back to article Google slaps mute button on stupid ads that nag you to buy stuff you just looked at

Google says it will allow netizens to block nuisance "reminder" adverts that follow them around across websites. The Mountain View advertising giant said the new feature, launching first on its own sites and in Android apps, will let users rid themselves ads that prod people about products they had previously viewed. You know …

Page:

  1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Nice PR

    This should be "Google improves its ad profits by ensuring that ads which WILL NOT BE CLICKED THROUGH never show up". This is anything but "care for the user" - it is care for its own bottom line and improving the service for its ad platform customers.

    1. DJ Smiley

      Re: Nice PR

      Adverts aren't going away, no matter how much you hate them.

      But, if the adverts can at least be relevant (i.e. not the ones I'm never going to click in 1000 years) then this is surely a good thing, even if the point of it is to make more money for google.

      1. Joe Werner Silver badge

        Re: Nice PR

        Relevant ads... yeah, that would be a new thing.

        How I understand the new feature is that this needs to be done for every single ad, and also for every single autoplaying website. Bloody useful. If you autoplay videos or ads or music or whatever I take my business elsewhere. Exception: the web radio. But adding a single allowed site is easier than muting a ton of idiots.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Nice PR

          If you autoplay videos or ads or music or whatever I take my business elsewhere.

          I use Firefox with "media.autoplay.enabled=false"

        2. katrinab Silver badge

          Re: Nice PR

          No execptions for autoplay needed. If I am visiting a website to listen to audio or watch video, pressing a play button is not a big problem.

      2. Lysenko

        Re: Nice PR

        Adverts aren't going away, no matter how much you hate them.

        You can already opt out of adverts. With uBlock Origin (and AdGuard on mobile) the web is essentially an advert-free zone. I also funnel traffic through Squid as well, just in case the opposition find a new way to launch a sneak attack.

        These steps by Google are really just attempting to take the edge off the frustration of the (critical) masses and (hopefully) dissuade them from adopting a scorched Earth policy like me.

        NB: I do whitelist this place most of the time, but the ads are still extremely annoying. If I just reconfigure Squid (or OpenWrt) to allow ads to download but deep six them to /dev/null, are the enemy sophisticated enough to detect that? I'm prepared to add PhantomJS to the mix if necessary to defeat any JS, browser detection, phone home shenanigans if need be (not that different in principle to a webapp test runner).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nice PR

          Adverts aren't going away, no matter how much you hate them.

          There are adverts on the internet? I sure don't see any.

      3. jelabarre59

        Re: Nice PR

        Adverts aren't going away, no matter how much you hate them.

        But, if the adverts can at least be relevant...

        There have been plenty of items I haven't bought (that I had previously considered buying) precisely because the ads started following me around. Amazon and others act like creepy stalkers, and they need a court's "restraining order" to slap them a few times.

        I have NO problem with advertising, I understand sites need to pay the bills too. I just despise loud autoplay ads, and the stalker advertising. Polite ads that don't blare in my face, and are interested in my particular "target audience" rather than me in particular, I might even click through to some. But you offend or piss me off, and you get the finger and close-tab button.

      4. JohnFen

        Re: Nice PR

        "Adverts aren't going away, no matter how much you hate them."

        I don't hate ads. I hate the tracking that comes with them.

        " if the adverts can at least be relevant (i.e. not the ones I'm never going to click in 1000 years) then this is surely a good thing"

        No, it's the exact opposite of a "good thing". In order to do that, they need to engage in tracking -- which is something that is completely unacceptable to me.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nice PR

          Why is tracking unacceptable? Please tell. And don't try to use BS real life analogies that are totally bogus, you already sound like a nutter, don't make it worse

          1. JohnFen

            Re: Nice PR

            "Why is tracking unacceptable?"

            Because I find it unacceptable. That's plenty reason enough.

            "you already sound like a nutter"

            Ah, thank you for relieving me of the need to respond to you further.

      5. RegGuy1 Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Adverts aren't going away, no matter how much you hate them

        Bollocks! I don't get any ads.

        Change your hosts file. Lots of examples out there, eg:

        https://www.howtogeek.com/140576/how-to-edit-the-hosts-file-on-android-and-block-web-sites/

        Of course you need to root your device, which is why the cunts lock you out of your own phone.

    2. John Lilburne

      Re: Nice PR

      ... and apparently for it to work you need to be logged into a Google account. So in order to kill tracker ads you need to be logged into account that tracks you anyway.

    3. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Nice PR

      Show us on the doll where Google hurt you.

      C.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Nice PR

        I don't think I've ever seen a doll with an area labeled "massive invasion of personal privacy on a global scale". Can I buy one online? Is there a pr0n version?

        (Don't ask me to google it. Ta.)

        1. Chemical Bob
          Devil

          Re: Nice PR

          "I don't think I've ever seen a doll with an area labeled "massive invasion of personal privacy on a global scale". Can I buy one online? Is there a pr0n version?"

          Google goatse....

      2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Nice PR

        Show us on the doll where Google hurt you.

