WebProNews

Tag: Search

  • Google 2011 Revenue Breakdown [Infographic]

    Google 2011 Revenue Breakdown [Infographic]

    Google released its earnings report for the fourth quarter last week. Here’s a look at Google’s revenue in a format that’s a bit easier to consume.

    Wordstream has put out the following infographic looking at where Google made its money in 2011:

    What Industries Contributed to Google's Billion in Revenues? [INFOGRAPHIC]

    © WordStream, a Pay Per Click and SEM software tools vendor.

  • Bing To Users: We’re More Than Just A Pretty Picture

    Been to Bing lately? If so, you may have seen a little tour of Bing’s homepage.

    A bar appears at the top, which says “Bing is more than just a pretty picture. See why.” You’re then presented with buttons for “Show me” and “No thanks”.

    Bing message

    If you click the former, you’re walked through the following path:

    Bing - more about today's hompage

    Bing - move your mouse around

    Bing - last week's pictures

    Bing - what's hot

  • Google Has Competition Beat On Punctuation Queries

    Google is apparently doing more punctuation indexing these days than it has in the past.

    Honestly, I can’t recall ever searching for just a “.” or just a “!” or other punctuation marks, but evidently Google historically has not provided results for them. Now they do, as Alex Chitu at Google Operating System points out.

    Here’s a search for “.”:

    Google search for period

    Here’s one for “!”:

    Google exclamation

    And one for “,”:

    Google comma

    Bing does not return results for any of these.

    Bing period

    Neither does Yahoo. Neither does Blekko. Neither does Facebook.

    Other punctuation/symbols Google is showing results for include: :,;,#, %,@, ^, ), ~,|, “, <, and $.

  • Focus On The User: Facebook, Twitter & Myspace’s Version Of Google

    Facebook Director of Product Blake Ross has created a bookmarklet that people can add to their web browsers to take the “Search Plus Your World” out of their Google search results. Granted, Google has its own toggle to turn the feature on and off from the search results page, but this goes further.

    First, here’s a video about it:

    On FocusOnTheUser.org, where you can get the bookmarklet, it says, “This proof of concept was built by some engineers at Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, in consultation with several other social networking companies. We are open-sourcing the code so that anyone may use it or make it even better.”

    John Battelle has a bit more of the story, however, after visiting Facebook’s offices. He talked to Ross, who is one of the creators of Firefox. Battelle writes, “It was a simple hack, he said, some code he had thrown together in response to the whole Google+ tempest.”

    “After Blake showed me his work, we had a lively discussion about the implications of Facebook actually releasing such a tool,” writes Battelle. “I mean, it’s one thing for a lone hacktivist to do this, it’s quite another for a member of the Internet Big Five to publicly call Google out. Facebook would need to vet this with legal, with management (this clearly had to pass muster with Mark Zuckerberg), and, I was told, Facebook wanted to reach out to others – such as Twitter – and get their input as well.”

    Apparently that strategy went through, since Twitter and MySpace are also getting some credit.

    The bookmarket actually says “Don’t Be Evil,” a reference to Google’s proclaimed philosophy.

    Don't Be Evil

    An interesting snippet from the FAQ page at FocusOnTheUser.org:

    Q: I thought Google needed a deal and more info from social sites to integrate them into its new social features?

    A: This is clearly not true. The bookmarklet never accesses any server or API outside of google.com. The information has already been indexed and ranked by Google.

    Focus on the User

    Do you think the bookmarklet makes Google’s results better? Better than Google’s own toggle? Let us know what you think in the comments.

  • Google’s Social Q&A Search: Ask Google+ Friends From Google Results

    Update: A Google spokesperson tells WebProNews: “Our goal for search is to help you find the best answers to your questions, and sometimes the best answers come from your friends. To help you find those answers, we’re experimenting with a new link at the bottom of the search results page that invites you to Ask your friends” for information about the topics you’re searching for. This link will appear for a small percentage of Google+ users who are particularly active on the service.”

    I thought I was reasonably active on Google+. I guess I’m not enough of a power user to get the feature yet.

    While it is an experimental feature, I’d be surprised if it doesn’t become a full-fledged feature. It makes sense – perhaps more sense that some of the other Google+ integration the company has recently rolled out.

    Some Google users are now seeing a feature in Google search results that let them ask their Google+ friends questions about the query they just searched for.

    Specifically, at the bottom of the search results page, it says: “Want to ask your friends about query? Ask on Google+.

    Not everyone has access to the feature (including myself), so I’m guessing it’s either being tested or is in the process of rolling out. Given that there hasn’t been a formal announcement by Google, I’m leaning towards testing. I’ve reached out to the company to find out, and will update accordingly.

    Danny Sullivan has a screenshot of what it looks like. Not much to see really, just text and a link.

    Google has obviously been integrating Google+ into Google search more and more, and this is a potentially helpful extension of that. It puts a good deal more emphasis on Q&A search than Google has had otherwise, even if it’s at the bottom of the page.

    The fact that it is at the bottom of the page tells me that Google still wants you to think it can answer your questions with relevant search results first and foremost.

  • Google Homepage Redesign Still Rolling Out

    Google’s most recent homepage redesign (pictured above) has been rolling out for quite some time. Quite frankly, I had pretty much forgotten about it, until I was presented with it this morning.

    This tells me that there are still people who are just now getting this Google experience, which places navigation among Google services at the left-hand side of the screen.

    On search results pages, this navigation menu (formerly accessible via a black bar at the top of the screen) appears when you mouse over the Google logo.

