10 ms·
From the article: "It’s important to note that some sites affected by this change may also contain Google ads. To us, your experience on the web is a higher pr
by paulirwin 9y ago
From the article:
"It’s important to note that some sites affected by this change may also contain Google ads. To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority than the money that these annoying ads may generate—even for us."
- ComputerGuru 9y agoExcept while with ad network x the network gets punished, with AdWords the specific advertiser does.
- notatoad 9y agoHow so? In either case, google is blocking ads at a per-site level. They aren't treating their own network any differently.
- bzbarsky 9y agoFundamentally, the setup is that Google is blocking all ads (and all ad revenue) on sites that serve any ads that don't comply with a certain Google-defined policy. Google of course makes certain that this policy allows whatever ads Google wants to serve. What is the most plausible outcome? That sites want ad revenue, do not want to take risks on losing it, and hence will only use Google for ads (because those will by definition comply with the policy). It's true that if a site serves both Google and non-Google ads Google may end up punishing the site (no ad revenue), even if it means some revenue loss for Google from the now-blocked Google ads. But if the goal is to make sure sites do not do this mixing of Google and non-Google ads, that seems like an acceptable cost to pay to achieve the goal, from Google's point of view.
- craftyguy 9y agoFor some reason I seriously doubt Google is going to take a hit on their #1 source of revenue so that users have a better 'experience'
- eli 9y agoPeople having a terrible experience with ads is what leads them to install an ad blocker, which is a much bigger risk to Google's ad business