Did Google Go Instant Just To Show More Ads? 250
eldavojohn writes "Google, already the largest search engine in the United States, went instant a few weeks ago. MIT's Tech Review asks why Google went instant and is skeptical that users actually look at search results before they finish typing their query. Othar Hansson, Google's lead on the initiative, informs them otherwise and claims that Google's traffic monitors didn't even blink at the extra data being sent across — primarily because of its insignificance next to streaming one video on YouTube. Hansson also reveals that Google's search engine is no longer stateless and therefore takes up a little more memory in their server hives. The Tech Review claims that 'sources at the company say Google Instant's impact on ad sales was a primary focus in testing the service. Google only gets paid for an advertisement, or sponsored link, when a user clicks on the ad, and ads are targeted to specific searches. By displaying a search's ads onscreen a couple of seconds sooner, the frequency of users clicking on those ads could only go up.' So money seemed to be the prime motivator and the article also coyly notes that the average length of time a user spends between typing in any two characters is 300 milliseconds — much too fast for old JavaScript engines. Of course, you might recall Google's efforts to change all that with JavaScript speed wars. Do you find Google Instant to be useful in any way, or does it strike you as just more ad gravity for your mouse?"
Search (Score:2)
I do most of my search via the Chrome address bar or on my mobile, I didn't even notice this feature existed. Thanks for the awesome clean browser interface and faster JavaScript though Google :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like it, too, but I've found myself using their HTTPS connection more than anything as of late. I do, however, switch back to the standard Google (with instant search) when I need a specific kind of search like for images.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use iGoogle too, but from work I've had occasion to use the instant search for a while. It really is useful in my experience. It sort of feels like the autoprediction has made a big leap forward (although that could just be the perception).
Re: (Score:2)
I am actually someone who does pick from the drop down choices if it finds what I am looking for before I finish typing on Google.Com.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do too, but I actually like the instant results when i end up on a google.com page.
I can quickly look at the top 3 or 4 results scrolling down the suggestions. Previously I would have to guess which suggestion was best and search.
Not earth shattering, but not the useless annoyance I thought it would be. It makes it slightly easier to find the correct search term before wading through results.
No, not useful to me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the time when I accidentally go to the none https page, I find instant search annoying since I usually know what I'm searching for and I'm done typing before most of the page finishes spazzing out anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. I've turned it off, and Google is now usable again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got another suggestion, change search engine, https://startpage.com/ [startpage.com] Google needs to feel the heat of competition, remember at any single point in time going with the monopolists sounds like the best idea, but it's bad in the long term.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
By displaying a search's ads onscreen a couple of seconds sooner, the frequency of users clicking on those ads could only go up.'
By displaying ads for shorter periods of time, click frequency will actually go down.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't work that way.
You type
big
and you get a list of "big" sites and "big" ads
you continue to type
horse
and the results and ads change to "big horse" sites
you finish typing
breeding
and you get results and ads for "big horse breeding" which is the same as you had before.
---
Looks like google is hoping some users notice and click on the "big" and "big horse" ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see these ads you speak of...
I just disabled adblock to see if that's what was blocking these ads, but the Google Instant page simply has no ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in firefox 3.6.10 with adblock and noscript (but allow google script) and that's how it is working for me.
I get a "Big Lots" ad for "big" and then it changes to "US Polo Association Shirts Big" for big horse and finally "Horse Mating" for "big horse breeding".
I didn't do that at iGoogle. it does that at Google.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS393&=&q=big&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=C3nkDaZ6XTI6CNZz0ygTJ84WADgAAAKoEBU_Q9swx#hl=en&expI [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, I'm on FF 3.6.3 (yeah, I need to update) with only Adblock Plus (disabled) and Firebug plugins and I get no ads.
Are you logged in? (Maybe since I'm logged in they don't show? I don't know.)
NEWS FLASH! Google Makes Money On Ads! (Score:4, Insightful)
What ads? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nerds use boxen to prove their nerd-cred. Calling your computer a "box" is nerdy enough for most non-nerds.
Re: (Score:2)
Boxen -- Vaxen (Score:3, Informative)
If you're a "True Nerd" (TM)** then you'd know that the colloquialism "boxen" was derived from another colloquialism "VAXen" which came from the olden days (1970's - 1980's, even into the 90's) of computer science when Digital Equipment Corporation still existed and made a line of minicomputer called the "VAX". If you had more than one VAX system, the plural became known as "VAXen", derived from Old English use of the suffix "-en" tacked onto a noun to denote plural. This name came to be due to the fact t
Re: (Score:2)
> What are these "ads" of which you speak?