    There is also a share box, to share updates, links, etc. from pretty much any page (across multiple Google products like Gmail, Google Reader, etc. For some reason, the design is still not integrated with YouTube.

    There has historically been little Google branding throughout the YouTube experience, and surprisingly (given Google’s major push to integrate Google+ across products and tie everything together, including YouTube, via a singular Google account) this continues today. That said, YouTube is not without its Google+ integrations.

    Are you seeing the new Google design? How long have you had it? Are you still waiting? Do you think it’s an improvement? Let us know in the comments.

  • Post Directly From Google+ Search Results With New “Join The Discussion” Feature

    Google has added a new feature to Google+ that allows users to post directly from the Google+ search results.

    Yes, actually post – not simply comment on another user’s post or share another user’s post, but create your own post on the topic for which you searched. They say it’s all about “starting conversations,” making it so that it’s easier for users to join the discussion about certain topics in real-time.

    Here’s what they had to say:

    Today we’re introducing a new feature that lets you share directly from Google+ search results, and contribute to a topical Google+ stream. For example, if you search for basketball and then want to make a post about how your favorite team or player is doing, you can share right from the search results.

    Just look for the sharebox after searching on Google+, and you’ll see an opportunity to “join the discussion” about whatever you’ve searched for.

    When you post from the search results page, it automatically includes a link back to the original search stream. This way others can join the active conversation as it unfolds.

    When you search a topic (in this case “SOPA”) within Google+, you’ll now see a new box above the activity stream. It will prompt you to “Join the discussion” about your topic. From there, you can make a post – photo, link, video, plain text, whatever.

    Each post made from the search results include a link back to the activity stream on the specific topic – they’ll say “Shared from the Google+ ________ stream.” Presumably, this will prompt others to join in on the conversation about hot, trending topics.

    Considering that Google is adding more Google+ content to regular Google searches in order to “personalize” these results (Search Plus Your World), is it only a matter of time before people can post to their Google+ page straight from the the main Google SERP?

  • Jerry Yang: What Yahoo Employees Have Said About Him

    As you may know, Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang has resigned from all positions at the company. Glassdoor has taken the opportunity to share what some Yahoo employees have said in reviews on the site (dating back to 2008).

    “Jerry Yang continues to be Chief Yahoo and his role has always been dubious. It appears that Jerry wants to have the cake and eat it too. It is time that senior leadership develops some spine to tell Jerry that it is time for him to let go.” – Yahoo Employee (Sunnyvale, CA)

    “You should get rid of people higher up who have ego problems. They only got to their spots because they started out early during the tech boom.” – Yahoo Employee (location n/a)

    “Jerry Yang was an inefficient CEO but at least he really cared about technology.” – Yahoo Search Editor (Sunnyvale, CA)

    “Jerry Yang should never have been made CEO.” – Yahoo Product Manager (Sunnyvale, CA)

    Glassdoor provides the following chart on approval rating among employees (for Yang and recently ousted Carol Bartz):

    Jerry Yang vs. Carol Bartz approval rating

    Here’s what a few employees have said about what could be improved about the company today:

    “Multiple re-orgs can be tiring, but hopefully that’s behind Y! with the new CEO as of early 2012.” – Yahoo Employee (Sunnyvale, CA)

    “No room to grow, company is shrinking and directors and vps have been there forever. Constant reorgs” – Yahoo Product Manager (Sunnyvale, CA)

    “Constant reorganization. Lack of clarity in company’s objectives. Selfish senior management (VP and up). Highly political.” – Yahoo Human Resources (Sunnyvale, CA)

    At least some employees have apparently been impressed with new CEO Scott Thompson so far, but others are fearing layoffs.

  • Google Slows Down Crawling So SOPA-Protesting Sites Don’t Get Hurt

    A lot of sites have gone dark today in protest of SOPA, and many others are protesting in other ways, with banners, and whatnot. Google, protesting SOPA itself, is slowing down crawling for today to help out those protesting.

    “We realize many webmasters are concerned about the medium-term effects of today’s blackout,” said Google’s Pierre Far on Google+. “As a precaution, the crawl team at Google has configured Googlebot to crawl at a much lower rate for today only so that the Google results of websites participating in the blackout are less likely to be affected.”

    A couple days ago, Far provided a how-to guide for webmasters looking to join the protest without hurting how Google sees their sites.

    The most important of these tips, he said, is: “Webmasters should return a 503 HTTP header for all the URLs participating in the blackout (parts of a site or the whole site).”

  • Google Protests SOPA With Blacked Out Logo

    Although Google is not going to the lengths that Wikipedia is to show their opposition to SOPA and PIPA, they have nonetheless joined the effort with what could be called their most spartan Google Doodle ever.

    When you visit Google you’re met with this, a giant black censor bar over the Google logo. The only part of the logo barely visible is the bottom of the second “g.”

    Clicking on the logo or the link just under the logo takes you to a SOPA / PIPA landing page that displays these words:

    Millions of Americans oppose SOPA and PIPA because these bills would censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the U.S.
    Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

    The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.

    The page also gives you the option to sign a petition against the legislation. Just enter your name, email address and zip code and you can join the fight. After this, Google asks you to share the petition on Google+, Facebook and Twitter.

    Blacking out their logo as opposed to shutting down their whole service might be seen as a small measure, but with the amount of people viewing Google.com daily, it is bound to make an impact.

  • Microsoft Announces New Atlas Search Desktop Tool

    Microsoft announced the launch of the new Atlas Search desktop tool for Atlas clients.

    “You can traffic up to 1mm keywords within 24 hours by simply exporting your keywords from the search engines, and then dragging and dropping the file into the tool,” says Microsoft’s Lori Goode. “Click redirects are created at the click of a button and ready to upload back into the search engine. No really, it’s that simple!”

    Introducing a new way to traffic and measure your search campaigns!…http://ow.ly/8wAGD 4 hours ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

    “OK, so the ASDT will keep traffic time to the barest minimum,” she continues. “But when you’re using the ASDT, you also benefit from deeper connections between search engine data and Atlas data. You’ll be able to pull search engine dimensional and fact data side-by-side with Atlas data in MyReports, giving you the ability to assess campaign, ad group, ad, keyword, and landing page performance.”

    Atlas Search

    Reports, including Keyword Path Analysis and Search And Display Synergy have been updated to be compatible with new, simplified click redirects.

    Microsoft also released a new API that will support the launch of a new Search Engine Management channel in the Atlas Technology Partner Alliance.

  • Jerry Yang Out At Yahoo

    Jerry Yang Out At Yahoo

    Yahoo just announced that co-founder and former CEO Jerry Yang has resigned from the company’s Board of Directors and all other positions with the company, effective today. That includes resignation from the Boards of Yahoo Japan and Alibaba.

    Yang wrote in a letter to the Yahoo Board Chairman Roy Bostock, “My time at Yahoo!, from its founding to the present, has encompassed some of the most exciting and rewarding experiences of my life. However, the time has come for me to pursue other interests outside of Yahoo! As I leave the company I co-founded nearly 17 years ago, I am enthusiastic about the appointment of Scott Thompson as Chief Executive Officer and his ability, along with the entire Yahoo! leadership team, to guide Yahoo! into an exciting and successful future.”

    “Jerry Yang is a visionary and a pioneer, who has contributed enormously to Yahoo! during his many years of service,” said Bostock. “It has been a pleasure to work with Jerry. His unique strategic insights have been invaluable. He has always remained focused on the best interests of Yahoo!’s stakeholders, including shareholders, employees and more than 700 million users. And while I and the entire Board respect his decision, we will miss his remarkable perspective, vision and wise counsel. On behalf of the Board, we thank Jerry and wish him all the very best in his future endeavors.”

    “We appreciate Jerry’s comments and share his enthusiasm for the company’s prospects,” he added. “With Scott Thompson leading an outstanding team of Yahoos to deliver innovative products and an engaging customer experience, Yahoo!’s future is bright.”

    Thompson himself said: “I am grateful for the warm welcome and support Jerry provided me during my early days here. Jerry leaves behind a legacy of innovation and customer focus for this iconic brand, having shaped our culture by fostering a spirit of innovation that began 17 years ago and continues to grow even stronger today. Jerry has great confidence in the future of Yahoo!, and I share his confidence in the enormous potential of Yahoo! in the days ahead.”

    While the search was on for Carol Bartz’s replacement (fired last year), it was rumored that Yang was really running things, despite Timothy Morse being appointed interim CEO.

    Yang co-founded Yahoo in 1995 with David Filo and served as a member of the Board of Directors since March 1995. His time as CEO lasted from June 2007 to January 2009.

  • Rupert Murdoch Calls Google Argument Nonsense

    Rupert Murdoch and Google have been engaged in a public argument of sorts. Earlier this week, Murdoch tweeted:

    Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.

    Then, CNET shared a statement from a Google spokesperson in response to the tweet:

    “This is just nonsense. Last year we took down 5 million infringing Web pages from our search results and invested more than $60 million in the fight against bad ads…We fight pirates and counterfeiters every day.”

    “We believe, like many other tech companies that the best way to stop [pirates] is through targeted legislation that would require ad networks and payment processors–like ours–to cut off sites dedicated to piracy or counterfeiting.”

    Today, Murdoch tweeted:

    Nonsense argument about danger to Internet. How about Google, others blocking porn, hate speech, etc? Internet hurt? 22 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto

    It will be interesting to see how long this continues. It’s not as if Murdoch and Google bickering is anything new. It’s just that now Murdoch is using Twitter regularly, and not holding much back.

  • Google: Here’s How To Get More Out Of Google+

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Google is doing a lot to encourage people to use Google+. That includes TV ads (not something Google has done a lot historically) and new, deep integration into search results.

    They also recently launched a site called “Get More Out Of Google+,” which discusses ways to use Google’s social network with other popular Google products like search, Gmail, YouTube, Maps and Blogger.

    And of course there’s a big old button to “upgrade to Google+” for those who aren’t already signed up.

    In the search section, it just basically highlights all of the new integration from the controversial “Search Plus Your World” feature set.

    The Gmail section talks about finding email from people in your circles, sharing photos and seeing what else your friends are saying.

    The YouTube part talks about seeing the videos your friends are sharing, watching videos together with Hangouts, finding new videos to share, and sharing videos with “the right people”.

    The Maps part talks about sharing directions with “just the right people”.

    Finally, the Blogger part talks about sharing blog posts on Google+ whenever they’re published.

    There’s not much in the way of new information on the site (at least at this point), but it is a good place to see Google’s various integrations with other products. Such integration will only continue to expand.

    It kind of helps you look at Google+ more as a feature of Google than as a separate network.

  • SMX Israel: What You Missed

    SMX Israel: What You Missed

    SMX Israel took place in Jerusalem on Sunday as a one-day event full of keynotes and sessions, led by Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Land/Search Engine Roundtable.

    That’s a long trip for those of us in the states (or for those in many other parts of the world for that matter), so if you were unable to attend, you could hardly be blamed. But that’s what makes the Internet great. Attendees and presenters have shared info and commentary about the event for everybody else to see. I’m sure it doesn’t quite match actually being there, but it’s better than nothing. And it’s free.

    Some presenters have shared their presentations online. Here’s one from Aviv Manoach:

    Here’s one from Mark Ginsberg:

    Dixon Jones shares one here.

    Ben Druce offers a live-blogged account of SMX Israel here.

    “The SERP (search engine result page) scene from Google has always been changing – so their updates such as Search Plus Your World and Panda are not necessarily spoken of with resentment – Panda specifically is a good wakeup call to many for remembering that real people like fresh and real content,” he says, in a separate “highlights” piece. “However, the notion that Google is being unfair in their current practices is now coming to the forefront. The most common claim is that Google SERPS are showing Google Plus results on top of the far more relevant traditional organic sites, or even Facebook or Twitter results. The general feel was that Google is here to stay, and if we don’t like it, we still have to deal with it.”

    Nichola Stott has her own summary of the event, concluding that the speakers “seemed to be very much in agreement on the following points:”

    • There is a very clear chronology of events, which gives a clear directional guide as to your future search strategy. Know your search history and you know your search future
    • It is getting harder and harder to fake it – plus why bother? If you can’t deliver then what’s the point of trying to rank a mediocre page anyway? (Mediocrity doesn’t convert so well)
    • “Treat Google well” to continue to succeed and you can’t go far wrong. {Quote is from Eli Feldblum, though I have paraphrased.]

    Gil Reich compiled a list of the “best lines” from the event, which includes:

    Roman Zelvenschi: Nobody knows how to pronounce my last name, but that’s OK, I rank number 1 for it.

    Eli Feldblum: Use schema. Do it now. Seriously. You have an internet-connected device with you.

    Eli Feldblum: We’ve reached the point where “normal” blue text links get lost in the noise on a Google SERP.

    Barry Schwartz: Google is recommending … Doesn’t mean you should do it … Just saying.

    Shira Abel: Google owns you. Get used to it.

    Marty Weintraub: Facebook owns you too.

    Marty Weintraub: Use Facebook to target businesses. Raise your hand if you have a FB account. Raise your hand if you have a job. See …

    Tomer Honen (from Google): We got better at Flash. Right about the time people stopped using it

    Olivier Amar: When you’re in-house you pay a lot more attention to long term. Because you still want to be here.

    Ofer Dascalu: Some people say “publishers and Google are partners.” My partners reply to my e-mails. They pick up the phone when I call.

    Michael King: When you interact with people on Twitter don’t use the same account that you use to Tweet SEO articles. That’s like trying to pick up a girl while holding a book called How to Be a Pickup Artist.

    Reich has a more complete round-up of the event here.

    It’s also interesting to see conversations that transpire in the aftermath of these conferences. For example, this one on Google+ including one of the presenters, Miriam Schwab, about the necessity of using Google+ for search marketing. Schwab said in a post, “Welcome to all my new followers since SMX Israel yesterday. Oh the hilarious irony that after bashing Google+, my community here grows. Love it :)”

    Aaron Zakowski responded, “Hi Miriam, I enjoyed your presentation yesterday. But despite many people’s feeling about G+, all of us marketers need to be here b/c Google is making G+ a necessary component for online success. I predict that within a few months, G+ will be more important to most us than Twitter.”

    Schwab replied, “Aaron, I don’t disagree. Google has made Google+ necessary. My problem is that they are forcing us to join, and promoting Google+ results over other networks, even when the relevance is questionable. They are acting like a big bully, and that is not the right way, and maybe even not the sustainable way, to build community. We will be here because we have to, but will there be activity here? Will non-marketers join too? Possibly not, since they’re all comfy on facebook.”

    A pretty timely discussion, given the regulatory scrutiny Google is getting.

  • Should Facebook Do Search To Compete With Google?

    We’ve talked about this concept a number of times in the past. In 2010, for example, we ran an article: “What if Facebook Goes Search While Google Struggles to Go Social?

    It’s interesting how relevant this conversation still is over a year later. That article was about half a year before Google launched Google+, and there was a lot of uncertainty about what Google might do in social. The company had not had a lot of luck in that area with previous products, and there was a lot of skepticism about whether Google could ever truly succeed in social.

    Sure, there is still some skepticism, but I think Google+ has surprised a lot of people by how successful it’s become already. It’s growing like a weed, but Google’s strategy of integrating it with other Google products is much more aggressive than any of the company’s past social strategies.

    Now, it’s heavily integrated with Google’s main product – search. This is the one Google product that it is probably safe to say that MOST PEOPLE use. That bodes well for future growth of Google+ (as long as regulators don’t put an end to it).

    To reiterate a point I made in that old article, Facebook has the strongest collection of person-to-person interactions on the entire web. That was true then, and it is still true. The only difference is that Facebook has several hundred million more users than it did back then, so this case is all the stronger now.

    John Battelle (who wrote the book “The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture”, mind you) has brought the whole Facebook as a search engine discussion back to the forefront, in light of Google’s recent addition of Google+ integration into search results, and he makes some pretty good points.

    “Both Facebook and the app economy are invisible to Google’s crawlers,” he writes. “To be fair, there are billions of Facebook pages in Google’s index, but it’s near impossible to ‘organize them and make them universally available’ without Facebook’s secret sauce (its social graph and related logged in data). This is what those 2009 negotiations broke down over, after all.”

