Google Experimenting with Specific Answers Without Any Search Results

[engine]

Google is showing an answer on a search page for certain queries, but there are no other search results being shown. ie, ten blue links gone. I know, ten blue links are long gone, as such, but you know what i mean.

For example [google.com...]

[searchengineland.com...]

It appears to be for a limited number of search queries, such as the time, calculator, unit converter.

Google's Danny Sullivan says,

For calculator, unit converter & local time, we’re experimenting with a condensed view to further speed up load time. People who search for these tools rarely use full search results, but the results will remain available for those who want them via the "Show all results" button.

[twitter.com...]

[EditorialGuy]

If a user is satisfied with the snippet from Google, which is only a couple of sentences, then, one my wonder the added value of a web page with 1000 words (as I keep reading that one must write page with at least 1000 words 8-| ), and stuffed with ads all over.

If you're writing 1,000 words of fluff stuffed with ads for something that can be answered in one word or even in one sentence, then you're right: Users will prefer the snippet, and with good reason.

[MrSavage]

Everyone enjoys a free lunch so what's your point? People love being spoon fed so what's your point? People love free things so again what's your point? If people like free music then give away for free? People love the convenience of sharing television shows on youtube so what's your point? If you don't understand a tutorial or article with more than one point then your ignorance is astounding. A useful article maybe, just maybe, has more than one freaking point. People obviusly loved getting images with the click of a button and never had to leave Google. People cried but guess what? Google stopped because, well I dunno they are saints or perhaps Getty was going to give them plenty of bad press. Hint: Google was wrong about it otherwise we would still see the button. My point is who gives a S what people want. We all know they want free and easy. Genius.

[glitterball]

If a user is satisfied with the snippet from Google, which is only a couple of sentences, then, one my wonder the added value of a web page with 1000 words (as I keep reading that one must write page with at least 1000 words 8-| ), and stuffed with ads all over. No wonder that people prefer to get the answer directly form Google...

Google does take a copy of our work


And this is not what most of you, publishers, here are doing? Taking information from other websites, compiling them, rewriting, or rehashing them, and barely never putting a link back to the sources?

You make some fair points: There should be no need to write 1000 words of unnecessary waffle.
The same goes for when I see people here talk about their 6 month old site with 1000 quality articles: how could anyone write 1000 quality articles in a short space of time?

Of course we all take (and build on) information from elsewhere, and at the risk of rationalising my existence, we also hike out to locations at dawn to photograph them, interpret statistics, translate from other languages and add our own experiences: surely that has some value?

Of course, none of this would matter if Google did not control the browser, and/or only had 20% market share. If that was the case we would just block access to Googlebot and be done with it.

[TravisDGarrett]

If the community of webmasters hadn't pushed Google during the last 20 years as they did, we wouldn't be in this situation of monopoly. I remember the time where webmasters ahead were pushing Google to be the alternative to the "said to be" evil Microsoft (even if Microsoft was not really in Internet things back to that time, so I never understood this...), later when other search engines tried to appear, instead of helping and supporting them, the webmaters community jumped on the guns and immediately demolished them as if they wanted to defend the holy Google... How many webmasters were and are directing their users to Google for their searches ? Why didn't they try to help and support initiatives like WiseNut, Teoma, etc, ... or GigaBlast from Matt Wells? Or if you don't want to help small players, there is DuckDuckGo which should deserve some support and help from the Webmasters community ...

By the way, some might not remember, but years ago, Google did an experimentation in which they were showing a screen capture of the whole page for each result, with the part belonging to your search highlighted, so you could simply read the page, from Google ... this was the ancestor of the Answer box...

[glitterball]

@TravisDGarret With hindsight all true, though we could also trace all our issues back to the moment that Google 'weaponised' links. That was when we stopped linking freely to each other, for fear that we would push our competitor above us in the rankings. Few, if any, of us realised it back then, but perhaps our fate was sealed from that day forward. When Google later made it 'illegal' to accept money for a link, without notifying them, well....

