Update: The tips have, at least temporarily, been removed.
Call me naive: I think you can make a lot of money, go public, even monopolize a market, and still retain a moral compass that points in the direction of Google’s stated top priority—users.
But Google lost me today:
Google is now displaying “tips” that point searchers to Google Calendar, Blogger and Picasa for any search phrase that includes “calendar” (e.g. Yahoo calendar), “blog” and “photo sharing,” respectively. This is clearly bad for competitors, and it’s also a bad sign for Google. But I generally support anything that benefits users, even if it’s controversial. I believe, for instance, that shipping Internet Explorer with Windows was a good move. So why are tips bad for users?
First, some notes. One, Yahoo and Ask already do this, but they didn’t build their businesses on the promise of being unconventionally trustworthy. I care that Google is doing it because the company’s integrity over the years has impressed me and earned my loyalty. And two, Google has been doing similar things for awhile. Search The Holiday and you’ll get a special box pointing to reviews of and tickets for the movie. The difference is that this is still a filter on the Web; the reviews link to their sources and the tickets link to Fandango. Google may share the Fandango revenue and certainly shuts out competitors, but as a user, I get better service than I would without the box.
The tips are different—and bad for users—because the services they recommend are not the best in their class. If Google wants to make it faster and easier for users to manage events, create a blog or share photos, it could do what it does when you search GOOG: link to the best services. To prevent Google from being the gatekeeper, the company could identify the services algorithmically.
But if that sounds familiar, perhaps that’s because Google already works that way. After all, Google is predicated on the idea that the democratic structure of the Web will push the cream to the top. Search for “photo sharing” and you should already get the highest quality services. According to Google, Picasa is not one of them. These “tips,” then, can only be a tacit admission of failure: either the company does not believe in its own search technology, or it does not believe its products are good enough to rise to the top organically. I’d guess the latter. And if I were on the Calendar, Blogger or Picasa teams, I wouldn’t be celebrating the news that my employer has lost faith in me.
Implications for advertisers
Google has been advertising its own products through AdWords for some time, and I see nothing wrong with that. The protest that unjustifiably erupted three weeks ago questioned the positioning of these ads. As advertisers began making antitrust overtures, Walter H. from Google Marketing stepped in to sooth nerves (emphasis mine):
We’re quite proud of the advertising platform we’ve built and it simply makes sense for us to use it. At the same time, the trust of both our users and our advertisers is of paramount importance. We honor that responsibility, and work hard to earn and keep that trust.
What changed in three weeks?
While advertisers compete to be first in a string of lookalike ads that are often shunted to the side, Google now determines the precise position and appearance of ads tips that are not subject to any of the same rules. Its ads get icons while others don’t, and if you think that’s small potatoes, you are not an advertiser: images boost clickthrough. Google can make a Picasa ad say “Easier to use than Kodak,” but Kodak cannot create an ad that reads “Easier to use than Picasa.”1 And the kicker: neither the highest quality ads nor the highest quality search results can replace these tips.
In the end, would you rather be Blogger or TypePad on my screen?
A new kind of bundling
Google’s new age “bundling” is less threatening than Microsoft’s because changing operating systems is hard, while changing search engines is easy—so easy that every engine out there is desperately trying to stay in your face. And choosing an alternative to Microsoft’s bundled software used to be prohibitively complicated for the average person, not to mention time consuming—you had to go to a store and buy a boxed copy or spend the evening downloading it. Eventually everyone will be experienced enough to procure applications, and then word of mouth alone will bury the distribution advantages Google and Microsoft now enjoy.
But we’re not there yet, and in many ways, Google’s bundling is worse than anything Microsoft did or even could do. Microsoft threw spaghetti at the wall and hoped it stuck, and likewise there’s nothing wrong with Google’s arbitrary front page ads. The difference here is that Google knows what users want and can discreetly recommend its products at the right time. Microsoft can’t easily hide a program packaged with Windows (and doing so would defeat the purpose), but competitors can only discover Google’s bundling, which might be transient or limited to certain regions, through trial and error searching.
Now let’s put away the tin foil hat and consider this: According to Nielsen NetRatings, the top ten search queries of 2006 were specific services like “Hotmail” (another view). So significant amounts of people, typically novices, use search engines as address bars. Three of the top ten were actual addresses like MySpace.com. If Google decided to show tips for “mail” or “space,” they would appear in these circumstances even though the user is usually en route to a particular destination (working example)2.
Would Google complain if Microsoft informed users about Live Search when they typed Google.com into Internet Explorer’s address bar? Don’t roll your eyes: it would just be another innocuous tip presented to a user en route to a destination. Google owns one of the Web’s command lines, and Microsoft owns the other.
Perhaps the most nefarious aspect of this feature is how it operates within our collective blind spots. Advertisers are happy that Google no longer invades the canonical Ad Results. Technology purists continue to see untainted Search Results. But does my mother make that distinction? How much does a result have to look like a Result to cross the line?
Google promised not to be the type of company that needs to ask.
Update: Matt Cutts, a well-known Google employee who works on web search, has posted his views.
Update #2: This post is not a sign that I think Google has turned “evil” as some have suggested. I wrote it because Google has impressed me enough over the years that the slightest deviation catches my eye. You’re welcome to disagree that these tips constitute any “deviation,” but please read what I actually wrote (in the comments as well) before jumping to conclusions. I don’t “hate” Google, nor do I find this the apocalypse. The world is not black and white.
1 If you’re still not convinced, go to AdWords now and try to create a U.S. ad containing “Picasa”. Google forbids it on the basis of trademark infringement.
2 I realize this is already possible with AdWords, but again, Google is no longer subject to the same trademark or style policies as other advertisers.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I agree. Although I love Google, I think they are headed in the wrong direction.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Thank God for Democracy!
If an organization chooses to shoot their foot who will stop them?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Microsoft.
When any company makes a mistake once they achieved dominance, they will be first to pounce and destroy them.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:41 am
Good analyse ! I also think that Google has crossed the limit…
December 26th, 2006 at 3:01 am
I don’t see the tips. Are they only for users who are logged in?
December 26th, 2006 at 3:05 am
_”Google lost me today, and it didn’t take much..”_
No kidding, Blake, it didn’t take much at all. Talk about sensationalist exaggeration. A sponsored link to themselves is a breach of trust? Seems more like ‘going deeper into portal territory’ to me.
It’s not clear even the latter accusation is true. Are google’s tips new? I think I’ve seen them for a while now. I haven’t noticed the amount of space devoted to non-search results increase in at least a couple of years. Since they’ve had sponsored results for ages, talking about mothers unable to distinguish ads from content is just rhetoric.
*You* can distinguish sponsored links from search results, and your mother doesn’t dwell on how google is a hugely moral institution (I think I *will* call you naive). So in what scenario is trust being violated?
December 26th, 2006 at 4:58 am
What if they were in a blue box, and said “Sponsored link”?
December 26th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Do no evil is good, but at the end of the day you have to pay all those salaries. Which is more evil doing this or laying off people?