    “The app economy, on the other hand, is just plain invisible to anyone,” he continues. “Sure, you can go to one of ten or so app stores and search for apps to use, but you sure can’t search apps the way you search, say, a web site. Why? First, the use case of apps, for the most part, is entirely personal, so apps have not been built to be ‘searchable.’ I find this extremely frustrating, because why wouldn’t I want to ‘Google’ the hundreds of rides and runs I’ve logged on my GPS app, as one example?”

    “Secondly, the app economy is invisible to Google because data use policies of the dominant app universe – Apple – make it nearly impossible to create a navigable link economy between apps, so developers simply don’t do it,” adds Battelle. “And as we all know, without a navigable link economy, ‘traditional’ search breaks down.”

    Of course Google has a pretty extensive app universe with the Android Market, fragmented as it may be. There’s also the Chrome app ecosystem and the Google+ ecosystem, which already has games.

    While I’m not exactly in the “the web is dead because of apps” crowd, I can certainly acknowledge the fact that people are using apps a lot these days to interact with the Internet. I don’t think Google’s version of the searchable, open web, will become obsolete anytime soon, but there’s room for competition via a different breed of search in the way that Battelle’s talking about. With or without the help of Bing, Facebook could seize the tremendous opportunity it has here.

    “Imagine a world where the majority of app builders integrate with Facebook’s Open Graph, instrumenting your personal data through Facebook such that your data becomes searchable. (If you think that’s crazy, remember how most major companies and app services have already fallen all over themselves to leverage Open Graph),” says Battelle. “Then, all that data is hoovered into Facebook’s ‘search index’, and integrated with your personal social graph. Facebook then builds an interface to all you[r] app data, add in your Facebook social graph data, and then perhaps tosses in a side of Bing so you can have the whole web as a backdrop, should you care to.”

    This is not only a tremendous opportunity for Facebook, but for Bing as well. If you’re concerned about Google’s competitive practices, think about that for a second.

    The fact is, that people already search on Facebook all the time. Tell me you’ve never searched for a Facebook Page or a person using Facebook’s search. Businesses are all over Facebook. Think about if Facebook really started taking search seriously.

    Facebook and Google are obviously already competitors in some areas (including engineering talent). Competition makes companies explore new strategies to maintain their edge. Microsoft is already Google’s main competitor (I’m not even going to get into the potential that Xbox and its new platform brings to the table).

    What’s that old saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Well, two of Facebook’s enemies are already pretty good friends, and neither of them like the competitive approach Google is taking these days.

    By the way, Facebook is about to enable a lot more data sharing.

    Should Facebook try to compete with Google in search? Tell us what you think.

  • “Search Plus Your World” Indexing Content Faster?

    You know those new personalized search feature Google launched last week that everybody’s talking about? It looks like there may be another advantage to using Google+ for search. Apparently Google is showing content quicker in the personalized results than it is for non-logged in users.

    Paul Allen (the unofficial Google+ stat-keeper), of FamilyLink fame, said in a Google+ update:

    It took less than a minute for my latest post to Google+ to show up in logged-in, personalized search results for Google+ users.

    And it took just 20 minutes for that Google+ post to be visible to non-logged in users via the main Google search results. I double checked this by using Chrome to do an incognito search.

    He shared the following screen captures:

    Paul Allen search results

    Paul Allen search results

    Vic Gundtora, Google’s Senior Vice President, Engineering shared Allen’s post, appearing to lend some increased validity to the findings.

  • DuckDuckGo Gets Redesign

    Alternative search engine DuckDuckGo has pushed out a subtle redesign, which is still customizable through the user settings.

    The home page doesn’t look much different. It still looks like the image you see above.

    The search results pages are a bit different. The header has gone from green to red, for example. There is a set of search suggestions on the right-hand side.

    You can actually change the color to anything you want from the settings. That goes for not only the header, but: highlight, URLs, background, text, links, visited links and border.

    In case you’re wondering why you should use DuckDuckGo instead of Google (or Bing), founder Gabriel Weinberg makes his case in this interview he did with WebProNews from last year:

    In October, DuckDuckGo announced its first round of funding, led by Union Square Ventues. At the time, Brad Burnham wrote on the Union Square Ventures blog, ” We invested in DuckDuckGo because we became convinced that it was not only possible to change the basis of competition in search, it was time to do it.” He seemed to suggest that the investors see something in DuckDuckGo that reminds them of a young Google.

    Hopefully the redesign is up to snuff for users, because the company has been taking feedback for it as it’s been going. The company said in a community post:

    “The new visual design is live on the main site! Thank you all for the feedback and suggestions leading up to it.”

    Do you use DuckDuckGo? What are your thoughts about the new design?

    (Hat tip: Matt McGee)

  • Google And Competition: Should The Government Be Regulating?

    Google’s competitive practices have dominated the headlines this week, thanks to the company’s “Search Plus Your World” features (extensive integration of Google+ into search results, but not extensive integration of competing social networks Twitter and Facebook), but this is really just the latest episode in the ongoing complaints against the Internet’s dominant search player.

    Senators Herb Kohl and Mike Lee recently wrote the Federal Trade Commission a letter calling for investigation into Google’s practices. “Given the scope of Google’s market share in general Internet search, a key question is whether Google’s using its market power to steer users to its own web products or secondary services and discriminating against other websites with which it compete,” the letter said.

