Just saw that Ionut predicted this, well done :)
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/plus-boxes-new-way-to-look-at-search.html |
<< does anyone else get this? >>
Nope :/ |
This thing will raise an important issue:
is it fair to show it only for Google Video/YouTube? |
and even more than that Ionut ;
is it fair to show a video from only one result ?! |
I would predict two three more possible PlusBox:
Google Image PlusBox
Google Books PlusBox
Google Patent PlusBox
http://gspy.blogspot.com/2007/02/google-plusbox.html |
I don't understand your question, David.
But Mashable already asks the "is Goog evil?" question http://mashable.com/2007/02/25/youtube-and-google-video-player-in-google-serps-this-is-evil/ . I think they should really include other video sites in :
* Google Video
* this way of presenting search results
But if they start to show video players from all kinds of sites other questions will be raised:
* who will be included? (you can't make a complete list)
* Google steals traffic: video sites want to show ads or to have big page views
* it will be the first time when content not controlled by Google will be included in the search results (for example, image search results are hosted by Google). And there will be performance issues, slow sites could cause problems. |
<< I don't understand your question, David. >>
i meant that theres only one PlusBox right?
so, is it fair to show only one PlusBox, from only one result , and not several PlusBoxes from several results...? |
Good question Ionut. In Google Reader, Google made sure to support lots of different players.
http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2007/01/getting-embedded-in-google-reader.html
But the fair use issue is largely ignored in the context of RSS readers (they just publish everything, copyright of the RSS aside). In search results, people are much more conscious of fair use. Google is in an interesting position:
- either they show the full video from other sites like IFilm where they don't own the content, thereby infringing on fair use (and potentially that site's chances to make money through ads)
- or they only show stuff from their own content sites, like Google Video and YouTube, thereby not being neutral
(A third option: introduce another meta tag so content owners can clarify whether or not they're ready to "give up" their content for Google results...)
As long as this is a prototype, we can't tell which strategy they're after. When they go live with it, we can. And then we'll again ask the question: are plusboxes part of the normal search results which Google claims to be neutral and algorithmic? Oneboxes already have been spotted to be biased, and some people argued "but it's not the search result". Plusboxes are much more integrated into the search result. Personally I think users don't care either way and every result not disclosed as "sponsored" we should judge as (hopefully neutral) "search results". |
One question: is it useful? ... |
i cant see why not Tom..
its obviously not harmful.. right ? :P |
"Google is in an interesting position:
- either they show the full video from other sites like IFilm where they don't own the content, thereby infringing on fair use (and potentially that site's chances to make money through ads)"
I think this bears comparison to Google Image Search. The question that needs to be asked is if Google is to show videos from other sites then what constitutes "a snapshot" of the video to qualify as fair use?
Would showing the first 30 secs / 10% of the video be fair use if you need to click through to the site of origin to see the rest?
Perhaps like Image Search a lower quality version and a subset of the video is shown as an example of what the original contains.
The overall problem that Google has is to balance the functionality of allowing the user to discern whether the search result is what they want AND using other people's content in a manner that end-users go to the site of origin to consume the content and not the likes of Google or Yahoo who wish to monetise content. |
I think there's a problem here. The purpose of that box is to PREVIEW a video, but:
* they say "Show video"
* they show the entire video
There's something similar, but more appropriate, in SearchMash:
http://www.searchmash.com/search/video:autumn |
> i cant see why not Tom..
> its obviously not harmful.. right ? :P
Everything you integrate in the SERPs adds to the complexity of the page, so everything also ought to be meaningful in certain contexts. Right now I don't really go to Google web search when I want to search for a specific video, I go to Google Video/ YouTube, but when they integrate this maybe we'll start to look for videos in normal web search.
> The purpose of that box is to PREVIEW a video
It remains to be seen if that's the purpose of the box. And what if Google decides they'll show the full video of content they "own"*, but nothing or only a few seconds of competing video sites (where they don't own the content)?
*Caveat: Google does not "own" many videos hosted on Google Video/ YouTube, as someone just uploaded content they don't own (e.g. TV shows). |
Side-question: those blue bars shown ... which Firefox extension does that? I wants it ... |
If I'm not mistaken it's this one Trogdor:
http://tools.seobook.com/firefox/seo-for-firefox.html |
