Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Sep 2012 23:28 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Thread beginning with comment 534039
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-25
Look carefully at the images in the original article again...
I did the math. If you normalize to correct for the shady things the guy did ( the two images are of two different searches) the actual area used by advertising has dropped from the old layout to the new one (by approximately 3%).
He is right that the search results area is smaller, but the difference is 14% - not 35% as is implied in the article. But it has not been at the expense of showing more advertising - it is primarily the utility sidebar that has infringed on the search results area.
However, the biggest difference between the old layout and the new one is simply whitespace. The relative area consumed by wasted horizontal whitespace (using his images) has dropped by 30%.
Im not defending Google at all btw. If I thought the facts backed this guy up I would be the first to agree with him. But his implied conclusion is that Google is sacrificing search result area to show more ads - that is simply 100% categorically false.
Some people don't like the utility sidebar, and that is an honest gripe - but that isn't advertising...