When I'm searching for something, my behavior is usually:
Google search term
Open the top couple results in a new tab
Check each tab, to see if they contain the information I was looking for
If tab is not useful, or more information is required, check next tab.
If information is satisfied, close window (all tabs, including search)
If no tabs remain, and still need more information, return to search page and check next results.
Google search term
Check first result link
If information has been satisfied, close window.
If more information is needed, go BACK, check next link.
The only way I see this feature being implemented in a workable solution is as a browser addon--so that when I'm on a page that I find particularly awesome [whether I found it via search results or by following some page link] I can click on the +1 toolbar button.
Such an implementation would I think would also enhance the result set of affected links. In it's current implementation I'll only find plus one's when I just happen to be searching for the same or similar thing as some one from my social circle. Where as as a browser extension I'll find plus ones for any page that any one in my social circle has visited and found interesting regardless of if they ever issued a query for that subject matter.
Ideally, I would buy through a Google service (Checkout) and then Google would provide me opportunities to rate the business after the sale. These ratings could affect an ad's quality score. Done right, this would allow Google to introduce me to the businesses most likely to satisfy me. Google would become more of a trusted advisor to searchers rather than just another advertising company.
No doubt a toolbar and chrome addon is on it's way. Even in search with previews and HTML5 being able to tag info as summary to display directly in the search screen you may even use it in search more than you think. No reason why they can't start tying in reviews on google places and checkout as you suggest
You're looking for utility; whereas, I believe they are taking a pro-active step against Facebook's newly awarded patents on "social search."
Regarding utility: it's Google, so they'll iterate...
Regarding competition: it's launched and available to the public now!
When Facebook acquired Friendster.com, this also gave control over lucrative patents that were awarded this year and last year.
+1 doesn't do that. It's not immediately apparent what it's for, and it offers no incentive for use without knowing what it is. The icon itself doesn't tell you anything. "What is it, some kind of movie?" A simple thumbs up would have been much simpler, much more intuitive, and likely to gain greater traction. A simple note under the search bar saying, "Find what you were looking for? Give it the thumbs up and help us deliver better results" would likely have led to much higher usage. The average user doesn't need to know what it's being used for. Calling it "social" doesn't help in this context, because nobody thinks of social when they think of Google. Even telling people it would be shared with their email contacts is a terrible idea - email is for work and family, not messing around with friends. Just say that it's to help improve Search and reduce spam, and people will go along with it.
When I read about it this morning I thought to myself "well that makes sense to 'me' but I wonder if it will be opaque to folks without that context?" Sounds like for some people it is.
If you suggest to someone (at/formerly at) Google a course of action and they reply 'lgtm' that means "Ok" :-)
That was the first place I'd seen it appear, although I assume it predates them.
As well as a browser add-on (don't Google already have something similar to this?), I think it is more than likely that we'll see +1 buttons on web pages themselves (similar to Twitter tweet and Facebook like buttons), although obviously not every page will have this.
These people see the same results again and again, and they only have to click +1 once.
It's not the bookmarking that will take place during search time. It's the discovery!
If Google wants to be more persistent, they could easily use their Android and Chrome platforms to do it :)
I search for Python-stuff a lot, but I also search for stuff related to things I want to buy, or for people, or for my hobbies -- photography and now drawing.
The algorithm for finding similar people is going to have to be very smart (i.e. it should not rely on URLs alone), if at all possible.
At this point, I only have my own links; but if other people submit their own python links; and I figure how to sort by relevance, ting may be a good resource for search results without spam.
1. they're trying to match the 'like' button. So you '+1' something, it goes in your profile and your friends can see it. It also would surprise me if there weren't a widget made available to publishers, so viewers of a source article could see if their friends '+1'd it.
2. They'll be able to use '+1' score as a factor in search result weighting along the lines you're suggesting. While they may still weight toward +1s from your social circle, this being Google, I doubt they'll settle for the simplest statistical use of the data.
