TheOptimizationIdiot - 1:26 pm on Apr 15, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: TheOptimizationIdiot at 2:11 pm (utc) on Apr 15, 2013]
Again, why do you focus only on organic when considering the searcher?
I didn't say that.
The AdWords portion of Google is a separate group/team/whatever. So is the design team. We're talking about the organic results in this discussion, none of the others.
What I've said repeatedly is you focus on the searcher with the organics, because that's what keeps them coming back to click on your Ads, which is long-term sustainable. Once again, every single SE that has not done that or not been able to provide what the visitors are looking for in the organics is basically forgotten as a SE.
The searcher just wants a page of results.
if Google came out with such a ham-fisted statement, they'd be toast in 5 minutes. That's one way for Google to ruin their reputation beyond repair. It would say outright: you can't trust the organics any longer - they're pay to play.
If you want to make a point you really shouldn't contradict yourself.
If all the searcher wants is a page of results, then that's what they're getting whether those results are pay-to-play or not.
And, once again, Yahoo! provided "just a page of results", which included Ads and we can see where it got them. (Yahoo!'s Ads were generally better than the organics too, but that didn't really help them much, did it?)
If Adwords gives them the best result for a particular search, why do you consider that a bad result?
Yahoo!, AltaVista, Ask, etc.
The press would be all over that. Google Shopping got bad enough press but at least Google WERE straight-up about it - they said it would be pay to play.
So did everyone quit using it?
I don't remember Google ever really taking "what is the press going to say?" into account when it comes to decision making. Think, Books, Buzz, Street View WiFi Recording, etc.
Google Shopping is moving to paid only in the UK on 30th June (has moved in the US already), so you think Google Shopping will be bad for searchers because it's paid only?
I didn't say that. We're not talking about Google Shopping.
What we are talking about is Google's organic results, which happens to be what made Google the number 1 search engine on the planet. (Meaning it wasn't their ability to serve targeted ads that got them where they are. Many search engines have been able to serve targeted ads.)
Not one search engine I can think of has ever grown, or even held on to, a large market-share of search traffic by serving ads that are better than their organic results. There are a number I can think of that have served ads that are better than their organic results and failed (meaning lost both money and market share).
[edited by: TheOptimizationIdiot at 2:11 pm (utc) on Apr 15, 2013]