6 ms·

Does this apply to "please subscribe to our stupid newsletter" that obscures many sites now?

sgustard 11y ago
Per http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/09/mobile-friendly-web-pages-using-app.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/09/mobile-fr... "After November 1, mobile web pages that show an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page will no longer be considered mobile-friendly. This does not affect other types of interstitials." This implies the answer is No, since that's another type of interstitial (not an app install) -- but is one that blocks most of the page content. It's curious that they're analyzing the nature of the popup closely enough to determine that.
- jfoster 11y ago
  Perhaps they're approximating by analyzing the page as a mobile user agent and a non-mobile user agent, then comparing.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    They know what the content is, so they can probably analyze CSS when retrieving via JS.
  - IshKebab 11y ago
    Or they could just see if it contains links to the app/play store.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Which is weird because most of the reasons they give are valid for any type of interstitial, there's not a lot of reasons that set app interstitials apart from others that are relevant to the user. They're basically a new kind of pop-up window, an annoyance that you have to click away. I don't remember browsers only blocking certain kinds of pop-ups based on content, they just see if it wasn't initiated by a user-action, it'll get blocked. I suppose for Google there may be some reasons why they want to block the app-interstitials (I guess because they want to encourage keeping the content they index on the web, not in an app?), but even then, that's still no reason not to punish the other types of interstitial just as much. Trying to make the distinction is just making it harder on themselves, they will occasionally get it wrong, or people will complain that their interstitial shouldn't be punished because it is (somehow) not quite about the app--making the criteria a bit broader seems like it's easier for Google and better for the users?
cm2187 11y ago
The other classic is welcoming you on the first second of your first visit with a css pop-up hiding the site to ask you some feedback.
volaski 11y ago
I'm more annoyed with these sites than the app install sites. "Install our app" is annoying but still trying their best to send us where we will have better have better experience (at least that's what they think). These "subscribe to our newsletter" sites do it for their own good and couldn't care less about visitors. They do it so they can spam them with their emails
- LukeB_UK 11y ago
  > "Install our app" is annoying but still trying their best to send us where we will have better have better experience Not always, apps give them the ability to have push notifications plus the fact that having the app icon in your app tray is a constant reminder of their service.
  - usefulcat 11y ago
    Not to mention that an app potentially has access to a lot more information about you from the device.
  - pasbesoin 11y ago
    Given all the app security failures, I tend to avoid apps. Being nagged to install another black box has, for me, nothing to do with a "better experience."
  - volaski 11y ago
    No one said these app download guys are awesome. My point was that these newsletter guys deserve much more criticism. A lot of them are pretty famous bloggers, and they know they're being an asshole but do it. The thing is no one criticizes them because they don't want to offend an influential person. It's sad because I used to have respect for many of them.
    - logicallee 11y ago
      You have cause and effect backwards. How do you think they got to be so famous and influential :)
LukeB_UK 11y ago
What disappoints me most is that a lot of the sites submitted here use this same super annoying tactic.
0x0 11y ago
For those I just enter webmaster@<domain-name> or even the author's email if that's listed :P
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  They are probably already subscribed (to test it works). Better to enter a duff@emailaddress.com which will mess up their stats.
  - profinger 11y ago
    I always enter something along the lines of <expletive>@<expletive>.<expletive>. My hope is that they'll waste money on trying to email it and then get a bounceback that the email failed to be delivered.
    - bbcbasic 11y ago
      It wont cost them money if they have a double opt-in. But you will punish those without the double opt-in by pushing them up to the next tier in the payment plan sooner. The amount of money they waste one one dodgy email address is minuscule though. What is more funny is that they will see <expletive>@<expletive>.<expletive> when scrolling through their list, and you could even send them a 'message' this way. E.g. WhyTheHellYouMakeMeSignUpForThisRubbish@fakeemail.com.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        You can sign up their personal facebook accounts, though – if the user is facebook.com/username123, you can register username123@facebook.com, facebook will throw the mails into the spam folder, and report them to spam lists, and the newsletter ends up getting blacklisted earlier.
        bbcbasic 11y ago
        Wouldn't want to meet you in a dark alley.
jtwebman 11y ago
I hope so!

Per http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/09/mobile-friendly-web-pages-using-app.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/09/mobile-fr... "After November 1, mobile web pages that show an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page will no longer be considered mobile-friendly. This does not affect other types of interstitials." This implies the answer is No, since that's another type of interstitial (not an app install) -- but is one that blocks most of the page content. It's curious that they're analyzing the nature of the popup closely enough to determine that.

jfoster 11y ago
Perhaps they're approximating by analyzing the page as a mobile user agent and a non-mobile user agent, then comparing.
- rhizome 11y ago
  They know what the content is, so they can probably analyze CSS when retrieving via JS.
- IshKebab 11y ago
  Or they could just see if it contains links to the app/play store.
tripzilch 11y ago
Which is weird because most of the reasons they give are valid for any type of interstitial, there's not a lot of reasons that set app interstitials apart from others that are relevant to the user. They're basically a new kind of pop-up window, an annoyance that you have to click away. I don't remember browsers only blocking certain kinds of pop-ups based on content, they just see if it wasn't initiated by a user-action, it'll get blocked. I suppose for Google there may be some reasons why they want to block the app-interstitials (I guess because they want to encourage keeping the content they index on the web, not in an app?), but even then, that's still no reason not to punish the other types of interstitial just as much. Trying to make the distinction is just making it harder on themselves, they will occasionally get it wrong, or people will complain that their interstitial shouldn't be punished because it is (somehow) not quite about the app--making the criteria a bit broader seems like it's easier for Google and better for the users?

cm2187 11y ago

The other classic is welcoming you on the first second of your first visit with a css pop-up hiding the site to ask you some feedback.

volaski 11y ago

I'm more annoyed with these sites than the app install sites. "Install our app" is annoying but still trying their best to send us where we will have better have better experience (at least that's what they think). These "subscribe to our newsletter" sites do it for their own good and couldn't care less about visitors. They do it so they can spam them with their emails

LukeB_UK 11y ago
> "Install our app" is annoying but still trying their best to send us where we will have better have better experience Not always, apps give them the ability to have push notifications plus the fact that having the app icon in your app tray is a constant reminder of their service.
- usefulcat 11y ago
  Not to mention that an app potentially has access to a lot more information about you from the device.
- pasbesoin 11y ago
  Given all the app security failures, I tend to avoid apps. Being nagged to install another black box has, for me, nothing to do with a "better experience."
- volaski 11y ago
  No one said these app download guys are awesome. My point was that these newsletter guys deserve much more criticism. A lot of them are pretty famous bloggers, and they know they're being an asshole but do it. The thing is no one criticizes them because they don't want to offend an influential person. It's sad because I used to have respect for many of them.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    You have cause and effect backwards. How do you think they got to be so famous and influential :)

LukeB_UK 11y ago

What disappoints me most is that a lot of the sites submitted here use this same super annoying tactic.

0x0 11y ago

For those I just enter webmaster@<domain-name> or even the author's email if that's listed :P

bbcbasic 11y ago
They are probably already subscribed (to test it works). Better to enter a duff@emailaddress.com which will mess up their stats.
- profinger 11y ago
  I always enter something along the lines of <expletive>@<expletive>.<expletive>. My hope is that they'll waste money on trying to email it and then get a bounceback that the email failed to be delivered.
  - bbcbasic 11y ago
    It wont cost them money if they have a double opt-in. But you will punish those without the double opt-in by pushing them up to the next tier in the payment plan sooner. The amount of money they waste one one dodgy email address is minuscule though. What is more funny is that they will see <expletive>@<expletive>.<expletive> when scrolling through their list, and you could even send them a 'message' this way. E.g. WhyTheHellYouMakeMeSignUpForThisRubbish@fakeemail.com.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      You can sign up their personal facebook accounts, though – if the user is facebook.com/username123, you can register username123@facebook.com, facebook will throw the mails into the spam folder, and report them to spam lists, and the newsletter ends up getting blacklisted earlier.
      - bbcbasic 11y ago
        Wouldn't want to meet you in a dark alley.

jtwebman 11y ago

I hope so!