As for the browsing flow problem -- i.e. how often are you looking at google search results after you determine the result is good -- I'd be surprised if the seemingly inevitable package for site owners didn't allowing people to '+1' directly at the source.
From the example, what you see is "Laura Delaney +1'd this", so at the very least you can evaluate the "+1" based on what you know about Laura.
Better still would be if they include Laura's name because she's +1'd (what an awkward phrase) a lot of cooking results, maybe in proportion to links on other topics.
If people use this, I see how it could be useful.
A search result is so disconnected from your social circle that it's hard for me to understand how this ever made it past prototyping. Search results aren't like party pictures or baby pictures or what you had for breakfast or anything people share on Facebook or Twitter. They're generally not even answers to questions, they're just potential answers. The answer itself is what you'd like to share.
Clicking +1 on an ad seems ridiculous to me for all the same reasons as above, plus the additional reason that I would be embarrassed to share any ad that wasn't superbowl-funny or a direct savings ($5.00 off a movie or something) and I've never seen an Adsense ad come close to either of those. Sharing any other ad is just spamming your friends.
I think it could work, as long as it's not gamed into uselessness.
A while ago they rolled out the new top-bar and a little later they rolled out the new profiles and now this. It all kind of makes sense, but there is no killer app/driver for all these features.
The number of integration points seems to be a problem, too. Until last week Google Mail, Reader and Groups all used different revisions of the "Google bar" on top. Disabling Google Buzz in Gmail also removes your new shiny profile, etc..
I'm anxious to see where this is going.
More importantly, while having frequent minor upgrades on a wide variety of 'beta' software services gives some a feeling that 'nothing is ever finished,' it means that Google is not fighting for brand recognition with its products in most markets. Although there are several products, such as Sketchup, which are offered 'by Google' but have a separate brand, they're generally aimed at a small niche. Orkut is the only product I can think of that has a really large market (in Brazil) but is not obviously Google-branded in the way that Google Earth or Gmail are.
'Microsoft search' obviously wasn't working so they needed something different and settled on 'Bing!' - though they missed a trick by not using a variety of happy-sounding audio icons in the TV commercials and (optionally!) on the product itself. Intel's signature 'tune' has been a very successful element of their brand, and Microsoft had an opportunity to positively extend the host brand but instead opted to develop a new one in purely verbal terms. Their marketing team did a fairly good job - it could have become an embarrassing joke if they had not - but this year they're doing the same thing with the new slogan of 'to the cloud!' And of course, every 3-4 years they have to remind the general public that their computers are mostly running Windows.
You get the impression that Microsoft is vaguely embarrassed by its own name and its 1980s literalism, and so it hides behind a variety of hipper-sounding product offerings like an awkward parent at a youth club. Google is colorful and seemingly omnipresent, Apple is a healthy fruit with an iBrand, and IBM sounds so important that a quarter of the country probably thinks its part of the government. Yahoo...well, this says everything I feel about Yahoo's brand management: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/25/yahoos-404-at-giants-stadiu... It's been there for years now, and I still snicker every single time I watch a Giants game. OK, only 1% of the public may be amused by such things, but the other 99% notice the reactions of the people who build/run/fix their computers, much as people listen to auto mechanics more closely than auto salesmen. that company is in dire, dire need of a brand makeover.
Won't know for sure until I try it though.
The you're connected to this person thing, however, has worked out quite well for me. A lot of the time, I'm looking for something that someone I follow on Twitter shared - and it just bubbles up for me. I'm a fan.
They say they "may" "soon" incorporate your connections on sites "like" Twitter which would be an improvement but from the language it sounds like they haven't even talked to Twitter about it yet.
Of course they don't mention Facebook, who do know my social graph and are busy collecting Likes around the web that they can use to build a robust, trustworthy recommendations product. It's going to be hard for Google to build the assets they need to avoid ceding part of the search market to Facebook.
The question is, who will do it better: Google or Facebook? The search engine or the social graph?
1) Is Blockbuster Movie any good?