December 26th, 2006 at 7:06 am
While I agree, I wonder what search engine you will start using? Please let me know so I can switch to the same one….I’m half serious, half-joking….
Google can cross the line AS LONG AS THEIR SEARCH ENGINE PROVIDES SUPERIOR OVERALL RESULTS…which they still do…..they keep adding tips and more, and blur the line too far EVERYONE WILL LEAVE.
Google is MICROSOFT 2.0 ……and the same rules apply….find a better replacement and people will leave……Mac gets close, but then the one or 2 key applications that someone needs won’t run there or doesn’t have the same feature set (Quicken)…….so most of us will follow, I prefer to lead, but I have no where to lead people too….
December 26th, 2006 at 9:04 am
What if these ‘tips’ included multiple options? Rather than just displaying Blogger, what if it was;
Tip: Want to share your life online with a blog? Try Blogger, Typepad, or even Wordpress
Something like that i wouldn’t mind personally. So i guess i am saying the top three ’services’ might be better for the users. Either way, it isn’t fair to paying advertisers if they aren’t included in the tip section.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:55 am
I think Google is doing what they need to do to ensure success.
If you had a search feature on this site (which you do), would you tell your visitors to search your site with your search tool, or use another ?
All Google is doing is recommending their products to their customers/clients/users. I see nothing of it. Its not like its the ONLY thing that shows up on searches.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:12 am
It’s called driving “recirculation” and will become worse as Google starts to host more apps and services. I mention that here: http://www.rebron.org/2006/11/10/where-google-is-vulnerable/
Time and new people eventually screw up a good thing because folks (employees) have to do something, people just can’t leave stuff alone– especially if a company is a publicly traded company.
Control of the UI is key in web/software and who “owns” that at Google may need to be cleared up.
–
W/ Google, it’s hard to really tear them up because as a company that generates the kind of money that they do, they’re about as “good” a company can get because it’s just software/just a web site. There are no sweat shops, there’s no environmental impact, there’s no animal testing. If you don’t like Google, you go to another web site.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Furthermore, why do they hire the smartest people in the world just to have them sell ads? That’s doing *everyone* injustice.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I don’t think there is anything wrong with tips. They help people make a better informed decision. I think you are making a big deal out of nothing :(
December 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Kartik:
> A sponsored link to themselves is a breach of trust?
Did you read and consider the post before reacting? The crux of it is that these *aren’t* sponsored links, an important difference which…well, I’d rather not rewrite the post in the comments.
> It’s not clear even the latter accusation is true. Are google’s tips new?
Yes.
> Since they’ve had sponsored results for ages, talking about mothers unable to distinguish ads from content is just rhetoric.
My comment was based on actually *seeing* people confuse the two, whereas yours seems to be based on a non-sequitur.
A 2005 PEW study indicates that 82% of searchers don’t know when a result is paid for.
As for your apparent argument that time teaches all: Browsers have had address bars since the beginning of time, even before search boxes. Please explain why people are still using search engines to navigate (evidence in post).
> *You* can distinguish sponsored links from search results, and your mother doesn’t dwell on how google is a hugely moral institution (I think I *will* call you naive). So in what scenario is trust being violated?
Again, these aren’t sponsored links, but I’ll respond anyawy:
* Users trust Google to provide unbiased search results. Google is violating the trust of those who can’t distinguish. The fact that I can distinguish doesn’t mean my trust isn’t being violated. I’ve recommended Google to countless people, including my mother, as a source of unbiased results. This neutrality was also a key consideration in our initially choosing Google as Firefox’s search engine. Are you telling me your trust wouldn’t be violated if you recommended your mechanic to your friend and he ripped him off?
* Advertisers trust Google to provide a level playing field. We just witnessed this three weeks ago when advertisers got up in arms over a *perceived* imbalance.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Logan: If they were in a blue box and said sponsored link, they’d presumably be part of the AdWords network. Google has been doing that for years with no complaints from me. This post is about the implications of taking the ads outside the network.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
learningman: Great point. There’s no better search engine to use right now (although ironically, only Microsoft’s doesn’t bias its results with “tips”). But using a service and trusting a service are very different. When I trust a service, a competitor has to be significantly better to get me. When I’m neutral, the competitor has to be a little better. When I distrust a service, the competitor only has to be equal. Brand loyalty is important.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
> > It’s not clear even the latter accusation is true. Are google’s tips new?
>
> Yes.
Hmm, I stand corrected.
I did try to read the post, believe it or not. Your response clarifies two points for me:
* Trust with users. Since people have to deal with sponsored links and tips in other search engines, to say google is ‘ripping them off’ is overstating things a bit. Even if they’re a little further down the slippery slope towards their competitors.
* Trust with advertisers. I now see your point about sponsored links being different from tips.
I couldn’t discern these as separate points in the original post.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Vic:
> I think Google is doing what they need to do to ensure success.
No question.
> If you had a search feature on this site (which you do), would you tell your visitors to search your site with your search tool, or use another ?
This is like apples and kumquats…there are not even enough similarities to respond coherently. But if there were a better way to search my site than “my” (WordPress’) search tool, I would certainly tell my visitors to use it. I sometimes use Google to search my own site.
> All Google is doing is recommending their products to their customers/clients/users. I see nothing of it. Its not like its the ONLY thing that shows up on searches.
Echoes of another era: “It’s not like users CAN’T install other software.”
Would you see anything of it if the tips were larger? How large do they have to be before it’s a big deal? As I say in the post, it’s a slippery slope. If advertisers and users don’t mind Google creating a new kind of ad, so be it–but they should expect Google to do what it takes to improve their efficacy over time, as any good advertiser would do.
If there’s nothing to this, why do advertisers spend billions of dollars trying to get to the top?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I wonder what fraction of the results in that Nielsen study come from “I’m feeling lucky” searches. I’ve gotten into the habit of typing certain search keywords in my addressbar, relying on google for implicit bookmark keywords. Sponsored results and tips wouldn’t matter in these cases.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Kartik:
> to say google is ‘ripping them off’ is overstating things a bit
Sorry, I didn’t intend a direct correlation there with the mechanic scenario. I simply meant that in each scenario, you have a high expectation of service that goes unmet.
> I couldn’t discern these as separate points in the original post.
Any suggestions on how to clarify it?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Kartik:
> I wonder what fraction of the results in that Nielsen study come from “I’m feeling lucky” searches.
Google says that the button is used in “far fewer than one percent of Google searches.” I’m not sure if that refers the service in general, but considering that only Firefox supports the behavior, and Firefox has a small percentage of the market, and an even smaller percentage of users know about this hidden feature, it’s a safe bet the answer is: small :)
December 26th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Just one last comment to distill my point.
> Users trust Google to provide unbiased search results. Google is violating the trust of those who can’t distinguish.
Agreed. But they’ve had sponsored results for a while, which is the same thing if you ignore advertisers for a moment. So at least where lay users are concerned Google’s not become less trustworthy recently.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
> it’s a safe bet the answer is: small :)
:) Cool.
> Any suggestions on how to clarify it?
