WebProNews

Tag: Search

  • What Am I Supposed To Do With Jelly?

    As previously reported, Biz Stone’s Jelly has finally launched. We’ve been hearing about it for about a year without really knowing much about it. Now we know what it is, and we’ve had a chance to mess around with it a little.

    I stress a little. I’m not going to pretend that I know what Jelly is completely or what it may or may not become. I wouldn’t listen to anyone today that claims to know. I doubt even Stone and his colleagues really know for sure.

    But a lot of people have downloaded the app (it’s available on iOS and Android), and are messing around with it trying to get a feel for it. I downloaded it, and it locked up my entire phone when I tried to connect it to my Twitter account. Not a good start. But I don’t know whether to blame Jelly or my phone (though this isn’t something that I’ve had to deal with with this particular phone in the past).

    Anyway, once I took out the battery, reinserted it, and fired up Jelly again, everything was fine (at least as far as bugginess goes), but I’m far from sold on Jelly as a product. It’s more the concept behind Jelly than the actual app. Why do I need this app on my phone? In what circumstances would I truly reach for this product in day to day life? These questions remain to be answered.

    Jelly’s answer, based on the promotional video that accompanied the launch (below) is basically because people want to help each other. You’re walking along, and you find something that you don’t know what it is, and you ask your people on Jelly in hopes for a real answer.

    Introducing Jelly from Jelly Industries, Inc. on Vimeo.

    Okay, but so far, I’m not seeing a lot of that. I’m seeing a lot of dumb questions, a lot of snarky answers and otherwise unhelpful answers, and perhaps most importantly a lot of questions that don’t need Jelly to be asked. To be fair, these are probably issues that plague all Q&A services.

    People are already asking tons of questions that don’t require pictures, which seems to defeat the purpose. A couple of examples I just saw were somebody asking about the best bottled water brand and someone on how to get an interview with Biz Stone. These were accompanied by pictures of a Dasani bottle and of Stone respectively. I don’t think these are the kinds of questions Jelly has in mind, and it seems like a bunch of noise.

    This isn’t helped by the interface though. There’s no coherent rhyme or reason to the content you see when you open up the app. At least not that I can tell. It’s just a never-ending stream of random questions without any categorization for context. Maybe that will come later.

    But you do get notifications. I’ve had several in the last couple hours since I downloaded the app. I got more based on other people’s questions than I did for the question I submitted (which was admittedly a stupid question too, as I was just trying to test the functionality, which I assume many others are doing as well). You can turn the notifications off, but I can see leaving them on getting annoying really fast.

    Notifications would be one thing if they were for questions that I really had any desire whatsoever in answering. If they could get that right they could be onto something. Unfortunately that’s not the case so far. Also, it would be nice to be able to delete my own stupid question so I stop getting notifications every time someone answers it without having to turn notifications off completely, but if there’s a way to do that, they don’t make it easy.

    These are just first impressions, and I don’t want to come off as too harsh on Jelly, because maybe there is more to it than meets the eye, and maybe it can be a lot more. Maybe once people get past the “checking it out” phase, it really can be something useful.

    It doesn’t seem like all that long ago that we were all trying to figure out another startup Stone was involved in. Remember the countless articles trying to figure out the point of Twitter?

    Jelly fancies itself “a new way to search,” and some have likened it to a Quora, but it’s kind of more like a social Google Goggles. I’m just not sure if that’s something I need. Maybe someone does.

    End of knee-jerk reaction.

  • Pinterest Acquires VisualGraph And Its Visual Search Technology

    Pinterest Acquires VisualGraph And Its Visual Search Technology

    Pinterest announced today that it has acquired VisualGraph, an image recognition and visual search technology startup.

    “VisualGraph’s two employees — founder Kevin Jing and colleague David Liu — will be joining the Pinterest engineering team today,” a spokesperson for Pinterest tells WebProNews. “Kevin started working at Google in 2004 and helped build some of Google’s first machine vision applications. David was working on his master’s degree in computer science at Stanford when he started at Visual Graph. He also interned at several companies, including Google, Facebook and Palantir.”

    “Pinterest is a visual tool that helps people plan their futures,” the spokesperson added. “The acquisition of VisualGraph will help us build technology to better understand what people are Pinning. By doing so, we hope to make it easier for people to find the things they love. Kevin has been working on large-scale machine vision problems for almost a decade and will be leading our new visual discovery team. We’re very excited to have Kevin and David join Pinterest.”

    The two say in an announcement on the VisualGraph site, “On Pinterest, millions of people are curating and sharing billions of Pins everyday. And these Pins are more than just images — they link to contents that can inspire and enrich people’s lives. We are excited for the opportunity to combine machine vision with human vision and curation, and to build a visual discovery experience that is both aesthetically appealing and immensely useful for people everywhere.”

    The site talks a little about what VisualGraph does, which is connecting images as “special nodes” in a graph to “allow for inspiration, exploration and discovery at scale.” They combine machine vision tools with large-scale distributed search and machine learning infrastuctures.

    It sounds like Pinterest could be getting better at search and image discovery. That’s a good thing since it’s apparently more popular than Twitter in the U.S.

    Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

    Image: VisualGraph

  • Should Apple Move On From Google Search?

    Should Apple Move On From Google Search?

    Could Apple take on Google in search? Apple has been making some rather interesting moves of late, and some of them are search-related, and lead one to wonder if Apple could legitimately give the search giant a run for its money in its core business.

    Do you think Apple could ever compete with Google in the search space? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    First off, consider how much searching is done from mobile devices now, and how that will only continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

    The three major search engines have each put out their year-end lists of top trending searches, including in the gadgets category, and Apple’s products dominate all of these. The top searched global consumer electronics trend in 2013 on Google was the iPhone 5s. The iPad Air came in at number 7. On Yahoo’s top ten list for gadget/tech searches, iPhone (including 4, 5, 5s, 5c, 6) was number one. Siri was number 3. iPad cases was number 4, Apple iPad was number 7, and iPad 5 was number 10. On Bing’s most searched entertainment electronics list, iPhone was number 2 (only to Xbox), and iPad was number 3.

