That second box takes advantage of the useful search operator, site:. The site: operator allows the searcher to limit results to a query to ones coming from a specific domain.
Many people may not be aware that they can type something like site:example.com and focus their search results this way. Google's latest project, focused on a handful of popular sites, brings up the second search box so someone using it automatically searches within the domain in question.
It isn't being as warmly received as Google may have anticipated. The New York Times discussed the feature, and a couple of retailers complained about Google doing in its search results what Google does best: stick text ads next to them.
The publishers and retailers who Google tapped as worthy of a dedicated search box within their sites apparently became horrified to see ads for competitors popping up alongside the site: operator results.
Though Amazon.com had been one of the initial sites gifted with the second search box, it's since been removed. The Times suggested Amazon.com requested this. Jewelry retailer Ice.com isn't part of the program, but they already told the Times they want no part of it.
The issue demonstrates the strength, and the vulnerability, of Google's first big revenue stream. They allow advertisers to buy competitor keywords. Though Google's AdWords policies restrict the display of competitor keywords, a highly placed ad could be enough to take people away from the site they searched for to a competitor with a nicer landing page and a better deal.
Utah nearly killed competitor keyword usage with a bill called the Trademark Protection Act. The bill would have required the creation of a database of registered keywords that search engines would have to check, and avoid presenting competing ads to searchers.
Fierce lobbying resulted in tweaks to the bill that removed the offending competitor keyword language. Businesses that hate the practice will be keeping an eye on Google to see if the search ad giant has dropped a second search box into their results.
Google Getting Aggressive with AdvertisingGoogle Makes it Easier To Get Found in Product SearchShari Thurow Answers SEO QuestionsBeating The Unbeatable GoogleNo Apparent Stopping Point For GoogleTips for Using Google to Get Holiday Clicks & ConversionsGoogle Sacrifices Clicks To Increase Advertiser ROIYahoo Patent Filing Sheds Light On PageRank Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and Search Engine SPAMOptimize for Local Search Traffic
     |
RSS
Home
Newsletter
Advertising
Comments
thanks for your article.
thanks for your article. Very help me. I will more like visit to webpronews site. :) Fantastic
It does'nt sound very fair
It does'nt sound very fair would have been good too see an example
I think you are trying to
I think you are trying to create hype where there otherwise would be none!! So what, they appear on other sites, others appear on theirs. Competition keeps everybody honest.
Great article
I think this is an interesting idea that in the long run with benefit all ecomm sites.
google do not have a
google do not have a monoply. Stop screeching like all the hysterical anti-microsoft people used to do. If you don't like it, don't use it. Don't whine on, do something.
Is Google THE Internet?
"Google's allure has always been that it levels the playing field on the internet - small companies have ben able to complete with big ones by virtue of their creativity and energy. "
You're kidding, right?
This happened because of the internet, period - before Google even existed.
I'm assuming you are too young to have really USED the internet in the year 3 B.G. (before Google).
They can effectively double ad impressions.
Seems like a good idea, but what are the repurcussions? What if they put this out on every site, today and you had no choice. This would double ad impressions. Wouldn't that dilute the "worth" of ads today? I do not think they will do this.
However, I do think they walk a fine line between serving the public and serving the big companies who pay they crazy prices for clicks. In the end, they have to serve the public. The rest will come in the fight between big businesses to rise to the top,
Do you want to rise to the top with your keywords? I have a writer who will write 3 450-600 word articles a day on the topic of your choice and will submit them to 14 different "article aggregator" sites. $1000 a month, regular 5 day work weeks. Content is king. You need a writer!
www.irandeserts.com thanks
www.irandeserts.com
thanks for the info
Whats the problem..
... Google is just trying to offer more search tools to web users... i dont see what the problem is if they use the space to right as advertising space everyone knows that this is where the sponsered results are.
Great articles
Great articles, I have really enjoyed reading them and I dont think retailers should panic just yet.
Pwnership of ads
I do not see why people would be horified to see ads on site: searches. Google is in charge of their system and the way they present it, period. There are other marketing channels, and if they work for you, then that's great.
Democracy on the internet
Google's allure has always been that it levels the playing field on the internet - small companies have ben able to complete with big ones by virtue of their creativity and energy. This sort of undemocratic behaviour on Google's part may signal the end of democracy on the internet and perhaps the end of google if they continue to degrade the very allure that has made them so successful.
Tanzanite
I think you guys have all
Google designed to favor wealthier ebusiness
Despite the "democratic" approach to search Google, by its nature will always favor wealthier site owners over the little guy. It's reliance on link popularity assures only people with the money to throw at a SEO company to constantly place links have a chance.
Where this fails is that there may be millions of sites with very reliable and useful information that no one links to because no one knows about them. Google has created a "chicken and egg" situation for site owners.
To rank high you need people to link to you ( votes ) but for those people to want to link to you they have to know you are there. For them to find you, you need a good rank in Google...which you can't get without the links.
Enter expensive SEO companies. If you can't afford them, even a great site full of valuable information won't rank well because no one knows about it.