    The FTC already has an investigation going on, of course, and now, Bloomberg is reporting that it is expanding it to include Google+ scrutiny.

    Do you think the government understands the Internet well enough to regulate it? Tell us what you think in the comments.

    Something tells me recent events will only be used to fuel the fire of complaints to that effect, with Twitter and Facebook now speaking out against Google. Privacy watchdog EPIC is already considering a complaint to the FTC about Search Plus Your World, as well.

    Competitors in the travel industry formed the FairSearch Coalition, initially to try and see Google’s acquisition of ITA Software (which would go on to power Google’s Flight Search) blocked. The acquisition was not blocked, but the group continues to campaign against what it considers to be Google’s abuse of power.

    WebProNews spoke with Ben Hammer of FairSearch, who says what the group is focused on now that authorities in the U.S. and the European Union and around the world “have already established that Google has monopoly power in search on the Internet” would be: “is Google violating the law in ways that abuse that power to sort of tilt the playing field to itself, and basically restrict the options that consumers on the Internet have to find information, and then also get all the benefits that come from competition on the Internet?”

    We asked Hammer what makes FairSearch think Google favors its products any more than any other search engine does. It is, after all, a fact that Bing’s results contain links to Microsoft’s own services. Bing director Stefan Weitz noted that the search engine’s goal is for users to stay on Bing’s site: “We’re taking Bing to a place you can actually accomplish things and do things, rather than send you off to those [other] sites,” he is quoted as saying.

    “The group was formed by a number of companies that looked at how Google was already operating in other markets, and were concerned about how they’d operate in travel,” said Hammer. “As those concerns got greater awareness or were validated in some ways by the U.S. justice department that was reviewing that merger, we continued to hear from other companies in markets outside of travel – that said, ‘We’ve experienced this first hand. We know that Google takes our content and uses it to direct people back to their own services and away from ours. We know that Google puts links to its own products that compete with ours at the top of the page, eating up the most valuable real estate that people click on the most on its own pages. That makes it harder for us to get the traffic that we would normally get. We know that Google will bid against us in getting the most valuable advertising on its own pages…’”

    Note, that this response didn’t exactly answer the question.

    In November, Cyber Monday and Black Friday sites (including the official site of the group that created Cyber Monday — were removed completely from Bing’s search results). When asked specifically about the incident, he said he was not familiar with the topic, but that “this group from day one has been focused on what Google is doing with monopoly power.”

    A different standard, he says, is applied to companies like Google because of this power.

    “Most people understand that Microsoft [part of the coalition] and our other competitors complain constantly about Google, but they also know that Google builds our search results for users, not websites, and that the laws are designed to protect consumers, not competitors,” a Google spokesperson tells WebProNews. “The fundamental openness of the Internet means that consumers have infinite choices and can always switch to Bing, Facebook, Kayak, or Expedia with just one click.”

    WebProNews also spoke with Berin Szoka, the President of free market think tank TechFreedom who has some criticisms of FairSearch itself.

    “I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of the tech policy debates really come down to motives,” he says, noting that the coalition is simply an alliance of Google’s competitors.

    “Microsoft’s Bing is, if anything, much more biased than Google. You might say that’s OK because they’re not a dominant firm, so maybe they can do things that Google can’t, but if bias is your only way of distinguishing what’s competitive and what’s not competitive, it really is a problem that the industry norm, which is bias, is in fact the very thing that FairSearch is complaining about. Really, the analysis has to go a lot more beyond that and ask where there’s some example of consumer harm.”

    “In this case, it’s hard to actually see any consumers complaining, as opposed to just Microsoft’s compatriots and this coalition,” he adds.

    He goes on to make the case that we should be skeptical anytime competitors try to use regulators for competition, not only because it can hurt a company like Google, but that it could hurt the next Google by setting precedents.

    He also compares the whole thing to SOPA, saying, “There are few people here in D.C. that really understand how the Internet works well enough to even have an intelligent conversation about how government can improve things.”

    “I think when you see a company like Facebook, as large as it is, and as much of a lead in that area as it does, teaming up with a company like Microsoft, I think that is in fact the way competition works. It doesn’t happen necessarily in this space directly.”

    Google has a site dedicated to what it calls “facts about Google and competition.” On the site, Google says, “As Google has grown, we’ve faced more questions about our approach to competition. This kind of scrutiny goes with the territory when you’re a large company. However, we’ve always worked hard to ensure that our success is earned the right way – through technological innovation and great products, rather than by locking in our users or advertisers, or creating artificial barriers to entry.”

    “It takes a broadband connection to get onto the Internet, but consumers don’t need Google to access the web,” Google continues. “Google serves more like a GPS on the Internet highway—not an on-ramp. It helps people get around, but it’s not necessary. If someone knows where he wants to go, he can navigate to those destinations directly, whether it’s Craigslist, the New York Times websites, or icanhascheezburger.com. But, if he doesn’t know where he’s going, he can use a ‘GPS’ (a search engine like Google or Bing), a ‘map’ (a list of links or portal like Yahoo’s directory), directions or recommendations from a friend (links from Twitter or Facebook friends), or even a mobile application version of the service (for example, the NY Times iPhone application). Search engines are popular and useful, but they’re just one of many ways to navigate the web.”

    “The Internet was built on fundamentally open architecture,” Google says. “Anyone at home with a computer and a web connection can type in the address of a website and navigate straight to that site. Google is one click away from losing every customer. There are virtually no switching costs, and there are many other valuable web services competing for traffic. If someone wants to use a competing search engine all they need to do is type ‘www.yahoo.com’ into a web browser.”

