Come on ,google,donot do that ,i very very very hate video-ads pic-ads but txt-ads.

Donot do that.Because videoes and pics make me canot focus.and i konw you donot like it too.

I searched for "cellphone" and the last ad was for verizon. click on the plus sign labeled "Watch commercial" and you see a small, 30 video. Snooze...

Whatever happened to Google's ideology of keeping things simple, uncluttered, and most importantly giving user's what they want – the best in search – and not what Google wants users to want – flashy ads that divert the users attention.

I have used Google since 2000 and over the years noticed their ever-so-gradual (yet noticeable) move from the best search results with no ads, to the best search results with (non-intrusive) ads, to the best search results with (a tad intrusive) ads (think mildly highlighted sponsored links on the top). And now – video ads.

Extrapolating from this progression I fear Google getting more intrusive (Gmail is already there – ads based on email content) and annoying with ads flying around and eating up into the once pristine search-result page.

These ads are anything but annoying or intrusive. They could be irrelevant, boring, but they are not annoying. The video ad is simply hidden and you need to explicitly click on a link to make it visible, assuming you are interested.

Barry Schwartz posted a video of these ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m1CNPvTanE

http://searchengineland.com/080326-083210.php

I have to agree with Ionut, if video ads are going to be used, this is how it should be. If I want to see a video, I will click the [+]. If I just want my search results, no clicky.

>These ads are anything but annoying or intrusive. They could be >irrelevant, boring, but they are not annoying. The video ad is simply >hidden and you need to explicitly click on a link to make it visible, >assuming you are interested.

Ok, so assuming that what you just said is true, then what is the point of a video ad on Google? If it doesn't show video by default, i.e if you have to expand it to show video, then it's not really a video ad. It might as well just be a text ad, and clicking that text ad lands you at the advertiser's web site, with a video playing.

So now I am really confused, because according to Philipp, Marissa Mayer is quoted as saying:

“text ads are not as effective on pages with search results that include images and video” as the eyes of users “automatically gravitate to the images more than the text."

But what you are talking about, Ionut, are text ads that then expand, ONLY upon click, to video ads. If the search results contain images and video already, and what Mayer says is true about eye's being drawn away from text ads and to the image SERPs, then this approach does not work at all. So again I ask: What is the point?

Marissa also said that Google could add thumbnails next to the video ads so that they look consistent with the video results from Google search. I'm not sure if that's a good idea, but the point is to have some synchronization between search results and ads.

Yes, that is the point that Marissa made. And right now, that is not what they are doing. They are only showing text ads. That does not solve the "eye gravitation" problem of which Marissa speaks.

On the other hand, the moment this changes, and they start showing a thumbnail, then the ads become, as Rumazx says above, annoying and intrusive. Ionut, your point about the ads not being annoying and intrusive was based on the fact that the video was actually hidden! I.e. it's just a text ad! Scio then agrees with you: He only wants to see video ads... AS TEXT ADS!

But if they remain non-annoying, and text-only (by default), then that destroys the whole "eye gravitation" point that Marissa was making.

Google's painted themselves into a corner with this one. If they really believed what they were saying, about how the ads need to be format-appropriate to the SERP content, then they would have STARTED out by showing image/video thumbnails.. not text only.

It's almost like Google is admitting that they're not being completely honest.

You make a good point, even though Google already shows Checkout badges next to some ads. Google is probably testing the waters by gradually introducing features so they could test them more accurately and to not confuse users.

http://semclubhouse.com/images/jm-gserps-icon.gif

I hope this product manager is right:

<<I'm the product manager responsible for the way ads look on Google. You will not be distracted by image ads or video ads on Google search results pages. Period.

Just because other companies use image ads and video ads with the _purpose_ of distracting users doesn't mean Google will do that. Images and videos can be useful and entertaining, if you see them when you want to see them. It's taken us a long time to figure out how to do it right.>>

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&mode=thread&commentsort=4&op=Change&sid=292317&cid=20533901&pid=20533901

"the advertiser pays when users click to see the video, even if they never click through to the advertiser’s site. (Text link based AdWords are only paid when the user clicks through."

From certain point of view, "Clicking through" mean a user gets the commercial message the advertiser intend to deliver.

I regard that both text ad and video ad are only paid when the user clicks through.

The text ad on a Google page contains only a few words, far from enough to deliver commercial message, so the user need to visit the advertiser's site.

A Google video ad is basically a text ad as well but with a [+] sign linked to a Google hosted video clip that delivers commercial message.

So, Google seamlessly introduce alternative ad solution to advertisers without violating its tradition of presenting ad, loved by Google users.

