Actually, no they arent. *You* just think they are easily spotted because you're a savvy Slashdot reader, but for the vast majority of the population, people are unable to tell which part of a google result is content, or advertisement.
They link to a BBC study that proves less than 18 percent of all web surfers were able to identify ads on a search engine page.
Maybe you should stop and think for a moment WHY text ads perform so much better than random banner ads. It's because when you match the font and size of the rest of the page, use the same colors, and have a tiny light gray nonsense "Ads by Goooooooogle" disclaimer, the vast majority of people simply think it is part of the page they are surfing on. Period.
>Paid results are clearly ads and seperated from real results.
The top three execs at Google have sold over 500 million dollars worth of stock in the last 3 months, which is more than the company itself has made in TOTAL profit since the day it was founded.
Guess everyone really has forgotten what happened in the last dot.com boom?
Once again, I have to ask the question- why do the slashdot editors insist on just publishing fluff pieces on Google? Why not mention the other side of the coin?
There is a world of news out there that doesn't worship Google as the second coming of Christ, fer chrissake. Namely:
This article is nothing but a fluff piece. No new information at all, except perhaps the bit about the poached eggs at the Nasdaq launch.
And to think the entire empire was based on one simple fact: if you make the ads appear to be contextual and related to the rest of a page, a large majority of users (over 80%) will not recognize they're even looking at ads, and thus will be more likely to click.
That's the fundamental genius of Google. They've fooled most of their users.
Btw if you don't believe the part about most users being unable to recognize text ads, here's the story about it from the BBC:
Classic moves from the dot.com playbook of 1999. Amazon perfected this strategy back when their stock was around $500 per share- they'd announce new categories of sales on a daily basis in the hopes that nobody would notice their P/E was over 1000:1.
That was got Google in hot water. Google was basically putting up adsense ads all around any search for Louis Vuitton. These adsense ads were purchased by COUNTERFEITERS selling FAKE Vuitton handbags.
I know the slashdot crowd probably doesn't know the first thing about French designer handbags, but let me just cut to the chase and say that they cost 100s of dollars and there are plenty of companies who sell fake ones for a fraction of the price of a real one.
Since it was proven last week that most internet users CANNOT distinguish text ads from actual content http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4201343.stm, and since people were clicking on those Google search results thinking they were buying a real bag when in fact they were getting a FAKE bag, *that* is why Google lost in court.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/my_weblog/2005/01/ther es_a_sucker.html/ mentions a recent study that showed less than 18 percent of surveyed search engine users were able to distinguish ads from unbiased "content"
This is the foundation of the paid search model, as well as the SEO crowd.
At least for now, people trust the results search engines give them because they simply aren't aware that nearly everything you see on the first page or so is there due to payment or gaming the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I never thought I'd see the day- especially in April.
Don't believe me? Read the rant over on http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/my_weblog/2005/01/ther es_a_sucker.html
They link to a BBC study that proves less than 18 percent of all web surfers were able to identify ads on a search engine page.
Maybe you should stop and think for a moment WHY text ads perform so much better than random banner ads. It's because when you match the font and size of the rest of the page, use the same colors, and have a tiny light gray nonsense "Ads by Goooooooogle" disclaimer, the vast majority of people simply think it is part of the page they are surfing on. Period. >Paid results are clearly ads and seperated from real results.
second story
All the daily news about Google that they'd rather you didn't read about.
fuckedgoogle had a story on this exact topic a while back:
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/my_weblog/2005/02/goog le_results_.html
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
The top three execs at Google have sold over 500 million dollars worth of stock in the last 3 months, which is more than the company itself has made in TOTAL profit since the day it was founded.
Guess everyone really has forgotten what happened in the last dot.com boom?
Story breaking tonight. Absolutely amazing. Apparently investors learned absolutely nothing from the last dot.com collapse.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
maybe not the type of news they'd like, tho. :-)
Top story.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
There is a world of news out there that doesn't worship Google as the second coming of Christ, fer chrissake. Namely:
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
would be the correct link. :-)
This article is nothing but a fluff piece. No new information at all, except perhaps the bit about the poached eggs at the Nasdaq launch.
And to think the entire empire was based on one simple fact: if you make the ads appear to be contextual and related to the rest of a page, a large majority of users (over 80%) will not recognize they're even looking at ads, and thus will be more likely to click.
That's the fundamental genius of Google. They've fooled most of their users. Btw if you don't believe the part about most users being unable to recognize text ads, here's the story about it from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4201343.stm
while some of you may be wishing for GoogleRecruiting.com,
what you need to be reading is http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
In Slashdot's eyes Google can do no wrong,
and in Fuckedgoogle's eyes Google is going down the well-worn path of dot.com excess and hubris.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth. But fuckedgoogle is a hell of a lot funnier. :)
it quit working in the sense that the daily new business entrances were able to keep amazon's stock price inflated.
Classic moves from the dot.com playbook of 1999. Amazon perfected this strategy back when their stock was around $500 per share- they'd announce new categories of sales on a daily basis in the hopes that nobody would notice their P/E was over 1000:1.
Eventually that quit working. In a hurry.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/ the only site on the net devoted to exposing the dark side of google.
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/my_weblog/2005/01/ther es_a_sucker.html
The dirty little secret of adsense is that the whole point is to fool people into thinking the ads ARENT ads.
I know the slashdot crowd probably doesn't know the first thing about French designer handbags, but let me just cut to the chase and say that they cost 100s of dollars and there are plenty of companies who sell fake ones for a fraction of the price of a real one.
Since it was proven last week that most internet users CANNOT distinguish text ads from actual content http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4201343.stm, and since people were clicking on those Google search results thinking they were buying a real bag when in fact they were getting a FAKE bag, *that* is why Google lost in court.
Of course, this is all old news to anyone who reads http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/my_weblog/2005/01/ther es_a_sucker.html/ mentions a recent study that showed less than 18 percent of surveyed search engine users were able to distinguish ads from unbiased "content"
This is the foundation of the paid search model, as well as the SEO crowd.
At least for now, people trust the results search engines give them because they simply aren't aware that nearly everything you see on the first page or so is there due to payment or gaming the system.
i have to admit, I love google, but this is getting sort of ridiculous don't you think?
what's next- Google silverware and Google cereal?