| 6:11 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I admit that i sometimes envy you win users - you have a lot more toys than others. ;) A screen shot anybody? I've never seen any such scumware in real life, yet ...
| 7:52 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have seen it too, my co-worker kept telling me Google was broken. The top ten sites were all this one website no matter what query. It was crazy. He went ahead and wiped the hard drive.
| 9:10 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Do you have a name to associate with it? |
No. Looking at the quarantine I see I had at least remnants of Huntbar and Hotbar.
This is a poor example as the "something different" aren't the normal results you would see. But it does show that all the results are actually driven by google.com.
The thing that finally convinced me it wasn't of google was the fact that after testing the something different link a few times there was absolutely no use for this link except to more than likely bring up sites that are ad/ppc heavy.
Of course, having the mods tell me it was scumware and no one else was talking about this helped convince me too <g>.
| 12:49 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, and he just responded to me via sticky mail. I'm in awe - I'd say the results of the "something different" in almost all of the other results I tested out were pretty poor. I sure hope if they do go through with this, that they only have this related searches field come up on the bottom of the results - its just way too busy, and the number one result would be sure to suffer.
| 3:30 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, it sure does. Probably better change the title of this thread too :-)
| 9:55 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That screenshot is different from what I've seen - a boxed set of related searches at the bottom of the screen, related searches is 4x4 or 5x4, so maybe 20 different related searches.
| 10:32 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> Of course, having the mods tell me it was scumware and no one else was talking about this helped convince me too <g>.
Sorry about that HayMeadows. We get quite a few similar-ish reports and it seemed to fit the pattern (though far more subtle).
ciml -> HayMeadows:
|I'm quite sure I'd have believed that was Google if I'd seen it. |
So, just to be clear. Not scumware; interesting feature being tested.
| 3:08 pm on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Unfortunately this thread is very hard to follow even if you know what it is all about. Needs quite a bit of cleaning up, IMHO. No its not scumware!
I changed the link above to an actual snapshot as there were too many dead links in the "live" version due to relative references.
That said, studying the html version I have, I see that the "something different" link actually takes all of the related keywords and runs a negative query based on them (not excluding what you searched for).
I personally am one that knows how to search for what I am looking for. I'm not sure the "something different" link would ever help. Could educate users about negative keywords though.
The related words however could help, but its way too busy at the top. I'd like to see Google keep only the row across the bottom of the results - that is actually the perfect spot for it anyways.
| 6:19 pm on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The Related Searches are just an experiment that we're trying. There are pieces of scumware that attach a new frame to search engine results, and sometimes even try to look like the search engine that they're emulating, but the Related Searches that Haymeadows noticed was from us. :)
| 12:59 am on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This thread was mentioned in today's Search Engine Update from Search Engine Watch. I am not seeing the Related Searches. Is there a filter I can apply to see them?
| 5:29 pm on Sep 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Argh! I want to see it!
GoogleGuy sign me up!