Voltage Creative

Web Development & Design | Online Marketing

You are viewing items Tagged "Google".

Google is officially taking site speed into account when assigning search rank.

Something we all knew is now official policy:

You may have heard that here at Google we’re obsessed with speed, in our products and on the web. As part of that effort, today we’re including a new signal in our search ranking algorithms: site speed. Site speed reflects how quickly a website responds to web requests…

…If you are a site owner, webmaster or a web author, here are some free tools that you can use to evaluate the speed of your site:

  • Page Speed, an open source Firefox/Firebug add-on that evaluates the performance of web pages and gives suggestions for improvement.
  • YSlow, a free tool from Yahoo! that suggests ways to improve website speed.
  • WebPagetest shows a waterfall view of your pages’ load performance plus an optimization checklist.
  • In Webmaster Tools, Labs > Site Performance shows the speed of your website as experienced by users around the world as in the chart below. We’ve also blogged about site performance.

Google.com finds its UI roots.

r is for return

Yesterday, Google rolled out a new home page design. Or rather a new homepage design element, but it’s such a structural change that it could be considered a whole new design. (Their home page is so sparse, it doesn’t take much.) All Google.com shows now is their logo, the search box and the submit buttons…

Google home page before fade.

…until it detects mouse movement, then the rest of the GUI elements fade in.

Google home page after fade in.

I like it. It gives Google the sheen of the sophisticated tech company they really are, without screwing up their minimalist design; no rounded corners, “Apple Reflections” or web 2.0 gradients thank-you-very-much.

But wait, this looks familiar. Here’s a shot of the original Google home page in 1999, when they were still in beta:

Google's (Beta) Home Page in 1999

It looks like the big G is returning to its roots. And I for one, think it really works. Not that it matters what I think, just as you might suspect Google tested the hell of this thing before making it live:

…the variant of the homepage we are launching today was positive or neutral on all key metrics, except one: time to first action. At first, this worried us a bit: Google is all about getting you where you are going faster — how could we launch something that potentially slowed users down? Then, we realized: we want users to notice this change… and it does take time to notice something (though in this case, only milliseconds!). Our goal then became to understand whether or not over time the users began to use the homepage even more efficiently than the control group and, sure enough, that was the trend we observed.

The fade-in happens quickly enough that by the time you get your mouse to where you’re going, the control you were seeking is there. And since the search input field is auto-focused when the page loads, you can just type your query and hit enter if you don’t need/aren’t interested in this other stuff.

I love this UI decision. It lets Google have its cake by un-encumbering search users; and eat it too, by still providing for the other subset of users that visit Google.com as a jumping off point for their secondary service offerings.

As Bing shows signs of actually mounting an effective assault on the behemoth, and the Newspapers threaten to take their ball and go home find a business model that works without Google, they make a stylish return to what made them great in the first place: search, and that’s all.

Rupert Murdoch & Newscorp are making 3.1 mistakes when it comes to search.

m is for missing

Rupert Murdoch/Newscorp are threatening to block Google from indexing their content, and it’s looking like they have a real incentive to do so, since Microsoft might pay them for it. (It’ll be interesting to see the zeros on that check since Google currently provides ~25% of traffic to Newscorp’s sites such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post.)

To anyone that works in the search, and most of us in the even broader web development industry, this sounds absolutely ludicrous. There must be some fundamental misunderstandings of the mechanism (search) at play for this to even be considered:

1. Misunderstanding What People Are Searching For

Murdoch thinks that people are using search to look for Newscorp sites, but they aren’t. People use search to look for information. When we type in the topic of a late breaking news story we don’t try different engines and key phrases until a source we recognize pops up in the results. That’s optimizing our information intake and it’s hard, we went to Google in the first place so we wouldn’t have to do this. Instead of optimizing our information intake, the majority of us will satisfice.  We click through on one of the results that’s provided; the one that looked like it might solve our problem in the three to five seconds we cared to spend scanning the page. We do this because the penalty is low and we know it usually works.

