Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Google Pimps Own Services in Search Results, Part 2  (View post)

Danny Sullivan [PersonRank 2]

Friday, December 29, 2006
11 years ago5,101 views

And I'm sure the next time Google does a promo for Firefox, Blake will be screaming that maybe it should have been Opera that gets the pitch, because maybe it crashes less, does less memory bloat, etc.

The tips aren't ads. The organic results aren't changed. It's Google's pages. I've seen other search engines promote their own services and products over the years. Unlike what Blake says, they've seldom gotten a mention. Want to use 3D views on Live Local? Don't try unless you have IE7. That's gotten practically nil ink compared to this continuing saga over Google doing self promotion of its own.

Go search for google on Live.com. Notice the search box they through up to try and keep you from actually going to google to search?

Go to Yahoo – same thing happens.

Go to Yahoo, search for blogging. See the "Start a blog on Yahoo! 360 Beta). Guess that loses Yahoo's trust for Blake, but I don't recall him doing a post about this. Try photo sharing and you get best of class Yahoo Photos.

I grant you, tips might be the wrong word. Perhaps Promo: would be better. But there is indeed a difference between promoting your own products and ads. I find it absurd to think Google can't be allowed to promote its own products. Blake might not feel they are best in class, but Google likely disagrees.

He does noted Yahoo already doing this but dismisses that as not having built a business on trust. I don't recall Yahoo ever saying they wanted you not to trust them, so don't worry if they do self-promotion. And in the end, I just disagree that these are seen as the same as regular search results.

But seriously, how about Blake puts his money where his mouth is. Why isn't Live Search a default in Firefox? Why isn't Ask there? Both are excellent search engines that ought to be there. What exactly is Firefox trying to do in playing favorites like this. It's kind of sad that I've had so much trust and faith in Firefox as an open source community driven browser that makes decisions apparently on who is willing to pay the most to be a default.

If I were on the Firefox team, I wouldn't be celebrating that the product is apparently so bad that they had to cut a partnership with Google to pay people up to $1 to generate downloads of it. That just seem like Firefox has lost faith in its own ability to attract users based on the quality of its product.

I don't think this, of course. But you can spin the same accusations about Google back at Firefox, and it doesn't look so pretty.

Kirby Witmer [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

I love this ... :)


blakeross.com/wp-content/uploa ...

CJ Millisock [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Well said Danny.

Search engines have the right to drive traffic to their other services on their pages. All Google is doing is coming a little closer to being a "portal".

If you go to Yahoo.com, you'll see that they're promoting Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Radio and more of Yahoo's services--all without even requiring a search. Why should Yahoo, or any other web portal, be allowed to do this, but then Google gets criticized for it?

Personally, I think since it's Google's website, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. On the flip side, if something better comes along then, the masses will migrate to it.

It really sounds like Mr. Ross' contention is the same one that aims to be solved by Wikipedia-inventor Jimmy Wales' upcoming "people-powered" search engine. Theoretically un-biased, not "controlled" by any one company, etc.

It reminds me of what Digg did to Slashdot, Linux is trying to do to Windows, and BitTorrent (and others) did to conventional peer to peer. That is, remove central control.

Is anybody else seeing this trend?

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Thanks for the picture Kirby ;-)

Dave B [PersonRank 2]

11 years ago #

Agreed, this sounds like a whole lot of over analysis to me.

How can you criticize a company for trying to do what is in their best interests on their own site?

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

> Personally, I think since it's Google's website, they
> have the right to do whatever they want with it.

And we have the right to critizice Google for it on our pages, because Google made a lot of promises other search engines didn't. While Yahoo certainly never actively told users "don't trust us", they also didn't quite as actively promote claims such as "don't be evil" or "not using an editorial viewpoint"* on search results (and while AdWords ads are disclosed as sponsored links, the tips aren't disclosed as ads, and they're part of the search result – not part of the organic result, but part of the result [even though this subtlety might escape searchers less savvy as us, though that's another discussion]). And if Yahoo did make these claims, it would certainly be a topic for a Yahoo blog to cover – as for Google, "they're also doing it!" is the worst possible defense in ethics (Snap.com inserts paid results inbetween organic results – does that mean it's OK for Google to do the same?). Google even admitted as much by saying they're "not a conventional company"**. So, if we all agree that they're starting to become a conventional company through these new tactics, we have to at least admit that they're not keeping their promises... which is what credibility is all about.

