New Google SERPs Layout Goes Into Effect

[londrum]

Continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]

---

maybe i'm just a bit behind the times, but i noticed that the google UK page has changed.
when you do a search you get a result page with 3 columns. you've now got navigation along the top and the lefthand side too.

thing i noticed was the new 'page previews' option. it always winds me up when google use our content for their own purposes. and this page preview option just seems like more of that.
they have doubled the size of the usual snippet/description to about 10 lines. it's pretty much the entire opening paragraph from each site.

if you do a search for a question, then the chances are that those 10 lines (or 100 lines if you include all sites on the page) will include the answer.

... i mean, what is the point of an extra 'page preview'? the snippet is supposed to give you a preview, and if you want to see more you click through to the site. but now google are trying to capture those clicks. they are still giving you the snippet, but if you want to see more you can just click their preview instead and stay with them. they want to keep as many people at google for as long as possible, that's what it's all about.

they keep pushing the fence further back and back down our garden, until eventually they'll be camped out on our whole lawn.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 7:20 pm (utc) on May 6, 2010]

[tedster]

Even Bing spokespeople admit that Google is miles ahead of them when it comes to long-tail query results. And ultimately it is the quality of results that carries the day, not the GUI itself. Although Bing's GUI certainly was a refreshing change when they launched it.

[TheMadScientist]

And ultimately it is the quality of results that carries the day

I think that's a really interesting discussion personally: I wonder if there has been a study of the consistency and dependability (predictability) of results compared to 'quality', yet wholly unpredictable?

The reason I wonder is since people are used to searching and not going past the first page of results, but rather changing the terms if the result is not there if they might prefer 'predictable' stable results they can learn how to search over the unpredictability the 'higher quality' engine provides?

IOW: Does the lack of consistency in returning 'essentially the same' results day in and day out for queries take away from 'Joe Searcher's' perception of the quality of the results? Personally, I prefer stable, because within a few searches I have an idea how to search and find the same results again should the need arise.

I think only time will tell on this one, but stability and simplicity is what G was built on, and what they're wholly moving away from...

I think things could be interesting moving forward, because you have Google abandoning the 'clean' look and feel to 'Bingify' and since people now have to choose between very similar looks if they prefer consistency and stability (or perceive consistency and stability as a sign of quality) it could be Google has made a huge error by leaving the 'simplicity' Matt Cutts (er, um, GoogleGuy) always used to tout as what people like best about Google in the dust and 'complicating' the search experience...

I don't remember GoogleGuy posting about asking people what they liked best about Google and having them say the results, does anyone else?

What I sure remember is him touting how much people liked Google basically because it was simple and easy to use.

It's way easier to lose a customer than it is to do just about anything else with them, and just the simple fact they've changed may cause some ship jumping, or at least 'search shopping' and if this happens and people perceive quality as something different than what we do then we could be on the way to two major players in the search game...

This isn't Coke v Pepsi, but IMO it could well be Coke -> New Coke = Whoopsies!

IMO There won't be an answer to this until the novelty most searchers are experiencing wears of and people begin to realize their searches are no longer the same routine... Once the routine is broken people may start looking around more than they have in the past, because AFAIK people generally don't like change.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 10:18 pm (utc) on May 8, 2010]

[tedster]

prefer 'predictable' stable results they can learn how to search over the unpredictability the 'higher quality' engine provides?

I'd say this is where user intention becomes important - and it's one reason that Google has worked so hard to create an intention-taxonomy for queries.

Navigational intent definitely doesn't want to see a results shuffle. Transactional intent might appreciate it. And the informational? I'm thinking that's the kind of search user who natural would go into deeper pages on their own - and appreciate just a touch of unpredictability.

I'm pretty sure that this is all part of the nuance that Google is trying to bring to their search results.

[Reno]

then revert back to the simple claen cut interface they have had for years.

Ahhh... that would be the look that helped make them the fastest growing and most successful company in Internet history. You know the saying -- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

............................

