| 10:05 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think the new look is a good move forward.
The professionalism will reach out to new Adwords clients who will see the change as increasing the visibility of the PPC listings.
The higher visibility will increase clickthrough rates on Adwords meaning that you won't get an email every day saying that your Adwords campaigns are on hold due to low clickthrough rates which will encourage disgruntled webmasters to increase their Adwords efforts.
The 'lifting' of the search bar, results info and sponsored listings higher up on the page allows more natural search results to be seen above the scroll which is more user friendly.
The merging of the dual coloured Sponsored Links box into one narrower single coloured box will lose some of the commercial 'feel' that Google has been giving off for so long now.
In general the whole page has been given the same colouration whether paid or natural results which gives a better user experience.
In all, I disagree that this is a move by the 'suits' at Google. They would have encouraged more distinction of the paid results rather than blending them into the page to mirror natural results. I think this is the best look out there right now and it gives the best search engine user experience visually.
Their algorithm still sucks ****** ***** though.
| 10:06 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
As previously posted, there's little sign of the directory. Is this purely cosmetic?
GG says there has been no algo change, only a UI change, which rings true looking at the results.
Perhaps the directory has been deprecated for much longer than we realised?
| 10:08 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ah, sorry, forgot to mention:
Yahoo was a directory who built a search engine to compete with Google. Google was a search engine who will now build a directory to compete with Yahoo.
Just think - their own editors reviewing sites rather than the very slow and easily bribed DMOZ guys. Imagine the PageRank attributes and relevance they could give to sites they've checked themselves ...
[edited by: internetheaven at 10:12 am (utc) on Mar. 29, 2004]
| 10:09 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Results look completely messed up when I narrow my web browser.
I guess the AdWord CTR rates will depend on what people have their webbrowsers set to in terms of web browser width. If it's the whole screen, it'll go down if it is narrow then it will go up.
| 10:10 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In a search for "widgets", the widgets part of www.thingummywidgets.com is highlighted. Until now, to my knowledge it was generally assumed that Google couldn't parse non-hyphenated domain names.
ah, already mentioned in msg #20...
[edited by: John_Caius at 10:13 am (utc) on Mar. 29, 2004]
| 10:12 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So another fast food shop has changed the look of the menu but the kitchen is still serving yesterdays meals. It takes a sensible shopper to know when it's time to seek fresh produce!
| 10:17 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think it looks a lot better and I like the way the sponsored links fit in, I suspect that the directory listings were of more use to us then average joe surfer which is maybe why they were taken out.
| 10:22 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I like the way the sponsored links fit in |
Yes, they're very nicely slipped in ;)
Loss of the directory link seems reasonable, their research probably shows that hardly anyone clicks on it - which is probably true.
| 10:26 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>The higher visibility will increase clickthrough rates on Adwords
I don't think so. I think google is spiraling down like a one wing airplane. It is turning into a viciuous cycle at this point. Results are worse so make adwords bigger so adwords makes more money. Users must be stupid make adwords even bigger. Users must be total idiots (can't be something we are doing) not clicking still...make adwords entire page. Moron user still won't click...gee what went wrong, stupid idiot users should click our ads and make us all rich? Well, maybe you messed up when you decided to not be a search engine any more.
| 10:30 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Results look completely messed up when I narrow my web browser. |
I agree with that one. On some SERPS, where the sniplett is based on Meta keywords separated by commas and no space between, the new design fails to hyphenate the sniplett and results in a HUGE empty white rectangle.
| 10:31 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> I can't see Adwords CTR going down, because they now look like organic results
Good point, SyntheticUpper. Still, the effort required to click on an ad has increased significantly with the new GUI, and that makes me wonder whether a slight decrease in overall CTR might be desirable on Google's part. Maybe they just wanted to filter out accidental/random clicks?
