Mike Arrington is wrong about Google search

by on November 23, 2008

Mike Arrington, founder of the famous tech blog TechCrunch, hates the new Google search features. They even tell you how to kill the new wiki-style features using GreaseMonkey on Firefox. Mike does take the time to explain the new features here, though.

The problem is, Mike is wrong.

These features rock. They let me add notes to entries in Google. They let me tell the search engine which entries are better for me and they help Google’s business BIG TIME.

See, truth is Google is too perfect lately.

Eye track research shows that most of us aren’t going past the first link. That is a HUGE change from five years ago when we didn’t trust Google that much so we’d look down the first page looking at all the links and we’d probably even click on the second page to see what’s there.

Tell me, when is the last time you’ve clicked on the second page. I can’t remember anymore and I use Google dozens of times a day.

So, Google has a problem. It is an advertising-supported service and we’re just not sticking around on its pages very long. It NEEDS to increase the time we spend interacting with it.

I’m sure Google’s leaders are looking at FriendFeed and Facebook’s news feed and seeing all the time that their members are interacting and spending time on the page and are saying “we could do that.”

These features already are dramatically increasing the time I’m spending on Google search pages. That’s a HUGE win for Google.

Personally, I think Google is right to put these features in and I already am enjoying using them. By the way, when you search for TechCrunch can you see the note I left on TechCrunch’s entry?

Mike, you’re wrong about this one.

  • Funny thing is, I actually don't click on the first or first couple of links right off anymore. I actually look through the results. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that I have gotten a lot better at odd searches because of a need to really get into the data.
  • The really interesting part will be if they integrate the data with the algorithm. Google is not one to ignore a data stream - I really am interested to see if users will play a role in defining the results Google gives me.

    Google also has to be SURE groups of people cannot "game" the system - I tend to trust their algorithm *because* of the fact that it is based on a system that is pretty hard to game (PR). We will see how this plays out - good on Google to try something new IMO.
  • Yes, Mike made a mistake alright. I have pointed it out via comments (check his post):

    "There’s nothing wrong about Google SearchWiki, it is an excellent idea really. It gives internet users the power to moderate search results that have been abused by social bookmarkers (Digg, StumbleUpon etc). Besides, we’re sick and tired of finding those same old authority blogs at the top of search results.

    Google SearchWiki must go forward, at all costs."

    Here's what Mike said in response to my comment:

    "“Google SearchWiki must go forward, at all costs.”

    I guess you feel pretty strongly about it. "

    I just have to make him see the whole picture and this is what I had replied:

    "Of course.

    Take a look at Google search results these days. Do you really see quality there?

    Come on people, such authority sites/blogs (I’m not saying TechCrunch but I hope you folks are clean) have despicably gamed Google to get high pageranks and top search results. They purposely abused the power of social networking and social bookmarking.

    You think people don’t know that social networkers and social bookmarkers can be bought? Hey, we all know about it.

    We all know what they have done to Google. As matter of fact, many said that social networkers and social bookmarkers have screwed up Google (other search engines as well)."

    I really hope he understands what the whole problem is now.
  • Greg Morgan
    One problem I'm already seeing is comment spam.
  • zebb
    I agree that Google is looking to increase the length of time on it's search results, that totally makes sense from a revenue point of view.

    However from a user point of view, personally I'm using google to find something and to find it fast. The last thing I want to do is sit there for 30 minutes looking at 1000 comments posted about a link. It kills productivity similar to what Friendfeed, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Scobleizer.com, TechCrunch.com, Engadget.com, etc etc.

    I have very little time, so wasting it even more on looking at more clutter on google's results is bad bad bad.

    One reason people like Google search is because it's uncluttered, google.com homepage has changed very very little since it launched. Jump over to Yahoo.com, MSN.com and you have lots and lots of clutter (more important clutter if you ask me), Google simply is adding "mostly" unhelpful clutter.
  • It's all about having options and this move provides just that. Great decision and implementation by Google.
  • Could Mike be worried that him owning the lion share of relevant searches might go away with the power resting with the people?
  • totally agree robert

    the minute i saw those engagement points, i was super psyched

    i think its a big innovation that's going to be good for users and google
  • I agree, this rocks!

    But i'm not sure that Mike wil ever say that he's wrong ;-)
  • JamesGecko
    @fred wilson: This... this isn't innovation. Digg, Reddit, StackOverflow, UserVoice, and many others used similar systems first.
  • Google doesn't care how long you spend on the search results page - they earn money only when you click on links. The faster you click on the first link and leave the better given that the first link or two are quite often ads. The further you look down the page, the less likely that Google will make money from you because all their ads are at the top of the page.
  • @Scoble - Just wrote up this post on all this, your thoughts, Michael's and mine.

