5 ms·

It's arguable that queries like [southwest airlines] are even a search. The vast majority of instances are probably URL-illiterate users merely trying to get t

by T-hawk 13y ago

It's arguable that queries like [southwest airlines] are even a search. The vast majority of instances are probably URL-illiterate users merely trying to get to Southwest Airlines' web site. (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) For these users, search is really operating as a natural-language alternative to DNS so such a clickable banner will help them get there. More than just advertising, this represents an element of curation on such search terms, to get you to the place you're really looking for. It'll help avoid situations like when that one blog post appeared at the top for [facebook login] and suddenly bunches of users couldn't find Facebook. Like any technological tool, it could be misused for evil, and so will require vigilance in the court of public opinion if not in actual courts. (Disclaimer: I'm a potential Googler, currently in the interview pipeline, but these views are my own.)

buffportion 13y ago
“Oh my god, Jerry, when you check your email you go to Altavista and type, ‘Please go to yahoo.com?’"
peejaybee 13y ago
I would say that even URL-literate users use it this way, because the business-to-URL mapping is not always clear, and the naive guess is sometimes the worst possible one (e.g. Dick's Sporting Goods.)
- graeme 13y ago
  Yes, I thought this was (likely unintentionally) insulting. I rarely use urls unless it's a known site. Especially since I'm Canadian and the TLD isn't always predictable. And on a phone, it's usually faster to google 'hacker news' or even 'hack new' if I'm lazy, than it is to type 'news.ycombinator.com'. (Yes, I'm horrible. And no, I don't want to bookmark it and make it too easy to come here....)
  - epochwolf 13y ago
    Typing n autocompletes to news.ycombinator.com on my devices.. yes, I'm here way too much.
  - T-hawk 13y ago
    Good point, yes there are reasons other than URL illiteracy (convenience) to use search as a DNS replacement. So this new behavior of Google helps even you. And without any deceptive downside since if you are URL-literate you're probably pretty well aware of what's advertising and what isn't.
  - BashiBazouk 13y ago
    Exactly. For me if I type "hac" Hacker News is the first drop down result. Practically faster than even clicking a bookmark drop down.
- plorkyeran 13y ago
  This is where I'm Feeling Lucky search is really useful. l <business name> sends me directly to the correct site very close to 100% of the time, even if I misspell the name of the company.
netcan 13y ago
arguable, sure. I wouldn't call it an airtight argument, especially as it extends to more search terms. In some cases, it's a 'natural-language alternative to DNS.' In some very similar cases, it's not. If Southwest Airlines crashes today, there will be a lot of people on that results page looking for news or pictures. In some cases, it just isn't clear what the right page is.If you google the name of a local restaurant, you might find their site at #1 but in a lot of cases, a restaurant's site isn't the best place for info. Maybe their facebook page is. Maybe some aggregator site is. Google (supposedly neutrally) tells you what the best place for this is. In this particular case, wikipedia is the right answer the the "Southwest Airlines" query a substantial portion of the time.
- T-hawk 13y ago
  In some cases, it just isn't clear what the right page is. Absolutely. Which is why Google isn't doing this across the board but for carefully selected cases. They'd do it for advertiser clients for whom Google's data demonstrates a vast preponderance of intent to just go to the company's web site by name. I'd bet quite a bit that [southwest airlines] queriers are looking for Southwest's own customer applications (pricing, booking, flight status) far more often than for Wikipedia or news articles. It's to Southwest's benefit if these users more smoothly find southwest.com and Google can pick up a slice of the benefit as the middleman. Google (presumably) wouldn't do this for a local business with an ambiguous web presence. Nor for a company whose name more likely indicates searching for news items than for customer applications, perhaps [Goldman Sachs].
  - netcan 13y ago
