http://www.google.com/instant/#utm_campaign=launch&utm_medium=van&utm_source=instant

review? impressions?

Poor AdWords users...

AdWords for search = pay per click, not pay per view.

If there is no view anymore, there is no click.

The ads appear to still show up like normal...

Google's Instant Search Could Boost Ad Prices And Revenue: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100908-716351.html

mbegin we don't talk about the same ads.
Imagine two French queries : "assurance" (insurance) and "assurance auto" (car insurance). When you search for "assurance", autocomplete makes you search for "assurance auto", even if you are not looking for that.
So the Adwords advertiser who bought the keyword "assurance" will no longer have views. Then, no click.

Same problem with "India" and "Indiana" as mentions Amit Agarwal on his blog.

Does the I'm feeling lucky button points to 'http://www.google.com/logos/' or is it just me.

for all

For india/indiana: you can press Enter, Delete, Escape or pick the suggestion that only includes "india". I agree that's annoying. Google shouldn't change your query if the prediction is not obvious.

Yes, The I'm feeling lucky link next to the suggestions is now quite unusefull. Understand that it is here to stay because it's part of Googles history but when navigating tthrough the suggestions you already see what the first result is because of the automatic refresh, so I'm not feeling lucky anymore :-).

So Google could hide the button on the homepage with the search button as well. You never going to use it anymore with Instant search.

Ofcourse the button can still be used when Instant search is turned off.

I think you are wrong Websonic. I think this is the best part of Instant Search, only because now you can see the first result and go on it without your mouse! But I don't know if everybody will use it...

Ionut : Ok, for India/Indiana of course people will see it's absolutely not related so they will press enter ((ONLY IF they know they can press Enter key!)). Anyway, for other queries where there is few differences between the two search terms, it's getting worse.

I hope every user knows that pressing enter is still possible, and often the best way to search. But I think we will do our best to avoid pressing hit.

After a few dozens searches, I already seem to prefer adding keywords or changing my query to get my results 'instantly'.

Can you explain this behavior? It sounds irrational to waste time typing or deleting characters, but there must be a reason behind this quickly-acquired habit...

In this experiment, there was no "I'm Feeling Lucky" button: http://sharkseo.com/google/streaming/

For some reason, they brought it back and made it go to the "logos" page...

Well that "I'm Feeling Lucky" button has been said to cost Google $110m per year in lost advertising revenue, so maybe they're preparing to let it go.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/19/face_of_google/

Hmm, the Wonder Wheel is missing.....

Here's a list of Google Features No Longer Available in Instant Search: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-features-no-longer-available-in.html

Google Instant, behind the scenes:

<< The infrastructure challenge: 5-7X more results pages for typical searches... We’ve been optimizing performance and speed for more than 10 years, and we’ve found that every second counts. When we came to the infrastructure team and said, “we’re going to be serving five to seven times as many results pages for each query performed in Google Instant,” first they threw a fit, then they figured out how to get us there! Even before Instant, Google was serving more than a billion searches per day, and our systems were optimized to ensure those searches happen as quickly as possible (usually less than a quarter second). How could we serve so many more searches without breaking or slowing down our systems?

One solution would have been to simply invest in a tremendous increase in server capacity, but we wanted to find smarter ways to solve the problem. We did increase our back-end capacity, but we also pursued a variety of strategies to efficiently address the incredible demand from Google Instant. Some of these are quite technical, but here are some examples:

-We deployed new caches that can handle high request rates while keeping results fresh as we continuously crawl and re-index the web.

-We introduced user-state data into our back-ends to keep track of the results pages already shown to a given user—this way we don’t re-fetch the same results repeatedly.

-We optimized page-rendering JavaScript code to help ensure web browsers could keep up with the rest of the system.

In total, these efforts enabled us to release Google Instant while maintaining the speed people have come to expect from Google. >>

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-instant-behind-scenes.html

But

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/google_instant_v_yahoo_live_search/

Wow, AllTheWeb's 2006 implementation is impressive!

Here's Philipp's writeup from 2006:
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-05-10-n17.html

The "I'm Feeling Lucky" button has migrated to the right-hand-side of the drop-down search suggestions, but it only appears if you hover over it.

Many of the searches generated are unwanted and waste resources.

I wonder if Google did a global cost analysis for everyone, not just them. How much extra network load will this cause worldwide? How much extra wireless load will this cause? How much extra energy will this directly and indirectly consume for everyone worldwide?

Interesting question, George R.

A Google search expends around 1000 Joules, and produces about 0.2 grams of CO2:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html
http://quezi.com/1103

Google, in the quote posted above by mbegin, says that they expect to serve five to seven times as many results pages. But that doesn't mean five to seven times as much energy and CO2, because Google is caching many common results pages.

It's sure to be more than double, though.

Even if Google's own excesss consumption is moderated by caching, the increased resources others consume as a result do not benefit as much from that cache.

The internet and wireless networks use more of their limited resources and consume more energy.

The end user's equipment consumes more enrergy and it uses more cpu, memory, vm, disk space, internet, lan, wifi, and air conditioning. The end user may also be paying by the byte received or have a cap or have a slow connection.

George R: You're right, of course, about more resources being used all around.

I'm old enough to remember the same arguments being made against colour television when it was introduced to Australia in the 1970s. The colour CRTs used much more electricity than black-and-white CRTs. The studios needed more space, and the cameras and lighting used more power. The transmitters needed higher power too. Production costs were higher, with more man-hours needed (and therefore more power consumed).

Despite that, no-one wants to go back to B&W television today.