14 ms·

I have complete trust that Google is doing their damnedest to maximize Adwords revenues, and I highly doubt that they would have made a change like this without

I have complete trust that Google is doing their damnedest to maximize Adwords revenues, and I highly doubt that they would have made a change like this without knowing for sure that it would increase impressions and clicks.

nostrademons 16y ago
Oh, if you only knew... I work in Search, the same department that was primarily responsible for Instant. We're explicitly told not to worry about revenue. For a launch of this scale, Ads is involved if only to make sure that it doesn't bankrupt the company (it wouldn't look very good on the 10-Q to have revenue suddenly drop to zero). But we can and have launched things that decrease revenue if doing so is the right thing for users.
- derefr 16y ago
  Do you try to optimize for user satisfaction, user productivity, or somewhere in-between? A more "interactive" search—like one where you're constantly looking down at the morphing result list as you type—can, at the same time, increase satisfaction while being slower to use. I guess this is almost an ethical question—do you give people what they want, or what is good for them?—but I'm mainly wondering whether there's an established Google policy on the matter.
  - diN0bot 16y ago
    Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.
    - derefr 16y ago
      My definition of what is "good for you" is whatever optimizes your utility function—what you consciously, rationally like, for whatever reasons you like it. This is a multidimensional quality: feeling good is highly weighted in your personal utility function, for example. However, the quantity users report on user-satisfaction surveys—"which is better, in your opinion"—is basically whatever your subconscious heuristics tell you is better. If you were consciously presented with the choice before your brain had become entrained to either alternative, you would perhaps respond differently. People don't "like" things that are unfamiliar, even if they have more benefits, and could normally be convinced of this—this is why people react negatively every time Facebook changes its UI, and why New Coke would only have worked if there had never been a Classic Coke to compare it to. People "like" addictive drugs, fatty foods, etc., even when they know that these will decrease their net happiness over time.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    (Just to be clear, I'm not talking about established Google policy, only about my own experience. Go ask an official person if you want an official answer.) In theory, it's supposed to be both user satisfaction and user productivity. In practice, it's quite a bit easier to measure user productivity than user satisfaction, so I'd guess that our metrics (and our decisions) tend to slant that way.
- parallax7d 16y ago
  Hey a search insider, cool. I want to thank your department for the advance search sort on the left hand side, totally non-distracting and much easier to drill through than clicking the tiny advanced search link. But please stop adding more distracting stuff to search. Like backgrounds, animated interactive logos, menus that fade into view only when you move your mouse, instant results flashing and distracting you constantly. A design like google.com circa 5 years ago seems to have been quite popular for all it's simplicity.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    I worked on the left-nav and a bunch of the tools within it. It's nice to hear that somebody enjoys it. It's interesting, though, how diverse opinions are on various features. I'm far more used to hearing "I hate you for putting a left nav on search. I want my screen real estate back!" And I get jealous of the guy who did the homepage fade and PacMan/Buckyball/colored-balls/Google-as-you-type doodles, because there've been generally positive user responses to those. Google Instant in general had an overwhelmingly positive user response.

nostrademons 16y ago

Oh, if you only knew... I work in Search, the same department that was primarily responsible for Instant. We're explicitly told not to worry about revenue. For a launch of this scale, Ads is involved if only to make sure that it doesn't bankrupt the company (it wouldn't look very good on the 10-Q to have revenue suddenly drop to zero). But we can and have launched things that decrease revenue if doing so is the right thing for users.

derefr 16y ago
Do you try to optimize for user satisfaction, user productivity, or somewhere in-between? A more "interactive" search—like one where you're constantly looking down at the morphing result list as you type—can, at the same time, increase satisfaction while being slower to use. I guess this is almost an ethical question—do you give people what they want, or what is good for them?—but I'm mainly wondering whether there's an established Google policy on the matter.
- diN0bot 16y ago
  Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.
  - derefr 16y ago
    My definition of what is "good for you" is whatever optimizes your utility function—what you consciously, rationally like, for whatever reasons you like it. This is a multidimensional quality: feeling good is highly weighted in your personal utility function, for example. However, the quantity users report on user-satisfaction surveys—"which is better, in your opinion"—is basically whatever your subconscious heuristics tell you is better. If you were consciously presented with the choice before your brain had become entrained to either alternative, you would perhaps respond differently. People don't "like" things that are unfamiliar, even if they have more benefits, and could normally be convinced of this—this is why people react negatively every time Facebook changes its UI, and why New Coke would only have worked if there had never been a Classic Coke to compare it to. People "like" addictive drugs, fatty foods, etc., even when they know that these will decrease their net happiness over time.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  (Just to be clear, I'm not talking about established Google policy, only about my own experience. Go ask an official person if you want an official answer.) In theory, it's supposed to be both user satisfaction and user productivity. In practice, it's quite a bit easier to measure user productivity than user satisfaction, so I'd guess that our metrics (and our decisions) tend to slant that way.
parallax7d 16y ago
Hey a search insider, cool. I want to thank your department for the advance search sort on the left hand side, totally non-distracting and much easier to drill through than clicking the tiny advanced search link. But please stop adding more distracting stuff to search. Like backgrounds, animated interactive logos, menus that fade into view only when you move your mouse, instant results flashing and distracting you constantly. A design like google.com circa 5 years ago seems to have been quite popular for all it's simplicity.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  I worked on the left-nav and a bunch of the tools within it. It's nice to hear that somebody enjoys it. It's interesting, though, how diverse opinions are on various features. I'm far more used to hearing "I hate you for putting a left nav on search. I want my screen real estate back!" And I get jealous of the guy who did the homepage fade and PacMan/Buckyball/colored-balls/Google-as-you-type doodles, because there've been generally positive user responses to those. Google Instant in general had an overwhelmingly positive user response.