Forum Moderators: open
... It's been said that google is going to start penalising sites that have pop-ups interms of page ranking. Fact or fiction?
Chris.
Seriously though, I also cant see Google doing this and I agree with many of the arguements made. I've gone back to my colleague saying I don't think it will happen with some evidence why and a link to this thread for opinions :).
Thanks again Guys,
Chris.
<snip> sorry, Chris: we can't do any quotes from private email, TOS is very clear here</snip>
rephrased it says their guidelines do not allow for sites to popup popups upon entering or leaving the site, with popups being any additional window. reason given is that popups discourage users from clicking on adwords.
Chris.
Mods, if you need to snip the quote please feel free. How much I can quote is still a gray area too me (even after reading the TOS twice before posting this).
[edited by: heini at 4:48 pm (utc) on Sep. 10, 2002]
[adwords.google.com...]
Close, but unfortunately not the whole truth. Search engines often present the sites users need to see, and, if by any circumstance, the site holding the "good" content is filled of popups the search engine still needs to place it above of the clean "bad" content, even when the former is more evil and insidious.
I fully understand the point of some comments: use google as a deterrent to keep at bay the crazy dudes that still pop up windows at the expense of everyone's bandwidth, memory and even CPU and display resources in the case of flash advertisements, but when looking on a search engine the target is not a clean site, it is a site with the content I need. Same story when asking "Why doesn't google rewards XHTML1.1 compliant sites?" For the search engine the content must be more valuable. Let the clients run away if they want once they see the popup, I say.
Now, as said before, apparently this rule does not get applied in all cases.
My impression is, Google has this rule for two reasons:
- they wish sites would not use popups, because they suggest it interferes with the users adwords surfing experience
- it's good to have this rule to fall back later on if needed.
Anything I said applies only to the search engine results, they can do as they want with adwords, can't they?
I was only saying, when I (on an egotism rampage) make a search, it wouldn't be good for myself if the search results were modified so the evilish sites fell to the bottom. Some of these evil places have something good to say.
a good sign for knowing if popups are to be punished in the future is to keep an eye if the popup disapears at toolbar.google.com.
As long as it's there, don't worry.
... It's been said that google is going to start penalising sites that have pop-ups interms of page ranking. Fact or fiction?
Fiction: your colleague probably erroneously interpreted Google's battle against scumware [webmasterworld.com] as an anti-popup crusade.
question:
i still have the text window.open on the site but a window only opens when you click a link.
This way i can dimension the window opening, so people can browse galleries without having to type in the homepage everytime they close their window.
Normally we use Target="_blank" or "_new"
this window.open code is not gonna hurt me right?
And, it's not so difficult, for the spiders, to understand some plain text js code.
But, and here come the big technical question, what about the encrypted js?
I don't mean, of course, only the Micro$oft jscript.encode.
I may give some examples of C/Perl little progs, who make an auto-decrypting encrypted jscript from a not-encrypted one, anytime in a different way.
This mean, for the 'spiders', a lot of CPU time expended, if anytime they must act as a real browser [MSIE..].
Simple example:
I put some encrypted pop-ups in my site.
I know the CPU load for executing these js is high, but acceptable for my clients PC's.
But I imagine also the point of view of Googlebot..
"So what?!
Would I have to spend my precious time in all this 40k of encrypted garbage?"
It's not so easy, trust me.
But, on the other hand, I think that
90% of pop-ups are spam.
P.S. I hate pop-ups.
I have removed pop-ups from my sites 1 year ago.
[This has not saved me from being dropped hehe.
So, in a completely egoistic way, it's obvious that I hope, with some other people here I think,
an incoming Google penalty for this.]
cminblues
[edited by: cminblues at 2:09 am (utc) on Sep. 15, 2002]
So what?!
Would I have to spend my precious time in all this 40k of encrypted garbage?
40k of line noise is not very relevant, so there goes the ranking... I don't think that losing such ground at the 100k boundary could be a good idea at all, I guess
<added> Silly me... that wouldn't be at the main file, surely would be externally linked... </added>
[edited by: Duckula at 1:24 am (utc) on Sep. 15, 2002]
<added> Yes, Duckula ;) </added>
In my example, the js code may be an external .js file, so:
- No boundary-100k issue.
- Lot of work for Googlebot [or something else on Google's PCs..],
only in understanding what this js do.
cminblues
Everyone else they don't care about.
I don't have a problem with that. It makes sense that they would want the Adwords experience to be pleasant for the surfers, i.e. NO POP-UPS.
1]--- The large majority of pop-ups, are, in fact, spam, or not?
2]--- About this, what is the Google-Thinking?
a) - "I don't mind about pop-ups in not-my-adwords-sites-sponsor"
b) - "I'm not able to understand the difference from good and bad pop-ups"
c) - "I don't care about pop-ups. I care only about pages ranking.
Pop-ups are accessories."
cminblues
