10 ms·
Which is hilarious because the reason I can't switch The New Yorker website to HTTPS is because of ads - which I'm getting from Google DFP which allows non-secu
by donohoe 11y ago
Which is hilarious because the reason I can't switch The New Yorker website to HTTPS is because of ads - which I'm getting from Google DFP which allows non-secure ad assets.
In short; Google will penalize me because I use Google.
The universe has a sense of humor.
- newjersey 11y agoThey're trying to nudge their customers for a while. It is just a little difficult when that's one's biggest source of income. For example, https://support.google.com/dfp_sb/answer/4515432?hl=en https://support.google.com/dfp_sb/answer/4515432?hl=en
- tyingq 11y agoAlso funny, because for many sites that run DFP or Adsense...that's their biggest source of income. So, G is rationalizing their slow pace with the same reason that's not good enough for others :)
- cryptoz 11y agoSimilarly, Google claimed they would start penalizing websites that showed full-page ads for mobile apps instead of showing you the website. But every single time I try to get to Gmail, or Drive, or Calendar, or any Google service on the web using a mobile device, I'm shown a full page ad for a mobile app. Google has been doing this for years, and it seems like it's also been a year since they said they'd punish all sites that do that. But Gmail still turns up as #1 in search results for email, so does calendar, etc. It seems to me that they have whitelisted themselves and choose not to punish any Google property that breaks the Google rules, despite claiming to do so. Edit: Typically, when a service tells me "no you can't use this service until you view a full page ad" I just give up and not bother continuing to the service. But the same is not true for Google. I reluctantly click through the full page ad every single time. It's incredibly annoying that I let them get away with this and still use the services. They are so outrageously arrogant about it and it bothers me greatly, but still, I don't change. Edit 2: Going to calendar.google.com: http://i.imgur.com/fNRhhYx.png http://i.imgur.com/fNRhhYx.png First results for searching 'calendar': http://i.imgur.com/l3A5Wlh.png http://i.imgur.com/l3A5Wlh.png
- yeukhon 11y agoYahoo shows YMail. Bing is the only one shows Gmail as first, although Yahoo technically uses Bing. You can pretty much say Yahoo actually "put herself above others" and more guilty than Google. In fact, I don't think Google is doing anything wrong. After all, Gmail is popular, and if you are doing a Google search, the user may be interested to know Google also offer email and most likely the user is already a Google user.
- jtreminio 11y ago> You can pretty much say Yahoo actually "put herself above others" Do you mean `itself`? Since when are tech companies assigned genders?
- nailer 11y agoParent poster might not be from an English-speaking background.
- pdappollonio 11y agoThis. I would've written the same by mistake.
- yeukhon 11y agoI am not, sort of. You can refer to a country by "she", so why is it inappropriate for a company? I don't see any issues. You can view a company as a mother too.
- mynameisvlad 11y agoOne of the reasons a country has feminine gender is the association with the motherland (ie. one's native country).
- pollen23 11y ago
- jrochkind1 11y agoI'm jealous that you get to work for the New Yorker website. Any openings?
- tyingq 11y agoThis is also effectively true for the more broadly used Google Adsense (not just DFP). They do support displaying adsense, but then screen out all non-https ads. Which, of course, results in a lower CPM.[1] [1]https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10528?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/10528?hl=en >>In short; Google will penalize me because I use Google +++
- Dylan16807 11y agoTo be fair, sites without ads are a better experience than sites with ads.
- tyingq 11y agoSure. I like free things as well.
- st3v3r 11y agoI dunno. Sites that can't pay the bills tend not to give good experiences, due to not being able to do things. Like exist.
- Dylan16807 11y agoDepends on what the bills are for. Most sites that don't have content-production staff need twenty bucks a month for hosting, plus an occasional prod from a sysadmin.
- tyingq 11y agoAre there some types of content where the author, photographer, etc will produce it without direct compensation? Sure. Are there others where that's not practical? Also, yes. Maybe not things that you need, but this problem does exist. At the moment, there's not a model, outside of ads, that works very well for that sort of thing. There are some subscription/micropayment schemes that seem promising, but nothing that works as well as ads do.
- incompatible 11y agoI have a page hosted on Google Sites. It seems that Google Sites doesn't support HTTPS on custom domains either.
- SystemOut 11y agoGoogle DFP allows it because publishers (e.g. the New Yorker) aren't ready to switch all their traffic HTTPS. If they wanted to they could turn the switch and be HTTPS and tell DFP to only serve secure creatives. One of the larger difficulties for publishers is that many of the 3rd party SSPs aren't ready to go full HTTPs and so publishers are reluctant to make the switch because it reduces demand sources. Disclaimer: Work for Google in advertising
- michaelt 11y agoOne of the larger difficulties for publishers is that many of the 3rd party SSPs aren't ready to go full HTTPs Right, but Google can motivate or improve the third-party advertisers to update much more effectively than publishers can - just Google hasn't chosen to do that yet. It would be easy to proxy http-only ads from through a CDN that added encryption. Or to charge a premium to http-only ad networks, and ramp the premium up over time.
- SystemOut 11y agoHow do you think Google can motivate 3rd party advertisers? I'm talking about the Rubicons, Pubmatics, etc. Google doesn't have any real leverage over them. Other than the fact that as publishers do move to SSL (because of the SEO penalty that non SSL sites have) they won't use the SSPs that don't demand or can't insure 100% SSL for their buyers. So in effect Google is putting pressure on them to do it. I don't understand your next part at all. Who would charge a premium to http only networks? Those sites don't actually rely on Google for delivery.
- toomanybeersies 11y agoGoogle is a large company, with multiple branches. I can't remember what services it is now, but there was some Google service that was deranked because it broke some Google search ranking policy. It shows some integrity for the company that they're (sort of) operating their search engine objectively. I presume that google doesn't uprank sites that specifically use Adsense versus other competing ad services?
- ianremsen 11y agoIt was Chrome. http://readwrite.com/2012/01/03/google_forced_to_punish_itself_for_chromes_seo_mis http://readwrite.com/2012/01/03/google_forced_to_punish_itse...
- joeblau 11y agoThat is interesting. The Ads team is the same group that recommended turning off Transport Security in iOS 9 so you can run your Google's unencrypted Ads stack[1]. I'm sure there are two different departments that are fighting two totally separate wars. I've definitely seen this pattern in huge companies where one team is trying to push an agenda that forces another team to reshuffle their priorities. [1] - http://googleadsdeveloper.blogspot.com/2015/08/handling-app-transport-security-in-ios-9.html http://googleadsdeveloper.blogspot.com/2015/08/handling-app-...
- JohannesH 11y agoIt is really hard for DFP to not allow non-secure creatives as long as you can create 3rd-party creatives. They do try to detect non-secure assets though, so they won't run on secure pages. See: https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/4515432?hl=en https://support.google.com/dfp_premium/answer/4515432?hl=en
- hussong 11y agoReminds me of PageSpeed Insights bitching about assets loaded from Google (fonts, scripts, css).