* E.g. google.com/support/bin/answer. ...
** investor.google.com/ipo_letter ...

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Do you think it's OK to promote Google Talk, Google Desktop, etc. at the bottom of Gmail pages or on the homepage?

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

> Do you think it's OK to promote Google Talk, Google
> Desktop, etc. at the bottom of Gmail pages or on
> the homepage?

I think this is a different league because Google never promised to not have an editorial viewpoint on the Google homepage – which doesn't show results – or in Gmail. However, if this cross-integration increases, I think we have the right to ask some questions in this area, too (e.g. blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-1 ...).

kmike [PersonRank 1]

11 years ago #

Nothing wrong with these "tips" IMHO.
Google desperately needs a better exposure of their own non-search related services, and it's just a long needed step in this direction.

CJ Millisock [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

I'm going back and forth on this, but I think I've come to a final stop. I think you're right Philipp. The average Google user probably doesn't know that these tips are custom genereated by Google, and not delivered organically from Google's indexes.

This situation is a lot like PayPerPost. My stance on that and my stance on this are the same. Full disclosure should be provided, so as not to deceive people.

CJ Millisock [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

The story is on Digg as well. More discussion here:
digg.com/tech_news/Firefox_Man ...

Blake [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

Danny:

> And I'm sure the next time Google does a promo for Firefox, Blake will be screaming that maybe it should have been Opera that gets the pitch, because maybe it crashes less, does less memory bloat,

I find it unfortunate that you seem to believe everyone on the planet is only looking out for #1. I support Opera, link to it in my sidebar, and will gladly begin recommending it to my own parents the day I feel it is better for them.

I have nothing to do with the Google Firefox promos but I will begin "screaming" about them if that's what it takes to demonstrate to you that I'm not a hypocrite.

> Blake might not feel they are best in class, but Google likely disagrees.

My issue is that Google *does* agree, judging from its own search results.

> But seriously, how about Blake puts his money where his mouth is. Why isn't Live Search a default in Firefox? Why isn't Ask there?

I would love for them to be there and was just thinking about that last night. I don't control the Firefox project but I will pitch the idea publicly.

> It's kind of sad that I've had so much trust and faith in Firefox as an open source community driven browser that makes decisions apparently on who is willing to pay the most to be a default.

We chose Google long before anyone had ever heard of Firefox because we believed it offered the best service for our users. You can see this in the earliest builds of the product, back when it was still called Phoenix.

The revenue deal came much later, and as you can imagine, most search engines would offer similar incentives today. So as with every other default in Firefox, this one is decided based on what serves users best.

> If I were on the Firefox team, I wouldn't be celebrating that the product is apparently so bad that they had to cut a partnership with Google to pay people up to $1 to generate downloads of it.

Please stop assuming that "the Firefox team" is a single-celled organism. I don't assume that everyone at Google shares the same opinion.

> But you can spin the same accusations about Google back at Firefox, and it doesn't look so pretty.

Then we need to fix that, don't we? Does that somehow detract from my post on Google? I'd be happy to do a follow-up post on the shortcomings of Firefox.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

What about linking to video.aol.com on Google Video homepage without disclosing the link as an ad?

or [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

I don't understand why this was not an issue since 2004, google has been randomly showing tips to their services since that time. I did not see this outcry on blogs back then. What changed? Or is it because Google has become the "evil big company"

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

What has changed?
- they show tips unrelated to search
- a small icon next to the tip

The most common tips were:
- press enter instead of clicking on Search
- go to Google Images (if you query contained "image", "photo")

or [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

There were also tips to Google Answers, and I remember one to Google Phone. In fact, I have seen tips to blogger in the past, before 2006, although very rare.

What tips do they show unrelated to the search?

