6 ms·

Interesting side effect. There's this web site: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/timer/1hour/ http://www.online-stopwatch.com/timer/1hour/ which comes up top o

Interesting side effect. There's this web site: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/timer/1hour/ http://www.online-stopwatch.com/timer/1hour/ which comes up top of the google search results for "timer for 1 hour" for me. Now there is absolutely no way they can compete with Google's own offering from an SEO perspective. While this example is trivial to some extent, does it set a precedent that while you can advertise and compete with Google, they can always have the unfair advantage at being top of the list.

kingrolo 13y ago
I wondered the same a while back when I'd often get old and out of date Google Code results showing up before the actual Github ones which I wanted.
- cloudwalking 13y ago
  Not the same feature. Those Google Code pages have better PageRank than the corresponding Github ones (older pages more links?). I don't think Google Code is given any preferential treatment in the results--if so, the UI would be presented differently.
ok_craig 13y ago
Lesson: don't put to much stock into a product that can be replaced by a few lines of code on a search result page.
- skndr 13y ago
  It's also probably a product that didn't take too many lines.
  - joelthelion 13y ago
    Depends if it was built by a hacker or a company with product managers.
- gabemart 13y ago
  It may be trivial, but by my estimation the domain "online-stopwatch.com" gets somewhere in the region of 50k-100k visitors per day as a first-order approximation. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were making between $300-$500 daily in ad revenue, or somewhere on the order of $100k - $200k per year.
  - crazytony 13y ago
    sounds like they have cornered the online stopwatch market... All joking aside it must be really hard work to keep your ranking at #1 when competitors (and google) can easily replicate your functionality.
- martin-adams 13y ago
  That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own.
  - chii 13y ago
    if it takes you hefty investment, it would also take google hefty investment to replicate your product. Sure you lose the google juice, but you could say the same for any product, and back when microsoft did it, they got sued. If you provide the best product, even better than what google can provide, it won't matter that google put theirs at the top of their search results. e.g. G+ and facebook - no matter how hard google is promoting G+, it still hasn't gotten the traction of facebook.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own. Even with the google thing that does the function at the top, users have the choice. If it was a "I'm Feeling Lucky" style redirect (but always to a Google service with no search results page) whenever the query fit a format that keyed a Google-provided service, then the user wouldn't have the choice, but giving you a thing that provides what you think you want as well as links to other pages that might either do what you want or have the information you want doesn't deny you the choice of using those other pages instead of Google's tool.
- josefresco 13y ago
  A counter-point to your argument. While I know Google offers calculator functions, and unit of measurement conversions, I usually don't know the exact format to use which will key the special functions. Typically searching Google for "percentage calculator" or something similar takes you to a site with a clear UI and instruction. Often times this is quicker than randomly entering searches into Google, hoping that my wording will spawn that special function. So while yes, it's scary/crazy to launch a web app that is so easily clonable for Google, the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features. This leaves room for simple web apps who do a better job (or at least have a simple UI that is understandable).
  - innino 13y ago
    the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features. Hmm. Why not? Why can't Google continuing builder richer and richer search results, results which become smarter and smarter in matching what users are looking for? The potential level of customisability for a search result/user to a search query is infinite. At higher levels you move beyond the crude "search" metaphor to what Google is really working towards: full brain-augmentation. Not a tool the mind must learn to use, but a tool built to work with the mind, a tool in fact that is tailored perfectly for each and every mind.
thomasd 13y ago
I believe they have Facebook envy and now wants to keep every visitors they get on the site for as long as possible, just like Facebook. This is a departure away from their original philosophy in which their goal was to send users to the most relevant site for the user query as fast as possible. I hope they haven't forgotten that the reason Yahoo lose out to Google was precisely because of this. Yahoo switched their vision from a search engine to a portal, and their product search engine start to suck. This is dangerous. The best ad platform (which generates the most revenue) are those that are most efficient at sending traffic to advertiser's properties. Facebook main source of revenue comes from mobile app install ads which direct users to the app store for download, and page post ads, which sends traffic to advertiser's website. A change in priority to hold users as long as possible on Google search isn't very tenable in the long term.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Google has been keeping users from calculator web sites with its calculator/unit converter since before Mark Zuckerberg even wrote Facemash[1]. A fairly obscure timer feature that only shows up when you search for a particular phrase is nothing like search portals of old, nor is this a departure from the different search result widgets they've had for a decade now. This feels like a feature that the OS should have but most don't, and I'll use it like I use google as a calculator or as a dictionary: if it's faster to open a tab and put in the query than it is to launch a program or a particular page and start a timer there. I did the same thing when I was on windows and it was faster to ask google than to run "calc" and then do the calculation, and it was the same tradeoff when I switched to a mac and it turned out spotlight could do many calculations even faster with just a command-space. [1] http://mentalized.net/journal/2003/08/12/google_rocks_my_world/ http://mentalized.net/journal/2003/08/12/google_rocks_my_wor...
