Google details how Chrome will begin filtering ads tomorrow

As we reported back in December, Chrome's going to start filtering ads by default this month. Google posted an entry today on the official Chromium blog that talks exactly how the filters will work when they hit production tomorrow. Let's dig in and look at the specifics.

The new information from Google details exactly what will get a site's ads blocked, and how site owners can deal with the problem. Google is part of the Coalition for Better Ads, and Chrome will adhere to a set of criteria called the Better Ads Standards. The chart above shows twelve types of advertising experiences that Google claims users find particularly annoying. Pages with these types of ads are considered to be in violation of the standards. If sites are found to have multiple or repeated violations, they will be marked down as "failing" and that site's ads will be blocked in Chrome. Site owners can check Google's Ad Experience Report to see if their site is in violation, and how to fix it.

Google goes on to describe the process in depth. First, Chrome will check a page to see if it belongs to a site that fails the Better Ads Standards. If so, the site's network requests will be checked against "a list of known ad-related URL patterns." Like most ad-blockers, Chrome will block matching requests at the network level, preventing the content from even being downloaded. Interestingly, the list of filters that Google will be using is based on the popular EasyList ruleset that is commonly used in combination with AdBlock Plus and uBlock Origin, among other blockers. Google admits that even its own services (AdSense and DoubleClick) are included in the rules list.

Google also shared the above screenshot which demonstrates what the blocker looks like for Android users. The company says that desktop users will see a similar notification in the address bar. Upon tapping "Details," users can select to permanently allow ads on the site, or find out why the site's ads were blocked.

The search giant—which makes the overwhelming majority of its income from advertising—is careful to note in the blog post that its goal is to avoid filtering any ads at all. Instead, Google says its intention for the Chrome ad blocker is to improve the web for everyone by eliminating intrusive advertising. The company says that 42% of sites that it informed were failing the Better Ads Standards are now passing the check.

Nobody likes intrusive advertising, so let's hope Google's efforts have the intended effect without having too much of an impact on the bottom line of sites like this one. For our part, we've always had extreme caution to avoid annoying ads on TR, and Google's tests currently show a green checkmark for our ads—as it should be. We hope you'll reward us for that consideration by whitelisting us in your ad blocker or by subscribing.

Comments closed
    • PixelArmy
    • 2 years ago

    I agree with the goal, but Google methodologies are self serving.

    [url<]http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/201802149230/how-google-swayed-efforts-to-block-annoying-online-ads.aspx[/url<] "Google didn't test one of its own most prominent ad formats, the ads that run on YouTube videos for several seconds before users can skip them. The Google spokeswoman said the coalition plans to test video ads in the future. Some of Google's own ads are likely to be blocked by Chrome since non-compliant sites will have all ads blocked, she added." I'm sure they'll get right to that :rolleyes:. In any case, they seem to live in a loophole of "prestitial ads". Technically speaking, the page is loaded w/o an ad, but one could argue the "content" of a YouTube page is the video...

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    Oh thank the heavens for this. Those autoplay ads with sound are so very annoying. Hey marketing *orons, what if we’re somewhere where silence is observed, eh? And of course, those with countdowns. Can’t express my frustration every time my kid is playing a game on my phone and then those ads just pop up and we have to wait 30 eternal seconds for the ad to finish.

    Gotta love marketing people.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    [u<][b<]B[/b<][/u<]etter [u<][b<]A[/b<][/u<]d[b<][u<]s[/b<][/u<] S[u<][b<]ta[/u<][/b<]nda[b<][u<]rds[/u<][/b<]

    • cmrcmk
    • 2 years ago

    Can we simplify the category of “Auto-play video ads with sound” to just be “auto-play video ads”?

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      No.

        • cmrcmk
        • 2 years ago

        Thanks for the feedback.

    • GasBandit
    • 2 years ago

    Do “ads that execute scripts” fall under their filters? I think I’ll keep running AdNauseam for a while, all the same, thanks.

    • dragosmp
    • 2 years ago

    Hear hear Tom’s HW. That is a site that can only be used with an add blocker.

    TR will be fine

    • Stochastic
    • 2 years ago

    I would be willing to subscribe to more sites if their subscription rates were lower. But I follow so many different sites that I can’t justify shelling out for each of them. For instance, I read motorsport.com, but I don’t subscribe to them because the $78 annual fee is just too high for me. I’d probably be willing to pay $30, though.

    Ideally, there would be some kind of pooled subscription service where you would pay a reasonable rate (say $10 or even $15/month). This money would then be distributed to the sites that are a part of this pool based on personal engagement metrics. That way sites that produce engaging content (and not just clickbait) would be rewarded.

    Basically, I want a Netflix for the web.

      • Concupiscence
      • 2 years ago

      You want a content aggregator that takes care of billing, possibly by delivering “packages” of content streams to you and ensuring everyone involved in their production gets a cut. Welcome to the cable TV model, dying for old-fashioned sequential viewing media purposes but potentially having a future in taming the ad-driven horror show that news and entertainment org funding has become on the internet.

        • Stochastic
        • 2 years ago

        Well, there would be some critical differences between my proposed model and the old Cable TV one. Namely:

        1) 10-15$/month vs $100+
        2) No ads vs. constant ads
        3) In my model, revenue would be allocated based on personal engagement metrics. So if you happen to visit a particular site a lot one month, they would get a corresponding slice of your fee.

        • The Egg
        • 2 years ago

        The correct way to do this would be to allow complete freedom of the user. Let the user pick a dollar amount, and then let them choose however many websites they want to receive funds from that amount. It can be an even distribution, or the user can “rank” the websites, and give their top choices a larger cut.

        No forcing of “packages” or tiers whatsoever.

          • Stochastic
          • 2 years ago

          Unless there is some minimum amount, this could be exploited. A lot of people would just pay $1 if they had the option, and this wouldn’t be enough to make up for lost ad revenue when split among multiple sites.

            • The Egg
            • 2 years ago

            You’d have to explain to me how you exploit someone by choosing to give them money. How about they get nothing? If they want to demand a minimum amount else they put up a paywall, that’s their own choice.

            I’d also imagine you’d probably want a minimum donation amount per site, something like 25 cents, 50 cents………..something reasonable.

            • curtisb
            • 2 years ago

            So either the user has “complete freedom” or the content creators have “their own choice” and “a minimum donation amount.” You can’t have it both ways. And thus, the possibility of exploitation.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This