I don't see how adding the icon, and promoting more services changes the principle that some bloggers seem to be outraged about. If it's unethical for Google to do now, then it was unethical back then.

Perhaps what has changed is that more people are seeing the tips? In the past they only occurred randomly.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Not unrelated to your search query, unrelated to SEARCH.

Tim [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

Danny writes: "<i>The tips aren't ads. The organic results aren't changed.</i>"

Ok, so why are they placed at the top of the page? The organic results "technically" are not changed, but for all effective purposes, you have to wade through more "junk" to get to them. The de-cluttering of the organic results was the thing that made Google different from all the other search engines, back in '98 and '99, to begin with. Argue it any way you want, but this move is a step back toward the clutter.

If Google was truly serious about retaining the lack of clutter, it would put these tips at the <i>end</i> of the SERPs, rather than at the beginning. But then the tips would not get any play, would they? And that fact is a fact that Google is banking on... which to me says they are fully aware of what they are doing, of the compromises and the rationalizations that they are making.

Also, Ionut writes: "<i>Do you think it's OK to promote Google Talk, Google Desktop, etc. at the bottom of Gmail pages or on the homepage?</i>"

IMHO, it is completely ok for Google to do that. Because when the "tip" (or "self-promotional ad" or whatever you want to call it) is on the homepage, the user has not actually searched for anything at that point. No SERPs are being cluttered by these tips. Google can make its homepage look like anything it wants.

The trust issues that Blake and many others, myself included, are having relate to the clutter that appears when a user actively tries to find something, i.e. when the user issues a query. Just visiting the Google homepage does not constitute an active query, and so if Google really wants to promote its own products, that would be a fine place in which to do it.

Rob [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

I think there are two points to clarify:

- I'm sure everybody agrees that Google have the *right* to add these "tips". The question is whether this really is in Google's own interest, or whether it will have a negative effect on Google's brand in the long term, through undermining the perceived trustworthiness of its search results. I'm inclined to agree with this latter view.

- Contrary to what Blake Ross claims, surely products do not get to the top of search results by being the best? It's popularity which scores highly on search results, not quality. There is an important difference. So there would be no contradiction between Google thinking that their products are better than the competition, and yet still wanting to give them some extra promotion.

I agree that many internet users – perhaps the majority – would not recognise a difference between these "tips" and the genuine search results. The product promotions at the bottom of the homepage, Gmail pages (etc) are different, because they do not appear alongside search results.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Yahoo calls them Shortcuts:

"What is a Yahoo! Shortcut? A Yahoo! Shortcut is a quick way to get to the information you want. A Yahoo! Shortcut automatically appears when it is relevant to your search and can contain links to useful content from Yahoo!, its partners, or across the web. Some of the content may come from partners *who pay* to be included in Yahoo! or have another financial relationship with Yahoo!."

tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcu ...

Blake [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

> Contrary to what Blake Ross claims, surely products do not get to the top of search results by being the best? It's popularity which scores highly on search results, not quality.

You'd have to do studies to see what the reality is, but no, Google's theory is indeed that the pages are ranked by quality:

"Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search....Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search."

That's why, as I say in the post, I see tips as an admission of the failure of either the engine or the products being advertised.

Sam Pullara [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

I think the big difference between the Google Tips and things like Yahoo Shortcuts is that in the Yahoo results the Yahoo specific shortcuts are clearly delineated as not search results (search results are numbered) and are clearly associated with Yahoo itself. Blogger doesn't even look like a Google property in their 'tipvertisements'.

CJ Millisock [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Good point Sam.

bradsucks [PersonRank 1]

11 years ago #

I don't care too much if the tips are there (other than that I already use most Google services and it's a waste of space.) But I do think Blake and other detractors have a point and that it's a significant shift in Google's credibility.

They're essentially gaming their own search engine which to me has the effect of validating a lot of the creepy SEO stuff and displaying a lack of faith in their Adwords system. I mean if Google isn't happy with its own rankings or its ad performance and is willing to do anything within their power to get to the top, how can you blame anyone else?

