7 ms·

Well maybe they should stop allowing download sites that offer ad infected downloads to buy the top spots on the google search results page? https://i.imgur.com

Well maybe they should stop allowing download sites that offer ad infected downloads to buy the top spots on the google search results page? https://i.imgur.com/Ote9c2k.png https://i.imgur.com/Ote9c2k.png Adwords is probably one of the main infection vectors for malware these days. Previous rant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8879229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8879229

rogerbinns 12y ago
I have a google alert for one of my open source projects (APSW) and every day almost they email me one or two sites where it has popped up. Virtually every one has a bizarre name, and on going to the site it is content obviously generated using Markov chains from other sites and incomprehensible to humans. Of course there is no way to tell Google that these aren't real sites (I tried) and distinguishing real text from Markov chains using a computer is hard. I keep wondering what it will take for them to figure out bad content, both for the computer (javascript etc) and for people (english etc).
chimeracoder 12y ago
This, right here, is why I have no qualms installing Adblock Edge and insisting that my parents (and anyone else who isn't very tech-savvy) do the same. It's not about not wanting to support independent bloggers. It's about making sure that unsuspecting users don't accidentally download malware when they're doing something mundane like downloading their web browser. In the age of the web, Adblock is the new anti-virus.
- brador 12y ago
  It's the 30 second youtube ads that finally got me to install adblock again after 3 years without. Also the javascript late load "oops click" tricks they're pulling to scam advertisers now (google search, youtube, bing search - all use late load javascript to get misclicks).
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > It's the 30 second youtube ads that finally got me to install adblock again after 3 years without. Same here. I couldn't be bothered to install AdBlock for many years, but the mandatory before-video ads were the straw that broke the camel's back for me. > Also the javascript late load "oops click" tricks they're pulling to scam advertisers now (google search, youtube, bing search - all use late load javascript to get misclicks). I've lost track of who is trying to scam who. The users are collateral damage anyway.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > Same here. I couldn't be bothered to install AdBlock for many years, but the mandatory before-video ads were the straw that broke the camel's back for me. That's because people in general don't mind wasting a bit of screen space but the mandatory wasting of time is of a completely different order. Time is our most precious capital.
    - on_and_off 12y ago
      I don't mind the 30 seconds ads (to be fair in my area very few video ads are unskippable on Youtube). I consider these ads the price to pay for a free video website like Youtube. I could even consider paying to remove ads in Google products (or for something like Google Play Music Unlimited that also remove ads on Youtube now that it will be used for music as well). I use uBlock though in order to remove the numerous popup/popunder ads on some websites. These are just a pain in the ass without any justification (and most of the time are tied to suspicious offers).
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        I do mind them, because the most common use I have for YouTube is background music and short clips. A song is usually 3-4 minutes long, which makes the ad 12-16% as long as the content. Clips are even shorter, and the very disruption of my state of mind is annoying.
  - untog 12y ago
    (google search, youtube, bing search - all use late load javascript to get misclicks). Of course, go back a year or so and everyone was screaming at ad providers for using blocking JavaScript.
- fragsworth 12y ago
  It's definitely the people who are least inclined to install an ad blocker that could use it most. On the other hand, it takes a long time, but they do learn to be more cynical about the Internet if they're exposed to its raw state.
  - chatmasta 12y ago
    It takes less than sixty seconds and requires nothing more than installing a browser extension.
    - msabalau 12y ago
      The people who most need to do this don't know what a "browser" is, much less an "extension".
      - hashmymustache 12y ago
        And are still paying for AOL as it's the only way to get on the internet.
    - radicaledward 12y ago
      I think they meant that it takes the users a long time to learn to be cynical.
