A New Tool From Google Worries Brand-Name Sites 168
Google has quietly introduced a new feature, called search-within-search, that is alarming some big-name Web publishers and retailers. They worry that users will be siphoned away through ad sales to competitors. What Google is doing is offering a secondary search option if the user initially searches explicitly for one of the brand-name destinations that Google has identified, such as "Best Buy." This secondary search lets users refine their query entirely within the pages of the desired site — but using Google's search, not the site's, and showing Google ads on the result pages, quite possibly ads from competitors. "Analysts generally praise the feature as helping users save steps, but for Web publishers and retailers, there are trade-offs... 'Google is showing a level of aggressiveness with this that's just not needed,' said [one Internet consultant]... Take, for instance, a [test where] users of Google searched The Washington Post and were given a secondary search box. Those who typed 'jobs' into that second box saw related results for The Post's employment pages, but the results were bordered by ads for competing employment sites like CareerBuilder or Monster.com. So even though users began the process by stating their intention to reach The Post, Google's ads steered at least some of them to competitors. Similar situations arose when users relied on Google to search nytimes.com."
They don't complain (Score:5, Insightful)
Opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
!new (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They don't complain (Score:5, Insightful)
I would use this feature. I generally check for stock on a particular item before I head out to the store to pick it up - stores like Future Shop and Best Buy here in Canada are notorious for running out of stock on moderately popular items. These two stores, coincidentally, also have some of the hardest to navigate sites I've ever had to use. Finding a particular product, or even a category of products, is an exercise in randomness and futility.
If someone suffers from Google's new feature, they have only themselves to blame. Why wouldn't I use the site's own search tool if it was any good at all? The fact that I'm clamoring for an alternative is only evidence that they are sucking.
this is a new feature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh the aggression. How dare an indexing company make it easier for consumers to view multiple sources for related queries to increase the revenue of their longstanding business model. Removing means of retaining "captive audience" style market research and manipulation is definitely not needed by anyone!
I believe the response for this as a current common colloquialism is "cry more, noobs".
Re:They don't complain (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that if you are topping Google results, there is a lot of hard work behind it, which is also why people find your page interesting. Ultimately, (again) this is why a search engine is interesting - because it finds interesting pages.
Company's fear competition, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
The story seems to be the general reaction, not the feature.
Re:exclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Online advertising? [google.ca]
search? [google.ca]
Definitely not webmail.
Theres a difference between having a monopoly, and being the best at what you do in a market by a significant margin.
This is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:exclusions? (Score:5, Insightful)
They may use robots.txt exclusion to exclude their site from site search. All they need do is exclude / to remove themselves from the google index.
Or exclude everything except the front page from being crawled.
Of course they won't want to do this, because the resulting drop in pagerank and traffic from search results are much more costly than a few visitors finding ads for a competitor listed in search results.
By the way, if they buy the keywords, _they_ can put up ads that may appear on search-within-site of _their_ competitors too.
I fail to see any duty of a search engine being to protect you against your competition. Search engines may even offer contrary opinions..
Search for "Xyz Shop" -> "Xyz Shop, INC. is only rated 1 out of 5 by visitors. 5 out of 5 visitors like 'ABC Shop, INC. Better', do you want to search for that, instead?"
Until they click the link to choose a search result for _your_ site, they are not your customer, they're not even your prospective customer, their only relationship is with the search engine (as a user), and the pages they are viewing are dynamically generated, sponsored by the search provider, making them completely within the search provider's discretion.
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
If companies are unhappy about the results, they can always pay to place ads. If the end users aren't happy, they can always use another search engine. However, this new feature does seem like it will make users happy, which is what ultimately helps Google to succeed.
Re:Opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats ridiculous. Why does this issue need to be so black and white? I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to complain- hell, if I was Google, I would appreciate the complaints. How the hell is a company supposed to improve if everyone just up and leaves before mentioning they have an issue?
In this case, I certainly don't think Google did anything wrong. If someone wanted to search WSJ or NYTimes specifically, they would go to those respective websites. If they go to Google, they're probably looking for options. That doesn't mean it can't be fixed or improved- for instance, Google already has a custom search engine option [google.com], and I think it would be really interesting if (using something like Google's webmaster tools) that could be tied into this. It even allows you to plug it into an adsense account to make some money, or prevent direct competitors' ads from showing up.
I obviously got a little off track there, so I'll get back to my main point- the idea that people should just shut up and take whats handed to them, or they should shut themselves off from a large part of the internet (which is basically what they'd be doing), is appallingly naive and just plain useless.
Re:this is a new feature? (Score:5, Insightful)
The percentage of people that didn't know and/or didn't care is the exact demographic that these sites' marketing are targeting for the most part. I can't imagine a single marketing deparment anywhere where people are going "hey, isn't it neat that google is allowing for (at least slightly more) informed consumers?".
Companies hate having to adapt to change until they really really have to. Sadly this kind of bluster is cheaper and easier than actually trying to ensure ones product or service markets itself by the spec rather than cheap psychology, and sometime actually works (ie: if the company backs down on its own, or if they turn public sentiment against them).
Calling this aggression is an admission of a lack of alternative marketing strategies that do NOT require a first-call-sale type doctrine. Suckers.
Re:They don't complain (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be assuming that "quality web sites" are all or even mostly ad-driven. I'm just not sure that this is the case.
The Internet had a lot of content on it before advertising took off as a business model, and even if advertising revenue collapsed tomorrow (as it's predicted to do every so often by various people, not that I put any credence in it), there would still be a lot of content left. Sure, you'd lose the for-profit "blogosphere", and probably quite a bit of news would retreat behind paywalls, and community sites like Slashdot would have to pass the hat to users more aggressively to stay in business. But there's an awful lot of the WWW that's put up and paid for without ads. Lots of corporate sites, political sites, personal pages, quasi-philanthropic efforts like Wikipedia
The Internet created and gave birth to search engines because there was a demand for search. After starting with search, Google then got into advertising, and a whole lot of sites got spawned as a result. Google-as-search preceded Google-as-advertising; those sites who depend on Google for advertising revenue would be good to remember that. They need Google far more than Google needs them.
Re:Opt-out (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is huge. Removing your site from google is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Re:Opt-out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:!new (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opt-out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They don't complain (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, I also want to have my cake and eat it. (Score:3, Insightful)
But only the parts I really, really want.
Re:They don't complain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opt-out (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason that it seems so black and white is that the complaints here are from greedy bastards trying to increase their slice of the pie. If a user a clicks on the ad from a competitor within a site search then guess what - the competitor looked more interesting. By censoring these ads the customer would lose out, and Google would lose out on revenue. Allowing the webmaster to restrict the set of ads shown on searches of their site would make it less black and white, but even doing this "a little" would damage the interests of the other two parties.
These claims are from the "luddite" segment of the web - who thought that deep linking somehow breached their copyright. If you want to compete on the web then provide good content and watch the traffic come to you. If these people think that they have trouble no then just wait for the first generation of decent semantic web tools (current rates of progress, what 10yrs?). Walled gardens won't work anymore. Trying to drown the competition won't work anymore. Trying to support pisspoor content on 15pages with one hundred ads per page wont work, and crying that free access to the information breaks your business model won't make it change.