    Suffice it to say, Apple’s products are incredibly popular, as if that wasn’t already a well-known fact. In terms of sheer volume, few would be better poised to take on Google in search from mobile (and tablet devices).

    Siri has gotten a lot of attention since it launched, but that doesn’t mean it’s quite as popular as the devices it resides on. Apple’s personal assistant got a big upgrade with the release of iOS 7 this year. It got some major features that an Apple search product would need to truly compete with Google. In addition to understanding more types of commands, it added the ability to search Twitter, Wikipedia integration (one of Google’s favorite sources of search results), and of course Bing web search results. Bing is obviously Google’s main search rival, powering search results on Yahoo and Facebook outside of its own site.

    A couple months ago, a survey found that hardly anyone is actually using Siri, but that could change for several reasons, but most notably, one in particular. Apple could get rid of Google Search as the default search for iOS, and force users into a Siri-based experience. Keep in mind, it’s already given such treatment to Google Maps. Getting rid of Google could mean a significant revenue hit for its main rival and a potential new revenue source of its own, should it choose to go down that road.

    InvestorPlace contributor Brad Moon ponders the scenario that many of us have, pointing out that iOS was responsible for generating 50% of global mobile advertising in Q2 2013, and saying, “This is an opportunity for Apple and a risk for Google. The opportunity is for Apple to snatch a chunk of that mobile advertising revenue by implementing its own search functionality in Safari, Maps and Siri instead of relying on Google Search or Microsoft’s Bing. Google recognizes the threat, which is one reason why it’s willing to give up some of what could be Android’s killer features — Google Now, Google Maps and the Chrome web browser being prime examples — by developing native versions for iOS and keeping them competitive with the Android versions.”

    Of course, we could theorize and speculate all day, but there are some very real pieces of the puzzle already falling into place. Apple has recently made two very interesting, search-related acquisitions: Topsy and Cue (formerly Greplin). Topsy automatically gives Apple something Google doesn’t have – legitimate realtime search by way of Twitter.

    Regardless of what Google wants Google+ to be and what Facebook wants itself to be, there is no service that caters to realtime search like Twitter does. If you want to know what people are saying about something right now, you go to Twitter. Simple as that. Well, you go to Twitter or something that can search Twitter as well or better than Twitter Search itself can. Enter Topsy.

    Topsy launched a new Twitter search engine in September, indexing every public tweet, and making them all searchable, creating what some would consider a better Twitter search engine than Twitter’s own search feature. In fact, various reports have indicated that Twitter almost bought Topsy itself.

    Apple reportedly paid over $200 million for Topsy, and wouldn’t reveal its plans for the acquisition, but a powerful search tool related to Siri and iOS, which already has significant Twitter integration, would give Apple a powerful search weapon that Google wouldn’t apparently be able to compete with. In the realtime vertical that is.

    Apple’s other search-related acquisition is just as interesting. Cue has been doing personalized search for a long time. It was pretty interesting when it launched (as Greplin), and illustrated another seemingly vital search vertical that Google wasn’t delivering on – the ability to search across Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc., in a way that would let you get results from your personal networks and files. Google has dabbled in related concepts (like with Search Plus Your World and the search “field trial,” which added results from Gmail, Drive and Calendar at varying degrees of helpfulness). But none of these efforts have been as useful as they could be. Google just doesn’t have access to the necessary data, like private Facebook and Twitter data, for example.

    With heavy Facebook and Twitter integration in iOS, this seems like another big opportunity for Apple to do something useful with search that Google isn’t doing.

    Pieces of a puzzle.

    Earlier this year, a report from Morgan Stanley said Google could pay Apple over $1 billion to remain the default search on iOS (as in Safari). That was before Bing became the default for Siri, and started getting the ability to suggest to iPhone users to switch their default to Bing, but Google is still the default for now.

    Google reportedly paid Apple $82 million for it this year, with the price set to go up, based on what is believed to be a per-device deal that keeps growing.

    As Romain Dillet wrote, covering the Morgan Stanley report, “Over the years, Apple has gotten more revenue from Google as Microsoft has been pushing very hard and bidding to make Bing the default search engine. For example, Bing is now the default provider on Nokia and BlackBerry devices. Money is a major incentive for Apple. But selling a Google-free iPhone could dictate the company’s next move.”

    “Yet, Apple shouldn’t shy away from $1 billion,” added Dillet. “As a company, profit is the most important metric. Google provides an easy way for the company to cash in a significant sum of money every year. At the same time, Google pays more money to Apple than it directly generates from iOS users. But user data is worth a lot.”

    So far, Siri has left a lot to be desired, but not really because of Bing, and it seems that Apple will only be working hard (and spending a lot of money) to make it better. With Bing playing a role here, it could open the door for a more unified search experience across iOS from Siri to Safari, and that could mean Google getting shut out (at least at the default level, which is certainly significant). We’ll have to wait and see.

    Either way, Google’s own efforts are improving. It’s only getting better when compared to Siri, which is certainly good news for Android.

    With apps being such an important part of the mobile experience, it’s also interesting to see how Google and Apple stack up to one another when it comes to app store search and app discoverability. The Pfeiffer App Store Maturity Shootout report was released last month looking at these things. According to that, Google is better at search, but Apple is way better at discovery assistance and content curation.

    For search, the study took into account natural language search, queries containing typing mistakes (positive results), support for search operators, advanced search options and the ability to refine search. Here’s how the two (as well as Amazon) looked for that:

    Clearly there’s a lot of room for improvement here, even from the reigning king of search.

    Discovery assistance and content curation which is related to search in some ways, looked at the number of sub-categories, number of specifically selected groups of apps, and number of specifically selected apps. Apple blew the competition out of the water in this department.

    Let’s put it this way, Apple just needs needs to improve search a little to be as good as Google, while Google needs to improve a whole lot to compete with Apple in the other category.

    Since that report, Apple has actually made adjustments to its App Store search algorithm, and has improved how the search engine handles misspellings and typos.

    While Siri, search in Safari and App Store search are all separate things, all of this shows that Apple is taking search more seriously than ever before, and makes you wonder what its next move is, especially with regards to a deal with Google.

    Wired senior editor Ryan Tate says Apple is “betting big on search,” concluding that we should not think of Apple as a hardware company, but “as a tech empire, something that will rival every bit of Google and Facebook.”

