| 8:55 pm on Sep 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
This is getting off-topic and I apologize in advance, but...
|Reno wrote: |
No, here's the thing: Google is supposedly a search engine, not an ad engine.
I'm sorry; I thought the popular wisdom was that Google was an advertising company first and a search engine second. Is that true, or just more venom spewed in moments of frustration? Do we get to decide which one of these is Google's priority when it's convenient to our argument?
|The implication of the word "search" is people are looking for something so they enter a query and expect a nonpartisan, unpaid, relevant result in the organics. And they rightfully expect the organic results to be front & center. |
Do they? Are there one or more studies that I can aquaint myself with which spell out the average search user's expectations, or are we all just projecting our own expectations onto the nameless masses and hoping no one notices?
|I agree with you that webmasters are certainly not the primary focus, but we should be a secondary focus. |
Not even secondary; tertiary. Before us comes the average user and the people who give them the money to stay in business. No audience? No business. No money? No business. A slightly smaller index of webpages? Meh.
|As I said earlier, with every update Google pushes the organics down (or slightly diminishes their prominence) [...] |
This isn't even true, as I've seen a number of complaints about top organic results getting huge site links and various other "special" treatment that makes them stand out more than others.
|[...] so with the organics continuing to be less prominant with every change, Google is not respecting either audience, except for one: the money audience which is to say, the stockholder dividends and employee bonuses. |
Then why are they displaying your Google+ friends under search results that those same friends +1'd? That certainly can't be for the stockholders' benefit.
|Reno wrote: |
My argument has to do with the clear & consistent trend that we see at Google, which is to minimize or even erase the perception between organics and paid. It's purposely tricky & duplicitous [...]
This is rather subjective. Personally, the recent change to the background color on the top ads separates them from the organic results even more than they used to be. I can now more easily skip over them without accidentally clicking on one (which, yes, I have done in the past).
| 9:16 pm on Sep 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Ryan, your allegiance to your beloved Google is admirable however misplaced (IMO!). They started as a search company and if they changed their mission in subsequent years, then I missed the memo. I'm for a clear & unambiguous separation between paid ads and organics; it's obviously less important to you. We can agree to disagree ... they will be what they will be, whether we like it or not.
| 10:01 pm on Sep 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Let's not get personal or make this into a divisive issue of "allegiance". Ryan made some very solid observations and so did Reno.
As to Google's mission, the word "search" has never been in there as far as I remember. Their stated mission has been to ORGANIZE the world's information.
| 3:02 am on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
My apologies ~ I meant it as admirable in the same way I would respect someone who loved their team, even if I disagreed with the way that team was playing ball. Re their mission, if they are not a "search engine" then clearly that is a root cause of much of the disagreement (and misunderstanding) in this and many other threads. It would be like talking about GM ~ I may be referring to the car company, whereas someone else may be referencing their financing division. Those of us who have always thought of them as first & foremost a search engine are basing our responses on that foundation; those who see them as an ad agency clearly have a different perspective, as do those who see them organizing information. Without a basis of commonality about Google, it may be increasingly difficult to grasp the motives behind their evolution.
| 3:42 am on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Those of us who have always thought of them as first & foremost a search engine are basing our responses on that foundation... |
I think many here, being webmasters, consider Google not only to be a search engine, but to be a website search engine. A lot of frustrations, I feel, come from this particular assumption. I know from conversations with Googlers that Google is not similarly restricted.
| 4:32 am on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|A lot of frustrations, I feel, come from this particular assumption |
Totally agree, to the point where we practically need to define what aspect of Google Inc we are discussing when making specific points. Criticisms of Google the Search Service may be off-base if the original reference was pointed to Google the Ad Agency. Semantic clarity DOES matter. In my specific little world, only Google the Search Engine is directly impacting my life so that's pretty much my primary concern, and it's my guess, a LOT of others here have that same focus.
| 8:38 am on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I am unable to see "cached link" in SERP , Is this new update by Google, But on website preview we can see the Cached link of respective site
| 11:31 am on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I think google cant make adds gap, as GG likes simple style.
| 12:39 pm on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
raj1094 - yes it looks like the cached link is gone. The +1 button is now in its place.
| 9:36 am on Sep 23, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Very important layout change in www.google.es - make a search an see how the preview is integrated.
| This 100 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 100 ( 1 2 3  ) |