        Same place as you - in the ad revenues region. Somewhere near me tenders.

      3. Tikimon
        FAIL

        Re: Nice PR

        Show us on the doll where the bully's taunts hurt you.

        Show us on the doll where being stalked by a stranger hurt you.

        Show us on the doll where your mentally abusive spouse hurt you.

        You, sir, are an ass to make such a statement. Do you tell rape victims to relax and enjoy it too?

    4. Solviva

      Re: Nice PR

      What would be really smart would be Google seeing I've been looking at e.g. a red widgets, scan my gmail inbox for the order confirmation of me purchasing said red widget, and then not pointlessly displaying ads for red widgets for the rest of the week. I only want one!

      1. Lysenko

        Re: Nice PR

        What would be really smart would be Google seeing I've been looking at e.g. a red widgets, scan my gmail inbox for the order confirmation of me purchasing said red widget, and then not pointlessly displaying ads for red widgets for the rest of the week. I only want one!

        Google is smarter than that. They know you're involved in IT, so you understand the value of backups and redundancy. Ownership of (only) one red widget implies you need a hot spare and another couple for your DR site ;)

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nice PR

      "This is anything but "care for the user" - it is care for its own bottom line and improving the service for its ad platform customers."

      Contented pigs make better bacon.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    bit by bit a simple minimal browser is getting more bloat ware. There is already a mute tab. Tracking the ads across all tabs and sites will surely slow it down?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can't remember the last time I...

    Clicked on an Ad for anything.

    I actively avoid anything that is advertised to me. I know it is for things that I don't want, don't need and can't afford OR have just bought (hey Bezos, I'm looking at you here!!!!!!!!!).

    For an ever larger part of the population Ads are an irrelvancy and are just a waste of time.

    The growing numbers of us Grumpy Oldies have been there, done that and even wasted money on crap that was advertised to us in the past. We HATE ALL Adverts.

    The sooner all Ad Agencies are nuked the better (In our humble opinion)

    Bah Humbug!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can't remember the last time I...

      Well, finally someone is doing something about annoying ads -- too bad I found about uBlock & friends first.

    2. Whitter
      Mushroom

      Re: Can't remember the last time I...

      It's rather odd that given all this personalised ad tracking, they have yet to flag people who just don't click on ads and so don't bother showing them any. A clear win for both the user and advertiser. Google is the only looser. Ah! I see the problem now...!

      1. John Presland

        Re: Can't remember the last time I...

        loser

    3. Guevera

      Re: Can't remember the last time I...

      But nobody cares about grumpy olds. All they do is lower CPM. Online ads aren't quite as bad as TV in this respect, but it's getting there. Depending on the market, the minute you hit 54, or 49, or even 34(!) you're dead to them.

      1. Col_Panek
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Can't remember the last time I...

        I'm 70 and retired, yet I just got shown ads for a trailer hitch for my Focus, in case I need to get a few more!

      2. Jeffrey Nonken

        Re: Can't remember the last time I...

        "Depending on the market, the minute you hit 54, or 49, or even 34(!) you're dead to them."

        Oh, how I wish.

    4. skalamanga

      Re: Can't remember the last time I...

      My personal policy on advertising is that I don't ignore it, I make a note of it. If I ever need the advertised product, I'll hunt around for the advertisers competitors and purchase from them instead.

      It is therefore, in an advertisers best interest that I keep my adblocking router fully up to date, as there will be a 100% greater possibility that I may purchase their goods or services if I have not been subjected to their ads.

  4. werdsmith Silver badge

    Irrelevant Relevance

    I think it's about time the idiots stopped pushing me adverts for stuff I've just bought and won't be buying another because as I'm already the proud owner of one I don't need to.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Irrelevant Relevance

      Don't be dumb, you need to buy another iPad, in fact you need at least 45 in your life.

    2. skalamanga

      Re: Irrelevant Relevance

      I remember getting bombarded with email ads for car stereos, by a site I just purchased a car stereo from. Logic just escapes some people

  5. jake Silver badge

    Personally, I put the mute button on google.

    Google's entire IP-space has been shunned here for over ten years ... hasn't affected my so-called "internet experience", near as I can tell. Try it. You might like it.

    dig TXT +short _netblocks{,2,3}.google.com | tr ' ' '\n' | grep '^ip4'

    That's not an exclusive list, but it's a good start ...

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: hasn't affected my so-called "internet experience", near as I can tell.

      How would you know?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: hasn't affected my so-called "internet experience", near as I can tell.

        The phrase "near as I can tell" has meaning. Perhaps you should parse it?

        One thing I'm 100% certain of is that I don't have any of the google-angst displayed in this thread.

  6. Milton

    Does Google really not get it?

    Even from comments here it's obvious I am far from being the only one who simply ignores adverts. I don't mean "Take a look, then ignore": I mean I barely even notice them. There are too many. They are too rubbish. They're cheap, shoddy, stupid. They are not relevant. Even when I do notice an ad, often as not it's something I already bought, or looked at and have already decided not to buy.