Here the opinions of your friends might be more valuable to you, as valuable to you, or less valuable to you, depending on how important it is to you to have the same taste as your friends or whether you consider their movie tastes similar to your own.
2) Courtship rituals of early-modern spain
Here the opinions of your friends are almost certainly less relevant than that of a bot, unless you run in a very niche circle.
3) Directions to Skyline Chili
Here the bot is almost definitely a better choice than your friends.
Lastly, you always have to fall back to a bot because most searches are not going to have many results that friends have actively curated. So bots will continually have a place in search, and I would argue will because more important over time, as they become smarter.
IMO the most informative result on that page is third from the bottom: a JSTOR link to an academic article published in the journal Hispania. That's probably because I spend all day reading journal articles -- as do most of my friends. A smart "social search" algorithm would integrate that signal, along with whatever the bot returns, and promote that link for me and the people with whom I associate. By the same token, the majority of searchers would probably prefer the top link, which is an about.com summary of the topic.
I am as skeptical as they come regarding the "social" fad. But it's difficult for me to see how Google's search algorithms couldn't be improved by incorporating this stuff.
+1 doesn't offer search by your friends or traditional Google search. It is augmenting traditional search with relevant data from your social graph. If You are searching for directions to Skypline Chili and your friend (or friend of a friend) has +1'd a link, it is probably the best directions to the restaurant.
It isn't search or +1. It is search+1.
Plus, I don't necessarily have all that much in common with my friends, but if Google can categorize me and say "oh, people with similar interests as you liked this", that's likely much more relevant. This isn't to say Facebook couldn't do something similar, I just feel like this is much more up Google's alley.
It's been great knowing you for all these years, but you're really starting to creep my out.
I've trusted you with my 1,000 contacts in my email system. I've trusted you because you've said repeatedly that you're not going to be evil. I've trusted you with what I'm saying in my emails, because you've said repeatedly that no one really reads my email, you just automatically scan it and provide "helpful" ads.
And then, you gave me a really shiny phone, and I was in love. (You know I don't like Apple. They hurt me, and I've never forgiven them). I really liked how you made my live easier, and all my email contacts were automatically in my phone. And, anything that I updated in my phone, showed up in my email system.
You also really helped me out by by making it really easy to find things by using my phone. Your navigation system is really, really nice.
But, you're starting to really creep me out, Google.
First, you automatically gave me a "Profile" page, and linked all my contacts to it, without my permission.
And, now... You're changing my search results based on who I know and what they've liked. I trusted you with who I know. Please, stop using that information. If I want to know what links my friends have clicked on. I'll ask them. If I want to look at their pictures on flikr... I'll follow their photostream.
Please stop. You're really creeping me out. You know a lot about me, and I don't think I trust you any more.
So, this is it. I'm breaking up with you.
You've been following me around with my phone, so you know where I am at any given point in time. You know who I call and when I call them. You tried to get a record of all my phone calls with Google Voice, but that was just a little too creepy for me. You've had a record of every email that I've sent for the last few years, and you know most of what I'm looking for on the internet.
You're around me too much. You're following me. You want a record of my voice. You are showing me results that my "friends" are looking at. It's just too much. I'm leaving you.
As soon as my new phone comes in this week, I'm getting rid of your phone. I'm changing my email system to an Exchange based system. And, I'm switching my search engines to DuckDuckGo, Bing and Blekko.
I do appreciate your helpfulness in the past. But, you're getting way too close for comfort. Did I mention you're creeping me out?
And now Google is adding +1 to their search results. Arrgh!
But I guess I gave Yahoo too much credit.
I can seldom judge the usefulness of a site just based on a list of returned results -- however -- I can often filter out junk (anything from experts-exchange for example). So it seems to me a -1 button would have been better. Not to mention less creepy than tracking sites I like based on my interaction with a search engine.
Better implementation - An in chrome button you can hit that -1 the current url. I'll never remember to +1 a site once I've clicked the link, but I do say WTF!?! once I'm there and I do want to sink the bad links w/o going back. Would be a cross-browser Addon.