Sphinn - Sorry Andy, You’re Wrong: Google ‘Search Within A Site’ Is A Big Deal

55
Sphinn It!

Sorry Andy, You’re Wrong: Google ‘Search Within A Site’ Is A Big Deal

Went Hot: March 25, 2008 - 6:22 am
Posted By: janecopland 468 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://ciarannorris.co.uk)
Category: Google Searching

Andy Beal thinks that The New York Time is over-reacting with its article questioning the new move; however, he seems to be overlooking some serious implications of Google's "Search within a site" feature.

16 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from g1smd 467 days ago #

Votes: 2 | Vote:

+ -

For one, Google gets to keep you on their site for a few more page views - and that's more opportunity to show you more ads...

from baiduyou 467 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Google may have cooked up the 'search within a site' feature for a sneaky ad revenue boost, but the fact it is of almost zero benefit to the standard searcher means it probably won't ever be that popular anyway.

e.g. When searching for images on Flickr it just adds an unecessary extra step - on other sites it works even less well. I'm betting the typical reaction to the site-search results is 'WTF?' as it is never going to come close to the functionality or usability of a good internal search.

from ciaran 467 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

baiduyou - I tend to agree and certainly hope that this is the case. Searching on a newspaper site for example allows filtering by date, author etc.. all impossible with this 'handy' new tool from the big G

from rishilakhani 467 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

What surprises me is the amount of people that pipe up that its great for usability - in all my experiments - it doesnt do any justice to most the sites I have tried.

But then again - I am no usability expert.

from ciaran 467 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

I am no usability expert.

Anyone seen Dr Pete?

from tomcritchlow 467 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Dr Pete, last seen on twitter about half an hour ago.

from DrPete 467 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Some of us have work to do, people :) Honestly, I don't think it's good for usability, at least at this point. Pulling internal site search across the Google threshold violates expectations. Google is supposed to be an internet-wide search, and now it's targeting one site. It doesn't save users any steps or hassle and will likely confuse them.

from rishilakhani 467 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@ Dr Pete - I am glad you noted this - there's a comment on usability on the original post mentioneed in the NY Times on Ann Smarty's blog - would you be so kind as to let us know what your opinion is?
http://www.seosmarty.com/search-within-search

p.s - this is strictly pro bono - so please dont send me a bill . lol.

from mike 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Huh? I don't get it.

Google offers a tool they think is good for their users, and you all think it is a conspiracy? Seems a good addition to me. The sort of thing people might like to have, especuially those who don't know comamnds like site: which is like 99.9% of all web users.

Call me crazy, but I reckon not every Google change is the end of the world, and think y'all need to go get some sunlight :)

from rishilakhani 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@mike :Seems a good addition to me.

It would be, if it is proven to help and work in favour of both users and advertisers- its not a conspiracy, but a statement of facts - SiS allows users to stay on google - exposing them to a host of adverts that they wouldnt have seen if it didnt exist.

Its totally google's right to introduce such a feature - but its not fair on brand owners.

from mike 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Proven how? So far you have no evience to support that it is bad, except complaints that it hurts people who have a CPM based business model. Last I looked, they weren't paying for this traffic, and Google is helping people better find their stuff, so what is the loss here?

"but a statement of facts - SiS allows users to stay on google - exposing them to a host of adverts that they wouldnt have seen if it didnt exist."

So what? Why doesn't Google have that right? AFAIK, most of the advice about website marketing is geared towards creating this very scenario: more time on site.

And fair? Since when is business about "fair"? The traffic is Google's, they can do whatever they like with it. If they believe that it benefits their users, and I tend to agree that it does in that it gets people closer to what they want sooner, then I say it's a great idea.

from rishilakhani 466 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Proven how?
Hence why I used the term "if it is proven".

Why doesn't Google have that right?
Did you by any chance read the last line of my comment above?

Since when is business about "fair"?
Umm ever heard of "Do no Evil?"

But everyone has a right to your opinion. So I respect yours.

from ciaran 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@mike - thanks for the comments - good to get some debate going.

My main problem is two-fold: Google suggests it's in the user's benefit - fair enough. I just flat out disagree. I think it's messy, confusing and pretty much pointless. EXCEPT that it should, if it takes off, boost revenues.

Nothing wrong with that, as you say - however the fact that in the UK it seems like it's being used as a way round Google's own controls on bidding on trademarked terms, pushes it from clever business, to slightly dodgy.

I too am not a believer in conspiracies, and don't think that this is one either; I think it's a poorly thought out move which has negligible user benefits (if any) and lots of potential financial ones for Google, some of which look like breaking their own T&Cs.

And I fail to see how that is good in any way.

from g1smd 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

One thing bugs me about the implementation.

You can have a little bit of contol over sitelinks from Google WMT, but there is no such similar control over this new sitesearch feature.

Maybe that is coming later?

from g1smd 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Oh, and I hear that Amazon asked for it to be removed for their site's results and it was.

Another oddity. There are some retailers where the box does NOT appear when you search for the retailer by name, but it does appear if you mis-spell their name. In that case, you get the right site at #1 along with the "did you mean..." text and the box also appears asking to search the corrrect site.

Try nordstrom and nordstrum for example.

from rishilakhani 466 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@g1smd - that is a wicked spot! I dont know how you came across that nordstrum thing but thats the strangest thing I have seen. Thanks!

re: Amazon - its been quoted in the NY article, but not verified by them. although Brent D. Payne did manage to find a screenshot of it with the search box - see Ann Smartys latest post: http://www.seosmarty.com/search-in-search-follow

Re: Control over the feature - we are all scratching our heads as to how to do this - the only way I can think is submit some sort of complaint to your google rep or via webmaster tools.