    What do you think? Can Apple compete with Google in search? Should it ditch Google altogether? Share your thoughts.

    Images: Pfeiffer

  • Should Google Show Ads In Knowledge Graph Results?

    It seems that more and more of the Google search results page is for sale these days.

    Last year, Google turned its shopping results into an all paid model. Then came the testing of banner ads on branded searches. We’ve even seen Google showing advertiser query suggestions in the Knowledge Graph on generic queries (though these didn’t appear to be actual paid spots).

    Is Google moving too far away from organic search results? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Now, if the screenshot below is authentic (and we have no reason to believe that it’s not), Google actually is testing paid spots in the Knowledge Graph (hat tip: Search Engine Roundtable).

    Really? In the Knowledge Graph?

    As you can see, Google is showing an ad for “dealer nearby”.

    Again, this is just a test. Google isn’t showing this to all searchers. Here’s what the query shows for me:

    Google Knowledge Graph ads

    It’s interesting that Google is showing ads on a query like this, as it just added car information to the Knowledge Graph last week. Google failed to mention that they’d be showing ads here, as it was pitched more as an informational service.

    “You may already use Google to help you make everyday decisions, like what restaurant to pick for dinner or which movie to go see. Starting today, you can also rely on Google’s Knowledge Graph to research a big decision: cars,” said Google in a Google+ post.

    “Say you’re thinking of buying a new 2014 Mazda3—just tap the microphone on your Google Search app or search for [2014 Mazda3] to instantly see facts like what size engine it has, its MPG and pricing for different configuration,” Google said. “To explore other cars, select one listed under ‘People also search for’ and your results will update to show you specific information.”

    To be fair, the kind of ad they’re testing here might truly be useful to users. If you’re looking for info on cars, there’s a good chance you’re thinking about buying one, and it might be helpful to know about a place nearby that is selling the model you’re looking for.

    That said, is the Knowledge Graph area really the place to be showing this? It just feels kind of dirty. This is supposed to be where Google is showing “knowledge,” not selling out to advertisers. Google has plenty of other real estate on the search results page for that doesn’t it? You know, like the AdWords ads that surround the organic results? Or the traditional local search results?

    The ad is clearly marked as an ad, but why force advertising in one of the few ad-free, knowledge-driven parts of the page? I can’t see this helping if Google wants to inspire trust in the Knowledge Graph, which they should really be concerned about doing, given that we keep seeing erroneous information appear there.

    I won’t rehash all of that again. We did that in a recent newsletter article. But even since then, at least one other Knowledge Graph flub gained some attention. Google indicated that a living author was dead.

    Can you trust that Google to have the best info in this area of the search results page when part of it is for sale? It might be helpful to know area dealers when you’re looking for a car, but is it the one that paid to be there necessarily the best “knowledge”?

    Meanwhile, Bing continues to build up its rival to the Knowledge Graph with new and interesting information. This week its “Satori” offering added Ted Talks, famous speeches, online courses and better information for universities, snapshots of scientific concepts and historical events, and more.

    I smell another Scroogled campaign brewing. On the other hand, Microsoft hasn’t been very shy about adopting advertising strategies that have worked for Google in the past.

    It’s going to be very interesting to see if Google expands Knowledge Graph ads beyond the test phase, and whether or not Bing follows suit.

    Should the Knowledge Graph be for sale? Let us know what you think.

  • Major Search Engine Stops Using Links For Ranking (For Commercial Queries)

    Yandex, the top search engine in Russia, has reportedly announced that it no longer counts links as a ranking factor when delivering search results for commercial queries.

    This is an interesting move in an industry that has relied heavily upon linking since Google’s rise to search power.

    WebCertain CEO and international search specialist Andy Atkins-Krüger reports that the company disclosed the news at the Internet Business Conference in Moscow. He also spoke with Alexander Sadovsky, the head of Yandex’s Web Search department:

    Speaking to Alexander this morning he explained that this change applies only to commercial queries representing some 10% of the queries Yandex sees. “There is a lot of noise around the links signal particularly for commercial queries and especially in Russia. We see a lot of paid links and even automated paid links where there is no human actually involved. The problem with these links is they’re frequently off-topic and are effectively cheating users.”

    …

    Alexander added that they’d observed a significant reduction in the value of the signal derived from links, “Three years ago the influence of links was still significant, two years ago we noticed a significant reduction and last year it became clear that links for commercial queries had dropped out of the top ten most important factors. This change is a natural continuation of that trend.”

    The search engine is reportedly taking over 800 ranking factors into consideration, and a major one is how users engage with a site.

    Commercial queries are getting interesting in search in general. Look at some of the stuff Google has been doing lately.

    For one, the company is toying around with branded banner ads on some commercial searches, breaking a promise it made years ago, as many have pointed out.

    Obviously Google has changed its shopping experience significantly with paid listings now the only product results available.

    We’ve also recently seen Google make suggestions for branded search results on generic queries, which some find a bit troubling.

    According to Atkins-Krüger, Yandex’s changes will go into effect next year, starting in Moscow.

    Image: Yandex

  • Google Now Searches Across Apps On Android

    About a month ago, Google announced that it would start indexing deep links in Android apps just like websites, so it could return results from apps in search results for mobile users.

    Today, the company announced that starting now, Android users using the Google Search app or Google in Chrome or the Android browser can get to app content from a Google search.

    “A task as simple as choosing a movie to see can actually be complex — and the information you want can be in several different places, often in apps,” says Google VP of Engineering Scott Huffman in a blog post. “You might get your trivia from IMDb, the box office stats from Wikipedia and ratings from Rotten Tomatoes. Starting today, Google can save you the digging for information in the dozens of apps you use every day, and get you right where you need to go in those apps with a single search. Google Search can make your life a little easier by fetching the answer you need for you — whether it’s on the web, or buried in an app.”

    Here’s the kind of thing you might start seeing:

    app indexing

    Google will also display relevant apps from the Google Play store if you don’t have them downloaded:

    More on what this means for webmasters and app developers here.

