AnkitMaheshwari
msg:4003471 | 4:58 am on Oct 8, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Noticed it today morning. Till yesterday it was A-J for a set of keywords I track, but now its A-G.
|
anallawalla
msg:4003640 | 11:03 am on Oct 8, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Same observation in Australia. Also noticed that greedy people with multiple listings in the onebox have been pruned to just one result.
|
dertyfern
msg:4004235 | 12:08 pm on Oct 9, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Same in UK. Actually have more relevant (real) results here for the terms I follow.
|
misterjinx
msg:4004299 | 2:57 pm on Oct 9, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Also in Italy :-)
|
lexipixel
msg:4004300 | 2:57 pm on Oct 9, 2009 (gmt 0) |
This and the large font in the search box makes me think these changes are due more to the declining eyesight of the "over 40 crowd" than anything. Personally, I like it.
|
inbound
msg:4004319 | 3:22 pm on Oct 9, 2009 (gmt 0) |
The layout of the 7 pack is much more attractive to me than the 10 pack - but Google have still got a long way to go before they have decent local results in the UK (having said that, it's a problem for anyone trying to collect local data for the type of businesses that we track).
|
2clean
msg:4004348 | 4:27 pm on Oct 9, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Yup, looks good if you're in the pack.
|
Silvery
msg:4005803 | 8:26 pm on Oct 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
It is more attractive, I'd say. Easier to read, which is likely good for usability. Also, it's probably engineered to better target the number of choices which users are more likely to want to have. It does tend to increase the urgency surrounding the basis for choosing which businesses make it into the highly-desired seven positions. There's been less education on the part of Google regarding rankings of Google Maps slots compared with education provided around rankings in regular websearch results.
|
bigcat1967
msg:4009788 | 1:50 am on Oct 20, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Great - my site was #10 in the 10 pack - looks like I really have to optimize it for G maps
|
|
