6 ms·

"Only 18.5% of the screen is devoted to something that people are actually looking for." Once again, people dismiss ads as simply spam or something that provid

"Only 18.5% of the screen is devoted to something that people are actually looking for." Once again, people dismiss ads as simply spam or something that provides no value to the search query when in study after study, at least on Adwords and SEM, paid results often boost relevance vs. a page only of organic results. This will of course differ by query and category of query but Google has already done a lot of work to make sure ads don't show for queries that have little to no commercial value or do not have enough query volume to risk jeopardizing the search experience. If you're shopping for something, the paid and Google shopping results are often more relevant than the organic results since a lot of them incorporate real time price feeds or promotion codes. These are driven by the recognition of your shopping intent Advertisers do not bid on keywords that deliver no economic value so it's in their best interest to only show up when they are the most relevant to your query. Through quality score, AdWords also shows ads that have been engaged with most often and with strong landing pages so that you don't get spammy ads or irrelevant ads that are unrelated to your query.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
This is a failure on Google's part, perhaps their most dangerous weakness.
- calbear81 14y ago
  Why is having a business model that generates billions of dollars in revenue annually, employs tens of thousands of people, and still allows you to maintain dominance considered a failure? The ads platform is self-optimizing, punishing advertisers with poor ads, low relevance, and poor brand perception. This results in ads that are from more trustworthy sellers and whom generate real customer interaction to justify buying those ads. To me, this system encourages higher relevance in commerce queries because those who deliver the best user experiences after you leave Google are the ones that can afford to bid to the top of the ads marketplace.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    As you said, people dismiss them. That's a failure. It's a failure to deliver value to the searcher and a failure to deliver value to the advertiser. The idea is fine, but if in practice people just ignore the ads... Google is making great money from search-based ads, of course, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a massive inefficiency created by a large number of users ignoring a large number of ads. The obvious opportunity for a competitor is to correct that inefficiency and deliver more value for searchers and advertisers.
    - jemfinch 14y ago
      Pardon, but how do you propose that a competitor convince people who ignore ads to stop ignoring them?
      - waterlesscloud 14y ago
        That's the $100 billion dollar question. Someone will do it better than Google is doing it now. It might be Google that improves it, it might not.
    - calbear81 14y ago
      Great question, I think should have qualified my earlier comment that "people" was in reference to those of us involved in tech/startups. I haven't seen the recent studies but a lot of people click on paid ads, even more surprising is that a lot of people don't even know the difference or care about the difference. I don't know if I would call it a failure for the advertiser since compared to other forms of advertising, you only pay when users engage with your ad. Impressions are free for the advertisers if users see but don't click. For Google, I do agree that it's a qualified failure in that some people want to block these results or ignore them but I think they've been taking steps to fix this by making ads less static and more dynamic like with their shopping results or with their hotel/airfare products.
    - rapind 14y ago
      It also doesn't mean that there is a massive inefficiency created by a large number of users ignoring a large number of ads. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, or what constitutes a large number. I'm not saying your wrong exactly, but it sounds like some pretty significant assumptions are being made in your statement. Proof? I was actually under the impression that most people find the ads relevant more often that not. However, I can't remember where I read that so I won't stand behind it.
codelion 14y ago
> when in study after study, at least on Adwords and SEM, paid results often boost relevance vs. a page only of organic results. Can you point to some of those studies ?
- calbear81 14y ago
  The studies were not public and were part of research projects and relevance insights I had access to in prior positions.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  At Blekko.com we've looked into this, more of an a/b test driven model rather than a definitive survey, but one challenge is this, you send two pages to an unbiased observer (which is code for someone who didn't do the search, they are just looking at the search query and the results page and deciding which is 'better') the results will favor ads, but the meta issue is that the ads are curated, not algorithmic. Specifically some person said "If someone searches for 'x,y, z' put my Ad up there" which is still much more accurate than an algorithm trying to guess. We do a game on our search page where if you put /monte at the end of your query we'll throw up the Google results, the Bing results, and the Blekko results. Then you get to pick the one that you, the searcher, thought was the best answer. We've found that well curated categories do really well in this comparison. Ads are simply a market motivated curation of Google's results.
coliveira 14y ago
People don't go to a search engine to look at ads, despite of what Google may say. Most everyone knows that half of these ads are scams, and the other half is of dubious precedence. People visit a search engine because they want to see organic results. For example, most people, as soon as they have enough technical ability, choose to install ad blockers to avoid losing their time with Google ads.
- calbear81 14y ago
  You're absolutely right, people don't go to search engines to look at ads: they go to search engines to find the most relevant answers to their queries. In many commercial query cases, the most relevant/useful links could be paid search links that an interested advertiser thinks is super-relevant to your query, enough so to actually put down money to pay for you to click over and see their site. "Most everyone knows that half.." - I think that statements needs to be qualified because as far as I have observed, only tech people approach targeted Google ads with this much skepticism that 50% of ads are scams and 50% are dubious.
  - ams6110 14y ago
    I have never clicked a google ad, except accidentally, and I've been using Google since close to the beginning.
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      I find that difficult to believe unless you are determined to disregard them. Especially when searching for a product to purchase, the best companies will advertise and often show a deal not obviously available in the search results.
- wangweij 14y ago
  Correct. a search might show an ad which is highly relevant, but in most cases, the same link also appears in the search result, and I always click the one in the search result. Sometimes I am wondering if I should click the ad instead to let Google earn some money, but I am afraid the link contains strange parameters that would send information which I'm not willing to share.
aaronwall 14y ago
>>If you're shopping for something, the paid and Google shopping results are often more relevant than the organic results since a lot of them incorporate real time price feeds or promotion codes.<< In many cases such feed prices are inaccurate. I have used Google shopping many times looking for the advertised price only to find it's "out of stock" or the promotion had ended by the time you click the link. People do the same crap to the other shopping search engines too. >Advertisers do not bid on keywords that deliver no economic value so it's in their best interest to only show up when they are the most relevant to your query.< In some case the economic value isn't in the best interest of users. A lot of spam targets installing malware, invading privacy, or similar. Further, there are ads which advise you to "buy x thousand links for cheap" or similar, which at their core suggest you violate Google's search guidelines. And Google had like 50,000 advertisers pushing counterfeit goods at one point (according to Google) and that issue got cleaned up only after Google was hit with a sting operation where they were caught selling ads for steroids for a person posing as a Mexican drug lord. Apparently the drug lord had a high quality score at the time. ;)

