| 5:20 pm on Oct 13, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Something becomes clear to me, month after month. While many search marketers say "the sky is falling" when Google makes a change - the general population is still very much in favor of what Mountain View is doing. I'm certainly not exempt from complaining about the way things have been going.
So I'm giving myself a reality check, right now. I need to get used to rapid change and not think about Google as if it were anything but exactly what it is - right now. And then a big part of my job becomes understanding what Google is - right now - as well as listening and watching for clues as to what it may be in the near future.
| 12:37 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Here is a quote from the article:
|To account for Google Instant, comScore has again changed methodology. “Explicit core search” essentially backs out Instant and only records a search when the user clicks a link or presses the enter button. “Core search” also records a search when users pause for 3 seconds to contemplate suggested Instant results. |
So a 3 second pause counts as an additional search. I wonder if that could have skewed the numbers in Google's favor.
| 1:16 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|So a 3 second pause counts as an additional search. I wonder if that could have skewed the numbers in Google's favor. |
That's what Yahoo says too. Still, I'd agree with the comment that the Yahoo Bing machine isn't making a dent in Google's position.
| 3:18 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, I wasn't expecting to see a huge change in search share after the Bing/Yahoo "merger". The graph does seem peculiar, though...G losing share since February, and then it jumps after Instant is launched.
Also, how/why did ComScore settle on 3 seconds?
| 3:25 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Also, how/why did ComScore settle on 3 seconds? |
that will be a mystery...lol..
and microsoft's product can never be an unbiased alternative for people...
| 3:30 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|how/why did ComScore settle on 3 seconds? |
I'd guess it's because Google counts an impression if there is a 3 second pause in typing.
See How Google Instant's New Rules Turn a Sneeze Into Ad Impressions [fastcompany.com]
| 3:48 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I'd guess it's because Google counts an impression if there is a 3 second pause in typing. |
Tedster, should comscore apply the same logic?
| 3:54 am on Oct 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
It may just be the easiest way for them to go. And Comscore is also concerned about advertising impressions, most of all. But it does seem pretty close to the Yahoo Search "slideshow" controversy a few months back.
| 3:08 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You might as well throw Google’s Comscore results for last month out the window.
With the launch of Instant and them counting a pause of 3 seconds, the numbers are so overly inflated it’s not funny.
Everybody who tried instant was pausing to see the results not to mention those are not real searches because this is not what the user intended to type in. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.
To get a real accurate score, only the final result should be counted and I would be willing to bet Google actually lost ground when you remove on the instant stats.
If they continue to count a pause of 3 seconds, it’s really going to slant the numbers and you can’t compare it to straight up searches on Bing.
| 3:33 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|With the launch of Instant and them counting a pause of 3 seconds, the numbers are so overly inflated it’s not funny. |
What about Bing CashBack and Bing Rewards? Did those programs skew the data too?
While I believe it's possible to see long term patterns or distinct drops, most of these monthly fluctuations seem like noise to me.
| 3:41 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If Instant were inflating the numbers, I would expect a 10%-20% pop, not a middling fraction of a percentage. I think the real message here is that the general public is still very happy with Google, and maybe even more so.
| 4:26 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Ted, the fact that search share went up when we have all noted difficulty in finding what we want isn't a surprise. I'd bet I search 10-20% more now for the same thigs versus august but that's only because I cannot find what I want in google. # of searches increasing doesn't mean people are happy. Given the slowing economy the fact that it grew so quickly would be a red flag to me.
| 6:09 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|If Instant were inflating the numbers, I would expect a 10%-20% pop |
I agree, and furthermore, if instant were having a dramatic effect on searcher behavior, I would have expected to see that in my search stats.
The reality is that I and many others have noted that there was a distinct _lack_ of change in search behavior as a result of instant. There were tiny fluctuations, maybe, barely beyond the range of normal variation, but nothing to write home about.
I don't think instant was the game-changer for end users that we thought it would be. I think that for the most the only real difference is that now they sometimes stop typing when the prediction matches what they were going to type anyway. That would have little effect on either our stats or Comscore's.
| 6:24 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I had Comscore verified on several sites just to see how good the tracking really was. Using 3 counters one server side, statcounter, and GA. Comscore was still 40% off the mark on the low side. All 3 of the other tracking were within 10%. The numbers were so far off I had to take the tracking off the sites. I left them on the sites for a year.
