
With +1, Google Search Goes Truly Social — As Do Google Ads - susanhi
http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/30/google-plus-one/
======
jjcm
It's an interesting way of arranging a link aggregator, in that the links are
already present. That said, I don't see this taking off. People
compartmentalize their life based on functionality. Some will see google only
as a search tool, digg/reddit/hn/slashdot/etc as their social news site,
gmail/hotmail/etc as their mailing client - and wont use those products for
anything other than their mentally compartmentalized purpose.

The other issue that I see here is the culture that is present. Think of
everyone that uses google - do you want all of their votes to influence the
content that you see? I don't want to see the eggplant tofurduken recipe that
Aunt Millie +1'd. Sure, you can limit the influence to just your circle of
friends, but that doesn't bring much new to the table. Reddit has done well
because it allows for this context of culture to be one of it's primary
features (via subreddits). Even HN has this driving niche focus sitewide.

All that said, while I dont expect this to take off, I do expect to see a "+1
THIS!" button next to the "tweet this!"/"digg this!"/"reddit this!" button on
every blogspam post out there.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I agree 1000% that people compartmentalize based on functionality, which is
why Google shouldn't be afraid of Facebook on search (that and Facebook not
having search and search being difficult).

~~~
malloreon
What if I'm facebook and I'm processing >500M "likes" a day?

Could I create a reasonable search engine only using URLs people have "liked"
and weight search results based on number of likes and whether people in my
friends list have liked it?

~~~
timr
That'll work great if you're searching for the latest hamster-on-a-piano
video. It might not work quite so well if you're searching for something with
substance. Despite the hype, most people aren't especially good at uncovering
original content.

~~~
gumbo
A totaly agree, people don't usualy share much stufs on facebook? Have you
seens around a link to a Hadoop tutorial in your news feed yet?

~~~
StavrosK
I think that sharing that sort of thing will be in a more targeted way, via
e.g. yourpane.com. I never share links that don't appeal to everyone on
Twitter or Facebook, but I send things to specific friends all the time.

------
shadowsun7
The obvious: I'm sure it won't be long before Google creates an embeddable +1
button, for you to include in your site/blog/webapp. Because right now I don't
see why I would run a search, click the result, go 'whoah, good article' and
then hit back to the results page to '+1' aforementioned article.

What I _really_ like about this, though, is that it sounds so good.

"I'd +1 that."

"Have you +1ed?"

"Where's the essay? Uh, it's in my +1s"

~~~
cyanbane
I don't see anything that would keep them from moving this to the gtoolbar,
Chrome or a javascriptlet.

I agree with the branding of it. I doubt I will use it much, but it is catchy.

~~~
wzdd
There is something very Google about the branding. It's a little bit nerdy,
very simple, and cool. I like it a lot more than "Like".

~~~
DaveMebs
"It's a little bit nerdy," is exactly the problem I see with this. They are
taking a piece of internet/geek culture and expanding it to my Grandma. My
Grandma know what it means to "Like" something, but does she understand "+1"?
Probably not.

~~~
Andrex
Did people know what a "googol" was? It doesn't really matter at all in the
grand scheme of things.

~~~
shadowsun7
Well to be fair, Andrex, people still _don't_ know what a 'googol' is. They
know 'Google', and what 'Google' means to them is very different from
'googol'.

------
narrator
I see hundreds of thousands of billable hours of mechanical turk and dungeon
grade Indian and Chinese IT Services time spent +1ing SEO spam farm links.

~~~
Groxx
As PageRank is a trust metric, and their entire system is based around that,
I'd imagine they would perform similar calculations for +1 results. Especially
as +1s contain no implicit _content_ , as they are merely flags, I find it
unlikely to suffer from SEO like search does - trust metrics are practically
_designed_ to handle farming.

~~~
perlgeek
How can you calculate a trust rank of +1s? Remember that people don't +1 other
people, and don't know who +1ed what, so not even people can assess who does
quality voting.

~~~
Groxx
Google's aiming for the social game, and has been hosting, indexing, and
correlating it for a long time. They have blogger, buzz, gmail, people's
names, credit cards, links to and searching of your twitter account, your
blog, your friends, your x, your y, even your z. Why can't they infer
popularity that way, identically to how PageRank works?

And people _do_ see who +1d something, it requires a public account - it's
visible on the link (as displayed in the video, and implied by the same
behavior with tweeted links) and on your profile page.

If a nobody from nowhere +1s a link, their friends will see it, but it's
unlikely to affect the world at-large. Similarly, trust-metric wise, if a
cluster of nobodies +1s a thousand pages, the impact will be restricted to
their cluster. If an extremely-highly-connected person, who many people follow
on Twitter / Reader / etc, +1s something, it'll have more impact simply by
being visible to more people _and_ because their "importance" can be inferred
by those connections.

------
minalecs
Google actually played around with a voting feature awhile back. When you
searched for a term, there was an up arrow on the results, so it moved those
results to the top every time you searched for those terms. This was
incredible useful for me, because for example I was too lazy to bookmark api
documentation and just search for example rails api, and the links I voted up
were automatically at the top. If this works like this I will be happy, the
social aspect I don't care for, but can see how it will be relevant if enough
people are voting for good content.. thats associated with specific search
terms.

------
rexf
Possible unintuitive user experience?

Google's usage comes from leaving Google's site as fast as possible (search
for a term, then leave Google to visit the result).

This looks like you would do a search, visit the resulting site, and then
remember to go back to the Google results page to click the +1.

~~~
sahaj
If the website you are visiting also integrates +1, then there is no need to
go back and +1.

But yeah, going back to the Google search results page is a pain and I doubt
very many people would actually take that action, unless they are really
impressed by the site and are familiar with the +1 feature.

------
MrJagil
4chan already regularly troll google search results by mass-searching for a
specific, disturbing sentence. This seems like another tool in their arsenal.

Not saying Google should let bullies dictate their behaviour, but this _could_
be abused.

~~~
OstiaAntica
I bet the SEO underworld is also going bananas with the potential to game the
system.

~~~
anamax
> I bet the SEO underworld is also going bananas with the potential to game
> the system.

The value to the SEO underworld depends on how Google interprets the +1.

Google can use +1 data to identify folks trying to game the system.

The easiest way to get around said identification, or rather, to keep Google
from using your +1 to hose you, is to provide good data.

Since Google wants good data .....

------
pathik
'+1' proves that Google is run by engineers.

I, for one, prefer it to 'Like' or 'Tweet'.

~~~
Kylekramer
It can have a nerdy connotation, but +1 is pretty well known. The average
person probably sees it in the party invite/club culture context where you
vouch for one person, much like you'll be vouching for sites.

Probably not better than Like, but definitely not worse than Tweet.

Edit: And the ultimate arbitrator of slang agrees:
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plus%20one>

~~~
mauriciob
I don't agree with Like. It's good for socializing, but not for this.

I've never heard anybody say they 'like' an article from Wikipedia, but they
might find it interesting, so they'd +1 it.

~~~
rayval
Yes, +1 has the connotation of "noteworthy" rather than "fan".

So it is more generally useful. One could +1 a news article about an
earthquake or horrific disaster, but might be reluctant to Like it.

------
SoftwareMaven
I'd rather see a "-1"; so when I go back to the results because the result
didn't match my need, I could indicate it (w/o a full ban). I'm not likely to
ever return for a +1 result, since, almost by definition, I'm done searching
at that point.

~~~
Matt_Cutts
There's not a "-1 button" but you can block search results in a couple ways:

\- Install the Personal Blocklist extension in Chrome:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbd...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef)

\- Click on a search result, then click back, and you'll see a "block
example.com" for that snippet.

The first option is easy and always shows block links; the second option is
server-side, so the blocks work on different browsers.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I love the "block" functionality, but it is really a different feature. Block
says "this site is spam, don't show it to me anymore." "-1" says "this result
isn't relevant to what I'm searching for, alter the future results
accordingly."

Regardless, I love what Google is doing here in taking individual
consideration into account.

~~~
happyfeet
This is good interpretation of the functionality is meant to be used.

However, we have seen several cases where the usage of the functionality
slowly drives how the feature is morphed and I am guessing Google is
experimenting with the button initially to see how the users like it and would
try to weave other functionalities around it.