More structure/organization. Sub-headings for Lay users and Advertisers, perhaps even separate posts because the two seem very disjoint concerns to me.
Of course, I don’t think the point about lay users is even worth making, so I’d just get rid of it and focus on trust with advertisers. But we can disagree on that :)
Do you feel more betrayed in the user’s shoes or those of the advertiser’s? Given your background I’d assumed it was the former; that probably was a big reason why I missed the point about advertisers as a separate beast.
Just my 2c.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Kartik:
> But they’ve had sponsored results for a while, which is the same thing if you ignore advertisers for a moment. So at least where lay users are concerned Google’s not become less trustworthy recently.
I don’t think it breaks cleanly into “people who understand the concept of sponsored results” and “people who don’t”. I’d guess there are people who can identify sponsored links but don’t include these new “tips” in that category. Perhaps it’s obvious now that the tips only recommend Google products, but what if Google started recommending Firefox (via tips) on searches for “browser”?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Just to focus on advertisers for a minute: I’m hazy on the details, but doesn’t AdSense charge advertisers based solely on click-through? If users click on tips instead of sponsored links, Google’s tips are arguably cutting into their own bottomline. In effect, they’re keeping others from advertising on certain keywords. When phrased like that, it seems more questionable that it’s an unethical practice. I’ll have to think about it.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Kartik:
> If users click on tips instead of sponsored links, Google’s tips are arguably cutting into their own bottomline.
Which do you think is more valuable: a Calendar/Blogger/Picasa user or some change?
> In effect, they’re keeping others from advertising on certain keywords. When phrased like that, it seems more questionable that it’s an unethical practice.
They’re not keeping others from advertising. Let me rephrase it back into unethical territory :) Google formerly bought its own AdWords for these services, and those ads invariably dominated the listings. These tips enable Google to free up those prime ad spots for other advertisers *and* continue to advertise their own goods.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
> These tips enable Google to free up those prime ad spots for other advertisers *and* continue to advertise their own goods.
Agreed. Here’s my revised analysis. We can categorize users who click on ads into 3 ‘territories’:
a) Those who can’t tell the difference between blue ads and white results.
b) Those who can, but now can’t tell the difference between tips and results (both in white).
c) Those who can discern all three and click on what they mean.
Introducing tips may cause some slight migration from to b, but not from a since the tips lie below sponsored links anyway.
As a result, we’re no longer concerned with people clicking on an ad by accident, or indeed even on click-through, but on old-fashioned advertisement by flashing something on my eyeballs. That’s what google really gains from tips..
..at some cost to user satisfaction. This change makes google more like yahoo, where search results often have a hard time even making it in the top screenful on my ultraportable laptop monitor. That’s my biggest selfish complaint.
I still see this more as a slippery-slope issue than a trust issue, but I see where you’re coming from.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I guess I have a hard time understanding what’s ‘untrustworthy’ about this. The tips don’t look like regular search results, and it’s pretty clear that if I get a ‘tip’ from Google, it’s, well, a tip *from* Google — it even says it in the tip! I’d be a lot more worried if these showed up as organic results, masquerading as the real thing.
Google makes these products, and recommends them to users. Some of the products, like Picasa, really are great products (I just wish they’d make a Mac version to replace iPhoto!), while others, like Orkut, pretty much suck. Cleary, it’s a matter of opinion, but if Google wants to recommend their own products in what is a pretty unobtrusive way, it just doesn’t strike me as “unethical” behavior.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Looks like google has already done something about this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Yahoo+Calendar&btnG=Google+Search
Couldn’t find the Google Calendar recommendation. Happy Holidays All!
dave
December 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Dave: The keywords are case sensitive, so only “blog”, “calendar” and “photo sharing” trigger the tips. The tip is still there for “Yahoo calendar”.
Happy holidays to you as well.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Google is now advertising their own stuff…huh..no surprise.
I think it would ballsy for Google to try and establish an advertising free internet. We all know that 95% of their billions come from ads, which are at best, and inconvience to the users, taking up space on my equipement and using my bandwidth. Blah.
I’d love to support adfree sites in addition to my own.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
I noticed this today when I searched for ‘wordpress bloginfo’. I was looking for information on a WordPress template tag; I received a plug for Blogger.
I didn’t like it either.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
I call b.s. on that last one; it’s the same plainly google branded link like the other one is. At the very least post real screenshots if you’re going to whine about someone plugging their own product.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Jeremy: Er, are you talking about the “Did you mean: Google Calendar” screenshot? If so, I thought it was rather obvious that it’s a joke, given that the line before it is: “Advertisers who allow these tips now cannot complain if they get a makeover later.” But I’ll remove it anyway if it’s muddling the issue.
The point was simply that any advertiser who permits Google to leave its ad network now on the basis of the tips being relatively small should understand that the form of the tips may change in the future.
Full disclaimer: the Clippy screenshot is fake, too!
December 26th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
I have to disagree. The tips are one line suggestions at the top of the page, most of the time that I have actually cliked on them, they were useful. They can plug their own products if they still give the awesome results I’ve come to rely on right below. If you do comparison searches, (the search results themselves) Google delivers more than most competition.
The user has to use their own common sense. Using ‘tips’ or suggestions is at the sole responsibility of the user, they can easily ignore it. Plus, sometimes what you really want isn’t on the first page.
Also, your example search “photo sharing,” Picasa, is an awesome suggestion in my opinion. It doesn’t appear in the first ten search results and that’s even better that’s it’s a tip. None of the first ten results do what Picasa does (share photos online- AND allow download of the program to easily sort, tag and organize photos on your computer without being online.) –Hey, when you like something, you tell other people.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Jessi:
> Picasa, is an awesome suggestion in my opinion. It doesn’t appear in the first ten search results and that’s even better that’s it’s a tip….Hey, when you like something, you tell other people.
Yes, that was Google’s key insight, wasn’t it? When you like something, you tell people about it. If enough people liked Picasa that they were writing about it, it wouldn’t be on the fourth page of search results.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Google is now obviously in a strong position. They r now doing things wat Microsoft did some years ago!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Google offers picasa with an obvious “Tip” caption along with an even more obvious ‘tip logo’ as a picture. They are doing NOTHING WRONG. Anyone that searches Google will clearly be able to tell the difference between the normal search and the google ‘Tip’… Picasa is not the easiest interface to use for point and click photo sharing, but it is a Google product. If I am using Google, then I expect for Google products to be all around. So, what is wrong with Picasa?
When Google starts putting Picasa as its top search link, similarly to so many other search engines, regardless of the credibility of its competition…that is when the problem starts. For now, go Google, go!
December 26th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
> with an even more obvious ‘tip logo’ as a picture
That’s not a “Tip logo”, it’s Picasa’s logo.
Everything else you said has already been addressed in the post or in the comments, so assuming you’ve read it all, I guess you’ve made up your mind. Fair enough.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
I am shocked by the amount of people that seem to be somehow insulted by Google’s tactics.
What Google is doing is by no means the same as ‘Word Perfect’ image on this blog. Not understanding this point is a failure to understand the transparent nature of the internet.
