Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Oct 2013 16:02 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Google

Google back in 2005:

There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages.

Google today:

The company confirmed to the Guardian that it is testing a system with about 30 advertisers in the US in which it shows banner ads for companies including SouthWest Airlines on pages which include them in web search results.

And people wonder why I have zero trust in companies.

Thread beginning with comment 575518
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Completely expected
by deathshadow on Fri 25th Oct 2013 08:10 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

This just goes with what I've been saying for a few years now -- pretty much since they started crapping all over the accessibility with javascript, fixed metric fonts, and illegible color contrasts -- they are slowly forgetting what it was that made them better than other searches (and sorry to say it was NOT results that did it) -- that being clean accessible bandwidth lean search.

Very rapidly they are adding more and more garbage that reminds me of what BURIED services like "Ask Jeeves" - Auto-loading on the memory hogging image search, endless goofy javascript for nothing with no graceful fallbacks, and on the whole reeking badly of "WCAG, WHAT'S THAT?!?"

You can even see the newfound designer ineptitude on the home page (though at least they FINALLY axed that stupid malfing black menu)... the white on light blue buttons have a contrast well below 50%, and even though the other buttons are #444444 on #F2F2F2 (67% contrast) the narrow small px metric fonts result in most font smoothings brightens that FG color as high as that 50% legibility minimum.

Worse though is what's going on under the hood -- One of of not THE highest traffic websites on the Internet -- and they have static scripting AND static CSS inlined in the markup? REALLY? So... The current Google developers have never heard of CACHING?!? Hardly a shock then it's a massive 123k every time a pageload is done to deliver 201 bytes of plaintext, one INPUT, and one image that I'm not sure even belongs in the markup! (of course given some of the retard advice coming out of services like Google pagespeed and yslow... makes one wonder if they even understand the technology they're deploying on!)

Graceful degradation? What's that?!? Semantic markup? Never heard of it... AND THEN they go full hog bandwidth wasting ajax-tardery with the content delivered by it so grossly inefficient it likely consumes three times what they were doing a decade ago -- for nothing of any real value. They've trawled way too deep into the "pageloads are evil" nonsense, and most likely it's costing them far more than they realize.

It's a shame nobody with the proper backing has made a real effort to take them down in the search arena. Closest we have is duckDuckGo, and to be frank they started out on the right path, but their current efforts grow worse and worse daily in this regard... the stupid slide-in animation on load, AJAX-tardery in an attempt to sweep crappy code practices under the rug -- it's the exact same crap I thought they were founded to fight!

Though hardly a shock in the age of idoitic BS like "jQuery for everything" and people DUMB ENOUGH to think that HTML 5 so far as MARKUP is concerned (the entire point I thought of a MARKUP specification) provides ANYTHING of value... As opposed to it's real purpose being the new transitional, setting coding practices back a decade and a half, actively encouraging people to sleaze out markup any old way, pissing all over semantics in the name of semantics and on the whole being reduced to little more than a new sick buzzword akin to "Web 2.0"

Of course, Google going advert happy is hardly a surprise since Adsense has been their big cash cow for almost a decade. As we move closer and closer to the new dotcom bust (Mark my words, it IS coming). We're seeing the same "advertising can pay for everything" BS we saw back during the netzero/bluelight days. As revenues shrink due to the economy and more people start rubbing brain-cells together to install ad-Blocks, the advertising is going to get more and more obnoxious and in your face (remember popup hell circa the end of the 1990's?) to try and squeeze every last dime out of us.

Of course, I remember the pre 2001 world of web -- it's why I don't trust advertisers as far as I could throw the big stick. (aka the USS IOWA, last of the Battleships). Advertisers online do NOT have a track record that engenders anything resembling trust -- Which is just part of why I think anyone not running a browser with a built in ad-block (like opera 12/lower) or the ability to add an ad-blocking extension (FF/Chrome) is just asking for malware, spyware, and in general bending over painting a bullseye on their rectum in a men's prison. Also see why I'm pissed with the steaming pile of cripple-ware known as Chrome with the Opera logo slapped on it any old way...

Seriously, if you are looking for the biggest "wretched hive of scum and villainy" online, look no further than the advertising community -- and right now Google by way of AdSense is the big dog in the yard; and like anyone else who's on top when things start to tumble, they've got more to lose by way of farther to fall. As revenues continue to decline, you'll be seeing more and more acts of desperation like this one.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Completely expected
by darknexus on Fri 25th Oct 2013 10:10 in reply to "Completely expected"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

What scares me even more than a return to the days of pop-ups is the malware that is likely to be hidden in them. There was a time near the end of the .com era that you couldn't even go online without taking proper security measures unless you wanted to get viruses, ad malware, spyware, and every other damn rotten thing in existence. Even if you did take all precautions you were still wise to disinfect your computer every other day or so. That was one of several things that really got me interested in alternate operating systems in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Completely expected
by deathshadow on Fri 25th Oct 2013 12:02 in reply to "RE: Completely expected"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Made even MORE scary by many of those alternatives being significantly less secure than people think. While Linux may be semi-passable (though for all the TALK about Open Sores being better...) you look at the Mac world, and given how ridiculously vulnerable that platform is (who's first trashed at EVERY pwn2Own?) the only reason I can figure that platform isn't hell is a lack of interest, insufficient audience size, or just plain pity -- as if hackers think Mac users are already suffering enough.

That could change overnight as the scam artists masquerading as serious businessmen known as advertising executives get more and more desperate.

Reply Parent Score: 2