2. Underestimating The Quality Content Supply

Taking Newscorp’s content out of Google will only strengthen Newscorp’s rivals. As a content provider myself, I would love for Newscorp to remove themselves from Google’s index. And I’m not alone. There’s an army of new media publishers that have been doing a good job of slaying the print media dragon over the last few years and they would be overjoyed if a monster like Newscorp just took itself out of the online content provider gene pool.

Thousands of people will fill that void left by all the Newscorp results disappearing. Yes, a few loyal followers will follow the Wall Street Journal and New York Post content to Bing. (Or will they-if a user is specifically searching for a New York Post result, why not just search directly on the site itself? Why keep querying various third parties until you receive a result from the site you want?) People will keep using Google because it’s what they know, they deliver high quality results and they’ll keep clicking on the relevant search results that Google has always delivered, but non of them will be Newscorp results, and that’s a lot of clicks – people that are knowledge-hungry and primed to discover new information sources, ones that will replace Newscorp sources. It’s an opportunity that many online content creators will jump at.

3. No One Will Pick You Over Google, Even If You’re Google*

People trust Google. People trust Google so much that when a competitor’s search results are compared with Google’s and the brand names are switched, people pick the Google-branded results. No one thinks that Google is bad at search. When something is not included in Google’s search index, users don’t go looking for it or wonder, “gee why isn’t that Wall Street Journal article in Google, Google must be broken.” They think that the article in question is what’s broken, or that the website is down, or that it’s not included because it’s poor quality. This could be partially remedied by a traditional media marketing blitz, but that kind of marketing doesn’t work so well with the search savvy crowd that makes a conscious decisions about the engine they use; which makes that an incomplete solution at best, and at worst, an expensive waste of time. Either way, there will be serious damage to Newscorp’s various brands. (Damage to the tune of 25% of their current audience.)

*Yes, this brand bias will go away eventually, but that’s a long road; combined with the other factors above, Newscorp may never see the end of it.

Whither Bing?

This is a raw deal for Newscorp, but what about Bing? It would be great publicity for them and help keep the momentum they’ve generated, but it’s definitely not the high road. Paying 3rd parties to remove themselves from competitors’ search results isn’t a sustainable strategy and smacks of desperation.

It’s also a credibility issue with web developers and tech industry insiders: some prominent people are complaining that this is the start of a sky-is-falling scenario for the state of the current web. Microsoft is already much maligned in these circles because of the havoc that their deliberately non-standards compliant browsers continue to wreak on the web. This will just be one more notch on Microsofts let’s-piss-off the-community-we-operate-in-and-hire-from. Not that Microsoft cares, or at least they haven’t in the past.

3.1 The REAL Reason Newscorp Should Be Scared

You can take all of the above as biased rambling (I do work in search), but the real reason that Newscorp should be extremely concerned about the success of a search pullout is that Google’s response has essentially been, “we don’t care.”

“Google News and web search are a tremendous source of promotion for news organisations, sending them about 100,000 clicks every minute… Publishers put their content on the web because they want it to be found, so very few choose not to include their material in Google News and web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we don’t.”

And there isn’t anyone who knows more about the internet, or making money from the internet, than Google. Yes, they could be* are bluffing, but my money says they’re just looking at the future instead of the past, along with most of their users.

*UPDATE:

Google just announced it’s First Click Free program, allowing publishers to limit users to no more than five pages per day without registering or subscribing.

Take the coming Google redesign for a test drive right now.

When you paste the following into the address bar of your browser when on google.com and hit return, you should find yourself as new participant of Google’s latest and more all-encompassing prototype test – the one with a new logo, buttons, and always-visible left-hand pane in results. Please note I needed to sign out first for this to work.

javascript:void(document.cookie="PREF=ID=20b6e4c2f44943bb:U=4bf292d46faad806:TM=1249677602:LM=1257919388:S=odm0Ys-53ZueXfZG;path=/; domain=.google.com");

Looks like Google is taking a page out of Microsoft’s (as in Bing’s) book. It’s a surprising move, but one that I think will improve their service. The time framing options presented in the all new left sidebar are something I’ve been wanting for years. (Time framing had been available in the advanced search area for a while, but now it’s a few less clicks away.)

Google is testing this in a few markets right now, and it will be rolling out soon if it gets a positive response. My gut says it will, but I’m sure it’s just an A/B split test for them-the test users will determine if it gets implemented or not.

