Slashdot Mirror
Google Allows Sponsored Rankings...In Ads
A number of written that the sky is fallen because Google is allowing sponsored rankings. Of course, if you read the article it's the sponsored links on the right side of the page - where the ads have always been.
Boy, people are really stupid.
I mean... what do these idiots want -- everyone to be listed randomly in the advertising section of each page, regardless of how much they paid? That just ain't the way advertising works.
I actually find the advertising useful on google.com. Hell, when I was searching for flower delivery companies online with google during vday week, I wasn't sure who to go with -- but the advertising results gave me several great options and I wound up using two of them.
The ads that people complain about so much aren't really that obtrusive. They are highlited to stand out (and make it easier to avoid them) and say "Sponsored Link" next to them. You have to be pretty daft to think that a sponsored link was an actual search result.
Hopefully this new advertising system won't make it harder to distinquish between real results and advertiser's links. Just as long as I can get the relevant results I'm used to, I don't think I care.
Its all about cost/benefit analysis...
The last time I checked, google is allowed to make a profit. Google is also allowed to fail miserably if the customers don't like it.
Goes right back to the free market world, and costs.
So if "the cost" of trying to find something on the net gets too high on google, then google will be forced to find another source of revenue when their customers leave.
Simple as that. The market is a harsh place. If we love our google, we have to pay for it. Otherwise, no money means no google. So you have to scroll down the page. Well, that is a cost of freeloading. Ask the people who used to pay for Lexis/Nexis (sp?) what solid, usable information costs.
Even abcnews.go.com has banners before you get to the news. It is coming. Really, it is a minor annoyance, and not much more IMHO. I certainly won't stop using google. I hope the make all the money in the world, they serve a real purpose on the net.
Actually, it's even better than you describe it. The highest paying customers are probably shown first. However, they also factor in how good the pages are (as judged by how many people click-through the links), so the most popular pages are shown first, even over money. Therefore, if I search for a product name: say, purify (a program to check C code dynamically), and there are 10 people who have paid more than that company to sell products branded purify that are not at all what I or anyone else want (spam spam spam spam), it still won't show up.
They've instituted a safeguard so not only is spamming not useful, it's barely an option. The items that people are most often interested in are the ones that you'll see most prominently.
Go Google!
1. Google_in_the_old_days didnt differentiate between results using who pays more principle.
2. Then they introduced sponsored links, NOT results.
3. Now for the first time, they actualy *rank* , the sponsored links based on who_pays-more.
I am not a star gazer, but it is hard to miss the current over here. Google sucessfully cashed in on the Page Citation Model , now for the Pre-IPO Google Inc. bsuiness sounds more interesting.
But lots of new cool stuff keep appearing on those pristine pages..i would surely like to see that continue. And..boy! do these things really mess up their interface.
**
from the article:
Popular online search engine maker Google Inc. is introducing a new program that allows Web sites to be displayed more prominently by paying more money - an advertising-driven system derided by critics as an invitation to deceptive business practices.
Remember, the deceptive business practise could be on either side -- Google or the advertiser.
About a week ago, I was looking for a good deal on a pair of quality Vasque Sundowners. In searching for that, two coloured ads appeared above my search results, each offering the "best selection" in Vasque footwear.
The only thing is, one of them had no Vasque anything in stock.
Strangely enough, I just did the same search to try and prove my point, but only the REI ad appears anymore; The two-bit footwear company no longer has an ad up there. Now, this might well mean that their ad rotation is over, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
On that note, how hard would it be to make a search engine smart (ethical?) enough to search a website to assure that the keywords people bought have something to do with the products on their site? Or is that just counterproductive to a coherent business model?
We all really really like this company. Google has a LOT of fans on Slashdot. Why is that none of you think that actively supporting a company you like is a Good Idea?
I make an effort to click on an ad when it follows from my search anyway. If I'm looking for Linksys's support page, and it turns out that LinkSys has paid for an ad at the side, I'll click through. It's not so hard.
I want Google to survive, so I'll glance at their ads, and I'll use them when I can.
What's interesting about this post not what the article claims to be about. The article, running on an Excite web site, is fairly clearly written deceptively to make Google look bad. It throws in what amounts to an ad for these ridiculous Overture people.
A quick google search on "Excite Overture" leads to an article about how Overture is the company that runs paid ads on the Excite search engine.
So this story is not about how some people are stupid and think google is shady, but about how some people at Excite apparently are both stupid and shady.
I sure as hell can't figure out how they've survived this long with their "Make No Money/Spend Lots of Money" business strategy.
I mean really, how much money do you think Google pulls in through their ads? Do you think that cost per month can even pay for their electricity costs for powering and cooling 8,000 machines? How in the world do they do it?
