6 ms·

In the image where you show the 18.5% organic footprint vs 81.5% ad footprint, you are lumping in a lot of page real estate used for navigation and search tools

In the image where you show the 18.5% organic footprint vs 81.5% ad footprint, you are lumping in a lot of page real estate used for navigation and search tools. The entire left hand side is not add related. I'd be a more accurate/fairer way to represent the info by providing 3 categories: organic, ads, navigation/misc. If you did this, you'd provably see a closer to 40/60 split, still in favor of ads. Similar to what you showed in your screenshot from the past.

devcpp 14y ago
I looked for "81" in the page and found nothing. Apparently, he never said that 81.5% of the area is made up of ads. He may have edited it but I think his criticism was towards the unused space for results, not especially towards the ads. And if that is the case, I must concur. I fail to understand why Google added a large side bar instead of adding more top bars in the unused space next to the logo (perhaps right under the search text box). The designers at Google may disagree but the Jitbit guy sure has a point.
- sologoub 14y ago
  There is a graphic that shows 18.5% for the organic and 81.5% for the ads/rest of the area. The main reason I disagree with the conclusion is that the area used by Google, or any other company for that matter, for navigation/other tools is hardly equivalent to space used for ads. That in no way is intended to say that the space is used "efficiently".
waterlesscloud 14y ago
He didn't go to Google looking for navigation, he went looking for the results of his search. So the way he discusses the real estate devoted to fulfilling his purpose is quite reasonable.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Except you use the navigation to improve your search. No one wants a page completely full of organic results.
  - qu4z-2 14y ago
    I do. Well, except perhaps my query at the top so I can refine it if necessary.
    - calciphus 14y ago
      So turn on adblock or get one of the scripts that strips down the UI. Mountains of testing have shown that you're in the severe minority here.
      - qu4z-2 14y ago
        I do use scripts for that. I was just providing a counter point to the parent's "No one wants". "Most people don't want" would be more accurate.
    - prophetjohn 14y ago
      So you would prefer something like the this: http://i.imgur.com/ryiPq.png http://i.imgur.com/ryiPq.png It seems like poor UX to me. It's a little ugly how line length isn't constrained and you're unable to do anything but type a query into the box. Special queries would require memorizing commands or just doing without.
      - qu4z-2 14y ago
        I'd prefer a multi-column layout, 'cause you're right that long lines are hard to read. I don't use that many special queries, except sometimes "site:", and frankly if I have to type (or paste) the entire domain anyway, "site:" is way less effort than switching to a different text field, even if it were one of the defaults. I'd be OK having a "More Options" link or something for the rare case when I want to search for images by color or whatever. Having said that, I'm aware this is very much a personal opinion. Google can design their site for the majority. I don't mind.
    - sologoub 14y ago
      I kinda like the collapsable sidebar present in Google Maps. However, I rarely miss the extra space taken up by the current sidebar on the main search results page.
- lawdawg 14y ago
  Until people show me that paid results aren't relevant (hint: they usually are), then most of the real estate is fulfilling his purpose. Also, if Google decided to some how change to using 2 columns of organic search so they could squeeze 16 results into a single page, you'd hear just as much, if not more, complaining.

devcpp 14y ago

I looked for "81" in the page and found nothing. Apparently, he never said that 81.5% of the area is made up of ads. He may have edited it but I think his criticism was towards the unused space for results, not especially towards the ads. And if that is the case, I must concur. I fail to understand why Google added a large side bar instead of adding more top bars in the unused space next to the logo (perhaps right under the search text box). The designers at Google may disagree but the Jitbit guy sure has a point.

sologoub 14y ago
There is a graphic that shows 18.5% for the organic and 81.5% for the ads/rest of the area. The main reason I disagree with the conclusion is that the area used by Google, or any other company for that matter, for navigation/other tools is hardly equivalent to space used for ads. That in no way is intended to say that the space is used "efficiently".

waterlesscloud 14y ago

He didn't go to Google looking for navigation, he went looking for the results of his search. So the way he discusses the real estate devoted to fulfilling his purpose is quite reasonable.

jonknee 14y ago
Except you use the navigation to improve your search. No one wants a page completely full of organic results.
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  I do. Well, except perhaps my query at the top so I can refine it if necessary.
  - calciphus 14y ago
    So turn on adblock or get one of the scripts that strips down the UI. Mountains of testing have shown that you're in the severe minority here.
    - qu4z-2 14y ago
      I do use scripts for that. I was just providing a counter point to the parent's "No one wants". "Most people don't want" would be more accurate.
  - prophetjohn 14y ago
    So you would prefer something like the this: http://i.imgur.com/ryiPq.png http://i.imgur.com/ryiPq.png It seems like poor UX to me. It's a little ugly how line length isn't constrained and you're unable to do anything but type a query into the box. Special queries would require memorizing commands or just doing without.
    - qu4z-2 14y ago
      I'd prefer a multi-column layout, 'cause you're right that long lines are hard to read. I don't use that many special queries, except sometimes "site:", and frankly if I have to type (or paste) the entire domain anyway, "site:" is way less effort than switching to a different text field, even if it were one of the defaults. I'd be OK having a "More Options" link or something for the rare case when I want to search for images by color or whatever. Having said that, I'm aware this is very much a personal opinion. Google can design their site for the majority. I don't mind.
  - sologoub 14y ago
    I kinda like the collapsable sidebar present in Google Maps. However, I rarely miss the extra space taken up by the current sidebar on the main search results page.
lawdawg 14y ago
Until people show me that paid results aren't relevant (hint: they usually are), then most of the real estate is fulfilling his purpose. Also, if Google decided to some how change to using 2 columns of organic search so they could squeeze 16 results into a single page, you'd hear just as much, if not more, complaining.