Something that many Slashdotters complain about endlessly and bitterly despite the fact that blocking them is trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I disable adblock, I see no ads on Google Instant. I must be missing something.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe smug is the word you're looking for. Oh, wait...
Turned it off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Profit! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my god, Google wants to make money from it's advertising arm. This is shocking news, we should all boycott them now for someone who provides all services for free.
Re:Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
LoB
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Came here to post this.
Google is a company which makes its money through advertising, which it sells by making free services (this bit costs money) that people find useful and putting ads in them, in an unobtrusive way and generally useful way.
OP seems to have a problem with this business model, and the fact that Google is a business not a charity. This makes them a complete and utter retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to post this.
...
I think everyone did.
Google is a company which makes its money through advertising, which it sells by making free services (this bit costs money) that people find useful and putting ads in them, in an unobtrusive way and generally useful way.
OP seems to have a problem with this business model, and the fact that Google is a business not a charity. This makes them a complete and utter retard.
I don't understand how paid commercial ads could ever be "useful" to those exposed to them. Thankfully there are things like Adblock Plus.
Re:Profit! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand how paid commercial ads could ever be "useful" to those exposed to them. Thankfully there are things like Adblock Plus.
One could make the argument that accurately targeted ads do benefit the user. They make me aware of products I might be interested in that I was not previously aware of.
The big reason of course is that those commercial ads are funding the awesome free services that I use all the time. The ads themselves may not benefit me, but they allow Google to keep on doing its thing, which does benefit me.
For the same reason I still allow Slashdot to display me advertisements. I have the option to disable advertising, but I don't. If a service relies on advertising dollars to function and I enjoy the service, then it is in my best interests in making sure the advertisers feel like they can reach out to me through that service. Adblock is fine on an individual level. But If everyone used it then advertisers would stop paying money to post ads.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Two words: newspaper classifieds. That's a (historical in some places) example where readers are willing to pay just to see ads. I'm sure there are other examples out there.
Re:Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertising is not just an "arm" of Google. It IS Google.
I just shut it off. (Score:2, Informative)
I find it annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
I turned it off as soon as I figured out how.
I don't want results before I even finish formulating my search request. It's distracting and confusing: a burst of visual noise while I'm trying to focus on what I'm typing in the search box (which I may decide to change as I'm typing it).
Why do I want to read results of a search that doesn't even represent my complete inquiry?
Re:I find it annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
Contrarily, much as I like the "suggested searches/autocomplete" feature to help refine my searches, I also like seeing the results for the parts of my search as I type. Frequently, I'll see the results I want before I even finish typing.
On the other hand, it bloats up the search page, but it can be turned off when I'm using an older computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Why do I want to read results of a search that doesn't even represent my complete inquiry?
It sometimes saves typing if Google guesses what you're typing halfway through. That could be useful for users, but I turned it off for a different reason: It slows down Dialup, ISDN, Cellular, and other slow connections to a crawl.
Re:I find it annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems like it is more annoying for those who touch type faster. I can see it being useful if you are a slow typist, but for me I turned off. The most annoying "feature" is it will do the search on the first predicted result that is on the dropdown list. So you type in the first couple words, and the search results are based on the next one or two words that they think you were going to type, which is nothing like what you were looking for.
Re:I find it annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I ABHORE this new feature with a fiery passion. The fact that it's on by default is annoying, and the fact that you actually have to start typing in the search box in order to even turn it off is more annoying... but the fact that once you turn it off, you lose your query and start over from scratch just tops it off. I rage every time.
One of the reasons I used Google over other search engines before was it's simplicity. There was no huge annoying banner ads or other distractions. Now there is.
It may be time to venture out and try some others once again.
Re:I find it annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I find it annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
If your browser is set to clear cookies every time it closes, then you have to turn it off again every time you start using Google in a new browser session.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't on for me at all (not that I'd want it). I assume that's because I block Google cookies and don't allow JS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If your browser is set to clear cookies every time it closes, then you have to turn it off again every time you start using Google in a new browser session.
Firefox
+ NoScript
Right-click icon on task bar. Click 'forbid google.com'. Now u have them without Java, no auto searching B.S. You can add sites like google-analytics.com to the permanent untrust list.