Google is not like some kind of a PC platform, where switching to alternatives is hard. It’s Google’s service, they can show people about their services - some people find it useful.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:16 am
> What Google is doing is by no means the same as ‘Word Perfect’ image on this blog.
What about the IE scenario depicted next to it? You can choose a different browser, right? I agree that the WordPerfect image only muddles the point here, so I’ve ditched it.
> Google is not like some kind of a PC platform, where switching to alternatives is hard. Not understanding this point is…
Yes, I believe the post already acknowledges that: “Google’s monopoly power is less threatening than Microsoft’s because changing operating systems is hard, while changing search engines is easy.” Why do you believe this point was not understood?
December 27th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Apropos your comments, I’ve always found Google’s search “suggestions” amusing, if not a bit… revealing… when my tin hat is on:
http://johnreen.recurse.net/lj/google-screw.jpg
December 27th, 2006 at 2:08 am
I just wonder what kind of “proof” the author has for this statement:
“because the services they recommend are not the best in their class. If Google wants to make it faster and easier for users to manage events, create a blog or share photos, it could do what it does when you search GOOG: link to the best services.”
Now, I don’t like ANY of the online calendars but I use Picasa and Picasa Web Albums. I challenge the author and anyone here to find me a combination software / web album service that is as good as Picasa is today. I have tried, and bought, an account on Flickr - doesn’t cut it because uploading is the only client software support (when I switched it was) they had - I needed something to just keep track of, tag, star, etc, my photos. Picasa earlier did this for me and then I just uploaded with Flickr uploadr to the website. This was seriously annoying to me. Well, they added Picasa Webalbums. Now it is an integrated experience. Very niice, to quote Borat. I think it is the best in its class, overall. I challenge anyone here to find me a better piece of software / web photo album service, that at the same time is FREE. I haven’t and I’ve actually been looking for this for several years. Picasa is that software, to me.
December 27th, 2006 at 2:18 am
Tommie, the “proof” comes courtesy from Google: Picasa is on the fourth page of the search results for “photo sharing”. According to Google (#4), democracy on the Web is a solid and equitable means of determining the highest quality sites.
That’s why I said in the post: “either the company does not believe in its own search technology, or it does not believe its products are good enough to rise to the top organically.”
I am judging Google based on its own criteria. Is that unfair?
December 27th, 2006 at 3:12 am
Blake, you point is clear and makes perfect sense but why do you bother arguing it with everyone in the comments? There are people who won’t get it just like there are people who see nothing wrong with with sending spam or spreading spyware.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:00 am
I think google got wrong strategy. It seem to have unfair tragedy such as google slap. If it’s happened to me,i’ll find other alternative to advertise. The result may difference among adwords, yahoo ads and msn ads..
December 27th, 2006 at 7:04 am
I’m having trouble seeing the comparison to Microsoft and what all the fuss is about. I think the comparisons to Microsoft are a heck of a stretch. Microsoft bundles software that is difficult or impossible to uninstall. They make it VERY hard for 3rd party companies to compete in certain markets - making installation harder for users, etc. THE Vista driver fiasco, even if HALF true is scary and utterly evil because MS isn’t just buckling to the content providers, they are actively helping them ruin the user experience.
And everyone is in an uproar because Google is including a short one line ad above the search results for products they’ve developed?
I’ve always thought Google did a horrible job selling it’s non search related products. The fact that Picasa exists at all is a testament to Google’s good will. Whats wrong with them using one of their products to cross market another?
Users aren’t completely stupid - it’s OBVIOUS the links are for Google products when you click them. They also are small and unobtrusive. If they had made the Tip look like a normal search result, just like those below - THEN I’d be upset because it violates one of their core values. But they are different and most if not all users will figure out that the Tips are just Google cross marketing their products, something that is not evil. Why? Because the user can click on the #1 search result anyway, or #2, or #3 - it’s their choice. And honestly the search results are often more enticing because of the result snippets. Little icons can help, but only to a point. Think of it this way - would Kodak rather compete for the limited AdWords space in each picture search knowing Google might be bidding on one or two spots as well, making them more scarce, or have Google stay OUT of AdWords and use these little Tips instead, thus opening more AdWords slots to competition?
I mean how is this different than Akismet being a default plugin in WordPress? Nobody complains - it’s an awesome service. People who don’t want to use it or use a different spam plugin, just do. But you are cross marketing your own service to users in a way other spam networks couldn’t if they wanted to.
I just don’t see what all the uproar is about. I don’t think Google really violated any of their core beliefs and this does not, in my eyes, tarnish their ‘do no evil’ mantra. Google has developed and amassed a sizable portfolio of products, some of which few people know about - having them cross market them a little is not the end of the world as we know it because the addition of these little tips does not change the way google functions as we know it. Same AdWords ads based on bid CPC and same search results based on PR and relevance.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Honestly, I don’t care if Google does this. I’m smart enough to know that they are saying “hey, we do that and we want you to use our service.” It’s obvious that isn’t not a part of the ranked search results yet is still relevant to my search, just like the box of ads on the right side of the screen. So long as they aren’t popping up ads for penis enlargement pills when I do a search for Hal’s House of Ham, I don’t think we have much to worry about.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Jimmy Wales had give some idea of User Powered Search Engine.
That could be an answer.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:44 am
I pointed this out on my blog the other day as well. One really has to wonder how Google will come out of 2007 looking like. The honeymoon is truly over I think, and we’ll only see more changes down the road. Some good, some bad. One could argue that more people using Google products isn’t necessarily bad, Google makes good products, but advertising them as “Tips” is just wrong. I think I’d be less offended if there was a link saying “May we suggest using our own Picasa?” or similar. Unless they’re going to start offering “AdTips” to everyone…
December 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Interesting. Just to note, if you compare the results searching for ‘photo sharing’, as you say, it’s on the fourth page or so. Searching for ‘blog’ will get you blogger.com about the third or fourth line down… I think it’s worth mentioning that if you search for ’spreadsheet’, which happens to be a newer google service [if you want to term it so], there is NO tip there - however the first item on the list is docs.google.com.
That seems to me to be a good example of your difference between a listing actually coming to the top because of user discussion and use, and just plugging an extra ‘ad’, which is how I see these ‘tips’. They’re just taking up space as far as I’m concerned. They should be included as search results like everyone else.
December 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
most of this is spot-on. except for the bit about images next to the tips. google should be praised for banning those ‘clickthrough increasing’ images. those images don’t relate to the links, and thusly violate usability best practices.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Blake,
I think the point you made about Google losing faith in its products, employees or search is totally off base.
To take Picasa as an example, all it suggests is that there hasn’t been anywhere near enough effort put into optimising the Picasa site for the phrase(s) that you might expect it to turn up for.
In my opinion Blake, you should be happy about it. Google could have artificially placed the Picasa site at the top of the natural search results; in which case everyone would have cried foul that they are manipulating the system and that they aren’t subject to the same rules and algorithms that every other publisher is.
