Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 23:28 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Google "I was recently testing some of the keywords and positions for our help-desk app and it suddenly occurred to me that 80% of the page were not actually the search results. Check this out." He has a very good point. Google has work to do here.
Thread beginning with comment 534010
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
can't trust such dishonest spin
by squelart on Thu 6th Sep 2012 00:28 UTC
squelart
Member since:
2007-03-22

The article includes whitespace, navigation elements and even the browser as "ADs", that's a very shifty move to artificially increase the supposedly-bad area.

The comparison with "old" Google proves the point, by including a big area of whitespace as part of the search results, and not showing the browser. And the search terms are different, so actual results are not compared for accuracy.

Also, the ads are usually relevant to your search, so don't think they can simply be dismissed like random flashing ads next to unrelated web contents, e.g.: an airline ad above this very OSNews article!


A more honest comparison would be:
- In old Google, without scrolling I can see 7 ranked results and 2 sponsored results.
- In recent Google, without scrolling I can see 5 ranked results and 3 sponsored results. But there are also navigation items, which can help me easily filter results by different criteria to quickly get better results.

So I don't think Google has become as useless as the article implies. Maybe the article could have proved its point with less impact but more honesty; but how can I trust anything in there when I see such glaring spin?

Reply Score: 9

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The article includes whitespace, navigation elements and even the browser as "ADs", that's a very shifty move to artificially increase the supposedly-bad area.


I would go further than that... The article is downright deceitful. The author is completely making it up as he goes along and stacking his argument using totally misleading images.

There is no basis whatsoever for what he wrote - it is simply fiction.

The only significant difference between the "old" google layout and the new one is the utility links sidebar, which is variable width but appears to take up about 15% of the page vertically. That is arguably useful and is not advertising, but it does constitute "non-search" elements so Ill give him that one.

The rest? Purely contrived. The sponsored links sidebar and paids links at the top of the page are exactly the same as they always were - the only difference is where Google is choosing to pad things out with whitespace, which is neither search or non-search - it is simply whitespace...

As far as the number of ad items appearing above the results being different, that is a function of what is being searched for and always has been.

Why???? What is the point of writing this? Anyone can see the argument is totally flawed...

Edited 2012-09-06 03:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Wow... I am used to being modded down for an unpopular comment on occasion, but that is usually on a personal opinion post....

Did some coward really just mod me down for posting facts??? A counter argument would be nice.

Reply Parent Score: 2