Of course that also blocks the fancy bits of your gmail and other google.com services, but you can still use them just fine if you don't mind the slightly older, java-free style.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you turn it off, it stays off. Is that really such a problem that you had to turn it off once per computer?
Because it's once per session, yes, it is indeed a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They also took away the ability to disable search suggestions. That is just as annoying to me as Instant. I'm now using NoScript to make it bearable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nimey's Internet Observation #1: People who write a word in CAPS to emphasize it nearly always mis-spell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most frequent one would have to be the various misspellings of "ridiculous", usually with the first i swapped for an e.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am also very put out by this feature. As an example for why it's so terrible, I was searching for some SQL subselect help at work the other day (natch, I'm at work now...). The first search I tried started out "How to insert..." Google instant helpfully popped up image search results for "How to insert a tampon". Google: NSFW (beta).
Ok, that is pretty damn funny, and tests out exactly as you state. Sounds like a new idea for a new blog, all the bad partial searches on Google.
I started with a very, very c
Re: (Score:3)
Same here. I don't like that it's the default, because i have to shut it off everytime I clear my cookies or use a new computer. Luckily we can turn it off, because it's something as petty as this that would prompt me to use a competing search engine. They all pretty much give me the results I wand these days. Google simply wins because of Muscle Memory.
Re:I find it annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I love it - because often I'm not really sure *what* I want to search for, so when I get some autocomplete suggestions that can be nice. With the new results popping up now, I often find things that autocomplete wouldn't give me, which is pretty cool.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I turned it off as soon as I figured out how.
I don't want results before I even finish formulating my search request. It's distracting and confusing: a burst of visual noise while I'm trying to focus on what I'm typing in the search box (which I may decide to change as I'm typing it).
Why do I want to read results of a search that doesn't even represent my complete inquiry?
This is why you will be replaced by someone much more interesting than yourself.
Neither. (Score:2)
I actually didn't notice any more ads, and usually this doesn't actually make my searches any faster.
Who cares? They made JS faster (Score:2)
I actually find in moderately usefull (Score:4, Insightful)
It means that typing a few letters at the start of a search instead of having to type out the full phrase is sufficient sometimes to pull up the necessary results. It also makes it quicker and easier to tweak a search for slightly different keywords, or to browse through the auto-suggest searches.
Not for everyone (Score:4, Interesting)
I turned Instant off almost immediately (Score:3, Insightful)
I turned Instant off almost immediately. JavaScript speed was not the issue. Seeing a screenfull of "jumpiness" was just "loud" and obnoxious. I didn't like the aesthetics of it.
You still get hints in the text drop-down, even without Instant. Those are useful.
Re: (Score:2)
It's exceedingly distracting and a general nuisance.
Bling Bling, Baby (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the complete uselessness of the feature (as described in TFA), I always figured instant search as just being some bogus bling that Google can use to show how they're staying ahead of alternatives like Bing. Even phrases like "gone instant" reek of marketing slime.
The truth is that Bing, even with as few people around here that use it, really is working on keeping pace, or even surpassing Google in some areas. Microsoft's recent demos of their sliding [slashdot.org] and composited [slashdot.org] street-view, for example, were pretty impressive.
Hopefully Google has some real new features in store and hasn't fallen to relying on completely useless visual gimmicks to keep customers. Recently their work on improving search has been to make their text fields and buttons too big and to waste CPU cycles with stupid instant search. Whee.
Web authors must really care about bling (Score:2)
Web developers REALLY love their javascript, even when serving only static data. So is it surprizing that they would like to "spice up" the "boring" google search results page? Even the page with the article on it has nothing interesting except article text, and yet it insists on popping up a dialog box reminding me that my browser (elinks) is "too old", as if whatever they are doing with their useless scripts and graphics can possibly be of interest to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So sliding and composited street view aren't gimmicks?
No, totally. (Score:2)
unlike before google instant lets me instantly not click on ads instead of having time to consciously not click on them.
Just another pointless gimmick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not subjected to that either, presumably because I do not accept cookies from Google.
They have to sell advertising in order to stay in business: they have no other source of revenue. There are evidently many people who like this sort of thing,
Increases keyword bids, not click rates (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on Google's rationale is this; Now I'm a small-time Adwords advertiser in my day job, which gives me a little insight into how the ad empire runs.
For the uninitiated, Google sells the ads on a per click basis, with the price per click decided with a keyword auction. So, if one was in the business of renting out monkeys, one might bid for "monkey rental", "monkey hire", "hire monkeys in Smalltown" etc etc.
