I've been using duckduckgo and bing for a while now. Google is just a fallback.
I switch to DDG precisely because I stopped being able to quickly distinguish ads from results in Google. Even the "results" felt like ads. Now when I have to fallback onto Google, the results just feel so spammy compared to DDG. edit: For example, I just needed to look up the current version of Scala. DDG correctly has scala-lang.org as the top result. Google has a snippet from sourabhbajaj.com (incorrectly) stating…
Whatever happened to following their own stupid advice about not having more than three ads via ad-sense, not having a bunch of ad's above the fold etc?? I do a search and I see four ad's and more ad's on a map and it's the entire screen. Thanks Google!
I've been using duckduckgo and bing for a while now. Google is just a fallback.
DDG and Bing are so bad, there is nothing on the market right now that can replace Google search for accurate results. The auto complete for instance in Google is no match.
To play devil's advocate, these kind of brand ads are usually very cheap and frequently generate some incrementality - you're basically paying to have your links take over a larger part of page 1. Even if competitors weren't going to advertise, it might be worth it.
I pay five figures a month for my "$domain" ad. It's not cheap by any means, but we're forced to buy, otherwise our competitors steal our traffic.
"Steal"?
If customers searching for your brand are happy to buy from your competitor with a different name, maybe your brand isn't so strong?
And if you are profiting from advertising your brand to people who don't choose your product over alternatives, isn't your marketing just "stealing" purchases from competitors?
They display both because Google is selling ad space on searches like these, where people search the name of a site. If that site doesn't buy the ad, their competitor will. So sites are being forced to buy ads on their own trademark.
Does this create an opportunity for 'number one' sites to band together and create a competing search engine? Would it be possible to fund a search engine startup by selling shares to all of those sites who now have to pay to stay at the top? In the long run, it should be cheaper to fund a competitor.
I'm not sure regulators would look kindly on an pan-industry cartel explicitly designed to suppress smaller business from appearing in the marketplace.
I've been in this A/B test for a couple of months now, so I've had time to adjust, and I still hate it. I've just become so used to seeing the complete URL in green. The complete URL! If you hover over the results, you'll see that they like to take bits like numeric components or the query string out. This is part of Google's attempt to de-prioritise the URL. Their destructive AMP service confusingly shows you Google…
>Thanks for ruining the Web, Google. When does the mass-migration to DuckDuckGo go mainstream?
I use duckduck go on mobile because it doesn't prevent me from saving images.
Anyone here have a pro-Google stance? Because at this point I'm vehemently against the company and most of its products. There's no good replacement for Calendar or Docs/Sheets as of now, that I'm aware of. Microsoft's suite as mentioned by therealdrag0 is an obvious alternative, and perhaps less advertiser-oriented, but still not a great in-browser option IMO. Especially when considering the interoperability of the…
I own a Google Pixel 3 and use Hangouts and other Google services like drive, photos, and notes everyday. I find that it's super convenient to have all of my data (including search/location history) integrated in a single account and synced between my desktop, laptop, and phone. ex: I misplaced my pixel recently and was able to find it from a Google search providing an immediate option to have the device make noise.
That said, I also dabble in using inconvenient software for moral and learning reasons: I use Gentoo on my desktop. It feels better to use open-source software, but often I'm exhausted because things just don't work by default.
It's funny, because if you run AdSense on your website, Google has very strict guidelines about not misleading users and making a clear distinction between advertisements and your content. However, when Google shows ads on their site, they don't need to follow those rules, they blend them in as closely as possible. Also, what's the deal with showing an advertisement for the same result that's number one? See the belo…
The url they're using for the ad is interesting: www.expedia.com/Expedia/Official_Site To me (which may well be a minority view) that actually makes it feel less official, because "/Expedia/Official_Site" is the sort of tactic a scammer would use. I'd worry about it having the unintended consequence of building people's trust in something like "/Official_Site" vs focusing on the domain name. At the very least it's mu…
Scammers use the messaging of legit companies, and vice versa, because by assumption consumers can't tell the difference and companies use the most effective messaging they know.
The FTC has spoke on this before. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2013/06/... I believe nearly all the search engines are still guilty of this one. I also think firms should be able to buy "blank space." For example facebook or amazon could pay NOT to have an ad above their result. Maybe they already do, I dont see an ad when I search facebook, however I do see an ad for amazon above the top amazo…
> Google should just be smart enough to see the top result and the ad are the same link They are smart enough, but they don't get any money from people clicking on search results, only ads, so of course they're going to show the ad - some people will click it.
You would build that into the cost of buying "no ad above my top result."
It's funny, because if you run AdSense on your website, Google has very strict guidelines about not misleading users and making a clear distinction between advertisements and your content. However, when Google shows ads on their site, they don't need to follow those rules, they blend them in as closely as possible. Also, what's the deal with showing an advertisement for the same result that's number one? See the belo…
I always scroll past the ad to click on the "real" URL. I don't want to add to the statistic showing support that behaviour.
You do you, but (1) you aren't moving anyone's needle on revenue or expenses, and (2) you're using the search engine for its main business proposition and then circumventing the compensation model, so you are not being ethical either. You could use another engine or spend some money to compensate the search provider.