There’s a reason Google asks, “Do your pages avoid using intrusive interstitials?”
In 25 years of professional website development and SEO practice, I have consistently observed that the most resilient websites are those built on a foundation of user trust.
A primary factor that erodes this trust is the obstruction of content.
When a visitor arrives at your page from a search result, their immediate goal is to access information.
Any element that blocks this access – what Google’s official guidelines term “intrusive interstitials” – creates friction, provides a poor user experience, and can lead to higher bounce rates.
This guide provides a definitive, guideline-adherent framework for implementing website dialogues, pop-ups, and banners.
It is based on a direct analysis of Google’s documentation and two decades of experience auditing thousands of websites.
The objective is to help you achieve marketing goals without compromising content accessibility, thereby strengthening your site’s performance within Google’s Page Experience ranking system.
The Evidence: DOJ Trial Revelations and the 2024 Google Leak
The long-held advice to prioritise user experience has been powerfully validated by two recent landmark events: the U.S. DOJ antitrust trial and the 2024 Google leak of its internal API documentation.
Together, they provide a clear, evidence-based picture of the systems that measure and rank websites based on user satisfaction.
The DOJ Trial’s Confirmation of Navboost
The antitrust trial provided the first major public confirmation of a critical re-ranking system called Navboost.
Testimony from Google executive Pandu Nayak revealed that Navboost is “one of the important signals that we have” and that it uses vast amounts of user click data to refine search results.
The system, which remembers clicks for up to 13 months, essentially treats user clicks as votes to determine a page’s relevance and quality. The trial also brought to light the use of Chrome browser data to generate a “Popularity Signal (P*),” further confirming that Google measures user engagement beyond the search results page.
The 2024 Leak’s Technical Validation
The 2024 Content Warehouse leak provided the granular, technical “how” behind the trial’s realisations. It confirmed that Navboost tracks specific metrics like goodClicks, badClicks, and lastLongestClick.
An intrusive interstitial is a primary cause of negative signals for this system.
In my other article about whether ads on your website are killing your SEO, I shared “The violatesMobileInterstitialPolicy is a straightforward boolean (true/false) attribute that demotes a page for violating the mobile interstitial policy. However, the leak also reveals a more nuanced counterpart: adsDensityInterstitialViolationStrength. This attribute provides a scaled integer from 0 to 1000, indicating not just if a page violates the mobile ads density policy, but the strength of that violation.“.
When a user clicks a result, hits a pop-up, and immediately returns to the search page (a behaviour known as “pogo-sticking”), it generates a badClick.
This prevents the page from earning a lastLongestClick, a powerful signal that the user’s search ended successfully on that page.
Mobile-Specific Data and Ranking
The leak provided proof of a deep, granular focus on the mobile experience. The user click data fed into Navboost is segmented by device, with a specific attribute for “m” – mobile devices.
Furthermore, modules like legacyperdocdata confirm the existence of a distinct mobileCwv (Mobile Core Web Vitals) metric, with the module’s description stating the data is explicitly “used for ranking changes.”
This proves that the mobile experience is measured independently and that negative mobile-specific signals directly impact rankings.
Page Quality and Effort Scores
The leak revealed specific page-level quality scores.
The pageQuality (PQ) attribute is used to measure a page’s overall quality, with documentation noting that Google uses LLMs to estimate the “effort” put into creating the content.
An intrusive interstitial is a hallmark of a low-effort, user-hostile page that prioritises promotion over content value. This is further supported by a specific demotion factor for a Poor navigational experience.
Chrome Data and siteAuthority
The documents strongly suggest that Google uses data from its Chrome browser to assess site-wide quality and popularity. The leak also confirmed a metric called siteAuthority.
While a single pop-up won’t destroy this score, a site-wide pattern of user-hostile elements erodes trust and would logically contribute to a lower overall authority score over time.
SERP Demotions
The leak detailed “twiddlers” – functions that adjust rankings – and specific demotion factors, including “SERP Demotion,” which is based on user dissatisfaction observed from the search results page.
A high rate of immediate bounces caused by intrusive pop-ups is one of the clearest signals of user dissatisfaction, making a page a prime candidate for this type of demotion.
