Google announces Google Instant AJAX Serps - Live Now!

[imbckagn]

---

System: The following message was cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4198306.htm [webmasterworld.com] by brett_tabke - 11:42 am on Sep 8, 2010 (cst -5)

---

I also have the the new Ajax results when I am logged out. It says the phrase below in a blue box when I type.

Welcome to Google Instant
Feelings of euphoria and weightlessness are normal. Don't be alarmed learn more.
This is the learn more link [google.com...]

Google Instant is a new search enhancement that shows results as you type. We are pushing the limits of our technology and infrastructure to help you get better search results, faster. Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes, but only 30 milliseconds (a tenth of the time!) to glance at another part of the page. This means that you can scan a results page while you type.

The most obvious change is that you get to the right content much faster than before because you don’t have to finish typing your full search term, or even press “search.” Another shift is that seeing results as you type helps you formulate a better search term by providing instant feedback. You can now adapt your search on the fly until the results match exactly what you want. In time, we may wonder how search ever worked in any other way.

[potentialgeek]

Thanks for the link, Tedster.

This excerpt is a great point:

The chief mandate of design thinking is empathy -- and I'm pretty sure Google's engineers didn't have too much empathy for all those over the age of 28 who don't find it all that useful to have their eyes assaulted by information they weren't looking for in the first place.

The only thing I like about Instant is it centers everything on my screen. Why in 2010 everything is by default still on the left instead of in the middle is beyond me.

Maybe nobody at the Plex has a 24-in iMac.

[drall]

Well after a few days I can safely say visitors are the same but pv's per vistor are down substantially. Bounce rate is way, way up. I havent seen stats this bad in 10 years on our biggest site.

[mrguy]

Want to see an interesting search.

Go to Google and type in "google instant search sucks" (no quotes)

From the results I get on the first page, it looks as though nobody has posted anything about that exact search.

Now, go to Bing and type in the same search. Low and behold, it looks like quite a few people have posted stuff about that.

I don't know if it's me or not, but it looks like Google is supressing results for that search phrase.

Do the search with instant turned off.

[tedster]

Here's what I see about that mrguy - it's more complex than Google suppressing something that's unflattering to their interests.

The Google Instant Search launch was preceded by a major overhaul of their Search Suggestions just a few days earlier. All kinds of negative words (sucks, hate, scandal, scam, ripoff, etc) were removed from Suggestions excpet for situations like Goldman-Sachs where there is a documented scandal.

Google does give search results for [google instant search sucks] but you need to actually complete the query phrase and then press Enter. These results do not show in Suggestions because of the overhaul, therefore they're not in an Instant SERP either.

<added>
I started a separate thread to discuss changes in Search Suggestions - it's an area that supports Instant, but it really is a topic unto itself and I don't want to derail this thread.

[edited by: tedster at 7:04 pm (utc) on Sep 11, 2010]

[Robert Charlton]

Unquoted, with Instant on or off, logged in or not, I get about 150,000 results on Google. With quotes, I get 4 results with the dupe filter on, 6 results with the dupe filter off.

On Bing, I get 5 results with for the exact phrase {ie, quoted)... 1,780,000 results without the quotes.

You've added one more exact match now, mrguy.

[Robert Charlton]

PS to the above... you can, in Bing, with the history on (and yes, history in Bing is on by default), bias the results very quickly for yourself, so it is suggested. Turn your history off, and it is no longer suggested.

[mrguy]

Well now that's just wierd.

Suddenly, I'm seeing results for the query.

The first time I did it, most of the results were about Google instant launch and 3 out of the 10 were from Google.

But now, I just did it again and I get results.

[tedster]

I always got results for the full query. But there is still no SUGGESTION change once you get into typing the word "sucks" and therefore no Instant results change. You need to press Enter and execute a traditional search to get Google's results.

[Robert Charlton]

You need to press Enter and execute a traditional search to get Google's results.

Yes, the interface there is taking some getting used to.

[ken_b]

history in Bing is on by default

Is that only if you are signed in? If not, where do you turn history off?

I couldn't find a place in prefs to turn history off. But I'm not signed in.
.

[martaay]

GI Day +4

Organic search traffic still up, instant still turned off on my browser

Loads of keywords in our clients adwords accounts have now fallen below the 'minimum first page bid estimate' levels... can see where this is going

Had two of my friends at the weekend commenting how awesome the new google was... they are IT guys tho so its not the reaction from average joe

[StoutFiles]

Comment form The Guardian I felt summed up Google Instant:

As the name suggests, this all happens instantly. It's the internet on fast-forward, and it's aggressive – like trying to order from a waiter who keeps finishing your sentences while ramming spoonfuls of what he thinks you want directly into your mouth, so you can't even enjoy your blancmange without chewing a gobful of black pudding first.

[FranticFish]

OK, so a pause of 3 seconds, a click anywhere on the results page, hitting enter / clicking search - these all count as an impression for the first of the five suggestions shown.

What about clicking tab? Tab means that you plan to add another word to your search, and that the most popular suggestion is part of it. To me that would indicate that an impression should not be recorded.

If tab does mean 'impression = no' then I also wonder if hitting tab would stop the three second count or not.

[new_shoes]

Our SERPs are in Limbo.

Roughly 10 of our main keywords which were on page 1 are now way, way down (past page 8, some of them out of the index).

Other niche keyphrases have jumped from from 100+ to higher than #20, some on 1st page.

Overall verdict: disaster!

Question 1: Anyone else seeing serious shuffling of serps?
Question 2: How do you know if your site is considered NSFW?