Instead of undermining the very service that they are famous for, they have opted to add in a tip/hint/ instead. They are marked appropriately and don’t look like search results; so that is a good thing. The other good thing is that Google doesn’t have a lot of services that they might want/require to do such a thing on, so the vast portion of search phrases are never going to see such tips/hints/.
Overall, I think that you’re over reacting.
Al.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:14 am
Picasa _is_ the number one photo organizer according to Google:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=photo+organizer&spell=1
December 28th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Well, that’s just business. Don’t tell me you won’t do the same if you’re owning Google.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Hmmmm…. interesting…
While I’m not as outraged about the tips as Blake, I must say it is a step in the wrong direction. Certainly Google needs to market their businesses, but doing a match on search strings ( blog, fooblog, blogfoo, fooblogbar all get the tip) seems like a bad means to do that. UNLESS, they open the API for businesses to access. But then they are just sponsored links. So basically Google is giving itself preferential treatment for it’s own sponsored links. If I was someone facing competition from Google (typepad etc) I would be incensed.
And to the point about Google being fair and open and truthful, I say don’t look too close. I talked to a man who ran his own web business ( I don’t recall what the business was ) who received a call from the Google marketing machine asking if he wanted to make sure his website came up first in the search results when someone searched for his company name ( it was currently second ). There was a large fee involved and some hand-waving as to how that would happen. Now, perhaps, this was just purchasing the space above the search results but I seem to recall that he was told it would look no different than the other results, it would just appear first. I realize this is a bit of a hearsay accusation and I wish I remembered the name of the company, but I trusted the guy who told me about it.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Alistair:
> To take Picasa as an example, all it suggests is that there hasn’t been anywhere near enough effort put into optimising the Picasa site for the phrase(s) that you might expect it to turn up for.
Once again, I’m judging Google on its own criteria. Its criteria is that “people determine the best results” not “optimize the heck out of your website and it’ll be first.”
> The other good thing is that Google doesn’t have a lot of services that they might want/require to do such a thing on, so the vast portion of search phrases are never going to see such tips/hints/.
Really? They have Froogle and Base, which combined can theoretically offer any kind of commercial good or information. I think that covers a fair amount of search phrases.
> Overall, I think that you’re over reacting.
Overall, I don’t think you’ve considered the issue very carefully. But that’s OK. Difference of opinion makes the world go round.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:41 am
ak:
> Picasa _is_ the number one photo organizer according to Google:
Sure, but how is that relevant? Photo organizing and photo sharing are not the same thing, and Google doesn’t tip on the former.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Young Engineer:
> Well, that’s just business. Don’t tell me you won’t do the same if you’re owning Google.
I wouldn’t do the same if I owned Google. Your cynicism is unfortunate.
December 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
The author of this main post has a trenchant understanding of Google’s philosophy and I would agree with his major points.
For those who are opposing his view, let me ask you a question: if you are an advertiser and wish to disperse your website, would you like to be ranked second on a popular web page?
Of course not. An advertiser of course, wishes to put his/her website at the top spot and let everyone clicks on his/her own website. Google’s action is reckless; hence be amended.
Although Google has the “pay-per-click” rule, its action is definitely against its own words.
Happy New Year jah all,
Andrew Lai
Vancouver, British Columbia
December 28th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I do not like these product recommendation tips. Though I do like Ask’s emoticon explanations, Google’s calculator, and such.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Meh. They look sufficiently different to me, and frankly, the arguments about people not knowing the difference between an ad and a link doesn’t surprise me, but I do not believe it’s because they look too much alike. I deal with users every day, and let me tell you, it’s not that the majority of users are dumb, it’s that they do not _think_ very often. 1,000 years ago stupidity was lethal. 100 years ago stupidity was incredibly dangerous, but now, stupidity, or not thinking, is nothing more than something to give you cause to sue someone else. When you ask a user, as I did last week, “Please open your [email program] as you would normally.” and they reply, “How do I do that?” and you say, “How do you normally do it?” and they reply, “I don’t know.” then the problem isn’t the computer. Same thing here. When it’s set off differently by color, and labeled “Sponsored Link/Result/Ad” and they don’t know that someone explicitly sponsored it, then the failure is the user’s, not the provider’s.
December 28th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Finally someone speaks up about the non-sense that is google. Google claims to be on the moral high ground but their actions don’t show it. What is the exact phrase; “Do no evil”. Hmm, steering users via tips to your own products or altering search results. Well, their do no evil policy is illustrated by their actions with China as well as the above examples.
I wish would people would see google for what they are:
1) A Company
2) Companies are in business to make money.
3) Companies have no conscience (hence China).
Goolge has no conscience; period. They are hear to make money; period. Morality doesn’t pay the bills; period. Do no evil; it is just a marketing phrase; period. They are “currently” they best search engine companies in existance; period.
Profits and morality “typically” have an inverse relation ship. Google has done a great example of illustrating the points listed above.
December 28th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Very clearly stated,and I agree completely with you, but until something can beat Google’s search I will use it
December 28th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Now I can honestly see Blake’s point of view on this, but on the same token, some of the comments here have a strong argument. Search results don’t pay the salaries. Now as far as tips are concerned, Google has a pretty basic yet simple front page that really doesn’t list all their services. I know a few people myself, that didn’t realize “More” was there! Going to Google technically gives the company the right to put in plugs for their services. Maybe a different approach to this would be a small section saying “Google related services” instead of tips. I would find that as more of an acceptable means of plugs for their services instead of saying “Want to share pictures?” and such.
December 28th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Spot on, Blake. This is as bad as Wal-Mart with its flogs (fake blogs). The FTC in the past has required a clear distinction between paid announcements and editorial content.
Google should put a clear division between editorial content (i.e. the search results) and paid commercials. As an earlier poster said, perhaps all the paid commercials should appear with a light blue background and the search results (editorial) on a white background. Then the buyer can beware if he or she wishes.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Young Engineer/Blake Ross:
>> Well, that’s just business. Don’t tell me you won’t do the
>> same if you’re owning Google.
> I wouldn’t do the same if I owned Google. Your cynicism is
> unfortunate.
What makes this particularly bad is the fact that Google claims to “do no evil” - if you are making such a claim and have a user-base built especially on that trust, actions such as these are an unfortunate slippery slope.
Microsoft makes no such claim, but Google does. And ergo, it is their duty to uphold that claim. At some point of time or the other, this is likely to become a much bigger issue especially since Google is a publicly traded corporation. Sooner or later, shareholder value versus ethics will suffice and it is likely to be a bigger problem.
Slippery slope, like someone said. Sad, that.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
I think Google has a right to promote its service. Like someone said, most google services arent directly seen on the website and this is a small way of promoting its services.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Quite using google then. Plain and simple.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Hasn’t fuckedgoogle.com been saying this for 3 years? - (where the hell is that site these days???) That the entire business concept of text ads is to trick users into clicking on ads without realizing they ARE ads?
I sat down with my mother over christmas helping her look for a specific outlet mall near a friend of hers. I used google for the search. On the right hand side of the screen, there was the standard wildcard ebay ad that said “Looking for outlet malls? Come to ebay!”
