Calling Out Google's Bullshit
startupdispatch.com
startupdispatch.com
The typical user of the typical comparison shopping engine is not a user in any real sense of the world. They accidentally stumble onto the site, almost always from Google, and click out to a merchant before they even realize they're on a comparison shopping engine. There are like three guys who actually type the URL of a shopping engine into their address bar and intentionally search on that site for the product they're looking for. This holds across basically all of the top comparison shopping engines. Their direct traffic is almost non-existant, and they are utterly dependent upon search and paid traffic to survive.
And it's all the users' fault. The various engines have spent nearly a decade and literally millions of dollars trying to figure out how to get people to come to them when they want to buy something, and they just don't want to. Users can't deal with remembering a second URL to go to to find something on the internet. They want to go to Google and type in what they're looking for and find it.
tl;dr I call bullshit on this article.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I use DuckDuckGo
Bing? http://i.imgur.com/SOmwD.png
Yahoo? http://i.imgur.com/oZmIp.png
So much about this is missing the mark. For example, the supposed Sears quote that Google is ripping off; turns out Sears must have "ripped off" Nikon: http://www.nikon.com/news/2010/0915_d7000_02.htm
At the same time, notice that neither Bing nor Yahoo have one of their own sites as the top result. The top result is Nikon.com in both cases. Not the same thing as Google.
My mother "The Yahoo" is THE internet.
How misleading is planting a 'Shopping Results' on top of the search results page for average, non-internet savvy users ("there are thousands of us!")?
It used to be simple enough to use for my mother. It isn't anymore.
Let's assume that your mom was shopping for the Nikon D7000 and only clicked on the organic results:
1st result: DPReview - Review site with comprehensive review of the D7000. Price/Purchase options at the bottom are not as comprehensive as on G! Shopping.
2nd result: Nikon - Bad pricing options, enjoy paying full retail.
3rd result: Amazon - Basically same as the 1st since Amazon owns DPReview but it's a good shopping option.
4th result: Wikipedia - No pricing options, pretty bad result if your aim is to shop.
Now compare that to the Google Shopping result: On the 1st click, I can see: - Pricing options from many stores, including local ones that carry it. - Aggregated reviews across the web (editorial reviews means from magazines/publications vs. user reviews from normal users) - Seller ratings so I know who is reputable and who isn't.
At the end of the day, I think the average user would have gotten more information and more pricing options than if they had to click on a link to a bunch of different stores or third party sites.
I think it's fair to say that it's harder and harder to get to the top of Google without paying for it and the heyday of SEO-driven business models may be at its end in many categories.
Just my 2 cents.
Historically I've always gone to shopbot.ca. When that failed I resorted to Canada Post Shopper (http://www.canadapost.ca/shopper/). I've never looked for any shopping advice or help on Google because it has ALWAYS been terrible. First by search stuffers and then by Google wanting a piece of the action, though it's notable that I see none of the shopping filler that the complainer does (maybe because I'm in Canada?).
I don't buy that Google has any significant stake in that space. Nor does their search "monopoly" (where monopoly is the most easily broken monopoly ever in the history of mankind) give them any great inroads.
Really seeing quotes of the original Google and the current Google is kind of humorously naive. They changed? NO KIDDING.
It doesn't matter how big Google Shopping is. It is misleading, and it places Google's own content above everyone else's.
You may not click on it, but your father or grandpa might.
That's all that matters. That's like telling guys building sites: go home, kids, you can work as hard as you want, but you're never going to the top of the page.
Google is bending over backwards to please Wall Street now. Which is unfortunate for a once great company.
And honestly, isn't that what we do here at HN: obsess over the fate of technology and tech companies?
This wasn't the case until a couple of months ago. Obviously, this is to drive more visitors to YouTube.
Think how your father would view this if he was new to the internet - he would automatically assume that YouTube was the default video search engine, just like Google. He would never know Vimeo, DailyMotion or others.
It's not misleading to us because we're on HN. But think of the average computer illiterate user.
Larry Page: "we want to get you out of Google and to the right place as fast as possible"
That was pre-IPO Google! if you haven't noticed the web changed quite a bit since then and companies do evolve, especially the ones who want to remain relevant.
Also It's not like Google is selling the items in shopping search it's just a different view for shopping results, and I'd argue that sending users elsewhere and not computing the solutions (results) or visualizing them immediately is a weakness that I'm glad to hear Google is working to address.
Google is promoting its own content when better alternatives exist.
And why does Google want to do that?
Because the longer a user stays on Google, the more ads he clicks.
It's all about the money at the end of the day. Google used to care about the user, but now it's a giant middle finger with a search box.
This is not evolution; this is a company selling you a car with 10 years of warranty, but reneging on the promise 3 years down the line.
Change I can understand, but this shit is telling internet entrepreneurs who use SEO: screw you. IMO, that's not too good for the internets
Also: SEO is killing America: http://www.informationdiet.com/blog/read/the-information-die...
If Google is killing SEO then they are making the world a better place.