      - chatmasta 12y ago
        This is a good point. I often take for granted how quickly I can recognize advertisement from non advertisement. I attribute most of it to spending my early days on the Internet reading marketing forums and running ad campaigns myself. Nowadays marketing is very subtle. Often you find yourself reading content and don't even realize somebody paid for that content to build their brand, drive traffic, etc. Look at recipe sites for example. If you watch your ad blocker count the ads, recipe sites always have one of the highest numbers. Who would ever think that if they didn't know what to look for? My rule of thumb is "if nobody would write this without getting paid for it, then somebody probably got paid for it."
ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Absolutely. Though they're apparently changing their policy sometime this month to require ads advertising downloads be that apps' "primary download source".
- anon1385 12y ago
  That's good to hear. As you can see if you follow the links above I've been ranting about this for a long time. Do you have a source for that information?
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Yep: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6169380?hl=en https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6169380?hl=e...
ceejayoz 12y ago
Your rant is outdated. This is what "download firefox" looks like now: http://i.imgur.com/dG7wONC.png http://i.imgur.com/dG7wONC.png
- anon1385 12y ago
  You can't take a single search as evidence that things have changed. Ads won't always show for the search terms for various reasons (geography, language, platform, lack of ad budget etc).
- jacquesm 12y ago
  For you. It looks more like the OP's version to me, including 'softonic' as the third linked one. The top two are mozilla's (and I use an ad blocker so I don't see the ad). On Chrome the first 6 links are mozilla's then the 'download sites' start.
  - mdwrigh2 12y ago
    I don't use an adblocker and I get the same results as you (top two are Mozilla, followed by softonic), no ads present.
    - minot 12y ago
      I personally have adblock disabled on google.com because I want to support them and I see this: https://i.imgur.com/dEnFy15.png https://i.imgur.com/dEnFy15.png The ads are not gone.
- ics 12y ago
  With uMatrix in Chrome I see "firefox.safe-downloading.com/‎" as the top result, with the Mozilla Foundation banner below it.
- jfuhrman 12y ago
  There are still lot of Google ads on download sites that are extremely misleading and look like download buttons. http://blog.malwarebytes.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ad8.png http://blog.malwarebytes.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ad8.... As I wrote in another comment, even YCombinator invested in a bundleware company and PG defended it, so I guess the problem is deep rooted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283176
gergo_v 12y ago
They've apparently updated their adwords policy regarding this. Now it's a matter of enforcement: http://ipensatori.com/2015/03/20/google-update-to-software-downloads/ http://ipensatori.com/2015/03/20/google-update-to-software-d...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
josefresco 12y ago
To be fair, while the sites in your screenshot are listed in Google's index, they aren't the top results for "download firefox". There are 4 official Mozilla links before the crap links not to mention a special Google feature box (or whatever they call it) at the top with a direct link to Mozilla.
NelsonMinar 12y ago
Adwords has had a policy against ads for malware for many years now. (I helped develop an earlier version of that policy.) But it's not entirely effective. Unreviewed ads, poorly reviewed ads, and ads for sites that just barely skirt the boundaries of being malware are all regular problems. For some historical perspective, here's a 2007 article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2663560/application-development/experts--google-adwords-needs-policing.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2663560/application-develop...
- sukilot 12y ago
  The reality is that there is virtually 0 market for user-friendly PPC ads on browsing sessions noncommercial intent. Therefore scammers (users have a wider definition than Google) will always win the auctions.
- mbrubeck 12y ago
  As recently as a year ago, even "google chrome" turned up an adware ad as the first "result" in a Google search: https://twitter.com/mbrubeck/status/459715935272566784 https://twitter.com/mbrubeck/status/459715935272566784
johnward 12y ago
Usually those kind of ads get shot down just on trademark. At least that's been my experience. I could never bid a term like that in adwords.