The ‘Why’ Behind the Penalty: Page Experience and Helpful Content
It’s crucial to see it from Google’s perspective.
The intrusive interstitial signal is not an isolated rule; it is a core component of the broader Page Experience update, which aims to provide a “holistic picture of the quality of a user’s experience,” according to Google’s Sowmya Subramanian.
Google’s documentation states that “interrupting users with intrusive interstitials may frustrate them and erode their trust in your website”.
This set of signals measures how users perceive the experience of interacting with a web page beyond its pure information value. It includes metrics like Core Web Vitals (loading performance, interactivity, and visual stability), mobile-friendliness, and HTTPS security.
The perspective of Google’s human raters provides further clarity, as their guidelines state that pages with features that “interrupt or distract from using the MC [Main Content] should be given a Low rating.”
Furthermore, “intrusive dialogues and interstitials make it hard for Google and other search engines to understand your content, which may lead to poor search performance”.
Defining the Challenge: Content Accessibility vs. Interruption
According to Google, “Intrusive interstitials and dialogues are page elements that obstruct users’ view of the content, usually for promotional purposes“.
The element becomes “intrusive” when it makes page content less accessible, particularly on mobile devices where screen real estate is limited.
This is not a subjective measure. Google has explicitly defined this as a negative ranking factor for mobile search results since 2017 and has integrated it into the core Page Experience signals.
A page that frustrates a user upon arrival is failing at its primary purpose. This can directly lead to a loss of visitor trust, which search engines can interpret as a low-quality signal.
Google’s Official Position: Penalised Interstitial Techniques
To ensure compliance, it is critical to understand the specific techniques that Google’s developer documentation identifies as harmful. In 2016, Google Product Manager Doantam Phan laid out the primary examples:
“Here are some examples of techniques that make content less accessible to a user:
- Showing a popup that covers the main content, either immediately after the user navigates to a page from the search results, or while they are looking through the page.
- Displaying a standalone interstitial that the user has to dismiss before accessing the main content.
- Using a layout where the above-the-fold portion of the page appears similar to a standalone interstitial, but the original content has been inlined underneath the fold.“
Our audits frequently uncover these three primary violations:
- Content-Obscuring Pop-ups: A modal window, often with a dark, semi-transparent background that dims the page, that appears over the main content immediately upon a user’s arrival from search results, or while they are actively reading.
- Standalone, Pre-Content Gates: A full-page interstitial that forces the user to take an action (like dismissing the ad) before any of the main page content can be accessed.
- Above-the-Fold Mimicry: A page layout where the visible portion of the screen (the “above-the-fold” area) is designed to resemble a standalone interstitial. As former Google engineer Matt Cutts noted, ‘sites that don’t have much content “above-the-fold” can be affected’ by this type of page layout penalty.
Another common mistake is to “redirect the user to a separate page for their consent or input,” as this can prevent Google from properly crawling and indexing the original content.
Permitted and Responsible Implementations: A Guideline-Based Approach
Google’s framework acknowledges the necessity of certain dialogues. Responsible implementation of these elements is not penalised. Based on Google’s official documentation, the following are considered acceptable:
- Legal and Compliance Dialogues: Certain sites are required to show an interstitial, and these are exempt from penalty. For example, “a casino site may need to show an age gate, which is a type of interstitial where the user must provide their age before accessing the content”. This category also includes banners required to comply with privacy regulations like the GDPR.
- Access Control Dialogues: Login forms for content that is not publicly indexable, such as private user accounts or information behind a secure paywall.
- Unobtrusive Banners: Banners are the recommended alternative to intrusive pop-ups. Google advises to “use banners that take up only a small fraction of the screen to grab your users’ attention”. To be considered responsible, a banner must:
- Use a “reasonable amount of screen space.” While not officially defined, a widely accepted best practice is to occupy no more than 15-25% of the mobile viewport.
- Be “easily dismissible,” with a clear and functional close mechanism.
A Strategic Framework for People-First Dialogues
Moving beyond simple compliance, an effective dialogue strategy should actively enhance the user experience. This isn’t just about avoiding a Google penalty; it’s about respecting the user, which has been a principle of good design long before search engines existed.