  - thomasd 13y ago
    Agree. What Google did replaced plenty of functionalities that are available on desktop (math, spell-check, dictionary). But their recent card-based solution to a lot of searches seems to show that they're trying to keep users on Google-owned properties. Try searching for a movie review. You'll notice that everything that pertains to the movie is shown on top and on the right. Clicking on actors lead to yet another google search result with another card on the right. In short, you're being kept within Google. Does it get you the information you're looking for in as little time as possible? Absolutely. But they're doing this at the expense of the sites they took the data from.
jfoster 13y ago
This is also far from the first (or even broadest) utility of this type from Google. See also: https://www.google.com/#q=calculator https://www.google.com/#q=calculator https://www.google.com/#q=time%20in%20new%20york https://www.google.com/#q=time%20in%20new%20york https://www.google.com/#q=50%20miles%20to%20km https://www.google.com/#q=50%20miles%20to%20km https://www.google.com/#q=1%20usd%20to%20rmb https://www.google.com/#q=1%20usd%20to%20rmb https://www.google.com/#q=barack%20obama https://www.google.com/#q=barack%20obama https://www.google.com/#q=weather%20in%20sf https://www.google.com/#q=weather%20in%20sf
- flyingyeti 13y ago
  More: https://www.google.com/#q=aal+1 https://www.google.com/#q=aal+1 https://www.google.com/#q=nfl+scores https://www.google.com/#q=nfl+scores
  - laumars 13y ago
    The one I use most often is Google's dictionary: https://www.google.com/#q=define:hello%20world https://www.google.com/#q=define:hello%20world
  - Fourplealis 13y ago
    https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=what+is+my+ip https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=what+is+my+ip
    - ximeng 13y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint
      - jaynos 13y ago
        Where did they get an arbitrary 154 calories for a pint of beer? Calorie count is closely tied to style and alcohol content. A few examples: Bud Light: 109 calories in 120z. Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA: 294 calories in 12oz. Weyerbacher Merry Monks: 279 calories in 12oz.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pioul 13y ago
A precedent has already been set a while ago with Google's calculator [1], Knowledge Graph [2] and whatnot. Search engines' goal is to deliver information and services to their users as fast as possible. If they can provide those themselves, it's a win both for them and their users. I wrote about it here: http://pioul.fr/dont-trust-search-engines-with-your-traffic http://pioul.fr/dont-trust-search-engines-with-your-traffic [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2B1 https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2B1 [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=banana https://www.google.com/search?q=banana
- return0 13y ago
  also weather, stocks etc
- OrwellianChild 13y ago
  Agreed. From the consumer-centric perspective, if Google's solution is "good enough" it will halt their search. However, if there is a better solution needed, they will continue to look to the results below the search. Providing value-add on top of what Google's auto-reply gives you is how a site can differentiate itself.
andyhmltn 13y ago
In a way, yes it seems quite bad that Google has enough power to just completely destroy small sites like that. But when it's a lot better from a user perspective just to instantly see the result than to navigate to some poorly designed ad-ridden mess to get what they need.
chrischen 13y ago
Considering Google was the one sending them all their traffic before...
Tichy 13y ago
Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. Most people don't want to program. In a world where people still don't know what a browser is, I am optimistic for online-stopwatch.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. The Google Search field is the CLI of the web?
  - Tichy 13y ago
    Yes? For those who bother to learn about it.
mherdeg 13y ago
I used to do a Google search for [mlb standings] and click through to the top search result. Now I just look at the onebox Major League Baseball standings results instead. I've also noticed the results of a search for [Olympic medal count] steadily improve every two years so that I no longer need to click through to any search results to see the data I want.
jonknee 13y ago
And Google's version doesn't use Flash so it's actually useful on most devices.
ffffruit 13y ago
Same for IP addresses and http://www.whatismyip.com/ http://www.whatismyip.com/
iamben 13y ago
See also: flights, insurance, credit cards etc. Sometimes I think that your only option as an affiliate in these markets now is to brand yourself so heavily (MoneySuperMarket, for instance) that people search for your brand, understanding what you do, rather than trying to rank first for the generic term (compare insurance, cheap insurance etc) and hope they click your link. Even if Google's offering for some of these things is still not as pushed as it could be today, what's to say they won't butcher your traffic / revenue tomorrow?