As in all things businessess...only those with the cash move up while the rest of the sites, good though they may be, are lost in Google.
The other problem is in Googles playing around with the "system". If I pay thousands of dollars to an SEO for a good position then Google decides to tweak something and I drop off the radar, my money is gone along with my customers.
In some ways I think I prefer a directry to search. At least things are organized by content, not by who likes you, which is really what Google is all about.
RE: Google designed to favor wealthier ebusiness
Don't lump all SEO's into the "too expensive" category. You need to find one that offers services to teach you the link building skills that will matter for your site today and tomorrow. That way, you don't have to rely on an SEO at all. The goal of the truly best SEOs firms should be to reduce their client's dependence on them in the first place. For example, I won't even work with sites that aren't willing to learn the keys to ethical link building. This means that technically I am putting myself out of business. Yet, here I am, nearly two decades later, still doing it and booked for weeks at a time. There's plenty of business for those who do things right.
Small sites can get closer
Small sites can get closer to the potential customer by using long tail seo, providing more niche, deeper information. One great way I've found is by using hittail.
What is hittail
What actually is hittail.Can you please elaborate on this.I know about long tail but but hittail is something I am coming across for the first time.
Dr. Sandeep
Delhi India by Famous Places in India
You are right
also Matt Cutts from google talked about the advantage of long tail keywords for small and law budget seo projects on this interview.
GOOGLE's RULES
Hi ppl,
Yeah i accept - But Google is trying to experiment its not confirmed. As in BUSINESS many things need to be checked out so they r just playing there game.
Well also they would change there games as there target is to gain more and more money and in that process they need to do experiments.
Google's Monopoly is not new guyz,,,,,
But would soon change,,,,,
What?
What?
Google
Being just a little fish in a massive pond I am never likely to have the problem with a second search box, however if I was a big fish, I would not be happy at all with possibly paying to get the visitor in the first place to then loose them to another poor sucker who also had to pay for that visitor who would possibly click on yet another ad and so on and so on.
However, I have done very well in deed from AdWords and would not be able to afford to run without them.
I wonder how long Google will rule the waves!!!
and google did well too with your money...
in the end you still benefit them....
1919-1953 Stalin 1948:
1919-1953 Stalin
1948: george orwell 1984;
1983-now: bill gates' microsoft monopoly;
2008: google monopoly
(...)
Nice
Nice...
Google real face?
The face that Google is trying to show to us all, are not like that... everybody love to say that Microsoft is the Dart Vader... as I remember, Bill Gates never said that software have to be copied, also, it´s company´ll participate the market that every home´ll have a computer in the future.
Google came with a face of all free, but today Google have the entire world at it´s hands... so... when they "change" search rules, lot´s of sites that are in front page, go to 30 or 500 pages without notice and why.
Google Ad Sense and Ad Works, are other think that we have to see too... a web site receive 1/1000 of each click... and it´s a lot of money...
So... you said right... Google is today´s Big Brother....
Google Unfair? It doesnt matter
In regards to the second search box and asking for peoples opinion, It really doesnt matter what we think. Google has a Global Monopoly when it comes to net searching. So if someone doesnt like it? too bad. Adapt, you have no choice.
Google Ads
All I know is that Google advertisers listed in the side column are gainging higher ranking that does not sit naturally with the whole ethos of the web search facility. My customers are now being driven to competitors that charge higher prices, which in turn are partially used to prop up the Google Ads. I am now looking at giving up a honest livlihood whilst rip off companies fleece the public. Small honest traders cannot compete or survive - though that is the way of the world.
Not Fair
I run a small web based business from home selling travel, It cost me about $200 to set up, 95% of my turnover is profit, I dont' send out a single invoice or have bad debts, I have no employees and I have the freedom to do what I want every day. 10 years ago this situation would not be possible.
Today thanks to Google there is probably millions like me, I think Google is great. Google are a big part of the modern business environment, either embrase this or go and stand on a street corner and hand out flyers to get your customers.
Google are not running a charity nor are they looking for a Nobel prize for services to internet searching, nor do they give a shit about the "ethos of web searching" , they, like most of us want to make as much money as they can, luckily for them they hit the jackpot.
the reality
I don't think Google is anywhere near as altruistic as you assert. I believe they want to make as much money as possible for THEM, not you.
Google effectively is trying to kill the fish
I didn't read all of the comments, but I have my opinion anyway.
I first read that in NY Times and I was kind of shocked. My first thought is Google again is trying to monopolise the market. I'm not interested in advertising with Google or anyway and never would be.
But for me, this is a move of Google to ensure it gets the full control over advertising. Because, eliminating all the aditional clicks that a user makes, it prevents the user of noticing or clicking on ads provided by other sources. It actually decrease the choice, although it looks like it's acting in favor of the consummers. It could really be of some help, if you're looking for something in particular, but let's face it, when one look for something, he/she won't need Google. Or maybe he/she will. Who knows. Oh, whatever, I'm so sick of all this Google mania. It's high time to see someone entering the competition.
Post new comment