[edited by: Giacomo at 10:38 am (utc) on Mar. 29, 2004]
| 10:36 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I guess highlighting keywords in the domain names gives food for thought on the increased value of this SEO element... After all there must be a threshhold of *infestation* of domain name with keywords.
| 10:51 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CTR will definitely go up. Joe Public doesn't know the difference between organic results and paid for results at the best of times.
Now the visible distinction is negligible. And the Adwords are more relevant than the serps themselves for commercial searches (now there's a surprise, wonder how that happened :)
I don't use Adwords, it's just not cost effective in my industry.
My serp position is still good though, but I guess Google has finally stuffed me :)
Nice one! G has finally managed to impose a universal tax on the Internet!
(the new pages do look nice and clean though)
[edited by: SyntheticUpper at 10:57 am (utc) on Mar. 29, 2004]
| 10:57 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So a big update and still they haven't made it so that Google.co.uk's radio button auto-defaults to "pages from the UK" instead of "the web". That's shabby imo.
| 11:07 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Arrgh! Everybody´s talking about valid (X)HTML, CSS-P and accessibilty. And Google? See W3C´s validator and source code.
What an update...
| 11:09 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>You've really got to hunt around for the Google Directory at all. I think putting it in such a low prominence is a mistake, especially removing the directory category from under the SERPs.
>This will make researching a topic much harder to do. It used to be a lot easier to find related sites.. Google has effectively killed this feature off.
This I agree with. Good news if your site is ODP listed and you come up in the top 10 SERP. Makes it harder now for people to find the competition/related sites. Bad news if you are in the ODP, but don't make page 1 of the SERPs.
| 11:12 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>So a big update and still they haven't made it so that Google.co.uk's radio button auto-defaults to "pages from the UK" instead of "the web". That's shabby imo.
This is a Good Thing for UK searchers who aren't looking for UK specific information. Why should a UK searcher want just pages from the UK on a search for "kangaroos"?
| 11:16 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
rfg, if there isn't a UK page about 'kangaroos', then G has always fed results from the rest of the World.
I mainly use the UK search when I'm trying to buy something. There's no point in drilling down through USA sites etc. offering great deals, but in dollars with necessarily high transit costs and import duties etc.
Admittedly, there aren't many folks in the UK attempting to buy kangaroos, I can think of only a dozen people I know who have bought one in the past month.
| 11:28 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>rfg, if there isn't a UK page about 'kangaroos', then G has always fed results from the rest of the World.
It's guaranteed that there are many pages on the UK with "kangaroos" on them.
>I mainly use the UK search when I'm trying to buy something. There's no point in drilling down through USA sites etc. offering great deals, but in dollars with necessarily high transit costs and import duties etc.
>Admittedly, there aren't many folks in the UK attempting to buy kangaroos, I can think of only a dozen people I know who have bought one in the past month.
Only a very small percent of all Google searches are done by people looking to buy anything. Thus Google defaults to what most searchers want. For the statistically rare searcher looking to buy something, that's what the radio button is for.
| 11:30 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Fair enough rfg. I see your point. But i have Google.co.uk as my homepage. If i wanted to search the whole web all the time i'd have .com for "home"
I suppose it comes down to what your primary use of google is: 'the world' or 'your country'.
But lets say i'd been looking for stuff on Google.com and i decide that i want to search the UK now. I navigate to Google.co.uk. "oh great now i've got to click the radio button to search the uk" or even worse in my haste to search, i forget to click it at all.
I'll shut up now. Hehe. :D
| 11:36 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Without the Directory links to click on, that raises the percentage of clickable territory for Adwords. Now that is easy to see. The Directory is still there doing what it does, it just will deliver less visitors than before because it has less links to it.
In other words... Google just SEO'ed for Adwords.
| 11:41 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Regarding Directory and categories, from another thread:
I'm not sure what this thing is supposed to do yet, but that slider sure does move stuff around.
| 12:05 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Only a very small percent of all Google searches are done by people looking to buy anything. |
How do you know this RFG?
