Ads have been blocked… Again… by Google, But have they?

Google finally dropped the hammer this month, and… nothing happened. At least reported by several media outlets. We all saw a lot of hype and scares, but their algorithms have not yet take effect.

What happened to their big update which was going to cripple sites? Seems those sites with pop unders, interstitials, adhesions and other ads dawning the “Annoying’ label by google have gone away but the websites that deployed them remain. Big question is, when do they start penalizing sites?

What’s interesting on this whole shift is that the sites appear to have moved to an in video ad stream instead, which is quite puzzling as, being an avid surfer, I prefer the pop under to the in stream ad as it doesn’t disrupt my browsing experience.

 

The following ad practices are now prohibited:

  • Auto-redirecting the page without user action
  • Misleading ads that trick the user into interacting with them, such as:
  • Resembling system or site warnings or error messages
  • Simulating messages, dialogue boxes, or request notifications
  • Displaying features that do not actually work
  • Presenting a “close” button that performs any other action than closing the element
  • Taking user to a landing page or any other content when they click outside of user-visible element border

 

 

How will this affect your business?

These new conditions restrict any ad element that mislead or trick the user into interaction. If your business uses any advertisements that utilize fake functionality or misleading elements, they will be considered in violation of Google’s new policy.

 

What’s new that they did for ad blocking?

Google was going to have a full new release of it’s ad blocking technology built into the browser. It appears to have been a success in googles terms. It appears to have successfully blocked ads from adrecover and everblock, however

ad blocking, google update, reviveAds

Google Ad blocking update

, Ad block circumvention company appears to have come out of the fight unscathed. They reported some minor blockage on certain sites back to BlockAdBlock, but have seen little to no change outside of these outliers in googles blocking methods.

You can find an article from ReviveAds owner published last month which appears to be on the 1st page of google for ad block circumvention:

Google Is Making Chrome A Fierce Player In The Fight Against Annoying Ads

(https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/01/23/google-is-making-chrome-a-fierce-player-in-the-fight-against-annoying-ads/2/#4d0b85c01753)

 

We are in support of their new movement and AdBlockChoices.org as it is a clear path to avoid blocking ads completely and still allows the user to make their own choice as to what ads they’d like to see. If you haven’t already checked out their tech in regards to ad block choices, take a look. It’s 1 of the few companies we recommend.

 

  • Scott Fulkerson

    The problem with this is that Ad servers have been documented to propagate viruses and malware. I’ve seen several in the last week alone from a major provider that have been redirected to known black-listed URLs. What’s likely to happen in the future is that any web server using an anti-ad block service will be considered to be a spammer by the black lists, and thus will simply be blacklisted by the major players such as Microsoft smart-screen, AVG, WOT, and the like.

  • Martin Øverby

    It strikes me that none of this would have been necessary if advertisers and website designers advertised responsibly.
    Which they do not do, in a majority of cases. There is also the matter of tracking and personalized ads, none of which we actually give permission for (and we should be allowed to turn off tracking, which the majority of websites never do because the tracking providers themselves don’t allow it), and all that jazz.

    No thanks. I’d rather just block BlockAdBlock! Which I have.
    And again, it shouldn’t be necessary. I’d love to give websites ad-revenue from me, but it’s going to be on my terms. It’s always going to be my terms.

    • Some websites, such as MIT Technology Review, require the viewer to explicitly opt in to Internet-wide tracking of the viewer’s interests as a condition of viewing any articles. This is ostensibly so that the site can have a persistent identifier with which to enforce its limit of 3 pages per user per month. Only paying subscribers are allowed to use privacy tools.