I have no faith at all in Comescore numbers and put them in the same leage as Alexa
| 7:59 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Want to see something interesting? Go to compete.com and compare google.com, bing.com and yahoo.com. Looks like googles unique visitor count has been dropping and yahoo and bings unique visitor count combined is greater than googles...
| 8:04 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't the Compete data include all uses, not just search? No one disputes Yahoo's great strength in content. Google isn't even playing that game.
| 9:44 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Crap I don't know were my brain was when I posted but du I made a bad mistake. I had it in my head quantcast for some reason and didn't hit me until I cam back and relized my mistake. Wasn't Comscore I was talking about but quantcast. Been a long day sorry.
| 11:16 pm on Oct 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Go to compete.com and compare google.com, bing.com and yahoo.com. |
That is like comparing horses, apples and hens; bing.com is a worldwide domain while google uses local domains (cctld) for each country, besides, google uses google.com for several services, not just their search engine, so does yahoo.
| 2:23 am on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't know of many people who change their search habits or change their default engines. I don't see Yahoo or Bing adding anything revolutionary to their engines and so not much change is par for the course. Google is winning and needs do very little to stay where they are, the ball is in the competitions court.
| 3:56 am on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Is everyone, meaning any and all users, seeing Instant SERP's now
or does it only show up when one is logged in?
|But it does seem pretty close to the Yahoo Search "slideshow" controversy a few months back. |
That was the first thing that came to mind about the 3 seconds. I don't remember where I read an article a while ago, but it seemed like Comscore was very willing to work with the search engines in order to report accurate monthly search reports.
Could this mean that Comscore came to the conclusion that Yahoo was trying to game the system but Google supplied them with data to back up the "three second rule"?
| 4:30 am on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
With the Comscore's measurement precision "up 0.7%" is not a change. It is nothing.
| 5:13 am on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google is a one trick pony. They've wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on side-projects that have by in large all failed. I don't see that as an amazing success. They are trying to grow legs, but they find themselves teedering on the single leg of search engine market dominance.
They are driving away advertisers by the thousands - and new media companies are popping up daily to scoop them up. Not to mention - the trend for publishers in 2010 is launching self-serve advertising platforms.
I think Google's future in search is grim. I see them losing ground in search and picking up the slack in mobile.
Google has dabbled in nearly everything over the last few years, with the exception of improving and innovating search - their core business.
Google already seems archaic. Their desperation is vivid when you take a quick look at their sponsored results only to find that they have re-opened the doors to arbitrage in a major way. When 50% of their sponsored results are 100% arbitrage by Ask, Local, AOL, and AARP - there's a problem.
And last but not least - Google treats their adwords customers like garbage. Their desire to automate everything and pinch pennies by not hiring enough support staff is nauseating when at the same time they don't even sneeze at sinking endless amounts of money into one failed project after another.
| 8:38 am on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
They may be a one trick pony but when one trick can bring in 5.5 billion in revenue and 2.17 billion in net revenue in a single quarter and keep growing that looks like a triple crown winner!
They'll start showing some good numbers from display and YouTube as well before to long.
| 10:20 am on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Google is a one trick pony |
I hear that argument that every now and then. One trick that is raking in the billions.
Hey, Nasa is one a trick pony about exploring space.
Hey, Microsoft is a one trick pony about desktop software.
Hey, Exxon is a one trick pony about providing gas.
When your one trick is huge, so is your market. Actually, over diversification has been the bane of many companies that weren't able to stay focused.
I don't see any real competition, Yahoo and Bing are laughable. I'd have a web site with 10 times more content than the previous year and they would send just about the same cute traffic. Google, on the other hand, seems to be able to scale with your growth. They're the only serious search engine out there.
| 1:45 pm on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google has reached critical mass in search. What now?
Do any of you actually advertise online?
| 3:58 pm on Oct 16, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Do any of you actually advertise online? |
yea really...how many people actually PAY for ads. It seems like most sit around waiting for their free organic traffic.
you gota pay to play guys.
| 12:13 pm on Oct 17, 2010 (gmt 0)|
maybe google's share has gone up because they've made it easier and quicker to do a new search.
before, people would search for "widget" and get some results. if they weren't exactly what they wanted then maybe they couldn't be bothered to type in a new query and wait for the page to load, so they just clicked on one of the results anyway.
but now all they've got to do is type a new word, or even just one extra letter. it's less work. so they don't mind doing it.
going by what they say, that would be counted as a new search. so google's share goes up. but is it really a new search? or just a repeat of the old one?
it's not like they've taken any searchers away from bing, or yahoo. all they've done is got one of their existing users to type a new word.
| 11:24 pm on Oct 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I agree with scottsonline. I find myself searching for things more than once lately as the results being provided by Google are not precisely what I want first time around.
That coupled with spending a few extra seconds glancing over the results that Instant serves up as well means that I'm raking up searches by the many even though my intent is to get only one clear search done.
I wouldn't conclude search share going up as a result of activities like that.
IMHO, I would say that their share has actually gone down and the 0.7% increase is just a feeble attempt to create an illusion of growth by using Instant and serving not-so-useful results first time round.
I moved most of my searches to Bing a year back and am quite happy with the result quality so far.
| 7:15 pm on Oct 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|So a 3 second pause counts as an additional search. I wonder if that could have skewed the numbers in Google's favor. |
I'm real slow and I drink and do drugs all day (the darker side of the adsense story). If every 3 second pause counts as 1 search, then when I search for "drunk drug addict rehabilition in Clearwater FL" - it would count as 10-15 searches.
My grandaughter types almost as slow as my grandmother, one's drunk, and the other talks on the phone, while she types in the dark, laying down with her head proped up with one hand.
If they do 5 searches, it would count as 100's of searches on a good day.
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |