and usability. Now they're in their own world where they make changes rather arbitrarily without much user feedback (its nearly impossible to actually give feedback to Google, and if you don't log in, it may be impossible) and most often I find that they make the usability worse, just for the sake of change it seems. Within search, Google Patents, Gmail and other of their services, they've made changes that have made usability poorer repeatedly. Its sad that they are big enough that they don't need to keep doing things well and can just do them by fiat. Apple's been in the same boat for the last few years.

    And its really too bad that nobody's coming along with products that give the old functionality, because I and I'll bet many others would happily move to a better choice - Old google search functionality was great, and if I could get that search with a more functional UI without it trying to outsmart me about what I'm searching for, I'd be really happy. DuckDuckGo is a good start but its search is not as functional

  24. they are already gone by citizenr · · Score: 1

    #rhs_block, #tvcap, #taw, #tads, #bottomads, td.Bu.y3, div.nH.adC, div.nH.PS, .action-menu, .clickable-dropdown-arrow {display:none !important;}

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  25. Hmmm by wwalker · · Score: 1

    The right-hand side of the page will be left free for Google's own Product Listing Ads.

    So they are not ditching ads on the side of the page at all, like the summary claims. Plus, it's Google. They'll likely change their mind in about a week and ditch the search results in the middle, leaving the entire page for Google+, soon to be replaced by Google++.

  26. IMO: Sidebar ads don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, I've been a web designer/developer since 1993, and this seems to confirm something I've long noticed on my own sites: Sidebar ads don't work.

    Sidebar ads have steadily decreased in effectiveness for the past decade or so.

    Meanwhile, we get a lot of clicks on horizontal ads -- especially Google Adsense responsive ads, set near the top of the page (above the "fold").

    In my experience, we currently get over 1,000% more revenue from horizontal ads (responsive, near top) than vertical ones (300 x 600 ads in sidebar). I suspect this is mostly because we read horizontally.

    I hope advertisers take notice.

  27. 2 Gripes about video advertising by jraff2 · · Score: 1

    A page with video advertising may cause one to waste gigabytes of data! 1. When an advertisement is playing on a page it draws data from some source. The advertisement may be visible or not. If it's not visible what is the benefit to the viewer? NOTHING! So stop any and all video advertising that is not in the visible page. 2. When one is viewing a page with video advertising and one is drawn away from that screen for whatever purpose, the bytes are continuously downloaded to run the video, whether the person is viewing the screen or not. If one is no longer viewing the screen, called away to go pick up the kids, clean the dishes, go shopping, fix the car, whatever - the video continues to play again eating up one's valuable and expensive bytes. Especially video ads that are not on the visible page. There should be some time limit or byte limit on video advertising so that one's allotment of bytes downloaded from one's ISP is not drained by some video advertisement that one is not watching and has no way of watching because one is NOT THERE!

  28. And yet Google wrings it's hands over ad blockers by ras · · Score: 1

    Google worries about ad blockers - then turns off all bar the most obtrusive positioning of their ads.

    Google search ads were occasionally useful. Useful enough for me to want to keep them there. I actually clicked on them when looking for stuff to buy. But then they moved them to the top, then altered the colours so they were barely distinguishable from real search results. That was when I turned on ad blocking for their search page. I guess I could have just blocked the ads at the top and been happy, but it was too much work. Now the option is gone, so procrastination won the day!

    If Google wanted to treat me like the customer instead of the cow to be milked they would ask me where to display the ads, and we would both win. As it is I get an ad free service and they whinge about ad blockers. Some things are just inexplicable.

  29. People still use Google? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    When there's StartPage DuckDuckGo? Why though?

  30. There are ads on Google? by Toshito · · Score: 1

    Never saw them???

    In fact I can't see any ads anywhere. Is my internet broken?

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
  31. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.start64.com/index.p...

    * Accept NO substitutes - It removes ALL ads all the time!

    APK

    P.S.=> Does more for speed (hardcoded favorites + adblocking), security (adblocking + blocking known bad sites/servers & dns issues avoiding DNS), reliability (vs. downed or dns poisoned dns), & anonymity (avoiding dns request logs) than ANY other SINGLE "so-called -solution'" out there, bar-none, for less using what you already natively have - unlike "AlmostALLAdsBlocked", UBlock, Ghostery etc. it's not detectable & blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ + it uses FAR LESS RESOURCES yet does far more (especially vs. DNS security issues)... apk

  32. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.start64.com/index.p...

    * Accept NO substitutes - it removes all ads, ALL the time & isn't paid off by advertisers NOT to (+ it does a whole lot more for security, speed, & reliability too)...

    (Obtains data for the above from 10 reputable security community sites that produce data for those purposes)

    APK

    P.S.=> Does more for speed (hardcoded favorites + adblocking), security (adblocking + blocking known bad sites/servers & dns issues avoiding DNS), reliability (vs. downed or dns poisoned dns), & anonymity (avoiding dns request logs) than ANY other SINGLE "so-called -solution'" out there, bar-none, for less using what you already natively have - unlike "AlmostALLAdsBlocked", UBlock, Ghostery etc. it's not detectable & blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ + it uses FAR LESS RESOURCES yet does far more (especially vs. DNS security issues)... apk

  33. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.start64.com/index.p...

    Gets data for blocking ads, trackers + known bad sites via 10 reputable security community sites.

    * Better on power/cpu/ram+ other IO resource use vs. local DNS servers & certainly less security issues vs. routers for years now too - Blocks all ads + known bad sites, all the time (not like "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" bribed by google to let ads through)

    APK

    P.S.=> Does more for speed (hardcoded favorites + adblocking), security (adblocking + blocking known bad sites/servers & dns issues avoiding DNS), reliability (vs. downed or dns poisoned dns), & anonymity (avoids dns request logs) vs. ANY other SINGLE "so-called -solution'" out there, bar-none using what you already natively have. Unlike Adblock\UBlock\Ghostery it's also not detectable & blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ + it uses FAR LESS RESOURCES yet does far more (especially vs. DNS security issues)

    ... apk