Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
If you thought it's easy to get to Google, think again. In our current round of usability research, only 76% of users who expressed a desire to run a Google search were successful. In other words, 1/4 of users who wanted to use Google couldn't do so. (Instead, they either completely failed to get to any search engine or ended up running their query on a different search engine — usually whatever type-in field happened to be at hand.)[useit.com...]
I know that the average user is not all that savvy, but this study just doesn't ring true to me - all due respect to Jakob. How do others see that number - a 24% failure rate?
Like, say, each webmasterworld member adding page on basics re how to use web to websites? [Where to put this so most users may not see/notice? Could be nifty if links only appear when someone visits thro an odd search; but I dunno how to do this.]
Actually if Google wasn't always up to some hi-jinx they would fade from everybody's lips. That one engine fosters a heavywork-load on everybody.
Their idea of Googling something is typing into their AOL search box the word Google...
not good
They were upset at seeing a lot of pages on Google where the keyword was only mentioned once on the web site.
I think this is the biggest risk Google (or any search engine) faces - thinking that they can know the intent behind a search based on past behavior. Advertisers miss it too.
If a person searches for blue widgets, they are looking for blue widgets, not blue cheese, not blue sky, not red widgets but blue widgets. The searcher expresses exactly what they want and the engine assumes that they know what the person wants better than the person does.
A while ago, when I was still working for a big technology company, I was called into the office of the CMO. Somehow he got knowledge of me running websites, and he was curious to see what exactly it was I was doing.
After a short chat with his secretary, he invited me into his office and sat down behind his desk, asking me to get around so I could see. He asked me, "now, how do I find your site?" - While saying this he fired up his browser which opened yahoo.com by default. I gulped. Now was the moment of truth. I answered, "ah, let's take, erm, www.example.com". And then this senior senior executuive totally surprised me when he entered www.example.com into the search field of Yahoo! (Immediately I knew that this company was doomed, and it was.)
Now, this was still a young guy, probably 38 to 40 years old, a real executive, making decisions on huge TV campaigns worth millions of dollars.
(I could not resist a chuckle when I saw that he was unable to even use/find the address bar.)
Another big technology company is currently trying to improve their brand image and reach. They are placing Adwords ads from their huge budget, also targeting their own company name. So it happens (naturally) that -when entering the company name into Google- first the ad shows up, and then the first entry of the organic SERPs (they are number one, of course).
I had a really hard time to explain the problem (company wastes serious money) to the team taking care of online advertising. To my big surprise, they had a really hard time understanding the problem. They did not realize that the first entry on the page WAS AN AD.
They probably deserve being ripped off by Google.
He's a little more savvy now but not by much. I try to keep him in mind while working on my site.
Keep it simple. Real simple.
If a person searches for blue widgets, they are looking for blue widgets, not blue cheese, not blue sky, not red widgets but blue widgets. The searcher expresses exactly what they want and the engine assumes that they know what the person wants better than the person does.
I also think that change confuses them. What search engines boffins sat in Googleplex think are really neat "improvements" just confuse a large section of the market.
Innovation is not always a good thing!
Cheers
Sid
I run a site for a community magazine and there is a form for people to email advertising copy to the editor. I have both been complimented on how easy it is to use and told that it doesn't work.
On the internal forum for a forum supplier I regularly see posts saying that the product doesn't work which always comes down to people ignoring the image verification.
With a lifetime of working first in customer facing industries and then in IT I think a quarter of customers getting things wrong is probably about par for the course.
Also, like another person said, my mom didn't know that underlined text took her somewhere else until about 6 months ago despite many lessons on how to use the computer and web.
I'm pretty young but I've been working on computers and hardware since 1986. The stories of completely techno-ignorant people flood my mind. 24% not being able to "google" does not surprise me at all.
This 24% group probably makes up 95% of Adsense clickers as well.
Was thinking the same too.
...
ah... that one.
I mean... yeah. Seriously.
I've gone through the sites I and clients/partners/affiliates launched and campaigned for the past year.
I know this is a cliche, but the more valuable the content, the lower the 'RANDOM traffic from google' percentage, the better quality the site and the traffic I saw in the stats... the lower the AdSense income was.
I knew this from before but this never ceases to amaze me.
...
Too good for AdSense(tm)
So not only do I believe it, it doesn't surprise me. There are a lot of babyboomers out there that didn't grow up with a computer in the classroom.
If you open a browser with about:blank and nothing on the "home" tab I am not surprised people don't know to go to the location bar and type in google.com
side note... I used to try to show people how to their browsers, now I just take the keyboard and type myself. They either don't want to learn or are so mystified as to how the computer works even simple instructions seem like latin to them. Almost always their eyes just glaze over as soon as I try to explain anything so I just gave up.
They either don't want to learn or are so mystified as to how the computer works even simple instructions seem like latin to them. Almost always their eyes just glaze over as soon as I try to explain anything so I just gave up.
