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.
Before, all advertisers paid a set fee and were randomly displayed in random order. Now there highest paying customers are shown first.
While I wish they didn't do this, as it affects our advertising budget, I think this is logical and I support their decision to make money. After all, if google doesn't make money, they'll go under and we'll all lose access to the best search engine.
For crying out loud people, here's the link
I don't see why you linked to another search engine for the story.
;-)
:: 9 Out Of 10 People Use Me
You could have simply gotten the information from the horse's mouth.
Linking to an article that tries to stir controversy and sway readers away from Google is highly sketchy. Google has nothing to hide by this, and even the Slashdot editor who posted this story admitted that it's nothing more than they've already BEEN doing.
They sell ads that show up on the side. We'll always know which results are real and which aren't. The real ones show up in the middle; the results that are paid-for advertisements show up on the right in colored boxes and are clearly marked as advertisements.
Most of the time these "advertisements" are more often useful things than typical gimmicks that you find with image banner ads (i.e. click the monkey - win cash!, if this is flashing you won $100,000, etc etc etc).
It's fine when you dump on Microsoft because they're evil
But don't sling mud at Google. They're just trying to stay profitable so we can continue to use their great service.
EricKrout.com
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.
The few key points that prevent me from worrying me about this are these:They will continue to distinguish between search engine results and advertisements and keep the ads separate from the results, to the right side of the screen. For this reason, that article and the title of this on SlashDot seem to be alarmist and misleading. Google is maintaining its integrity, at least for now.
One might also note that Excite, which published this article, uses Overture for its results, and labels them "Search Results for: [term]." Might they have a bias?
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
I guess Hemos just wanted to use the dollar icon on the front page. *shrugs*. Nothing to see here, please move along.
Liberty.
The practice that I'm talking about here is that of selling relative rankings in an advertising medium. The beauty of the system is that the value of advertising really does "float free" in the marketplace, but at the same time empowers the seller of the ad space to keep prices up without looking greedy.
In the case of eBay, they keep adding new "features" you can use to increase the relative profile of your auction. Each of these features costs money, of course (other than a couple of basic ones which are included in the cost of a basic auction). Rather than ratchet up the prices on these features, eBay seems to prefer to add new, fancier features which cost more money. But note: these new features have the side effect of making the older features less valuable because they aren't the biggest eye-catchers on the block anymore. This means that the cost of the highest-profile feature keeps going up, even if all the prices of existing features are static.
In searching for precedents to this, I remembered the plain old printed White Pages (TM in various locations, no doubt) telephone directory. This doesn't accept ads, but over time they've gone from "every listing looks the same", to "pay extra for a bold entry", to "pay even more for a SUPERBOLD entry", and so on.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
How dare they put unobtrusive advertising on their search engine? I want more annoying pop-up ads, transitional advertising pages, flash animations, and javascript so my mp3's skip. Even better if the ad covers the content, so I have to move it so I can get two paragraph of links to 404 errors.
God damn them, damn them all to the fiery pits of hell!
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.
Though I've absolutely no intention of doing a thing about it, I'm going to sit here and complain and bitch because someone who is providing a free service to my lazy ass has the *balls* to try and make money off of it!!!
I thought slashdot collectively stopped caring about this kind of non-issue pap back in 1998.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I've never noticed the ads before. I had to go back and look for them after reading this.
I agree with others who say this isn't newsworthy, but to comment, the excite article does say explicitly that the sponsored links are "on the section of Google's site that's devoted to sponsored links" - ie... the side.. in really small writing.
why didn't anybody kick up a stink when yahoo started putting on pop-up windows? or when groups.yahoo started making you click thru an ad randomly when reading message?
google has to make money from somewhere.. may as well be little tiny ads that nobody notices.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
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.
Here's the cached version
Get over it. They do have to make money. And there has been no encroachment on the worthwhileness of the service. The links are in the ad section. The AD section!
In fact, I even find this useful. If I'm looking for a product or service, I have been known to click on a sponsored link in the past. I've even bought things from them.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
It's sadly quaint to work on the proposition that high integrity is an asset to a money-making company. Google appears to understand this with their refusal to dilute the value of their search results.
Here's hoping that they prove to the world that making money hand over fist is consistant with that attitude, maybe even derived from 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.
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 :)
Google, like a lot of the .coms that are still alive, don't make their money directly off of the consumers/users. A good majority of their revenue is from licensing deals with other companies. Yahoo is one of the biggest client of googles. They leverage google's search engine for yahoo's web searches. This alone could bring in a couple million a year. In addition, a couple weeks ago, there was a posting on /. about Google's search/document caching system that they are selling to companies for 20k.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
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
The old system was CPM, you paid per thousand impressions. The new system that they added on top of the old system is CPC, you pay for the clickthrough.
In Overture (goto.com, renamed) you are ranked by bid. If I want to close out a category, I can try to sneak in some irrelevant links (irrelevant with poor wording, for example) to minimize clickthroughs. I've still blocked a space from the competitor, but I likely pay little because I won't get clicked on.
The reason that this makes sense for Google is purely economic. Right now, in popular categories, their adwords are over-subscribed because people can't win the search terms. In unpopular categories, people just optimize for Google and get in the real results, not paying for ads.
A CPC deal allows much cheaper rates for unpopular terms (5 cents/click compared to 8-12 cents per impression based upon placement), while allowing competitive categories to be bid up.
However, the click-pop isn't a user-benefit, it's a Google benefit. The old system moved the clicked on ads to the top (where Google charged more, but you got better clickthrough so it was fine). The new system takes into account your CPC bid and click throughs.
That makes sense. If I am willing to pay 10 cents a click but get twice as many clicks as your 15 cent ad, I pay Google more per page, so Google wants to run my ad.
The real system is likely not that simple, because Google's bid-protection automatically down-bids you to be 1 cent above the person below you. Therefore, like on Ebay, you can bid the max that you are willing to pay.
It's an intelligent system. Google is entitled to run ads. Their advertisements are clearly marked as ads and separated from the editorial. The problem with search engine ads isn't that they run ads, or even targetted ads, its that the search engines intentionally try to confuse you as to what you are getting. The other problem is the bait-and-switch strategy. Several meta-searches built up user bases by giving great results with intelligent use of the engines. Once they got users, they switched to completely CPC systems to leverage their userbase until they got fed up and left.
Repeat after me, there is nothing morally wrong with ads. Poorly done ads that slow my connection make me leave your site, but I haven't been robbed. Making money is not morally wrong.
Alex
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!
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...