Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 211 posts

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#141

Post by lisper »

awj wrote: post #127
lisper wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will.

Source for that? I'd prefer to hang on to my outrage until it's actually justified.

It's a prediction. Google's trend has been to get further and further away from their original design and core principles and push harder and harder on the boundaries of ethics and good taste. The end-game for that trend is to end up looking like a 1990's-style portal (which they already pretty much do, except at the moment all the content is still mostly Google properties). I could be wrong. I hope I am. But I'd give you long odds against.

And I'm not outraged, just disappointed.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#142

Post by pmelendez »

raldi wrote: post #124
pmelendez wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's try with another wikipedia article: [1] "A contract is a legally enforceable promise or undertaking that something will or will not occur. * The word promise can be used as a legal synonym for contract *,[2] although care is required as a promise may not have the full standing of a contract, as when it is an agreement without consideration" Emphasis is mine :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law

Whoever wrote that is wrong. Click the "[2]" citation, and you'll see that it in no way backs up the claim.

Ok.. I know the discussion is going way off-topic and getting pedantic connotations. To illustrate the point in my original comment, I would like to make a last cite from Britannica.

@dragonwriter: For some reason I can't reply your comments, I guess HN is delaying replies after a while precisely to avoid long off-topic threads (although they are fun :)

"contract, in the simplest definition, a promise enforceable by law" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135270/contract

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#143

Post by wdr1 »

jeffclark wrote: post #93
mapgrep wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good to know that the company that holds my email, appointments, two-factor-auth, credit card number, and search data has the reliability of a flaky college freshman. Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations (when they're not insisting that no corporation would ever be so stupid as to break a highly visible promise because the outcry would be…

> Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations At some point, people realize that corporations exist to maximize profit and not necessarily for the good of the customer.

> At some point, people realize that corporations exist to maximize profit and not necessarily for the good of the customer.

Trite, but disputed by many (most?) leading authorities, including Peter Drucker.

http://www.humanresourcesiq.com/drucker-on-management/column...

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#144

Post by mcguire »

raldi wrote: post #66
jakozaur wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://imgur.com/ddGJeaI Most of keywords with any commercial potential looks similar. Unfortunately, I tried using other search engines, but for technical questions Google still provide superior experience.

What 10 links would a hypothetically perfect search engine return for that query? Edit: Judging from the replies, many of you seem to think my question was "how many ads would a perfect search engine show?" Please note that this is not what I asked.

How about this part?

http://i.imgur.com/IhQLUoD.png

Edit: Judging by your edit, you seem to be confusing "what should they show" with the original question, which is something like "Why is the right 50% plus the top block of the left column ads?"

The answer to your question is "whatever links match the search terms based on their wonderful, wonderful indexing algorithm."

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#145

Post by derscheister »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #109
jeffclark wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations At some point, people realize that corporations exist to maximize profit and not necessarily for the good of the customer.

> that corporations exist to maximize // Some, probably most, not all.

Exactly which company doesn't exist to maximize profit?

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#146

Post by netcan »

T-hawk wrote: post #85
netcan wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

arguable, sure. I wouldn't call it an airtight argument, especially as it extends to more search terms. In some cases, it's a 'natural-language alternative to DNS.' In some very similar cases, it's not. If Southwest Airlines crashes today, there will be a lot of people on that results page looking for news or pictures. In some cases, it just isn't clear what the right page is.If you google the name of a local restaur…

In some cases, it just isn't clear what the right page is. Absolutely. Which is why Google isn't doing this across the board but for carefully selected cases. They'd do it for advertiser clients for whom Google's data demonstrates a vast preponderance of intent to just go to the company's web site by name. I'd bet quite a bit that [southwest airlines] queriers are looking for Southwest's own customer applications (pr…

Google is trialing it for a few carefully selected cases. But even in those cases:

- It's not a 100% bet that searchers are looking for the company website. Some will still want stock prices or wikipedia or travel sites or whatnot. For these cases this is a banner funeling more traffic to the company website with a forceful "more pixels" approach.

- If the company starts to hit the media for something (especially something bad), this helps them do it.

Anyway, I think this 'alternative to DNS' argument is kind of circular. If everyone is looking for the companies' homepage Google's paid & organic "sitelinks" (triggered by exactly these cases) take up most of the screen real estate. The company website already gets most of the traffic. Some people still want a wikipedia link or whatnot. These banners are designed too suck up a few more of the undecided and presumably perform some branding function (especially if only a few big companies are allowed to have these).

BTW, I think it's google's right to sell banners. It's their damn website. There's the same conflict/impartiality issue interest when any info/media business is selling ad space. But I also think this is part of an evolving ethos. The initial ethos was small text ads instead of big flashy screen real estate. Those ads needed to get clicks with an attractive message. They were available to small business just as they were available to meg-corps, pay for what you eat style. These banners are screen real estate auctions available exclusively to big boys. Adwords shooed away the 'internet entrepreneur' types. Over the years natural search has (as part of anti spam campaigns) been burying smaller businesses. Adwords focuses much less on SMEs these days too.

As I said, I'm not calling foul. Their website. Advertising is legal. I'm just calling duck.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#147

Post by moogleii »

mapgrep wrote: post #68
jeffclark wrote: post #14

In related news: I am no longer with my college girlfriend, despite the fact that 8 years ago I told her I would never leave her.

Good to know that the company that holds my email, appointments, two-factor-auth, credit card number, and search data has the reliability of a flaky college freshman. Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations (when they're not insisting that no corporation would ever be so stupid as to break a highly visible promise because the outcry would be…

A promise made by Marissa Mayer, who, as most of us know, works elsewhere now. Sure, the promise was arguably on behalf of the company, but "under her watch" is also arguably implied.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#148

Post by freehunter »

milliams wrote: post #58
freehunter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have to agree somewhat, though (and I don't work in marketing). If you search for Southwest Airlines, why should Southwest Airlines not be the top result? Google has been showing pictures and information about people, products, and companies for quite a while now ( https://www.google.com/#q=paul+graham ), and shows commonly visited links off the main page of a website (as shown in that search for Paul Grah…

it shows banner ads for companies including SouthWest Airlines on pages which include them in web search results. It's not just 'If you search for Southwest Airlines'. It's if in the list of results for the thing you searched for there's a Southwest Airlines page. It could be coincidental but suddenly you have a large advertisement at the top of your page. It wouldn't be outside the bounds of possibility for this to…

I only see the ad when I search directly for "Southwest Airlines". For example, search for "Southwest check in". Southwest Airlines is the number one result, but there's no ad on the page: https://www.google.com/#q=southwest+check+in

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#150

Post by jerf »

derscheister wrote: post #145
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that corporations exist to maximize // Some, probably most, not all.

Exactly which company doesn't exist to maximize profit?

"Maximize profit" is not a well-defined single thing. For instance, the suggestion that companies maximize profits without regard for their customers must explain why the customers actually stay with that company; in general that may be a short-term win but a huge long-term loss, and many companies have died that way. If nothing else you've got to consider long-term profit vs. short-term profit, and there are in fact many other "something elses" to consider (what level of risks to take, etc).
Post reply on HN