4 ms·

"we want to get you out of Google and to the right place as fast as possible" -- larry page was talking about the google search engine, not google shopping. If

by damian2000 15y ago

"we want to get you out of Google and to the right place as fast as possible" -- larry page was talking about the google search engine, not google shopping. If you go to google shopping in the first place, its because you're looking to buy something, otherwise just stay on google search? There's a multitude of other shopping comparison sites out there that all do the same thing.

puranjay 15y ago
Why do people forget that tech-savvy hackers aren't the only people who use Google? My mother "The Yahoo" is THE internet. How misleading is planting a 'Shopping Results' on top of the search results page for average, non-internet savvy users ("there are thousands of us!")? It used to be simple enough to use for my mother. It isn't anymore.
- calbear81 15y ago
  I think at some point Google realized that it could do a better job at answering certain types of queries for the end user than just showing them 10 blue links and this is the case when there's high shopping intent. If the end user (average) gets a better experience, then why is it wrong for them to promote G! Shopping? Also, Google has always maintained that it aims to organize the world's information. When you're shopping, that data can best be organized as a combination of availability, price, shipping options, etc. Let's assume that your mom was shopping for the Nikon D7000 and only clicked on the organic results: 1st result: DPReview - Review site with comprehensive review of the D7000. Price/Purchase options at the bottom are not as comprehensive as on G! Shopping. 2nd result: Nikon - Bad pricing options, enjoy paying full retail. 3rd result: Amazon - Basically same as the 1st since Amazon owns DPReview but it's a good shopping option. 4th result: Wikipedia - No pricing options, pretty bad result if your aim is to shop. Now compare that to the Google Shopping result: On the 1st click, I can see: - Pricing options from many stores, including local ones that carry it. - Aggregated reviews across the web (editorial reviews means from magazines/publications vs. user reviews from normal users) - Seller ratings so I know who is reputable and who isn't. At the end of the day, I think the average user would have gotten more information and more pricing options than if they had to click on a link to a bunch of different stores or third party sites. I think it's fair to say that it's harder and harder to get to the top of Google without paying for it and the heyday of SEO-driven business models may be at its end in many categories. Just my 2 cents.
GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
From the article "Note that Google doesn’t identify the link as ‘Google Shopping’, but indicates that it is yet another search result, like video or image search."
huggyface 15y ago
There's a multitude of other shopping comparison sites out there that all do the same thing. Historically I've always gone to shopbot.ca. When that failed I resorted to Canada Post Shopper (http://www.canadapost.ca/shopper/ http://www.canadapost.ca/shopper/). I've never looked for any shopping advice or help on Google because it has ALWAYS been terrible. First by search stuffers and then by Google wanting a piece of the action, though it's notable that I see none of the shopping filler that the complainer does (maybe because I'm in Canada?). I don't buy that Google has any significant stake in that space. Nor does their search "monopoly" (where monopoly is the most easily broken monopoly ever in the history of mankind) give them any great inroads. Really seeing quotes of the original Google and the current Google is kind of humorously naive. They changed? NO KIDDING.
- puranjay 15y ago
  They changed AFTER building up their business on users like you and I. It doesn't matter how big Google Shopping is. It is misleading, and it places Google's own content above everyone else's. You may not click on it, but your father or grandpa might. That's all that matters. That's like telling guys building sites: go home, kids, you can work as hard as you want, but you're never going to the top of the page. Google is bending over backwards to please Wall Street now. Which is unfortunate for a once great company. And honestly, isn't that what we do here at HN: obsess over the fate of technology and tech companies?

puranjay 15y ago

Why do people forget that tech-savvy hackers aren't the only people who use Google? My mother "The Yahoo" is THE internet. How misleading is planting a 'Shopping Results' on top of the search results page for average, non-internet savvy users ("there are thousands of us!")? It used to be simple enough to use for my mother. It isn't anymore.

calbear81 15y ago
I think at some point Google realized that it could do a better job at answering certain types of queries for the end user than just showing them 10 blue links and this is the case when there's high shopping intent. If the end user (average) gets a better experience, then why is it wrong for them to promote G! Shopping? Also, Google has always maintained that it aims to organize the world's information. When you're shopping, that data can best be organized as a combination of availability, price, shipping options, etc. Let's assume that your mom was shopping for the Nikon D7000 and only clicked on the organic results: 1st result: DPReview - Review site with comprehensive review of the D7000. Price/Purchase options at the bottom are not as comprehensive as on G! Shopping. 2nd result: Nikon - Bad pricing options, enjoy paying full retail. 3rd result: Amazon - Basically same as the 1st since Amazon owns DPReview but it's a good shopping option. 4th result: Wikipedia - No pricing options, pretty bad result if your aim is to shop. Now compare that to the Google Shopping result: On the 1st click, I can see: - Pricing options from many stores, including local ones that carry it. - Aggregated reviews across the web (editorial reviews means from magazines/publications vs. user reviews from normal users) - Seller ratings so I know who is reputable and who isn't. At the end of the day, I think the average user would have gotten more information and more pricing options than if they had to click on a link to a bunch of different stores or third party sites. I think it's fair to say that it's harder and harder to get to the top of Google without paying for it and the heyday of SEO-driven business models may be at its end in many categories. Just my 2 cents.

GiraffeNecktie 15y ago

From the article "Note that Google doesn’t identify the link as ‘Google Shopping’, but indicates that it is yet another search result, like video or image search."

huggyface 15y ago

There's a multitude of other shopping comparison sites out there that all do the same thing. Historically I've always gone to shopbot.ca. When that failed I resorted to Canada Post Shopper (http://www.canadapost.ca/shopper/ http://www.canadapost.ca/shopper/). I've never looked for any shopping advice or help on Google because it has ALWAYS been terrible. First by search stuffers and then by Google wanting a piece of the action, though it's notable that I see none of the shopping filler that the complainer does (maybe because I'm in Canada?). I don't buy that Google has any significant stake in that space. Nor does their search "monopoly" (where monopoly is the most easily broken monopoly ever in the history of mankind) give them any great inroads. Really seeing quotes of the original Google and the current Google is kind of humorously naive. They changed? NO KIDDING.

puranjay 15y ago
They changed AFTER building up their business on users like you and I. It doesn't matter how big Google Shopping is. It is misleading, and it places Google's own content above everyone else's. You may not click on it, but your father or grandpa might. That's all that matters. That's like telling guys building sites: go home, kids, you can work as hard as you want, but you're never going to the top of the page. Google is bending over backwards to please Wall Street now. Which is unfortunate for a once great company. And honestly, isn't that what we do here at HN: obsess over the fate of technology and tech companies?