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

My traffic is up this week over last week. It must be the new layout, right? lol

The era of depending on Google Search for website traffic is fading. If you have been focused ONLY on Google, it's definitely time to diversify.

I've got to disagree with you on this one tedster, we can do that and stay friends right? My reasoning is that Google could fade a huge amount and still be the top traffic provider. Sure countless dollars are being spent on, and spent promoting other engines/social hubs, and spent on smear campaigns against Google but Google is still #1. We've leaned heavily on her for a long long time, she'll be just fine for a long time to come, she's more than capable of adapting.

In other words while others zig away from google it may be time to zag towards Google and reap the benefits. Bottom line, until another site takes spot #1 it makes little sense to work with second best.

Get the other traffic but don't lose focus on where #1 is, I'll eat your visitors if you do! Now if you had aid all these places to get traffic from are intertwining like a big bowl of spaghetti where one can play a role with the shape of the others I'd totally agree.

You can twitter to show up on bing twitter updates, you can post a news release on a news site to show up in travel site, you can like a website page to show up on another website page. It's getting sticky online BUT Google still sends you more traffic and less spam.

[tedster]

My friend, I don't see a disagreement. Diversify doesn't mean turn away. I've never stopped considering all potential sources of traffic - and I'm not about to stop looking at the #1 source now.

But I do feel for (and warn) the business who only ever looks toward Google organic rankings as their sole source of traffic. They are quite vulnerable to the winds of change.

[kidder]

And so they have to pay money Tedster. Do I need to say more?

[steveb]

I keep looking on the left side for the option of "update 301 redirects we've known about since January" but of course that isn't there...

[Reno]

she's more than capable of adapting.

And that adaptation will be on her terms, not yours. And if that change coincides with your own architecture and the fit remains seamless, then you remain golden. But if that new Google is in any way adverse to what you are doing, then you are the one who better adapt -- and FAST -- or you'll be more road debris. Can you/we do that? Sure, once we see the new rules and figure out how to incorporate them into our own sites. But while you're doing that, the sucking sound you hear is your visitors going somewhere else, because you're not on page 1, or on page 2 -- all of a sudden, for reasons you cannot grasp immediately, you're on the top of page 3. Yes, you can crawl your way up to page 1 again, but it won't be quick and it won't be easy and the fact is, it might not happen at all. Because again, you're dealing with Google's terms, not ones that you negotiate or have ANY control over whatsoever.

In the meantime, those who have taken the path that Tedster and others have recommended will at least see some level of activity -- hopefully enough to buy the time they need to restore the good graces of the Google Gods.

My conclusion ~ We ignore diversification at our peril.

......................

[g1smd]

I keep looking on the left side for the option of "update 301 redirects we've known about since January" but of course that isn't there...

I have several sites in that same group. Things certainly aren't working like they used to do.

In addition to the public

site:

searches not telling the truth, various of the WebmasterTools reports are also a cause for concern.

[Mikey85]

Allthough the rankings of important keywords seem to be unchanged, I notice a drop in traffic since the new google layout...

[walkman]

Mikey, how much of a drop?

[Mikey85]

Almost 10%

[walkman]

Interesting. I believe it, people have more options to click on now, but as time goes by and they get used to it, they will ignore that section

[Mark_A]

Does no one like the "Wonder Wheel"?

[tedster]

I do like the Wonder Wheel - especially as a keyword and content brainstorming tool. It;s not really new with this interface - it's been available under the "Options" link for a while.

I haven't found a reason to use the Wonder Wheel so far as a search end-user, but I can see that I might, if I'm exploring a new general area of personal interest.

[juliocrd]

hey! Have you realized that now there are fewer option in the left sidebar. I couldnt find the other tabs like blogs or tweets. someone has the same issue?

[MrHard]

'Less shopping sites' may be an attempt of Google to counteract the SEO of ecommerce sites moving to the top and taking up the majority first page which does negatively impact the quality of search in my opinion.

It also drives shopping sites into Adwords. So it's a win-win for Google and the searcher.