[TravisDGarrett]

That was when we stopped linking freely to each other, for fear that we would push our competitor above us in the rankings.

Very true. At my sites, I always add links to other sites, and without using the nofollow , or redirection of any kind. At best , when others "mention" me, they don't put a link and say like "as said at xxxx" (without link), or when they take an image (I don't even mean hot linking), without asking of course, they eventually put "credit : xxx" without link, or when they add a link, it's to the jpg file, and not the page from where it's taken.

nb: Wikipedia also sucked lot of content, put more or less links to the original source, with nofollow attributes, or worse link to a cache of the page at their own archive site. See how the state of mind of the Internet evolved since the 90's, early 2000's...

[EditorialGuy]

There should be no need to write 1000 words of unnecessary waffle.

There is no such need, and people who think the key to success is taking silly SEO advice are doomed to failure. When they fail, do they blame themselves? Of course not They blame the search engines for not cherishing their "quality content."

In the brick-and-mortar/flesh-and-blood world, most businesses fail, and so do most aspiring authors. Why should he Web be any different?

See how the state of mind of the Internet evolved since the 90's, early 2000's.

Let's not forget that the Internet wasn't a place to buy and sell things (or even to make money from advertising) until the mid-1990s. Imagine what the Internet (or, more specifically, the Web) would be like if it had never been commercialized. We wouldn't be reading incessant complaints about the likes of Google and Amazon, but we'd still be able to see how much coffee was in the carafe in the Cambridge University computer-science lab. (If a genie lets you make a wish like "Bring back the good old days," make sure you specify the year that you have in mind!)

[glitterball]

They blame the search engines for not cherishing their "quality content."

Why don't you stop with the weasel words and just say "Google" instead of "search engines"?

[glitterball]

When they fail, do they blame themselves? Of course not They blame the search engines for not cherishing their "quality content."

In the brick-and-mortar/flesh-and-blood world, most businesses fail, and so do most aspiring authors. Why should he Web be any different?

At this stage, I will remind you, that quality newspapers are failing around the world because of Google. So far, several countries have forced Google News out to protect their media. If we follow your logic, the only media left will be click bait rubbish. The most popular 'quality' newspaper (by online circulation) in the world is running at a huge loss.

As much as many will admit that Wikipedia has taken a large share of their readership, nobody is clamouring for that to be stopped.
Google does something entirely different - it scrapes our content and has built its empire on the back of it.
There was a symbiotic relationship before: Google could read our page, return it in their results, and we could get some traffic from them in return.
Bit by bit, they have pushed that contract to the limit, and now that they control the browser, we have no choice but to let them continue to use our content, even when they give nothing back.

I am glad that they haven't eaten your lunch yet, are you so sure that they will not come for it soon?

[EditorialGuy]

At this stage, I will remind you, that quality newspapers are failing around the world because of Google.

Many are failing, but saying that they're failing "because of Google" is nonsense. They'd be failing if Google didn't exist.

In any case, that's a topic for another thread. It has nothing to do with whether search engines do or don't display "ten blue links" with the current time or the sum of 2+2.

[glitterball]

In any case, that's a topic for another thread. It has nothing to do with whether search engines do or don't display "ten blue links" with the current time or the sum of 2+2.

No, the subject of most of the posts in this thread has been about Google's constant encroachment into the areas that traditionally were the realm of 3rd party websites, and speculation that they would not link to any sources at all if they could get away with it. Hence the examples about sports scores etc.

As MrSavage pointed out above, the Google Images hotlinking debacle illustrates the danger perfectly: Google have become the gatekeepers to the web. If Google had only had 30% market share when they started hotlinking images, I and many other photographers and content producers would have blocked Google straight away, and a competing image search (that wasn't blocked) would have been able to offer a much better image search to users. But Google dominated the market, and blocking Google meant that we would starve, so we just had to accept less food in our bowls instead.

[EditorialGuy]

No, the subject of most of the posts in this thread has been about Google's constant encroachment into the areas that traditionally were the realm of 3rd party websites

Somewhere, there's probably somebody complaining that car manufacturers were unfair when they started building heaters, air conditioners, and stereo systems into their cars.