rogerbinns 12y ago

I have a google alert for one of my open source projects (APSW) and every day almost they email me one or two sites where it has popped up. Virtually every one has a bizarre name, and on going to the site it is content obviously generated using Markov chains from other sites and incomprehensible to humans. Of course there is no way to tell Google that these aren't real sites (I tried) and distinguishing real text from Markov chains using a computer is hard. I keep wondering what it will take for them to figure out bad content, both for the computer (javascript etc) and for people (english etc).

chimeracoder 12y ago

This, right here, is why I have no qualms installing Adblock Edge and insisting that my parents (and anyone else who isn't very tech-savvy) do the same. It's not about not wanting to support independent bloggers. It's about making sure that unsuspecting users don't accidentally download malware when they're doing something mundane like downloading their web browser. In the age of the web, Adblock is the new anti-virus.

brador 12y ago
It's the 30 second youtube ads that finally got me to install adblock again after 3 years without. Also the javascript late load "oops click" tricks they're pulling to scam advertisers now (google search, youtube, bing search - all use late load javascript to get misclicks).
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > It's the 30 second youtube ads that finally got me to install adblock again after 3 years without. Same here. I couldn't be bothered to install AdBlock for many years, but the mandatory before-video ads were the straw that broke the camel's back for me. > Also the javascript late load "oops click" tricks they're pulling to scam advertisers now (google search, youtube, bing search - all use late load javascript to get misclicks). I've lost track of who is trying to scam who. The users are collateral damage anyway.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > Same here. I couldn't be bothered to install AdBlock for many years, but the mandatory before-video ads were the straw that broke the camel's back for me. That's because people in general don't mind wasting a bit of screen space but the mandatory wasting of time is of a completely different order. Time is our most precious capital.
  - on_and_off 12y ago
    I don't mind the 30 seconds ads (to be fair in my area very few video ads are unskippable on Youtube). I consider these ads the price to pay for a free video website like Youtube. I could even consider paying to remove ads in Google products (or for something like Google Play Music Unlimited that also remove ads on Youtube now that it will be used for music as well). I use uBlock though in order to remove the numerous popup/popunder ads on some websites. These are just a pain in the ass without any justification (and most of the time are tied to suspicious offers).
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      I do mind them, because the most common use I have for YouTube is background music and short clips. A song is usually 3-4 minutes long, which makes the ad 12-16% as long as the content. Clips are even shorter, and the very disruption of my state of mind is annoying.
- untog 12y ago
  (google search, youtube, bing search - all use late load javascript to get misclicks). Of course, go back a year or so and everyone was screaming at ad providers for using blocking JavaScript.
fragsworth 12y ago
It's definitely the people who are least inclined to install an ad blocker that could use it most. On the other hand, it takes a long time, but they do learn to be more cynical about the Internet if they're exposed to its raw state.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  It takes less than sixty seconds and requires nothing more than installing a browser extension.
  - msabalau 12y ago
    The people who most need to do this don't know what a "browser" is, much less an "extension".
    - hashmymustache 12y ago
      And are still paying for AOL as it's the only way to get on the internet.
  - radicaledward 12y ago
    I think they meant that it takes the users a long time to learn to be cynical.
    - chatmasta 12y ago
      This is a good point. I often take for granted how quickly I can recognize advertisement from non advertisement. I attribute most of it to spending my early days on the Internet reading marketing forums and running ad campaigns myself. Nowadays marketing is very subtle. Often you find yourself reading content and don't even realize somebody paid for that content to build their brand, drive traffic, etc. Look at recipe sites for example. If you watch your ad blocker count the ads, recipe sites always have one of the highest numbers. Who would ever think that if they didn't know what to look for? My rule of thumb is "if nobody would write this without getting paid for it, then somebody probably got paid for it."

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Absolutely. Though they're apparently changing their policy sometime this month to require ads advertising downloads be that apps' "primary download source".

anon1385 12y ago
That's good to hear. As you can see if you follow the links above I've been ranting about this for a long time. Do you have a source for that information?
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Yep: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6169380?hl=en https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6169380?hl=e...

ceejayoz 12y ago

Your rant is outdated. This is what "download firefox" looks like now: http://i.imgur.com/dG7wONC.png http://i.imgur.com/dG7wONC.png

anon1385 12y ago
You can't take a single search as evidence that things have changed. Ads won't always show for the search terms for various reasons (geography, language, platform, lack of ad budget etc).
jacquesm 12y ago
For you. It looks more like the OP's version to me, including 'softonic' as the third linked one. The top two are mozilla's (and I use an ad blocker so I don't see the ad). On Chrome the first 6 links are mozilla's then the 'download sites' start.
- mdwrigh2 12y ago
  I don't use an adblocker and I get the same results as you (top two are Mozilla, followed by softonic), no ads present.
  - minot 12y ago
    I personally have adblock disabled on google.com because I want to support them and I see this: https://i.imgur.com/dEnFy15.png https://i.imgur.com/dEnFy15.png The ads are not gone.
ics 12y ago
With uMatrix in Chrome I see "firefox.safe-downloading.com/‎" as the top result, with the Mozilla Foundation banner below it.
jfuhrman 12y ago
There are still lot of Google ads on download sites that are extremely misleading and look like download buttons. http://blog.malwarebytes.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ad8.png http://blog.malwarebytes.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ad8.... As I wrote in another comment, even YCombinator invested in a bundleware company and PG defended it, so I guess the problem is deep rooted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9283176

gergo_v 12y ago

They've apparently updated their adwords policy regarding this. Now it's a matter of enforcement: http://ipensatori.com/2015/03/20/google-update-to-software-downloads/ http://ipensatori.com/2015/03/20/google-update-to-software-d...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

josefresco 12y ago

To be fair, while the sites in your screenshot are listed in Google's index, they aren't the top results for "download firefox". There are 4 official Mozilla links before the crap links not to mention a special Google feature box (or whatever they call it) at the top with a direct link to Mozilla.

NelsonMinar 12y ago

Adwords has had a policy against ads for malware for many years now. (I helped develop an earlier version of that policy.) But it's not entirely effective. Unreviewed ads, poorly reviewed ads, and ads for sites that just barely skirt the boundaries of being malware are all regular problems. For some historical perspective, here's a 2007 article: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2663560/application-development/experts--google-adwords-needs-policing.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2663560/application-develop...

sukilot 12y ago
The reality is that there is virtually 0 market for user-friendly PPC ads on browsing sessions noncommercial intent. Therefore scammers (users have a wider definition than Google) will always win the auctions.
mbrubeck 12y ago
As recently as a year ago, even "google chrome" turned up an adware ad as the first "result" in a Google search: https://twitter.com/mbrubeck/status/459715935272566784 https://twitter.com/mbrubeck/status/459715935272566784

johnward 12y ago

Usually those kind of ads get shot down just on trademark. At least that's been my experience. I could never bid a term like that in adwords.