Google to label sites w/bad ads as dangerous

Even if G serves up the bad ad...

[ken_b]

Google will slap big red warning on legit sites hosting bad ads [zdnet.com]
Maybe they should clean up AdWords first!

Google is casting a wider net with its Safe Browsing technology to protect Chrome users, not just from deceptive websites but also from deceptive ads on legitimate sites.

...while Google does more to prevent such ads being distributed through its own ad business.

But apparently even if AdSense serves up the bad ad, they'll label the suite as dangerous. How nice!

Google notes the new Safe Browsing feature may have an impact on legitimate websites that display deceptive ads.

.

[LuckyD]

I disagree. First of all, the article doesn't have a source, and resembles an opinion piece, rather than news. Second, think again, if Google were to devalue websites running AdSense, they would hurt their own business, which they won't do. So chill out, block sensitive categories and move on.
Google employs intelligent people who can think further than just the next move. If a policy like this would ever cross the table in a management meeting, there's no way it would pass.

The article mentions those fake Download buttons, yes. But that's a whole other discussion.

Today, we’re expanding Safe Browsing protection to protect you from such deceptive embedded content - Google Source [googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.se ]

Read the damn original and don't trust what you read on the Buzzfeed for business.

[jpch]

Read the damn original and don't trust what you read on the Buzzfeed for business.

That's great advice so I did read the blog post from Google and see you might have jumped the gun on the OP as the last paragraph (Will my site be affected?) of that blog post contains info for webmasters with a link to this site:

[support.google.com...]

[LuckyD]

Apologies for my rudeness.

I'd be interested in what pubpolicycomms has to say about all of that. Will have a meeting with my rep soon and ask him directly. Will report back with his answer.

[breeks]

It's like playing whack-a-mole trying to block "Download Now" adsense ads. They are the biggest culprit that shows deceptive ads.

[Mentat]

I think we all saw the Big, Green download buttons!
Google is schizophrenic and now things are getting worse.

[Mentat]

The green buttons are back, but not for software!
It seems that it is a recipe for high clickrate, minimum bids.

[i.imgur.com...]

And yes, It's google Adsense!

[engine]

It seems that it is a recipe for high clickrate, minimum bids.

And for invalid clicks, earning publishers less.

For publishers, we don't want these ads as it's bad for users, and bad for Google, and, of course, will result in less earnings. Worse still, imho, is that users will feel that the site it's on is poor quality.

[ken_b]

Hopefully no publisher wants these ads on their site, I sure don't.

Worse still, imho, is that users will feel that the site it's on is poor quality.

It's a two edged sword, and publishers can't win this one the way it is set up.

Without the warning, users see the bad ad, served by Google, and think the site is low quality.

With the warning, users see the warning, served by Google, and think the site is low quality.

:(

[LuckyD]

@Mentat, as you can see, all of the are from one advertiser. Most of there ads can be eliminated quite quickly.

[Mentat]

I hunt for them on daily basis. About two years ago I was blocking 10 advertisers accounts/day and 10 domains.
It was a war!

Google will block the advertiser/domain/ad in about 12-24 hours, so they were creating sites/accounts/ads only for 12-24h!

Yes, there were the same advertisers: Genio, Ironsource, Mindspark and they had help from google adwords team!
All sites protected whois and accesible often only with Google.com referer.

[engine]

This Safe Browsing is going to surprise some users, i'm sure.
Here's a link to the Google topic, and an image of what a visitor might see.

Today, we’re expanding Safe Browsing protection to protect you from such deceptive embedded content, like social engineering ads.No More Deceptive Download Buttons [googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.se]

Consistent with the social engineering policy we announced in November, embedded content (like ads) on a web page will be considered social engineering when they either:

Pretend to act, or look and feel, like a trusted entity — like your own device or browser, or the website itself.

Try to trick you into doing something you’d only do for a trusted entity — like sharing a password or calling tech support.

Here's Google's topic, Social Engineering for Webmasters Social Engineering (Phishing and Deceptive Sites) [support.google.com]

[azlinda]

WOT already does this, but it's user-based opinion.

[keyplyr]

...think again, if Google were to devalue websites running AdSense, they would hurt their own business, which they won't do

Google already strips AdSense with Google Web Light & Transcoder.

[iamlost]

Yet another bit of silliness by Google.
If a site is 'bad' in whatever fashion in their opinion then simply DO NOT include it in the query results.

The types of things they are merely flagging are far more dangerous to searchers (Google's users) than most of the 'gaming Google' reasons that sites get penalised and dropped. Guess it depends on whom one is inflicting the social engineering; Google itself or Google's users.

[Andy Langton]

As an aside, this perhaps adds another reason to obey (or ignore, depending on your preference) Google's warnings about blocking js files.

