Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
What are your thoughts on this. Do you find the news to even be relevant of the subject matter?
It seems to say the first 3 or so results are better, but then you need to read some news. Where can I turn it off? ;)
From an SEO perspective, the top 3 or 4 are golden; below the news spot, spot 5 ain't what it used to be when your're competing with an image above you.
From now on when a search is done the SERPs can include results from any of the verticals - web, images, video, news, maps, base, etc. And these won't be in the old OneBox location (except images), they'll be 'ranked' in the SERPs as G sees fit.
At the same time G is rolling out a new 'universal' nav bar across all search verticals and services.
Interesting times ;-).
They are just capturing more and more traffic. This will hurt many seo efforts now that we are going to be competing with Google's other entities
[edited by: tedster at 4:28 am (utc) on May 17, 2007]
Google will make a significant push toward integrating results from a variety of its search engines in an attempt to deliver as relevant and comprehensive a result set as possible to search queries.
Recent thread that relates...
Google news results showing in normal SERPS
Never seen this before!
[edited by: tedster at 4:30 am (utc) on May 17, 2007]
They're calling it Universal Search.
And they are one step closer to dominating the Internet. Like they don't already. ;)
Smart move if you ask me. How else to prepare for the eventual move to micro levels of search? Google is doing it right. And, they pretty much have been from day one.
I don't want to see any more Google Demise topics. ;)
Each time Google's stock rises, I get this sharp pain in my side. It reminds me how blind I was when I balked at $85.00 per share.
joined:Dec 28, 2005
Someday Google might make a change that improves its core search product...
They don't need to...soon they'll be providing their own top ten keyword matching G results/solutions/services instead.
What will they do next, stop crawling the web?
Think about it... they already own (or scrap) enough content to fill out most queries...so why continue giving free exposure to their competitors, us publishers.
[edited by: Web_speed at 1:34 pm (utc) on May 17, 2007]
1) I guess this means Google is monetizing Google News, right? When they pop those news results on the search page the ads are still there. I wonder if this means they will cut the news providers in on the revenue.
2) You think SEO is aggressive right now? Just wait until we start seeing spam invade google books and google video. lol I can see a few people writing books on how to buy a blue widget.
I don't particularly like what I've seen so far. Since Google is so hot on personalization these days, why not give me the option in my preferences to check boxes for what I want to have appear in my searches - video, local, news, books, products - or just plain raw search. Now THAT would make sense.
joined:Jan 3, 2003
It's business, strictly business. This is done on obviously commercial topics. Let's do simple math:
Before: 10 free results, 11 paid results (on topics where there were advertisers)
If user click on a SERP link: 47.6% chance that user clicks on free result, 52.4% on commercial
After: 8 free results, 2 useless/noncommercial/Google-property results (Wikipedia, Google News or google Books), 11 paid results.
If user click on a SERP link: 38% chance that user clicks on free result, more than 53% chance on commercial - because there are 2 extra useless links.
There will be more competition for Top-8 now that there's only 8 spots left, and 2 companies that fell out would have to resort to AdWords. Genious. I think Google will get a 10% revenue jump with this approach.
Google = "Toll Booth for the internet"
if you are one of the top-8 results, you just officially lost 10% of your traffic
joined:Oct 27, 2001
I'd like "Google Universal Search" better if there were a way for experienced users to opt out, though. If I'm looking up Napoleon Bonaparte, I'm probably not interested in seeing New York Times news-archive results (at $4.95 a pop) at the bottom of the page.
BTW, I think it's a mistake--and a bit paranoid--to assume that Google Universal Search is a plot against SEOs by greedy corporate beancounters. Just because you don't like something and don't benefit from it doesn't mean it's evil or a bad idea.
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 2:35 pm (utc) on May 17, 2007]
joined:Jan 3, 2003
[edited by: aleksl at 2:35 pm (utc) on May 17, 2007]
As an SEO'er however, up until this point there was only one way to the front page - rank in the top 10. Now there are multiple doorways onto the front page. This is good.
Kind of funny really, I see this as exactly the opposite of what Google likely intended (good for users, bad for optimizers).
joined:Oct 27, 2001
As a searcher, I really dislike this. If there's a lot of other folks who also dislike it, I wonder what the response will be? Suck it up? Move to a metasearch engine? Something else?
Given the fact that Google has always been very careful to keep its interface simple, I'd guess that this change wasn't made without a lot of testing. And if there is a backlash, or if Google finds that users aren't taking advantage of the new "Universal Search" features, the search page will probably just "de-evolve" to what it was before.
I say we start a campaign to have everyone change their G preferences to 20 results, not the default 10. At least it will make you feel better that you are on page one, just not in the top ten results. Even changing your preferences still calls back 11 Adwords listings.
For SEO's, the paths to page one just increased. I've had a lot of fun optimizing to be included in the top 10, but also using Base/Froogle for an ADDITIONAL free ranking, and using LOCAL for another free listing. Now to focus on news, wiki, etc. (as if I haven't started already) ;)
I'm not seeing it today at all, any browser, cookie/no cookie, logged in/not.
Only on news terms yesterday. The implication to me seemed to be we would start seeing images, vids, etc. on non-news terms down-the-road.