My mother pointed at the screen and said “hey, look, that must be the right place to click”.. I had to explain to her that it was a worthless wildcard ad, but if i hadn’t been sitting there she would have clicked on it and ended up god knows where.
That’s the audience Google wants. That’s the audience ebay wants. They do not want ME as an audience. This is also the reason digg.com gets 20 million unique visitors per month but last year only took in 3 million dollars in adsense revenue- because all the experienced techies have learned to TUNE OUT THE ADS.
Notice on digg who the “Ads by google” is in tiny, light gray type that you can barely read? Now imagine you’re 50 years old wearing bifocals- you won’t be able to see it at ALL. And that’s the whole point.
The whole profit engine of web 2.0 is DECEPTION IN ADVERTISING! We’ve turned the entire web into a late night infomercial, hoping that users are too stupid to realise that the fake news set and reporters talking about a hair restoration creme are paid actors and it isn’t really a commercial. This is what web 2.0 and text ads are all about.
Go to any webmasterworld-ish forum. All they talk about is “blending” ads and various techniques for doing so. 100% of the time! They talk about adding images next to the ads to make them look more like a part of their page- but everyone knows it’s all just a stinking fraud to trick people!
If a newspaper editor allowed advertisers to stick ads in the middle of their column, with the same font type and size, where most people couldn’t even tell it was an ad, wouldn’t people be outraged? Why has the entire business model of the internet as we know it today been built on that kind of deception? Is it because we’re all so desperate to bring back the glory of the dot.com days and endless stock option wealth that we’ll stoop to any level to make some money?
I am ashamed at what we have become.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
The tips are for when someone is in discovery mode for a service. It is reasonable that Google recommends something they have to offer. It’s not noncompetitive like they block other people from the search results. I personally think this is fair practice by Google.
I think it is wrong when a service tries to persuade you to use something else when you type in a specific service. Take for example you type in ‘Live Search’ (Microsoft) or ‘Yahoo’ into Google. Google returns those respected services first as one would expect. If you type in ‘Google’ at Yahoo or Live Search, the first result return is to use their service instead of the competing service. This is distasteful noncompetitive behavior by Yahoo and Microsoft’s Live Search. It hounding the user each time and that is not right.
In my belief, Google is not wrong for recommending tips when a user is in discovery mode. However, it is wrong to recommend one’s product when a competing service is specifically requested by the user.
A couple good points that I must commend you on. One is that Google should have faith that their service should be at the top of the search results if it is the best of breed. Counter point to this is that the results are still not as easy to read as a simple tip. A possible solution you offer is to link to the best services like the case when a stock symbol is typed in, which is another good point. However, many people would have issues with this approach as well if their favorite is not listed (the little guy would also be at a major disadvantage against the larger players listed) and there are great diversity of products that would need to be covered to be fair, which would probably led to a mess in the end. For these reasons, listing competitive services is a difficult task considering the analysis of the diverse natural language which is required unlike a stock symbol which is normally distinct in nature (example of nondistinct would be ‘NAT’ or search ’stock:NAT’ for the stock).
In the end, Google is not wrong but what they are doing in regards to tips for discovery searches. It actually helps the user in some respect by finding a service that meets the need for which they are searching, and in that manner, Google is right.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Randy,
How long have you worked for Google? Because you’re copying word for word what I saw in a talking points email two days ago from a friend that works there.
“As long as the user finds what he wants, who cares if we trick them into thinking an ad is organic content” is the new mantra at google. Well, it’s always been the mantra, but now it’s just become even more apparent.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Hello, Mr. Ross,
While you are blaming Google for abusing our trust, it might not occur to you that Mozilla Firefox is doing the same thing (on a small scale). Mozilla Firefox 2.0 Chinese language edition specifically set the location bar “Internet Keywords Service”(keyword.url) to use Yahoo (keyword.url=http://cn.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=) while the English version Firefox 2.0 continues to use the trusty Google. Given Yahoo’s shady business practice of helping Chinese government prosecuting Chinese dissidents ( http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884 ), it is really a shame for Mozilla Firefox to promote “evil-doer” like Yahoo!China.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
You could have a point in that, but then again. A tip is something all people do. Like when you install MSN Messenger, why does it ask you if you want to set MSN page as default search page? This is just an example, web is full of those stuff.
The other important thing is that, Yahoo does almost exactly the same “It seems you are trying to access Google to Search” example. Try to search Yahoo for Google search. The first thing you will see is a box saying “Search the web with Yahoo” with the comment “Dont use Google omitted”. Also search it for messenger, calendar, or any other product they have. They do list their product at the top as a tip, not a search result or sponsored ad.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
So, when I search for ‘photo sharing’ on Google, I noticed that the ‘tips’ show up after, and outside of, the sponsored links at the top, so they are still promoting the AdWords clients before their own products. You might want to update the screen shot at the top of your article…
December 28th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
timid observer:
> I noticed that the ‘tips’ show up after, and outside of, the sponsored links at the top, so they are still promoting the AdWords clients before their own products.
No, sometimes Google shows ads at the top and sometimes they don’t. Reloading the page a few times usually does the trick.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
I’ll leave my reply short and sweet since a couple others have already said what I thought.
Here’s my simple reply: It’s Google’s search engine and it’s free… They can pretty much do whatever they wish? Google ‘losing your trust’ over a simple plug above one hundred million search results is quite ridiculous.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Why can’t google answer this one question:
Why are all their ads in the exact same font type and size and color (and link color) as the actual organic results on their search results page?
How is a newbie user supposed to know that a tiny gray “Ads by gooooogle” on the right hand side of their screen means that anything from there to 5 inches to the left of the page is an ad, especially when there is NO COLOR BACKGROUND SEPERATION to distinguish?
Does google really think newbie users know that those are ads? Of course not! That’s the entire point!
BTW- have you noticed that all (i repeat, all) of the second and third level ad networks like adbrite have removed any trace of ad identification.. there is no longer any “Adbrite Ads” text.. everyone know just uses the links with no ad identification at all.
Google is going to be in deep shit soon because all these lower level networks are usually advertising scams, yet their ads look exactly like google’s. Pretty quickly people are going to associate text ads with scams and stop clicking entirely.
Good thing Google has another revenue stream lined up for when that happens.. Oh, wait…
December 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
How is it different from TV channels advertising their own programs?
December 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Google runs the service. Google can do whatever they please on their own service, barring the illegal. If you don’t like it then use a different service.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
> They can pretty much do whatever they wish
Of course. I realize it may not be clear from the context, but this is actually a blog post, not a federal indictment. I wrote it so the parties affected (users and advertisers) can make up their own minds, and so that perhaps Google might even reconsider its idea.
One shade of gray that seems to be lost in the black-and-white arguments here is that I actually *like* Google and want the company to do right by users, as it generally does.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Kermodebear,
Google executives went to Washington DC about 7 months ago to try and convince congress that Microsoft should be barred from having a default search engine entry box in IE7. They failed.