------
brown9-2
Maybe I'm missing something, but what benefit do I get as a user out of +1-ing
something?

~~~
s3graham
Bookmark-ish functionality I guess?

Maybe you could pretend it's a microtransaction gift to the receiver, which it
probably is in some vague way.

------
Hominem
I got a few downvotes last week saying google needed exactly this to fend off
Facebook constructing a search engine based on it's like button data.

This goes a long way but the problem I see here is that I want to be able to
+1 on the page itself, not have to click back to the search results, find the
result again, and then press +1.

~~~
bretthopper
"So they’re taking it slow. There will be no +1 buttons for publishers at
launch (but they’re coming)."

~~~
Daniel14
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAyUNI3_V2c#t=0m45s>

"And soon you'll be able to +1 more than just search results. You'll also find
the +1 button on sites across the web, making it easy to +1 pages after you
visited them."

~~~
currywurst
But isn't this the classic problem regarding the dinosaur and the egg ?!

I would have made sure that those embeddable buttons (some basic rudimentary
version) are out along with the roll out. Because, I know literally no-one who
goes _back_ to the search results page for anything !

~~~
Hominem
Right! If the page is good, actually what you are looking for, are you going
to back out and tell google? I doubt it.

------
kjhughes
WSJ's coverage, "Google Seeks Answer to Facebook With 'Social Search'", is
here:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870380630457623...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576232771273306208.html)

Search Engine Land does a good job of relating this announcement to prior
Google social projects and rumors:
[http://searchengineland.com/meet-1-googles-answer-to-the-
fac...](http://searchengineland.com/meet-1-googles-answer-to-the-facebook-
like-button-70569)

You can join Google's +1 experiment here:
<http://www.google.com/experimental/>

------
revorad
<http://www.google.com/experimental/>

------
erik_p
I wish they would add a -1 button

~~~
magicalist
they do: "block all example.com results" or whatever. it's just not shared
(yet?)

~~~
Uhhrrr
Serious question: why would you want to share it? I think the default for most
websites is already that no one goes there. Telling someone "This exists but
don't go there" is like the canonical, "Don't think of a polar bear."

~~~
sorbus
On the other hand, telling Google "you know this exists but it's useless" is a
useful bit of information. It's not like your blocked websites would be shared
in a list, they would just be used to influence the ordering of search
results.

~~~
Uhhrrr
Yes, but this goes back to magicalist's comment above.

------
MatthewPhillips
Anyone else having flashbacks to Yahoo in 1996:

[http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo....](http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo.com/)

And then in 2006:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20060101035628/http://www.yahoo.c...](http://web.archive.org/web/20060101035628/http://www.yahoo.com/)

? Google has featuritis.

~~~
TillE
They do seem to be adding a little too much to the search engine itself. I
just noticed that they've finally hidden "realtime results" behind a link you
have to click, instead of shoving random idiotic Twitter crap in your face
when you search for current topics.

There's an idea that had some potential, but seems to have made no progress
since its debut. It's still no better than a simple Twitter search.

Google seems a little too eager to adopt random crazy ideas (SearchWiki) and a
little too willing to kill off good ideas that don't take off quickly enough
(Wave). I can't think of a recent new feature or product that was a big
success, which is disappointing.

~~~
Rariel
I thought Wave was a good idea, and a good amount of my friends used it for a
while. I think integrating it more with gmail would have made it dynamite. Or
some how using it as a regular email account. I kinda miss wave now.

------
sahaj
This seems like a defensive move on Google's part. I imagine there are talks
inside Facebook to either develop their own search or work with another search
provider to integrate Facebook into the results. I am not sure how widely this
feature will be used but, in my opinion, it is definitely the right move.

------
gdulli
I don't find this very useful. My friends often like things that I don't like.
They're not my friends because they like the bands or movies or web sites that
I do. Recommendations from my friends carry no more weight than they would
from anyone else.

The only difference between a friend and a stranger is that I might engage a
friend in a conversation with specific questions about something they've used
or seen that I haven't, but the value of that conversation comes from the
detail of the exchange and targeted or objective questions I'd ask, it's not
expressible as a boolean like/+1 or a 1-10 rating.

------
otherwise
Announcement on the official Google blog:
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/1s-right-
recommendati...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/1s-right-
recommendations-right-when-you.html)

------
random42
Oh look, Google's very own "like" button.

Lets see how well they do with it.

------
yesimahuman
This might sound dumb, but it's not really obvious how I add people I know to
my google profile as a "friend". With facebook, it's dead simple and it makes
sense why you would do that.

I assume I have to connect an account here:
<https://profiles.google.com/connectedaccounts>

But then don't my friends have to do that as well? I don't really see why they
would.