This unwillingness to learn seems to be a syndrome that needs to have a name -- maybe "technochallengeditis".
.....................................
I was recently able to increase the intelligence of our average customer by removing the toll-free number from the top of every page and making them have to find the 'contact us' link at the bottom. So far it seems to be a good filtering technique, saves on wasted time -- so I can waste it somewhere else... No wonder the big corps do it.
[edited by: engine at 11:51 am (utc) on Mar. 20, 2008]
[edit reason] language [/edit]
One day she's trying to find something and she instant messeages me asking if I can help. I tell her to go to google. "Huh, how?" she says, so I send her a link and tell her to click it. "Where do I put that?"
I end up sending her the link to the search results she was looking for and she says... what good is that? How do I see more?! (click on it mom) There is just a little bit of information, that's no good, I need to see more than a sentence! (click on the one you want to see more of, mom)... CLICK ON IT MOM!
Nearly ten years of talking about search engines and rankings with me, and she has no idea how to use a search engine, or even get to Google? I really couldn't beleive it, but she is an AOLer.
Seriously, there are some kids who take to the internet so easily--much more easily than some older folks.
p/g
Robert Pirsig talks about this a lot in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in philosophical and concrete terms. If you haven't read it in awhile, pick up a copy and leaf through it. You can also find the complete text on the web- if you can find Google, that is.
I explained it was easy and all he had to do was to type into the form at the bottom of the page.
He wrote back saying that there was no form. I thought maybe this was some kind of weird browser bug so I sent him a screenshot so that he would know what the form should look like.
He writes back saying that he received the form by email but couldn't click in any of the boxes. He's trying to click into the jpeg.
To his credit he then managed to get back to the page and use the form, but I was pretty astonished that what I'd assumed was obvious needed such detailed instruction. How many more people are like him and can't even recognize a form?
How many more people are like him and can't even recognize a form?
We're called the Baby Boomer Generation and we outnumber any other generation out there so be careful! ;)
My 8 year old daughter is teaching me how to use my iMac. She's a genius. But, aren't all daughters geniuses?
Hey, if we can't get to it by typing it in the Google Search Box, it must not exist, huh? ;)
Google/yahoo/msn might consider something like giving random tips on pages; and a "want more tips?" link.
The famously slim google main page seems, then, ok only if you actually know what google is and how to use it - an assumption that's clearly wrong for substantial nos of people.
In another thread, see re google use maybe levelling off - having no obvious instructions is a reason.
The famously slim google main page seems, then, ok only if you actually know what google is and how to use it
That may not be a correct assumption. Arguably, the more complexity there is on a page the more likely it is that people will become confused. So in a browser you have an address bar and a search bar and users get them confused.
And it would be interesting to see what percentage of users were able to find and use Yahoo! for a search.
Maybe that is how Yahoo and MSN survive. Folks go there, don't know how to search, so just click on stuff they see. The content folks at Yahoo think their stuff is really popular but they don't realise only dumb folks read it.
Cheers
Sid
Folks go there, don't know how to search, so just click on stuff they see.
Ah, but they don't have to go there. It is there for them. All three are positioning themselves as the default search box on various systems out of the box. Google got a big jump start when they released their toolbar way back when.
I'm going to guess that both Yahoo! and MS are probably a majority of the Baby Boomer Generation by default. Many of us came online when Yahoo! "was" the Portal for us. We bought computers when MSN was the default search out of the box. I've been to some of my industrial clients and sure enough, they use Yahoo! and MSN for the most part. These are not your everyday Internet surfers. They'll log on once a day to check email and a couple other things and then be done with it.
I was watching one client and he was having a tough time of it. This guy has hands the size of sledge hammers and when you see his hunt and peck routine, it is amazing he is able to press a "single" key. His index finger covers almost the width of two normal size keys on the keyboard. Suffice it to say, you won't find this particular gentleman using a PDA. ;)
So, back to doing a Google Search. Did you know one of the most exciting things you can share with those who are technically challenged when it comes to search are Quote Marks? If you want to see Mom or Dad's face light up, tell them to put quote marks around their searches. Oh my...
Just a week ago I received and set up my new computer, a Dell XPS720 running XP Pro. It came with the Google desktop and toolbar preinstalled much to my surprise. Now if one company is doing that I have to wonder if any others are. Any ideas?
I find nothing at all surprising about this.
I vaguely remember that AOL didn't HAVE separate search and address bars.
I remember also that there's a VERY dedicated monopoly willing to do anything (legal or not) to keep people from finding Google search.
And I deal with "professionals" on a daily basis, who don't really understand the most basic concepts (legal, technical, logical, or technological) in their field.
Natural stupidity...artificial barriers...complex concepts...
Well, maybe I AM surprised that the number is so low.