    Images: Google

  • Consumer Watchdog Complains About Google Again

    Consumer Watchdog Complains About Google Again

    Frequent Google critic Consumer Watchdog (the ones behind the legendary Eric Schmidt evil ice cream man video) has filed a new formal complaint against Google with the Federal Trade Commission. This time it’s about Google Shopping results.

    The organization calls the way Google displays results from Google Shopping “deceptive and unfair”.

    “The way that the Internet giant is featuring results from Google Shopping without making it clear that the highlighted results are nothing more than advertisements for merchants who bid for placement is an unfair and deceptive act, violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,” wrote John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project Director, in the complaint. “Moreover, consumers are actually being harmed because the featured results from Google Shopping more often than not return higher prices than can be found elsewhere, when consumers would reasonably expect Google’s suggestions to be the best.”

    Really? Still with this?

    Here’s what the results look like for “air jordans”. See the “sponsored” label? Seems pretty clear to me.

    “Google’s presentation of the Google Shopping results disguises the fact that the results are in fact advertisements. Clicking on any one of the Google Shopping suggestions takes the user directly to the merchant’s page where the product can be purchased,” the letter says. “Each suggestion is nothing more than an advertisement, however, there is no label that makes this clear. The omission of an ad label is even more egregious when the Google Shopping results are presented surrounded by results that are marked as ads. Thus, the consumer can only conclude that the Google Shopping results are suggestions, not advertisements.”

    Huh?

    I mean, it could say “ads” like other AdWords ads do, I suppose, but what else is “sponsored” supposed to mean? If you click on the icon that accompanies the label, it clearly says:

    “Based on your search query, we think you are trying to find a product. Clicking in this box will show you results from providers who can fulfill your request. Google may be compensated by some of these providers.“

    The complaint follows others from Consumer Watchdog about various other business practices from the company. You can get a sense of what they’ve spoken out against with a quick glance here.

    You can read the new complaint in its entirety here.

    The fact that Google has switched its product search feature to a paid model hasn’t been popular among some, and is certainly a reversal from corporate positions of old, but the labels Google displays on these results seem pretty visible.

    Image: Google

  • Ecommerce Sites Aren’t Utilizing Site Search Data Like They Should Be

    Ecommerce Sites Aren’t Utilizing Site Search Data Like They Should Be

    SLI Systems has put out a report finding that most eCommerce sites are missing out on a big opportunity to use data from their internal site search tool to improve the effectiveness of their marketing campaigns.

    The firm surveyed 160 global eCommerce professional, and found that 57% don’t use site search reports and data to enhance their marketing. 50% of them aren’t even using site search data or analytics to enhance any of their business offerings or processes.

    Site Search

    Still, site search, according to the survey, is one of their top priorities for next year (along with eCommerce platform, SEO and mobile).

    “These findings demonstrate a significant missed opportunity for retail marketers in improving brand visibility, customer engagement and ultimately sales,” SLI says in the report.

    Only 25% of those that actually do utilize site search data in their marketing campaigns are integrating that data into email marketing to customize offers for customers.

    On why they’re not doing more with site search data, half of those surveyed blamed limited resources, while about 30% said they don’t know how to use the data effectively, and 10% said their site search solution doesn’t allow for integration with marketing programs.

    Some other interesting stats:

    • 27% have created search engine-optimized landing pages populated with site search results and custom banners.
    • 13% are taking advantage of site search to power mobile search
    • 11% are integrating site search with social media channels to improve amplification of marketing programs

    You can find the full report here.

    [via MarketingCharts]

    Image: SLI Systems

  • Google Aims To Put European Antitrust Issues In The Past

    Google addressed the ongoing antitrust probe it has been facing in Europe again this morning, highlighting the latest version of its concessions with hopes to “move forward”.

    Google says it will give links to rival sites “much more real estate and visibility,” include rival sites’ logos with these links for “even greater prominence, and accompany the links with dynamic text from rivals providing more info about their sites.

    Google SVP and General Counsel Kent Walker writes in a blog post, “We’ve worked closely with a knowledgeable and professional team at the Commission to deliver just that. Users will be presented with alternative specialized search options right in the middle of some of the most valuable and prominent space on our search page. It is hard to see how anybody could reasonably claim that this will not offer users choice.”

    “These weren’t easy concessions to make,” Walker continued. “Within Google, many asked why we would agree to such unprecedented and far-reaching changes to our continuously evolving search results. But we didn’t want to spend a decade fighting over these issues. We wanted to move forward, letting our engineers continue to do what they do best: building products that help users in their everyday lives.”

    As Walker notes, Google will never satisfy some critics, “especially those with a professional and financial interest in impeding a successful competitor rather than helping users.”

    “Some in the anti-Google camp have lobbied for remedies that would help themselves at a cost to consumers,” Walker wrote. “Others have worked to prolong the process to keep us in regulatory limbo, filing new complaints timed to disrupt our settlement negotiations. These complainants continue to recycle claims with no basis in law or fact, while failing to present constructive or realistic suggestions that would benefit consumers.”

    It all still comes down to whether or not the Commission accepts Google’s concessions. A few weeks ago, the European Commission asked Google’s competitors and other third-parties to review Google’s revised proposal. It was reported that the commission reached out to as many as 125 companies to provide feedback.

    Google hopes to avoid a $5 billion fine with its proposals.

    Image: Google

  • Here’s Google’s Knowledge Graph Being Wrong Again (This Time Saying A Living Author Is Dead)

    It seems that Google’s Knowledge Graph is making headlines for erroneous information almost as often as it is for expansion and new features.

    Less than a month ago, we looked a pretty embarrassing example, when the St. Louis Cardinals’ Wikipedia page was vandalized, only to have Google’s Knowledge Graph describing the team as “a gay butt sex team based in St. Louis.” Wikipedia cleaned it up much more quickly than Google did, and the search engine showed that to users for hours, right while “St. Louis Cardinals” was a highly searched team. It happened during the World Series. Oops.

    Now, Alex Chitu at Google Operating System points us to another example of Google showing poor information. It’s not quite as bad as the Cardinals incident, but it does show a man dying before he was born.

    When you search for Robert Greene, you’re greeted with the following “knowledge panel,” showing that the American author was born in 1959, and died in 1592.

    Knowledge Graph

    In reality, not only is Robert Greene from the 20th century, he’s also not dead.