    Do you agree with Google or its competitors? Let us know in the comments.

  • Google vs. Facebook: The “Search Plus Your World” Saga Continues

    Wow. “Search Plus Your World” has really left a mark.

    Google’s new set of Google+ integrations and personalization features into search results has caused nothing but controversy since Google announced it earlier this week.

    There are two main reasons: competition and relevancy. We discussed both at length here.

    Twitter has fueled much of the fire by publicly making comments about how it reduces access to Twitter content, and how it’s bad for the Internet and whatnot. Much of the conversation has been about how Google is not including publicly available data from Twitter and Facebook alongside the Google+ content.

    Google has maintained that it includes some public data from “open web” properties, and that it would be open to talks with Twitter and Facebook, but that these two block Google from accessing their data.

    It is true that Google is blocked from accessing some of their data – the stuff that would make it much more useful on the personalization side of things (the things that aren’t public, but are connected to specific users), but Google has access to the public stuff, and is still not including it in the same places it is pushing Google+.

    This isn’t sitting well with a lot of people.

    Now, people are talking about past talks between Facebook and Google – deals that could have been, and different sides of the story.

    Steven Levy from Wired writes: “Sources close to late 2009 discussions between Google and Facebook tell me that Google had the opportunity to integrate Facebook information in its search results–on the same terms that such content now appears in Bing. But, those sources say, Google refused, on the grounds that it could not technically provide the privacy protections required. Those privacy protections involved restricting social information only to people who users want to share with—basically what Google has now provided for users of its own service. (Google’s head of communications and public policy Rachel Whetstone responds: ‘In 2009, we were negotiating with Facebook over access to its data, as has been reported. To claim that the we couldn’t reach an agreement because Google wanted to make private data publicly available is simply untrue.’)

    John Battelle, who obtained the same statement, adds: “My source familiar with Google’s side of the story goes further, and gave me more detail on why the deal went south, at least from Google’s point of view. According to this source, as part of the deal terms Facebook insisted that Google agree to not use publicly available Facebook information to build out a ‘social service.’ The two sides had already agreed that Google would not use Facebook’s firehose (or private) data to build such a service, my source says.”

    “Apparently, Google believed that Facebook’s demand around public information could be interpreted as applying to how Google’s own search service was delivered, not to mention how it (or other products) might evolve.,” Battelle continues. “Interpretation is always where the devil is in these deals. Who’s to say, after all, that Google’s ‘social search’ is not a ‘social service’? And Google Pages, Maps, etc. – those are arguably social in nature, or will be in the future.”

    “Google balked at this language, and the deal fell apart,” he says. “My Google source also disputes the claim that Google balked at being able to technically separate public from private data. Conversely, my Facebook source counters that the real issue of public vs. private had to do with Google’s refusal to honor changes in privacy settings over time – for example, if I deleted those soccer pictures, they should also be deleted from Google’s index. There’s a point where this all devolves to she said/he said, because the deal never happened, and to be honest, there are larger points to make.”

    MG Siegler writes: “Let me make this a bit more clear based on what I’ve heard: Facebook offered the exact same data deal to Google that they offered to Bing. Microsoft said yes. Google said no. Battelle is right that Facebook had some requirements with regard to protecting the data. But they had the same requirements in giving the data to Bing. So this wasn’t about ‘Facebook’s willingness to throw data to their shareholder Microsoft while withholding it from Google’, any such argument made in court or elsewhere is invalid.”

    Siegler also says, “Prior to the launch of Google+, Facebook and Google were engaged in discussions to use Facebook data for presenting richer results on people searches. In other words, you’d search for a name and you’d see a result populated by Facebook data, including a picture of that person and what city they reside in, etc. The two sides were so close to agreeing on this that Facebook even built a data feed specifically for Google to use, I’m told. But then, for reasons unknown at the time, Google abruptly pulled the plug on the idea. Several months later… Google+.”

    Facebook employees are openly bashing Google’s new features. Liz Gannes points to some Facebook staff that have been talking about Google’s new changes:

    Pedram Keyani: “Google became something we love because they always focused on speed and giving us the best results. They have made a pretty big departure from that with their most recent change. They say fear is a great motivator (fear of facebook and twitter) but I think in this case it has also clouded their vision. Google was my first real fulltime job the direction they are moving in makes me sad. I hope they find their way.”

    Paul Adams (the guy who created the “Circles” concept that talked about Google blocking him from publishing his book last year): “Some of my ex-colleagues (who I still love 🙂 are going to shout at me, but well, I’ve just moved my default search engine to Bing.”

  • Google Vs. Twitter: Is “Search Plus Your World” Bad For The Internet?

    This week, Google launched Search Plus Your World (SPYW), a set of features to personalize search results for users, which also happen to give Google+ content a lot more play in search results. The whole thing has sparked a great deal of controversy, with people talking about antitrust implications, relevancy issues, etc. Even Twitter called the day it launched “a bad day for the Internet”.

    Do you agree? Is Search Plus Your World bad for the Internet? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    Google Vs. Twitter

    The Google vs. Twitter element of this thing has been very interesting to me. In case you haven’t been following, let us recap this public back and forth these two companies have had this week. It started, when after Google announced SPYW, Twitter General Counsel tweeted:

    Bad day for the Internet. http://t.co/Az4rdNVQ Having been there, I can imagine the dissension @Google to search being warped this way. 1 day ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    And Twitter emailed a statement around to the press, which said:

    For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results anytime they wanted to find something on the Internet.