The folks who made typewriter erasers, Liquid Paper, and correction paper (anyone here remember Tipp-Ex?) probably threw a fit when IBM introduced the Correcting Selectric II in 1973. (I bought one of the latter, and I can assure you that it was a game-changer at the time.)

And let's not forget things like envelope and label templates or macros that were third-party add-ons before they were built into Microsoft Word.

Fact is, the state of the art moves forward. Ask Google, or Bing, or DuckDuckGo for the current time in Bangkok or what 3km is in miles, and you'll get direct answers. Whether the search engine shows a list of blue links beneath the direct answer is beside the point if users aren't clicking on those blue links. (Why should they, if they're just looking for the current time in Bangkok or what 3km is in miles?) If your business model calls for rolling back the clock to a time when search engines didn't supply direct answers, you're like the guy with the aftermarket car air-conditioner shop.

[glitterball]

@EditorialGuy You are just not getting it.

Many of your points would be valid if Google was not in a monopolistic position.

Google does not gather information such as sports scores directly: it takes a copy from a page that someone else has written.
If anyone else decided that they were going to scrape your work everyday and spit out the answers on demand without giving credit, then they would be blocked or banned. The ONLY reason that Google gets away with it is because they rule the web.

[EditorialGuy]

Google does not gather information such as sports scores directly: it takes a copy from a page that someone else has written.

With sports scores, I'm pretty sure that Google is paying for feeds.

Its weather information comes from Weather dot com.

For other types of third-party data (time, flight information, and so on), I'd imagine that Google uses the same feeds, APIs, etc. that other sites do.

[MrSavage]

Ah, pretty sure that Google pays for the feeds for sports scores? If Google knows the click throughs on those pesky blue links following the sports scores, then it's safe to say....it's a facade. It sounds like they could justify torching the blue links on those sports score searches, but of course can you imagine the bad PR as ESPN, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc, etc, freak out when they wake up and realize what is going on? Those organizations are thick and likely wouldn't know about it until quite some time after. Even then, I'm sure there will be some sort of deal or handshake agreement that keeps everyone happy. It would makes sense if Google had no links when posting sports scores that they find some other way of filtering traffic to those sites as a way to calm the seas. That's how this works. That's why Getty went away. The issues don't get resolved, they just get swept under the rug. This is the trend. I'm not overly worried about the current examples of no link results, but it's not today that I wonder about. So regarding the weather example, Google has essentially put a lot of government run weather sites into almost irrelevant status. Now Weather dot com is the global source for weather in all markets, throughout the world? Essentially the deal would have put everyone else out of business. I wish I could reach a deal that essentially scrubbed all the competing website off the world wide web. I mean off Google (which is our world wide web). What I'm really saying is that the justification is weak and it's completely unnecessary. Google has been and should be at least "faking it" by showing links under the answers and other info boxes. I am heading to the conclusion that Google knows very well that people don't click many if any links under their top heavy answer boxes and info boxes. They don't dare say it though but of course they have the data. Think about Danny and having to shovel what he shovels every day. No thanks. I'll keep my honor and integrity because that is what matters in life.

[EditorialGuy]

I am heading to the conclusion that Google knows very well that people don't click many if any links under their top heavy answer boxes and info boxes.

Depends on the answers. If someone just wants to know the capital of North Dakota, sure. If someone is searching on something where a one-sentence or one-paragraph answer is a teaser, he or she may very well click on the link in the answer or info box.

Things like medical queries are great examples--someone who's worried about pancreatic cancer or chest pains probably isn't going to be satisfied with a simple answer. For that matter, our most popular landing page is featured in a Google answer box. We were getting a lot of traffic for that page when it was first in a list of 10 blue links, and we continue to get a lot of traffic for that page now that Google has taken a snippet and placed a box around it with a link to the page.

[Robert Charlton]

Google does not gather information such as sports scores directly: it takes a copy from a page that someone else has written.

