Every Google result now looks like an ad • Hacker News Board

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#691

Post by d1zzy » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #31

Jerry2 wrote: post #15

With each AdWords display change, Google's been adding billions of dollars to their revenue by confusing and fooling their users and blurring the line between the content and ads. A visual guide: "A (mostly comprehensive history of Google's ad shading and labeling" https://i.imgur.com/0RxdzBE.png

For branded keywords, it's not just shady, it's racketeering. You wouldn't want your competitor to show up first when someone searches for your brand, would you? Then pay up. E.g. https://i.imgur.com/SfomkdQ.png ; the second result is a competitor's ad, the third result is the organic result.

This is a tricky proposition. Google has free speech rights to display whatever they want on their own server pages. These aren't statements of fact so it's not falling under libel & co.

It's like saying that you want to regulate what can advertising companies display on billboards, ex. they cannot display competitor's ads nearby your company's offices. Since the billboard space is private and owned by the ad company (similarly to the ad space on Google servers served pages), they get too decide to put there whatever they want (barring free speech limiting regulations).

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#692

Post by gdsdfe » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

It sounds financially absurd or foolish but someone should work on search, Google can't stay the Monopoly for long

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#693

Post by chrisfrantz » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

It’s interesting, Google is moving completely pay to play if you also look at the ad tech movement right now.

Google has always preferred you just give them a dump truck of money and have them run the ads where they would prefer.

With Dynamic Search Ads (DSA) they generate the ads and the keywords you bid on. Which means you can basically agree to pay Google X amount per month and they will run ppc ads for you.

The part that you won’t find online, since most of these guides come from agencies that want you to pay them to manage the ads, is that these DSA search ads actually work really well, in some cases outperforming agency work.

It could be preferential treatment internally for its own generated content or maybe google just knows which specific copy to show, URL’s to link to and which keywords to surface the ads under, better than any human can.

Either way, it’s starting to paint a bleak future for the web and even as a marketer, it’s not one I’m excited about.

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#694

Post by wolco » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

pyrale wrote: post #561

dheera wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess sites with real, useful content (e.g. Wikipedia) don't need strong SEO since they have a ton of back-links from other sites that validate their high ranking, so "strong SEO" is really about making a less useful site look more useful, which makes sense for them to hate. SEO really translates to "How to fool Google into boosting your ranking artifically".

In my experience, Wikipedia has been relegated lower and lower in search results. So much so that I now specifically use their search tool rather than go through google just in case some interesting thing pops up.

I remember a thread where everyone complained over too many wikipedia results popping up. Now we complain the other way.

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#695

Post by wolco » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:22 AM UTC

jethro_tell wrote: post #584

pyrale wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, Wikipedia has been relegated lower and lower in search results. So much so that I now specifically use their search tool rather than go through google just in case some interesting thing pops up.

I use duckduckgo, and for the most part, you know what you are searching for so the !tags are really good. !w search term, just takes you right to wikipedea. When I really have no ideal what or where I'm looking for something, I still find myself looking on google a bit, but for the most part, !youtube, !arch, !git, !stack, get me exactly what I want about 99 percent of the time. Check it out, because it sounds like…

Is there a shorter domain name for ddg?

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#696

Post by d1zzy » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:22 AM UTC

noizejoy wrote: post #495

ProAm wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startpage is now owned by an advertising company.[Y] [Y] https://www.startpage.com/blog/company-updates/startpage-and...

I really wish discussions would better distinguish between tracking, advertising, and camouflaged advertising. I actually like advertising as one avenue of finding stuff. I just hate when tracking is bundled with advertising. And I hate when advertising is camouflaged. In practical terms: When I’m searching for guitars, I like seeing both: third party results and ads that are not camouflaged. I also like seeing guita…

> I just hate when tracking is bundled with advertising. And I hate when advertising is camouflaged.

AFAIK pretty much all customers that pay for internet advertising WANT tracking (a cookie or URL session ID that tracks you from the advertising platform to the advertised site destination) as a way to verify that their money is actually producing results, otherwise they have little way of knowing that.

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#697

Post by lainga » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:23 AM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #590

pyrale wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, Wikipedia has been relegated lower and lower in search results. So much so that I now specifically use their search tool rather than go through google just in case some interesting thing pops up.

Having to search for “xxxxxxx wiki” more and more now. No I don’t want Healthline and Medicinenet links above the Wikipedia entry, thank you Google. I wish by each search result there was a button that said “banish this domain to oblivion, I never want to see it again.” You could improve search really fast that way if you still cared about things like that.

try !w on DuckDuckGo

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#698

Post by unnouinceput » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

Google changed their results page? I didn't notice. uBlock Origin does wonders I suppose. For me their results look the same as always. Youtube as well, barely any ads slips the tight net my ad-blocker has.

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#699

Post by spectramax » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:26 AM UTC

zackees wrote: post #643

jonplackett wrote: post #600

I really hate AMP. To the point where I started making an iOS browser that’s sole purpose was to bounce me from AMP links to the original link and delete the history step in between. I wish Apple would offer this in Safari - a simple ‘ignore AMP pages’ check box. AMP is google worst attempt yet at taking over the web. It’s so user hostile. It breaks lots of sites with its fake scroll and fake back button at the top o…

Are you suggesting that Google is evil? Because you would be totally right. As a 8.5 year employee of Google I had to resign and blow the whistle. I gathered all of the disclosure documents and stored them here: --> https://www.zachvorhies.com It's worse than you can possibly imagine. Everyone else seems to be waking up to this just recently (last 6 months).

Thanks for your efforts

Re: Every Google result now looks like an ad

#700

Post by d1zzy » Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 2:31 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #545

d1zzy wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as long as it's possible it doesn't qualify as lock-in.

You don't need lock-in to be anti-competitive. The requirement of extra work to implement AMP to get that higher search results page placement is the issue.

At which point pushing for new technologies as a private entity is anti-competitive vs moving technology forward?

If the criteria is just "needs extra work" then unfortunately almost nothing can change and we're all going to live with the existing technology. Change inherently has friction and requires "extra work" with the hope that's an investment which provides returns long term.

In other words, say you are a large Internet company that is trying to improve web page loading times. You profile why most web pages are slow and identify issues. You publicly report on those issues and develop guidelines and criteria. Nobody bothers because "extra work". You develop new technology that directly addresses those issues, this technology works within the existing environment but it requires both client and server support to be most effective. Do you think anyone cares? No, because of "extra work". That's why there needs to be incentives. Now you have a "penalty" for not doing that "extra work". You can file it under "it's anti-competitive" (maybe it is) but if you do the "extra work" then suddenly the anti-competitive part works for you, not against you. IMO that's why it's not anti-competitive.

Other examples: why do you think there are so many people that complained when iPhone released with Flash reader? "extra work". Similarly when it removed the audio jack. Change is friction and friction is extra work. But most of the time that's not anti-competitive...