Don't get blind for the shinning word "Click through". Google gets paid for delivering a commercial message, not for "click through".

Google had got it right at the very beginning. The legacy banner ad is hated by users, and therefore could not deliver commercial message. This was why Google had gained dominant position in online ad market quickly as a late comer.

Ionut, note how the alleged Google manager phrases this:

"You will not be distracted by image ads or video ads on Google search results pages."

They are not saying they will not have image ads or video ads in search results. They say they will not have *distracting* image ad or video ads in results. This still leaves room for whatever they consider non-distractiing image & video ads – and as just what is "distracting" is an entirely subjective debate, they pretty much left that door wide open with that statement (in particular for static video thumbnails).

I read that slashdot article and that’s my point...I know a business has to make money. But you know what – you would come out cleaner if you wouldn't keep publicly claiming that you are all about the user and you want NOTHING coming between them and their searches.

I am in no way anti Google; don' get me wrong. If anything I'm a strong proponent. It’s just that these gimmicks (video ads, etc) chip away at my adoration and belief in them and pop-up questions like – 10 years down the road will Google be as differentiable as it was 10 years back, when result-pages were a nice and clean/white background with accurate searches, nothing more.

Ionut writes: "Google is probably testing the waters by gradually introducing features so they could test them more accurately and to not confuse users."

You're probably absolutely correct about this.. the testing of the waters. But I still say it makes no sense. You cannot evaluate what you are not actually testing. If Google wants to test how video ads are received, then they need to actually show video ads. Not text ads.

Stated in a different way: Does a video SERP show up as a text snippet, with a + expansion link? No. It shows up as a full video thumbnail. If Google wants to test ads in the same way, it needs to show those ads.

Andy Wong writes: "So, Google seamlessly introduce alternative ad solution to advertisers without violating its tradition of presenting ad, loved by Google users."

Yes, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that Marissa Mayer now claims that advertising needs to be appropriate to the medium. I.e. Marissa claims that they need to show video ads for video search results.

So that's great that Google is not actually showing video ads. But then that contradicts what Marissa was saying.

On a somewhat related note I vaguely remember Sergey Brin once years ago stated that Google did test showing thumbnails of sites next to search results (you know, something like http://findforward.com/?q=test probably), and the usability findings were that this wasn't something good. I have tried before to recover that snippet/ interview/ article but not sure where it is or what exactly it said...

I did the 'laptop' query search and I noticed 2 things I don't normally see:

1) A link to more sponsored links at the bottom of a long list of text ads.

2) News result links listed below sponsored links.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2272/2364800070_521dd31577_o.png

Clicking on the More sponsored link gives you a page like this:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/2364806082_82a4cf26b3_o.png

"More sponsored links" is not new. Just a question: the news results were also included in the standard listing?

No, the only spot on the page that had the news results was right below the sponsored links on the right column. They weren't included in the search results on the left hand side.

Here is another search that showed news results in the right hand column without any sponsored links: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=espn&btnG=Search

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2266/2364827488_b11ff54ae3_o.png

"On a somewhat related note I vaguely remember Sergey Brin once years ago stated that Google did test showing thumbnails of sites next to search results (you know, something like findforward.com/?q=test probably), and the usability findings were that this wasn't something good."

Not to mention the fact that thumbnails increase load times. I also remember something two years ago when Ask.com's page preview thumbnail feature came out.. Google's response was to pan it. And one of the ways in which they wrote it off was to say that quick load times are more important to users than these thumbnails.

It seems to me that having both video SERP thumbnails plus video ad thumbnails is not going to help that quick load time.

here is a screen shot

http://img212.imageshack.us/my.php?image=55725396ul6.jpg

http://img604.imageshack.us/content.php?page=blogpost&files=img212/1732/55725396ul6.jpg

Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

IMHO, the "+" sign is already fairly distinctive on Google's clean pages. If they want to show a more distinctive graphic (in the same vein as the Google Checkout graphic) I would have no objections to that either.

As for how advertisers should be billed for this, perhaps Google could offer a standard (limited duration, small size, standard quality) video ad comparable to a text ad that charges only on click thru, but also offer the option to display higher quality, larger size videos that bill for each view, whether or not the user clicks thru? (Going with "ads as content delivery platform" model.)
Only offer distinctive graphic for pay-per-view? (Or offer a more distinctive one.)
Only bill if user watches at least a certain amount of video, or bill more as the user watches more?

Just tossing ideas out there.

Rahul Garg, most of the ImageShack links provided open a 404 error page or point to main page of ImageShack (due to non-working links). Is it possible to provide new links?