    Give it a read over, hope you enjoy.

    http://www.ianmikutel.com/index/2008/11/23/my-t...
  • Adrian: I don't click on the ads, most of the ads are over on the right. But, even if I did, if Google trained me to click on more things on the page then they'll get more clicks per page and a higher liklihood that I'll click on the ads too.
  • Google doesn't need people to hang around it's website any longer than they already do. the way google's advertising based business model and search application is build, and should be - because it works, is that people can find what they are looking for and get there, fast.
  • I agree with you, Robert, and Arrington doesn't "get it". I'm sure you can argue with him about it at LeWeb3 (which I'm not going to this year - sounds like this year is going to be better than last, though).

    Don't know why Michael doesn't get it, you'd think it'd be the other way around, if anything - that he, of all people, would understand why Google needs the Search Wiki.

    Amazing how, when Google actually does make Search "Social" Michael Arrignton and Andrew Goodman attack it - you got to wonder, I do, if Micheal is old school. I know Andrew Goodman is old school.
  • Thanks Robert. I have commented on my own site. See if I get more comments than just me. Seems a great idea and you are ahead of the curve!
  • The real problem is, no one cares.
  • idont
    1) People click on the advertising because its quality is better than the search result.

    What will be the impact on google's revenue?

    2) SEO entousiasts, scammers, etc. have a new playing field to distort the result. They will enjoy the opportunity to "act" directly on the result page. When you see the troubles on a "small" site like DIGG, let's imagine on google...
  • I think adding some human overlay to Google is super powerful. I love the features. I can see how they might be gamed. I am watching to see how people will pervert it, actually. I think the good folks will do good things. But what will the bad people or ad people do?
  • Wiki Search has tremendous potential. However, by limiting the Wiki impact to just MY results they aren't really helping me out. If the Wiki edits impacted all search results for that term, well then we'd have REAL wiki impact. Until Google makes that happen Arrington is right.
  • idont
    You do not read the second link?

    Try to find the review of a product you want to buy.... first results are always from shops...

    Looking for code (programing) exemples is also a pain... I always get outdated/poor quality explanations from the first results....
    Generalists' articles are always first and real experts' are always down in the list...
  • I'm with you. I rarely look past the first page of Google results. I sometimes stray to page two. But rarely. But when I look at the results in analytics for my really rather small blog I see a 'long tail' of clicks to old posts from Google result pages for 49, 100, 200 results etc so I wonder if Google know something we don't.

    That said. Be careful criticising those Techcrunch chaps. I made a minor criticism of Techcrunch UK's Mike Butcher (yup, I'm lime side) last week and he had a little hissy fit. Although I strongly suspect Arrington would think 'unusually self-important' to be too mild a compliment. ;o)

    http://www.wilsondan.co.uk/2008/11/20/what-has-...

    Keep on truckin'.
  • I agree, Google needs to innovate to stay where it is
  • I have a habit of clicking the second result when I google something. I'm not sure why?
  • Diego
    The up side is that no one cares what Mike says anyway.
  • Robert, Google is good for the Reader and Picasa. I would really like to know how personal info they are aggregating.
  • You are right Scoble.... and it is a known fact that human assisted classification completes data analytics.... so the Google's move is a smart one, one designed to improve the searches. The only question is, will people use the new features? I have already.

    ceo
  • yeah, it's great. super awesome. Where is the off button again? Oh yeah, it doesn't have one.

    I search on Google to find new things. If I have to tell it what's what, then something is wrong. And the comments - they're just spam, trolls and nonsense.

    I'm fine with Google doing this, but it needs an opt out. The fact that it doesn't have one is the real story. They need this data for...something.
  • yeah i could not agree more the new added features to google search and their new projects are great. many times its hard though for such a high caliber media person to see on eye with google. for instance i blog on both wordpress and blogger and think both are fun and i will never stop using blogger even though wordpress is bettar and i do the same thing with google search features which seem worlds bettar than like a week ago
  • I agree with the Techcrunch guys. I don't understand it at all. It seems to be an unnecessary overhead to finding what you want and going there.
  • If Google starts using the data from the Wiki Searches, then they kill their own business of Adsense.
    A company would just needs to hire a service that employs hundreds of people (India) to promote all of the pages in searches.