    As Chitu points out there was also a British author by the same name, who actually did die in 1592, so that’s where the confusion comes from. However, one of the main points of the Knowledge Graph is to help searchers differentiate between things of the same name, so it can better serve results. Ideally, Google would show one Robert Greene, and offer the option to “see results about” the other.

    That’s not happening here (though I imagine it will once Google realizes what’s going on). We’ve seen the Knowledge Graph mix up things of the same name in the past too.

    Remember when it was showing a picture of Brandy (the singer) for Brandy the drink?

    Brandy

    We know the Knowledge Graph is not perfect, and Google has acknowledged as much, but it’s a bit disturbing that the amount of mistakes exposed seems to be trending upwards, especially considering that it now includes info on nutrition and medicine.

    Image: Google

  • Is Google Being Transparent Enough?

    Is Google Being Transparent Enough?

    Many would say that Google has become more transparent over the years. It gives users, businesses and webmasters access to a lot more information about its intentions and business practices than it did long ago, but is it going far enough?

    When it comes to its search algorithm and changes to how it ranks content, Google has arguably scaled back a bit on the transparency over the past year or so.

    Do you think Google is transparent enough? Does it give webmasters enough information? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Google, as a company, certainly pushes the notion that it is transparent. Just last week, Google updated its Transparency Report for the eighth time, showing government requests for user information (which have doubled over three years, by the way). That’s one thing.

    For the average online business that relies on Internet visibility for customers, however, these updates are of little comfort.

    As you know, Google, on occasion, launches updates to its search algorithm, which can have devastating effects on sites who relied on the search engine for traffic. Sometimes (and probably more often than not), the sites that get hit deserve to get hit. They’re just trying to game the system and rank where they really shouldn’t be ranking. Sometimes, people who aren’t trying to be deceptive, and are just trying to make their business work are affected too.

    Google openly talks about these updates. Panda and Penguin are regular topics of discussion for Googlers like Matt Cutts and John Mueller. Google tries to send a clear message about the type of content it wants, but still leaves plenty of sites guessing about why they actually got hit by an update.

    Not all of Google’s algorithmic changes are huge updates like Panda and Penguin. Google makes smaller tweaks on a daily basis, and these changes are bound to have an effect on the ranking of content here and there. Otherwise, what’s the point?

    While Google would never give away its secret recipe for ranking, there was a time (not that long ago) when Google decided that it would be a good idea to give people a look at some changes it has been making. Then, they apparently decided otherwise.

    In December of 2011, Google announced what it described as a “monthly series on algorithm changes” on its Inside Search blog. Google started posting monthly lists of what it referred to as “search quality highlights”. These provided perhaps the most transparency into how Google changes its algorithm that Google has ever provided. It didn’t exactly give you a clear instruction manual for ranking above your competition, but it showed the kinds of changes Google was making – some big and some small.

    Above all else, it gave you a general sense of the kinds of areas Google was looking at during a particular time period. For example, there was a period of time when many of the specific changes Google was making were directly related to how it handles synonyms.

    Google described the lists as an attempt to “push the envelope when it comes to transparency.” Google started off delivering the lists one a month as promised. Eventually, they started coming out much more slowly. For a while, they came out every other month, with multiple lists at a time. Then, they just stopped coming.

    To my knowledge, Google hasn’t bothered to explain why (a lack of transparency on its own), though I’ve reached out for comment on the matter multiple times.

    It’s been over a year since Google released one of these “transparency” lists. The last one was on October 4th of last year. It’s probably safe to say at this point that this is no longer happening. Either that or we’re going to have one giant year-long list at the end of 2013.

    For now, we’re just going to have to live with this reduction in transparency.

    Don’t get me wrong, Google has given webmasters some pretty helpful tools during that time. Since that last list of algorithm changes, Google has launched the Disavow Links tool, the Data Highlighter tool, the manual action viewer, and the Security Issues feature and altered the way it selects sample links.

    Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Roundtable says he’d like to see an “automated action viewer” to complement the manual action viewer. As would many others, no doubt.

    “Don’t get me wrong,” he writes. “Google’s transparency over the years has grown tremendously. But this one thing would be gold for most small webmasters who are lost and being told by “SEO experts” or companies things that may not be true. I see so many webmasters chasing their tails – it pains me.”

    Cutts continues to regularly put out videos responding to user-submitted questions (webmasters find these to be varying degrees of helpful).

    But Google is not doing anything remotely like search quality highlights lists, which provided specific identifying numbers, project nicknames and descriptions of what they did like the following example:

    #82862. [project “Page Quality”] This launch helped you find more high-quality content from trusted sources

    While I haven’t really seen this talked about much, Google has been accused of breaking other promises lately. We talked about the broken promise of Google not having banner ads in its search results recently. Danny Sullivan blogged earlier this week about “Google’s broken promises,” mentioning that as well as Google’s decision to launch the paid inclusion Google Shopping model last year, something the company once deemed to be “evil”.

    “For two years in a row now, Google has gone back on major promises it made about search,” he wrote. “The about-faces are easy fodder for anyone who wants to poke fun at Google for not keeping to its word. However, the bigger picture is that as Google has entered its fifteenth year, it faces new challenges on how to deliver search products that are radically different from when it started.”

    “In the past, Google might have explained such shifts in an attempt to maintain user trust,” he added. “Now, Google either assumes it has so much user trust that explanations aren’t necessary. Or, the lack of accountability might be due to its ‘fuzzy management’ structure where no one seems in charge of the search engine.”

    He later says Google was “foolish” to have made promises it couldn’t keep.

    User trust in Google has suffered for a variety reasons, not limited to those mentioned, in recent months.

    Last year, Google cause quite a dust-up with its big privacy policy revamp, which more efficiently enables it to use user data from one product to the next. Last week, another change in policy went into effect, enabling it to use users profiles and pictures wherever it wants, including in ads. The ad part can be opted out of, but the rest can’t. Quite a few people have taken issue with the policy.

    Then there’s the YouTube commenting system. They changed that to a Google+-based platform, which has caused its own share of issues, and sparked major backlash from users.