Not so. Every time we've looked into this on the forum, it seems that Google actually licenses the data, and for the most part drops it into templated presentations designed for the sport and/or event They don't appear to be excerpting articles.

The sports score topic usually comes up, as it has here, when it gets confused with the subject of Google's use of snippets of content, often not in the sports area, but sports scores seem to make a good example). This discussion from 2012... along with cited threads, which also deserve a read... is one of most complete we've had....

Is Google licensed to show MLB scores above their results?
May 6, 2012
https://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4450192.htm [webmasterworld.com]

Note that some of the context has changed and a few links on Google's site are broken... but the basics are still there. The STATS LLC entry in Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org...] gives some insight into how complex the legal issues of various rights can become... but it's likely that STATS is still providing the data for Google.

The big concern in this thread, I sense, is that if you give Google an inch, they're going to take a mile. The arguments surrounding that, though, have been more about text snippets and not at all about the mundane calculator, unit converter & local time functions, eg, that Google announced it would be testing.

Again, to the degree that the "feature" might be cutting into the impressions of a site like timeanddate, I'm against it, and I take the liberty of citing it as an example. Timeanddate understood the limitations of being merely a clock display and therefore jumped into everything else about times and dates. It's one of several sites that's done so, and it's everything Google could ask a site to do. The site provided some of my favorite charts about the recent lunar eclipse, eg, and in many areas concerning world time, it has been a go-to reference. It probably requires ad impressions to maintain those service.

Google in its "time" test is looking at local time queries... as in, after I look at my watch, do I read background material about what time the sun is setting in Paris. The possibilities are in fact broader than that, and I'd want to know that Google isn't screwing up an eco-system that has value. Again, I put a lot of faith in Danny Sullivan's presence on this question. As I mentioned, I've seen him in action, on his own initiative, take on this issue earlier, so I myself am not losing sleep over it now.

Again, YMMV. Please keep it civil, and don't get personal when other opinions in this thread also differ.

[glitterball]

@Robert Charlton Thank you for clarifying the situation about Sports scores.
That does in itself raise even more questions though: Google obviously feel that, legally, they would not get away with just lifting sports scores from elsewhere. Presumably the big money sports owners and licensees would come after Google looking for a big money settlement.

After all, would it not be a fact that after 30 minutes into a game, that Team A are leading Team B 2 - 0?

[brotherhood of LAN]

Again, to the degree that the "feature" might be cutting into the impressions of a site like timeanddate, I'm against it, and I take the liberty of citing it as an example. Timeanddate understood the limitations of being merely a clock display and therefore jumped into everything else about times and dates. It's one of several sites that's done so, and it's everything Google could ask a site to do. The site provided some of my favorite charts about the recent lunar eclipse, eg, and in many areas concerning world time, it has been a go-to reference. It probably requires ad impressions to maintain those service.

No doubt this is why Google will measure the CTR on 'show all results'. I note that if you query 'sunset time [city]' and related queries, you still get the organic result set.

[EditorialGuy]

No doubt this is why Google will measure the CTR on 'show all results'.

For our top landing pages that I mentioned above, a simple answer can be given in a few characters (a price). However, Google provides a snippet from our site in an answer box, with a link to the relevant landing page, and a lot of people click through to the landing page. Why? I suspect it's because the people who want to know [to use a hypothetical example] the jitney fare in Widgetberg also want to know how you use the jitney in Widgetberg, so users as a group have a history of looking for additional information when it's available.

When Google says that people aren't clicking on organic results for the current time or 2+2= or whatever, I take Google's statement at face value, because it simply makes sense. Google is obviously capable of tracking which queries that have direct answers are getting clicks on the "ten blue links" and which ones aren't, so why wouldn't Google use that ability to optimize the search UI for any given query?

[Shepherd]

Google obviously feel that, legally, they would not get away with just lifting sports scores from elsewhere.

Obviously it's difficult to have a logical discussion with so much personal assumption being thrown around as fact.

Here's a thought, if google displays an answer to a query with no search results are they still a search engine?