As usability experts, Nielsen Norman Group noted: “The popups of the early 2000s have reincarnated as modal windows, and are hated just as viscerally today as they were over a decade ago.” The following best practices are designed to balance marketing objectives with this people-first approach.
Respect User Intent with Strategic Timing
The moment a user lands on a page is the most critical. Avoid immediate interruptions. Instead, deploy triggers that align with the user journey.
- Exit-Intent: This is often the least intrusive method. The dialogue is triggered only when the user signals an intent to leave the page. Google’s John Mueller has confirmed this approach is not targeted by the interstitial penalty.
- Behavioural Triggers: Use time-on-page (e.g., 15-30 seconds) or scroll-depth (e.g., 50-70% of the page) as signals of user engagement before presenting a dialogue. This respects the user’s initial intent to consume content.
Provide a Clear and Compelling Value Exchange
A dialogue is a request for a user’s attention. This request is more likely to be granted if it offers genuine, immediate value. Vague calls-to-action are less effective than specific, valuable offers such as “Get 20% off your first order,” “Claim your free shipping,” or “Download the free setup checklist”.
Ensure Flawless Mobile Functionality
Mobile usability is non-negotiable.
- Responsive Design: The dialogue must adapt seamlessly to all screen sizes without breaking the page layout. Keep forms simple and avoid asking for too much information.
- Accessible Tap Targets: Buttons and close icons must be large enough and spaced appropriately to be easily tapped without accidental clicks.
Integrate with Your Brand Identity
A dialogue should feel like a cohesive part of the website, not a third-party intrusion. Maintain brand consistency in typography, colour palette, and tone of voice to build trust and familiarity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Are all pop-ups bad for SEO?
No, not all pop-ups are bad for SEO. Google’s penalty specifically targets intrusive interstitials on mobile that harm the user experience. Non-intrusive banners, legally required dialogues, and pop-ups on desktop or between pages on your site (not on the initial landing from search) are generally not penalised.
Do exit-intent pop-ups hurt my rankings?
Currently, no. Google has confirmed that pop-ups triggered by a user’s intent to leave the page are not targeted by the intrusive interstitial penalty. This is because they do not interrupt the user’s initial attempt to access the content.
How much of the screen can a banner take up?
Google advises using a “reasonable amount of screen space”. While there is no official percentage, a common industry best practice is to ensure banners take up no more than 15-25% of the screen, particularly on mobile devices.
Conclusion: Prioritising Accessibility for Long-Term Success
The intrusive interstitial “signal”, now reinforced by insights from both the DOJ trial and the 2024 leak, is a clear indicator of Google’s long-term strategic direction: to rank websites that prioritise a positive, accessible, and trustworthy user experience.
The trial provided the official confirmation, and the leak provided the technical “why,” confirming that negative user engagement signals are measured, segmented by device, and used in powerful ranking systems.
By moving away from interruption-based marketing tactics and adopting a people-first framework for website dialogues, you align your website with this direction. The most effective approach is to view every element on your page through the lens of content accessibility.
Does this dialogue help or hinder the user in achieving their goal? Answering this question honestly is the key to building a website that earns the trust of both users and search engines, creating a durable foundation for organic growth.
About the Author
Shaun Anderson, the founder of hobo web, offers nearly 25 years of expertise rooted in the core principles of web accessibility and user-first design. This foundational knowledge directly informs his specialisation in Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), allowing him to approach today’s technical challenges with a perspective that prioritises user trust – a central theme of the preceding article.
While his early work earned accolades like the 2006 SFEU Scottish Colleges Marketing Gold Award, his recent recognition highlights his influence on the modern search landscape. In 2025, Shaun was named a “Top Global AI SEO Expert“ for his authority in deciphering complex search systems, and the hobo web blog was ranked the #1 UK SEO Blog by Feedspot, underscoring its role as a leading resource for in-depth analysis.
This unique career path allows Shaun to bridge the gap between foundational accessibility guidelines and the technical realities of Google’s Page Experience signals. He delivers cutting-edge SEO strategies that achieve high visibility by focusing on the crucial balance of user satisfaction and technical excellence, ensuring sustainable and tangible results.