News Source: http://ciarannorris.co.uk
Published: Mar 25, 2008 - 06:22 am
Story Found By: janecopland 1419 Days ago
Category: Searching
16 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://ciarannorris.co.uk
Published: Mar 25, 2008 - 06:22 am
Story Found By: janecopland 1419 Days ago
Category: Searching
16 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX West - Feb. 28 - Mar. 1, 2012
- SMX Munich - Mar. 27-28, 2012
- SMX Toronto - Apr. 25-26, 2012
- SMX Sydney - May 1-2, 2012
- SMX London - May 15-16, 2012
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Aug. 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Sept. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 2012
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Marketing Day: February 10, 2012
- Report: iPhone, iPad Now Drive More Web Traffic Than Mac OS
- Drawing Out Your Affiliate Program Marketing Plan
- Is Yahoo About To Make Another Big Mistake — With Its Display Ad Business?
- Google Analytics For The Enterprise: Perception & Reality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- The Inside Scoop on Automating and Optimizing Your PPC Campaigns - February 21, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Google’s Recent Domain Registrations: Labs, Screenwise & AdWords
- Google AdWords Gets Shared Lists To Eliminate Duplicate Data Entry
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, February 10, 2012
- Now, Mitt Romney Has A Santorum-Like Bing & Google Problem
- Search In Pics: Google Sugar Cube, Yahoo Valentines & Chrome M&M’s
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
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...
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.
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
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.
I am no usability expert.Anyone seen Dr Pete?
Dr Pete, last seen on twitter about half an hour ago.
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.
@ 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-searchp.s - this is strictly pro bono - so please dont send me a bill . lol.
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 :)
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
@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-followRe: 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.