Popular keywords (eg "monkey hire") will cost more per click than less popular keywords (eg "short term monkey rental in Tinyplace"). Savvy advertisers might spread their bids to avoid overpaying for the highly competitive search terms and get some cheaper clicks in the 'long tail' of obscure searches.
This is where 'instant search' comes in. Say a user was seeking to rent a monkey and begins typing in Google- "Monkey.." with the intention of typing "Monkey leasing in Anothertown". Google suggests (and loads the results page for) "Monkey hire". User thinks 'okay' and uses the results page for "Monkey hire" to select a result or ad to click on. Repeat this process across X users. The result is that the proportion of users who 'search' for popular keyword combinations increases, as many will settle for whatever Google has suggested. The total number of ad clicks will stay roughly the same, as there will be the same number of people searching. The bid price per ad click will increase, as unpopular keywords become even less popular and users are nudged towards the most common variations. Google profits.
Re: (Score:2)
You present a good point, but I think there's one issue with it.
Those suggestions seem to be sorted by frequency of searches, so what you're getting is *more* common and less obscure searches (and ads) early on as you type, and gradually gets more specific and (probability-wise) more obscure as you finish your search phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Google's information for Adwords users, ads only count an 'impression' (view) if its on the screen for 2 seconds or more, or the searcher clicks something else on the particular iteration of the page thats displaying the ad.
More ad impressions help Google but only very slightly; more impressions for the same number of clicks = lower clickthrough rate, which means that Google can decrease an advertiser's "quality score", which will increase in a small way the amounts they have to bid to appear.
Instant search doesn't happen when using iGoogle (Score:2)
Selling Ads is what Google Does (Score:4, Funny)
Wait...a company (Google) that makes a profit by selling stuff (advertisements) has introduced a technology that enables them to sell more ads? Unpossible!
Re: (Score:2)
"Did Google ________ Just To Show More Ads?"
Yes. Until they have another revenue stream, ads are their bottom line, and everything they do directly or indirectly (sometimes very subtly) furthers this goal.
Meh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Annoying (Score:2)
It's like an annoying little brother... (Score:2)
Google instant required a media event? (Score:2)
Apple is the king of media events, and is also the king of making a big deal out of something small. To me, Google voice in Gmail was far more significant world wide than Google instant, so where was the major media event for that? All these great tools and then you go make a big deal about Google instant? It never added up for me. It seemed like they were trying to take a page from the Steve Job's book of marketing, but to what end?
And of course article has to hit me with the giant "duh" hammer. Googl
Nixed instant pretty quickly (Score:2)
I find Instant not only cumbersome, but at least in the workplace downright disruptive. It will automatically display hits even if not remotely related to what you're searching for, because you goddamned haven't finished typing yet.
Just try "is it wrong" in a Google search box and see what it loads.
Now imagine you were at work and your boss was looking at your screen. You'd have some explaining to do on why you're searching for ways to commit incest.
May lead to a cascade (Score:2)
There's already an effect by which Google Trends and Google Suggest to drive traffic to a popular search phrase. This may make it worse.
Google Suggest "suggestions" are based, not on Google search results, but on Google Trends, the most popular searches in the last hour or so. Thus, if a phrase with likely first few letters gets near the top of Google Trends momentarily, it appears in the search boxes of large numbers of users, many of whom just pick top phrase. That's how long, unlikely phrases make it
Summary phrased differently (Score:2)
"Did company add feature to product to make more money?" Google is a corporation with a duty to its shareholders to try and increase profits. If they release a function to their search engine that both increases its utility to users and lets Google generate more revenue: what's the problem and why is it newsworthy?
For the record I really like the instant search. Generally I don't get my search terms right the first time. The quick feedback to search terms is really nice.
I like it. (Score:2)
I find it's pretty useful on multi word searches. I get instant feedback on whether it's looking like my search will return the sort of results I'm looking for. I find it's mostly helpful with tech support type searches where one word doesn't return good results, but a synonym does.
At best it's annoying (Score:2)
I find the argument that "instant search" may help people rather specious. We've seen numerous evidence that people don't multitask well - if you try to view search results as you type, it just interferes with your ability to type quickly (and this was my experience with "instant" as well). So most of the time I just tuned it out; when I noticed it at all, it mostly was just a "oh look, it's returning results for an incomplete set of terms" sort of thing that was not useful at all.