There's also another important use for the country specific search I omitted to mention, if I'm searching for information about, say, a postal, educational or tax issue, I need to see the UK governmental or educational sites. Worldwide results would be meaningless as their laws don't apply to me.
(p.s. I'm surprised no-one picked me up on my statement that only a dozen people I know have bought kangaroo's in the last month. Clearly no-one reads the posts :)
| 12:12 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I pretty much like the gradient effect of colors at the bottom on the page. It makes the search box stand out. Google wants its users to not go beyond the first 10 results - and wants that users should try another query.
| 12:27 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think the directory link was more useful to the average user than froogle. I rarely search Google for shopping terms, so will miss the usefulness of the directory link.
Is this a sign Google is becoming more commercial in their ideals?
[edited by: mikeD at 12:31 pm (utc) on Mar. 29, 2004]
| 12:30 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I LOVE the new design, it is very simple and professional. The earlier one was getting a little dull. The new design should definitely increase CTR for adwords.
Also ,from Alexa rankings [alexa.com], directory.google.com = 1%
The directory links are a good riddance, as a very small percentage of users actually clicked on them, and we all know the quality of dmoz.....
| 12:33 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|and we all know the quality of dmoz..... |
I edit at Dmoz and would say very high, with the majority of editors being very ethical. Wouldn't believe all that's posted on ww about Dmoz. It's still the best resource on the net for users, maybe not for webmasters because the majority on ww are commercial.
| 12:36 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Re: number of searches for buying things - similar data used to be available from the Alltheweb recent queries feature but I don't think that exists any more. From memory, I don't think buying searches were particularly common - did anyone ever count it?
| 12:51 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I edit at Dmoz and would say very high, with the majority of editors being very ethical. Wouldn't believe all that's posted on ww about Dmoz. It's still the best resource on the net for users, maybe not for webmasters because the majority on ww are commercial.
I think the problem most of us have with DMOZ is that you can't get a mom and pop site listed. Even if you drill to the correct location to put it in. If I have a million dollar operation and wait a couple years I might get listed. We just find that unacceptable. Why does Paris Hilton (new porn queen) get listed and we can't? Many suspect is because the DMOZ operation is corrupt.
For instance... Let's say I have a competitor that is a DMOZ editor (maybe the way he got his site listed). Now let's say he sees me request to have my site listed. You think maybe he won't add my site? hmmm? maybe? I really can't figure any other reason. There are certainly a lot worse pages listed in DMOZ than any site I have. But magicly I can't get listed, but one competitor of mine is listed in 3 different categories in a one state market.
| 12:53 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
like the new look
also, now i do not have to type the urls of adwords competitors, i can copy url and open in a new window
more effort to click on adwords means better qualified leads and less clicks by mistake, just envy the one or two at the top
| 12:55 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The new look is okay, but I think it needs just a little more work. For instance, IMHO, that top light blue band needs to have a border on both the top and the bottom, and the top and bottom blue bands need to go clear to the edges of the screen.
Nice how AdWords now look a little more like normal search results; may result in more clicks for advertisers.
At higher resolutions, the search results should fill up all the white space up to the AdWords results. Or, at the very least, AdWords should be bumped to the left so that any white space is at the far right of the page, like many other sites that aren't a liquid layout.
Call me crazy, but a think a few of the Google colored balls as light background images on the bottom and middle of the homepage would add to the attractiveness of the page. Kind of like the Deskbar background. Speaking of which, I would have thought the Deskbar would be mentioned on the Toolbar pages by now.
Is the "Search Within Results" new, or has that been around for awhile? I haven't noticed it before. Great feature for narrowing results!
On the whole, I can take it or leave it. I use Google for speed and results, and really don't notice the interface much. Curious as to why Google thought a new design was necessary.
| This 157 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 157 ( 1 2  4 5 6 ) > > |