[londrum]

once users start to cotton on to the fact that google only shows them google stuff, rather than letting them search the web (like a search engine!), then I think that’s when they’ll start to look at using other ones. They are just turning themselves into a portal, like the old yahoo, like AOL used to be.
YouTube aside, it’s not as if their own content is the best on the web — it’s just a mashup of wikipedia snippets, two sentence news headlines, and scraped reviews

[JonathanEdmonton]

It's cool and scary at the same time. I wonder to where direction Google is moving now?

[MrSavage]

One of the dumbest things anyone could do is treat their data frivolously. Anyone who had a system in place prior to Google reaching 90%+ of all internet traffic needs to get their heads out of their collective A. It's all going to come down to payouts and PR. If the sports leagues were paid off from Google then it makes all those big brand name sports entities like ESPN a lot less relevant. Leagues should start looking at their data and keeping some of that value for themselves rather than giving it away essentially. Did they sign lifetime deals? Seems like none of them are operating with any understanding of how things are going in 2018 and beyond. Imagine how stupid Twitter was in giving their content away. Letting Google post tweets and then look at Twitter's lack of ability to monetize their platform. Twitter isn't doing so well on the stock exchange correct? I guess Google got the better of that deal. Of course they would because 90%+ of web traffic goes through them. I personally stop to ponder now, what it would be like to provide Google which such a precise answer or solution on my page, that the answer box all but removes all click to the links below. Afterall, Danny says they only rolled this out because people didn't really click the links on the page anyways. So all I'm saying is that if I give a good enough answer that Google can use, it make the links below the box irrelevant, and thus, under the same logic and criteria, I should trigger the removal of all my competition. I mean that's how nuts this is at the very core. But at the same time I say it's BS because it's about what they can get away with and really nothing to do with whether people are clicking below those MASSIVE info boxes above all the links. The box is there to reduce the need for blue link clicks. But in a sassy way, if I give the answer too good, then maybe I can quality to have everyone else vanish off the page. Now, the benefit for me? Well maybe the link to the source remains. Maybe like voice, I just get a mention without a link. Now obviously in Version 1.0 they aren't source listed answers, but of course in Version 1.1 they could. Imagine getting your competition hidden behind a "see more" button! I mean Google wants feedback so I'm sure some people who are the chosen ones already for certain answer boxes will submit feedback for an expansion of the practice.

[EditorialGuy]

Here's a thought, if google displays an answer to a query with no search results are they still a search engine?

Isn't a direct answer (whether it's the current time or the capital of Borneo) a search result?

Annotated links are only one way of providing information in response to queries.

[Shepherd]

Isn't a direct answer (whether it's the current time or the capital of Borneo) a search result?

Don't know, that's why I asked the question.

Search Engine:
Wikipedia: A 'web search engine' is a software system that is designed to search for information on the World Wide Web.
Dictionary: a computer program that searches documents, especially on the World Wide Web, for a specified word or words and provides a list of documents in which they are found.
Webster: computer software used to search data (such as text or a database) for specified information; also : a site on the World Wide Web that uses such software to locate key words in other sites

My interpretation, no, a direct answer is not a search result.

What time is it?
Answer: it's 1:37
Search result: Bills watch says 1:37pm, Sally's clock says 1:30pm, Fred says it's beer thirty, the atomic clock says it's 1:37:02....

[EditorialGuy]

In the real world, the search engines get to decide what a "search engine" is. I can't imagine the head honchos at Google, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc. consulting Wikipedia before deciding whether they should supply direct answers to "What time is it?" or similar queries.

[Shepherd]

In the real world Google, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc. get to decide what they do with their website but they don't necessarily get to decide what words mean...

[EditorialGuy]

In the real world Google, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc. get to decide what they do with their website but they don't necessarily get to decide what words mean...

Well, I'd put more faith in how a search engine defines "search engine" than how an anonymous editor at Wikipedia does. (Mind you, Wikipedia does describe Google as a "search engine.")

[Shepherd]

How does a search engine define search engine? The first result on google is Wikipedia.
And for the record, I cited 3 separate references for the definition of search engine, not just an anonymous author at Wikipedia.