    The changes were pitched as a way to improve conversations around videos and surface comments that are more relevant to the user, but most people pretty much just see it as a way to force Google+ onto the YouTube community. Some don’t think Google is being very transparent about its intentions there. It’s a point that’s hard to argue against when you see stuff like this.

    Do you think Google is losing trust from its users? Do you think the company is being transparent enough? Is all of this stuff just being overblown? What would you like to see Google do differently? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image: Matt Cutts (YouTube)

  • Google Offers Webmasters New SEO Advice Video

    Google has put out a new video of SEO advice from Developer Programs Tech Lead, Maile Ohye. She discusses how to build an organic search strategy for your company.

    “What’s a good way to integrate your company’s various online components, such as the website, blog, or YouTube channel? Perhaps we can help!” she says in a blog post about the video. “In under fifteen minutes, I outline a strategic approach to SEO for a mock company, Webmaster Central, where I pretend to be the SEO managing the Webmaster Central Blog.”

    Specifically, she discusses: understanding searcher persona workflow, determining company and site goals, auditing your site to best reach your audience, execution, and making improvements.

    You can find the slides she references here.

  • Should Google Be Forced To Filter Search Results?

    There are a lot of people out there with things in their past that they’re not proud of. Sometimes those things make there way to the Internet and do a great deal of damage to their reputation. This stuff comes up when people search on Google, and Google traditionally has not removed such content unless required to do so by law.

    One man is currently trying to get his damaging content out of Google, and not just removed, but filtered as it’s created. A French court has sided with him, and ordered Google to comply.

    Do you think Google should be forced to filter results? Let us know in the comments.

    Google has been in a legal battle in France for the past couple months regarding reputation-damaging search results involving former Forumua One Racing head Max Mosley’s attendance at orgy, which was leaked in a video back in 2008.

    News of the World had published footage of the orgy, which was described as involving Nazi role-playing. While owning up to the orgy, he denied the Nazi element, which a court also said there was no evidence of after he sued the publication.

    Mosley sued Google with the goal of getting this content out of search results, potentially setting a dangerous precedent in search engine censorship.

    When Google went to court in September, it took to its Europe Policy blog to discuss the case, saying that Mosley requested the judge impose “an alarming new model for automated censorship.”

    Google must be alarmed now. It hasn’t posted anything about it on the blog yet. It will reportedly appeal, however.

    The New York Times reports:

    On Wednesday, the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris backed Mr. Mosley’s attempts to force Google to block references to the images from appearing in Google’s search results worldwide. The company said it would appeal the decision.

    Google had this to say about the case in the initial blog post:

    He wants web companies to build software filters, in an attempt to automatically detect and delete certain content. Specifically, Mr. Mosley demands that Google build a filter to screen Google’s index and proactively block pages containing images from our results – without anyone, much less a judge, ever seeing it or understanding the context in which the image appears.

    We sympathize with Mr. Mosley, and with anyone who believes their rights have been violated. We offer well-established tools to help people to remove specific pages from our search results when those pages have clearly been determined to violate the law. In fact, we have removed hundreds of pages for Mr. Mosley, and stand ready to remove others he identifies.

    But the law does not support Mr. Mosley’s demand for the construction of an unprecedented new Internet censorship tool. In repeated rulings, Europe’s highest court has noted that filters are blunt instruments that jeopardise lawful expression and undermine users’ fundamental right to access information. A set of words or images may break the law in one context, but be lawful in another. As an example, a filter might end up censoring news reports about Mr. Mosley’s own court case.

    While constituting a dangerous new censorship tool, the filter would fail to solve Mr. Mosley’s problems. Pages removed from search results remain live on the Internet, accessible to users by other means – from following links on social networks to simply navigating to the address in a browser. As an example, one page Mr. Mosley sought to remove comes from a blog, which according to public sources, receives the vast majority of its visits from sources other than web search.

    Interestingly enough, this comes after Google adjusted its algorithm on its own to prevent mug shot sites’ content from ranking in search results, which could help protect the reputations of some people.

    In another case in June, a European court said Google didn’t have to remove search results when a Spanish man sought for it to remove reputation-damaging materials.

    Do you think Google should be forced to filter results from its search engine? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    Image: Onfreespeech (YouTube)

  • USC Study Finds Major Expansion Of Locations Google Uses To Serve Search Results

    Researchers at USC have put together a new study looking at how Google serves information to its users, finding that the company has dramatically increased the number of locations it utilizes to do so over the past year.

    And I do mean dramatically. According to the researchers, they went from less than 200 locations in October last year to over 1,400 this past July. The number of ISPs Google took advantage of grew from 100 to 850 in that time. As the study notes, Google has been utilizing client networks like Time Warner Cable that it was already using for YouTube content to handle search and advertising.

    “Google already delivered YouTube videos from within these client networks,” said the study’s lead author, USC PhD student Matt Calder. “But they’ve abruptly expanded the way they use the networks, turning their content-hosting infrastructure into a search infrastructure as well.”

    “Delayed web responses lead to decreased user engagement, fewer searches, and lost revenue,” said Katz-Bassett, assistant professor at USC Viterbi. “Google’s rapid expansion tackles major causes of slow transfers head-on.”

    Here’s an animated gif showing the expansion over time:

    Google

    The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Cyber Security Division. The researchers will attempt to quantify what performance gains Google is actually seeing from the strategy.

    Image: USC

  • Tumblr Search Gets Smarter, NSFW Content Easier to Manage

    Tumblr has just announced a big improvement to their search function, one that they say will help users better explore the 65 billion posts now currently housed on the site (65 billion posts, yeah).

    Now, when you search a term, the results page shows posts that mention said term, not just the ones tagged with those terms.

    For instance, a search for “Breaking Bad” will yield results that are tagged #Breakingbad and results that simply mention the term “Breaking Bad.” If you only want to search results that are tagged #Breakingbad, you’ll need to enter the tag in your query.

    Tumblr is making it easier to find more specific posts too by allowing multiple tag searches in individual queries. That means you can now search for #breakingbad #amc #aaron paul #bryancranston to limit your results to post that include all of those tags.

    Also, the search results page will now include related blogs for your search terms.

    The final change has to do with NSFW content:

    “And in an effort to make the explicit content filter more transparent (and less confusing), we’ve moved the option right to the search results page. We’ve also been able to use this smarter filtering to unblock innocuous keywords in our apps that used to be prohibited by app store policies,” says Tumblr.

