Future Google Results and Video

[lfgoal]

Someone at Pubcon made the statement that, in the near future, sites that don't have video may find themselves losing ranking pretty fast to sites that do. I've heard the newfound importance of video echoed in some recent posts and I was curious as to who believes this statement.

[onepointone]

If I'm looking for information, I can usually quickly scan through a page of text for the answer, rather than watch a video that (might/might not) have the information i need.

If I'm looking for entertainment, well most online videos = tiny screen/poor video quality.

But there are some things youtube is great for, like 'look what my crazy cat did' or 'this is how to tie a fishing knot':)

[anallawalla]

To be precise, Blendtec did not benefit from organic traffic, but did so from viral marketing. At least from Australia, a search for "electric blender" shows no videos or blendtec.com in the top 100 G results.

While a YouTube video is fine and should be made, the consensus from many at Pubcon was to show it from your own domain.

[night707]

We are constantly adding new mainstream videos since nearly 10 years and it would be fine, if Google were able to come up with something intelligent for professional producers.

Mixing them into the normal search results is simply annoying.

[tedster]

While a YouTube video is fine and should be made, the consensus from many at Pubcon was to show it from your own domain.

People often report that embedding the YouTube video on your domain (rather than serving a duplicate from your own server) has a positive effect on organic ranking.

[night707]

often report that embedding the YouTube video on your domain (rather than serving a duplicate from your own server) has a positive effect on organic ranking.

we started to offer youtube versions in addition to other streaming formats at our main site a year ago. No improvements in ranking or traffic at all.

Also no improvements on several other sites.

[tedster]

That's been my experience too - but I've heard so many others report it that I thought it was worth some discussion. In my experience, embedding saves your bandwidth, and that's about it.

[chewy]

at SMX Google spoke about the ability to do speech to text from videos. The implication was that this might show up in the SERPs at some time in the future. I can't quite see it as useful other than like google books or similar like if you know you want to search video...

just now did a search and at the top of the page was a "video" link to search only videos. That's the first I've seen of it. It's got that little BETA stamp on it and advanced video search and other cool stuff. Oh yeah and searchwiki is back.

[night707]

the ability to do speech to text from videos

Gmail, adsense and search can convince up to a high level. But even them show too many sides where improvements are badly needed.

Why not focus on investing further in this fields rather than into freaky stuff. With videos Big G`s records had never been the best and even youtube looks worse than other upload sites.

youtube doesn`t even have a resume upload feature what would save them tons of wasted bandwidth.

Proper support for any of their features is also still missing.

Producing videos and speech to text should not be a priority.

[willybfriendly]

I'll tell you how thrilled I am about this - as a consumer, not a webmaster.

I am on a quest for a new brief case. Fully 60% of the sites I have visited have had videos.

What a collosal waste of my time and their resources. Give me a picture, a clear description (including dimensions and weight) and price and I will be a happy camper.

Lucky to get 1 of those 3 on most sites. Of course, I didn't stick around to watch a briefcase video to see if they might give me what I need.

Vids might work for pron, tutorials and entertainment sites, although most implementations on the latter two are certainly less than satisfying.

No problem with a vid search, but get them out of the mainstream SERPs ASAP. Waste of resources and bandwidth.

[Hugene]

I am against this also: the web is not TV, and I think this much is clear to Google (or I hoped it was). The web should not become TV either! User generated video content is pretty useless and low quality IMHO. It's fairly logical, individual users and small webmasters can not compete with professional TV and other video production houses.

No, I believe this talk is rumor: do you honestly expect G to want sites to build video interviews and video reviews of gadgets and of travel destinations? We're not TV stations and we can not become that either.

If, I say if, G decides to go the way of favoring video content in their search, then the door is opening for a new search engine out there. big mistake in my opinion.

[nealrodriguez]

i agree; i have seen videos rank prominently in a few days after being posted.

hey after a recent nielsen report finding that most americans keep their tv's on for more than 8 hours a day, it's only natural to find as many ways as possible to keep those eyeballs on your monitor and off the lcd on your wall.

[physics]

Spoke too soon. The twins are back :/
Two YouTube's at position 3 and 4 again.

[signor_john]

If, I say if, G decides to go the way of favoring video content in their search, then the door is opening for a new search engine out there.

They can feature video content without favoring it.

One thing I'd like to see is separate tabs for universal search (call it "All," maybe?) and text. "All" would deliver SERPs with a blend of traditional text results, news, video, images, maps, etc.; "Text" would be what Web search was until universal search came along.

[Shaddows]

One thing I'd like to see is separate tabs for universal search (call it "All," maybe?) and text. "All" would deliver SERPs with a blend of traditional text results, news, video, images, maps, etc.; "Text" would be what Web search was until universal search came along.

With your prefered tab cookied as well as associated with your Google account.

[Oliver Henniges]

plz allow me to hook in here with some questinos I have on a first video uploaded to my site:

> the ability to do speech to text from videos

does this technology apply to languages other than English, yet?

Today I discovered the video-sitemaps protocol offers two XML-tags, which I got confused about: Namely <view count> and <rating>

[google.com...]

Who is going to measure this? Does it really matter if I submit any values here? I mean, I might write a litte php programm increasing the visits value with every visit, but would that really matter? Or are these two tags somewhat reserved to some google analytics functions?

How long does it take to get such a video indexed in the video search to your experience? My page is spot #1-#2 for a couple of years in the organics anyways as far as the most relevant search-terms are concerned, so I expected to get it indexed quite fast in this specific video-index. But as tedster wrote in [webmasterworld.com...] google has some problems with swf-files written in javascript? Has this been resolved meanwhile?

Where's the best resource summarising the "Howto" on video indexing? (present state of the art)