[scottsonline]

Our minimum bid prices for ads went way up this morning. We had to increase to stay on the pages and were reworded by IP's that trace back to competitors in about 25% of the clicks. We'd report it but it isn't worth the time because Google will do nothing. What a system....getting as sketchy as the guy on the corner with the coconuts playing find the coin. I know where all the coins are going...right into big G's bank account.

[Yellow_Sun]

new_shoes

As soon as this new instant program went into effect, I noticed our keyword rankings were much different when I checked through our keyword rank checking program, but in reality the rankings didn't change. When I turned off the Google "instant" program and re-started our rank checker, all the rankings were back to normal.

It seems as if the instant program scrambled our rank checker when checking for our keyword rankings, probably some cob-webs that still need to be cleaned up by Google since this is a new system they just implemented.

Not sure how you checked your rankings, but if it was through a rank checker program that is probably why you saw a big difference in your rankings. If you checked them all manually, and it still showed a significant difference in your rankings, then I'm not sure what to tell you at this point.

[new_shoes]

yellow_sun.

Thanks for your comments. Even logging out of google, clearing my cache, restarting the browser, I still get the crazy limbo results.

[weeks]

For the record, this is pretty fun:
[youtube.com...]

[tedster]

Then there's the original video - the video link above was a response to this idea: "Instant Elements" [youtube.com] set to Tom Lehrer's song.

I like the Tom Lehrer video better because Instant Search provides many more images at the top for those keywords. I may have even learned something by watching it!

[bwnbwn]

I am with tedester been studing this new monster and the jury is still out. Our traffic has remained stable, adsense revenue has gone up, and page views are about the same.

The flickering has no effect on me as I can't see any organic results anyway only adwords.

Made a call to my wife to do a test for me (I haven't spoken to her about this) and she clicked adwords on a 3 letter type "flo" for flowers.

Broke the news to the office admin area today and they were testing it. Some were wanting to know why we wern't showing for "tru" when there were some that did. Tell me how you explain that.

It sure will be intresting at the PubCon this November...:)

[speedshopping]

new_shoes you are not alone with the sitewide obliteration of organic rankings since Instant went in...we have lost rank on 100,000 different keywords and 90% of our 35k uv per day traffic went within 1 hour.

[new_shoes]

speedshopping - thanks for commenting. It helps a little knowing we are not the only ones suffering. The only theory I have right now is that my site might have been considered NSFW/in the grey zone for a while (without knowing it) and Instant apparently makes life a lot harder for these kinds of sites.

Any chance your site has been grey-listed?

[nomis5]

Anyone have an idea when instant is going live in the UK? I still see pre-instant Google if I am not logged into Adsense.

[londrum]

sorry if this has been said before on this long thread, but i think its pretty obvious why they have rolled this out

if your query is "plumber manchester", then you would normally see 9 AdWords above the fold (depending on what size screen you've got)

but if you do the same query now, then you will see up to 40 different AdWords above the fold, because they update every time you add a letter.

so google have managed to increase the number of ads on the page from 9 to 40, using the exact same layout and using the exact same screen real estate.

that makes a lot of sense for them, but it's pretty poor for us non-AdWords users.

for most business terms these days, sites in position #1 rarely find themselves above the fold because it's taken up with ads and place maps. so you could argue that there are at least 5 sites above your number #1 spot. but now that has increased dramatically. even if you still occupy position #1, the user will likely be presented with 30+ sites before they ever clap eyes on yours. that is akin to being dumped onto page 3 of the serps.

[new_shoes]

FYI - our rankings are back to normal after having been shuffled around for a week. Some terms are even doing better than before. Scary stuff, couldn't sleep for a week. Now I'll go get some rest.

speedshopping - any improvement on your end?

[ChanandlerBong]

londrum, spot on! What G have basically done is the equivalent of a website deciding to split articles into 5 pages instead of one. It's a crass botch job to increase "pageviews", disguised crudely as a "customer experience" improvement.

[londrum]

if thats why they've done it, then im not too sure that it will be good for AdWords customers either. i reckon its going to get worse for them.

if you think about it... the ads are supposed to be tailored to the search term. in the old style serps if someone searched for "plumber manchester" then they got presented with ads for plumbers in manchester.

but now its different. as they begin to type in the first word of their query they will be presented with 20-or-so ads for plumbers -- not manchester plumbers, but just plumbers. they will only get to see ads for manchester plumbers if they carry on typing all the way to the second word.
if the user clicks on any of this first lot of ads, he will presumably find that the plumber is nowhere near manchester and bounce out -- a wasted click for the advertiser.

if the user switches the query round and types "manchester plumbers" then its even worse. he could end up looking at ads for manchester hairdressers, manchester united, manchester restaurants and billions of other things before it finally settles on plumbers. by the time he actually gets to typing in the second word he might be already blinded to the ads.

i dont see the point of throwing 30 non-targeted (or lesser-targeted) ads at someone before you show him the one you actually want him to click.

show him the best one first! that is the whole point of AdWords, surely

[tedster]

Time for a little post mortem analysis. It looks like many concerns did not end up being realized.

Google Instant Scores 98% Adoption Rate, 2% Opt-Out

...have Google users shunned Instant as a disruptive technology, or welcomed it as the new template for the way we search the web?

The answer to that question, six months later, is emphatically in Google's favor. According to Ben Gomes, the lead engineer on Google Instant, the engine's newest feature has had a remarkably small attrition rate: Roughly 98% of users are using Instant, leaving around just 2% of users who have opted out.

[fastcompany.com...]

[backdraft7]

Those figures are about right, 98% had no idea what happened and the other 2% are the webmasters who noticed it.