New Google Logo Typography

New Google Logo

New Google Logo

Google’s new logo mixes their serifs with their sans-serifs and pulls it off, in my opinion. Once again, Google minimizes minimalism with blue sans-serif lower case letters to brand all of their products

Check out the new logos already at the top of some of Google’s web pages, including Google Labs, Google Moderator, and Google Code.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Google, But Were Afraid to Ask

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: google technology)

This (sensationally titled) presentation is really interesting. The 34-Slide deck on Google was prepared by French consulting firm FaberNovel. It’s worth a quick flip-through if you have any interest in the most powerful force online.

Google / T-Mobile G-1 Customer Experience

Moblie User Experience (MEX) lays down a very thorough review of the entire customer experience with a Google / T-Mobile Android G-1…

It took 18 hours and 4 phone calls to technical support for me to activate my G1 in the UK. However, once the device was finally working, I needed just a few minutes to conclude Google and T-Mobile have missed a huge opportunity to demonstrate a genuine commitment to improving the mobile user experience.

…it’s kinda downhill from there. Ouch.

Google Guts the SearchIgnite Antitrust Study

Lots of people in the industry have been crying foul since the announcement of the Google-Yahoo online  advertising partnership. This group includes SearchIgnite, which published a study citing that ad prices will rise as much as 22%, if the deal goes through. Google is meeting the uproar head on and calling shennanigans on the whiners…

First and most importantly, the report fails to acknowledge that ad prices are not set by Yahoo! or Google, but by advertisers themselves, through the auction process. Since advertisers set prices themselves via an auction, the prices must ultimately reflect advertiser values. That process will remain completely unchanged by our agreement.

Second, the report mistakenly claims that for any given keyword, Yahoo! will have the ability to see whose ads are priced higher — Yahoo’s or Google’s — and then decide which ads to serve. In fact, under our agreement Yahoo! won’t be able to see the current auction prices for Google ads, just as Google won’t be able to see Yahoo’s prices.

Third, the report mistakenly assumes that Yahoo! will serve Google ads for as many of its search queries as possible. This contradicts Yahoo’s own statements that their plan is to serve Google ads on search results pages where they have few relevant ads to serve. Yahoo! also has a strong economic incentive to keep serving as many of their own ads as possible, since they get to keep all of the revenue from those ads, while Yahoo! only receives a part of the revenue from ads served by Google.

Fourth, the report includes a misplaced focus on cost per click (CPCs) rather than the more important measure for advertisers — return on investment of their advertising dollar. One of the reasons Google’s ad system has performed so well for advertisers is that our ads tend to be highly relevant to user queries, which makes it more likely that a user will click on an ad and purchase the advertiser’s product. We have found that advertisers are generally willing to pay more per click so long as those clicks result in more sales. We anticipate that our agreement with Yahoo! will bring more relevant ads to Yahoo! users — which is better for both advertisers and users.

Finally, the report suffers from a number of methodology flaws. For one, the study fails to take into account that fact that Yahoo! shows significantly more ads per page than Google. Since both search engines tend to show higher cost-per-click ads in higher positions, showing more ads automatically tends to reduce the average cost-per-click. Also, the study’s terms are vaguely defined. Its authors discuss “head” and “tail” keywords, for example, but never clearly define what they mean. Are those terms that appear less often than once a day? Or once a week? There’s a big difference.

Ouch. Read the rest of the story: The SearchIgnite study on ad prices and the Yahoo-Google deal

Getting The Point Across With Comics

Google announced their web browser, Chrome, this morning. All the things that make Chrome better than the competition are based in tech which few people outside the field would understand. So they released a comic book to lay it all out. It was illustrated by Scott McCloud and is pure genius. The comic is here.This is a sample panel. I love the gluttonous plug-in, clearly worried about being busted.

It’s not yet available to us Mac users, but PC types can download it now.