waterlesscloud 14y ago

This is a failure on Google's part, perhaps their most dangerous weakness.

calbear81 14y ago
Why is having a business model that generates billions of dollars in revenue annually, employs tens of thousands of people, and still allows you to maintain dominance considered a failure? The ads platform is self-optimizing, punishing advertisers with poor ads, low relevance, and poor brand perception. This results in ads that are from more trustworthy sellers and whom generate real customer interaction to justify buying those ads. To me, this system encourages higher relevance in commerce queries because those who deliver the best user experiences after you leave Google are the ones that can afford to bid to the top of the ads marketplace.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  As you said, people dismiss them. That's a failure. It's a failure to deliver value to the searcher and a failure to deliver value to the advertiser. The idea is fine, but if in practice people just ignore the ads... Google is making great money from search-based ads, of course, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a massive inefficiency created by a large number of users ignoring a large number of ads. The obvious opportunity for a competitor is to correct that inefficiency and deliver more value for searchers and advertisers.
  - jemfinch 14y ago
    Pardon, but how do you propose that a competitor convince people who ignore ads to stop ignoring them?
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      That's the $100 billion dollar question. Someone will do it better than Google is doing it now. It might be Google that improves it, it might not.
  - calbear81 14y ago
    Great question, I think should have qualified my earlier comment that "people" was in reference to those of us involved in tech/startups. I haven't seen the recent studies but a lot of people click on paid ads, even more surprising is that a lot of people don't even know the difference or care about the difference. I don't know if I would call it a failure for the advertiser since compared to other forms of advertising, you only pay when users engage with your ad. Impressions are free for the advertisers if users see but don't click. For Google, I do agree that it's a qualified failure in that some people want to block these results or ignore them but I think they've been taking steps to fix this by making ads less static and more dynamic like with their shopping results or with their hotel/airfare products.
  - rapind 14y ago
    It also doesn't mean that there is a massive inefficiency created by a large number of users ignoring a large number of ads. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, or what constitutes a large number. I'm not saying your wrong exactly, but it sounds like some pretty significant assumptions are being made in your statement. Proof? I was actually under the impression that most people find the ads relevant more often that not. However, I can't remember where I read that so I won't stand behind it.