    You can see the new filter as it appears inside search results below:

    As you may recall, Tumblr took a lot of heat for supposedly censoring a bunch of NSFW and Adult content earlier this year. Tumblr fixed a bug that was preventing adult blogs from appearing in search results even when Safe Mode had been disabled. One issue that still remained, however, was Tumblr’s app family filtering tag searches for terms like #lgbt and #gay, even if that content wasn’t NSFW. But at the time, CEO David Karp said that there was really nothing to be done about some tag searches being blocked in the mobile apps – mainly because of Apple’s strict rules on promoting adult content and their fears over being banned from the App Store. This change to search should help alleviate some of those issues.

    Images via Tumblr Blog

  • Google+ Saved Searches Are Going Away On November 15th

    Google is getting rid of the”saved searches” feature in Google+, but if you actually use it, you probably already knew that. It’s more likely that you don’t use it or haven’t used it lately. Otherwise, it probably wouldn’t be going away.

    Google is alerting users of the news when they go to actually look at one of the searches they have saved. If you have saved one in the past, it appears in your list of Circles. If you go to “more,” they should show up at the bottom. If you select one, you’ll get a message saying, “Saved searches are going away. Bookmark this page on your browser to save your Google+ search for later.”

    Saved Searches

    If you click the link to “learn more,” Google suggests that you save your searches by simply bookmarking the results page in your web browser. It also says you’ll be able to access the existing saved searches from the “more” menu until November 15th.

    I doubt the feature will be missed very much. You can obviously still bookmark them like Google suggests, but really, how hard is it to just enter a search anyway? It takes almost as much effort to go to the “more” menu and find it.

    The way Google has had it set up has been a bit confusing anyway. There’s no clear differentiation between the save searches and the Circles in the list. If you’re like me, you have saved searches and Circles with identical names, and I have to admit, it’s tricked me in the past.

    [via Search Engine Land]

  • Yahoo Microsoft ‘Search Alliance’ Encounters More Friction

    More friction between Microsoft and Yahoo regarding the two companies’ “Search Alliance” has been made public thanks to court documents obtained by Reuters.

    The two companies have been having a quiet legal battle about rolling out Microsoft’s Bing search technology on Yahoo in Taiwan and Hong Kong – the last two of sixteen markets – which are supposed to make the transition this month.

    Yahoo apparently is uncertain about the direction the alliance is going to go in under new leadership at Microsoft, and wants to hold off until it determines that the next CEO is dedicated to the partnership.

    Steve Ballmer’s retirement from the role was revealed in August, and Microsoft reportedly wants to have him replaced by the end of the year.

    The deal between the two companies was for a decade, but could end sooner, though Microsoft doesn’t intend to let Yahoo pull out without a fight, should it choose to try.

    The partnership was implemented before former Googler Marissa Mayer was running Yahoo, and she has been critical of the results since she took over.

    Either way, according to Reuters, a judge ruled on Monday that Yahoo has to go ahead and adopt Microsoft’s technology in the two remaining countries. The news organization shares a statement from Microsoft on the legal matter:

    “We had a narrow disagreement regarding the Search Alliance rollout in Hong Kong and Taiwan. We have unwavering plans to continue investing in the Search Alliance, now operating in more than 20 countries, and the Bing platform, which is central to our latest products.”

    Ahead of Yahoo’s earnings last week, Microsoft put out some numbers pertaining to the partnership.

    On a quarter-over-quarter basis, click-through-rates are up 6.8 percent, while cost-per-acquisition is down 13 percent, according to David Pann, general manager of the Microsoft Advertising Search Group, citing research from RKG.

    RKG also found thatt advertiser spend on the Yahoo Bing Network continues to grow compared to Google. It’s up 39% year-over-year, while Google is up 18%.

    Pann wrote in a blog post, “A lot of that is driven by non-brand click growth, which is up 45 percent on Bing Ads due to investments in our marketplace algorithms. In addition, CPCs fell 2 percent overall as Bing Ads continues to drive improvements that benefit our advertisers. The report says ‘advertiser ROI has improved on Bing Ads even as the platform has been able to deliver big traffic increases with better ad-matching technology.’”

    Image: Bing

  • Google Now Has A Tip Calculator In Search

    Google revealed in a Google+ post on Friday that it has a tip calculator tool that you can access when you enter a question about what a tip should be on a bill of a certain amount.

    It also works if you enter something like “how much should i tip on a 25 dollar bill”.

    You can also bring the tool up if you simply search for “tip calculator”.

    Pretty convenient.

    [h/t: Google Operating System]

  • Facebook Kills Privacy Setting That Was Probably Already Dead to You

    Starting today, you will no longer be able to hide from other Facebook users in search. That means that your profile will always be visible in Graph Search, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.

    Ok, let’s back up a bit. I don’t mean to scare you. In reality, you probably didn’t know that the option to hide from Facebook search even existed – and even if you did, there’s a pretty big chance Facebook already stripped you of the option last December.

    No, this isn’t some catastrophic change in Facebook privacy settings, and it probably won’t affect that many users. It’s simply Facebook cleaning house, and making good on a promise to remove this feature for all users at some point.

    Before last December, every Facebook user had the option to hide themselves from Facebook search by tweaking a setting called “who can look up your timeline by name?” Then, in a round of sweeping privacy changes, Facebook removed that ability for most users – as they put it, the ones who weren’t even using it. They also said that in the future, they’d be removing it for everyone.

    A few weeks later, Facebook unveiled Graph Search. Probably not a coincidence.

    Here’s what Facebook had to say when they first announced that they would be nixing the option:

    Facebook started as a directory service for college students, and today we offer a whole variety of services, such as news feed, photo uploads and mobile messaging. As our services have evolved, our settings have, too.

    Everyone used to have a setting called “Who can look up my timeline by name,” which controlled if someone could be found when other people typed their name into the Facebook search bar. The setting was very limited in scope, and didn’t prevent people from finding others in many other ways across the site.

    Because of the limited nature of the setting, we removed it for people who weren’t using it, and have built new, contextual tools, along with education about how to use them. In the coming weeks, we’ll be retiring this setting for the small percentage of people who still have it.