If I were Google I'd place the tips somewhere above the blue Web header. That way it doesn't look like an organic search result. Right now it looks a bit slimy and deceptive, but Google has no made claim of impartiality when it comes to the top of the page. Only Google services get linked there.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

The tips don't look like search results at all.

Elias Kai [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

I would frame it this way:

Instead of tips: I would say, " some people like you use Blogger"

As for users trust behavior + usability + credibility + branding = Lock In strategy as mentioned in "The Information Age"

Each company needs and want to use a lock in strategy for their users and enhance the experience added value.

Personally, if those [suggestions] with big S appears at the right moment in the right place, I would not mind using them but companies may fail to serve my satisfaction when they begin putting less time into their products development.

Google, Firefox or any other companies do intend to lock in Users and get the mass power because at the end quantity and time spent is Value.

These companies want to create and use your TIME instead of watching you passing by something without paying much attention.

Mrrix32 [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

<<Argue it any way you want, but this move is a step back toward the clutter.>>

Some Google SERPs are cluttered with out these "tips" as you can see in this case of too many Oneboxes:
[ picasaweb.google.com/mrrix32/O ...]
The amount of Oneboxes has since died down, I no longer see the Digg Onebox or so many adverts which where taking up a lot of room

Tadeusz Szewczyk [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

In Google.de there are also tips at the bottom saying you should download Google Pack and such:
"Google Desktop: Suchen Sie auf dem Computer so einfach wie im Web."

Check: google.de/search?q=test

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Matt has a balanced view: mattcutts.com/blog/my-thoughts ... and he's right about the poor targeting of tips (I also wrote about that).

Matt Cutts [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

I don't like these tips (primarily for the poor targeting), and I haven't given up on getting them dropped.

Martin [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

I agrre with Ionut, I do not believe users mistake the tips for search results, they look completely different, even more so with the icon. Give people some credit.

I also believe, it is a tiny minor percentage of web users see this as any kind of "Google loosing its credibility". To me, this is an ivy-tower philosophical debate with no relevance to how people see and use Google. They use it because it gives good results. And to the debate if they consist as editorial control of search results or not, and if this conflicts with prior statements: Noone cares about the question or the answer beside a debate circle of a hand-full of bloggers. Get some perspective, there is no world-rattling affair as the blog articles like to paint them.
  

Martin [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

There is a nice question raised by "bradsucks" above: Google can probably by the top ad placement in the search results instead of the tips. So why don't they stick to them? Perhaps click-through is higher as people give them more credibility (which might hint to people getting ad-blind to the paid entries). An easier explanation: Google designer what to style the links and can't do it the way they want through the ads.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Kudos to Matt for his view. Always refreshing to be reminded that Google is a company holding multidude of views inside, and they aren't afraid to publicly communicate that.

As for confusing the tips with search results, Ionut and Martin: I think we need to differentiate between "organic search results", which every power searcher knows the tips are not, and "search results in general", which I'd argue these tips are, or more specifically they're "tips within results"/ "tips as search results" – just as AdWords within Google are a kind of search result, and oneboxes are a kind of search result. And we can see that Google strives to make oneboxes neutral, too – for example, their maps onebox links to "Google Maps – Yahoo! Maps – MapQuest". And their onebox is not disclosed as anything else than part of the search result, so we have to accept it as that and judge it by search result standards, which we got used to to be neutral if they're useful, and this goes along with Google's promises.

In these regards, we have to ask: what is a "tip" exactly? Because that's what these search results are disclosed as. I'd argue that if it's a completely honest & neutral tip, then this tip will be a onebox like every other onebox, either linking to another (relatively) neutral result – this is what the Google Image Search tip did, which I personally think is OK – or suggesting a multitude of services, e.g. we'd get tips for Flickr, Wordpress, and what-not. Specifically, a neutral "tip" system, confronted with a search for "flickr photo sharing", would *not* result in a competitor being shown (Picasa), *unless* you'd also get a "try Flickr" tip when you search for "picasa photo sharing". And that's why I call them tipvertorials or tipvertisements – not quite ads, not quite neutral, not completely manual (they're targeting algorithmic), not completely algorithmic (they're only limited to Google products), but somewhere along the muddy road of turning allegededly neutral search results into tools for self-promotion... which doesn't serve the user in the long term (which thus doesn't serve Google in the long term, at least if you believe that the better tool wins in the end).