    Often, they want to know more about world events and breaking news. Twitter has emerged as a vital source of this real-time information, with more than 100 million users sending 250 million Tweets every day on virtually every topic. As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and Tweets are often the most relevant results.

    We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone. We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organizations and Twitter users.

    Google responded to Twitter on Google+ saying:

    “We are a bit surprised by Twitter’s comments about Search plus Your World, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us last summer (http://goo.gl/chKwi), and since then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions.”

    I also found it a bit odd that Twitter would say this now, when really the lack of that aforementioned agreement renewal is what caused Twitter results to be less prevalent in Google search results. Twitter has not returned my request for comment on that at this point, but Macgillivray did tweet an example of where Google is surfacing Google+ over Twitter for the query “@WWE”. I’m not sure this is actually a product of SPYW, though the new features do place a prominent box of recommended Google+ profiles on the right-hand side of the page.

    In an article specifically about that, we asked if the “@” symbol really belongs to Twitter anyway. Let us know in the comments what you think about that.

    Competition

    A lot of people view Google’s pushing of Google+ in search results to be anticompetitive. Some disagree.

    One point that has been brought up repeatedly is that Google could be recommending public profiles from Twitter and Facebook alongside its Google+ recommendations. Sure, they could.

    Facebook and Twitter don’t grant access to Google for all of the stuff that would improve the personalization experience. Danny Sullivan was able to get Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt to talk a little about this:

    Google Fellow Amit Singhal, told Sullivan, “Facebook and Twitter and other services, basically, their terms of service don’t allow us to crawl them deeply and store things. Google+ is the only [network] that provides such a persistent service. Of course, going forward, if others were willing to change, we’d look at designing things to see how it would work.”

    Those are basically the same responses.

    Likewise, in a blog post talking about the SPYW features, Google’s Matt Cutts talked about how the features do, in fact, surface content from other sites from the “open web”. It’s not just Google (though that still appears not to apply to the “People and Pages” recommendations box that gets such prominent attention – the feature that really seems to be causing the most stir).

    But does Google not have the right to promote its own product in this way? Many don’t think it’s right. It’s worth noting that while Google may dominate in search, it is still an underdog in social. Even still, Google has only something like 65% of the search market.

    “Is 65% enough to assert an effective monopoly?” asks Bud Gibson on Google+. “There’s probably plenty of room here for Google to assert that there’s healthy competition in the search and social spaces. And, … they’d be right.”

    Matthew Yglesias at Slate writes, “A 65 percent market share in web search is big, but by no means a monopoly. And there are basically zero barriers to switching from Google Search to Bing.”

    That plays to Google’s go-to statement of: “The competition is only a click away.”

    For that matter, if people are using Google, and are signed into it, there’s a good chance that they want Google-related content. If you consider Google+ and Google search to be features of one larger Google product, than you might want these features to be as integrated as possible. All of Google’s products do operate under one central Google account. You expect Facebook search to return Facebook Pages.

    Granted, Facebook isn’t apparently trying to be a search engine, but then why do they bother to supplement their search results with web results from Bing? Clearly Google and Facebook are direct competitors now – maybe not as much in search (yet), but as companies. If you look at things this way, you’d almost have to say that Google even having Google+ at all is anti-competitive. Are they not supposed to make the features of their broader Google product tightly integrated?

    By the way, Google does a lot more to drive traffic to Twitter and Facebook than Facebook and Twitter do to drive traffic to Google.

    “Given that it’s opt-out, I’m just not sure that this is all that different from Microsoft bundling IE with Windows,” says tech columnist MG Siegler. Based on a lot of what I’ve been reading around the web, quite a few agree with him.

    Here are a few recent tweets about the issue:

    When Microsoft embedded IE in Windows, there was an antitrust investigation. How is Google+ embedded into @Google search any different? 4 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Feds Should Stay Out of Google/Twitter Social Search Antitrust Spat http://t.co/V8SUBAcF 43 minutes ago via twitterfeed · powered by @socialditto

    Google is pushing its social services hard — I argue, “tying” unlawful under antitrust law. I show many more examples. http://t.co/sAHLKMvx 1 hour ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    Privacy watchdog EPIC may file a complaint with the FTC.

    Regardless of whether Google’s features are right or wrong, the timing of their release could end up biting Google in the ass, considering the heavy amount of scrutiny over competitive practices that currently surround the company. The complaints continue to pile up, and in various areas of Google’s search offerings.

    Is Search Relevancy Being Sacrificed for Google+ Promotion?

    Beyond all of the debate about Google’s competitive practices, there is a more important issue, at least to users. The new features may impact relevancy of search results for the worse. I personally have noticed that they could be a lot better, in terms of being personalized for me. Granted, I can turn the personalization off with the controls Google provides.

    Some simply don’t like the idea of Google filling up their results with info based on who they know just because they know them, or content from Google+ just because it’s from Google+. Sullivan points to some “real life examples” of where Google isn’t necessarily living up to the relevancy side of things.

    As he says, “Those results are supposed to be showing what are the most relevant things for searchers out there. That’s how Google wins. That’s how Google sticks it to competitors, by not trying to play favorites in those results, nor by trying to punish people through them.”

    Ironically, if Google’s results become less relevant, people will probably want to use Google less. Perhaps Twitter, Facebook and other “competitors” should be cheering on Google’s approach.

    Do you think what Google is doing is good or bad for the web? Let us know in the comments.