    It took more than a few weeks, but now Facebook has officially removed the option for all users that still had it selected – which probably isn’t that many users to be quite honest.

    Today, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Michael Richter explains why the now-defunct privacy feature wasn’t really that good of a privacy feature anyway.

    “The setting was created when Facebook was a simple directory of profiles and it was very limited. For example, it didn’t prevent people from navigating to your Timeline by clicking your name in a story in News Feed, or from a mutual friend’s Timeline. Today, people can also search Facebook using Graph Search (for example, “People who live in Seattle,”) making it even more important to control the privacy of the things you share rather than how people get to your Timeline,” he says.

    “The setting also made Facebook’s search feature feel broken at times. For example, people told us that they found it confusing when they tried looking for someone who they knew personally and couldn’t find them in search results, or when two people were in a Facebook Group and then couldn’t find each other through search.”

    Still, behind the PR’ing – Facebook knows that Graph Search will only work (properly) if users aren’t obscured from it. Duh.

    Ok, so what now? Well, your best bet is always to limit your content’s audience, either by blunt instrument or by a fine blade. If you’re looking for tips, I can help you over here.

    Image via Facebook

  • Breaking Bad Costumes Will Be Everywhere This Halloween, Google Confirms It

    Google has just confirmed what we already know to be true. There are going to be sooo many Breaking Bad-themed costumes this Halloween.

    Google shopping has just released their list of top trending costume searches, and “Breaking Bad costume” takes the number two spot. What’s number one you ask? “Minion costume,” as in the minions from Despicable Me. You’re going to see a lot of those too.

    The rest of the top 10 looks like a rundown of the past year’s pop culture trends – “Fox costume” (undoubtedly based on Ylvis’s “What Does the Fox Say” viral smash); “Duck Dynasty costume”; “Miley Cyrus costume”; “Daenerys costume”; and “Daft Punk costume.”

    Google says that searches for “Breaking Bad costume” are 3 times as high as they were last year, which makes sense. Duck Dynasty searches are also up nearly 300% – and are the highest in Texas. Google says that search volume for “Daft Punk costume” is the highest it’s ever been.

    I say go ahead – Break Bad this Halloween. There are so many options. You can be Heisenberg, or you can be cancer-stricken grizzled Walter White. You can be tortured-by-crazy-Neo-Nazi-Jesse, but you’ll need a good makeup artist. You can be Todd if you’d like – just act as creepy as possible and perfect that dead behind the eyes look. Piece of cake. Or be Gomie. Yeah, be Gomie – that’s a bold choice.

    But whatever you do, just know that you’ll never be as cool as Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul as Hector Salamanca and a Los Pollos Hermanos chicken cool.

    And if you’re dressing up your kids, well, I’ll just leave this here…

    Image via YouTube

  • Bing: We Don’t Track The ‘Bing It On’ Results Because Of Privacy, Have No Idea If People Are More Likely To Select Bing

    Bing has no idea if people are more likely to select Bing results when using its Bing It On challenge, and has admitted as much in a blog post defending its campaign.

    Despite being over a year old, the Bing It On challenge has been in the news this week, due to a study from Freakonomics’ Ian Ayres and a a group of Yale law students.

    When it launched the campaign last year, Bing said that people prefer its search engine 2:1 over Google. Earlier this year, they updated the wording to say that people simply prefer Bing to Google for “the web’s top searches”. The Bing It On site currently says, “Wherever we go, people prefer Bing over Google for the web’s top searches.”

    And they are indeed still going around offering the challenge. They were recently spotted presenting it at a Seattle Seahawks game.

    Ayres wrote this week, “When I looked into the claim a bit more, I was slightly annoyed to learn that the ‘nearly 2:1′ claim is based on a study of just 1,000 participants. To be sure, I’ve often published studies with similarly small data sets, but it’s a little cheeky for Microsoft to base what might be a multi-million dollar advertising campaign on what I’m guessing is a low-six-figure study. To make matters worse, Microsoft has refused to release the results of its comparison website, BingItOn.com.”

    He said, “So together with four Yale Law students, I set up a similar-sized experiment using Microsoft’s own BingItOn.com site to see which search engine users prefer. We found that, to the contrary of Microsoft’s claim, 53 percent of subjects preferred Google and 41 percent Bing (6 percent of results were ‘ties’). This is not even close to the advertised claim that people prefer Bing “nearly two-to-one.” It is misleading to have advertisements that say people prefer Bing 2:1 and also say join the millions of people who’ve taken the Bing-It-On challenge, if, as in our study, the millions of people haven’t preferred Bing at a nearly a 2:1 rate. Microsoft might have realized this and has more recently altered its advertising to back off their original claim to just say that people ‘prefer’ Bing.”

    Bing’s Matt Wallaert defended the challenge in a blog post, criticizing Ayres’ claims and study. You can read the entire post to see all of his jabs, but here’s what he said about Bing not tracking the results of Bing It On:

    Ayres is bothered that we don’t release the data from the Bing It On site on how many times people choose Bing over Google. The answer here is pretty simple: we don’t release it because we don’t track it. Microsoft takes a pretty strong stance on privacy and unlike in an experiment, where people give informed consent to having their results tracked and used, people who come to BingItOn.com are not agreeing to participate in research; they’re coming for a fun challenge. It isn’t conducted in a controlled environment, people are free to try and game it one way or another, and it has Bing branding all over it.

    So we simply don’t track their results, because the tracking itself would be incredibly unethical. And we aren’t basing the claim on the results of a wildly uncontrolled website, because that would also be incredibly unethical (and entirely unscientific).

    Ayres’ final issue is the fact that the Bing It On site suggests queries you can use to take the challenge. He contends that these queries inappropriately bias visitors towards queries that are likely to result in Bing favorability.

    First, I think it is important to note: I have no idea if he is right. Because as noted in the previous answer, we don’t track the results from the Bing It On challenge. So I have no idea if people are more likely to select Bing when they use the suggested queries or not. Emphasis added.

    He goes on to explain some differences between Bing’s controlled studies and the Bing It On site.

    More from the Bing It On saga here.

    Image: BingItOn.com