Katinka Hesselink [PersonRank 2]

11 years ago #

I agree that poor targeting is an issue. Here in the Netherlands I get google-pack download tips on totally unrelated searches. I get them on almost every search I do – whether Internet related or not. They do annoy me.
Appropriately targeted 'tips' would not bother me so much. If I were searching for 'free software' a google-pack ad would be very appropriate (though the text isn't optimized enough to even make it clear that it is indeed free software).
In the end I don't mind google putting one product of their own at the top of search results – but it should be only one and it should be targeted to my search query.
On a practical side: we can't expect google to stay out of commercially motivated choices – they crossed that line with the China censure issue. It's just a good search engine that makes its dough with online advertisements.

Martin [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

Philipp, contrary to you, I see them as ads. They are ads, they are not intended to be neutral, and I believe they are recognised as ads and not as what users see as the "search result". Cross-promotions are well-known to users, they know them from other websites and from TV.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Don't give consumers too *little* credit; as others have pointed out, similar promotions are done all the time by other companies. Companies recommend their partners, subsidiaries, and their own products; consumers take note, and decide on their own what to use. I'm sure users are dumb enough to think are "organically generated" from Google's results; they have this little icon, the word "tip," and a promotion for a Google product, so *gasp* they must be real results, right?

Actually, isn't Google's Homepage itself a promotion vehicle? No ads, right? Well, what are those little links above the seach box, then? They give users notice about new products, even with a little "New!" tag right next to the name. Shouldn't these be ripped out, too? After all, most users don't even use Video, or Maps, or News, and they probably aren't even searching for something like that. Not to mention the little promotion adverts underneath the search box.

I know, I know; these are *menu* items, and they're a completely different matter than these awful "tips" in the search results. But I'm just extending the idea of letting users find products on their own to its logical end. Google the search engine rose to its current prominence based on its relevancy and word-of-mouth promotion, so all of Google's products should eschew anything resembling advertising, even on Google's own pages, right? Therefore, we ought to ask- no, *demand* Google reconsider its unfair advertising of its other products on its own pages, and let Google's users discover them solely through its search engine, other search engines (which promote their own products), or word-of-mouth instead. Screw competitiveness; Google ought to follow its "Do not Evil" policy to its logical conclusion, ignore what its competitors do to increase their own usage, and stick to what they do right: search.

Hope you all enjoyed my rant-of-the-day. *embarrassed chuckle*

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

> Actually, isn't Google's Homepage itself a promotion
> vehicle? No ads, right? Well, what are those little
> links above the seach box, then? They give users
> notice about new products, even with a little "New!"
> tag right next to the name.

Mysterius, it had been mentioned before that those aren't search results. Google never claimed its homepage to be neutral, build on the web's democracy, fully algorithmic, non-editorial, etc. Consequently, I don't hear people complaining when Google wants to push a tool on their homepage (unless they want to push every tool, which would cause clutter, but that's another topic). However, Google did claim things like these for search results.

As for "does it matter?", everyone can decide this on their own. Probably more than this single issue, people like Blake, me, even Google's own Matt Cutts see a deviation from the right path – the right way to do things (Google wanted to be judged by higher standards, and here they are). Others who are competing in Google's space, the web office, may especially wish that Google keeps its promises of neutrality. And being a gatekeeper Google carries a lot of responsibility for neutrality: everyday, millions of people get influenced by Google search results, sometimes in small matters (which hotel to book, with which service to send a greeting card, where to download WinZIP) sometimes in bigger matters (the track record of politicians they want to vote on, the place they want to buy their car from, the singles dating site they want to entrust their most personal data)... and many of these people don't look far beyond the first results page. You can rightfully argue that people shouldn't simply *trust* Google all that much, and that they should read up on other sources to get a second view, but that's exactly what blogs like this are there for – you'll be getting a second view on Google.