[ergophobe]

Google were to devalue websites running AdSense, they would hurt their own business,

Actually, I don't think this is quit right. Yes, if they were to devalue AdSense across the board, they hurt their own business. However, nothing devalues AdSense like ads that lead to dangerous sites.

The grocery store sells food. It is not in their best interest to make food seem dangerous and devalue it. Is choose that analogy because it plays out in all sorts of imaginable ways
- food safety laws for avoiding ecoli, etc
- quickly shifting perceptions that food X is "bad" for you
- and all the junk food in the store that is bad for you, but is sold in huge quantities anyway and are the real public health threat

I think the ad universe is similar and Google has an interest in getting rid of the ecoli and lysteria ads, but not in the junk food ads which is where all the money is made.

[JAB Creations]

Some advertising firms actually manually approve ads from advertisers and make a big effort in native advertising. The problem isn't so much that advertisers are going to always be advertisers and do whatever it takes to make a quick buck, the problem is that the majority of advertising companies simply don't filters anything unless it's explicitly reported to them.

I for one am glad that this is now a subject directly under Google's eyes. I go out of my way to add any advertising network that allows deceptive advertisements to my Adblock Plus filter subscription. The better structure you as a person and if a business a business have the better you'll do in life.

John

[JS_Harris]

I can't even begin to describe how annoying Google results are becoming with all of the warnings I am seeing. Google, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to check for an https version of pages and they display those pages ahead of non https pages. The problem, a lot of webmasters don't realize their host, in their infinite wisdom, apply https to entire ranges of shared plans so an https version of some sites exists without their webmasters knowing.

The result: Hitting the https version from a google search leads to the dreaded "this site is dangerous" warning, but simply removing the s from the URL and the page no longer triggers the warning. HTTPS is causing more problems than it is fixing right now.

[engine]

I've been running searches, as normal, but specifically looking for problems on sites, and so far, i've seen relatively few. I guess, if searching for certain risky listings it's more likely to come across malware or problems.
However, I agree with iamlost, Google could remove it from the SERPs and put the info into either the Search Console, or display the error when someone specifically searches for that site by domain. Site owners are more likely to search by domain for their own site, especially if they do not use the Search Console, which many don't. If the site is set up with malware to catch users, then they deserve not to be listed as all.
If it's a site with ads that have malware, then, I can see why there might want to be an error displayed. Surely, any self-respecting AdSense Publisher will be watching what's going on and will want to know if there's a problem. If it's an AdWords ad, that's up to google fix, imho.

The whole https issue is overblown, imho: Most sites don't need it: It's Google that wants everyone to switch.

[LuckyD]

Ok so I talked to my rep today.
According to him (I don't have it in writing), pubs shouldn't worry about those ads if they are served by AdSense. So relax everyone, we're good :)

[JS_Harris]

Are we good?

- Saying pubs shouldn't worry about those ads if they are served by AdSense is clearly a double standard
- An ad company shouldn't have the ability to change google search results
- The combination of the above smacks of unfair practices in targeting sites using other ad networks

I'm also sick of https at this point. I have a site that has no database, does not have a cart or members or forms or anything else where a visitor can input anything, no ads and not even tracking beyond raw server logs. If/when this site gets the "dangerous" warning for not using https I'm not going to be happy about it because it's not worth the cost of getting https.

[LuckyD]

and not even tracking beyond raw server logs

no Google Analytics and no AdSense or any other ad network?

[JS_Harris]

nothing. It has a few updates about events specific to its subject and is very useful for a small group of hobbyists but it's just a static html page, and that's all it ever will be.

[Mentat]

Those Adsense misleading ads are back (hundreds of them)

[imgur.com...]

The paradox is that the ads are NOT for a malicious software, is for a some kind of IT course!

goo.gl/WR6yiN

[dolcevita]

I have just blocked freeradiocastDOTcom They have big green button 'Download Now' and so far i have seen searching through google they install some kind of Adware/Malware through free toolbar.

If anyone have something else then please share with us.

[not2easy]

Just today I saw one of those big green "Download Now" buttons on an AdSense ad and the product /site name on the ad has a lot more "uninstall" and "malware" results pages showing than anything about their download.

[IanCP]

I saw one of those big green "Download Now" buttons on an AdSense ad [...] a lot more "uninstall" and "malware" results pages showing than anything about their download

Were I to see that Ad, I would complain to AdSense, and quite fairly so. Ridding the internet of rubbish and scammers is in all our own interests.

[not2easy]

Agreed, I was not on my own device when it was spotted. I should visit the same site again to see if it's there regularly.

[tangor]

All of this is Google Theater. Nothing has changed, only the players in the Download Button market. This is a market where G gets a slice off the top. This whack a mole effort, which makes great press, does not solve the underlying problem. The bad actors AND THEIR EXACT SAME METHODS move to a different niche. G will not kill the activity... only kill an offshoot if the noise gets too loud.