Slashdot Mirror
Did Google Go Instant Just To Show More Ads?
eldavojohn writes "Google, already the largest search engine in the United States, went instant a few weeks ago. MIT's Tech Review asks why Google went instant and is skeptical that users actually look at search results before they finish typing their query. Othar Hansson, Google's lead on the initiative, informs them otherwise and claims that Google's traffic monitors didn't even blink at the extra data being sent across — primarily because of its insignificance next to streaming one video on YouTube. Hansson also reveals that Google's search engine is no longer stateless and therefore takes up a little more memory in their server hives. The Tech Review claims that 'sources at the company say Google Instant's impact on ad sales was a primary focus in testing the service. Google only gets paid for an advertisement, or sponsored link, when a user clicks on the ad, and ads are targeted to specific searches. By displaying a search's ads onscreen a couple of seconds sooner, the frequency of users clicking on those ads could only go up.' So money seemed to be the prime motivator and the article also coyly notes that the average length of time a user spends between typing in any two characters is 300 milliseconds — much too fast for old JavaScript engines. Of course, you might recall Google's efforts to change all that with JavaScript speed wars. Do you find Google Instant to be useful in any way, or does it strike you as just more ad gravity for your mouse?"
By displaying a search's ads onscreen a couple of seconds sooner, the frequency of users clicking on those ads could only go up.'
By displaying ads for shorter periods of time, click frequency will actually go down.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Google doesn't make money by selling searches to "end users", they make money by selling ads. So this new "functionality" is a surprise how?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
What are these "ads" of which you speak? Sincerely, Just Another AdBlock user
:wq
Oh my god, Google wants to make money from it's advertising arm. This is shocking news, we should all boycott them now for someone who provides all services for free.
I turned it off as soon as I figured out how.
I don't want results before I even finish formulating my search request. It's distracting and confusing: a burst of visual noise while I'm trying to focus on what I'm typing in the search box (which I may decide to change as I'm typing it).
Why do I want to read results of a search that doesn't even represent my complete inquiry?
in so far as I don't have to keep on hitting return.
It means that typing a few letters at the start of a search instead of having to type out the full phrase is sufficient sometimes to pull up the necessary results. It also makes it quicker and easier to tweak a search for slightly different keywords, or to browse through the auto-suggest searches.
I personally find Instant Search an awesome feature. However, it seems to conflict with an experimental search feature I love (namely, the keyboard shortcuts), so until Google introduces a version that supports both Instant and keyboard shortcuts, the latter feature wins.
Given the complete uselessness of the feature (as described in TFA), I always figured instant search as just being some bogus bling that Google can use to show how they're staying ahead of alternatives like Bing. Even phrases like "gone instant" reek of marketing slime.
The truth is that Bing, even with as few people around here that use it, really is working on keeping pace, or even surpassing Google in some areas. Microsoft's recent demos of their sliding and composited street-view, for example, were pretty impressive.
Hopefully Google has some real new features in store and hasn't fallen to relying on completely useless visual gimmicks to keep customers. Recently their work on improving search has been to make their text fields and buttons too big and to waste CPU cycles with stupid instant search. Whee.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
the https page works too, or you can just disable it in the settings tab.
Most of the time when I accidentally go to the none https page, I find instant search annoying since I usually know what I'm searching for and I'm done typing before most of the page finishes spazzing out anyway.
This post may or may not contain cancer causing materials.
I don't even see this 'feature', nor the annoying and distracting 'fade in' effect launched a few months ago. NoScript handily takes care of that junk for me. And I've switched off suggestions in Google prefs, which means I don't have to look at what other people have searched for as I'm typing in my own search criteria. Now if I could only find a way to permanently switch off Web History - I refuse to open an account with Google, (aka 'Big Brother'), just to be able to disable this, ewpecially given that I don't trust Google to fully disable it even if they say they have done so. In my experience, when a company starts down the road of intrusiveness, invasion of privacy, and excessive 'eye candy', they've usually come to the end of their tenure as true innovators. I suspect that Google will slowly become less and less relevant over the next 5 to 10 years, just as Microsoft has in the previous decade or so.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
My take on Google's rationale is this; Now I'm a small-time Adwords advertiser in my day job, which gives me a little insight into how the ad empire runs.
For the uninitiated, Google sells the ads on a per click basis, with the price per click decided with a keyword auction. So, if one was in the business of renting out monkeys, one might bid for "monkey rental", "monkey hire", "hire monkeys in Smalltown" etc etc.
Popular keywords (eg "monkey hire") will cost more per click than less popular keywords (eg "short term monkey rental in Tinyplace"). Savvy advertisers might spread their bids to avoid overpaying for the highly competitive search terms and get some cheaper clicks in the 'long tail' of obscure searches.
This is where 'instant search' comes in. Say a user was seeking to rent a monkey and begins typing in Google- "Monkey.." with the intention of typing "Monkey leasing in Anothertown". Google suggests (and loads the results page for) "Monkey hire". User thinks 'okay' and uses the results page for "Monkey hire" to select a result or ad to click on. Repeat this process across X users. The result is that the proportion of users who 'search' for popular keyword combinations increases, as many will settle for whatever Google has suggested. The total number of ad clicks will stay roughly the same, as there will be the same number of people searching. The bid price per ad click will increase, as unpopular keywords become even less popular and users are nudged towards the most common variations. Google profits.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
Wait...a company (Google) that makes a profit by selling stuff (advertisements) has introduced a technology that enables them to sell more ads? Unpossible!
I do too, but I actually like the instant results when i end up on a google.com page.
I can quickly look at the top 3 or 4 results scrolling down the suggestions. Previously I would have to guess which suggestion was best and search.
Not earth shattering, but not the useless annoyance I thought it would be. It makes it slightly easier to find the correct search term before wading through results.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
My reaction to it was the same as with the AwesomeBar:
First I loathed it. It makes the input box to jump while the text is being typed. It also makes it very hard to focus on typing while a multitude of information is flashing on the screen at the same time. That effect increases if you are a fast touch typist.
But I was too lazy to disable it, so I didn't. I then started (without even noticing) to adapt the way I use it and it proved itself to be much easier: I start typing whatever I'm searching and pause for just a second to inspect the suggestions google makes. More often than not, I can simply stop typing because the search result is already what I'm looking for.
In the few cases it is not, I finish typing and use it "the old way", pressing enter to retrieve the search results.
I've gotten used to the laggy feeling and jumpiness but what I can't stand is that after being trained to not have to enter a query it sometimes wipes out the final results and tells me I have to hit enter. WTF?
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
If you're a "True Nerd" (TM)** then you'd know that the colloquialism "boxen" was derived from another colloquialism "VAXen" which came from the olden days (1970's - 1980's, even into the 90's) of computer science when Digital Equipment Corporation still existed and made a line of minicomputer called the "VAX". If you had more than one VAX system, the plural became known as "VAXen", derived from Old English use of the suffix "-en" tacked onto a noun to denote plural. This name came to be due to the fact that virtually all VAX sysadmins back in those days were mostly a bunch of goofy wierdos who still lived in their mothers' basements well into their 40's, never got laid, and seemed to live perpetually in a fantasy world composed solely of Renaissance Fairs.
All the posts complaining about this surprised me, mainly because I'm surprised that anyone uses the google search page. Don't pretty much all browsers have a search field? I type my search in there, hit enter, and see the results.
For me, "http://google.com" is a connectivity diagnostic tool, not a search tool.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.