    "that suicide is painless
    It brings on many changes
    and I can take or leave it if I please."
  • @michael arrington
    There is an opt-out. DON'T USE IT. There's nothing that says you have to click the little arrows and Xs. I don't understand why you're so opposed to it and why you seem to feel it's being shoved down your throat. If you don't use it, you'll never see any difference in the results other than the additional controls. Is it really that bad to have two small extra images to the right of each result?
  • Spam? Spam! Let's give Google some spam to see how they'll manage it. . . Gmail and Blogger have proven quite efficient in removing it — I think more spam (hand-sorted by the user, as comment-feedback is likely — can't test it as the feature isn't active from my location) directly on Google property with nice IP attached to it will mostly help Google search and destroy more of it and identify links faster, including on other platforms.

    Truth be told, I don't use Google search engine explicitely anymore: I get information from Zemanta, twitter, etc. I won't come accross a great definition-site like Wikipedia or Urban-Dictionnary throught the search engine, too bad; but I'll get recommendations to it, for sure.
    I spend most of my time on Gmail and G-Reader, Google Street View — were this spam won't appear, but the analysis of the comments will probably find a way rapidly.

    Finally, like all features: making it an option is essential (opt-in or -out is certainly decisive, but I personally don't care) and having it available word-wide woudl allow me to use it.
  • Mike is wrong for the most part. He's right that they should have provided an easy opt-out for the product. I don't mean obvious (because Google needs a critical mass of usage) but it should be available.

    He's wrong about the need and usefulness of the product. SearchWiki is about providing a human feedback mechanism for the search algorithm. It craves a stream of higher intelligence data, and SearchWiki can provide that in spades. It turns users into free mechanical turks.

    http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/searchwiki-turn...

    Does it open the door to SEO abuse? Sure. But the Internati seem to think every user is going to somehow try to game the system. The truth is a small percentage will abuse it, but the vast majority will follow monkey behavior and use it appropriately. And I'm sure Google has smoothing factors and other abuse mechanisms to purge abuse from the data.

    Comments is really window dressing IMO, but is there to encourage usage by the everyday user. If you took comments out of the equation you might see less of a negative reaction from the Internati, but would users adopt the new features at a rate that would help tutor the algorithm?

    I'm not a Google fanboy, but I respect that they're seeking to improve their core technology instead of resting on their laurels.
  • jj
    1. The fact that many technologically interested people do look beyond Page 1 of Google results is irrelevant. The eye-tracking research to which Scoble refers is, in fact, a representative sample of 'average internet users'. Thus we may infer that 'average internet users' are either ignorant, lazy, or satisfied with the results they get.

    2. Given the nature of average internet user responses (regardless of type), this facility provides google with a higher opportunity for click thrus to other google pages. This enables higher visitor return on investment due to sponsored ads being placed on every page.

    3. Non-algorithm based recommendations are a GOOD thing. Until now, if a human could produce a better response than Google's algorithms, then Google tried to improve the algorithm. The problem is that over time, the rules embedded in algorithms need to be altered as public opinion and social understandings change. The easiest way to reflect those changes is through crowd-sourcing, not through arbitrary rules set by Google engineers.

    4. Mike, you CAN turn it off. Just use Google search through another filter (eg: Firefox default start window). Alternatively, just damn well ignore it. It's better to have the choice to use than not.
  • I can't comment on either of you being right or wrong on these new search features BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THEM! I'm always logged onto Google, due to my GMail account.

    Maybe their site is blocking me, because it's absent on my computer.
  • The whole idea of this new wiki-like feature on Google Search is to actually help improve search results. No one has to like or dislike them - the feature was not implemented for personal taste but for the end result... which is better search results. Yes, Google is #1 right now and their rank in search seems to be ever increasing, so should they wait until someone comes along with a better search engine just because it's "not broken" yet? NO! Google is working on improving search continuously, and for Mike Arrington to make such a statement is foolish.
  • rbsshow
    oh oh. blogger fight!
  • I'm not sure if comments on search results is a good idea or not yet.

    The other day on the first Google search results for "Scoble" (http://scobleizer.com) I left a "public" comment. I was surprised that mine was the only comment I can see. I only see it if I am logged into the Google account that I used to make the comment. So if I am only going to see my own comments why does Google need to put my name next to it?

    I think the search result would be a lot more valuable to me if I could see other's comments, but then again it would also be a lot less valuable if those comments were junk or took up too much space.

    Are the comments on search results searchable? What would happen when someone commented on those search results?
blog comments powered by Disqus