When you say “As long as it’s legal, it’s ok” you have already lost the moral high ground. Companies try to change the defintion of “legal” every single day of the year.
It’s called lobbying.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
If the users don’t like it, they will get rid of it, because many people would post blogs like this and complain about it, and Google does listen to us.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
I personally think Picassa IS the best photo sharing program.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Google did not build it’s business on being trustworthy. Google became successful for two reasons, 1) not having a website full of crap like other search engines, 2) marginally better search results.
Google never was trustworthy. Google has a much worse track record than the loathed Microsoft when it comes to privacy. Note that Microsoft is in an infinitely more powerful position to violate privacy than Google.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Isaac, I’m certain many different people have many different opinions. The allure of Google is that it’s supposed to show you what the most authoritative individuals and organizations consider the best.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Well, if trusting Google is a problem now how about changing to a search engine like Dogpile?
December 28th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Are you still part of the firefox foundation? If so, put your money where your mouth is - quit immediately and very publicly. After all, Google funds large portions of firefox in many different ways - paying dev salaries, revenue sharing from searches, sponsorship, etc.
Also it really did not take much to lose your trust. Perhaps it was not worth very much to begin with?
Maybe the tips is just an experiment to see what happens. See if people convert from clicking on the tip link? Who knows?
This is sensationalism at the worst.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Mr. Ross, the amount of insult you have been forced to bear (Slashdot offered a smack in the face) does you no justice and while it is wise to reconsider some points, you should by no means back off.
To others: At no point does the author say that Google is an evil company nor does he “bite the hand that [feeds his project].” His argument is based simply on the Google’s own claimed ethical practices and standards. While Google has certainly done less evil than most companies, it is no grounds to prevent the questioning of an arbitrary institution. The whole “if you don’t like it, go elsewhere” point is moot, because advancement is a byproduct of intelligent discourse, and discourse begins with a question. Mr. Ross asks a question, and follows up with his point of view, which I find far from “slanderous,” as it has been called (slashdot). I personally do not see the “Tips” as something definitively bad/evil/wrong, but judged by Google’s own ethics/standards, it is on the wrong side of the fence, and is a step in the wrong direction, which merits questioning. I find the notion of opposing points of view being slanderous to be disturbing.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Sir, I could reply “Firefox lost me today, because of this overly-dramatic post”. But I won’t, because it’s a good product, even if I think your criticism here of Google is unwarranted.
I am an Internet user. The Google Tip you show us above, the one you yourself have here as an example, in the user’s opinion, and I posit in the opinion of the vast majority of users’ opinions, is harmless because it is clearly *from* Google, and not a search result. It is completely logical that they promote their own services, while giving search results. Those results *are* quality results… and they come with a Google advertisement. So what, this user says. They’d be silly not to. Google professes to have the good will of users at heart? Well, I assume they believe in their products and think people will benefit from using them. So there you go.
Many people, many opinions. But as a typical user, and not as someone in the industry who might lack the proper perspective: I believe you’ve overstated the issue.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
TAS: Fair enough. Thanks for your civility.
December 28th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
It seems lyk process of evolution.. firstly it was Microsoft who changed the world yeah they did really.. then it went down becoz of wrong things it did.. then came google.. now its also trying to go down the way MS did..so in a way its creating space for new Ideas to come to TOP ..
Nothing is permanent but change… the process has begun.. lets wait n watch who is gonna b next .. God of computer world
December 28th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Funny. I quit using Firefox over exactly the issue that “Kraken Google” has so many tantacles in it now that I had to ask myself whether I was using Google Firefox or Mozilla Firefox. I’m sad to see it go, but unless it becomes a free browser again, it’s out of the question to use it :(
December 28th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Why does Google allow their largest publishers to now remove entirely the “ads by google” line from any adsense advertising?
Hmmm?
How far is too far? You just deleted my previous post so I suspect you’ll do the same with this one, but clearly you’re beginning to open your eyes to what is really going on. It’s called an “epiphany” :-)
Red pill, or the blue pill? Total lack of seperation between ads and content, or seperation? Which path are you going to take? Tricking people for a living, or not? Can web 2.0 not offer anything else but ad trickery?
December 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Google lost me at China. From that point forward, any proffered pretence that this company would be somehow more ethical, registered in my mind as just that, pretense.
A “tip” is not a “tip” if the only choices from which one chooses the “tip” are Google’s and Google’s alone. As soon as all other companies/applications/destinations are filtered out, a “tip” becomes, ipso-facto, an “ad”, regardless of whether it’s identified as such.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
John: I didn’t delete anything you posted, although I must admit I have no idea what the remainder of your comment means.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Remember back in 1996 when the big debate was whether or not to let advertisers pay for ranking in the search engines? Everyone thought it was morally bankrupt.
Yet now, every search engine does it. Except they put the word “ads by yahoo” or “sponsored results” in tiny gray type way to the right of the page where nobody sees it, then they use the exact same font and color as the organic results, and they smack those ads RIGHT IN THE TOP THREE POSITIONS.
Since, as a previous poster who gave a link pointed out, 90% of users can’t distinguish an advertisement from a search result, the search engines have essentially gone to “pay for placement” … you buy an ad in the top spot, and it appears above all the search results. it looks just like the search results, so most people think it IS a search result.
and to those who say “no harm, no foul, if they find what they’re looking for who cares if its an ad” then I say to you- why have a search engine at all? why not just have a Yellow Pages where every listing is paid for?
where is the moral line here folks? i’ll answer that for you- the moral line is wherever you can make a quick buck. that has been google’s path since they copied goto’s text ad scheme back in 2003.
we are so screwed. because when THIS scam plays out, there’s nothing left to trick users with.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Blake, what it means is simple. We are basing the entire web 2.0 economy on text ads. Google IS the web 2.0 economy. Companies dont IPO anymore, they get bought by google or yahoo. And both those companies make all their money selling text ads.
Text ads are deceptive at their root. They are designed to look like regular links on a page. Being relevant makes them look even MORE just like links on a page.
Does the visual melding of content with ads not bother you at all? Not in the slightest?
December 28th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
John: No, it bothers me considerably; I’m the one who introduced the study you cited. That’s why I’m confused. I’ve also blogged about what you’re saying in the past (at the bottom).
December 28th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Nobody has perfected my fuzzy search engine idea. Hell, nobody’s even tried. And that’s sad. Because when I search for something, I’m not usually looking for the most popular consensus, I’m looking for information. But the web, as I’ve said many times before, is too fluid for its own good sometimes. And Google takes advantage of the fact by releasing a lazy search engine that just hashes data and algorithms.
I don’t want algorithms. I don’t want to have to have learned how to massage the search engine. I want to enter in a fuzzy term and get what I’m looking for within 10 links. Knowledge bases can do it (providing they have enough information), why can’t Google?