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 10.8). Formatting screwed due to this!
w pages.msn.com/simplesearch.aspx?KWD=a utomobile+dealers
http://www.autobuyingusa.comc t.comb ytel.com/w .kbb.com/
a lk.com/Classifieds/index.html
l / 7 6& page=teacher l
MSN search order:
http://carpoint.msn.com/homepage/
http://yello
http://www.invoicedealers.com
http://www.carsdire
http://www.dealernet.com/
http://www.auto
http://www.autovantage.com/
http://ww
Yahoo! search order:
http://www.chicagocarshopping.com/
http://cart
http://www.avis.com/
http://www.nationalcar.com/
http://www.enterprise.com/
http://www.dreamcarrentals.com
http://www.alamo.com/
http://www.thrifty.com/
http://www.ecars.com/
http://www.dollar.com/
Google search order
www.autobytel.com/
carpoint.msn.com/
www.edmunds.com
www.aeclassic.com/
www.csi-auto.nl/carshopping/
www.carshopping.n
www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM1
www.cars.com/
www.tex-net.net/cartips_info.htm
www.womanmotorist.com/cntshopping.shtml
What has more relavance? Who purchased their way on to who's list? Who's searching technique was exploited to earn higher marks?
Oh no! When I think about all the crap I learned in High School, it's a wonder I can think at all. Although my life of education never hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall.
God forbid anyone makes you use the processor between your ears to filter information instead of spoon feeding processed pasturized iradiated crap into your hamburger mind.
Can't do a propper search? You don't even need to be on the internet. It is in fact dangerous for you to be here. You are probably the type of person that responds to spam mail.
In other words, Google is a good company but they need to earn money too. Otherwise they will be weak and get purchase by Microsoft or AOL just like every good online service.
Remember when hotmail was run on Linux? Remember when ICQ passed its first million users? Remember when Hitbox, Realplayer and Gozilla! didn't track the crap out of you?
Let Goggle Be Google and spend your time worrying about The DMCA, Microsoft's Monopoly and the kernal forking
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
It was funny: about 2 months ago, I was reading some of their documentation on their site, seeing what all I could customize, and I noticed these boxes with ads that were supposed to be on the right... I had never seen one, probably because I always use the strangest search terms possible to get good results. I re-ran my most recent search, and ... nothing. So, taking a clue from the spam I get in my disposable accounts, I searched for "Viagra."
Colorful ad boxes all down the page...
CSS 2 Selectors provide enough power to nuke most banner adverts, and, if you're clever enough, remove these text ads.
CSS 3 Selectors should be even better, and let you do it on a per-website basis, which might be useful if your rules to nuke Google ads are too general to apply to all sites.
You will need a browser that impliments them, though; Opera and Mozilla support most CSS 2 selector syntax, but IE6 does not.
You can use the same techniques to override ugly colour schemes, change font styles and sizes and even include content. Just define it all in a user stylesheet; that's what it's there for.
I might revive my banner killing user CSS actually, it worked quite well.. but I don't think I'll bother with Google :)
It would be interesting to see an "eBay style" of advertising, especially on Google. Advertisers would have the opportunity to see openly what other advertisters were bidding and for what sort of placement. They could then decide whether or not to bid up. A new advertiser steps up with a higher bid? Goodbye to the old bidder. Not enough impact from your bid? Reduce or retrace your bid. Of course Google could set minimum bids to cover their costs, or spark interest.
The next step would be for Google to step up and show users exactly what each advertiser was paying for each user's mindshare.
MikeAtIF*ckStuffedAnimalsDotCom
As has been said in the story lead, this will only effect clearly marked advertisments on the side. As a potential small advertiser starting looking just a few days ago I can say this new system is helpful. First is paying for click through only. The second is they now will report expected clickthrough's with phrases (and complete complicated queries) and not just keywords. Helps targeting.
as opposed to what?
Tomorrow's headline: "Google renounces ads, revenue"
that would be the *last* step to the end of google.
any high-volume site like google needs revenue to even exist for a day, so there is a natural conflict of interests. i think google has handled this problem better than most.
hell, SLASHDOT's ads are more obstructive.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Seriously tho, sites that use text ads like Google and scoop (and k5 soon) already have my respect for being cool techie sites. Not showing me banner ads (which Mozilla easily blocks anyway) shows that they respect me.
...and they know that they have millions of diehard fans out there because they are good. The day they stop being good, the fans will go away, just like they did for altavista and countless other search sites.
if the paid ads in google are likely to compromise on the quality of my searches, i'll search somewhere else. simple!
which means that unless they are very dumb (and we already took care of that in subject itself), google will not let the ads piss off its users.
so we can continue to keep google as our homepage and let them make some money for that.
Their ad ranking methods make sense are affordable and do not get in the way of the real search.
Kudos to them for keeping their values while allowing a decent business model to evolve.
Blogging because I can...