kingrolo 13y ago

I wondered the same a while back when I'd often get old and out of date Google Code results showing up before the actual Github ones which I wanted.

cloudwalking 13y ago
Not the same feature. Those Google Code pages have better PageRank than the corresponding Github ones (older pages more links?). I don't think Google Code is given any preferential treatment in the results--if so, the UI would be presented differently.

ok_craig 13y ago

Lesson: don't put to much stock into a product that can be replaced by a few lines of code on a search result page.

skndr 13y ago
It's also probably a product that didn't take too many lines.
- joelthelion 13y ago
  Depends if it was built by a hacker or a company with product managers.
gabemart 13y ago
It may be trivial, but by my estimation the domain "online-stopwatch.com" gets somewhere in the region of 50k-100k visitors per day as a first-order approximation. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were making between $300-$500 daily in ad revenue, or somewhere on the order of $100k - $200k per year.
- crazytony 13y ago
  sounds like they have cornered the online stopwatch market... All joking aside it must be really hard work to keep your ranking at #1 when competitors (and google) can easily replicate your functionality.
martin-adams 13y ago
That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own.
- chii 13y ago
  if it takes you hefty investment, it would also take google hefty investment to replicate your product. Sure you lose the google juice, but you could say the same for any product, and back when microsoft did it, they got sued. If you provide the best product, even better than what google can provide, it won't matter that google put theirs at the top of their search results. e.g. G+ and facebook - no matter how hard google is promoting G+, it still hasn't gotten the traction of facebook.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own. Even with the google thing that does the function at the top, users have the choice. If it was a "I'm Feeling Lucky" style redirect (but always to a Google service with no search results page) whenever the query fit a format that keyed a Google-provided service, then the user wouldn't have the choice, but giving you a thing that provides what you think you want as well as links to other pages that might either do what you want or have the information you want doesn't deny you the choice of using those other pages instead of Google's tool.
josefresco 13y ago
A counter-point to your argument. While I know Google offers calculator functions, and unit of measurement conversions, I usually don't know the exact format to use which will key the special functions. Typically searching Google for "percentage calculator" or something similar takes you to a site with a clear UI and instruction. Often times this is quicker than randomly entering searches into Google, hoping that my wording will spawn that special function. So while yes, it's scary/crazy to launch a web app that is so easily clonable for Google, the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features. This leaves room for simple web apps who do a better job (or at least have a simple UI that is understandable).
- innino 13y ago
  the "general use" nature of Google means that they'll never have these functions as prominent features. Hmm. Why not? Why can't Google continuing builder richer and richer search results, results which become smarter and smarter in matching what users are looking for? The potential level of customisability for a search result/user to a search query is infinite. At higher levels you move beyond the crude "search" metaphor to what Google is really working towards: full brain-augmentation. Not a tool the mind must learn to use, but a tool built to work with the mind, a tool in fact that is tailored perfectly for each and every mind.

thomasd 13y ago

I believe they have Facebook envy and now wants to keep every visitors they get on the site for as long as possible, just like Facebook. This is a departure away from their original philosophy in which their goal was to send users to the most relevant site for the user query as fast as possible. I hope they haven't forgotten that the reason Yahoo lose out to Google was precisely because of this. Yahoo switched their vision from a search engine to a portal, and their product search engine start to suck. This is dangerous. The best ad platform (which generates the most revenue) are those that are most efficient at sending traffic to advertiser's properties. Facebook main source of revenue comes from mobile app install ads which direct users to the app store for download, and page post ads, which sends traffic to advertiser's website. A change in priority to hold users as long as possible on Google search isn't very tenable in the long term.