Anon [PersonRank 7]

11 years ago #

Matt Cutts writes:
>I don't like these tips (primarily for the poor targeting), and I haven't given up on getting them dropped.

What the hell are you talking about? They are perfectly targeted just like the Google Ads. I think you may want to rephrase "<B>poor</B> targeting" here.

And before you get them dropped, ask yourself why Google maps still has such low penetration than Mapquest or Streetmap or Multimap or whatever lame duck.

All this talk from people about Google not showing a tip to their other products on their search product makes me sick. Its as if these sickos think that Google does not own Google Search, but their shared whining collective does.

Martin [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

Philipp, do you see the paid ads above the organic results as compromising Google's neutrality? If you do, Google already has lost its credibility, no? If they are OK, it simply boils down to the question if the tips are recognised as ads. I believe they are, you do not. So we happen to disagree.

As for Matt's view on the matter: He does not seem to be against them per se. As I read it, he is against them as long as they trigger on too irrelevant search queries. A technicality.

Q: But if Google thinks its (say) Calendar is the best, isn’t it okay to give that as a tip?
A: In my personal opinion, not if the tip triggers for too many irrelevant queries.

So if the tip is triggered on relevant queries, it is OK to promote Calendar. He does not seam to see a "deviation from the right path" by the tips per se.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

> Philipp, do you see the paid ads above
> the organic results as compromising
> Google's neutrality?

No, because they are disclosed as "sponsored links" (advertisement).

If Google ever decides to remove this disclosure then yes, I consider it a major compromise in their aim for neutrality.

> He does not seam to see a "deviation from the right path"
> by the tips per se.

You're right, he's focusing on the scope in which they're rolled out. But I read it more like: "if for no other reason, this technicality is why the tips need to be removed." He leaves a door open for tips of another kind, which I think makes sense, because not all tips are created equal. I think there *is* the possibility to create (more or less) neutral tips, it's just not what's currently done.

Hanan Cohen [PersonRank 7]

11 years ago #

When searching for [blogs -site:google.com -site:blogger.com -site:blogspot.com] I think that the tip should be hidden in the results.

Ionut Alex. Chitu [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Google has a very primitive way of displaying those tips. If your query contains "blog" (even if it's a part of a word, or a part of an URL, or something silly that happens to contain blog), but you don't get a "did you mean?", Google shows the tip.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

(I've added a second update to the post.)

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Google have rights to promote her service in her owned search engine.
Google do not make harm to others. In fact, if MSN live better than Blogger, the users will still keep on, If not, at least remind the users the chance to select.

The 1st of the search results is not Blogger.com. Google is fair.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

[put at-character here]Philipp: Among the excessive amount of sniping that I made in that post, I think you missed my main point. By holding Google to (in my opinion) an unreasonably high standard in this case, you're ignoring the effects on Google's competitiveness. If Google did what you suggest, they may fall behind competing companies in the competitiveness of their products. Now, in some cases, it may be worth sacrificing some competitiveness to gain moral credibility. However, in this case, I believe that if Google simply cleans up their promotion interface, there is no reason for Google not to promote their products, in a relatively discreet manner.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Mysterius, I think Google's good image and (still) high user trust is also an important business advantage – maybe even more so in the future. I'm not even saying that most users will really understand how trustworthy a company is by analyzing their site, but word spreads quickly on these issues through tech people educating their friends, mainstream sites referencing blog voices, and so on (I believe this was partly how Google got popular in the first place). I could be wrong of course...

CJ Millisock [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

It looks like Google has removed these tips.

Tony Ruscoe [PersonRank 10]

11 years ago #

Yep, according to Garrett, that's the case too:

blogs.zdnet.com/Google/?p=439

<< It appears that Google listened to the people who raised their voice — for example, searching for "blog" once gave you a "Tip" about Google's Blogger service, but not anymore. This is another good example of how fluid and user oriented Google really is. >>

Even the old tips for [images] or [pictures] have disappeared. Looks like Matt – and everyone else – has managed to get the message across to the team concerned...

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!