    Google is trialing it for a few carefully selected cases. But even in those cases: - It's not a 100% bet that searchers are looking for the company website. Some will still want stock prices or wikipedia or travel sites or whatnot. For these cases this is a banner funeling more traffic to the company website with a forceful "more pixels" approach. - If the company starts to hit the media for something (especially something bad), this helps them do it. Anyway, I think this 'alternative to DNS' argument is kind of circular. If everyone is looking for the companies' homepage Google's paid & organic "sitelinks" (triggered by exactly these cases) take up most of the screen real estate. The company website already gets most of the traffic. Some people still want a wikipedia link or whatnot. These banners are designed too suck up a few more of the undecided and presumably perform some branding function (especially if only a few big companies are allowed to have these). BTW, I think it's google's right to sell banners. It's their damn website. There's the same conflict/impartiality issue interest when any info/media business is selling ad space. But I also think this is part of an evolving ethos. The initial ethos was small text ads instead of big flashy screen real estate. Those ads needed to get clicks with an attractive message. They were available to small business just as they were available to meg-corps, pay for what you eat style. These banners are screen real estate auctions available exclusively to big boys. Adwords shooed away the 'internet entrepreneur' types. Over the years natural search has (as part of anti spam campaigns) been burying smaller businesses. Adwords focuses much less on SMEs these days too. As I said, I'm not calling foul. Their website. Advertising is legal. I'm just calling duck.
kailuowang 13y ago
> (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) In the article: "a system with about 30 advertisers in the US in which it shows banner ads for companies including SouthWest Airlines on pages which include them in web search results" So google knows by the fact that the name of the client is in the search term.
davidblueit 13y ago
what about if someone searches for nissan? picture of a car or a picture of the dudes computer repair service at nissan.com? whoever pays the most, which is sad. i'm sure the same thing will happen with apple
- AJ007 13y ago
  Its been like this for many years; the bigger flag (to me) is that the massive picture pushes everything else below the fold and much off page 1.
tedunangst 13y ago
Let's follow through on this thought. What searches will result in a banner ad for pets.com? "pets.com"? "pets"? "pet supplies"? If pets.com is the second result for "pet supplies", are they allowed to buy the banner ad? Or do they have to wage an SEO campaign first to claim the top spot, then buy the ad? Bonus question: Is Black Car Limo (URL blackcar.com) allowed to buy a banner ad for "black car"?
snowwrestler 13y ago
DNS is also a search, it's just handled by a standardized, multiparty system instead of a single for-profit corporation. Google also runs actual DNS servers at 8.8.8.8. Would it be ok for them to inject ads there as well?
- sanxiyn 13y ago
  OpenDNS actually does inject ads to its DNS servers (for NXDOMAIN). I wouldn't like it, but it would be ok.
AJ007 13y ago
Chrome (v30.0.1599.101 for future reference) -> new tab -> Google + search bar appears above the recent/most popular sites list. I click on the search bar under the Google logo and start typing.. and magically my text does not appear in the text form but rather in the URL field in the navigation bar. What once may have been uneducated behavior is a behavior Google is training users to do.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  You're right. Of course Google wants users to search for URLs instead of typing them, because it then gets to show them search results (which can be monetized) instead of just loading up a website. In this case I can understand Southwest may think banner ads help with branding, but what I cannot understand is why so many companies buy the topmost Google text ad even though their websites are already #1 organically?
  - canthonytucci 13y ago
    My guess is so that no one else can get it. The last thing one of these companies would want is a competitor or some kind of unsavory hanger-on diluting their brand with a different message or viagra ads.
    - c0ur7n3y 13y ago
      Ah, so it's "new top level domains" all over again. Seems to be a pretty good way to vacuum up money.
    - judk 13y ago
      If a competitors ad ever showed above a perfectly relevant organic result, THAT would be pitchfork time. Until then, if advertisers want to throw money at Google at as a show of "legitimacy" for brand development, bully for Google.
  - manojlds 13y ago
    Maybe so that a competitor doesn't?
qeorge 13y ago
It's arguable that queries like [southwest airlines] are even a search. The vast majority of instances are probably URL-illiterate users merely trying to get to Southwest Airlines' web site. (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) For these users, search is really operating as a natural-language alternative to DNS so such a clickable banner will help them get there. If Google would only show Southwest Airlines ads when I searched for [southwest airlines], I might agree. But they won't - they'll let Delta, Orbitz, or anyone else buy that spot (if Google's behavior with other flavors of AdWords is any guide). Its an ad. No need to rationalize it away as actually being a good thing for the user. Its just a (huge) ad, which hopefully (for Google) won't damage the utility of their product enough to drive too many users away.