codelion 14y ago

> when in study after study, at least on Adwords and SEM, paid results often boost relevance vs. a page only of organic results. Can you point to some of those studies ?

calbear81 14y ago
The studies were not public and were part of research projects and relevance insights I had access to in prior positions.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
At Blekko.com we've looked into this, more of an a/b test driven model rather than a definitive survey, but one challenge is this, you send two pages to an unbiased observer (which is code for someone who didn't do the search, they are just looking at the search query and the results page and deciding which is 'better') the results will favor ads, but the meta issue is that the ads are curated, not algorithmic. Specifically some person said "If someone searches for 'x,y, z' put my Ad up there" which is still much more accurate than an algorithm trying to guess. We do a game on our search page where if you put /monte at the end of your query we'll throw up the Google results, the Bing results, and the Blekko results. Then you get to pick the one that you, the searcher, thought was the best answer. We've found that well curated categories do really well in this comparison. Ads are simply a market motivated curation of Google's results.

coliveira 14y ago

People don't go to a search engine to look at ads, despite of what Google may say. Most everyone knows that half of these ads are scams, and the other half is of dubious precedence. People visit a search engine because they want to see organic results. For example, most people, as soon as they have enough technical ability, choose to install ad blockers to avoid losing their time with Google ads.

calbear81 14y ago
You're absolutely right, people don't go to search engines to look at ads: they go to search engines to find the most relevant answers to their queries. In many commercial query cases, the most relevant/useful links could be paid search links that an interested advertiser thinks is super-relevant to your query, enough so to actually put down money to pay for you to click over and see their site. "Most everyone knows that half.." - I think that statements needs to be qualified because as far as I have observed, only tech people approach targeted Google ads with this much skepticism that 50% of ads are scams and 50% are dubious.
- ams6110 14y ago
  I have never clicked a google ad, except accidentally, and I've been using Google since close to the beginning.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    I find that difficult to believe unless you are determined to disregard them. Especially when searching for a product to purchase, the best companies will advertise and often show a deal not obviously available in the search results.
wangweij 14y ago
Correct. a search might show an ad which is highly relevant, but in most cases, the same link also appears in the search result, and I always click the one in the search result. Sometimes I am wondering if I should click the ad instead to let Google earn some money, but I am afraid the link contains strange parameters that would send information which I'm not willing to share.

aaronwall 14y ago

>>If you're shopping for something, the paid and Google shopping results are often more relevant than the organic results since a lot of them incorporate real time price feeds or promotion codes.<< In many cases such feed prices are inaccurate. I have used Google shopping many times looking for the advertised price only to find it's "out of stock" or the promotion had ended by the time you click the link. People do the same crap to the other shopping search engines too. >Advertisers do not bid on keywords that deliver no economic value so it's in their best interest to only show up when they are the most relevant to your query.< In some case the economic value isn't in the best interest of users. A lot of spam targets installing malware, invading privacy, or similar. Further, there are ads which advise you to "buy x thousand links for cheap" or similar, which at their core suggest you violate Google's search guidelines. And Google had like 50,000 advertisers pushing counterfeit goods at one point (according to Google) and that issue got cleaned up only after Google was hit with a sting operation where they were caught selling ads for steroids for a person posing as a Mexican drug lord. Apparently the drug lord had a high quality score at the time. ;)