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

181–190 of 211 posts

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

#181

Post by sanxiyn »

snowwrestler wrote: post #122
T-hawk wrote: post #35

It's arguable that queries like [southwest airlines] are even a search. The vast majority of instances are probably URL-illiterate users merely trying to get to Southwest Airlines' web site. (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) For these users, search is really operating as a natural-language alternative to DNS so such a clickable banner will help them get there. More than just advertising, this rep…

DNS is also a search, it's just handled by a standardized, multiparty system instead of a single for-profit corporation. Google also runs actual DNS servers at 8.8.8.8. Would it be ok for them to inject ads there as well?

OpenDNS actually does inject ads to its DNS servers (for NXDOMAIN). I wouldn't like it, but it would be ok.

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

#182

Post by pmelendez »

raldi wrote: post #164
pmelendez wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And a promise, in the simplest definition, is not enforceable by law. That's why it's totally different from a contract.

The fact that one of the words is a subset of another depending on the context doesn't invalidate the fact that the words are still synonyms when they are used in a specific topic.

Moreover, by what you said before: > "Exchange" is the critical word. A single promise is extraordinarily different...

I would conclude that you are actually agreed on how I used it in my original comment:

> "and contracts might be dissolved if both sides of the contract agreed. This being an open promise is not a contract but a reaffirmation of a goal"

How that can be "100% wrong"?

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

#183

Post by wnevets »

pmelendez wrote: post #173
wnevets wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is if I search for jetblue and I dont get the southwest image that's not a banner ad, at least not in the traditional sense. If fact if you search for southwest without being in this test group you'll see a southwest image on the right side. Is that a banner ad, if so these images are old news. Now if I were to search for plane tickets and get the southwest image, that's a banner ad.

Under that razor... if you search for southwest airlines and between the results you get a Adwords of Southwest, then that won't be an ad because is in the result page of the same thing I was searching?

As a user, sure why not? Why does it matter whether the link you want is within the ad words box or under it? If you're searching for southwest airlines you obviously want the southwest homepage. Now southwest probably sees it different since they're paying for ad words but that's a different conversation

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

#184

Post by sanxiyn »

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?

http://hackingbusinessmodel.info/

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

#185

Post by r0h1n »

AJ007 wrote: post #171
T-hawk wrote: post #35

It's arguable that queries like [southwest airlines] are even a search. The vast majority of instances are probably URL-illiterate users merely trying to get to Southwest Airlines' web site. (And Google must know rather precisely just how many.) For these users, search is really operating as a natural-language alternative to DNS so such a clickable banner will help them get there. More than just advertising, this rep…

Chrome (v30.0.1599.101 for future reference) -> new tab -> Google + search bar appears above the recent/most popular sites list. I click on the search bar under the Google logo and start typing.. and magically my text does not appear in the text form but rather in the URL field in the navigation bar. What once may have been uneducated behavior is a behavior Google is training users to do.

You're right. Of course Google wants users to search for URLs instead of typing them, because it then gets to show them search results (which can be monetized) instead of just loading up a website.

In this case I can understand Southwest may think banner ads help with branding, but what I cannot understand is why so many companies buy the topmost Google text ad even though their websites are already #1 organically?

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

#186

Post by shortformblog »

gdilla wrote: post #65
null_ptr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly would you call it then, if not a banner ad? It's a large, colorful, rectangular 5:1 panel that advertises a company. Cut the doublespeak.

How about just a banner. It reflects the content of the search. It would be an Ad if it was say, American Airlines pictured for a Southwest Airlines search. It's like seeing the official results being curated for the searcher.

I think this is exactly point I was getting at. Google is giving companies the ability to curate their own results, which is something Facebook (through pages) and Twitter (through featured tweets on high-profile social accounts) already allow.

Difference is that it's a search, not a dedicated page. I know there are a lot of cynics here, but that's not the same as a banner ad.

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

#187

Post by makomk »

raldi wrote: post #165
mcguire wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

What's the difference, in terms of end-user experience, between the links you circled and the ads? They're both to stores selling trash cans.

The difference is that one is what Google think will be the most useful results for users, and the other is what Google think will make them the most money regardless of usefulness.

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

#188

Post by makomk »

arrrg wrote: post #43
pfortuny wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's result do not follow a person-agnostic algorithm, so he may get 20 ads and you only 1. As a matter of fact, I get none.

Language is the biggest influencing factor, at least for me. I get zero ads if I search for “trash can” but an ridiculous amount of ads if I search for “Mülltonne” (German for “trash can”), all because I’m searching on http://google.de/ . Screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/Yco1R#0 (Hey, the German results leak the city I’m currently staying at. The first organic result is a form to sign up for the city’s garbage collect…

Also, it depends on what country Google have geo-located you as being in and not on what country's Google page you're searching from; non-Americans get completely different search results on Google.com from Americans.

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

#189

Post by magicalist »

I guess they are relatively "classy", as other people have pointed out, but I still don't want them in my search results. Regardless, it's just a test, so discouraging them from moving forward with it is good, but "breaks 2005 promise" is dumb because they haven't actually done it. "Poised to break 2005 promise"? Still overly dramatic, but less wrong.

Also, I first saw this over on search engine land yesterday[1]. It's possible the Guardian author remembered that Marissa Mayer quote (and blog post) on their own, but it seems unlikely. It's pretty shitty to take a story and not even cite where you got the idea.

[1] http://searchengineland.com/google-testing-top-banner-ads-17...

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

#190

Post by drhayes9 »

chc wrote: post #161
drhayes9 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big deal because this is a false equivalence. A corporation with a marketing budget and a brand is not the same as an historical figure. I think that explains a lot of the leeriness around this move. That said, I'm leaning towards your interpretation ("search results in a prettier way"). But the money involved makes me nervous.

Lots of people have an irrational fear of money. But in reality, money itself is rarely a problem.

Sure. It's not money itself, per se, but the concurrent corruption it brings.
Post reply on HN