by T-hawk 13y ago

buffportion 13y ago

“Oh my god, Jerry, when you check your email you go to Altavista and type, ‘Please go to yahoo.com?’"

peejaybee 13y ago

I would say that even URL-literate users use it this way, because the business-to-URL mapping is not always clear, and the naive guess is sometimes the worst possible one (e.g. Dick's Sporting Goods.)

graeme 13y ago
Yes, I thought this was (likely unintentionally) insulting. I rarely use urls unless it's a known site. Especially since I'm Canadian and the TLD isn't always predictable. And on a phone, it's usually faster to google 'hacker news' or even 'hack new' if I'm lazy, than it is to type 'news.ycombinator.com'. (Yes, I'm horrible. And no, I don't want to bookmark it and make it too easy to come here....)
- epochwolf 13y ago
  Typing n autocompletes to news.ycombinator.com on my devices.. yes, I'm here way too much.
- T-hawk 13y ago
  Good point, yes there are reasons other than URL illiteracy (convenience) to use search as a DNS replacement. So this new behavior of Google helps even you. And without any deceptive downside since if you are URL-literate you're probably pretty well aware of what's advertising and what isn't.
- BashiBazouk 13y ago
  Exactly. For me if I type "hac" Hacker News is the first drop down result. Practically faster than even clicking a bookmark drop down.
plorkyeran 13y ago
This is where I'm Feeling Lucky search is really useful. l <business name> sends me directly to the correct site very close to 100% of the time, even if I misspell the name of the company.

netcan 13y ago

arguable, sure. I wouldn't call it an airtight argument, especially as it extends to more search terms. In some cases, it's a 'natural-language alternative to DNS.' In some very similar cases, it's not. If Southwest Airlines crashes today, there will be a lot of people on that results page looking for news or pictures. In some cases, it just isn't clear what the right page is.If you google the name of a local restaurant, you might find their site at #1 but in a lot of cases, a restaurant's site isn't the best place for info. Maybe their facebook page is. Maybe some aggregator site is. Google (supposedly neutrally) tells you what the best place for this is. In this particular case, wikipedia is the right answer the the "Southwest Airlines" query a substantial portion of the time.

T-hawk 13y ago
In some cases, it just isn't clear what the right page is. Absolutely. Which is why Google isn't doing this across the board but for carefully selected cases. They'd do it for advertiser clients for whom Google's data demonstrates a vast preponderance of intent to just go to the company's web site by name. I'd bet quite a bit that [southwest airlines] queriers are looking for Southwest's own customer applications (pricing, booking, flight status) far more often than for Wikipedia or news articles. It's to Southwest's benefit if these users more smoothly find southwest.com and Google can pick up a slice of the benefit as the middleman. Google (presumably) wouldn't do this for a local business with an ambiguous web presence. Nor for a company whose name more likely indicates searching for news items than for customer applications, perhaps [Goldman Sachs].
- netcan 13y ago
  Google is trialing it for a few carefully selected cases. But even in those cases: - It's not a 100% bet that searchers are looking for the company website. Some will still want stock prices or wikipedia or travel sites or whatnot. For these cases this is a banner funeling more traffic to the company website with a forceful "more pixels" approach. - If the company starts to hit the media for something (especially something bad), this helps them do it. Anyway, I think this 'alternative to DNS' argument is kind of circular. If everyone is looking for the companies' homepage Google's paid & organic "sitelinks" (triggered by exactly these cases) take up most of the screen real estate. The company website already gets most of the traffic. Some people still want a wikipedia link or whatnot. These banners are designed too suck up a few more of the undecided and presumably perform some branding function (especially if only a few big companies are allowed to have these). BTW, I think it's google's right to sell banners. It's their damn website. There's the same conflict/impartiality issue interest when any info/media business is selling ad space. But I also think this is part of an evolving ethos. The initial ethos was small text ads instead of big flashy screen real estate. Those ads needed to get clicks with an attractive message. They were available to small business just as they were available to meg-corps, pay for what you eat style. These banners are screen real estate auctions available exclusively to big boys. Adwords shooed away the 'internet entrepreneur' types. Over the years natural search has (as part of anti spam campaigns) been burying smaller businesses. Adwords focuses much less on SMEs these days too. As I said, I'm not calling foul. Their website. Advertising is legal. I'm just calling duck.