It also bugged me that usi
I like 100 results/page. Instant RESETS to 10. (Score:2)
My idea of efficiency is getting 100 results per page. I often need to look at more than the first ten results to find what I'm looking for, and if I'm really researching something I make go through several pages of 100 results each.
I wanted to give it Google Instant a fair try, but gave up when I found that there seems to be no way to keep my preference for 100 results per page while using Google Instant. Merely turning on Google Instant cuts the number of results down to ten. Worse yet, if you then turn i
I like it (Score:2)
Another vote here for the minority. I like being able to quickly narrow my search on the spot--to this end I found I began ordering my search terms before I typed them in, e.g.:
susanville food breakfast best bacon
I use Chrome's URL field to do Google searches all the time, and find I miss instant when I'm typing up there.
Useful and not, but not obtrusive (Score:2)
I sometimes find Google Instant useful, same as with history-based completion in the URL bar of Firefox. But when it's not useful it's easy to ignore and doesn't seem to bog things down any (at least I'm not noticing it). As for the ads, when I'm looking to buy what I'm searching for they're often relevant to my search (and thus useful), and when I'm not they're easy to ignore. A lot of other search/advertising engines seem to get the first bit but ignore the second part about getting out of the way. No, sc
It doesn't make it faster (Score:2)
If they make the first or second time you hit Tab take you to the first result, it might have made things faster, as you could start the page loading without having to transition your hand to your mouse (and back to the keyboard, if the next site has a logon.) As it is now, you have to hit Tab 16 times to highlight the first result, the now-unnecessary search button being one of them. The tab order includes the links to all of their other products before getting to the search results, as it is on their re
The same as the awesomebar (Score:5, Insightful)
First I loathed it. It makes the input box to jump while the text is being typed. It also makes it very hard to focus on typing while a multitude of information is flashing on the screen at the same time. That effect increases if you are a fast touch typist.
But I was too lazy to disable it, so I didn't. I then started (without even noticing) to adapt the way I use it and it proved itself to be much easier: I start typing whatever I'm searching and pause for just a second to inspect the suggestions google makes. More often than not, I can simply stop typing because the search result is already what I'm looking for.
In the few cases it is not, I finish typing and use it "the old way", pressing enter to retrieve the search results.
Tasteless and pushy (Score:2)
I don't mind that Instant Search might be motivated by Google's self-interest. I don't mind that it may place technological burdens on the browser--you can always turn it off. I don't mind that not everyone will necessarily like it.
What I mind is that it is basically tasteless. It's mostly bling, and Google used to be so tasteful.
And what I mind even more is the "negative option" feature of it. For years, Google has been introducing new features on an opt-in basis, e.g. by showing them first in Google Labs.
useless and I never see it (Score:2)
Since ctrl+k gets me right to the search box in FF, I never go to the google home page. And even if I log out of my google account it still routes me to igoogle anyway. When they did that funky logo follows the mouse thing a while back, I actually had to go to google.co.uk to see it. That was easier then blasting the cookies anyway.
I did actually try this out though. I'm a fast enough typist that it doesn't matter. And I am *not* that fast. I can see if you are someone who types with an index finger o
I'm about to turn it off (Score:4, Interesting)
I've gotten used to the laggy feeling and jumpiness but what I can't stand is that after being trained to not have to enter a query it sometimes wipes out the final results and tells me I have to hit enter. WTF?
Who uses google.com when you have FF searchbar? (Score:2)
Or Chrome/Safari/etc.
I never use the actual www page, unless I'm refining my results in which case, instant isn't that annoying.
I also now have migrated to domain-specific searches outside of Google (ie, code searches on code-specific sites like stackoverflow, etc)
I mostly ignore it, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Gone in less than 60 seconds... (Score:2)
I turned it off as soon as I possibly could. I use Google A LOT. I don't need it messing with what I think is the query I feel will get me the best results. I ESPECIALLY would not want it doing this on my mobile phone chewing up my data allowance.
Am I the only one who didn't notice? (Score:4, Interesting)
All the posts complaining about this surprised me, mainly because I'm surprised that anyone uses the google search page. Don't pretty much all browsers have a search field? I type my search in there, hit enter, and see the results.
For me, "http://google.com" is a connectivity diagnostic tool, not a search tool.
Re: (Score:2)
My primary searches come from the right-hand corner search bar. But when I tweak those searches, I'd rather go to the box in the middle of the screen than the top right. As a side note, I have disabled that damn annoying instant search. Maybe it would work if it was on a timer that changed every 10 seconds or so rather than every character I type. All it does is add noise to the search.