$50 for Worse Brand Name Than Knol... We Have a Winner

The response to our I’ll Give You $50 for a Worse Brand Name Than Knol contest was great! We had exactly 100 replies as of the this posting. Many were fantastic, but we had to choose. It was hard, so we felt we had to list a few honorable mentions first. Then we’ll get to the winner. The honorable mentions go to…

Comment #24: Erud

From the root erudition. Since the Google idea is that people write articles about stuff they know, and attach their name to the article. The writers are experts in a field, and can show off that expertise. Erudition implies bookish knowledge that is above an average person’s comprehension, so right away the name can give people some unease while at the same time stroke their egos. Are they really smart enough to be reading, let alone writing for this thing? But if you do write for it, doesn’t that make you somehow better than other people?

Now this name doesn’t have the soft ending like Knol, but it does have the advantage of sounding too hard; too short. Erud; sounds like rude.

Comment #37: Knowr

A forgettable derivative of the word “knowledge”, hurts your mouth to say, a shameless implementation of Domain Naming 2.0 ™, the domain is parked, etc, etc.; a categorically worse brand than “Knol”.

Comment #45: nuur

How about “Newer”. Maybe “Nuir” or “Nure”. Nope. I’ve got it. The name for our salon should be Nuur!

Bonus points for involuntarily sounding like a retarded person when you say it! : )

Comment #68: phamthe

Comment #95: Vaio

wtf.

AND THE WINNER IS…

#30: Whol

(As in: something that contains the whol of our knol-edge. Ahem.)

* Silent letter. Could be either W or H, depending!
* Starts and ends with weak sounds.
* Unclear pronunciation. Hole? Hahl? Hall? Wole? Wahl? Wall?
* Potential homonym for “hole”, which yields TONS of awful-sounding spoken constructions. “You got that from a (hole)?” “I’ve got a (hole).” “Hey, look at this (hole)!” “Stick that in your (hole)”.
* One letter away from Whor.

Congrats to Drew Thaler. You should receive an email shortly to get your payment details. Then we’ll send you $50.

Thanks to everyone who participated!

UPDATE! Being an honorable fellow Drew has opted to donate the prize money to Cleveland Scholarhip Programs to help educate children about the perils of terrible branding.

I'll Give You $50 for a Worse Brand Name Than Knol

Knol is Google’s newest assault on the rest of the internet. (They’re convinced they own it.) I’m sure it will do well, because it’s a Google property, but…

K-N-O-L is their brand name? I couldn’t think of a worse name if I tried. In fact, I’ll offer a cash prize for a worse name. (Details at the end of this article.) First, let’s explore this:

  • Knol contains a silent letter.
  • Phonetically, It starts and ends with a soft consonant. (This guarantees the following conversation will be had countless times… “Blah blah blah Knol.” “What?”)
  • It’s a play on the word knowledge, masquerading as the root. (Which is actually “know”.) But they drop the “w” and add the “l” leaving us with “knol.”
  • They don’t even own Knol.com. Knol is at knol.google.com. Knol.com, on the other hand, sells steam cleaners in Sweden. No kidding. This is who Google couldn’t afford to buy out.

Google is liquid to the tune of $10 billion dollars. Couldn’t they buy knol.com? Or even something nice like know.com, or known.com? And what’s with the web 2.0 drop-a-letter-add-a-letter bandwagon? This is going to look passé in 6 months. It kinda looks that way right now.

Apple Inc. just bought Me.com. Now that’s a domain. That’s a brand name. Sure the launch sucked, but no one will care in 6 months. They will, however, still be having this conversation:

“…Knol.”

“What?”

“No. KNOL.”

“What!?”

“KNOLLLL.”

“Nal?”

“Eh, screw it.”

Google was a game changer 6 years ago, but that is an eternity in web-years. They’re looking more and more like Microsoft or General Motors when it comes to fresh innovation and execution. It’s like they’re trying to confuse.

In fact, if anyone can come up with a worse brand name than Knol, post it in the comments. Next week I’ll pick out the worst one and Paypal you $50.

The Rules:

  • Has to be SFW.
  • 2 syllable maximum.
  • Has to be pronounceable.
  • I’ll announce the winner here next week. (I’ll also send them an email.)
  • If you’re related to me or someone who works at Voltage, you can’t win.
  • The winner is my pick, which means no whining if/when you lose.
  • One entry per email address.
  • Cuil doesn’t count.

Update: We Have a Winner