Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
jeromec 1288 days ago | link | parent

No, you're thinking small. First, the full page shows including ads. If anything potentially more sites and ads will receive a view as users mouse over results. The difference is a user doesn't have to go to a page and be annoyed with pop-up messages before hitting the back button. When a site with the desired content is found the user will then click through to it.

This appears to me to offer end users a better search/browse experience, and that's always a win for everybody.



il 1288 days ago | link

It's a smaller version of the page, those ad impressions are basically worthless in terms of clicks/conversions for the advertiser. It's also unclear if the ad display/tracking Javascript even runs in the preview window.

Frequently, if the information I'm searching for appears in the search result, I don't click through to the source, I'm sure that is the case for many searches.

If this takes off, you can expect to see greatly reduced traffic and ad revenues for certain types of sites(e.g. reference/lookup).

-----

rarestblog 1288 days ago | link

You can't tell your advertiser: "Hey, your ads, probably, were shown about a hundred thousand times on Google. Well, I can't prove it, users can't click on it and also they see a random frame from your ads (if they see it at all), but still now you can pay me".

Why would I (as a visitor) need to click the site if I see what I searched for right there, on Google screenshot?

-----

jeromec 1288 days ago | link

Why would I (as a visitor) need to click the site if I see what I searched for right there, on Google screenshot?

Because that's not how people typically interact with websites. If it was, the World Wide Web would simply be made of small JPEG pic versions of what sites look like. If you have a site with quality content on it, which happens to be ranked high in search results I can pretty much guarantee you are still going to receive your high click-through traffic. You may even receive more. The only people who lose out with this are those with low quality or spam type sites where their traffic is "crap, not what I wanted" hit-the-back-button clicks, which don't provide much value to advertisers anyway.

-----

rarestblog 1288 days ago | link

Imagine this: you search for some topic. You hover over one result and get a pretty big chunk of text about that topic, you hover over the next one - you get one more big chunk of text, you hover over 2-4 more - you've all the information you need. There's no more need to click.

I don't mind "small JPEG pic versions of what sites look like" - these are fine. I'm strongly against the JPGs of site where you can read text from my site. And with a move of mouse - from next site. All cropped around the subject without any ads or any message attached to article that PAID for this article.

-----

jeromec 1288 days ago | link

I'm sorry, but I still think you are thinking small. Let's assume the type of site or query is not shopping or research related where a user must scroll, click, etc. for the site, and it's news type editorial. You're thinking users will prefer to squint and experience the page/article with the preview version instead of simply clicking through to the site? What about comments? Hacker News is a great example of just how much value comments add to content. I think you're guarding user behavior that doesn't need to be guarded. The only sites that have anything to fear from this are ones users don't want to be on. If users want to be on your site, they will be.

-----

rarestblog 1288 days ago | link

Don't you USUALLY read editorial type news on the site you know, instead of SEARCHING for it?

Do you seriously think that "research and shopping" doesn't constitute overwhelming majority of searches?

Do you seriously assume that searching for editorial content is what majority of users do instead of "research and shopping"?

The only thing I'm guarding is MY OWN CONTENT. I wrote it. I own it. I don't want Google to display it in readable form in bigger and bigger chunks every year. I'd opt out of "short snippets" they show now if it was possible - leave the titles - that'd be ENOUGH to reference my content.

Google was built on shoulders of people who produce the content. Now Big G. acts like they own this content and are free to do whatever they please with it to satisfy visitors on THEIR site and earn money from THEIR ads, using MY content.

I do understand it's better experience for visitors, but why would I want to produce the content anymore if Google steals my profit by showing the content directly to users? I want people who benefit from my content to be on MY site, not on Google site.

-----

jeromec 1288 days ago | link

Don't you USUALLY read editorial type news on the site you know, instead of SEARCHING for it?

Yes, probably.

Do you seriously think that "research and shopping" doesn't constitute overwhelming majority of searches?

Yes, I do think so and that supports my point. Those type searches are not usually satisfied by viewing a small screenshot of a site's homepage.

The only thing I'm guarding is MY OWN CONTENT. I wrote it. I own it.

Calm down. I certainly agree content creators own the rights to their content. :)

If this is really a problem I'm sure Google would allow some way for sites to opt out of the preview. However, I'm thinking that Google's priority is to give users the best search experience possible, so sites that don't allow the preview might rank lower in search results. I'd certainly allow it for my sites.

Google was built on shoulders of people who produce the content.

I'd argue there is a symbiotic relationship between content creators and search engines/portals. Without each other neither would likely have many visitors.

I totally agree content creators have the right to say how their content is displayed beyond fair use. However, at the same time Google and other search engines are going to strive to give users the best possible experience, and that probably means helping them avoid spammy/low quality sites by previewing past them.

-----

rarestblog 1288 days ago | link

I'm glad we agree.

Yes, it was symbiotic, that's why it was "kind of" fair play until NOW.

Now they're pulling the blanket to their side and it starts to get parasitic.

-----

arb99 1288 days ago | link

Advertisers aren't going to pay more because surfers (might have) seen a small version in the sidebar of a search result, so saying that ads will receive more views is pointless imo.

-----

jeromec 1288 days ago | link

Savvy brand marketers would probably disagree with that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg&feature=fvsr

But that's besides the point. My point is that a high quality content site will not have any trouble receiving click-throughs and selling ads -- ads which are probably more effective for the advertiser and relevant for the user as well.

-----

il 1288 days ago | link

Believe it or not, but most advertisers are actually not brand marketers, and are interested in performance and results over impressions(think SMB e-commerce).

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: