http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/09/google-discusse.html
Is this true?!?!?
[Typo in title corrected as requested – Tony] |
The Slashdot discussion http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/09/2027233 includes a post from a guy claiming to be "the product manager responsible for the way ads look on Google". He writes:
"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."
I still can't understand why AdSense doesn't have an option for displaying only non-aminated image ads. I wouldn't mind seeing non-animated image ads on Google search result pages either. |
<<Just because other companies use image ads and video ads with the _purpose_ of distracting users doesn't mean Google will do that.>>
Which major search engine includes image/video ads in their SERPs? |
Wouldn't it disrupt the whole look and style of the google SERPs? |
yeah Google has spent ages building it's "clean" image. They shouldn't spoil their reputation now! |
I think the video ads will look exactly like YouTube search results. You'll click on the PlusBox and watch them only if you want. |
The basis of Google's universal search is that rich media content is sometimes not relevant enough to be on top. Will Google rich media ads ever be integrated into lower positions in the results too? It might make sense in terms of relevance – rich media might be distracting in other parts – but it might seriously lower recognizability of the ads vs organic results separation...
Then again, I guess ads are by definition of the algo mostly not relevant enough to be part of the organic results (or else people wouldn't need to pay for them...). |