~~~
tonfa
The searchengineland article explains it:
[http://searchengineland.com/meet-1-googles-answer-to-the-
fac...](http://searchengineland.com/meet-1-googles-answer-to-the-facebook-
like-button-70569) As far as I understand, things from connected accounts is
the social connection. The friends are your buzz friends (I think, please
correct me if I'm wrong).

------
dman
To jumpstart user identities in googles take on social google could buy
communities like github, photo.net and import user identities from there. Of
course the privacy and the UX of such a move will dictate whether users go
"wow this is great" or "oh my god now the whole internet knows about my
tinfoil hat". In the meanwhile they could try to integrate identities from
services that google already owns - youtube, picasa, google reader etc.

------
hanibash
I see this as potentially being very useful.

Imagine if you had the ability to Google search all of your friend's 'Likes'
on Facebook. This is what Google is trying to create here, except for webpages
instead of social snippets.

This suggests a parallel competing feature for Facebook: Make all of your
friend's 'Likes' searchable through the search toolbar on Facebook.

------
edw
A thought: Liking (or +1-ing) at the URL level seems useful but too coarse-
grained as a general model. Maybe I've made too many Git checkins today, but
I'd like to be able to select some text and +1 it. That's what I use Twitter
or my blog for at least half the time: to point out an interesting sentence or
two. You, know, the money quotes.

------
BoppreH
Can I opt-out of the social part but still allow my results to be used
anonymously in their ranking algorithm?

------
currywurst
It would have been so cool if I could have redirected ads to a particular
friend. E.g, I know he's looking for a camera, and I see this great deal when
looking up some reviews for him.

+1 -> Bob's a happy monkey !

------
rrhoover
I don't see mainstream users regularly +1'ing (or plus'ing???) search results.
Feels awkward and forced to me.

Hopefully this is just a very small part of their larger plan.

------
wmboy
Puts an interesting spin on SEO. It seems the best technique is still to
simply produce quality content that people want to link to and share with
their friends.

------
bluenose
The oddest thing to me is having it on the search results page. I understand
that's where they hand off control, but on the other hand won't most people
have to click through the links in question to figure out if they like the
content? I generally only go back to the search results if I didn't like the
results and want to check out sites lower down.

------
curiousepic
I hope, along with fixing everything else about Google Bookmarks, they add a
feature to automatically +1 all of your bookmarks.

------
s3graham
I like it. Seems unintrusive and simple, but useful en-masse.

(-1 the mouseover animated highlight glossy thing though.)

~~~
s3graham
edit: Heh, and the url? <http://google.com/+1button>

Confusing broken URL cracking code everywhere. ;)

------
chernevik
Isn't a search result assessed on its relevance to the search terms? I don't
see that a site recommendation does an awful lot to help me know if it has
what I'm looking for.

------
ancornwell
This is brilliant - and outdated. Do all Google engineers play RPG's? +60
credibility to my twitter feed!

------
advisor
The first one who publishes something, so we can integrate the +1-button on
our websites, get's a +1! ;)

------
ruethewhirled
Is this going to be a new way for people to game search results? I personally
wont be using it

------
OstiaAntica
Some of the websites I use are a competitive business advantage. Others are
private topics of personal interest.

I love Google but I hated Buzz and I think I will hate social search too.

------
pkteison
I don't understand the icon. What's it supposed to be? A file folder with
colored tabs?

------
dman
They could have gone 1+ and made the lisp folks happy.

------
matthewslotkin
i wonder if this will promote junk content. if paris hilton starts popping up
over paris france when you search paris there might be a big issue here.

~~~
matthewslotkin
also longer and richer content might get pushed aside by shorter gawker style
content. wikipedia should be ok though... =)