magicalist 13y ago
Google has been keeping users from calculator web sites with its calculator/unit converter since before Mark Zuckerberg even wrote Facemash[1]. A fairly obscure timer feature that only shows up when you search for a particular phrase is nothing like search portals of old, nor is this a departure from the different search result widgets they've had for a decade now. This feels like a feature that the OS should have but most don't, and I'll use it like I use google as a calculator or as a dictionary: if it's faster to open a tab and put in the query than it is to launch a program or a particular page and start a timer there. I did the same thing when I was on windows and it was faster to ask google than to run "calc" and then do the calculation, and it was the same tradeoff when I switched to a mac and it turned out spotlight could do many calculations even faster with just a command-space. [1] http://mentalized.net/journal/2003/08/12/google_rocks_my_world/ http://mentalized.net/journal/2003/08/12/google_rocks_my_wor...
- thomasd 13y ago
  Agree. What Google did replaced plenty of functionalities that are available on desktop (math, spell-check, dictionary). But their recent card-based solution to a lot of searches seems to show that they're trying to keep users on Google-owned properties. Try searching for a movie review. You'll notice that everything that pertains to the movie is shown on top and on the right. Clicking on actors lead to yet another google search result with another card on the right. In short, you're being kept within Google. Does it get you the information you're looking for in as little time as possible? Absolutely. But they're doing this at the expense of the sites they took the data from.

jfoster 13y ago

This is also far from the first (or even broadest) utility of this type from Google. See also: https://www.google.com/#q=calculator https://www.google.com/#q=calculator https://www.google.com/#q=time%20in%20new%20york https://www.google.com/#q=time%20in%20new%20york https://www.google.com/#q=50%20miles%20to%20km https://www.google.com/#q=50%20miles%20to%20km https://www.google.com/#q=1%20usd%20to%20rmb https://www.google.com/#q=1%20usd%20to%20rmb https://www.google.com/#q=barack%20obama https://www.google.com/#q=barack%20obama https://www.google.com/#q=weather%20in%20sf https://www.google.com/#q=weather%20in%20sf

flyingyeti 13y ago
More: https://www.google.com/#q=aal+1 https://www.google.com/#q=aal+1 https://www.google.com/#q=nfl+scores https://www.google.com/#q=nfl+scores
- laumars 13y ago
  The one I use most often is Google's dictionary: https://www.google.com/#q=define:hello%20world https://www.google.com/#q=define:hello%20world
- Fourplealis 13y ago
  https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=what+is+my+ip https://www.google.com/#psj=1&q=what+is+my+ip
  - ximeng 13y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint
    - jaynos 13y ago
      Where did they get an arbitrary 154 calories for a pint of beer? Calorie count is closely tied to style and alcohol content. A few examples: Bud Light: 109 calories in 120z. Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA: 294 calories in 12oz. Weyerbacher Merry Monks: 279 calories in 12oz.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pioul 13y ago

A precedent has already been set a while ago with Google's calculator [1], Knowledge Graph [2] and whatnot. Search engines' goal is to deliver information and services to their users as fast as possible. If they can provide those themselves, it's a win both for them and their users. I wrote about it here: http://pioul.fr/dont-trust-search-engines-with-your-traffic http://pioul.fr/dont-trust-search-engines-with-your-traffic [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2B1 https://www.google.com/search?q=1%2B1 [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=banana https://www.google.com/search?q=banana

return0 13y ago
also weather, stocks etc
OrwellianChild 13y ago
Agreed. From the consumer-centric perspective, if Google's solution is "good enough" it will halt their search. However, if there is a better solution needed, they will continue to look to the results below the search. Providing value-add on top of what Google's auto-reply gives you is how a site can differentiate itself.

andyhmltn 13y ago

In a way, yes it seems quite bad that Google has enough power to just completely destroy small sites like that. But when it's a lot better from a user perspective just to instantly see the result than to navigate to some poorly designed ad-ridden mess to get what they need.

chrischen 13y ago

Considering Google was the one sending them all their traffic before...

Tichy 13y ago

Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. Most people don't want to program. In a world where people still don't know what a browser is, I am optimistic for online-stopwatch.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. The Google Search field is the CLI of the web?
- Tichy 13y ago
  Yes? For those who bother to learn about it.

mherdeg 13y ago

I used to do a Google search for [mlb standings] and click through to the top search result. Now I just look at the onebox Major League Baseball standings results instead. I've also noticed the results of a search for [Olympic medal count] steadily improve every two years so that I no longer need to click through to any search results to see the data I want.

jonknee 13y ago

And Google's version doesn't use Flash so it's actually useful on most devices.

ffffruit 13y ago

Same for IP addresses and http://www.whatismyip.com/ http://www.whatismyip.com/

iamben 13y ago

See also: flights, insurance, credit cards etc. Sometimes I think that your only option as an affiliate in these markets now is to brand yourself so heavily (MoneySuperMarket, for instance) that people search for your brand, understanding what you do, rather than trying to rank first for the generic term (compare insurance, cheap insurance etc) and hope they click your link. Even if Google's offering for some of these things is still not as pushed as it could be today, what's to say they won't butcher your traffic / revenue tomorrow?