kailuowang 13y ago

> (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) In the article: "a system with about 30 advertisers in the US in which it shows banner ads for companies including SouthWest Airlines on pages which include them in web search results" So google knows by the fact that the name of the client is in the search term.

davidblueit 13y ago

what about if someone searches for nissan? picture of a car or a picture of the dudes computer repair service at nissan.com? whoever pays the most, which is sad. i'm sure the same thing will happen with apple

AJ007 13y ago
Its been like this for many years; the bigger flag (to me) is that the massive picture pushes everything else below the fold and much off page 1.

tedunangst 13y ago

Let's follow through on this thought. What searches will result in a banner ad for pets.com? "pets.com"? "pets"? "pet supplies"? If pets.com is the second result for "pet supplies", are they allowed to buy the banner ad? Or do they have to wage an SEO campaign first to claim the top spot, then buy the ad? Bonus question: Is Black Car Limo (URL blackcar.com) allowed to buy a banner ad for "black car"?

snowwrestler 13y ago

DNS is also a search, it's just handled by a standardized, multiparty system instead of a single for-profit corporation. Google also runs actual DNS servers at 8.8.8.8. Would it be ok for them to inject ads there as well?

sanxiyn 13y ago
OpenDNS actually does inject ads to its DNS servers (for NXDOMAIN). I wouldn't like it, but it would be ok.

AJ007 13y ago

Chrome (v30.0.1599.101 for future reference) -> new tab -> Google + search bar appears above the recent/most popular sites list. I click on the search bar under the Google logo and start typing.. and magically my text does not appear in the text form but rather in the URL field in the navigation bar. What once may have been uneducated behavior is a behavior Google is training users to do.

r0h1n 13y ago
You're right. Of course Google wants users to search for URLs instead of typing them, because it then gets to show them search results (which can be monetized) instead of just loading up a website. In this case I can understand Southwest may think banner ads help with branding, but what I cannot understand is why so many companies buy the topmost Google text ad even though their websites are already #1 organically?
- canthonytucci 13y ago
  My guess is so that no one else can get it. The last thing one of these companies would want is a competitor or some kind of unsavory hanger-on diluting their brand with a different message or viagra ads.
  - c0ur7n3y 13y ago
    Ah, so it's "new top level domains" all over again. Seems to be a pretty good way to vacuum up money.
  - judk 13y ago
    If a competitors ad ever showed above a perfectly relevant organic result, THAT would be pitchfork time. Until then, if advertisers want to throw money at Google at as a show of "legitimacy" for brand development, bully for Google.
- manojlds 13y ago
  Maybe so that a competitor doesn't?

qeorge 13y ago

It's arguable that queries like [southwest airlines] are even a search. The vast majority of instances are probably URL-illiterate users merely trying to get to Southwest Airlines' web site. (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) For these users, search is really operating as a natural-language alternative to DNS so such a clickable banner will help them get there. If Google would only show Southwest Airlines ads when I searched for [southwest airlines], I might agree. But they won't - they'll let Delta, Orbitz, or anyone else buy that spot (if Google's behavior with other flavors of AdWords is any guide). Its an ad. No need to rationalize it away as actually being a good thing for the user. Its just a (huge) ad, which hopefully (for Google) won't damage the utility of their product enough to drive too many users away.