December 28th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
A side note: I was doing a search last night on “comparison shopping” because I was looking for a friend’s site that does price aggregation (similar to pricegrabber and froogle). Froogle actually comes up on the second page of the results instead of the first. This really caught me by surprise as I would’ve expected them to pimp their own products at the top.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Blake, there have been several studies in the past. I read one by the BBC back in 2003 on the fuckedgoogle.com site that showed almost NO surfers could distinguish ads on a page with search results. That’s the entire secret of Google’s success! All of us geeks wonder “who the hell clicks on those ads” and the answer is simple- the people who click them are the ones who don’t know they are ads!
Why do you think techie sites like slashdot and digg have pathetic clickthroughs, and sites like cuteoverload.com have massive clickthroughs?
I hate to say it, but the dumber your target demographic, the more likely they are to click on ads. But even the dumbest surfer learns eventually. It took about 3 years for everyone to realize banner ads were ads, back in the mid 1990s.. Then clickthroughs fell off a cliff.
Text ads are reaching that saturation point. Notice Google recently letting big publishers drop any “ads by google” and notice the random huge font sizes and pseudo banners.
Man, once this gig is up, there ain’t nothin’ left! Text ads were the biggest scam in history, but people are wising up.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Blake, I just read your linked post, and I agree completely. It just that you’re about 3 years late to that realization.. You should really hang out on the webmasterworld.com forums for a while- every topic is about new and exciting ways to trick users into clicking on ads.
And they’re the core of the web 2.0 economy! Argh!
December 28th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I find your article to have a fundamental flaw. One particular statement was unnerving to me, and that was:
>>> All Google is doing is recommending their products to their customers/clients/users. I see nothing of it. Its not like its the ONLY thing that shows up on searches.
>Echoes of another era: “It’s not like users CAN’T install other software.”
>Would you see anything of it if the tips were larger? How large do they have to be before it’s a big deal? As I say in the post, it’s a slippery slope.
Comparing this to the IE fiasco of yesteryear is, and i quote, “This is like apples and kumquats…there are not even enough similarities to respond coherently.”
First off, to even see the tips in the results, one must choose to go to www.google.com. After that, the user must be naive enough to not correlate a “tip” on a search engine results page to the company running said page.
When Windows came with IE pre-installed and defaulted to everything, it was pretty darn necessary to have to use IE. Even if you used it once to log onto www.getfirefox.com to download firefox, it was a required evil. Then not allowing you to uninstall IE (god forbid you might want to update windows and aren’t allowed in any other browser) takes the cake.
I see none of this intrusiveness from Google. Yes both prey on the naivity of consumers. But if you take an educated consumer, Google poses no threat to them. However, IE still had its foothold on even the most educated of users of Windows.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I think Google rewording there “tips” would solve the problem, instead of suggesting there products… why don’t the just inform users that they exist?
December 28th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Picasa works great for me. There really isn’t much here beyond Google promoting their own products. Not sure why they shouldn’t and it looks like their doing it in a fairly transparent way (I even get links to Kodak and AOL before the Picasa text with the Picasa logo). Does everyone know the Picasa logo? I don’t see a problem here.
-d
December 28th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
No intrusiveness from Google? I guess you missed where shockwave now includes the google toolbar which not only installs the toolbar but changes IE7’s search box to Google- and of course during the shockwave installation all of that is “default” unless the user actively changes it..
Know how many other major apps install the google toolbar?
Did you know that 6 months ago, just 2 days after inking the deal to distribute the google toolbar with shockwave, that someone in the adsense department “accidentally” inserted some code that basically tried to force every surfer on planet earth who saw a google adsense frame for a period of about 24 hours to install shockwave?
I bet you also believed when Larry and Sergey told the press the reason they needed a 757 for their own private jet was to fly educational missions to africa to study world hunger, then a few weeks later they were being sued by the contractor hired to “bling out” the interior of the jet, who stated in front of a judge that he was told “my orders were to design a party jet, we’ve got king sized beds, wet bar, pool table, the works. eric schmidt himself told me, using these exact words: ‘This is a party jet.’”
The duplicity is astounding. Google was busy lobbying congress trying to stop IE7 from defaulting to MSN’s search page, all the while they were shoving out the google toolbar to hundreds of millions of users who did nothing more than view a page with adsense ads on it.
Hypocrisy is not becoming of a company who’s motto is “Don’t be evil.”
December 28th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Blake,
What do you think made Google do this? I mean it cant be just the money, they know if this issue really becomes big, then they can lose their user base swiftly. Or do u think this was a blindspot?
Madhu
December 28th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Reading the replies to Blake’s comments demonstrates his very point (IMO). The fact that so many users find Google a “trustworthy” resource for information combined with their stated policy suggests that people expect Google to abide by their policy and not lead them towards biased results. While the Tips section may appear innocuous, it is still a subtle form of advertisement for something Google is endorsing (regardless of the provider). If they want to make money then they should advertise in the AdWords network like everyone else. They should leave the results section as neutral ground.
-arif
December 28th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Why did you create your hyperlinks to google searches with included parameters to inform google the search came from a firefox browser? How is this different than a google tip(from a morality standpoint)? Most internet users are browsing with IE not firefox…
“The tips are different—and bad for users—because the services they recommend are not the best in their class.”
Bad for users, not best in class? Thats impossible to state, thats like saying IE is bad for users because its not the best. While comparing browsers to search engines is like apples to oranges, my point it what is “best in their class?” Google aims, just like any company, to produce the best product possible (in fact, that is truely what their code of conduct and promise to investors is)…why? because that is what will make them money. Google truly believes that the products they are working on are the “best” (or at least going to be). But best is completely subjective…what I think is best is not necessary what you think is best.
Google isn’t deminishing the services it provides to advertisers or to its search users. It still provides revelant ads to users for the advertisers and provides the best search results for the user. The tips are just that, a tip based on the search result and it even states its a tip. If google formatted tips just like its advertisements and was there everytime on the same searches then I can see more of a complaint, but its not.
The ironic thing here is that your blog is probably providing google more attention to Picasa and Google Calendar than the tips are…most users didn’t even know the tips existed until you pointed them out because they skip over all the garbage at the top and go directly to the results.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:00 am
> Why did you create your hyperlinks to google searches with included parameters to inform google the search came from a firefox browser?
Because I conduct my searches through the search box in Firefox and I was just copying and pasting the resulting addresses. I’ve manually removed the parameters so you can remove the tin hat now.
> thats like saying IE is bad for users because its not the best.
…The premise is “If a person uses a product A that is worse than product B, she is worse off than if she were using product B.” Is that really debatable?
> But best is completely subjective…what I think is best is not necessary what you think is best.
I’ve responded to this very point at least three times in this thread alone, so I can only gather you haven’t read it. But here we go again: I’m certain many different people have many different opinions. The allure of Google is that it’s supposed to show you what the most authoritative individuals and organizations consider the best. When I say Picasa is not “the best in its class,” I am basing that on Google–not on my own opinion.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:07 am
I think it’s more of a mentality issue. And I, unlike most that replied, understand you fear that google is heading down a slippery slope, which causes you to react and not just because of these “tips”. Anyway we are in a transition era between digital and analog, if I may use such vague descriptions. People that do consider these links as actual tips are not educated as we are in the matter. What you’re asking for is to get