Yes raldi, you seem to be really interested and probably believe the Google line. I searched for "sofas" and all I got was ads, ads, ads, ads, ads and then way below some results from companies that advertise on Google. Ads are for sofas but advertisers have an agenda and that's not always best for the users.
Is that best for the user or for Google's pockets? I searched on DDG and got one ad.
choosing instead to keep that additional value for themselves.
Google's claim to fame was that they were unbiased, unlike other search engines. Almost all users want to see unbiased results, not ads and roughly half can't tell the difference between ads and non-paid results. What does that do to Google brand once words spreads and reaches most users? Very short sighted strategy, very negligent.
Was /is an engineer that tries to fool people into clicking ads is irrelevant. Apparently Alan Eustace and Amit Singhal are engineers that engineered this marvelous piece of scam http://i.imgur.com/KAZ6zuq.jpg
No, that's the fourth and then some since Google has added white space to make sure only ads show on mos commonly used resolutions. How many people that see only ads think that ads are normal results? About half
The next ones are local listings. And don't think they are also ads. Those are search results.
Google has a financial interest in showing them so call them ads. Why didn't they show Yelp listings, maybe they have more reviews?
We don't even collect statistics about that for ranking changes.
Who's "we"? Are you Larry Page to speak with such confidence?
Nope, just a lowly engineer being observed by hundreds of Stanford and ivy League MBAs as your changes impact Ad Clicks, the golden eggs.
For those not keeping track, it really started with Larry Page's ascent to the throne. Panda, Penguin and god knows what made it extremely hard for small sites (read non-advertisers) to rank. Google's PR people kept saying this and that but their ad clicks were increasing by 20-30% a quarter. How stupid do they think we are? Ads are much more relevant in most cases (anecdotal but try it) of high value CPC words.
Now for most commercial searches you see dozens of ads and a few organic results, almost always from sites that also advertise on Google (Amazon, eBay, HP, Dell and the likes.) So the credibility of Google search results for those looking carefully is zero. Search is a blackbox and we're suppose t trust them, but if the trust goes, they're toast. Historically it takes a while for the truth to trickle down to the masses, but it does.
Hey Moultano,
how come Google's ad clicks increased by 22% this quarter when Adsense was largely flat? Oh, I see. You decided that Google's properties are more "relevant" especially the ads.
This is true but when Google's ad clicks increase by 20+% a quarter what you said is irrelevant, Google is keeping almost all the clicks for Adwords. So you're competing with Google's Youtube, Google Local, Google Images, and the whole shebang. Guess who's winning?
Data straight from Google's mouth. Their Google properties ad clicks increased by 22%, an astounding number when Adsense stayed flat. All ads above fold is a great steroid shot but horrible long term strategy.
Google AD CLICKS increased by 22% and PPC went down 4%-8% so Googe made it up on volume. If showing more ads and/or making ads better than organic search is "optimizing for the 99% use case" then you aright.
But as shown on a few comments below Google in many cases shows only ads on the first browser screen. Terrible for users and terrible for Google long term. They should enjoy the steroid boost while it lasts.
Is that best for the user or for Google's pockets? I searched on DDG and got one ad.