    It's some kind of mindless stupidity that decides that if ads aren't working, you'll hurl more and more truly awful ones in front of people. Google and the imbeciles who pay it for ads are actively deterring and annoying the thing they dearly want: interested, engaged eyeballs. By this point many of us, forced to notice a particularly annoying advert, actually develop antipathy towards the seller, achieving precisely the opposite of what was intended.

    It's wise for Google to be diversifying away from advertising, because even its most gullible customers must be figuring out that they are on a loser: if internet advertising is less and less effective every single day—why is anyone seriously paying money for it? Do they actually trust Google's and the agencies' repeatedly-debunked lies about clicks, visits, sales and the rest? With the entire ecosystem infested by robots, and businesses specifically devoted to ripping people off?

    It's a grossly overused quote, I'm afraid, but perhaps it's used a lot because people are, in fact, so bloody greedy and stupid: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (—sometimes attributed to Einstein)

    1. ratfox

      Re: Does Google really not get it?

      The surprising thing is, Google only makes money when people click on ads... And Google makes a shitload of money. So yeah, somewhere, somehow, there must be a lot of people clicking on ads. I don't know who they are either.

      As for why people are paying for ads... Well, maybe it's working for them. Or they're stupid. Who knows? In any case, Google is definitely getting it. The money, I mean.

      1. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: Does Google really not get it?

        "As for why people are paying for ads..."

        I think the saying - 50% of my spend on advertising is wasted, I just can't tell which 50%

      2. ArrZarr Silver badge

        Re: Does Google really not get it?

        @Ratfox There is also the "Cost per thousand impressions" (CPM, don't ask me why it's an M) model which works like it sounds.

        1. tiggity Silver badge

          Re: Does Google really not get it?

          @ ArrZarr

          Maybe its an M because M is Roman numeral for a thousand

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Maybe its an M because M is Roman numeral for a thousand

            Not very SI, is it? Should be CPk :-)

            CPM is clearly an old operating system, er, I mean, Cost Per Mega-impressions :-)

        2. Guevera

          Re: Does Google really not get it?

          Cost per mille. It's Latin afaik. That's why, but it still makes zero sense.

          And yeah, some ads pay only on click, but those are the minority.

          Major advertisers are trying to build brand awareness as much as anything. They don't think you'll buy a widget today. They just want you to think of their widgets when u finally do.

          The 'half my advertising is wasted line was from a Philadelphia department store mogul way back in the day. He wasn't wrong. But for advertising quotes I prefer the line from a NY Post ad pitch: 'But your readers are our shoplifters.'

        3. Col_Panek

          Re: Does Google really not get it?

          M = mille, one thousand. Your French lesson pour aujourd'hui

        4. jake Silver badge

          Re: Does Google really not get it?

          "don't ask me why it's an M"

          It's a holdover from the printing world.

        5. JohnFen

          Re: Does Google really not get it?

          "don't ask me why it's an M"

          Because it's short for "mille", which is Latin for "1,000" This is also where we get the prefix "milli-", meaning 1/1000th of something.

        6. Jeffrey Nonken

          Re: Does Google really not get it?

          "There is also the "Cost per thousand impressions" (CPM, don't ask me why it's an M)..."

          What's the Roman numeral for 1000?

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Does Google really not get it?

            "What's the Roman numeral for 1000?"

            To the Romans it was the Greek letter "phi". This was later stylized into CIƆ, which in Medieval times was changed to the easier to write (carve, chisel, whatever) letter "M". Note that "M" being an abbreviation for "mille" is purely coincidental.

            "M" is used instead of the seemingly more obvious "K" when the user means "per 1000 units or impressions" in various industries for the simple reason that those industries existed long before the new-fangled metric system was an itch in Simon Stevin's pants.

            HOWEVER, when ordering a lot of small parts make absolutely certain that the vendor actually means "per 1000" and hasn't "helpfully" "modernized" the use of "M" to mean one million. If you don't, you'll wind up with an argument over who owns 10,000,000 3" nursery pots ... I got the shipment stopped at about 1,000,000 delivered or in transit. We settled out of court, with me purchasing the shipped lot at manufacturing cost. I'm still using them over ten years later ...

      3. John Lilburne

        Re: Does Google really not get it?

        > So yeah, somewhere, somehow, there must be a lot of people clicking on ads.

        Well if you stuff enough ads on a page chances are that someone will miss mouse or tap on it. Then HEY PRESTO you have a click.

      4. hellwig

        Re: Does Google really not get it? (clicking ads)

        So, who clicks ads? Probably bots and scam networks, or even competitors with no intention of buying, but driving up their competitor's advertising costs.

        Why do companies pay for the ads? Well, someone is clicking them, so it must be working right?

        It's the same with the Bitcoin bubble. Why did the price go up? Because people kept saying the price would go up, so more people bought bitcoin, driving up the price. Then when people stopped seeing their returns, they sold off/stopped buying, lowering the price, priming it for a nice price increase, assuming people start buying bitcoin again in the anticipation of increased prices.

        I could go on, but you see the pattern, right?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like